Tag: Shadow

Rethinking the Banality of the Good
The Banality of the Good or for many the most evil man in the world right now, seems to be a retired lieutenant colonel of the Russian KGB, who is determined to reestablish the Soviet empire, to invade world and was likened to Hitler by a leading politician of a superpower. To others, President Vladimir Putin is a judo-chopping, IMF-taming, U.S.-defying global hero. But according to the controversial biography of Stanislav Belkovsky, a star columnist at a Moscow tabloid, former speechwriter and insider, Putin represents the “Banality of the Good” (quote). The striking similarity with Hannah Arendt’s remark, one of the 20th century’s great political thinkers did catch my eye and let me finish his book, which has its weaknesses. Now if “being good” is all, after a string of rumours and dirty laundry, which may or may not be true, what Stanislav Belkovsky, sworn enemy of Putin, came up against him, there must be something unworthy with all of us, not belonging to the élite. I long fancied to write a psychological study of Putin, motivated by the C.G. Jung interview of H.R. Knickerbocker 1938 in the Cosmopolitan , reprinted in C.G. Jung Speaks (page 115-135). To qualify the banality of the good (or the evil) I will follow C.G. Jung’s method, the money flow and the little I really know about the person Putin – that is some minor direct account, my own remote observation, his own account and what his enemies say.

The Banality of the Good and Evil

This is how one understands the banality of the good: In order to gain a sense of selfworthiness of a normal citizen, it is not needed to be an hero or to be sacrified on the cross. It is completely sufficient (and required) to take good care of and raising kids, pay taxes, go to work, obey rules and laws. And not because one would be punished hard for not obeying them, but because one sees them as mandatory and essential in a sense of the Kant’s imperative.

The Banality of the Good is often likened to the secondary virtues or vices. Secondary virtue was an important term of the German positivism dispute in the 1970s / 1980s. Secondary virtues or civic virtue characteristics were classified as those virtues, which contribute to the practical accomplishment of everyday tasks and a “trouble-free” operation of a society without having intrinsic ethical significance, provided they are not used to implement the primary moral virtues but held up as means in itself: Diligence, loyalty, obedience, discipline, sense of duty, punctuality, reliability, tidiness, courtesy, cleanliness. That one can with “secondary virtues” easily run a concentration camp, was thrown at a fomer German chancellor Helmut Schmidt once. And this very assessment, secondary virtues and having a tendency to choose “non-Machiavelli none-elite” friends, was the most serious allegation Stanislav Belkovsky brought up, besides Putin’s alleged accumulated wealth. Interesting circle, bringing us back to Hannah Arendt’s banality of evil of which I have written here, isn’t it?

Putin through the eyes of C.G. Jung

Putin’s Ego

Starting point of the consideration is Putin’s reportedly rather unhappy childhood. It does not matter if the gossip version of the birth and childhood of Putin states is true, that the future Russian President was born two years before the date that is otherwise formally specified as a birthday of Putin. Later, the mother gave her son to childless relatives who are officially recognized as the birth parents, in what was then Leningrad. This version is buzzing around again in Moscow. Stanislav Belkovsky concludes from that Putin was looking for a father figure, which he had initially in Anatoly Sobchak, the former mayor of St. Petersburg, and later found in Boris Yeltsin. Second argument was Putin’s encounter with the – at that time – very effective hard working Germans gave him according to Stanislav Belkovsky a culture shock with lasing implications.

Putin’s Persona

PutinPersona

The Persona is the “mask” helps us get by in the world, the ideal image we have of ourselves. We latch onto these social identities to define us, but as a part of the “collective psyche” they do not distinguish us in any significant way. For the persona of a public person you just look at the best spin and pictures in the media. The media nowadays are just hooker,s printing what they are told. It’s no secret that Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin carefully presents his reputation of masculinity with various publicity stunts and photo ops. First of all, let’s look at physique. Putin does have a certain eagerness to flaunt his bare chest, and there’s definitely a Rambo quality to the man when he starts going after wildlife.

Vladimir Putin is a Culture Warrior. Every Jungian must admit his effort and success who he carefully constructs an archetypal warrior identity. Is seems, most media and most of his fellow world leaders , that he receives more hate for presenting the archetype of a warrior than anything else. The imago’ range from tagging dangerous animals, to stopping wildfires, to playing with guns on vacation. Putin may not want be the most popular guy in the world but he sure manages to be one of the most interesting. Even action-star Arnold Schwarzenegger can’t outdo this is original WWP . He does judo, which lacks the pure bestial blood lust of American football; but when not using others’ own strength against them, he likes to take to the outdoors. On a horse. With a gun. He hunts wild animals. Tigers. Bears. Moose. He prowls around the Siberian woods, with no shirt, as a variety of fearsome beasts. The Western media used to say – not anymore – iIt’s lucky he’s got affairs of state to distract him, or extinction rates of rate animals would double overnight. And when he’s not hunting, he’s hang-gliding: 2012 he led a flock of endangered cranes on their migration route.

Putin’s Shadow

The Shadow lives within us another side of our personality that is filled with all those aspects of ourselves we hide away, both from ourselves or others, as unacceptable. The shadow has a “dark side,” what we find morally reprehensible – and often project into others, but it also has a “bright side” containing our potentialities .For the shadow of a public person again you just look at the worst public rumors and gossip printed by the mainstream media. Stanislav Belkovsky is good too, he must have compiled all dirt one can openly find and was given to him. Biographies are often books about the authors themselves and sometimes amalgam between most banal kitchen psychology, insider knowledge, personal experiences and spreading rumors. If informal decision-making processes prevail, the hour of psychology is rife. Belkovsky insinuates that Putin, who is divorced with two daughters, might be gay. Belkovsky offers little proof for any of this also for his allegation of wealth. He also acknowledges that people who crossed about Putin (except in one case) never meet unfortunate ends – he even gives plausible versions of the case of an journalist and a KGB traitor, who both died under mysterious circumstances. Stanislav Belkovsky shows Putin as weak, soft KGB bureaucrat responsible for interior work rather than the foreign Cold War agent. Stanislav Belkovsky says Putin is shy, and would much rather spend his time with four-legged friends. “Therein lies the real Putin. He flees from people and his obligations to nature. Here we have Vladimir’s best friends; the Labrador Conny and the Bulgarian shepherd dog Buffy, his only roommates in the presidential residence.” A Russian political scientist summed up Belkovsky this way: “he can be considered to be either a little crazy or a business-minded manipulator whose utterances are always well paid for by someone in advance.”

Putin like the German Schroeder and Berlusconi all pariahs are all self made out of their own strength. That is true. Surely Putin is driven by business interests and under him the flourishing corruption is not as visible anymore but still seems to be there. Putin might be indeed, feel an end time ruler who either might slow the decay, or maybe stop it.

From narcissism and paranoia

In another attack of kitchen psychology Stanislav Belkovsky differentiates two type of politicians the schizophrenic and the paranoid, the former creative enforces, do creating empires the latter manager and beholders soonly administering decay. I do agree with his thesis, only the mentally unstable go into politics (se my article Archetype of the vampire in todays culture of Narcissism). I think, however he meant narcissism and paranoia, and here, having had my own encounter with politics, he defintly got some point. Putin to him, is of course the weak paranoid. Narcissism and paranoia sounds like a pathology and it often is. However, those are dynamic opposites of the psyche even in healthy subjects but can actually reach down to the severest forms of psychopathology. Healthy narcissism is the desire to be loved and to provide adequately for their own well-being, and a healthy paranoia setting corresponds to what is called healthy skepticism. In a balanced way both guarantors for mental health. Stalin was a sever case of paranoia, and according to Jung not a creator just a devourer. Narcissism and paranoia in a slightly or severe pathological form is found in almost any politician. Slight pathological paranoia includes distrust and to be a little suspicious with the tendency of principle: You never know. Such a person is cautious, somewhat aloof but of course also vigilant. The basic feeling is that you should always be on guard.Well in regards to Putin, if so it served him well. There is a deliberate elusiveness of the Russian system, in which all sorts of conspiracy theories flourish. But according to a Russian saying, just because you’re paranoid, it does not mean that you will not be prosecuted.

Projection of the Westen Shadow

Pojection ot the Western Shadow on Putin.

Is Putin like Stalin? To quote C.G. Jung again: Stalin [..] is, however, not a creator. Lenin, created; Stalin is devouring the brood. He is a conquistador; he simply took what Lenin made and put his teeth into it and devoured it. He is not even creatively destructive. Lenin was that. He tore down the whole structure of feudal and bourgeois society in Russia and replaced – it with is own creation. Stalin is destroying that. Mentally, Stalin is not so interesting as Mussolini, who resembles him in the fundamental pattern of his personality, and he is not anything like so interesting as the medicine man, the myth—Hitler. Anybody who takes command of one hundred and seventy million people as Stalin has done, is bound to be interesting, whether you like him or not. No, Stalin is just a brute—a shrewd peasant, an instinctive powerful, beast—no doubt in that way far the most powerful of all the dictators. He reminds one of a) Siberian saber-toothed tiger with that powerful neck, those sweeping mustaches, and that smile like a cat which has been eating cream. I should imagine that Genghis Khan might have been an early Stalin. I shouldn’t wonder if he makes himself Czar.

Maybe not.

The West has a bad habit of personalizing foreign affairs and demonizing uncooperative leaders. Remember when Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser was denounced as “Hitler on the Nile?”, “Khadaffi, Mad Dog of the Mideast?”, Assad a butcher slaughter of the innocents, Hussein and many others. Vladimir Putin is the foreign bogeyman. He is being hysterically demonized by the Western Media, an as we know we usually project out shadow in others.

The Terror of the Good – Origins of Totalitarianism

Journalists are awfully liberal, Arendt they?

I’ve read Hannah Arendt “Eichmann in Jerusalem” and “The Origins of Totalitarianism”, several times – it always amazes me. I find Arendt very hard to disagree with – she just seems so shrewd, so alert, annoyingly good at noticing everything that needs noticing; She must have it right. Writing 50 years ago, this great theorists of totalitarianism, noted that totality and irreversibility are related. It used to be thought that totalitarianism had repealed the law of history by which power sows the seeds of its own destruction. If sheer ruthless vigilance could destroy any center of opposition, even any island of independent thought, then — aside from external conquest, with humanitarian pretext — totalitarian rule could never be reversed. Conversely, if total control fails due to today’s interconnected multipolar world, what happens to single-minded direction? If totalitarianism can decay, can it not be transformed? We don’t yet know. We know only that it can be modified. It can give way to a society with some space. How much? Well, somewhat between 1984 with drones, full coverage realtime surveillance and a brave new world of constructed realities – the terror of the Good.

On 5 February 1794 Robespierre stated, “Terror is nothing else than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible.” The government in a war against terror is despotism of liberty against tyranny. Sounds like today’s war on terror. Stalin said “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?” Well, we might have run out of ideas and ideals, but sure not of weapons. How much different is President Obama, when he declared gently that “we tortured some folks. The West shrugged their shoulders, well than we tortured some folks. Nobody is perfect, but we are exceptional. This is the terror of the good, the soft terror for the good, but rather the banality of the evil than the banality of the good. My famous quote of Arendt is: The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.

