Integrating the Anima / Animus

nonnaci · Jul 21, 2019

According to Jungian theory, projections by the anima / animus complexes form the basis of attraction to the opposite sex. In conscious life, they provide the fantasy of relationship, impetus towards action, and the practical result of pair-bonding / couples. In other spaces such as dreams, active-imagination, and myth, you can recognize their characteristics by the evolution interest from body to spirit:

Jung distinguished four broad stages of the anima in the course of a man’s psychological development. He personified these, in accord with classical stages of eroticism, as Eve, Helen, Mary and Sophia.

In the first stage, Eve, the man’s anima is completely tied up with the mother—not necessarily his personal mother, but the archetypal image of woman as faithful provider of nourishment, security and love—or, indeed, the opposite. The man with an anima of this type cannot function well without a vital connection to a woman and is easy prey to being controlled by her. He frequently suffers impotence or has no sexual desire at all.

In the second stage, personified in the historical figure of Helen of Troy, the anima is a collective sexual image. She is Marlene Dietrich, Marilyn Monroe, Tina Turner, Madonna, all rolled up into one. The man under her spell is often a Don Juan who engages in repeated sexual adventures. These will invariably be short-lived, for two reasons: 1) he has a fickle heart—his feelings are whimsical and often gone in the morning—and 2) no real woman can live up to the expectations that go with this unconscious, ideal image.

The third stage of anima development Jung calls Mary. It manifests in religious feelings and a capacity for genuine friendship with women. The man with an anima of this kind is able to see a woman as she is, independent of his own needs. His sexuality is integrated into his life, not an autonomous function that drives him. He can differentiate between love and lust. He is capable of lasting relationships because he can tell the difference between the object of his desire and his inner image of woman.

In the fourth stage, as Sophia (called Wisdom in the Bible) man’s anima functions as a guide to the inner life, mediating to consciousness the contents of the unconscious. Sophia is behind the need to grapple with the grand philosophical issues, the search for meaning. She is Beatrice in Dante’s Inferno, and the creative muse in any artist’s life. She is a natural mate for the archetypal “wise old man” in the male psyche. The sexuality of a man at this stage incorporates a spiritual dimension.

What has your experience been with integrating the various stages of the anima / animus into your inner life? Did these stages correlate with your selection and/or breakup with various partners / significant others as each stage ran their course?

Red Panda · Jul 21, 2019

I'm not well versed on this, but it always seemed a little off to me. I get the sense it contradicts the rest of his personality theory in some ways, like the descriptions of anima and animus relate more to the development of a T dom man and a F dom woman respectively, and not as much for perceivers.

Reading the descriptions for the animus, I can relate to very little of it, but also I kinda don't see the point of making that categorical distinction.. stage 4 of animus says it's about meaning, is he trying to say that women don't seek meaning until their male side develops? All the Ns of the world already do that since a young age so why believe it relates to a male side?

I also suspect that this theory is largely influenced by the societal norms of the time, which becomes more apparent when someone reads about the animus than the anima, since it contains behaviors/development that seem associated more with upbringing, for example the reinforcement of the female gender roles of timidity and gentleness that were predominant at the time, which did not necessarily reflect true innate drives that expressed everyone. Perhaps if Jung lived now that people are more free to express themselves he wouldn't see anima and animus the same way? Maybe this would explain the asymmetry between anima and animus and why he viewed animus as more 'complex' and diverse.

If anyone can post more detailed descriptions it would be nice, this topic is both confusing and interesting to me.

nonnaci · Jul 21, 2019

Red Panda said:
Reading the descriptions for the animus, I can relate to very little of it, but also I kinda don't see the point of making that categorical distinction.. stage 4 of animus says it's about meaning, is he trying to say that women don't seek meaning until their male side develops? All the Ns of the world already do that since a young age so why believe it relates to a male side?

I think the animus counterpart has parallel stages and isn't so easily identified with a single image in phantasy. e.g.

Jung describes four stages of animus development in a woman, paralleling those of the anima in a man. He first appears in dreams and fantasy as the embodiment of physical power, for instance an athlete or muscle man, a James Bond or Sylvester Stallone. This corresponds to the anima as Eve. For a woman with such an animus a man is simply a stud; he exists to give her physical satisfaction, protection and healthy babies.

