Censorship: A Relatively Jung Outlook

There's been a steady rise in the censorship of movies, TV shows, news, and other forms of creative expression in India over the last few years. While the effects are still an ongoing-- and entirely relevant debate-- what if one psychologist was onto something nearly 100 years ago that could explain the effects of censorship in films in the present day? Stay with us; the night is still Jung. Censorship in Indian cinema has always had its fair share of underlying factors- religious, political, and cultural tensions, as well as increased pressure from various interest groups to regulate and restrict certain types of content. This has flung open the gates to increase what we aren't allowed to see, both by the government and by private companies, often under the guise of preserving cultural values, protecting national security, or avoiding controversy. In its place, a growing climate of censorship and self-censorship in India lays, with its chilling effect being felt on on freedom of expression and access to diverse perspectives.

But where does Carl Gustav "Gus"* Jung come into play between all of this? (*Nickname unverified. Source: vibes) Jung's personality theory suggests that each person has a collective unconscious, which is made up of archetypes and universal symbols. These archetypes and symbols influence their behaviour, thoughts, and feelings. According to him, the goal of personality development is to achieve a state of psychological balance by striking a balance between the conscious and unconscious parts of the self.

"Balance? I've been doing that since I could walk!" Cool, cool, cool, cool. No doubt, no doubt, no doubt.

Thing is, it's not very comfortable.

Discomfort plays a significant role in Jung's theory. Mostly, discomfort exists as a sign that the individual is out of balance and needs to address parts of their unconscious material. It serves as a wake-up call to the individual to become aware, and integrate these unconscious aspects into their conscious life.

If we're sticking with this lens, censorship can be seen as a manifestation of the collective unconscious and archetypes. In India, censorship is often driven by cultural, social, and political norms and values. These norms and values are embedded in the collective unconscious and are often reflected in the way movies are censored. The censorship board may see certain scenes or storylines as a threat to the prevailing norms and values, which then results in censorship.

The result is a striking shrink in the themes and perspectives explored in Indian movies, and a reduction in the diversity of voices and opinions that are represented in the film industry. This has significant implications for freedom of expression and artistic freedom, as well as for the ability of Indian filmmakers to tell stories that are meaningful and relevant to their audience.

It makes it more difficult for creatives to address important social and political issues, such as discrimination, inequality, and corruption. This limits the ability of the entertainment industry to hold a mirror up to society, and to explore and critique the world around us. Back to Gus' idea of discomfort-- censoring movies goes against the natural process of personal growth and development. Jung believed that in order to grow and mature as individuals, we must confront and work through the unconscious fears and anxieties that exist within us, and censorship of movies can be seen as an attempt to avoid or suppress certain themes, topics, and perspectives, in order to prevent discomfort or controversy. Given this perspective, it is possible to argue that censorship of movies in India goes against the principles of personal growth and development, as it limits the ability of individuals to confront and understand different perspectives and experiences. By censoring movies, society may be avoiding or suppressing uncomfortable or controversial subjects, such as religion, politics, sexuality, or social justice.

The movie "PK" (2014), directed by Rajkumar Hirani, was also the subject of controversy due to its portrayal of religion and spirituality. The film was accused of being insensitive and offensive to certain religious communities, and it was banned in several Indian states. However, despite the controversy, the film was pretty successful (still one of the highest-grossing Hindi movies to date, last we checked) and received critical acclaim for its exploration of important social and philosophical issues.

A critical analysis of the censorship of movies in India, in the context of Carl Jung's theory of discomfort, must consider the trade-offs between freedom of expression and artistic freedom, on the one hand, and the need to maintain social stability and harmony, on the other.

While censorship may be seen as an infringement on freedom of expression and artistic freedom, it may also be necessary in order to prevent the spread of harmful or divisive ideas and to protect the sensitivities and interests of different communities. Ultimately, the appropriate balance between these two considerations will depend on the specific context and circumstances of each situation.

Do you think creative mediums like cinema should be subject to censorship? Let us know in the comments and watch this space for everything pop culture and digital trends.