Jungian Archetypes for Men: Jesus

Posted on January 4, 2010

[Paul C. Vitz is Professor of Psychology/Senior Scholar at the Institute for the Psychological Sciences and Professor of Psychology Emeritus at New York University. He is our guest blogger for the month of January, and this is his first post].

            After Sigmund Freud certainly the most influential psychological theorist has been the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung. The two major concepts in his writings about personality are archetypes and the psychotherapeutic goal of individuation or self realization. Self realization proposed as the goal of Jungian therapy and indeed of life in general is certainly not for Christians where the goal instead is Christ realization. After all, the Gospels focus on “not my will but God’s be done.” Instead, the original temptation found in Genesis is for each of us to “become as God”. Thus, to propose self realization as the goal of life or psychotherapy is a foundational error for any Christian. Jung’s proposal is a modern form of salvation through special esoteric psychological knowledge and hence a Gnostic answer to the purpose of life. This critical understanding of Jung from different perspectives has been made by various authors. Some of the most interesting for Christians are “The Aryan Christ: The Secret life of Carl Jung” (1997) by the psychologist and historian of science Richard Noll; “The Empty Self: C.G. Jung & the Gnostic Transformation of Modern Identity” (1996) by Jeffrey Satinover a psychiatrist and former president of the American C.G. Jung Foundation; “The Healing Presence”, especially chapter 14, (1995) by a leader in Christian healing Leanne Payne. In my own writing I have also identified the serious conflict between Christianity and major assumptions of Jung in Vitz, 1994.          

The essential dilemma in Jungian psychology is to use the self to realize or individuate the self. This circular logic leaves the person trapped in subjectivity and narcissism and incapable of responding to the nature of external reality, to an objective moral system and much less to a transcendent God outside of the self. The Jungian purpose of life, self realization, in any case is not part of science but is an ideological, philosophical and even theological addition to his presumably more objectively based psychology.

Basic Jungian Archetypes    

As noted, besides self realization the other major concept of Jungian psychology is the “archetype”. Archetypes are proposed as actual psychological realities capable of being known and a great deal of the popularity of Jung’s work derives from the many people who accept the reality of archetypes. Briefly, an archetype is an inherited mental structure with a latent content which is brought to a specific content by the person’s actual experience in his or her family and culture. Most of the archetypes are characters such as the “hero”, the “earth mother”, the “wise old man”, etc. The primary four Jungian archetypes, however, are more abstract but even they are typically experienced as characters. For example, the persona archetype which represents the public mask or face of a person may be symbolized in a man’s dream as a shallow salesman. The archetype of the self might be symbolized in a woman’s dream as a car driving recklessly out of control. A person’s shadow, the archetype of one’s unknown and in part dark or evil nature might be symbolized by dreaming about a waitng spider or raging bear attacking others; the archetype of a person’s animus or anima likewise would commonly be represented as a character. The animus archetype represents a woman’s unconscious male personality and symbolic representations of men and likewise the anima is a man’s unconscious female personality. Jungians often simply assume that each sex should get in touch with their animus/anima and integrate it into their personality. This proposal involves the assumption that such an inward looking often narcissistic preoccupation is a positive thing.  For a man to get in touch with his female archetype is to encourage androgyny at a time when men are commonly interpreted as not masculine enough. It seems far more reasonable that a man should start relating to a real woman outside of himself in order to appreciate women and femininity rather than cultivate some internal “female”. After all, just because men have nipples does not mean that they should take breast enhancement medicines.

 Jung did not provide a clear definition of an archetype so that one could reliably identify a new proposed archetype nor did he provide a standard list of archetypes, however, the concept has in a general way been accepted by many as valid. In proposing archetypes Jung was saying that in an important sense humans are born with  specific predispositions toward a limited set of human ideas normally symbolized and experienced as characters in dreams, myths, art and in stories found in all the worlds cultures.