In the second stage, analogous to the anima as Helen, the animus possesses initiative and the capacity for planned action. He is behind a woman’s desire for independence and a career of her own. However, a woman with an animus of this type still relates to a man on a collective level: he is the generic husband-father, the man around the house whose primary role is to provide shelter and sup- port for his family—Mr. Do-All, Mr. Fix-It, with no life of his own.

In the next stage, corresponding to the anima as Mary, the ani- mus is the Word personified, appearing in dreams as a professor, clergyman, scholar or some other authoritarian figure. A woman with such an animus has a great respect for traditional learning; she is capable of sustained creative work and welcomes the opportunity to exercise her mind. She is able to relate to a man on an individual level, as lover rather than husband or father, and she seriously ponders her own elusive identity.

In the fourth stage, the animus is the incarnation of spiritual meaning—a Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King or Dalai Lama. On this highest level, like the anima as Sophia, the animus mediates between a woman’s conscious mind and the unconscious. In mythology he appears as Hermes, messenger of the gods; in dreams he is a helpful guide. Sexuality for such a woman is imbued with spiritual significance.

How much social construction is in this I can't say as I'm not well versed in his era.

If anyone can post more detailed descriptions it would be nice, this topic is both confusing and interesting to me.

http://www.peggyvoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Anima-Animus-Reading.pdf

AnneM · Jul 21, 2019

SO happy to see a thread on this subject, as it is something I am deeply interested in. I have watched my dream animus figures since I was a teenager. There have always been a handful of consistent, recurring animus figures. In the order in which they've appeared in the life of my inner world:

1. The handsome man who doesn't have the use of his legs. He should be successful, but he can't move. Sometimes his legs were actually completely gone. He has been gone from my dreams for years.

2. The manipulating asshole. He is a total narcissist, only interested in me because I give him all the attention he wants. He is very unkind to me.

3. The soft-spoken guy who is, weirdly, friends with the narc. He silently vies for my affection. Oftentimes in dreams, I walked alongside and between them.

4. The one I call Mr. North because of a dream in which he told me he had been to the "Pristine North" and had written a book about it. He loves me deeply, in a completely spiritual way. He is very, very sad. He is aware of #2 , but he doesn't contend with him. He just waits for me to make the right choice.

It is very interesting to me that Jung said women typically have many animus figures, while men only have one anima at a time. Any thoughts on that?

nonnaci · Jul 21, 2019

AnneM said:
It is very interesting to me that Jung said women typically have many animus figures, while men only have one anima at a time. Any thoughts on that?

Below is an except for what I found on this:

"Civilization in Transition, Mind and Earth, p 41"

So far as my experience goes, a man always understands
fairly easily what is meant by the anima; indeed, as I said, he
frequently has a quite definite picture of her, so that from a
varied collection of women of all periods he can single out the
one who comes closest to the anima-type. But I have, as a rule,
found it very difficult to make a woman understand what the
animus is, and I have never met any woman who could tell me
anything definite about his personality. From this I conclude
that the animus does not have a definite personality at all; in
other words, he is not so much a unity as a plurality. This fact
must somehow be connected with the specific psychology of
men and women. On the biological level a woman's chief interest is to hold a man, while a man's chief interest is to conquer
a woman, and because of his nature he seldom stops at one conquest. Thus one masculine personality plays a decisive role for
a woman, but a man's relation to a woman is much less definite,
as he can look on his wife as one among many women. This
makes him lay stress on the legal and social character of marriage, whereas a woman sees it as an exclusively personal relationship. Hence, as a rule, a woman's consciousness is restricted to
one man, whereas a man's consciousness has a tendency to go
beyond the one personal relationship—a tendency that is sometimes opposed to any personal limitations. In the unconscious,
therefore, we may expect a compensation by contraries. The
man's sharply defined anima figure fulfils this expectation perfectly, as also does the indefinite polymorphism of the woman's
animus.

i.e. the plurality of many inner animus images in woman is compensatory with regards to conscious efforts and high costs of keeping her man from straying (recall that this is age before contraception)

AnneM · Jul 21, 2019

@nonnaci Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!! I'd never come across this.

Red Panda · Jul 21, 2019

nonnaci said:
I think the animus counterpart has parallel stages and isn't so easily identified with a single image in phantasy. e.g.

