Anima/animus in gay/lesbian relationships
Ingrid Sell
gay/lesbian relationships? From what I have read, Jung himself had
little to say about it and seems to have suffered from the biases of his
time in what little he did write, but I am wondering whether more recent
Jungians have explored this subject at all.
Ingrid Sell
is...@mit.edu
Collin A. Bachert
by Robert Hopeke (I can never remember how to spell his last name,
sorry) is a good start. He includes a bibliograghy that may be helpful.
If you can get his last name off this book, he is an openly gay Jungian
and has written a lot, at least as parts of other books. I know I've
seen another book on the subject in Barnes and Noble, but do not know
the title. From a quick glance through it though, it did not seem too
interesting.
Part of the problem with the lack of material may be that many Jungians
don't believe that gay and lesbians interact through this archetype but
through the shadow or the self- depending on their positive or negative
bias- because these are traditionally of the same sex. They don't see
an "opposite sex" figure at play between _same_ sexes.
I hope this is at least somewhat helpful.
CKulk44
was edited by Hopcke, Carrington, and Wirth and published in 1993. It has
a few good essays, but most of them are fairly traditional -- i.e., try to
stay within a conventional Jungian model. A couple of the essays try to
step outside of the usual model and challenge the model itself as
heterosexist -- those are the most interesting essays, I think. Actually,
this whole question is a particular interest of mine. Is anyone
interested in some ongoing conversation about the relevance of Jungian
thought to GLBT people? I think of myself as a fanatical Jungian, but I
do have a critique of Jung on matters of gender, sexual orientation, and
other so-called minority issues. I believe that Andrew Samuels' work on
Jung and anti-Semitism is applicable here.
Brent Blair
theatre teacher who just bought Hopcke's book but have not delved deeply
into it yet. Also purchased Cantarella's *Bisexuality in the Ancient
World*, seeking the mythical heritage that predates our extremely
polarized and gender divided world. An interesting if dry and historical
perspective on homosexuality and early psychology is Duberman's *Cures*.
I'm convinced there's a wealth of material on anima/animus interchange
between same sex partners, but it will probably need to come from within
the community. Please include me on any lists or conversations you may
get going on this topic.
peace
brent
Don Dimock
I have read Hopcke's books. I have also discussed this subject with
other people. The consensus among those who I discussed this with
seemed to be that everyone has both archetypes in some degree. Sexual
orientation would be a reflection of which archetype was dominant. If
a person had very strong anima AND animus, he/she would be
androgonous. One who was low in both would be undifferentiated.
I like this high-low theory. It explains a lot. What do you think?
Daniel Katz
Jung assertedly said or wrote that gave rise to the
opinion that he had a bias in dealing with gay/lesbian
relationships. Danny
Collin A. Bachert
opposed to this anima-animus division or at the very least see both in
an individual, functioning as a unit. My beliefs tend towards a more
androgynous outlook on this and almost all the archetypes.
>There's also a book called "Same Sex Love and the Path to Wholeness" which
This is the book I was refering to in my first post. What I didn't like
about it was the traditional perpective.
For Brent:
There is a book referenced many times in Hopcke's book called _The
Spirit and the Flesh..._ by Walter Williams which talks about the
berdache of North (and South to some extent) American Indian cultures.
This is a third gender individual who we would in our culture classify
as gay (male- there are female versions as well). Hopcke associates her
(they are refered to in the feminine in their cultures) with the
androgyne archetype. It is an interesting book if you want some more
mythical history though it is mostly anthropological. Along the same
lines is _We'wha: the Zuni Man-Woman_. I don't have it with me here at
work, but I believe it gives some related Zuni mythology.
Blue
Daryl Sharp
Graham Jackson, Jungian analyst in Toronto (himself gay): THE SECRET
LORE OF GARDENING and THE LIVING ROOM MYSTERIES. If you can't find
them locally, Email me or go to Inner City Books web page:
http://www.inforamp.net/~icb
- Best wishes, Daryl Sharp.
Daryl Sharp
Don, You can find pertinent information on gay psychology in 2 books
Brent Blair
Thanks for your thoughtful response. You come over loud and clear, but
not at all "bitchy"! Quite interesting stuff. I used to work in a gay
bar as well, and lots of what you noticed about gay male courtship really
resonated with me.
I would say there is a fertile ground for researching anima/us
relationships to the self by observing gay and lesbian love
relationships. I too am an amateur (lover), and am convinced we amateurs
stand to see things many professionals may miss.
