Jungian Archetypal Typologies

52 Pages·2015·0.16 MB·English

Appendix I: Jungian Archetypal
Typologies
Between 1913 and 1920, when Jung was constructing the t ypological model
presented in Psychological Types, he had not yet elaborated the concept of the
archetype, nor had he fully realized the dominant role archetypes play in per-
sonal psychological development. However, once his conception of the archetypal
organization of the collective unconscious was in place, his followers began to
introduce typologies based on archetypes. (I provide a cursory summary of these
typologies in this Appendix. A full treatment of Jungian archetypal typologies
together with an account of typologies based on Jung’s conscious f unctions, such
as the Myers-B riggs Type Indicator, will be presented in a companion volume to
this book.)
The first to propose a typology based on Jung’s conception of the archetypal
nature of the psyche was his associate Toni Wolff. Wolff thought that Jung’s
typology held an implicit masculine bias. She proceeded to remedy the situa-
tion with her essay, “Structural Forms of the Feminine Psyche,” in which she
outlined a typology based on the archetypal configuration of the feminine
unconscious.1 We must assume Jung was aware of her work and may have
even contributed to it in some manner. She imagined the psyche of women to
be composed of four archetypes: mother, hetaira (the ancient Greek term for
a courtesan), medium and amazon. In an identical manner to the four functions
in Jung’s typology, she arranged the archetypes in opposing pairs, mother–h etaira,
medium–amazon. Although the mother and hetaira are opposites, both are
characterized by their need for a personal connection to men. The medium and
amazon, on the other hand, function independently of a personal relationship
to men. Wolff assumes that every woman has this fourfold archetypal psychic
structure; however, a woman may not be aware of the archetypal roles she plays
or of the dominant archetype with which she is identified. At one point in her
life, for example, she may function out of the hetaira or amazon energy and
at another time, inhabit the mother or medium role. The four- fold underlying
structure is always present, and a certain fluidity is possible, indeed, desirable, if
a woman is not to become one- sided and identified with only a single aspect of
her femininity.
Other followers of Jung took a different tack in exploring the notion of arche-
types and typology. Emma Jung, M. Esther Harding and Marie- Louise von Franz
focused on the archetypes of the animus and the anima and their influence on
the character of women and men. They did not outline an overt typology, but
their descriptions of the animus and anima lend themselves to a classification
of individuals based on a relationship to those archetypes. For instance, Emma
Jung, in Animus and Anima, describes four stages of a woman’s relationship with
the animus. The first stage entails a fascination with a man of physical prowess,
the second with a man of action, the third with a man of the word, and finally,
with a man of wisdom.2
213
214 Appendix I
M. Esther Harding was one of Jung’s early adherents. Her book, The Way of
All Women, portrays six different types of women characterized by certain typi-
cal attitudes based on their relationship to men: the instinctive anima woman;
the innocent c hild- like woman; the dark, f ull- blooded passionate woman; the
passive, cold, distant woman; the femme inspiratrice or muse; and the conscious,
ego- centered woman. Harding also explores the nature of different types of
women based on their relationship to the animus. Thus, there are women
entranced by an inner figure of an ideal lover. Others fall victim to a “ghostly
lover,” sometimes as a consequence of a lost, dead or absent lover. The third
type of woman pursues the animus through projection, and here Harding makes
use of Emma Jung’s distinctions among the various types of animus figures
representing potential “hooks” for such projections.
Marie- Louise von Franz, in her essay, “The Process of Individuation,” delineates
four stages in anima development in men and animus d evelopment in women.3
The unfolding of a man’s anima proceeds from the erotically attractive woman, to
the romantic beauty, to the mature woman and then to the woman of wisdom. The
corresponding animus progression is the physically attractive man, the romantic
man, the man of action and the man of wisdom.
With the growing interest in mythology during the 1970s in the United
States, the Jungian analyst Jean Shinoda Bolen designed a feminine and mascu-
line typology based on the classic Greek pantheon of goddesses and gods. Her
books include Goddesses in Everywoman, Gods in Everyman and Goddesses in Older
Women. In Goddesses in Everywoman, Bolen describes a typology based on seven
Greek goddesses which she divides into three groups: the autonomous virgin god-
desses, Artemis, Athena, Hestia; the r elationship- oriented vulnerable goddesses,
Hera, Demeter and Persephone; and the “alchemical g oddess,” Aphrodite, who
combines both the autonomy and r elationship c haracteristics of the other two
groups.4 All seven goddesses are present in the psyche of every woman and
represent the totality of her personality, but the role that each goddess plays
in a woman’s life will vary with time and c ircumstances. Bolen emphasizes the
importance of the ego in overseeing the multiple and often conflicting demands
of the various archetypal energies.