How much social construction is in this I can't say as I'm not well versed in his era.

http://www.peggyvoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Anima-Animus-Reading.pdf

OK so from the quote you gave I think I reached stage 4 in during adolescence, since I thought of love and sex as something meaningful and even spiritual and I don't do it casually. As many other NFs... And there's no denial there are plenty of women at stages 1-2 especially when young. But what are their types? It still seems off to me and perhaps inferior categorization to the psychological type theory. :/

"While a man's task in assimilating the effects of the anima involves discovering his true
feelings, a woman becomes familiar with the nature of the animus by constantly
questioning her ideas and opinions.
The woman must learn to criticize and hold her opinions at a distance; not in order
to repress them, but, by investigating their origins, to penetrate more deeply into
the background, where she will then discover the primordial images, just as the
man does in his dealings with the anima. (CW7, para. 336)"

I'm pretty sure many N women are pretty capable of this, while many S men are not... and would also relate to intelligence.. it's all so convoluted...the observations seem true, like the stages, but the underlying explanations for them, still seems kinda off.

As for the dream side, sometimes I dream of things I wanna do that I repress, but I don't remember if there's any male figure in those dreams or it's just me making the decisions I don't make otherwise, and I think it's the latter more. (My dreams are generally about me doing stuff, either realistic or fantastical, like having adventures, or I just dream about people I know and many times are absurd/funny, sometimes anxious). Which I think this relates to the transcendental function more? I'm quite a strong jungian Extravert and many times my subjective needs are a mystery, but I find the type theory to be more holistically helpful than anima/animus to me... I'm not dismissing it completely though, only questioning the overall framework.

nonnaci · Jul 21, 2019

Red Panda said:
OK so from the quote you gave I think I reached stage 4 in during adolescence, since I thought of love and sex as something meaningful and even spiritual and I don't do it casually. As many other NFs... And there's no denial there are plenty of women at stages 1-2 especially when young. But what are their types? It still seems off to me and perhaps inferior categorization to the psychological type theory. :/

"While a man's task in assimilating the effects of the anima involves discovering his true
feelings, a woman becomes familiar with the nature of the animus by constantly
questioning her ideas and opinions.
The woman must learn to criticize and hold her opinions at a distance; not in order
to repress them, but, by investigating their origins, to penetrate more deeply into
the background, where she will then discover the primordial images, just as the
man does in his dealings with the anima. (CW7, para. 336)"

The author may have cherry-picked that passage. The larger context pertains to intellectual woman types as CW7 came out after PT (CW6):

[335] In intellectual women the animus encourages a
critical disputatiousness and would-be highbrowism, which,
however, consists essentially in harping on some irrelevant
weak point and nonsensically making it the main one. Or a
perfectly lucid discussion gets tangled up in the most
maddening way through the introduction of a quite different
and if possible perverse point of view. Without knowing it,
such women are solely intent upon exasperating the man and
are, in consequence, the more completely at the mercy of the
animus. “Unfortunately I am always right,” one of these
creatures once confessed to me.
[336] However, all these traits, as familiar as they are
unsavoury, are simply and solely due to the extraversion of
the animus. The animus does not belong to the function of
conscious relationship; his function is rather to facilitate
relations with the unconscious.
Instead of the woman merely associating opinions with
external situations—situations which she ought to think about
consciously—the animus, as an associative function, should
be directed inwards, where it could associate the contents of
the unconscious. The technique of coming to terms with the
animus is the same in principle as in the case of the anima;
only here the woman must learn to criticize and hold her
opinions at a distance; not in order to repress them, but, by
investigating their origins, to penetrate more deeply into the
background, where she will then discover the primordial
images, just as the man does in his dealings with the anima.
The animus is the deposit, as it were, of all woman’s ancestral
experiences of man—and not only that, he is also a creative
and procreative being, not in the sense of masculine
creativity, but in the sense that he brings forth something we
might call the , the spermatic
word. Just as a man brings forth his work as a complete
creation out of his inner feminine nature, so the inner
masculine side of a woman brings forth creative seeds which
have the power to fertilize the feminine side of the man. This
would be the femme inspiratrice who, if falsely cultivated,
can turn into the worst kind of dogmatist and high-handed
pedagogue—a regular “animus hound,” as one of my women
patients aptly expressed it.