>It is a figure with all the same
> qualitities of the anima/us but of the same sex (take Enkidu of the Epic
> of Gilgamesh as Walker had done- how would you classify him?).
I'm afraid I'm not up on the Gilgamesh story. Could you let me know more
about Enkidu (briefly)?
>I work for a gay bar and observe the people there- so
> I am somewhat familiar with this aspect of gay culture as well. For the
> most part the men act like men are brought up to act like in this
> culture- sexually aggressive. The thing is is that they are being
> sexually agressive with someone who was also raised to be sexually
> agressive so things work out more quickly to the "getting laid" point.
> That is my take on the situation. If I were to relate it to the shadow/
> anima, I'd say that much of the gay culture by virtue of its being
> shunned, is forced to take on the Shadow of our society as a whole and
> since the shunning has a sexual basis it strongly draws the sexual
> aspects of the Shadow. This could be another reason for the increased
> sexual activity since sexuality is a big no-no in society as a whole (at
> least historically).
Yes, in part I agree with you. What society thrusts underground comes up
on the other side. Without public resonance and witness, many gay
relationships have no creative paradigm to turn to. Perhaps the taboo is
given extraordinary weight and blurs the eyes of the cruising beholder too
much. My experience may not be everyone's, though. Here's where I think
we differ.
Some men out cruising probably seek the buff body builder, but one man's
bodybuilder is another man's daddy figure, still another man's "strongman"
archetype, another's "warrior," etc. Who wrote _The King, The Magician,
The Lover, The Warrior_? This quaternio of male archetypes is almost more
at play, I think, than the animum, as you call it (works for me). In
other words, a man stuck in the flip side (youthful side) of the Magician
appears as the Trickster. What he _is_ may not be what he _seeks_,
however. His _desire_ is, in my continuing opinion, the projection of his
anima. Trickster seeks... what? The "trick?" The "easy lay?"
If I understand you correctly, though I'm a man, this projection may be my
male spirit, my "animus" in the bodybuilder guy I seek?
I think it gets very complicated here. Because we're choosing the
"opposite" from the "ordinary" gender according to society, are we
flip-flopping our spirit selves as well? Or does the rule of thumb stay
pretty constant, meaning men still project anima in love relationships,
and women the animus?
When I dream of men, I have (dutifully) assumed these are shadow figures.
Sex with a certain male archetype most usually means some relationship
with my shadow, but the women in my dreams (are not like me) still seem
the spirit other half. And I attribute it mostly to the working of the
female psyche, not the genes or genitalia.
One point you make that really resonates with me: Jung was a pioneer, but
the times he lived in were hard on gay life. It is bound to have
influenced his understanding of gay anima/us projections. Perhaps it's
time to take a second look. I'll take this question to some analyst
friends of mine and see what their take on it is.
happy searching!
brent
p.s. another interesting androgyne was Tieresius in the story of Dionysus.
Do you remember his gamble with the gods? Wasn't it Zeus who altered his
sex for several years to settle the argument with Hera about which gender
enjoyed sex better? I think he said the women did...
Then he went blind...!
bb
Don Dimock
>Finally, I do not believe that the concept of androgeny does us any good
>here. It is constructed on the assumption that there are two categories
>called "male" and "female." That is a very simplistic view, even
>biologically, of human beings and behavior. If we can learn anything from
>the blossoming transgendered movement, it must be that our rigid concepts
>of gender and sex are obsolete. Sex, it seems to me, is on a continuum.
>To identify the two extreme ends as the norm, is to miss all that falls in
>between.
>Hoping this conversation continues.
I question your last paragraph. If it can be shown that both male and
females have both anima and animus, and therefore andorgeny is
possible, then gender must be seen as a continuum. We are all both
genders, to some degree. If there are both animus and anima, then
there are two genders. The does not preclude the possibility of
still other archetypes being present and affecting gender
identification. Nor does it preclude the effects of our culture on
gender identification and behaviour.
Like you, I hope this conversation continues. I find it fascinating.
CKulk44
agree that much of the traditional Jungian discourse on a/a is convoluted.
That's because it's trying to rescue an archaic and destructive model.