The ordinary average guy

Certainly the terror of the Good is not the same as the Banality of the Good: do or not doing something without fear of being caught by temporal or heavenly police as Alan Watts once said. When I lived in California I could not avoid to stumble over this song.

I’m just an ordinary average guy
We all live ordinary average lives
With average kids
And average wives …
And every Saturday we work in the yard
Pick up the dog do
Hope that it’s hard (whaf whaf)
Take out the garbage and clean out the garage…
Ordinary average average guys.

We are getting in archetypes if not stereotypes, but the banality of the Good is not so banal after all, just like the banality of the Evil. In an essay for Foreign Affairs, Joshua Yaffa notes a fascinating way Putin has responded to what Stanislav Belkovsky, described as grumbling Haute-Volée in Moskow during his last election (he called them “Bildungsbürger” which I cannot really translate, something like educated class, bourgeoise, maybe the chattering classes is good here, a term often used in the media and by political commentators). Putin instead reached out to the average guy, channeling populist politicians in the rhetoric of class-warfare: This dynamic perhaps explains why by the end of the campaign season in February and March, Putin sought to stir up a kind of Russian class-based politics. As he saw it, he was the leader of rural and industrial Russia, defending the country from those unnamed forces that want, as he said in a campaign speech, “to interfere in our affairs, to force their will on us.” In this speech and others, Putin has tried to link in the public consciousness the country’s middle-class protestors to enemies abroad that would wish Russia ill. On the night of his victory, he told the employees of a tank factory, “You put in their places those people who went one step too far and insulted the working man.” The real “Russian people,” he went on to say, are the “worker and the engineer.”

The banality of the good or the evil?

Putin through the eyes of the cultural war

I said half-jokingly the other day that it’s sometimes hard to tell the reporting of Western mainstream media between Soviet-era Russia and Putin-era Russia. If you ignore the personal insults, it’s impossible to tell the difference between now and the Cold War after JFK. In many cases, Putin is closer to the US and Europa’s ideals and interests than its own élite and global financial oligarchy. Plain stereotypes of the cold war are applied from them every day, but this is not my topic here. Lets go back to C.G. Jung.

H.R. Knickerbocker asked the famous question: What would happen if you were to lock Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin in a room together and give them one loaf of bread and one pitcher of water to last them a week? Who would get all the food and water, or would they divide it? Jung’s answer included a cryptic remark:The true leader is always led. We can see it work in him. He himself has referred to his Voice.” … “The demands of the unconscious act at first like a paralyzing poison on a man’s energy and resourcefulness, so that it may well be compared to the bite of a poisonous snake.

Hillary Clinton, hardly a reasonable facsimile of gender icons going along.

Let’s rephrase it, What would happen, if we were to lock Hillary, Merkel, Putin and Obama today in a room together and give them one loaf of bread and one pitcher of water to last them a week? Putin seems to be a gentlemen but not a push over. The Russian president asked whether it would be worse to meet with Clinton than President Obama: “It’s better not to argue with women. But Ms Clinton has never been too graceful in her statements.” From there, Putin added: “When people push boundaries too far, it’s not because they are strong but because they are weak. But maybe weakness is not the worst quality for a woman.” So that is interesting, also with Mr. Merkel, there is divide of gender archetypes of a supposedly feminized west, calling this modern and a supposedly more traditional Russia with a positive image of the male archetype. I am not sure if this cultural war is the Russian response to a cultural revolution, or just one more warfare technique before an information, financial and hot/cold war.

Putin and his friends and enemies

Who is Putin? The question is as pressing today as it was 14 years ago when he became Russia’s president for the first time. Putin’s supporters consider him the savior of Russia, opponents see him as a tyrannical ruler. Despite the rhetorical attacks on the chaotic conditions in Russia in the nineties Putin , Putin a heir of Yeltsin’ apparently made a deal with Yeltsin’s oligarchy (The Family”) between 2000 and 2004, but on his terms. From there on he seem to have accepted a mission which Mr. Putin’s role model, Czar Peter the Great, might have tolerated. The major oligarchs who survived under Putin are Roman Abramovich, Alexander Abramov, Oleg Deripaska, Mikhail Fridman, Mikhail Prokhorov, Alisher Usmanov, German Khan, Viktor Vekselberg, Leonid Michelson, Vagit Alekperov, Pyotr Aven, and still Vladimir Potanin and Vitaly Malkin.
- Alisher Usmanov: The richest man in Russia and the 40th richest person in the world;
- Oleg Deripaska: Aluminum magnate Deripaska embroiled in ‘yachtgate’;
- Mikhail Prokorov: Ran as an independent candidate against Putin;
- Roman Abramovich: The oil tycoon one of Putin’s closest allies. He had a major dispute with Putin king-maker Boris Berezovsky, who committed suicide after loosing an $5 billion lawsuit against him.
- Leonid Mikhelson: CEO of Novatek, one of Russia’slargest natural gas producers and art sponsor
- Mikhail Khodorkovsky: Once the most wealthy Russian with Yukos oil, he’s now only worth $170 million anymore.
A few more business people have become oligarchs during his time, such as Vladimir Litvinenko and Arkady R. Rotenberg (Russian). Some had to go, who did not hold the bargain and subsequently coming under fire for various illegal activities, particularly tax evasion. Vladimir Gusinsky (MediaMost) and Boris Berezovsky both avoided legal proceedings by leaving Russia, and the mentioned, Mikhail Khodorkovsky , was arrested in October 2003 and only recently as released on December 2013. Like so many other oligarchs, he made his fortune when the Soviet Union privatized its resources in an ill-fated Western strategy, tying himself in to the country’s desasterous move to a typical IMF inflicted economy. Khodorkovsky challenged Putin openly 2003 on behalf of the old Yeltsin oligarchy and Putin pardoned him only after a decade in prison, according to Stanislav Belkovsky the only really serious counter move, Putin has inflicted on his enemies. Even after that Khodorkovsky was allowed recently to address a crowd of protesters in Kiev, railing against the Russian government.

Looking at the numbers, GDP (a hockey stick success curve, granted 50% from energy business) and dept (none), I hate to say he did “slightly” better than President Obama’s, TARP, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, including the banking bailouts and fiscal stimulus in years of quantitive easing (QE). We generally overlook that his value to the system, like that of the czars who preceded him, is based on maintaining the balance among competing vested interests. Just as it was centuries ago, the main battles inside the Kremlin among these groups are about power, money and access to special privileges, not ideology.

Conclusion

I found something C.G. Jung could, maybe even would have said about the Putin Complex:The world is as it ever has been, but our consciousness undergoes peculiar changes. First, in remote times (which can still be observed among primitives living today), the main body of psychic life was apparently in human and in nonhuman objects: it was projected, as we should say now. Consciousness can hardly exist in a state of complete projection. At most it would be a heap of emotions. Through the withdrawal of projections, conscious knowledge slowly developed. Science, curiously enough, began with the discovery of astronomical laws, and hence with the withdrawal, so to speak, of the most distant projections. This was the first stage in the despiritualization of the world. One step followed another: already in antiquity the gods were withdrawn from mountains and rivers, from trees and animals. Modern science has subtilized its projections to an almost unrecognizable degree, but our ordinary life still swarms with them. You can find them spread out in the newspapers, in books, rumors, and ordinary social gossip. All gaps in our actual knowledge are still filled out with projections. We are still so sure we know what other people think or what their true character is. C. G. Jung -“Psychology and Religion” (1938) In CW II: Psychology and Religion: West and East. P. 140

To be continued /expanded – published as a case of oops…

Appendix:

Hypothesis
- Putin is the not a real macho nor a tyrant
- Putin is the typical “little guy” a self-made man with business sense
- Putin is not an imperialist but an anti-Soviet
- Putin is an outsider of the cultural chattering class (globally and in Russia)
- Putin is an idealist who does not care for power
- Putin was never the tough KGB agent but a disliked outsider; as his career was nearly destroyed by the KGB he dislikes it
- Putin did not create a central Putin system, but rather a system of many power clusters not unlike the Czar’s
- Putin was pro-West, first puzzled, later annoyed and now confronting Western geopolitics and wars
- Putin is the real successor of Yeltsin but with a better sense for Russian interest
- Putin is pro-German or pro-Europe in the sense of Czar Peter the Great, Peter
- There is a big shiism between the Moskowitsch ( god-derived) and Peterism (rule based) autocratic system
Expanded Definition of the Banality of the Good:
- In order to gain a sense of selfworthiness of a normal citizen, it is not needed to be an hero or to be sacrified on the cross. It is completely sufficient (and required) to take good care of raising kids, pay taxes, go to work, obey rules and laws. And not because one would be punished hard for not obeying them, but because one sees them as absolutely required in a sense of the Kant’s imperative.
- A real direct democracy is possible.
- Citizen an stated must mutually respect each other.
Bibliography
- Wladimir: Die ganze Wahrheit über Putin von Stanislaw Belkowski von Redline Verlag,München (Dezember 2013, Translation)
- Aus erster Hand von Wladimir Putin Heyne (2000)
- Chodorkowskij: Legenden, Mythen und andere Wahrheiten Gebundene Ausgabe – 9. März 2012 von Viktor Timtschenko
- Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963). (Rev. ed. New York: Viking)
- The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951). second enlarged edition; A MERIDIAN BOOK First Meridian printing
- C.G. Jung Speaking: Interviews and Encounters (Bollingen Series)
- C.G. Jung Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle
- C.G. Jung Four Archetypes (Routledge Classics)
August 28, 2014
Personality models and Meta-Data – the Big Five (Eyes) and MBTI
This is a short snippet on Personality models, not an analysis but a warning to watch your friendly data collector near to you and your friendly government’s use of phobias. A paper published in the Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling and Prediction shows that collected communication and social network trails, may turn out to be of highly personal character if not even of psychoanalytical use.

Meta-Data prediction models are not perfect yet, but they have a huge potential. People with superior data mining tools can predict much more than just the personality. The science is not there yet, but a potential is to know the subject better than the subject understand him/her-self. Of course, also to predict what the subject will do in some patterned situations and to know the right reward and the right punishment for behavior for and against observer’s wishes. It is a dream resource for soft (and hard) totalitarian.

A group of US and French researchers found that personality of the speaker on the phone could be reliably predicted by the way he or she makes calls. Their database was collected in the MIT Human Dynamics Lab in a year-and-a-half-long study from March 2010 to June 2011.

What Metadata can do for you

The researchers, Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye, Jordi Quoidbach, Florent Robic and Alex Pentland used the 36 easy-to-obtain metadata elements, which fall into five categories:

Basic phone use including the number of calls;

Active user behaviors, as in the number of calls initiated, and the time it took the subject to answer a text;

Location, or how far the subject moved, the number of places from which calls have been made, and other indicators of so-called radius of gyration;

Regularity of calling routine;

Diversity, defined as the ratio between the subject’s total number of contacts and the relative frequency at which he or she interacts with them.