Anecdotally, the first part reminds me of what happened in the Jordan Peterson - Cathy Newman debate.

Red Panda · Jul 21, 2019

nonnaci said:
The author may have cherry-picked that passage. The larger context pertains to intellectual woman types as CW7 came out after PT (CW6):

Anecdotally, the first part reminds me of what happened in the Jordan Peterson - Cathy Newman debate.

this makes what I said even more related after this quote perhaps

I started questioning everything, how my mind works, internal consistency etc since I was in puberty and so have other N people I know, not everyone tho. So far in my observations it's been people who are N heavy, be it in aux or dom position as long as it still holds a heavy influence and as long as they're above average IQ or something, it tends to be a common developmental pathway regardless of gender. Maybe there are other factors too. I don't know if this occurs in S people, I haven't seen it so far, but I'm totally open to it.

I read a previous part from the book you quoted above, pg 41;80:

With women the case is reversed. When the animus breaks
out in a woman, it is not feelings that appear, as in a man, but
she begins to argue and to rationalize. And just as his anima feelings are arbitrary and capricious, so these feminine arguments are illogical and irrational. One can speak of an animus thinking that is always right and must have the last word, and
always end up with "That's just the reasonl" If the anima is irrational feeling, the animus is irrational thinking.

That sounds like the stereotypical man-woman relationship which in my observations relates more to SF women + ST men, or generally to S archetypal behavior. It makes sense since we're talking about more than 75% of the population but that's also why I think his function theory is superior to this.. do NT women seriously fit in the above? are SF men not vulnerable to irrational thinking? Is he trying to say that an SF man is still more rational than an NT woman? Or maybe he judges the 'irrationality' on those thoughts based on his point of view?

To be clear, I can and do relate to both the things described - rational self-criticism as I explained above and some bouts of irrational thinking, but I have encountered plenty of men who are not paragons of rationality. But this theory kinda insinuates that since the masculine is self-critical and whatnot then men should be like that but that still holds truth more depending on personality type IMO. "Unfortunately I'm always right" sounds something an Introvert Judger would be more inclined to say, who lacks the drive to see other perspectives (i.e. any EJ on mbti)

If animus and anima are the opposite of our dominant personality traits, then it should manifest in different ways than he describes based on the preferred dominant function or maybe their dynamic.. in section 79 he presupposes that woman=F and man=T and while that's true for the majority, there are still a lot of people who are opposite of that. I wonder if any professional has made critiques on that. (for anyone else, here's the book I'm commenting on https://the-eye.eu/public/concen.or...g/10 Civilization in Transition (Collected Works of C. G. Jung, Volume 10).pdf)

nonnaci · Jul 21, 2019

Red Panda said:
That sounds like the stereotypical man-woman relationship which in my observations relates more to SF women + ST men, or generally to S archetypal behavior. It makes sense since we're talking about more than 75% of the population but that's also why I think his function theory is superior to this.. do NT women seriously fit in the above? are SF men not vulnerable to irrational thinking? Is he trying to say that an SF man is still more rational than an NT woman? Or maybe he judges the 'irrationality' on those thoughts based on his point of view?

To be clear, I can and do relate to both the things described - rational self-criticism as I explained above and some bouts of irrational thinking, but I have encountered plenty of men who are not paragons of rationality. But this theory kinda insinuates that since the masculine is self-critical and whatnot then men should be like that but that still holds truth more depending on personality type IMO. "Unfortunately I'm always right" sounds something an Introvert Judger would be more inclined to say, who lacks the drive to see other perspectives (i.e. any EJ on mbti)

Unfortunately, the only comparison I found between anima / animus and ego is the reversed attitude (introversion / extroversion) of the image; Jung seems firm in stating that the anima / animus are Eros / Logos archetypes and less related to ego differentiation. That is, Jung isn't making the claim that men are more rational and woman are feeling oriented, but that men possess a complex that activates feelings/moods/emotions and that woman has a complex capable of thoughts/opinion. Once such percepts reaches the ego, my take is that the conscious cognitive functions can start processing them. This seems more of an existential claim that NT women and SF men are realizable because the former has an origin or source for thought/opinion and the latter for feeling/moods. This is not to say that SF men are more rational than NT women as the former lacks differentiated thinking.

brightflashes · Jul 22, 2019

I have an interesting Animus relationship that is similar to my loving boyfriend's.