While I would agree (with Demaris Wehr's work) that Jung's ideas were
liberating originally (giving women and men access to certain qualities
that society deemed appropriate only for the "opposite" sex), I believe it
is time to challenge the ongoing impact of his thinking. I say this as a
devoted Jungian. It seems to me that Jung's model, taken conventionally,
is basically heterosexist (among other things). That is, it privileges
the idea that there something "normal" about the pairing of so-called
"opposites" -- especially the particular pairing of "masculine" and
"feminine". Even if there are such things as "the masculine" and "the
feminine" (which I doubt -- I would argue that these are socially
constructed concepts), why do they have to be paired as "opposites," as if
one cannot function without the other? In addition, no matter how much or
how often Jungians attempt to disconnect the concepts from actual "men"
and "women" (also arguably constructs), the links between them are too
culturally ingrained for any of us, even the most conscious of us, to
really effectively maintain that separation. We must, therefore,
dismantle the very constructs themselves. In other words, it is time to
apply some postmodern and deconstructive approaches to this debate.
Borrowing from an argument I heard put forward by Peter Mudd, how can we
even begin to assess whether there is really anything "essential" about
the categories of "male and female" when we are so attached to our
constructed categories of "masculine and feminine"? It is time to abandon
them and instead adopt an open mind.
As a corrolary, I agree with the previous posting that G/L/B/T people are
being made to carry some element of our culture's shadow, something
related to society's obsession with the gender construct. Again, Peter
Mudd has argued that certain archetypes arise at certain historical times
because they contain something needed at that point in time. In that
context, I would argue that G/L/B/Ts challenge the gender *stereotype*
Brent Blair
(Don Dimock) wrote:
> ck>(i.e., I believe there's no question of archetype here).
>
> >Finally, I do not believe that the concept of androgeny does us any good
> >here. It is constructed on the assumption that there are two categories
> >called "male" and "female." That is a very simplistic view, even
> >biologically, of human beings and behavior. If we can learn anything from
> >the blossoming transgendered movement, it must be that our rigid concepts
> >of gender and sex are obsolete. Sex, it seems to me, is on a continuum.
> >To identify the two extreme ends as the norm, is to miss all that falls in
> >between.
>
> >Hoping this conversation continues.
>
>
> I question your last paragraph. If it can be shown that both male and
> females have both anima and animus, and therefore andorgeny is
> possible, then gender must be seen as a continuum. We are all both
> genders, to some degree. If there are both animus and anima, then
> there are two genders. The does not preclude the possibility of
> still other archetypes being present and affecting gender
> identification. Nor does it preclude the effects of our culture on
> gender identification and behaviour.
>
> Like you, I hope this conversation continues. I find it fascinating.
Again, I agree with the "questioner of the last paragraph" (Don Dimock),
and find myself oddly on the conservative side for a change regarding this
issue of male and female.
I think within the L/G/B community there is another sort of 'pendulum
swing' going on: for so long, as the previous speaker rightly points out,
we were stuffed full of traditional and often destructively divisive views
of gender. As Jung said, two halves do not make one whole relationship.
Men and Women learned to explore their countersexual selves and come into
whole relationships with each other. Individuation.
I can't imagine anything more essential than the spirit of these two
opposites. I don't think, by accepting the essential and beautiful
archetypal *and physiological* differences between male and female that we
do Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals any injustice at all.
The Daghara tribe of Burkina Fasso honor every aspect of culture, and
typical of African village systems, have a "place" for everybody. The
grave digger is initiated and deemed essential. The warrior has a place,
as does the mother-type, the priest, the healer, the dancer, and -- yes --
the homosexual. These are the "gate keepers" of the village, primarily
because their familial line stops with them, and they are at the gate of
the ancestors. They are held in high esteem and regard, having a
connection to the spirit world that many in marital relationships with
offspring cannot afford to have.
Again, at the risk of sounding traditional, there is an enormous psychic
differentiation between male and female psyche, and to suggest that we are
in transition, somehow, seems to me implication of the death of gender and
the birth of some new third sex or something. I take issue on this point,
and find Carol Gilligan's work particularly interesting here. The female
psyche is constructed differently for different reasons. Within the world
of women, there are many in the "male" energy sphere, just as many men are
dancing in the myth of the feminine more than the masculine. In this
sense, these "genders" are both tangible and mythic. I probably operate
much more from my anima energy, establishing connections that endure (like
the archetypal mother and child), but at times it flips into extreme
father energy (when I'm teaching, for example, and rely on sharp judgement
and some established goals and plans).
This is extremely traditionally Jungian, and I'm aware of his heterosexist
origins, but I can't *feel* anything but a vacuum when I hear talk of
neutrality. Some parts of nature are gender neutral, others are not. At
times we may be living the myth of the sea snail or the worm, but often
we're living the myth of male, of female, of warrior man or warrior woman,
of king or queen, and they are *different,* aren't they?