To figure out the results of the metadata analysis and to compare it with the personality, ‘hidden’ behind it, the organizational psychologists had determined psycho-types of 100 students, who participated in the survey (with a final sample of 69 people), and divided them also into five categories. They used major dimensions in the Big Five model (also called Five Factor Model) of personality, which also consists of conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, and agreeableness.

The Big Five Model

Over the past few decades, personality psychology (mostly for marketing purpose) reached the consensus that the adjectives people use everywhere could be subsumed into five general constructs. As far back as William McDougall (1932) noted that all personality could be measured by five traits: intellect, character, temperament, disposition, and temper. Dixon (1977) argued that terms used to describe thinking, feeling, and acting were found in all recorded human languages. Rieman (1987) attributed this universality to genetics (!)— the genes shared across races and cultures. Subsequently, Costa and McCrae’s five-factor model, measured by the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI), has been tested and its structure replicated in every language and country within which it has been studied. The five-factor model was actually one of two separate five-factor theoretical models.

Big Five – No yin an yang – Freudian Ethic

One model, popularized by Norman, and Digman purported that to understand and describe personality, one must have and use the terms contained within his/her language. Because personality was necessary for interpersonal interaction, personality traits would have to be in every language for people to coexist. The second model differs in the terms used for the five factors, but both had five similar measures for personality dimensions contrasting both sharply what are good and bad traits.

The NEO-PI was associated with Costa and McCrae (1985). The first of its five factors was named Neuroticism or emotional stability. It included aspects of insecurity, tempermentalness, worrying, and self-consciousness, but it also included anxiety, anger, and depression, a factor measuring mental health in terms of normality/abnormality, not just some aspect of normal functioning or coping. Extroversion or Surgency formed the second factor. It was characterized by being friendly,sociable, and outgoing. It also had a hint of value judgement in it as well, but seemed generally more accepted than the neuroticism factor. Openness included being daring, original, open-minded, and imaginative. It involved being accepting of fantasies, feelings, and values. Agreeableness was the fourth factor. It was often contrasted with antagonism, which was characterized by narcissism, perfectionism, and arrogance. Agreeableness included aspects of trust versus skepticism and sympathy versus stubborn uncooperativeness. Factor five, termed Conscientiousness, had also been contrasted with undirectedness. Amelang and Borkenau titled this factor self-control versus impulsivity (!). Some called it superego strength as in an individual’s abilities in persevering, striving for excellence, hard working, and exerting effort with a purposeful direction.

The Big Five (v.s. the MBTI) is one of marketing, its not help you to understand yourself, but others to benchmark you against a desired standard behavioral set.

These factors are very broad and inclusive, but almost stipulate a Freudian ethic. They assumed that all human could be categorized under these five headings – and measure in a way just adaption to the society. To me, the Big Five, is a tool how good you function in the “rat race” or as consumer. To correct this, there’s growing support for a HEXACO model of personality that adds a sixth trait: honesty-humility.

C. G. Jung’s typology and the MBTI Model

Example

Based on C. G. Jung’s typology [Jung, 1921], people can be classified using four mental functions sensing, intuition, thinking and feeling together with the attitude (extraversion-introversion). An extrovert deals more with the objective whereas an introvert relies more with the subjective – C.G. Jung is quite clear that both the objective and the subjective represent facts and reality. The direction points to the source of energy that feeds the dominant mental function. An extrovert’s source of energy is mainly found in the outside world, whereas an Introvert’s source of energy is mainly found in his or her inner world. C. G. Jung’s classification scheme has been used quite successfully from individuals (I’ve written here) as well in the workplace (see here). The unconscious layer, Carl Jung’s analytical psychology model provides, maps to the structures of the organizational or political conscious and unconscious which parallel what Jung conceived as the architecture of the individual psyche.
1. Attitude Extravert: Outer-directed, need for sociability, chooses people as a source of energy, often action-oriented.
2. Attitude Introvert: Inner-directed, need for privacy and space; chooses solitude to recover energy, often reflective.
1. Thinking function: Logical, analyses (thus rational) cause & effect relations, cool, distant,frank, questioning.
2. Feeling function: Valuing positively or negatively. (thus rational and not the same as the word used in emotion)
3. Sensing function: Sensory, oriented toward the body and senses, detailed, concrete, present.
4. Intuitive function: Sees many possibilities in situations, goes with hunches not details, sometimes not present. The function that is opposite to sensation. Intuition is a perception of realities that are not known to consciousness, and that come via the unconscious.
One rarely finds pure types and originally with Jung obviously there were 8 combinations with ones primary function but ones secondary function may be developed (and rarely the third and forth). The extroverted thinking person tends to be tied to facts, may believe his ideas represent absolute truth and that “the ends justify the means”dislikes and fears the irrational. Introverted thinking person is interested not in facts but ideas. Extroverted feeling person often seems to be well adjusted, charming, concerned with personal relationships. Introverted feeling type are not easily adaptable and may express self in music, poetry, religion. Extroverted sensing type– the object arousing the sensation is the important thing. Introverted sensing types have trouble expressing themselves. Extroverted Intuitive lives see possibilities as important. Last, the Introverted intuitive is concerned with the collective unconscious and has visions or revelations of religious or cosmic nature.

Mapping The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to the Big Five

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) dimensions (Extraversion-Introversion; Sensation-Intuition; Thinking-Feeling; and Judging-Perceiving), based on C.G. Jung formed a tight 4-factor model similar to that of Costa and McCrae’s Big Five model for openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion.

My thoughts on the Big Five. I find it hard to not look at Openness and neuroticism as a dichotomy. How can we be both open and neurotic at the same time?

All in all, the big 5 uses 5 traits, and doesn’t link them together, where as the MBTI uses 8, and links them together. The MBTI just gives more information, however, Big 5 is also more static, and can definitely be used at the same time as MBTI. Jungian’s, however, don’t recognize that just four letters do justice to anyone’s identity for the whole life. Bad leaders, consultants, counselors, coaches, and teachers, had been delivering this message, omitting C.G. Jung’s view of individuation – i.e. that healthy persons are in control of their four functions and grow to manipulate MBTI to money making personality tests. To make matter worse, the Big five seem to judge only one alternative dimension as desirable (unlike C.G. Jung did). I don’t subscribe to this.

Extraversion – people who tend to seek stimulation in the company of others, who are outgoing and energetic; I fail to see why the Big Five Model changes the “o” into an “a”…. E of course equals the MBTI E with the implicit assumption that introverts are bad .

Agreeableness – sensing, compassionate and cooperative people (easy to manipulate however); Agreeableness, I’d say it may also be Fe , not only F.

Openness – and creative ones, who are open to feelings (intellectually less curious, however); You might recall that thinking and feeling are rational functions to C.G. Jung and to him indeed feeling means either accept or reject. So Openness equals to F, without a mix of N or P, but not with 100% correlations.

Conscientiousness – self-disciplined and judging people, who are eager for success ( not perceiving others); Conscientiousness seems like a sure J.

I think the neurotic scale shows us the probability that we are utilizing shadow survival functions. Neuroticism in big 5 is the only scale that doesn’t correlate with MBTI directly. The fifth dimension – neuroticism – will tell which button to press of anxiety, moodiness, worry, envy, and jealousy. Neuroticism is a risk factor for the “internalizing” mental disorders such as phobia, depression and other anxiety disorders, all of which are traditionally called neuroses but become more and more political terms. Furthermore MBTI has N and F in I and E attitude, while Big Five just mixes the both in one, and the rating scales aren’t 100% the same, like 40% openness might still come out as N in MBTI test.

Conclusion

Add personalty tests with capabilities to obtain and crunch your data with a big data warehouse for your Twitter, email and Facebook, not to mention your browsing history or Amazon preferences , than psychoanalysis become truly affordable for everybody. Interested will check on your conscientiousness and your eagerness for success like for credit rating or how you do on neuroticism in respect to xyz-phobia.
March 31, 2014
Crazy Wisdom – the Archetype of the Fool, the Clown, the Jester and the Trickster.

The Archetype of the Fool, the Clown, the Jester and the Trickster are universally recognized patterns of characters. Every of this four archetypes challenges conventional wisdom differently, offering different types of Crazy Wisdom. When I lived in California I listened often to the KFOG radio commentator Wes (“Scoop”) Nisker who happened to be also a comedian:  “If you don’t like the news … go out and make some of your own”, was his frequent catchphrase. Very recently many European ( foolish) fools call an Italian comedian a clown. Because he did not like the news, and made them himself.

C.G. Jung stressed the point that archetypes are not inherited only collective patterns of potential representation. When they are touched by the light of the conscious mind they may become in the lower plane instincts and the higher realm images. That, while it is the core of the matter, can said simpler. First instincts transport in an instant information and trigger predefined reaction and save the soldier’s life. Second, symbols do the same as images – they convey a message and transport it instantly on many layers.

A picture is a fact. – Ludwig Wittgenstein

Lets face it, Archetypes are numerous and often ambiguous under the Jungian folk – worse the Fool, the Clown, the Jester and the Trickster are often interchanged in common language. So lets the sort them out.

Clown

BEPPE GRILLO, satirist, blogger and protester has staged one the greatest coups de theatre in Italian political history unison named as most dangerous Clown ever

The clown is the most lovable human and timeless. He tries hard and fails pathetically. Lets face it, he encourages us laugh at ourselves, because in a way we all are clowns. The clown does not need words, just by mime Charley Chaplin managed to get the awkwardness of modern times across. They even outsmart the philosopher Wittgenstein who wrote in Tractatus … Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent – Clown mainly are silent and are not. Like Max Frisch’s “Gantenbein” put on the blindman’s stick and glasses, the Clown puts his mask on to either laugh at the ridiculous masks of life, or to cut through the social shams and reveal our hypocrisy in an acceptable way. This makes clowns wise, because they can see through who we are and what people do. Their talent is to reveal such things to us. Take the mentioned Beppe Grillo, his storming finish in the Italian general election is not only turning Italy upside down, but threatens to do the same across the EU. The “Clowns” Five Star Movement, just a blogger’s favorite four years ago has now 150 members of parliament. Why? Because he showed the Italian emperors without clothes.

But the clown has another aspect as a man – usually the clown is male – of sorrows. He leads us to tears as often as he leads us to laughter and reveals our modern prehistoric tribal society. The clown mirrors the basic (and personal unconscious) functional complex Persona (literal mask) and shows us the wonderful and tragic human feelings under those masks we might wear and see in daily life. Stupidity, wisdom love, life, loss, success and failure, all have their deeply human side. The traditional circus is no longer in vogue. Once emblematic of optimism, fun and entertainment it now carries an air of shabbiness and decay. The 1960’s were probably the last heyday of fun and positivism. Since MacDonald’s Corporation launched its hamburger chain television commercials in 1963 with Ronald MacDonald, the world’s most recognizable clown, there has been a slow decline in the popularity of clowns. Thanks to the crisis and politicians the clown is back – if not even in charge.