            Although, the existence of Jung’s archetypes has been questioned, it will be assumed for present purposes that archetypes do have some validity in that they exist as important innate properties of the mind  and that the major archetypes identified by Jung and his followers can  be given credence. There are, of course, dangers associated with this assumption some of which will be discussed later. Keep in mind that should archetypes be rejected by subsequent research and reflection then the proposed Christian interpretation of archetypes would become irrelevant. That is, Christianity itself is in no way affected by the truth or falseness of the archetypes.

Four Archetypes and Male Psychology

 Certain contemporary Jungians, active in what some call the “Men’s movement” such as Robert Bly (1990), and especially Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette (1990), and Patrick Arnold (1992) have proposed four pri­mary archetypes as underlying male psychol­ogy. These are referred to as the archetype of the King, the Warrior, the Lover, and the Wiseman/ Magician. These archetypes are proposed as psychological representations of male personality that need to be experienced and reinforced in a  contemporary culture that no longer adequately recognizes and supports male psychological needs. Men have become confused about male identity in our androgynous or unisex society and need to get back in touch with these four innate masculine psychological structures.

            The first is the King archetype. By this Moore and Gillette mean a basic energy in men, focused on ordering-on the content of creating Right Order through wise ruling. The King archetype is also concerned with providing fertility and blessing. The King must have children and he must bless his Kingdom’s children. The King symbolizes the life force and balance; he is also a mentor.

            The Warrior archetype stands for male energy and aggressiveness, clear thinking in the presence of death, plus training to develop aggressiveness in a disciplined way. The Warrior shows loyalty to a transpersonal ideal -his God, or leader, or nation or another cause.

            The Magician archetype is the knower and master of technology. He is usually an initiate-that is, part of a secret religious world. He is an archetype of awareness, insight, thought­fulness and introspective reflection.

            The Lover archetype stands for passion and love. The Lover is very aware of the physical world, of sensations, sensuality and feeling. The Lover’s energies are close to those of the mystics. Artists and psychics represent com­mon professions of the Lover.

As described, any of these four archetypes can be distorted in a macho manner, or in a weak, wimp-like fashion. Moore and Gillette very clearly acknowledge that each of these basic male archetypes can be used for evil. They explicitly note that the King can be a tyrant or a weakling (macho or wimpo, if you will). They also admit that the Warrior can be cor­rupted into a sadist or masochist; the Magician can be a prideful manipulator or an envious weakling; the Lover can degenerate into an addicted, promiscuous Don Juan; or he can be impotent, depressed and uncommitted.

            The problem with this Jungian understand­ing of male archetypes is that however much these theorists decry the serious, harmful dis­tortions of these male archetypes, they offer no convincing method or model for avoiding the ways in which men have distorted these male tendencies to exploit or harm others-often women. These writers do attempt to give rationales in which the moral failures of men realizing their archetypes can be controlled but these moral positions do not naturally flow from Jungian theory and as noted above they are not convincing. A writer quite sympathetic to Jung, Morton Kelsey (1983) identifies the basic problem as follows “The archetype must be honored for what it is, an image outside of the self that calls us to growth, change and awareness. In its negative form it can equally call us to evil and destruction” (p. 8).

What is important and relevant here is that Jesus, who is our model of God the Father, is the perfect integra­tion of these four archetypes within a frame­work of servant leadership. This model also provides a clear answer to the moral issues raised by men expressing their archetypes. The moral framework is demonstrated in both his many actions and in his words about loving God and others, even one’s enemies.

 Specifically with respect to the archetypes themselves, that Jesus was a King is acknowledged in the liturgy at the last feast of the Christian year: Christ the King. At his birth, the Magi, and at his crucifixion he was identified as King. Jesus also is commonly referred to as our Lord. As a Warrior Jesus said that he had come to bring the sword; recall his attack on the money-changers in the Temple, his fierce crit­icisms of the Pharisees-all Warrior behaviors. Of course the primary battle that Jesus led was a spiritual battle. St. Paul frequently refers to our life as one of spiritual warfare, and so do many of the saints. That Jesus represents the archetype of Lover is essentially a “no brainer” as the expression goes. For Jesus the core of his message is one of love. In the Gospels that “God is love” is given prominence. He showed kindness and concern for the suffering of oth­ers so strong that it is no wonder that one of the great spiritual classics is titled “This Tremendous Lover” and a famous Protestant hymn is “Jesus Lover of My Soul.” He showed explicit love toward children-implicitly all children.

As for the archetype of Wiseman or Magician, Jesus was known as a rabbi or teacher who brought new teachings and who spoke with authority and great wisdom. He was also a frequent and great miracle worker.

 In short, Jesus represents, summa­rizes and integrates all these basic archetypes, most especially when he says “I and the Father are one.”  That is, the summarizing archetype for all men is that of “Father“. For a father is called to bring all four male archetypes together and live out all of them. He is the lover of his wife and children, a warrior for God and his family, a servant king within the household and at work, and a source of knowledge and wisdom about the world. So we see in these archetypes the model of Jesus as servant leader speaking to the needs and highest aspi­rations of male psychology. We also emphasize that Christian fatherhood is a genuine model for disciplining and controlling the strong tendency of men either to abuse oth­ers or to betray their masculine gifts through weakness and cowardice. Thus, the archetype of Father which combines the other four male archetypes and integrates them is the overarching male archetype to which all men are called. And, of course, in being called to the father archetype all men are not restricted to natural fatherhood with biological children. Instead, they are called to the role or archetype of fatherhood with its focus on strong, mentoring love expressed through the King, the Warrior, the Wiseman and the Lover. For example, Pope (which means papa) John Paul II was a father for millions but he had no natural children. 

Jesus and other male archetypes

            There are three other archetypes that are commonly mentioned in connection with male psychology: the Hero, Initiation Rites and the Wildman. The Hero sets out upon a quest going through three stages – separation, ordeal and return – all aimed at making a great contribution to society or his people through an extraordinary deed. Jesus clearly fits this model well. He begins his ministry with a forty day separation in the desert and then comes his ministry climaxing in the ordeal of the Crucifixion, followed by his resurrection and return in the Last Judgment.  And the enormous benefit for the whole world being Salvation. In short as a man he lives out the archetype of Hero to a kind of perfection. Finally, any serious Christian setting out on the journey toward sanctity or sainthood is also following the model of the Hero archetype.

            The archetype of Initiation is obviously found in the life of Jesus. (For this archetype see R. Rohr, 2004.) His first initiation was presumably at the age of twelve when his parents took him to the temple and later he was recognized as a rabbi or teacher by the Jewish community. His status as a rabbi was never challenged by the Jewish leaders. However, his specific Initiation Rite with respect to his ministry was his baptism by John the Baptist combined with his forty days of fasting in the desert. Representatives of these archetypical events also are present in the life of the ordinary Christian, for example baptism, confirmation, fasting and retreats.

            The last male archetype given some emphasis by the theorists noted earlier is that of the Wildman. This archetype represents a man’s basic animal energy and contact with the forces of his own body and of nature without feminizing restrictions. For example, in a fairy tale, a boy might discover a hairy, terrifying wild man who lives in the forest. The Wildman’s raw energy and closeness to animals and the natural world then entices the boy to leave his mother for exciting adventures in the wilderness.

            For all men the Wildman archetype may have appeal and it may be a good starting point but the other male archetypes and personality development require that the man learn how to control and move beyond the Wildman  although the Wildman’s basic energy and freedom should always be maintained. After all, the King, the Wiseman, Lover and even the Warrior all demand freely chosen discipline and restraint.

There is one clear way in which Jesus expressed the Wildman. Jesus was at home in the natural world.  He was in a sense a homeless man without a place to call his own and thus he was wilder than the foxes and the birds who had fixed places to go “home” to.  He traveled by walking great distances, climbing to mountain tops, praying in deserted places, fasting in the desert.  In short, much of his last three years was lived outdoors. Also in freely choosing God’s will he expressed an enormous amount of power but almost always in quiet and constructive ways, such as miracles.  In his words and actions he demonstrated a kind of power and freedom that created more revolutionary changes than any human Wildman ever did. For example, consider what he did to the money changers in the temple. However, the primitive often pre-human animal aspects of this archetype Jesus did not express. Hence Jesus is not a solid example of the Wildman.

(For female archetypes and the Christian faith see my next blog posting.)           

References

Arnold, P. (1991) Wildmen, Warriors, and Kings: Masculine Spirituality and the Bible. NY: Crossroad

Bailie, G. (199x)

Bly, R. (1990). Iron John: A Book about Men. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley

Kelsey, M. (1983). Companions on the inner way: The art of spiritual guidance. NY: Crossroad

Moore, R and Gillette, D

Paris, G. (1992) (Trans.J. Mott). The Sacrament of Abortion. Dallas,TX: Spring.(Original French edition 1990).

Payne, L. The Healing Presence.

Rohr, R. (2004) Adam’s Return: The Five Promises of Male Initiation.

Satinover, J. (1996) The Empty Self: C.G. Jung and the Gnostic Transformation of Modern Identity. Westport CT: Hamewith Books

White, V. (1960). Soul and Psyche. London: Collins & Harvill.

Narcissism: The Second Generation

Posted on August 2, 2009

The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the age of entitlement. New York: Free press. 2009. By Jean M. Twenge & W. Keith Campbell.

Review by Paul C. Vitz

(Paul C. Vitz is Professor of Psychology/Senior Scholar at the Institute for the Psychological Sciences and Professor of Psychology Emeritus at New York University. He is our guest blogger for the month of August, and this is his first post).

This timely book tells us in detail what many psychologists and so many social observers have already been noticing in today’s American society- namely, the me generation of Tom Wolfe’s 1970′s was just the beginning. We now have, 30 years later, the next generation, the children of narcissism. Their influence is much more pervasive than their parents’ influence, which was more restricted to the new yuppie class and to a psychological focus on self-actualization. Fueled by a long lasting consumer society, a record long bull market, and huge amounts of debt these new narcissists permeate our whole culture. Christopher Lasch in 1978 published The Culture of Narcissism and he hadn’t seen anything yet!  My own book on “The Cult of Self Worship” (1977) in retrospect also looks prophetic- but also looks naïve about how long self worship could last and how bad it could get.

            The authors do a fine job of laying out their subject. In the first section they diagnose what this new narcissism consists of. They describe it: the disease of self-admiration. Then they discuss myths that surround and support it, and they give some treatment of its cultural origins. In the second section they identify its basic causes, ranging from parental practices, to the celebrity based media, to the internet and finally and quite rightly to the effects of easy credit.

            In the third section they cover the many symptoms of this narcissism such as today’s extreme emphasis on vanity and being Hot, on spending, and on being so-o-o unique. Being unique often requires nasty, anti-social attitudes or behavior. Finally, these young people assume that they don’t really have to work because they are entitled to the good life. The book concludes with a prognosis about the future of narcissism and thoughts on how to treat it. Many readers will find their specific suggestions a help in dealing with narcissistic children, friends and lovers.

 The authors are aware that the current major financial crisis may be amplified by our narcissistic mentality. We want bailouts and complete health benefits and government services and lower taxes! We want it all. The authors hold out hope that Americans may wake up to reality in time for a painless adjustment to our present grossly over extended sense of entitlement. As for this optimistic possibility, I am far from convinced. It seems more likely that it will take at least a decade of hard times to knock out an attitude that was over 30 years in the making.

Other contemporary writers have addressed similar social concerns, with their commentary on America’s extraordinary preoccupation with self-esteem and entitlement. (Ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what your country can do for you.)

In particular, recent books on the proposed new psychological stage of “emerging adulthood” by Jeffery Arnett are quite relevant, though he is often so positive about emerging adulthood that he comes across as an inadvertent supporter of narcissism. Much more balanced are the works of James Cote who sees this condition more as “arrested adulthood”.

        One topic related to narcissism that the book fails to take up is that of addiction.  It is in good interpersonal relations, especially in self-giving, that people most reliably find happiness. Isolation and lack of stable personal relationships create intense psychological needs. The interpersonal and social emptiness that is at the core of narcissism motivates many such people to seek pleasure in non-personal and “reliable” ways. Drugs and alcohol are old standbys but the new narcissistic addictions tend to be based on sex, especially internet sex and internet “interpersonal” experiences. On the internet custom-made “people” are easily available to the isolated individual.

            One might object that the book tends to over dramatize things and to see narcissists behind every tree. The authors sometimes take what people say perhaps too literally and interpret the actions and motives of a specialized or fringe population as representative of the whole society. Nevertheless, the present book is a major contribution to our understanding of the social problem of narcissism. It should be read and pondered by all who have an interest in the topic.           

One important new sign, not noted in the book, that our society in time may recover from the present widespread narcissism has been the recent “discovery” of the virtues by American psychology. This movement often called “Positive Psychology” has generated a great deal of research and applications based on a renewed appreciation of the virtues by contemporary social science. For example, the virtue of thrift, bringing a concern with self control, responsibility and delayed gratification, is now receiving serious attention on the part of think tanks such as The Institute for American Values. In addition, gratitude, love and forgiveness all of which are concerned with the other person rather than the self, are now major intellectual topics of study and research.

            Religious theorists and psychologists have been important in much of this new concern with the virtues, especially the social virtues. It is likely, but far from certain, that a healthy revival of religion itself will be part of a constructive reaction to the narcissist problem.  At the least, Christians and Jews should not be surprised at our narcissistic corruption; after all, the oldest and presumably the most primordial sin known to humanity is the temptation of “You shall be as gods.”

Psychology Words: Narcissism

Posted on June 16, 2008

[Moderator note: This is the third post for June 2008 from our Director, Dr. Eric Johnson (Southern Seminary)]

The term “narcissism” deserves careful analysis from a Christian standpoint. In popular culture, it means a trait of self-centeredness and has negative connotations. However, contributors to object relations theory and self psychology have suggested that humans are born with narcissism, and if children are properly affirmed and challenged, they will grow up with healthy narcissism, that helps them meet their needs and realize their goals, while relating lovingly to others and respecting their needs and goals as well. Problems arise, they suggest, when children are not properly affirmed and challenged, leading them, in extreme cases, to develop narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), which is characterized by an inappropriate sense of self-importance and superiority over others, yet a strong need to be appreciated by others, and a pronounced sensitivity to criticism, all of which illustrates an ongoing effort to repair oneself from earlier relational deprivation.

The following are a few reasons why I think Christians should avoid using the word narcissism in a positive sense, as in “healthy narcissism.”

1) Narcissism was derived from the myth of Narcissus. He was a good-looking lad who fell in love with his image in a pool, became fixated with it, and fell into the pool and drowned. So the origins of the term suggest something unhealthy.
2) Sin is the biblical word for the native self-centeredness with which all humans are born. So narcissism would seem to be a good psychological word for this aspect of sin.
3) Christians have also historically recognized (e.g., Augustine, Jonathan Edwards) that God loves himself supremely. However, his self-love is Trinitarian, consisting of the mutual love of the trinity, so God’s self-love is intrinsically relational. For these and other reasons, we would never say that God is narcissistic in his self-love. Such Christians also concluded that God designed humans with a legitimate self-regard or self-love, similar to the self-preservation instinct of animals, and considered this to be part of the image of God, picturing the self-love that characterizes God, particularly as it develops into neighbor love. However, humans are to love God supremely (like God loves himself) and themselves and others secondarily (like God loves his creation).
4) Sin, however, has distorted and perversely radicalized our created self-love, resulting in a universal narcissism that promotes self above all else and therefore resists God’s supremacy.
5) Improper parenting can aggravate these conditions, resulting in NPD.
6) But the “healthy narcissism” found in “normal” humans, who live as the center of their universe and neglect their Creator, is ultimately no better, no healthier from a Christian standpoint.
7) Therefore, we ought to clearly distinguish sin’s distorted self-love from God’s design for humans. One way to do so would be to use the term narcissism only for that which is always unhealthy and antithetical to the theocentric orientation for which God designed humans, reserving it for the inappropriate self-centeredness of humans that flows from sin, including its distortions in NPD as well as the motivational orientation of apparently “healthy” humans who seek to live independently of God, using other terms—like self-regard or legitimate self-love—for good, God-created motives.

Designed by Business Broker