Me and @hornpipe2 have cast each other as level 1 and level 2 - He's my man of physical presence and my man of action/romance.

Me and my loving boyfriend have cast each other as level 3 and level 4 - He's my man of scholarship and my man of spiritual guidance.

If I'm not mistaken, he has cast his wife as level 1 and 2 and me as level 3 and 4 as well.

The biggest difference is that when I'm spending time with my loving boyfriend since he's also interested in integration (even if he doesn't use that word particularly - we study Jung together), the anima-us relationship is much more conscious. Because it's conscious I see him more as a mirror to bounce myself back on. And together, I just want him to live his best life and continue to evolve etc ...

Now it's not that I don't want hornpipe2 to do that, but that I see him completely different from my loving boyfriend. hornpipe2 is my life partner. We take care of each other and share our lives together. There's more chemistry there. Of course I want him to live his best life, but there's a sort of personal investment I can't really explain that is inherent in my relationship to boyfriend which makes that easier for me to see - some times I really don't know what hornpipe2 needs to live his best life.

In the essay "Marriage as a Psychological Relationship" in Development of Personality by Jung, there is a compelling story about how, inevitably, one will reach a point in a marriage/partnership where one of the couples will want to continue to reach for something more and more complex (not to say that simple is lesser because it's not) and that usually happens to people at such-and-such an age and there tends to be an incongruence when this happens. Jung uses this desire to strive toward integration as an explanation on why people have affairs with others and what one can do about anima-us projection when this happens to ensure that won't happen.

It's really interesting and I consider my relationship with hornpipe2 and my relationship with my boyfriend to be a reflection of this sans the cheating since my loving boyfriend is really just my very very very good friend. And, since I'm a J type and since he needs his life planned for him, we have agreed that if anything ever happens to our SOs, we'll take care of each other. Well, he hasn't really agreed yet, so much as he knows if he argues against it, it won't be worth it. lol

Edit to add: Where did you get the characterisation of Eve, Helen, Mary, and Sophia from? I haven't seen this particular one and it's quite different from what I have read elsewhere (Directly from Jung in Aion part III: The Syzygy Anima & Animus). It really simplifies Eve and Helen instead of making them the woman of desire and the woman of love/inspiration. Mary being the woman of virtue and Sophia being the woman of wisdom. I'm just curious who wrote it?

Edit 2: Just to be clear, it's not that I can't see hornpipe2 as my level 3 and 4 or that I don't project this onto him. It's just easier with boyfriend. And, I imagine, it's probably similar for him. In the same way that I do sometimes project level 1 and 2 onto boyfriend and I suspect he does to me as well though we don't go there. heh.

brightflashes · Jul 22, 2019

Red Panda said:
I'm not well versed on this, but it always seemed a little off to me. I get the sense it contradicts the rest of his personality theory in some ways, like the descriptions of anima and animus relate more to the development of a T dom man and a F dom woman respectively, and not as much for perceivers.

Reading the descriptions for the animus, I can relate to very little of it, but also I kinda don't see the point of making that categorical distinction.. stage 4 of animus says it's about meaning, is he trying to say that women don't seek meaning until their male side develops? All the Ns of the world already do that since a young age so why believe it relates to a male side?

I also suspect that this theory is largely influenced by the societal norms of the time, which becomes more apparent when someone reads about the animus than the anima, since it contains behaviors/development that seem associated more with upbringing, for example the reinforcement of the female gender roles of timidity and gentleness that were predominant at the time, which did not necessarily reflect true innate drives that expressed everyone. Perhaps if Jung lived now that people are more free to express themselves he wouldn't see anima and animus the same way? Maybe this would explain the asymmetry between anima and animus and why he viewed animus as more 'complex' and diverse.

If anyone can post more detailed descriptions it would be nice, this topic is both confusing and interesting to me.

The Anima, by nature is NF and the Animus by nature is ST. However, this has nothing to do with psychological type other than we all have all the functions. When we project onto the opposite gender (I say this for gender fluidity and to be inclusive of same sex relationships), one will be the NF projection (by the masculine) and one will be the ST projection (by the feminine). Integration doesn't care what one's preferred functions are. Through integration of the Shadow, which comes before integration of the anima/us, one has already confronted and faced their two shadow functions. The Anima/-us is the next stage after that. And, after that, the next stage is integration of Self, Ego, and Persona.