C. G. Jung had a special Swiss sense of humor (on YouTube even in English) and impressive smile, but in his works one finds no clown. Apart from the essay on the “trickster”archetype, which is not a Clown at all and not particularly cheerful written. For the first and last time I give credit to Freud who took himself far too serious but handled the Clown in the still readable essays : his failures, his wit and sense of humour (“Die Antwort, warum wir über die Bewegungen der Clowns lachen, würde lauten, weil sie uns übermäßig und unzweckmäßig erscheinen”). Well, Freud’s cultural back ground provided not only many outstanding scientists, intellectuals but certainly the sharpest and legendary humor – Chuzpe.   This one I took from Wikipedia. Two Rabbis argued late into the night about the existence of God, and, using strong arguments from the scriptures, ended up indisputably disproving His existence. The next day, one Rabbi was surprised to see the other walking into the Shul for morning services: “I thought we had agreed there was no God,” he said. “Yes, what does that have to do with it?” replied the other. That leads us to the cynical Jester.

Jester

We have all seen how an appropriate and well-timed joke can sometimes influence even grim tyrants. . . . The most violent tyrants put up with their clowns and fools, though these often made them the butt of open insults.
—Desiderius Erasmus, Praise of Folly

Jesters use pen and words, and have the (social) context of a specific time. They operate with wit and criticize, even with cynicism, the weapon of the powerless. For instance, nowadays non-technical Consultants are Jesters. Like court jesters grew and flourished in the Middle Ages as well-paid attendants of Royal Courts. Power was highly consolidated in medieval times as it is today. The typical Jester is a Management Consultant. They, just temporarily, move up the social ladder with borrowed authority. They have come from a wide range of backgrounds — from monasteries to universities. The jester is the natural enemy of an overinflated ego (since a jester has one too), which drives on its own importance. They are born nay-sayers, even critical to what is holy to religions and business. Richard Quest in CNN is a funny Jester; one of the few journalist in the media crowd of mostly foolish fools. Having said that, be reminded, that a Jester will always act in public on behalf of the King he services )and pays for the show).

Resourceful jesters would gather an audience with clever attention-grabbing techniques before the invention of PowerPoint. Added to their wit, most had developed several additional performance skills — they played flutes, danced, juggled, told jokes, did acrobatics and pantomime, performed ropewalks and tongue twisters, sang and did vocal tricks. Since they have no stake in the power game, Jesters have told Kings and later Managers the truth. As kings and queens’ confidants, jesters often developed deep friendships with them. The royals often became tired of the false compliments and praise from their many lackeys and valued a connection with these offbeat performers, who, between witty wisecracks, would share very valuable insights. After all, many truths have been spoken in jest, and many lies have been spoken in earnest. It better be funny, though – otherwise the Jester loses his head. Perhaps more common was the jester’s role as healer. Medieval doctors believed that human health was controlled by four forces: Sanguine, Melancholia, Choleric and Phlegmatic, considered emotional states. Although these theories of human mind-body-spirit relationship fell into disrepute after the Renaissance, many have been reexamined in recent times by psychologist C.G. Jung . The idea that laughter aids recovery, long considered evident in Eastern philosophies, is steadily gaining traction in Western medicine so much so that it’s now considered mainstream. Few people would argue that a comedian can also help a group bond by sharing in deep laughter. Philosophers of the East and West were, dreamers, and unconventional wisdom seekers and Ego’s like Shaw, Wittgenstein, C.G. Jung and Nietzsche. The latter three deserve a few words more.

Many have interpreted that Nietzsche believed in a literal death or end of God. Instead, the line points to the western world’s reliance on religion as a moral compass and source of meaning. The true Jester explains in “The Gay Science – Die fröhliche Wissenschaft”:

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? ”

Nietzsche’s works foresaw that the decline of religion, the rise of atheism, and the absence of a higher moral authority would plunge the world into chaos.

Another small tidbit: The philosopher Wittgenstein (a millionaire by inheritance) gave away all his money just like St. Francis from whom Pope Francis I took his name. The bulk of Wittgenstein’s work deals with logic and language. His view of religion and religious language was a by-product but had significant implications for the understanding of the God exists. In Tractatus he wrote:

“To understand a statement is to know what is the case if it is true.” But we do not know what is the case when someone says that “God sees.”

While theologians spent much time proving the existence of God, and while atheists have done their very best to show how incompatible religious claims are with the ´convential wisdom of common sense and science, both sides always took it for granted that basically religious statements are either true or false. Both Wittgenstein and C.G. Jung were religious, and both declared religious statements simply out of scope. Political theorists have long been frustrated with Jesters. Although they develops profound critiques of society, morality, culture, and religion, it is very difficult to (ab)use them for political implications of their insights. There is a reason for this: skepticism. Unsettling, that is what Jester do well.

The Fool

Jesus Agent of Change

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions says that holy fools subvert prevailing orthodoxy and orthopraxis in order to point to the truth which lies beyond immediate conformity. Or as a monk said in his Sermon rethinking “metanoia” is the beginning of our journey with “authentic” faith in Jesus Christ, not as a U-Turn but as “think further”. In English the closest synonym is repentance, but it is not quite the same. The word repentance implies a “turning away from sin” or in German a form of turning around. This is an incorrect interpretation of biblical doctrine. One must first widen his thinking (metanoia) be critical of orthodoxy.

Let the fool lead the way. The wise and the sacred fool provide truth, balance, play, recreation, destruction, creation, change. Would Buddha live today his followers would be reprogrammed, Jesus would be in jail for subversion and the DEA wold breath down the neck of the Sufi poets. Lao-tse,well we all know the story of Gandhi a contemporary holy fool. I would even think the new pope comes across as a sacred fool in the media. They did not think, change comes from obeying rules. The sacred fool is the destroyer of our well-ordered world run by foolish fools. The wise fool is the creator of the new through play. It is by change that we are made new. We are all Phoenixes, capable of rising out of the ashes, if only the holy fool will bring us change.

The fool gets to tell the truth, the hard truths that might cause trouble if anyone else tells them. The fool can get (for while) away with telling the hardest truths just because he is a fool. He speaks in parables and paradoxes, we struggle to understand. He can speak harsh truths and we must listen because he is entertaining in his difference. We must listen because he is a misfit and cannot be held fully responsible . The fool plays and everybody believes that play is not serious so he can accomplish the difficult, controversial issues in play. In the middle ages there was an implicit understanding of this with the belief that joking could help shield one from misfortune and indeed we can understand the truth of this.

Jesus was a sacred fool. At the command of God he came to change the world. He sought to destroy the old structures and bring God’s kingdom, a change of great magnitude. His methods were subversive to the society where he lived. He was viewed as a dangerous fool but like all sacred fools, brought a message of change and hope crashing down empires. When Jesus was betrayed and arrested he said:

Luke 22-52: “Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? 53 Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns”.

Crazy visionaries as Jesus, the Sufi Poet Rumi, Buddha, Lao-Tse, Mahatma Gandhi travelled on a comedic course to enlightenment, representing the collective “Self” – that is the divine.

God has no religion ― Gandhi.

Tao called Tao is not Tao ― Lao-Tse.

“My soul is from elsewhere, I’m sure of that, and I intend to end up there.” ― Rumi.

Trickster

Coyote runs over the ground, warm in his thick fur, while Eagle soars over the wind, and Eagle does the wise thing and does not offer Coyote power anymore, and Coyote is crazy and cheers Eagle up with his tricks.

The Trickster, often represented as a coyote is no fool. It seems they come from a time, in which there was no good and evil. There is a duality here that often gets expressed in the trickster god being viewed both as hero and villain. Jung has assigned his collective shadows under the name ” Trickster”. According to Jung, the Trickster is a figure whose physical appetites and senses dominate his actions and decisions. His thinking does not rise above his belly or his genitals. Frequently the Trickster figure exhibits gender variability, changing gender roles and engaging in frequent sex practices. Not understanding finer feelings, his responses to other people seem crude, self-centered, cynical and unfeeling. In some of the stories however, the his exploits bring transformation and he becomes a man instead of an animal. In the Navajo worldview, coyote sickness arises out of activities that distort social relationships like the breaking of a taboo or self-indulgence. It comes from contact with a storm, lightning, a corpse, or a substance outside the natural order of harmony and beauty. Or it comes from losing sight of the Holy Way, contact with ghosts, sorcery, or the intrusion of an evil force.

The Trickster as collective Shadow mirrors the basic ( personal unconscious) archetypes of the shadow experienced in individuation. That denotes the process by which a person becomes a psychological unity connecting two fundamental psychic aspects, the conscious and the unconscious. The Shadow is the easiest of the archetypes for most persons to experience. We tend to see it in “others.” That is to say, we project our dark side onto others and thus interpret them as “enemies” or as “exotic” presences that fascinate. We see the Shadow everywhere in popular culture. We see it in popular prejudice as well. Of course, Satan is the great Shadow image of popular religion. The Shadow is the personification of that part of human, psychic possibility that we deny in ourselves and project onto others. The goal of personality integration is to integrate the rejected, inferior side of our life into our total experience and to take responsibility for it.

Trickster delights in all sorts of pranks mischief and jokes but is not by nature evil, even though the results of his activities are often unpleasant. These activities centre on bringing attention to our own or other people’s often hidden stupidity shams or lies. The Trickster is a shape shifter and so has the possibility of transformation an alchemist and shaman. In mythology, and in the study of folklore and religion, a trickster is a spirit, man, woman, or anthropomorphic animal. In many cultures, (as may be seen in Greek or Norse with Odin or Wotan), the trickster and the culture hero are often combined. Odin’s Germanic predecessor, Wotan, was associated with Mercury (Hermes) by the Romans. Odin and Mercury often deceive and trick. In Native American mythologies, the coyote (Southwestern United States) or raven (Pacific Northwest and coastal British Columbia) stole like the Greek Prometheus fire from the gods. The trickster is thus an important archetype in the history of man. He is a god, yet he is not. He points out the flaws in carefully constructed societies of man and rebels against authority. Sometimes he pays dearly. Jung said once, ” unfortunately that the so-called civilization has forgotten the trickster”.

Throughout human history the mythological trickster, has played an essential role, the role of change of a therapeutic effect. In many myths the trickster brings a treasure to man, but is it really a treasure? All change has mixed blessings. When the Raven trickster of the Northwest Indians brings fire to the people is he a destroyer or creator? Looking back we say he brought a valuable change. But fire is also dangerous, a change that can and does destroy.

Satan thought as trickster may serve a crucial role. What if instead our understanding of Satan was influenced by the concept of the “trickster” figure, which seems to be present in the Hebrew Bible? Learning to interpret Satan as the ultimate trickster, rather than the embodiment of dualistic Evil, could end blaming the present reality on the metaphysical reality of evil or on the moral depravity of humanity.