In her companion volume, Gods in Everyman, Bolen finds that three father
archetypes, Zeus, Poseidon and Hades, and five son archetypes, Apollo, Hermes,
Ares, Hephaestus and Dionysus, characterize masculine psychology. In Goddesses
in Older Women, Bolen adds the goddesses of wisdom, rage, mirth and compas-
sion to the ones she treated in her earlier book.
Perhaps inspired by the work of Bolen, Jungian psychotherapists Jennifer and
Roger Woolger in their book, The Goddess Within, introduce a feminine typol-
ogy based on six Greek goddesses: Athena, Artemis, Aphrodite, Hera, Persephone
and Demeter. These goddesses “in various combinations, underlie every woman’s
behavior and psychological style.”5 They arrange the six goddesses in a goddess
wheel with the great mother as the central archetype that gives rise to the other
six manifestations of the feminine deities. The Woolgers further illustrate that
the six goddesses can be placed in complementary or opposing dyads with each
dyad associated with a dominant psychological trait: Athena and Artemis are the
dyad of independence; Hera and Persephone, the dyad of power; and Aphrodite
and Demeter, the dyad of love. Additionally, one of the goddesses of each dyad
Appendix I 215
is essentially introverted—Artemis, Persephone, Demeter, while the other is extra-
verted—Athena, Hera, Aphrodite.
Like Bolen, who was inspired by feminist concerns to explore the archetypal
structure of the feminine psyche, Jungian oriented psychotherapists Robert
Moore and Douglas Gillette, motivated by their unease about the plight of men
in contemporary American society, created a similar archetypal exposition of the
masculine psyche. They acknowledge the adolescent nature of many contempo-
rary American men and offer a developmental model of the mature masculine
psyche. Four archetypes of “Boy psychology,” the divine child, the precocious
child; the Oedipal child and the adolescent hero are described.6 These four then
provide the basis for the mature archetypal constellations of king, magician,
lover and warrior. Moore and Gillette do not mention that these mature mas-
culine figures correlate with Toni Wolff’s four archetypes that characterize the
feminine psyche: mother, medium, hetaira and amazon. Perhaps Wolff’s essay
served as their model. The one disparity between the two schemas is that of
the king and the mother. Many women will immediately point out the power
bias: men see themselves as kings, but view women as E ros- biased mothers, not
queens. Moore and Gillette note that the function of the hero archetype is to sep-
arate the boy from the unconscious, which in men is e xperienced as feminine,
in order to establish an independent, i ndividual masculine standpoint. The hero,
however, is a transitional figure who needs to make way for the mature archetype
of the king, or in less grandiose terms, for the father or the mature adult man.
The role of the hero archetype, this time in the psychological development of
both women and men, is the theme elaborated by a scholar of leadership theory
and practice, Carol S. Pearson. She explores these ideas in her books, The Hero
Within and Awakening the Heroes Within. The books are inspired by the motif of
the hero archetype described by Joseph Campbell in The Hero with a Thousand
Faces.
Initially, Pearson alludes to “six inner guides, or archetypes, that help us . . .
traverse the unpredictable dilemmas of the maturation process”:7 orphan,
innocent, wanderer, warrior, altruist and magician. In her s econd book, Pearson
deletes the archetypes of wanderer and altruist and adds eight others for a total
of 12: caregiver, seeker, lover, destroyer, creator, ruler, sage and fool. In her
terms, the innocent, orphan, caregiver and warrior belong to the preparatory
stage of the hero’s journey and are concerned with survival and ego forma-
tion. The seeker, destroyer, creator and lover archetypes inform the heart of
the journey and relate to s elf- discovery and self- expression; through these
archetypes a connection with the transpersonal psyche, with soul, is found.
The ruler, magician, fool and sage belong to the stage of the hero’s return after
overcoming the obstacles along the way and are expressions of the archetype of
the self. Each fosters personal a uthenticity from which genuine contributions
flow to the community.
There is an implicit typology present in Pearson’s schema. An individual may
identify with one or two of the archetypes at each stage of the maturation process,
with the orphan and the warrior, for example, in the first stage. Sometimes the
identification is life- long and used to traverse all phases of the journey. She does
not, therefore, expect every person to identify with each of the 12 archetypes as
they move through life. Pearson does not emphasize the typological aspects of
216 Appendix I
the archetypes. She is primarily interested in their influence at various stages
of life and describes a fluid picture in which various archetypes emerge during
the course of one’s life. However, as the titles of her books indicate, the hero
archetype is at the center of her model and each of the 12 archetypes is related
to the hero’s journey.
The Jungian analyst, John Beebe, also uses typology to examine the process of
maturation but links this process to Jung’s notion of individuation. He accepts
Jung’s typology and then adds an archetypal image to each of the four functions.