Note that persona/personality integration is last.

Edit: Also, the Anima-us complex comes not only from the personal conscious/unconscious but also from the collective conscious/unconscious and this is probably also why the masculine is associated with ST and the feminine with NF. It's very Eastern in origin and more like yen/yang in that way.

nonnaci · Jul 22, 2019

brightflashes said:
I have an interesting Animus relationship that is similar to my loving boyfriend's.

The biggest difference is that when I'm spending time with my loving boyfriend since he's also interested in integration (even if he doesn't use that word particularly - we study Jung together), the anima-us relationship is much more conscious. Because it's conscious I see him more as a mirror to bounce myself back on. And together, I just want him to live his best life and continue to evolve etc ...

How do you experience your animus relationship with your boyfriend? As a guy, my direct experience with the anima are moods / affect / interest, and the occasion fantasy / dream. The latter is most useful as it gives intellect some content to interpret and draw from. The former is made conscious through how it influences my body language, mannerisms, and resonance with different music.

Now it's not that I don't want hornpipe2 to do that, but that I see him completely different from my loving boyfriend. hornpipe2 is my life partner. We take care of each other and share our lives together. There's more chemistry there. Of course I want him to live his best life, but there's a sort of personal investment I can't really explain that is inherent in my relationship to boyfriend which makes that easier for me to see - some times I really don't know what hornpipe2 needs to live his best life.

In the essay "Marriage as a Psychological Relationship" in Development of Personality by Jung, there is a compelling story about how, inevitably, one will reach a point in a marriage/partnership where one of the couples will want to continue to reach for something more and more complex (not to say that simple is lesser because it's not) and that usually happens to people at such-and-such an age and there tends to be an incongruence when this happens. Jung uses this desire to strive toward integration as an explanation on why people have affairs with others and what one can do about anima-us projection when this happens to ensure that won't happen.

I've surmised that the honey-moon period in romantic relationships is indeed the phase of mutual anima/us projection. What's interesting is that people serially breakup and fall for the same type of person as if they failed to integrate the anima/us content; probably a way telling consciousness to notice the pattern previously missed.

You also mentioned that a person can be target of projection of different stages of the anima/us. How does this work once content from lower stages have been assimilated into consciousness and can no longer be deemed projections?

Edit to add: Where did you get the characterisation of Eve, Helen, Mary, and Sophia from? I haven't seen this particular one and it's quite different from what I have read elsewhere (Directly from Jung in Aion part III: The Syzygy Anima & Animus). It really simplifies Eve and Helen instead of making them the woman of desire and the woman of love/inspiration. Mary being the woman of virtue and Sophia being the woman of wisdom. I'm just curious who wrote it?

I believe the paraphrasing came from a secondary source, Daryl Sharp’s Digesting Jung. Tangentially, Aion and part of Civilization in Transition gave me an answer that I was looking for:

Theshadow can be realized only througha relation to a partner, andanima and animus only through a relation to the opposite sex,because only in such a relation do their projections becomeoperative. The recognitionof anima or animus gives rise, in aman, to a triad, one third of which is transcendent: the masculine subject, the opposing feminine subject, and the transcendent anima.

Namely that integrating anima content required actual experiencing of projections and relation with a person instead of merely intellectualizing it by reading Jung. This was a bit on the nose as the anima figure in recent dreams hinted that short-cutting the entire process this way wasn't going to work and that I need to temporarily sacrifice comfort/knowledge and just trust her.

nonnaci · Jul 22, 2019

brightflashes said:
The Anima, by nature is NF and the Animus by nature is ST. However, this has nothing to do with psychological type other than we all have all the functions. When we project onto the opposite gender (I say this for gender fluidity and to be inclusive of same sex relationships), one will be the NF projection (by the masculine) and one will be the ST projection (by the feminine).

I wouldn't characterize either natures as NF / ST as the four stages in both ran the gamut from fulfilling physical to spiritual growth and remain secondary to the aims of forming relationships (Eros) and making discrimination (Logos). It may so happen that later stages are arrested by constraints placed by society in the form of single-pair bonding. One party may out-grow the other but isn't willing to pay the social cost of separation to explore other people. There could be difficulties converting the existing relationship into a relationship of love for the other person instead of one's inner anima/us once the projections and excitement has subsided. In this sense, the early stages would fall closer to SF / ST and be more widely known by the collective.