For example, Satan in the book of Job leads Job to insights. The Satan who confronted Jesus in the desert in a way helped Jesus, in all his humanity, to assert also his own divinity. Jahweh did listen to Satan, as God did in the case of Job.  Viewing Satan as trickster is not without problems, specifically the ambiguity that exists between Satan and God—an ambiguity that can find its full expression in the trickster figure. Rather than being God’s antithesis, God’s opposite, a certain ambiguity, if not complimentary position, is held by Satan. If Satan has no power except that given by God, we are left wondering whether evil can come from God, a proposition that the early biblical writers and ancient Church Fathers like Augustine raised.

Conclusion

According to the psychological model of C. G. Jung the archetypes originate in the collective unconscious, described as a repository for all of mankind’s experience and knowledge and are therefore not available directly — only its images and created patterns can become manifest as symbols potentially unlimited in number and variety. Symbols of God are the core of our culture being the universal patterns of myth, religious symbols and ideas. They can be employed very beneficial in life. I am neither especially crazy, or especially wise. Sometimes my job was to communicate complex issues to those who shuns, even hate it.  Ideally I could get the Crazy Wisdom across with the headline, with a simple picture. I was the Jester on the court. Senior Managers were the Kings. The picture is easy understandable, isn’t it? Why? Because I don’t need to explain what a good King or weak King is or enumerate his virtues or deficits. We know it since thousands of years, Plato has written a long book about virtues of leaders.

Clown and Jester are paid to entertain or present. Fools and Tricksters unsettle. Foolish fools claim they lead with conventual wisdom.

“silence is the language of god, all else is poor translation.” ― Rumi

Sources

Wes Nisker, 1990 Crazy Wisdom

C.G. Jung Four Archetypes (Routledge Classics)

C. G. Jung Archetypen (dtv, Bd. 11)

Jung, C. G. (Hg.) (1968). Der Mensch und seine Symbole. Olten: Walter

Jung, C. G., Jacobi, J. (1971 ): Mensch und Seele. Zitate von C. G. Jung aus dem Gesamtwerk 1905 bis 1961. Olten: Walter

Tractatus logico-philosophicus: Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung (edition suhrkamp) von Ludwig Wittgenstein von Suhrkamp Verlag (1963)

Wittgenstein: Eine Einführung von Joachim Schulte von Reclam, Philipp, jun. GmbH, Verlag (1989)

Vorlesungen und Gespräche über Ästhetik, Psychoanalyse und religiösen Glauben von Ludwig Wittgenstein von Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag (27. Juli 2005)

C. G. Jung Das Rote Buch, Patmos-Verlag Olten, 2010

C.G. Jung Speaking: Interviews and Encounters (Bollingen Series), 1993

The Essential Rumi – Edition von Coleman Barks, Jalal al-Din Rumi und John Moyne von HarperCollins e-books

Freud: Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewußten

April 3, 2013
Jungian Archetype Checklist for Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings
In his masterpiece The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien created what he called a “new mythos”. There is undoubtedly much in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings that invites us seeing it through the Jungian framework. However, on a closer look, comparatively few archetypes are present, and the main protagonist’s (Frodo’s) individuation arguably fails. A Jungian view must offer more than “In a fairy land lived a halfling who, together with some helper-figures, became a wiser and individuated hobbit’. On the first glance (and even on the second) Frodo listens more to his shadow than to his Anima – if he has an own Anima at all.

Now, how do we avoid the “If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail“, problem? By systematically testing elements in the Jungian framework on its applicability to the Lord of the Ring and comparing the results with similar elements in Richards Wagner “Ring Cycle”. The result is surprising and I hope a bit entertaining.

Where is Frodo’s Anima?

anima

The story, set in a world Tolkien called Middle-earth, puts forth a possible alternative past for our Earth, one that could have occurred before our written history began. Tolkien was fascinated with the pre-Christian mythology of northern Europe. To make his story, he pulled elements from these myths. He also imbued it with elements from his own Catholic faith. The story follows a basic plot of a heroic quest. And here it gets meager for Frodo in regards to individuation and Anima. Without doubt Gollum is Frodo’s shadow. When the Fellowship goes out into the evil lands, passes the trials of Caradhras, the Wargs, and the Balrog, they encounter in Lothlorien a fair and terrifying Anima. Galadriel, who sees into one’s heart and forces people to look honestly at themselves, to see the shadow within, giving Frodos followers a hint of individuation – the initial dream.

While the characters with most depth are Hobbits, I am not quite sure, if you can interpret Frodo’s quest as his individuation, self-actualization and search for enlightenment. Without blasphemy, one may find a resemblance to Jesus’ hesitation to take the cross. Most of Tolkien’s writings can perceived in the dualistic view of good and evil in distinct ‘mythic’ flavor of a very personal evil and even an evil empire. However, unlike in opera or theatre, Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings is not myth per se, but a cleverly fabricated and artistically elaborated piece of art, more for effect than symbolic.

Many of Tolkien’s protagonists resemble thus somewhat more shallow characters of fairy stories, than those, say in Wagner’s Ring, which Jungian’s generally easily find representation of the collective unconscious. Tolkien’s (human) figures are more theatric than archetypal images – or archetypal per se (templates) : Sure, the King(s), the Warrior and the Wizard are quite obvious and map easily and directly to Jung’s “standard” archetypal images. But all in all it is more Shakespeare than Wagner. Why then, does Lord of the Rings have such an overwhelming emotional impact on me and on others? Precisely of that. For many of us, the simple identification with the most obvious Jungian archetypal images is the unconsciously response to a typical hero quest and the lure of alchemy. Take the wizard Gandalf, his name was part of 50 % of the root passwords in Unix systems, long before the movie came out. To the younger and/or non-techies, Unix was predecessor of Android OS and is after a rebirth in Linux still base of most Internet infrastructure.

Tolkien’s “brave old world” in Lord of the Rings

galadriel

As we experience today really, “The End of an Age,” people’s attitude toward religion in the contemporary West (true more than Europe than the United States) has changed. The Hobbit’s Shire creates a suitable sugary pagan (or pseudo religious) setting similar to Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s understanding of “good” nature and savage before Christianity and science took over. And as Campbell puts it, “It has always been the prime function of mythology and rite to supply the symbols that carry the human spirit.” This is why “Lord of the Rings” speaks as deeply to people who share neither Tolkien’s faith nor his opinions as it does to those who do. It transcends the personal and the particular to touch us all. As a put off, it is often argued that the “analytical psychology” developed by C. G. Jung in the early years of the last century was always more religion than a science anyway. Jung was intrigued by the imagery of dreams and waking visions experienced both by himself and his patients, and how this same symbolic imagery appeared repeatedly in religion, mythology and alchemy–areas of which the patients in question were most often ignorant. His concept of archetypes and archetypal imagery has permeated our culture, especially in the arts and humanities. Hence, an ‘emotional response problem is expected in Tolkien’s approach. It is one thing to like a piece of art, but another to analyse and assess it as a collective unconscious. One may value Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings as a book of undoubted literary quality, whereas even more respond enthusiastically to a trashy sequential also by another British. Lord of the Rings especially seems to have ‘spoken’ to many of its readers via its archetypal images and the “American National Park” motifs. I have heard, that he had traveled to the US – when I moved to the states and saw them for the first time I was able to map my own, self created images having read the book 10 years before.

Jungian framework and art

I want to suppress the understandable desire to prove that the book I love is also a ‘good’ book in a literary terms but look at it in another way of exploring the reader’s (my) psyche. Jungian literary criticism is, in my opinion, a method very well suited exploring the psychological dimension of fiction. I have written about, say Herman Hesse, Max Frisch. Both obviously succeeded in creating a work of art rooted in the Western tradition that ‘speaks’ to millions of readers, and a Jungian approach can give a reason for this success, namely that it constitutes a compensatory set of archetypal images that transcend age and culture for a greater balance. Yet, the Jungian framework also harbours some grave dangers – the subject of the analysis becomes too easily confused with the concepts and terminology of what should be the meta-language; the ‘critical’ distance between ‘theory’ and ‘object’ is often dangerously small and causes us to confuse and mix the two levels. It becomes post-modern mud like those ‘history studies’ blissfully ignoring sources, parallels and analogues and mixing facts and opinion. I use the Encyclopedia of Arda to keep me honest about the content, Timothy R. O’Neill’s book “The Individuated Hobbit: Jung, Tolkien and the Archetypes of Middle-Earth” of 1979 and Wagner’s Ring and Its Symbols” originally published 1984 from the English musicologist Robert Donington, both major landmarks in the uncovering mythical-archetypal structures in art. I found little other (and better) than that. O’Neill’s 1979 book-length study comes from an army psychologist but is not based on professional training in analytical psychology. I am also aware of the study of Jungian analyst Pia Skogemann “Where the Shadows lie” in 2009.

The Heroic Journey

Tolkien started out just to write a sequel to The Hobbit. Tolkien tells us in the Foreword to The Lord of the Rings that “the tale grew in the telling” into something much larger, darker, and complicated than his original intent. At the end of his first draft of Chapter III, Tolkien wrote to his publisher that the story “has taken an unpremeditated turn.” By the time he was writing Chapter VII, he reported that “It is now flowing along, and getting out of hand . . . [it] progresses towards quite unforeseen goals.” When Faramir appeared, Tolkien reported to his son that “I am sure I did not invent him, I did not even want him . . . but there he came walking into the woods of Ithilien . . .” Later he said “Gollum continues to develop into a most intriguing character.”The Lord of the Rings follows the basic plot of the hero’s journey.

Night Journey

Joseph Campbell recognized a basic pattern in many of those narratives and has named those necessary stages to this journey:
- Separation and departure from the safe haven of home or childhood,
- Initiation,
- The Fight or the underworld,
- Return and reintegration.
To accomplish his quest, the hero will need to call on his own strengths. These qualities are represented as companions with different qualities. Heroes are almost always the most unlikely person possible. Each time Frodo and Sam begin another stage of their journey, they encounter one or more threshold guardians (wise men or wise women).

Spot the archetype

The method is playing “spot the archetype” with Tolkien’s characters is a game that many scholars have played with relish – functional complexes or archetypes as Ego, Shadow, Anima and Self and collective archetypes as Warrior, Magician, Hero, King, among others.

Archetypes (per se) are described as structural templates in the collective unconscious, invisible nuclear elements and potential carrier of meaning. C.G. Jung stresses the point that aarchetypes are not inherited but only structural patterns of potential representation. When they are touched by the light of the conscious mind they may become in the lower plane instincts and the higher realm images. Archetypes (not per se!) may be equated with complexes, particularly the those of personal unconscious (like shadow) which are often refered as functional complexes.

Complexes according to C.G. Jung are described as sources of intensity or energy around a nucleus ( an archetype per se) which may drain (or provide) energy and integrity from/to the conscious Ego and are typically in the personal unconscious but also in the collective unconscious, Jolande Jacobi describes the “complex” as a node of unconscious feelings and beliefs, detectable only indirectly, through behavior.

Symbols are perceptible to the conscious mind and are for the most part a representation of archetypes per se conscious mind. Obviously they can be inherited and they my personal or collective as source of all mythic, symbolic and dream representations. This mankind’s experience and knowledge is not available directly — only its images and created patterns can become manifest as symbols potentially unlimited in number and variety. Symbols are the core of our culture being the universal patterns of myth, religious symbols and Tolkien.

Symbols in Lord of the Rings

Though there are many symbols in the story, four symbols of personal power are central to our theme:
- The evil ring, and the relationship with the other rings.
- The phial of light.
- The invisibility cloak, confers the power to change but it also entails the power to deceive.
- The sword, stinger, the weapon for the heroic struggle against the Orks.
The number four is very significant in Jung’s analytical psychology.Jung loves the number four. One can compare the three Elven rings plus the One Ring to Jung’s analysis of the Christian age in the light of alchemical symbolism, with the good Trinity and the hidden (evil) or later in live (female) fourth. by Pia Skogemann argues that the Fellowship is not really nine but eight, divided into two quaternities.

Functional Archetypes

The total psyche: (Mantra – Jolande Jacobi “The psychology of C.G. Jung”

The Ego and the Self are terms which are often interchangeably used. The psychological term Ego is the center of consciousness and ensures the physical survival . Ego often has an extended meaning in the spiritual language and referrers in general terms to an obstacle for Self realization.

Jung distinguishes sharply between Ego and Self and differentiates the unconscious thoughts and feelings of both types of memories: the ones we can remember easily and those who are suppressed for some reason. In addition he introduced the collective unconscious, which belongs to the common humanity, as part of an individual psyche.

The Ego

Frodo and the Shire express the realm of Ego. The Ring is the Ego inflation The return of the ring into the deep currents of the fire completes this life cycle. The self is made whole. The cognitive conscious world of Ego is reconciled with its spiritual origin; the Self is reconciled. Howver, the Ego must also be overcome and accept the shadow. When Galadriel shows Boromir his shadow, he refuses to see. As C.G. Jung said, people would do anything to avoid admitting failings and working to overcome them. This is part of the power of the shadow. Frodo passes this test, but the price is loosing himself, dissolving the Ego.

Animus and Anima

galadrielAndFrodo

It has been noted, the beautiful Galadriel, who forces people to look at themselves, is the primary Anima. Through her, Gimli realizes that not material wealth but love is the highest form, Merry and Pippin begin to grow up and take responsibility, Sam makes his final commitment to the quest going with Frodo all the way and Legolas, another Elf answers the call to action and joins the fellowship. Boromir fails this test.

Frodo represents the archetypal hero of the Lord of the Rings, but I am missing a dedicated love (or female) who represents the necessary union between the conscious realm and the realm of his Anima. He does not come close to her, and thats in my opinion why he in end fails on the mountain of doom to give up the ring. The gifts from Galadriecome with the words: “And you, Ringbearer’ she said, turning to Frodo. ‘I come to you last who are not last in my thoughts. For you I have prepared this.’ She held up a small crystal phial: it glittered as she moved it and rays of white light sprang from her hand. ‘In this phial,’ she said,’ is caught the light of Earendil’s star, set amid the waters of my fountain. It will shine still brighter when night is about you. May it be a light to you in dark places, when all other lights go out. Frodo took the phial, and Stinger (that symbol should be clear) and the dangerous female become again “like a queen, fair and beautiful.” Only later in Golums’s death we see him freed by the burning away of his accepted shadow. Love might be found between Aragorn and Arwen. When Arwen and Aragorn commit to each other forever, Arwen chooses to turn and embrace her shadow, her human side, and remain in Middle-earth. The rest of Elvendom chooses to remain within the rapidly shrinking circles of light until finally they lose the world entirely. Arwen, by committing to Aragorn, gives him the inspiration to complete his part of the quest. Aragorn becomes through her the leader he is meant to be.

shadow

The Shadow

In the realm of Shadow, represented in Lord of the Rings by Gollum reside rejection, frustration, anger, hate, evil. According to Jung, we all must struggle with our shadow. The shadow is our unconscious self, all the parts of ourselves that we refuse to acknowledge or are shamed by. The more we try to flee from or ignore the shadow, the more it grows and the more power it gains over us. To master the shadow, we need to stop running, turn, and face it. “The hero . . . must realize that the shadow exists and that he can draw strength from it. He must come to terms with its destructive powers if he is to become sufficiently terrible to overcome it. Gollum is Frodo’s shadow made manifest. He represents Frodo’s biggest fear: that he will succumb to the Ring’s siren call. Frodo fears and even hates Gollum up until the moment he actually meets the wretched creature. Once he sees Gollum in the light of day, his heart is moved to compassion. We cannot gain mastery over our weaknesses until we first admit that we have them and then forgive ourselves for that. Only then can we see clearly how to overcome them. Looking at Gollum, Frodo feels pity. Out of this pity he finds the strength to control Gollum — who even calls him “master” — and resist the lure of the Ring.

The Self

To me Samin Lord of the Rings represent the Self. He is the only one who can resists the ring. In the end Frodo leaves the shire and Sam inherits it. The ring itself represents for us the lure of gold, or lust of power. Possession of the ring confers power over the world. We set out to relate the life-cycle of the ring to the life-cycle of the psyche. The circle of a ring suggests how this might be done. The story begins in the realm of the Self, which has its origin in the value of life. O’Neil’s book identifies (wrongly) the thoroughly evil “One Ring” with the Self, based on its superficial symbolic characteristics. Sam is a much more satisfying and nuanced view of both of the Self archetype.

The Persona

In Wagner’s The Valkyrie teach in “The Ring” a fundamental cultural lessons about society. I do not really see a complement in Lord of the Rings.

Autonomous Complex

It is on of the effects of the Ring–“the normal identity disappears and is taken over by the norms and values of autonomous complex (The Ring) takes over. Gollum is clearly an overpowered Ego becoming a merge of Shadow and an autonomous Complex. In one scene his remaining good and bad side even talk even to each other.

Archetypes of Transformation (Rebirth)

The landscape of Middle-earth and the actual journey of the Fellowship have particular archetypal significance : rivers and forests; descent (death and rebirth); changing of the wind; and man-made towers. Significant are borders, crossroads, river crossings and other points of decision, and their relationship to the unconscious. Jung enumerates five plus one different meanings of Rebirth:
- Metempsychosis – transmigration of souls
- Reincarnation – continuity of personality (main Buddhist theme)
- Resurrection – reestablishment of human existence after death (main Christian theme)
- Rebirth Renovatio – rebirth in the narrow sense within a span of a life with the implication of healing, improvement
- Rebirth Transmutation – such as transformation of a mortal in an immortal being
- Participation in a process of transformation.
In Lord of the Rings I see the latter. The transformation (or the quest to counter Mordor transforming the world in a hell ruled by the evil enforced by Orks) takes place outside of the individual. In other words, Frodo has to take part in some rite of Transformation. Jung was, as Tolkien, leaning Catholic (although Jung’s grandfather was a Free Manson and his Father an unconvincing Protestant Pastor). Jung meant witnessing the transformation of a substance in ceremony such as a mass, e.g. the mystery of the Eucharist. It is of the five mysteries the Church cannot explain,Catholics have to accept them on faith. Of course there is also a strong pagan mystery in it: The grace (more the curse) of immortality. Jung refers to the Eleusinian Mysteries ceremonies held every year for the cult of Demeter and Persephone. based at Eleusis in ancient Greece (and every Easter in Washington State). Demeter’s rebirth is symbolic for the eternity of life that flows from generation to generation:

Truly the blessed gods have proclaimed a most beautiful secret Death comes as a blessing to men (Elusian epitaph, quoted by C.G Jung).

Collective Archetypes

In his book Four Archetypes C. G. Jung refers to the Mother, Rebirth, Spirit and Trickster. The mother is just very brief present in the second book (the self sacrifice) and at the very end when Sam becomes father. There are strong women visible, but the narrative is a men’s world. As presented above, one of the five aspects of the Transformation archetype participation in a transformation – is the core of the Narrative. In addition, “King, Warrior, Magician, Lover – Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine” , a C. G. Jung based interpretation of masculine behavior is very applicable to the human fictional characters ´Tolkien. All four representations of the archetypes have one positive (right amount) and 2 negative poles (deficit or surplus). For example, the positive King archetype rules his world wise whereas the negative Kings are the weakling and the tyrant. The Hero or warrior archetype is a timeless, present in all art and global. Two examples of my articles: Jianghu seen as Archetypes defined by C.G. Jung (Magician, King, Lover, Warrior and Hero) and Wagner’s Ring, Richard Wagner from Scene to Scene utilizing C.G. Jung.

C_G_JUNGFEMALE and MALE ARCHETYPES

The Magician

The Magician, Trickster or Wise Man, represents Logos according to Jung a masculine principle, is sees the unseen. He is like Gandalf the mediator and communicator of secret knowledge, the healer, technologist, teacher, and spiritual. A wizard or a witch, a man or woman of power, advises and sometimes accompanies the hero . This person represents supernatural aid and is another sign that the quest is guided and blessed. But we do not see Gandalf’s true power until Frodo and Sam have gone on without him. Magician, however, always has a tendency to abuse his power, being the negative Magician, the manipulator like Sauron, the most powerful of the wizards,. But Saruman has let his shadow control him. He lies to others and to himself about his true motives. Lies are always a sign that the shadow is in control.

The King

The King is the life giver and the most important responsible for the safety and well being. The book quotes from history and art that every society must have king or leader who is entrusted with guiding his people to success and comfort. The benefits and virtues of the king are many, but the responsibilities are many as well. And if the king fails in his duties he is traditionally disposed. The shadows sides are tyrant and the weakling.  The Aragon of volume III may be seen as a personification of the the King. The self-effacing Ranger, Strider, learns to embrace his heritage and destiny. He has to rise above his self-doubts and take on his rightful role as the King of Men, which he does on the plains of Rohan: It is only after he declares himself openly to Eomer and takes his full power that Aragorn can look Sauron in the face and not be conquered.

The Warrior (or Hero)

The Warrior is a destroyer who destroys the enemies and clears a space for renewal and change. The prototype of the warrior is the soldier. In The Lord of the Rings, we have many heroes (and even more warriors), but the two primary heroes are Frodo and Sam. Both express aspects of the archetypal hero. Frodo is an orphan and the adopted and spiritual heir of Bilbo Baggins, who himself does not quite fit in the Shire. Frodo appears to be a normal hobbit up until Bilbo’s disappearance. The Warrior is besides the Wizard the most viable of the archetypes.  It is vital that this quest be accomplished not by God or agents of God, but by a mortal being. And the hero must fulfill the quest using his own strengths alone. This is the only way he can learn what those strengths are. The lesson for us here is that when we find ourselves in great trouble, not to despair, for that’s when we’ll learn who we really are. The hero must make a formal commitment. His aggressiveness are a highly needed characteristic responsible for his achievements and those of middle earth. Properly accessed, the Warrior provides self-discipline, and protects. The two shadow sides of the Hero are the Sadist of Mordor, the Orks. The other pole, the Masochist, is not visible in Lord of the Ring.

The Lover

The Lover like the feminine principle Eros manifests energy and fertility of the nature. The gendering of Eros and Logos and synergy is a consequence of Jung’s anima/animus synergy. Generally the Lovers are represented by the elves, easy with our own deepest and most central values and visions, and with others. Those are archetypal parents, people and more power and wisdom than the hero does at this stage of his development offer place of safety where the hobbits can relax and and give gifts to help the hobbits on their way. At the Council of Elrond, the true scope of the quest is made clear: to take the Ring to Mount Doom and destroy it. Frodo is still hoping that the quest is not his. But the wise Elves, brave Men, and strong Dwarves sit in silence. I will take the Ring,” says Frodo, “though I do not know the way.”

In King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine, a point has been made that every man has to have those (ideally) balanced archetypes. Jolande Jacobi’s book gives also a good explanation of how archetypes, complexes and symbols are perceived, interact with each other and gain autonomous power.

Jungian concepts

Furthermore one has to deal with the so-called archetypes of transformation and more general concepts. Tolkien resembles individuation, how humans develop into mature, emotionally healthy adults. C. G. Jung: “. . . the essential function of the heroic myth is the development of the individual’s ego-consciousness — his awareness of his own strengths and weaknesses — in a manner that will equip him for the arduous tasks with which life confronts him.”

Personal Layers

Jungian Types

Skogemann examines the four hobbits as “team consciousness” with each individual representing one of the four Jungian psychological functions (thinking, intuition, sensation, feeling). Repeated literal losses of consciousness and subsequent awakening of the hobbits correlate with the awakening of the various psychological functions. That may be the case, but this team building aproach is ultimatly not helping much.

Individuation

The Jungian concept of individuation is tailor-made for studying the coming-of-age story, and The Lord of the Rings is rife with such stories. Frodo and Sam an descent into the Underworld. This is the descent into the darkest parts of one’s own soul. Before the hero can face the One problem, or destroy the One Ring, he has to master his own shadow. Frodo allows his shadow Gollum to be his guide through the Underworld. They traverse the Dead Marshes and Shelob’s tunnel. Here, Frodo is betrayed by Gollum and appears to die. This is Sam’s crisis, that he would not be able to protect Mr. Frodo. But he resists the Ring, takes on a tower full of Orcs, and rescues Frodo. The initiation continues as Frodo and Sam are tempered by their passage through the shadow lands of Mordor. Frodo, who is still struggling with his shadow, cannot see anything beyond that. But Sam, here almost being Frodo’s Ego has gained perspective. Finally they reach Mount Doom. At the ultimate moment, Frodo succumbs to the temptation of the Ring and claims it for his own. However, his earlier compassion for this failing saves Frodo from a terrible fate. Because of both Sam and Gollum the quest of Frodo can be fulfilled.

Eternity and Judgment Day

The Ego, the Self and God – Individuation and Transcendence

Once the quest in Lord of the Rings has been fulfilled, supernatural power can be used freely, so Gandalf and the Eagles can save Frodo and Sam as Mount Doom erupts and Barad-dur collapses. Barad-dur crumbling means Sauron has been completely defeated.

The World Tree, the Tree of Life, has bloomed. This tree only blooms in the garden where there is no shadow. The restoration of the White Tree in Gondor and the presence of the mallorn in the Shire let us know that things are truly balanced and healed. After wholeness has been restored, it is time for unions. Sam marries Rosie, Eowyn and Faramir marry and solidify the ties between Gondor and Rohan. And Aragorn, now King Elessar, marries Arwen. This is the Great Marriage, the union of the mortal hero with the immortal goddess, that ensures that the world will be renewed.

The time for judgment has come. Aragorn sits in judgment on Men, and his decisions reflect the wisdom and mercy of the returned King the world is now ready for. Sauron is condemmed to endless existence as a “mere shadow of malice. Saruman’s fate turns out to be the same as that of the master he served and betrayed. Those who cannot become whole and balanced, who remain in the power of their shadows, are cast out from the reborn world.

No marriage forFrodo. But he said to Gandalf: “At last I understand why we have waited! This is the ending.” and finally leaves Middle-earth. This can be interpreted two ways. In a first interpretation, Frodo did, in a sense, fail. Secondly his disappearing resmbles essentially the dissolving of his ego, which is one common way to see individuation (see The Death of the Ego as prerequisite to find God). In any case, Frodo’s fate is bittersweet. Sam becomes Frodo’s spiritual and material heir – the Self.  He also becomes a parent, symbolic of true maturity. It was a simple story, but had all ingredients of C. G. Jung’s Red Book ( C. G. Jung’s Red Book in a hurry – Narrative)

Conclusion

Analytical psychology acknowledges the importance of the spiritual life, but is not tied to a specific religion. Those focused on Tolkien as a Christian author might find Jung’s alternative psychological explanations thought-provoking. Like Wagner’s Ring, Tolkien starts with a world of animistic beliefs threatened by modern science, a trajectory that leaves people cut off from the idea of nature. It may very well be, that Tolkien’s and Jung’s early experiences with the Perilous Realm (whether one calls it Catholic Mystic or the Unconscious) had much in common, even the style of the language in which their experiences were expressed. In his “Red Book” Jung found such language to be a characteristic of archetypes. Both, Jung and Tolkien had serious problem with their era and its lack of any means of spiritual transformation, overwhelmed by science and technology. The Lord of the Rings is and the Red Book not an allegory of World Wars, however World War II affected the conception and portrayal of Mordor and the Red Book anticipated the streams of blood in World War I.

Sources
- O’Neill, Timothy R. The Individuated Hobbit: Jung, Tolkien and the Archetypes of Middle-earth. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979
- Robert Donington, Wagner’s Ring and Its Symbols”, originally published 1984 both antiquaries
- Lord of the Rings: The Mythology of Power von Jane Chance
- Jung, Carl. Aion. Collected Works v. 9ii
Links
March 28, 2013

Jungian Models applied to global corporations: Kings, warriors, magicians and lover archetypes

Recently I attended yet another team building “Engagement workshop”. It occurred to me that Jungian Models are well performing in multinational corporation has rather particular objectives by its mission, why it has such multiple and interesting cultural contexts.

Culture is something we all experience, but have great difficulties defining. I want in this article to align C.G. Jung’s models with organizational psychology in order to explore how organizations can somehow function and meet common goals. While Freud was fond of the iceberg analogy to explain the unconscious (the unconscious part of our mind and personality being the 90 percent of the glacier that is below the surface), Jung made the comparison of a cork gently bobbing on a vast ocean. The cork is our conscious mind, and the ocean is the unconscious.

: Personal Layers

The cork is tossed about at the whim of the cruel sea unless we get a handle of the nature of the true Self (of which we are only dimly aware, if at all) via the reflective process . The ego is that cork bobbing on the ocean, and its goal is to seek what Jung called individuation, bringing together all the elements of the human psyche into one Self: the complexes, the Shadow (in simple terms a person’s dark side), and the inner woman in a man or the inner man in a woman. That means feminine and masculine energy, which he labeled the anima (inner woman) and animus (inner man). Jung’s most famous theory is that of the collective unconscious, a shared memory of symbols, imagery, and memories that he called archetypes. In the iceberg analogy model which divides the organizational psyche in two layers – conscious and unconscious – the conscious layer is where the ego-driven actions and behaviors manifest and the unconscious layer shapes the organizational culture by archetypes. However, the unconscious layer, Carl Jung’s analytical psychology model provides, is further divided. That leads to the structures of the organizational conscious and unconscious which parallel what Jung conceived as the architecture of the individual psyche. I want to adopt this model and derive criterion which are unique to the psychology of troubled organizations.

Conscious layer

The conscious portion of the organization is the public face and its visible set of structure and processes. The core of consciousness is “analogous to Jung’s concept of the ego” its mask the persona. The Ego comprises all of the conscious activities performed in an organization, such as planning, managing, coordinating, core and support processes. The center of consciousness is composed of the collective egos in the organization arranged and empowered by the tone on the top. This organizational consciousness (in effect the processes and organisational structure) manifest its activities aligned with the archetypes that are predominant in organization and as function of their level of maturity. Organisations have masculine or feminine character. The persona is how individuals present themselves to the world and is driven by two sources: “the expectations and demands of the customer and stakeholders. That is where the brand or corporate identity of the organization lives. The persona transmits the ideal images of itself to the outside world hiding aspects which are deemed “internal” by the organization’s ego (and leadership):

Mission, strategy and goals: Why are we all here in this organization? What are we collectively trying to achieve? Do we even know?
Goals derived from mission: What goals do we set as part of trying to realize that mission? Do we stick to those goals? How are they defined?
Measuring results and correction mechanisms: How will we know if we achieve those goals? How do we measure it?
Escalation and mitigation strategies: What do we do if something breaks or does not go as planned? Do we have a plan, or do we react?
Means to achieve goals (organization, applications, processes): How do we go about realizing our goals? Do we have systems and procedures in place, or do we trade on strength of personality?

Personal unconscious layer

The organizational unconscious are clusters of energies, beliefs and truths that bridge between the conscious organization and the collective unconscious. It provides the psychodynamic environment for these two forces to interplay. It is composed of the shadow, animus and anima, the complexes and the organizational self-reflection (i.e. the Self). The gender of an organization is driven by the organisational constituency but more by the manifestation of the anima and animus archetypes. Certain organizations, like a primary school, today operate openly in an anima (feminine) set of characteristics because of the nature of their mission, regardless of how many male teacher it has (if any). Other organisations, say universities, suppress or conceal their “gender”. The shadow comprises the collection of what has been repressed because the organization does not allow it by its rules, procedures or values. Note on the side: A few global organisations, like the EU, the IMF and to a certain degree the UN are examples of mentally pathologically disturbed organisations, in which the shadow and complexes reign, causing cause great harm to all of us. That has been also the case in some nations and cultural contexts (like religious organisations).

Hidden Censorship — Shhs don’t ask don’t tell

Organisations contain also complexes (other than functional) which represent both positive and negative energies and subtly affect how the conscious organization goes about its business. Organizational complexes are containers of memories, thoughts and feelings experienced as work progresses. They are in essence the underlying assumptions that form at the unconscious level in the act of doing business. Over time, these complexes uniquely identify an organization and provide the basis for its culture. Values and beliefs are built upon complexes and change over time as the environment and challenges change. The shadow contains features that are contrary to customs and group moral conventions. In the context of organizations, the shadow’s projections would go to outside entities, like the competition, sometimes even to the customer, or would be channeled as projections between internal departments, which is particularly troublesome. The participation mystique is the part of the organizational unconscious that links individual egos to the organization. Participation mystique is a basic definition by Jung in his book “Psychological Types” (crediting Lucien Lévy-Bruhland with the term, as sociology and ethnology scholar). This mystical participation, refers to instinctive human ties to symbols (which are visible and utilized archetypes) and can describe how an organizational archetype connects to each individual.. The concept is closely tied to that of projection into situations and objects, including organisations as readily as we project color into the objects we perceive.

: The total psyche: (Mantra – Jolande Jacobi “The psychology of C.G. Jung”

The organizational archetype of enlightened organisations roughly corresponds to the archetypal self in individuals:

Common language and conceptual categories: What is the underlying framework of (mis-) communication?
Group boundaries and identity: How do we respect each other’s and the other group boundaries? Do we know who we are?
Incentives and punishments: How do we reward desirable behaviour and punish behavior deemed unacceptable?
Managing the unimaginable and explaining the unexplainable: When things happen we cannot explain nor foresee, what is the group response?
Rules for relationships: What are the rules for how we interact with each other and with those outside of the group?
Power, authority and status: How do we determine what gets done and who has the say or (informal) clout to change direction?

Collective unconscious layer

The collective unconscious serves as the foundation for the entire psyche of the organization as it does for its individual Instincts are the consistent modes of action common to all humans that do not require cognitive engagement but as the controlling patterns in the mind that regulate how we experience reality. Its archetypes represent our basic responses to organizational life. For instance, leadership and collaboration has evolved to a much more subtile form:

For instance the team aspect of work life is driven by the Lover archetype that regulates how people work and relate to one another. The degree of collaboration has a lot to do with this archetype. Those models are based on a book of Robert Moore for whom the archetypes king, warrior, magician, lover are pattern of matured masculinity. The psychological studies which lead to the naming of four archetypes are derived from four basic structures which form the depth structure of the psyche in dynamic interplay. The book is based on his image from archetypal itself, nevertheless, extends the understanding of the psyche of C.G.Jung. Each of these four qualities owns a positive side and a shadow side and that model can be applied to organizations:

The warrior (courage, concentration, motivation): The sales aspect of work life is driven by the Warrior (sales rep as street warrior) archetype that regulates how people work and relate to one another. Sales needs a lot of understanding of foe and friends.
The magician (intuition, wisdom): The creative aspect of work life represented by the magician (development, designer).
The lover (passion, empathy): The Lover archetype regulates how people work and relate to one another. The degree of collaboration within projects and teams has a lot to do with this archetype.
The King (responsibility leadership): The managerial aspect of organisation is driven by the King archetype that decides how the organisation performs. The degree of commercial success (and survival) has a lot to do with this archetype.

Warrior	This is the most common archetype in western organizations. It brings the energy of working hard to make the world a better place. The Warrior translates into vitality, competition, discipline, focus and determination. There is a fair amount of self-sacrifice in the Warrior for the betterment of the larger whole. Warrior organizations usually have a cause and are able to enlist employees in working for it. These organizations value the actions of the Warrior and recognize them with a number of rewards. Organisations with strong warrior energy are ready to exert themselves completely for an important aim. They are purposeful, persevering, and well prepare for her challenges. They control her tools and act. As shadow forms they are hard, crude, fights without taking into consideration (human) losses.	The negative Warrior creates the need for an enemy. This type of Warrior can be arrogant, impulsive, obsessive and ruthless. Negative Warrior organizations tend to overwork their people and expect ongoing sacrifices. These organizations also tend to be lower in their financial compensation than most.
Magician	This is the transformative energy inside any enterprise. It is responsible for the “level 2” changes. Innovation, high energy, and flexibility are characteristics of the Magician. Organizations with a highly developed Magician archetype are extremely adaptive and respond easily to changing markets and world conditions. Magicians are systems thinkers and natural change agents.and expresses innovation and the creative processes in an organization: In the magicians, there are elements of imagination, artistry, and vision. Organizations with strong magician energy want to know more, learn them and become engrossed in her matter.	The negative Magician archetype is manifested in manipulative energy, lack of follow-through, and working on seemingly innovative tasks that have no purpose. Organizations with a negative Magician archetype start a lot more projects than they finish. The challenge for this archetype is its disdain for formality, bureaucracy (either real or perceived) and the potential of applying creative energy to non-necessary endeavors.
Lover	The Lover is the necessary archetype for an organization to provide for the wellbeing of its employees. This care ranges from basic benefits to personal development. The Lover is also manifested by the care of the organization for the community and the social system in which it operates. Harmony, cooperation, and support for each other are characteristics experienced by the employees in Lover organizations.	Negative Lover organizations tend to over work its people, experience burn out, have low mutual respect, and experience high turnover. Compensation is low and people are expected to work long hours. These organizations typically avoid confrontation being overly passive. Delegation is not actively practiced by management.The lovers energy appears in his enthusiasm ability, sensuousness, dear ability and passion, so as shadow forms the addict completely sets on in positive or negative sensations, takes over no responsibility for itself and others, needs permanent stimulation, is restless and indefatigable. The loveless lives coldly and without passion
King	This archetype is about maintaining order and creating harmony out of chaos. It implies a sense of responsibility, balancing and allocation of resources. Either as individuals or organizations, it is manifested as decisions, authority, process, systems, goals, and strategies. The challenge for the Ruler is being fair and non-tyrannical. Decisiveness and direction need balance with methods and unique situations of others. The King brings the sense of individuality, exploration, risk taking and self-discovery. This archetype is essential to the emancipation of the employees. The good King takes responsibility for his/her own learning and channels new intelligence into worthwhile decisions.	Negative King organizations are hierarchical and bureaucratic. In addition, they tend to be less tolerant of diversity and appreciate people who do as they are told. Power is centered at the top of the organization and lower levels are viewed as lesser. Image is more important than actions. In extreme cases, negative organizations oppress, cut ethical corners, and are inflexible to change.

Organisations have evolved from simple work containers to complex social structures with semi-democratic empowerment and demonstrable higher performance.

What is truth: What is the reality of the situation? How do we know what is really happening? Is it because someone says so, because everyone agrees, or because we all prove it to be so?
Time: Is time linear, in that things only happen sequentially, or does everything happen at once? If something needs to be done, can it be done immediately in parallel with everything else, or only after current tasks are done?
Space: How is everyone situation? How is the work process laid out? Is there a point when someone is invading personal space, or is publicity and intimacy generally accepted?
Human nature: Are people only there to achieve in sync with their intrinsic values, or are people complex individuals more than their position?
Appropriate human activity: Are we here to take control of our environment, are we here as a slave to circumstances to simply coexist (or fight) with our environment, or do we develop ourselves to work in harmony with our environment?
Nature of human relationship: Are we individuals or are we a collective? Do we see ourselves as a group or as individuals? What is the greatest gap distance between ourselves and the outside?

With so many facets, one can see why an organisational culture is such a challenge. Culture is a protective mechanism. Each assumption works in collaboration to reinforce and support the other assumptions. The assumptions are also driven by the individuals or groups who have formal or informal influence within the organization. I have seen a few mergers, if you want to change the culture, you frequently need to change the Kings, almost every time physically replace them. It is so hard to change the character of Kings and that was true in history for negative real (literal) Kings and Queens.

Appenix: participation mystique and projection

For some information how Jung somewhat ambigious used the terms Archetypes, Archetypes per Se, Complexes and Symbols please read here. Jung defined projection as an initial objectified representation of the contents of the unconscious beyond the states of so-called “participation mystique” (mystical participation) and “archaic identity,” and he showed how the individual can be led to see through the illusions of projection and yet, at the same time, to experience symbolic life.

As early as his psychiatric studies written between 1900 and 1908, and also in his thesis, “Psychology and Pathology of So-Called Occult Phenomena,” which he defended in 1902, Jung was investigating the internal coherence and meaning of representational systems that were largely being ignored by his contemporaries. His conception of “highly charged emotional complexes” (gefühlbetonte Komplexe) and his contact with Sigmund Freud led him to analyze, in his “Psychology of the Unconscious. Jung’s subsequent elaboration of his theory of projection was based on the analysis of states of participation mystique (he borrowed this French expression from the anthropologist Lucien LévyBruhl) or “archaic identity.”

In the states of participation mystique and archaic identity there is no differentiation between object and subject and no distinction between lived experience and what the subject believes he or she perceives about the world. However, projection, which is more specific, enables the subject to apprehend and potentially recognize contents that are still unconscious. Thus, analysis of the religions of our ancestors, the literature and iconography of alchemy and, more generally, the arts, as well as the fantasmatic universe of a given group or individual from the perspective of modern psychology can be quite valuable.

In fact, the Jungian Shadow, Anima, Animus, and Self, before being recognized as presences or inner agencies (functional complexes), are ordinarily projected onto typical figures or acquaintances of the subject, in the same way as they are projected onto the analyst in the transference relationship. The recognition and withdrawal of projections usually provokes a state of disenchantment or, conversely, elation and inflation of the ego; however, these processes can also open the way to a practice of the symbolic life and of human relations without too much alienation or mystification, especially through the experience and analysis of the transference.

Some feared that Jung was indulging himself in an imaginary universe without concrete support. However, his analyses of the history of our culture, his position with regard to various religions and also within the history of psychoanalysis, and above all his ways of conceiving and eliciting the work of the unconscious, not only in its compensatory effects but also its effects of contradiction, give the means of avoiding this potential trap.

January 24, 2013

Tag: Shadow

Rethinking the Banality of the Good

The Banality of the Good and Evil

Putin through the eyes of C.G. Jung

Putin’s Ego

Putin’s Persona

Putin’s Shadow

From narcissism and paranoia

Projection of the Westen Shadow

The Terror of the Good – Origins of Totalitarianism

The ordinary average guy

Putin through the eyes of the cultural war

Putin and his friends and enemies

Conclusion

Appendix:

Hypothesis

Expanded Definition of the Banality of the Good:

Bibliography

Personality models and Meta-Data – the Big Five (Eyes) and MBTI

The Big Five Model

C. G. Jung’s typology and the MBTI Model

Mapping The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to the Big Five

Conclusion

Crazy Wisdom – the Archetype of the Fool, the Clown, the Jester and the Trickster.

Clown

Jester

The Fool

Trickster

Conclusion

Sources

Jungian Archetype Checklist for Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings

Where is Frodo’s Anima?

Tolkien’s “brave old world” in Lord of the Rings

Jungian framework and art

The Heroic Journey

Spot the archetype

Symbols in Lord of the Rings

Functional Archetypes

The Ego

Animus and Anima

The Shadow

The Self

The Persona

Autonomous Complex

Archetypes of Transformation (Rebirth)

Collective Archetypes

The Magician

The King

The Warrior (or Hero)

The Lover

Jungian concepts

Jungian Types

Individuation

Eternity and Judgment Day

Conclusion

Sources

Links

Jungian Models applied to global corporations: Kings, warriors, magicians and lover archetypes

Conscious layer

Personal unconscious layer

Collective unconscious layer

Appenix: participation mystique and projection