Personality Cafe banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,531 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I read something interesting recently on EricB's site: Understanding the Archetypes involving the eight functions of type (Beebe model)

I will be quoting the parts relevant to the thread title then I will comment on it at the end of the post. You can skip some of the quote if it's too long :p


First some generic stuff about the relationship of dominant function vs suppressed functions and about projection (I'm leaving out archetypes/complexes explanation, too long already, just click on the link if you want that):

"The ego starts with its preferred comfort zone of the inner or outer world. The ego chooses its dominant function, which it uses in its preferred realm.

If Thinking (for instance) is chosen as the dominant, and in the internal world, then everything else is rejected or suppressed by the ego: the external world and the other three functions (...)

(...) Another way of portraying this unconscious realm is that the ego's bright light of awareness focuses on one part of reality, plunging the rest into darkness.

What happens is that the person basically sees the part of themselves that perceives and judges through the rejected perspective in the worst light, then suppresses this sense in themselves, and projects it at others instead.

(...) What the complexes are all about is projection. The complexes (especially the shadows) are what we project onto others, and the goal of ego-development is to "own" them, and see them as apart of ourselves.

(...) When we project the encompassing complexes onto people, they seem to fit those roles, likely through the lens of the function-attitude in that position in some way, and we react often antagonistically in kind through that function. Or, they might genuinely be fitting the role in their own behavior. Projection can be "positive" as well, though that can still ultimately become a negative thing. The anima projection on a loved one is an example (and there is a danger of becoming over possessive, or the feelings seeming to go away when the sense of "otherness" about the person wears off), and we also are projecting onto people when we are jealous of them, thinking they have something we don't.

To own the complex instead of projecting it at others, we must see ourselves as playing those roles; our own worst enemies.

This is hard, because these parts of us are what we have shut out of our consciousness.

When we withdraw the complex, we then become more receptive to interpretations of situations through the function that has become embedded in the complex's archetype. We can then experience the positive side of the perspective more."




Now about the inferior function itself:

"ANIMA (inferior, aspirational)
What it is about, and which function it encases:

The collecting place of our sense of "otherness", including life, libido and and instinctual energies. The word means "soul". Shaped largely by the parent of the opposite sex, projected onto those we fall in love with, and encases the inferior function.

We likely feel inferior in both the internal or external orientation, and the functional perspective associated with the inferior.

(...) In each case, there's a deep down inside longing for what they are brushing off, that they might realize if they look for it. Espsecially in mid-life, when individuation takes us inward.

We (at least unconsciously) feel we would be best completed in the orientation by someone by our side who somehow fulfills the perspective. (Since this is a projection onto the person, they are not necessarily a type that prefers the function).

I imagine this might come out in the emotional images that surface when we think of a beautiful romantic day:

ISxJ's exploring new possibilities, to "create new memories".
INxJ's enjoying rigorous tangible experience together, and extracting meaning from it.
IxTP's strolling through a beautiful setting involving an atmosphere colored by other people; admiring technical things.
IxFP's working side by side at some sort of logical organization with a humanitarian purpose.
ESxP's someone to get lost with in a world of conceptual frameworks such as archetypes and symbolism, and then realizing their dreams.
ENxP's enjoying nostalgia together, and exploring them as exciting possibilities
ExTJ's someone who gives them a sense of personal integrity, giving them further incentive for their logical ordering.
ExFJ's exoploring technical wonders, and feeling connected through this.

Yet in real life, no one can ever fulfill this ideal companion, so we tend to just find fault with people who use the opposite perspective.

Since in the typical Beebe order where the eight are evenly divided four and four, the inferior usually falls on the "ego-syntonic" side, where the next four are "ego-dystonic" and negative. So Berens includes it with the first three as generally positive, having a negative side, rather than generally negative, having positive side.
So the "negative" side of this "aspirational" function she calls "projective"; and often the first aspect of it experienced. We "project our fears, shoulds and negativities onto others". What happens, is that it basically shapes ideals we feel inferior in, which are then projected outward at others by thinking of them as what they "should" do.

In reality, it is all the shadows or unconscious complexes that get projected onto others. Of course, this harmonized with standard four-process theory, where the inferior IS considered to be the whole "shadow".

So that is another aspect of the inferior projection besides just the opposite gender stuff.

How to own it
:
We see others as completing us (i.e. we're inferior), but we need to see this completeness in ourselves. We need to become better at what we feel inferior at ourselves, rather than placing demands on others.
In the deeper Jungian concept, there is also a whole sense of "libido" or "life-giving energy" we tend to project onto the opposite sex (especially men projecting onto women). When we come to see this in ourselves, we will withdraw the projections, and also again gain more access to the unconscious. The anima/animus then becomes a "sage", and ultimately, an inner source of wisdom. There are two links on the anima below (Donald Kalsched, Paul Watsky) which will provide more information on this.

What is trying to be brought into consciousness is the need to own the shadow; what is "not I", the ego-dystonic; and a good place to start is with the [yet ego-syntonic] perspective of the opposite function and orientation together. "




OK, so the point here is really interesting if you try to compare it to what socionics says about duality relations. Especially if you consider socionics says nothing about projection vs the other person actually having what we unconsciously look for and also nothing about how self development vs expecting to just find it in someone else works out. I did see some socionics text mention that the differences of partners in duality are not necessarily that great but it still states that duality is the best kind of relation psychologically. That sounds overly optimistic compared to this Beebe model I was quoting from here. Also this model includes a lot more, encompasses what socionics says about dual-seeking but goes much further than that.


What do you think? Which do you think is closer to reality? Real life examples welcome too. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,510 Posts
No, it wasn't. I think the problem is that Beebe understands the anima somewhat differently than Jung did, since Beebe sees anima/animus as a complex solely, whereas to Jung it was simply one archetype often associated with the inferior function (he makes some vague passage/remark/association to this) but it certainly doesn't have to be.

I also think the problem with Eric B's description here is that he doesn't explain what the archetypes are. The anima archetype is essentially, from a male perspective( the female-counterpart is called animus) all that which is seen as female. It's the essential idea of femininity and female-ness. We can project this idea onto people of the opposite sex, but Jung stresses that this doesn't mean that the person who is subject to this projection has to actually think according to what would be the inferior e.g. Ni type man projects on Se woman, but Ni type man could equally project on Te woman as long as he perceives her to have the qualities he thinks she represents his anima.

Jung also wrote that anima/animus is actually crucial in the shaping of relationships among people, and the problem is only in individuals whose concept of anima/animus is disturbed. Jung does draw some inspiration from Freud's childhood development ideas regarding sexuality here (though he doesn't mention Freud, but I think reading this part made it obvious it is part inspired by Freud), in that he notes how we can draw and create ideal images based on say, the parent of the opposite sex or simply how the household itself is organized. So if one's relationship to the opposite sex is dysfunctional (never liked the heteronormative view on anima/animus and Beebe hasn't addressed this either) then the complex is a way to understand why it is dysfunctional.

Jung also notes though elsewhere, that opposites attract seemed to be common. He for example mentioned a couple where the woman, I think, was a feeler, and the man a thinker and how, despite their differences and quarrels, yet seemed inextricably drawn to each other. So I think what Augusta took inspiration from with her idea regarding duality is this part of Jung's writings.

I definitely think Augusta is right also that duality is in fact a positive relationship and not a negative one, in that a healthy dual relationship can serve to create a bridge to the inferior and allow one to engage the inferior in a way that feels more comfortable because the ego is too incapable of doing it on its own, so one can achieve pretty much what Eric B writes in the above regarding the anima/animus.

Being good friends with a dual for some time now, I can also definitely say this is very true, and what Augusta notes about duality is also true. For one, I definitely find the thinking of my dual foreign, but not foreign as I find it when I engage people from other quadras. Instead, I often find it rather curious and interesting, and I can also find the perspectives she offers to be very refreshing. She has a tendency to nudge me in a direction that does force me to engage the inferior, though now, this being an internet relationship certainly diminishes this factor considering the physical nature of my inferior, but she does it in situations where I definitely feel weak and need help.

In conflict situations for instance, I might feel incapable of, in a socionics sense, manifesting the physical force necessary to control the situation in a way that feels desirable. She might then suggest me to do it instead of running away from the situation, while yet not forcing me to do anything since that would equally result in an unpleasant situation and would have negative psychological impacts.

So one does definitely not have to project the anima/animus on the dual and I would say that the notion of the dual is actually somewhat separate from the notion of anima/animus. Anima/animus is an ideal of one's opposite partner, and I would say that to a degree also, inability to satisfy the anima/animus will results in a complex where it is projected on other people but it doesn't have to be.

Regarding Jung's other ideas about gender pertaining to heteronormativity, I don't agree with them. He never mentions what would happen if a homosexual man is attracted to another man in terms of anima/animus, since I think that entirely contradicts his idea of duality in general that is an over-arching theme in his works. That's too unfortunate as a homosexual myself. He might even perhaps have viewed it as a complex though my impression overall was that Jung was quite the accepting man and didn't care much about what people did or thought as long as it worked for them.

But essentially, what Beebe claims is that anima/animus is simply the projection of the inferior's negative traits (because it certainly has positive ones too) onto other people the ego thinks represents the inferior, but they do not have to themselves in fact, have the inferior as their egoic type, whereas in Jung, anima/animus is an important factor that determines the success of interpersonal relationships, both romantic and platonic. It can thus be a source of both great frustration (Jung notes how many people chasing their anima/animus end up first being extremely passionate but over time it develops into a largely negative relationship) but also pleasure, in that a more healthy attitude towards the anima/animus would probably, if I understood Jung right and in this case I am quite sure that I did, lead to the development of healthy relationships. Of course we can develop relationships without anima/animus being involved at all, but I think Jung is right in the sense that we do kind of seek for that we find ideal in others and within ourselves, and when it works and is more wholly incorporated, we will definitely experience a greater satisfaction with life than we don't. One can thus equally argue that engaging in a relationship with someone who say, might repel one's idea of anima/animus could end up equally badly. It should play a large role when it comes to attraction.

Making up a random scenario, but I think a decent example is someone who is unfaithful but married. So we have this man/woman who is in a marriage but doesn't like their partner anymore and thus sleeps with others on the side, still seeking anima/animus because the partner for one reason or the other no longer seems sufficient and capable of living to the ideal partner. I am quite sure Jung would for instance attribute this to problems regarding anima/animus.

Anyway, I also think I am inclined to side with Augusta's view here, rather than Beebe. She has an overall more positive and healthier attitude towards the human psyche, I think. Duality and anima/animus might thus partly be coincidental in such a sense, here, in that in perhaps, healthier individuals, it often overlaps. I think it is too stereotypical to say that if we have this stereotype girl who only chases bad boys, they would all be of the same cognitive type. They might perhaps have superficial traits in common that would, in a general sense, be attributed to the inferior, but they certainly don't have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
587 Posts
ISxJ's exploring new possibilities, to "create new memories".
INxJ's enjoying rigorous tangible experience together, and extracting meaning from it.
IxTP's strolling through a beautiful setting involving an atmosphere colored by other people; admiring technical things.
IxFP's working side by side at some sort of logical organization with a humanitarian purpose.
ESxP's someone to get lost with in a world of conceptual frameworks such as archetypes and symbolism, and then realizing their dreams.
ENxP's enjoying nostalgia together, and exploring them as exciting possibilities
ExTJ's someone who gives them a sense of personal integrity, giving them further incentive for their logical ordering.
ExFJ's exoploring technical wonders, and feeling connected through this.
Maybe the people of certain subtypes should observe the ideal of the the type that has it as base.


How to own it
:
We see others as completing us (i.e. we're inferior), but we need to see this completeness in ourselves. We need to become better at what we feel inferior at ourselves, rather than placing demands on others.
In the deeper Jungian concept, there is also a whole sense of "libido" or "life-giving energy" we tend to project onto the opposite sex (especially men projecting onto women). When we come to see this in ourselves, we will withdraw the projections, and also again gain more access to the unconscious. The anima/animus then becomes a "sage", and ultimately, an inner source of wisdom. There are two links on the anima below (Donald Kalsched, Paul Watsky) which will provide more information on this.

What is trying to be brought into consciousness is the need to own the shadow; what is "not I", the ego-dystonic; and a good place to start is with the [yet ego-syntonic] perspective of the opposite function and orientation together. "
So, an attempt at self-dualization...the attempt might end up unbalancing and distracting the person overall. The ego functions are stronger only because the others are weaker. It could undo some life training in compensating with your stronger ego functions. Why dig so deep into your unconscious in the first place? It would make sense for therapeutic purposes with external guidance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,531 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Maybe the people of certain subtypes should observe the ideal of the the type that has it as base.
what subtypes?


So, an attempt at self-dualization...the attempt might end up unbalancing and distracting the person overall. The ego functions are stronger only because the others are weaker. It could undo some life training in compensating with your stronger ego functions. Why dig so deep into your unconscious in the first place? It would make sense for therapeutic purposes with external guidance.
Would it only happen if one explicitly tried to dig into their unconscious?
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top