Aletheia · Jul 22, 2019

I hesitate slightly to divulge my own experience of Animus, just because it has been such a working, long, personal process. But I figure nothing I say can fully reveal too much of it, so I'll paint a general picture.

As a child, I remember my Animus showing up mainly as various wild animals in my dreams. These animals still show up now, but to a lesser degree.
My Animus has been woven into a fairly heavy father complex which has him most often showing up in my dreams as a a negative Animus, a shadow-y figure; sometimes a trickster, and usually "out to get me." It's been clear that the positive-masuculine really hasn't been well constellated in me, but it's something that I'm working on with... just getting more real life experience of what the masculine is apart from my complexes surrounding it.
There was a period of time, about 4ish years ago where I would consider myself "Animus possessed" and was really wound up in an overly-intellectual approach at the expense of a lot of different parts of self.
Over the last year or two my Animus has shown up often as a young man, early 20s, kind of ESTPish; the definition of virility and aliveness.
There's been a couple times where my Animus has appeared as an older, wise, loving man.

Red Panda · Jul 22, 2019

nonnaci said:
Unfortunately, the only comparison I found between anima / animus and ego is the reversed attitude (introversion / extroversion) of the image; Jung seems firm in stating that the anima / animus are Eros / Logos archetypes and less related to ego differentiation. That is, Jung isn't making the claim that men are more rational and woman are feeling oriented, but that men possess a complex that activates feelings/moods/emotions and that woman has a complex capable of thoughts/opinion. Once such percepts reaches the ego, my take is that the conscious cognitive functions can start processing them. This seems more of an existential claim that NT women and SF men are realizable because the former has an origin or source for thought/opinion and the latter for feeling/moods. This is not to say that SF men are more rational than NT women as the former lacks differentiated thinking.

OK, but I have questions here: what does it mean to have a complex that activates 'feelings' and 'thoughts/opinion'? what's the difference here between men and women? if men have a complex that activates feelings, what does that mean about their ability for thoughts/opinions, is that complex related or not? and vice versa.

nonnaci · Jul 22, 2019

Red Panda said:
OK, but I have questions here: what does it mean to have a complex that activates 'feelings' and 'thoughts/opinion'? what's the difference here between men and women? if men have a complex that activates feelings, what does that mean about their ability for thoughts/opinions, is that complex related or not? and vice versa.

Jung seems vague about the latter question with regards to the source of Male Logos and Female Eros, attributing them possibly to nature (essential-ism) and Eastern ideas of Yin/yang from various cross-cultural studies. The initial idea derives from his intuitions https://frithluton.com/articles/logos/ which he admits is regrettable from the scientific pov. Modern biological len takes us into realm of early hormonal effects of prenatal brain development and developmental sex-differences, object vs relationship preferences, etc.

brightflashes · Jul 22, 2019

@nonnaci, @Aletheia

Jung goes into the Anima being NF and the Animus being ST in the essay I mentioned. Again, it's called "Marriage as a Psychological Relationship" and it's found within his book Development of Personality.

The comparison was not to the Introversion/Extraversion, but that the NF reveals the hidden, more instinctual areas of the self while ST reveals the actual and true areas of the self. NF just happens to be more inward focused or yielding while ST happens to be more outward focused or forceful.

As for my relationship with the two men, I have already revealed all that I am comfortable revealing. I have intimacy issues and I don't share private matters with others. Simply put, to answer your line of questioning, the executive function of the brain can override projection. For those few who know me, everything that I have said about hp2 and boyfriend makes perfect sense.

Still, the most important overarching idea here is this: Once The Anima/us Complex Becomes Conscious It Cannot Be Unconscious. If one doesn't integrate at this point, that's up to them. Projecting the anima/us roles onto people is similar to what we do when we project any sort of personality onto someone. The Anima/us projection just makes it easier to gain intimacy with another human being as well as the self.

Given that I'm talking openly about hp2 and boyfriend one can deffo imagine that regardless of how deeply they understand Jung, they are certainly conscious of their anima projections.