Thus, in Beebe’s view, the s uperior function has the attributes of a hero—strong,
self- sufficient and effective. He associates the auxiliary function with parental
figures, either helpful or critical. The tertiary function is represented by a child,
either divine or wounded, and connected to the Jungian notion of puella and
puer aeternus, the eternal adolescent girl or boy. He links the i nferior func-
tion with the anima and animus, for they are usually seen as a bridge to the
unconscious.
Not satisfied with the essentially positive images of the four functions, Beebe
eventually demarcated their shadows. Thus the dominant c onscious function
and its hero archetype are undermined by the opposing personality, which is
avoidant, p assive- aggressive and p aranoid. The mother and father archetypes of
the auxiliary function have the c ontrolling witch and inflexible senex as their
shadows. The trickster is the shadow of the puer and puella. The demonic per-
sonality is the shadow of the anima and animus and works to undermine an
individual’s self- esteem and relationships with others.
Beebe’s creative elaboration of Jung’s typology opens a fertile area of further
research and exploration. But, there is a serious problem with his formulation
as a generally applicable model because, as he himself r eadily acknowledges,
it describes his personal psychology. The images of hero, parents, puer and
anima as representations of the four functions emerged from his dreams and
self- reflection and not from clinical observation.8 It remains to be seen to
what extent his archetypal images of the four functions can be generalized to
others.
The above summary of Jungian archetypal typologies provides the historical
and theoretical context in which I introduce a rchetypal- motivational typology.
These earlier typologies rely upon the personification of various psychological traits
which are linked to different developmental stages. Additionally, the a rchetypes
of the hero, of the Greek deities and of the personifications of animus and anima
are associated with specific roles and modes of behavior. By contrast, the arche-
typal motivations of Power, Eros, Physis and Pneuma determine the attitudes and
behavior of every individual, regardless of the above mythic roles with which an
individual may identify during the course of her or his personal development.
Some combination of the four motivational principles will invariably i nfluence the
behavior and goals of each of the goddesses and gods and the personifications of
animus and anima. For example, the h ero- identified person can pursue his or her
aims motivated by either Eros or Power as styles of behavior and focus on either
Pneuma or Physis concerns.
The primary import of the Power, Eros, Physis and Pneuma a rchetypes is read-
ily apparent in their mythological amplification. While the gods and goddesses
and the personifications of anima and animus are anthropomorphic represen-
tations of qualities associated with the later evolution of the human psyche,
Appendix I 217
the four archetypal motivations are metaphorically linked to the n on- human
elements and forces present in creation myths: Physis refers to earth, Pneuma
to air, Soul to water, Spirit to breath and air. Eros, in the Orphic tradition, is the
first being to emerge out of the primordial unity of the cosmic egg, a symbol of
the universe before its creation. Power is closely related to Logos and the Word,
which is central to the J udeo- Christian creation myth and God’s command: “Let
there be Light.”
Appendix II: Primacy of Spirit in
the I Ching
The earliest Chinese world view is encapsulated in Taoism in which the source
of all existence is the unknown, undifferentiated, dynamic void called the Tao,
or the Way. The Tao is usually described as the mother and compared to water,
which “wins its way by softness. Like a deep ravine, it is shadowy rather than
brilliant.”1 In contrast to Taoism, which emphasizes the primacy and the creative
power of yin, of containing emptiness, the I Ching, at least as it has been handed
down from the time of Confucius (551–479 BCE), emphasizes the dominance of
yang, of active energy. The Confucian overlay is also evident in the extraverted
emphasis in the commentary, which focuses on hierarchical filial and social
obligations.2
In his commentary therefore, Confucius underscores the primacy of ch’ien:
“Great indeed is the generating power of the Creative; all beings owe their
beginning to it.”3 The “creative” has even usurped the f orm- giving aspects of the
receptive: “The clouds pass and the rain does its work, and all individual beings
flow into their forms.”4 The commentary proceeds to state that “creative activity
is revealed in the gift of water, which causes the germination and sprouting of all
living things.”5 Even water is now the gift of the spirit. The earlier Taoist notion,
however, can still be found in the statement that the creative begot all things,
but they were brought to birth, sustained and nourished by the r eceptive.6 The
receptive “takes the seed of the heavens into itself and gives to beings their
bodily form.”7 Giving bodily form, limitation in time and space, is the chief
characteristic of the receptive. In contrast, as we saw previously, the creative
is “unrestricted in any fixed conditions in space and is therefore conceived of
as motion.”8 But the next sentence is telling: “Time is regarded as the basis of this
motion”;9 and time is an attribute of the receptive. Clearly, time is an i nherent
element of motion; the two are dependent upon each other and one cannot
rightly speak of the primacy of one or the other.
In the commentaries we read that “the Receptive is dependent upon the
Creative.”10 Moreover, we are told that “the Creative is the generating principle,
to which all beings owe their beginnings, because the soul comes from it.”11 In the
explanation of the hexagram k’un we read:
The Receptive must be activated and led by the Creative; then it is produc-
tive of good. Only when it abandons this position and tries to stand as an
equal side by side with the Creative, does it become evil. The result then is
opposition to and struggle against the Creative, which is productive of evil
to both.12
Obviously, no such warning applies to ch’ien usurping or trying to stand as an
equal side by side with the receptive, for ch’ien is now conceived as primary and
superior to k’un! Where have the lack of opposition and the c omplementarity
218
Appendix II 219
of the two principles gone? Need I point out that with the primacy of the
“male-paternal,” the “female-maternal” becomes the source of evil. The receptive
must now be kept in its place and instead of being an equal active, generative,
and balancing power with the creative, it is transformed into a passive, subservi-
ent principle. All its previous activity, including the generation of soul and the
giving of material form, are assigned to ch’ien. In the West, the same change
of archetypal dominants is found in the gradual emergence of the h eavenly
creator father gods over the previously, if not dominant, at least coequal earthly
creator mother goddesses. This is not a political statement, but simply a descrip-
tion of the change of the archetypal dominants that rule various periods of
history. Today, the matriarchal archetype seems to be gaining in influence and
it remains to be seen whether a balance will be struck between ch’ien and k’un
once again, or whether the pendulum will simply swing from one extreme to
the other.
Addendum: Archetypal-
Motivational Typology Scale
Please circle either a or b for each statement. Even if both apply, please make a choice.
Try not to think too much about the questions and answer as quickly as you can.
1. Do you find meeting many people
a. exhausting, or
b. energizing?
2. Do you prefer
a. cloudy and overcast days, or
b. bright and sunny days?
3. Would you say you are more
a. practical, or
b. theoretical?
4. Are you emotionally more
a. spontaneous, or
b. controlled?
5. Do you prefer
a. being alone, or
b. being with others?
6. Do you like to
a. mull things over, or
b. move things forward?
7. Do you feel art
a. needs to have social relevance, or
b. is for art’s sake?
8. In your daily routine, do you
a. go with the flow, or
b. have a definite schedule?
9. Is it more relaxing for you to
a. stay at home, or
b. socialize?
10. Would you say you prefer
a. a leisurely pace, or
b. a lively pace?
11. Do you find facts
a. interesting, or
b. not interesting?
220
Addendum 221
12. Would you say you are more
a. cooperative, or
b. competitive?
13. Do you tend to cultivate
a. a few close friends, or
b. many friends and acquaintances?
14. Are you basically
a. moody, or
b. cheerful?
15. Are you drawn to
a. practical knowledge, or
b. theoretical knowledge?
16. When you first meet someone are you
a. open and accepting, or
b. cautious and circumspect?
17. Do you feel comfortable voicing your opinion
a. sometimes, or
b. most of the time?
18. When you get angry do you
a. sulk and smolder, or
b. lose your temper?
19. Do you find philosophy
a. unimportant, or
b. important?
20. Do you prefer
a. synthesis, or
b. analysis?
21. Are you more
a. private, or
b. sociable?
22. Which affect you more
a. images, or
b. words?
23. Would you say you are more
a. realistic, or
b. idealistic?
24. Do you enjoy doing things for others
a. most of the time, or
b. some of the time?
25. Do you enjoy rallies and crowds
a. hardly ever, or
b. sometimes?
222 Addendum
26. Are you mostly
a. sensitive and personal, or
b. objective and rational?
27. Would you say you are more interested in
a. concrete everyday issues, or
b. cultural and spiritual matters?
28. Do you like having a leadership position
a. sometimes, or
b. most of the time?
29. Do you prefer to work mostly
a. alone, or
b. with others?
30. Do you respond more to
a. feelings and emotions, or
b. ideas and concepts?
31. Do you live more
a. in the here and now, or
b. with an eye on the future?
32. Which is more important
a. sociability, or
b. leadership?
33. Do you interact easily
a. mostly with close friends, or
b. with almost everyone?
34. Is your approach to exercise
a. reluctant and erratic, or
b. disciplined and enthusiastic?
35. Are you more interested in
a. science, or
b. art?
36. Do you take a stand
a. with some hesitation, or
b. with little difficulty.
37. In company, do you generally prefer to
a. listen, or
b. talk?
38. Are you drawn more to
a. valleys, or
b. mountains?
39. Is it more important
a. to be realistic, or
b. to be principled?