Abstract Index Conference Index

ABSTRACT

In Defense of "Little" Dreams

Jane White-Lewis, Ph.D.,

Jane White-Lewis is a Jungian analyst practicing in Guilford CT. In addition to her analytic practice, she teaches a course on dreams in a New Haven High School. Jane has served as an ASD Board member,
Vice-President, and Chair of the Board, and is currently President of ASD.

E-mail:  whitelewis@attglobal.net

4. Recently we have heard a lot about "big", "intensified", and "root metaphor' dreams. This presentation will focus on the unappreciated value and potential of "little", "trivial", "boring" dreams, and on
their relationship to "root metaphor" dreams. Examples will be drawn from analytical practice and from a high school dream course.

5. Learning Objectives:
A) learning objectives:
1) To understand what Jung and others have meant by "big" dreams.
2) To appreciate the value and potential of "little" dreams
3) To understand the difference between "root metaphors" (Bulkeley) and "symbols" (Jung)

B) evaluation questions
1) How would you define "big" dreams and "little" dreams?
2) In what ways are "little" dreams important?
3) What is the difference between "root metaphors" (Bulkeley) and "symbols" (Jung)?

ABSTRACT

IN DEFENSE OF "LITTLE" DREAMS

Recently we have heard a lot about "big", "intensified", "highly significant", and "root metaphor" dreams. These dreams are often described as "numinous", "powerful", "life changing", "transformative". These "big" dreams are, as Jung said many years ago, "often remembered for a lifetime."

But what about their scrawny siblings-the little, trivial, boring and forgettable dreams? Are these "little" dreams really so inconsequential? Based on my experiences practicing as an analyst and teaching a dream class in an inner city high school, I think that these dreams are definitely undervalued. If these so-called "little" dreams are worked with and played with they can, in fact, facilitate a major shift to symbolic thinking and to an appreciation of the mysterious, spiritual dimension of the psyche. That is, they have the potential to transform our way of looking at the world and at ourselves.

In discussing religious dreams, Bulkeley has introduced the valuable term "root metaphors". "Root metaphors ", Bulkely writes, 'are metaphors that express our ultimate existential concerns [and]…provide
religious meanings that orient our lives." Not all dreams are root metaphors, not all dreams are religious, he says.

But I am not so sure. I have yet to meet a dream that does not deal, at some level, with meaning, with one's place in the world and with existential concerns. In addition, where is the dividing line between
"big" dreams and "little" dreams? Is "ultimate" the key word ("ultimate existential concerns")? What exactly is the difference between finding meaning in one's life and finding religious meaning in one's life?

In differentiating between "root metaphors' and "symbols", Bulkeley gives us a valuable tool for working with imaginal material and for understanding dreams. It is unfortunate if these insights (e.g. the "narrative" potential of "root metaphors" compared to "symbols") are not extended to our understanding of "little" dreams.

Examples will be drawn from analytical practice and from an inner city high school dream course.