Besides, I'm sure we all know at least one of those very charismatic people who it is all too easy to project anima/-us levels onto. I know quite a few of these myself. Most people recognize these projections in the Entertainment Business usually. Jung also mentions women who are particularly easy to project the anima onto in the same Essay I mentioned in my first reply.

I've surmised that the honey-moon period in romantic relationships is indeed the phase of mutual anima/us projection.

I understand that this so-called "honeymoon phase" is something that most people experience, but it isn't my experience of love or romance. So far, from what I have read and studied of Jung, I have not in a formal or casual setting been made aware of whether or not mutual projection is some sort of honeymoon.

I can say though that by its nature, the anima/animus complex is supposed to be mostly an unconscious thing. If we were to know what we were getting into (if we were conscious) when making these unconscious projections, I think most of us would run away when they happened.
- - - - - - - - - -

That said, I've noticed that I tend to grow a bit impatient with those who attempt to bring all of these aspects of Jung's entire theory of Self into typology. It simply doesn't work that way. Jung's Collected works is a great place to start to genuinely begin to understand what he means by the Anima and Animus.

I have a sort of Kassandra complex when it comes to these subjects lately. I say something that is true, no one listens. I call on @Dissymetry to verify it, he repeats the exact thing only in a male voice, and then everyone believes him. So I may as well bring him into this now.

Aletheia · Jul 22, 2019

Ah, interesting @brightflashes. I can't say I've read that title from Jung, but I've come across his thoughts on Marriage as a Psychological Relationship in Aspects of the Feminine. Which, now that I think of it, is really just a compilation of Jung's works describing how the feminine shows up in the psyches of men and of women.

I could see there being room to make the association between ST and Logos and NF and Eros but only loosely and as the archetypes present collectively. Animus and Anima are individualized, and in that, aren't bound to any one portrayal of the masculine or feminine. You may be familiar with how the inferior function can often play a role in how the Anima or Animus shows up, and acting as a bridge to the unconscious in that way; seated just at the precipice and doorway there. I've come across men with distinctly ST Lilith-esque Animas and everything in between.

brightflashes · Jul 22, 2019

Aletheia said:
You may be familiar with how the inferior function can often play a role in how the Anima or Animus shows up, and acting as a bridge to the unconscious in that way; seated just at the precipice and doorway there. I've come across men with distinctly ST Lilith-esque Animas and everything in between.

Yes, I am familiar with this non-Jungian theory (I do believe it's a psychodynamic theory, however). Jung, however, states that the shadow is faced (made conscious) and integrated previous to the anima/animus integration. One can very easily fall into love - or lust or whatever - with a shadow figure previous to integration of the shadow. After all, one typically does need a partner to help integrate the shadow. And this is true also of one needing a member of the opposite gender (again, I emphasise this to allow for gender fluidity and same-sex relationships and such) to integrate the anima/-us complex.

Jung described the anima and animus as anthropomorphic archetypes of the unconscious mind. The Shadow, on the other hand, is theriomorphic and includes a collection of shadow archetypes (this is why people oftentimes refer to criminals as "animals", because criminal activity is so much in the shadow that it is seen as removed from humanity).

Oftentimes the anima/-us complex and the Shadow complex overlap a great deal.

Someone earlier mentioned that they don't "identify" with the animus and I made note it was a male. It wouldn't make sense for me to identify with an anima or for a male to identify with the animus though it's not entirely impossible by any means. One identifies, instead with their opposite gender projection. After all, isn't love the search for the missing piece of one's soul? While this might sound as though it's overly romantic, Jung's Anima/-us theory is based, in part, on the split-soul theory laid out in Plato's Symposium.

Interestingly enough, I have yet to come across any information straight from Jung that contradicts that a female can't have an anima projection and be more in touch with her animus or that a male can't have an animus projection and be more in touch with his anima.

Just to be clear, the name of the essay IS "Marriage as a Psychological Relationship" and is found in the book Personality Development by Jung.

Integrating the Anima / Animus

nonnaci

Red Panda

nonnaci

AnneM

nonnaci

AnneM

Red Panda

nonnaci

Red Panda

nonnaci

brightflashes

brightflashes

nonnaci

nonnaci

Aletheia

Red Panda

nonnaci

brightflashes

Aletheia

brightflashes

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities