Understanding the Archetypes involving the eight functions of type (Beebe model)
The key to understanding exactly how functions play out in each type are the archetypes. Jung's larger theories included hundreds of archetypes, which are "character roles" of sorts, within the psyche. A handful of these began to be associated with the function positions in each type, most notably by Jungian analyst John Beebe.
First, we need to understand that functions (S, N, T, F) or "function attitudes" (Xe, Xi), are perspectives; not behaviors or skills-sets as they are often treated. Both Simulatedworld and I have been emphasizing this, as it is one of the keys to understanding how they work.
We also should know something about Jung's division of the psyche or "larger Self".
Archetypes are basically defined as "a way of organizing human experience that gives it collective meaning". The conglomeration of images, memories, and emotions surrounding an archetypal core, but unique to ourselves. So one such human experience involves "heroically" solving a problem. That is one archetype. Another experience is supporting others. Another one is looking up to others to support us. And another is finding completeness.
While our type preference lies in the ego, which is the conscious part of the psyche, the archetypes lie in the unconscious part, specifically in the area that is "collective", meaning shared by all people.
The easiest example of the unconscious is simply things we've forgotten. It's still buried in the memory somewhere; we just can no longer readily bring it up consciously. It may come up on its own through dreams, déja-vu's, sudden flashes of memory under stress, etc. Those are personal forms of unconsciousness. There are others that are collective, which are not based on our own memory, but nevertheless shape aspects of human existence such as our inherited images of male and female, good and evil, love and power, that are represented in all cultures.
When we have individual experiences that fit into these particular collective frames of organization we are discussing, and form a pattern in us, they then enter the personal part of the unconscious, and become complexes. The archetype is at the core of the complex. And then the archetype forms an encasement around the function. The function then becomes the operational perspective or "world-view" of that complex.
Thus we develop an inferiority complex around the inferior function, a superiority complex around the superior function, a "best auxiliary" complex (the caretaker) around the auxiliary function, and an "eternal child" complex around the tertiary function. (Beebe)
However, the ego can still access the function apart from the archetypal "shell". Hence, what many people need to realize is that the function is not fated to be equal to its archetypal carrier. This leaves room for the functions to step away from their carriers and operate independently of what brought them into the ego, and for the carriers to go on being their archetypal selves in the background.
As Lenore Thomson has put it, "the products of undifferentiated functions are capable of reaching consciousness, but only in so far as they're linked to the 'operating charter' of the network our differentiated function has set up. This diverts their potential energic investment to dominant goals."
When it's linked to the ego's "network" of the operating charter, it can be "scooped out" of the unconscious shell as needed, as Beebe has put it. This process is still enabled by insight into the original role through which the function attitude has been led to express itself before it becomes part of directed consciousness.
When a functional product is not linked to the network of the differentiated standpoint, then it remains conflated with one of the archetypal complexes, at the limbic level of emotional response.
The full name of these elements is function[-attitude] complexes, or "Archetypal Complexes Carrying the Eight Functions", rather than reducing the complexes to the archetypes or the archetypes to the complexes
Lenore Thomson (who has added discussion of Beebe's model to her theory since writing her book) emphasizes the archetypes being complexes.
To start to understand the archetypes, we first need to understand the process of how they differentiate. This will give an idea of why each particular archetype falls in each particular position. The purpose is to present the eight archetypal complexes in a way where they are not conflated with the eight "Xx" "processes" as if often done.
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 by the ego: the external world and the other three functions; Feeling along with both perceiving, which remain undifferentiated. (They are engaged, but not as conscious ego functions, and not really distinguished in orientation, though Jung said they would be associated with the rejected orientation; this case being the outer world).
"Whatever we habitually put aside to make our willful conscious choices will inevitably make its alliance with the unconscious -- emotions we don't want to feel, desires we don't recognize, etc. That is, the hero who has successfully established a sense of self and assimilated the good, supportive aspects of a Parental figurewill be compensated, in the unconscious, by everything s/he's rejected as not part of this self." (Lenore Thomson, Personality Pathways article)
In Jung's theory, the orientations are more attached to the ego itself, than to the functions themselves. So there are really four functions, which the ego engages in one of two different orientations, generating eight "function-attitudes".
Soon, an auxiliary will be chosen, which will be of the rejected perceiving mode of processing, as well as it being in the rejected outer orientation.
These two functions will become apart of heroic and parental complexes.
A "child" complex will take on the opposite process from the auxiliary, and align it with the dominant attitude. (Tertiary Temptation, where the tertiary is more a defense mode that provides justification for remaining in the dominant atitude when the person avoids the tempering influence of the auxiliary).
This is why the tertiary ends up as the same attitude as the dominant, where it was initially thought to be the opposite attitude, like the auxiliary and inferior. On one hand, the ego tends to reject everything else from its dominant orientation, but then you have one of these complexes bringing one of the other functions into the dominant realm, as a sort of backup.
The opposite function from the dominant, Feeling, will be inferior and most rejected, yet in the opposite outer orientation will be what the ego believes will complete it.
Of course, we often from here get the question of what about the "other four" processes for each type. This is where Beebe came in with his "eight-process model".
In the older theory, the inferior had been deemed what is known as the "shadow"; basically the least conscious part of the psyche. The type with the same four functions in reverse (inferior as hero, tertiary as aux., etc.; the type with all four letters opposite, or "inverse relationship" according to Beebe) was deemed the "shadow type", with a negative manifestation of it erupting under stress. (See www.teamtechnology.co.uk/myersbriggs.html)
Beebe determined that the inferior was actually apart of the "ego-syntonic" (or primary) range, along with the first three, but that it did border on the true "shadow" or "ego-dystonic" range, which is an even less conscious realm where these supposed "other" four processes lied.
(So the true "shadow type" would actually end up as the one sharing only the two middle letters, or its inverse, sharing the first and last letter!)
Recall, there are really only four functions, which an ego receives stimulation through in an inner or outer orientation, rejecting the unchosen orientation into the unconscious.
So what Beebe's concept of the shadow really is, is a glimpse into these suppressed orientations of both the functions and the complexes that employ them.
The "hero" degrades into an "opposing personality" receiving stimulation from the dominant function in its suppressed opposite orientation. (This is one of two Beebe named himself. In Jung's conception, it was just a "negative hero"). Since we're now tapping [further] into what has been rejected from the consciousness by the ego, this, (along with the next three) will often come out in a negative fashion. Yet this one does also back up and fill in the blind spots of the hero. (It is also said to often be the opposite sex, like the anima).
The "parent" splits off a "critical" version of itself receiving stimulation from the auxiliary function in the opposite orientation. Beebe matched this to Jung's "witch" and "senex" (old man) archetypes (for females and males, respectively). Its good side is that it can provide profound wisdom.
The negative aspect of the "child" receives its stimulation from the opposite orientation of the tertiary and becomes a bratty "bad child", associated with Jung's "trickster" archetype. It creates double binds for self and especially others, and its good side is comedic relief.
The anima or "soul" is shadowed by a "demon" which receives its stimulation from the opposite orientation of the inferior. (This is the other one named by Beebe; a "negative anima", and it appears a "double negative" principle leads to it being the same gender as the person). Since that was already the most rejected area, then its shadow manifests in a particularly destructive fashion. It can also become an "angel" or "transformer" in bad situations.
The resulting order, it must be stressed, is not to be assumed to be strength. And even though we have used "shadow" as the group of bottom four, even that is not a hard division. According to Mark Hunziker and Leona Haas Building Blocks of Personality Type (Unite Business Press, a division of Telos, 2006):
Actually, the shadow encompasses all processes that are primarily unconscious in an individual. Which processes these are will depend on that person'a type development and can even include all eight in a very young child. Note also, that the normal hierarchy of preference for processes five through eight has not yet been empirically established, and in practice is likely to vary from person to person. Beebe cautions us not to assume too much on the basis of his numbering, which in many ways is simply for convenience in identifying the various positions. He simply puts it forth as a tool that he has found useful and informative and which at least for the first four functions seems to reflect the order of conscious cultivation of the functions that he has observed. The numbers for the shadow functions are identified merely to mirror the ordering of the first four.
(Glossary: "Shadow", p. 215, emphasis added)
Lenore points out to me, "The eight-function model is basically a diagram of the several complexes that are normally activated when an ego-identity is established. It isn't telling you how the functions are going to operate when they're 'used.' It's telling you how the complexes are going to operate when they're influencing one's behavior".
Beebe had also named the two tandems. The hero and anima are called the "spine" of consciousness. The parent and child are called the "arm". Since each tandem will consist of either judgment or perception functions, Beebe terms them "rational" or "irrational", being Jung's terms for judgment and perception.
Beebe has made diagrams of these tandems crossing each other, with the spine as vertical, and the arm horizontal, so that it actually looks like a sort of skeletal frame. (And the dominant function is called the "head" while the inferior is the "tail"). But it actually means more than just that. As you may have noticed, the arm deals specifically with our relations to others. The spine, encompassing our main ego function, and the "soul", deals with our relationship to our own selves.
These are set in place by the dominant and auxiliary functions. The dominant is our ego's operating charter, and the auxiliary is what we often use with others. So it's like the tertiary and inferior as a pair are a mirror image of the dominant and aux. as far as the kind of function, and whether it is associated with self, or with others.
As Beebe has expressed it; the spine, which in defining our identity concerns itself more with what we can be or do in and for ourselves. The arm is more focused on the ways in which we use our consciousnesses to reach out to others. Think; a child will look up to others (for help, approval, etc). Just like the parent will try to help children.
This will prove very helpful in understanding his model, and identifying where particular functions fit in determining a type.
The different tandems also carry over into the shadow. All four complexes tend to be very negative towards both self and others, but the opposing personality and demon, as the shadow of the spine, will be more connected with the self (ego). The witch/senex and trickster, as the arm will be more about "tying down" others to get them off our backs. Hence, you will see the "Oppositional" process described in Linda Berens' books as being "stubborn" about things, while the "critical parent" is more sharply "critical", and described elsewhere in terms of "low blows" and "looks that stop you dead in your tracks". One is primarily serving the ego it is shadowing, while the other is focused on dealing with the other person.
There also are simply the consecutive pairs, which in Socionics, are called "blocks".
The dominant and auxiliary, will be more developed and mature, and the tertiary and inferior (when they develop, in coming years) will be less developed and immature, from being initially rejected and thus lower on the acceptance order from the first two. This will set the stage for the archetypal roles or complexes mapped to the functions.
Also, from what I have seen, the blocks will also parallel. The opposing and witch will reflect the confidence of the hero and parent in a very aggressive way. The trickster and demon, while not really "vulnerable" themselves like the child and anima, nevertheless will compensate for the vulnerability of those complexes, and thus come out very reactively. We are still vulnerable in situations that call for the 7th and 8th functions (like for me, certain physical acts such as walking elevated tracks).
The Trickster and Demon function influenced decisions particularly are said to end up being regretted because they usually erupt in such a rash manner from being the most suppressed, and in the more vulnerable areas.
So now, we can make generic terms for the eight archetypes. They can be reduced down to three variables which should give a more concise idea of what they are about:
positive (primary) vs negative (shadow)
confident (top two of four functions) vs vulnerable (bottom two)
ego-focused (spine) vs others-focused (arm)
hero: positive, confident, ego-focused
parent: positive, confident, others-focused
child: positive, vulnerable, others-focused
anima: positive, vulnerable, ego-focused
opposing: negative, confident, ego-focused
witch/senex: negative, confident, others-focused
trickster: negative, vulnerable (compensatory), others-focused
demon: negative, vulnerable (compensatory), ego-focused