Lastly, the reason I'm so fascinated with this topic is perhaps my view on
the importance of the emergence of the gay consciousness as part of, not a
reaction or revolution against, our own genders. I am part of a male
culture, my male brothers. They may breed with women, but I am of them
and at the same time different than them. I am not defiant, any more than
they would label me deviant. My purpose is to be with men. I am not an
androgyne, I am a man whose function is to be with men.
Do you think I'm stuck in an old system...? Am I simply perpetuating this
heterosexist story...? I'm very anxious to learn from you all.
peace
brent
CKulk44
If it can be shown that both male and females have both anima and animus,
and therefore andorgeny is possible, then gender must be seen as a
continuum. We are all both genders, to some degree. If there are both
animus and anima, then
there are two genders. The does not preclude the possibility of still
other archetypes being present and affecting gender identification. Nor
does it preclude the effects of our culture on gender identification and
behaviour.
My response:
The use of the concept of androgeny still rests on the assumption that the
world and all human qualities are to be divided into two categories.
Gender is a socially-constructed concept imprisoned in a Western dualistic
system. Gender is not given to us by nature -- if it were, our culture
would not have to work so hard to make sure that boys grow up to be men
and girls grow up to be women.
Under the concept of androgeny, things are still assumed 'by nature' to be
either 'feminine' or 'masculine.' But what does that really mean? Why
do we have to lump everything into those two categories? Why can't there
be 3 or 300, etc.? To return to an overused but useful example: Why do
some things, for example, aggression, have to be associated with the
so-called 'masculine'? Don't we all know aggressive women? Even when we
say it's her animus, we are simply side-stepping the question and
reductively associating a certain quality with one of two
culturally-constructed concepts. I do not feel, as a lesbian, that I must
give credit to 'the masculine principle' (embodied in the animus) for my
capacity to be aggressive. In addition, I agree with Lyn Cowan (analyst
in Minneapolis) and Demaris Wehr (author of *Jung and Feminism*) that the
qualities attributed to 'the animus' are nothing but internalized sexism
introjected into women in our culture.
Gender is not archetypal, so there is no point in looking for more
archetypes to define it. Gender is constructed. Even one's sex, while
biologically given, does not necessarily fall neatly into one of two
categories: male or female. The factors which go into creating a
person's sex are complex and involve things like chromosomes, hormones,
genatalia, and secondary sex characteristics. (These are the one's we
know about although as a society we insist on assigning a person to a sex
role strictly by their visible/external genatalia.) There are many
people -- science calls them anomalies -- who do not fit the criteria
along all of these factors to qualify as strictly 'male' or 'female.'
They are seen as 'abnormal' and 'weird.' I see them as along a continuum
that consists of more than two genders.
We need to break out of our rigid two-category systems, gender included.
I am not the first to make this argument. It's been well supported in
various ways by several outstanding Jungian thinkers: Andrew Samuels, Lyn
Cowan, Peter Mudd, Christine Downing, James Hillman (to some extent), Pat
Berry, and others.
Unfortunately, their voices are often ignore in the rush to preserve Jung
intact. I like to believe that if Jung were here today even he would be
rethinking some of his old ideas. If not, I don't believe I'd be the
devoted Jungian I am.
Brent Blair
In reply to your reply, I think you're missing my point, and that means
I'm talking a lot but not saying it very clearly.
I agree with you, to a certain extent. That we are born physically male
or female or (in extremely rare, but existing cases) "both," doesn't say
anything about how we should behave. Beviour, not gender, is a societally
induced trait that should be questioned just as language, religious
institutions, political truisms and other "forms" should be questioned.
Gender is not in any way "constructed". This is perplexing to me. It is
not a recreation of patriarchal values to notice that boys and girls
develop differently. Some (and, I presume, you argue _most_) of this
difference is acquired and indoctrinated by culture. But many cultures
around the world with less baggage than our own at the very least
celebrate this difference without pigeon-holing men or women, though we
are often too biased to see this because, I believe, of the great
oppression we still battle with issues regarding gender and power in our
own culture.
Your argument, as I understand it, is analagous to arguing that there is
no influence of race on an individual. The scary thing is, once a person
acknowledges racial, ethnic or cultural influences as part of the enormous
range of influencing factors that contribute to the creation of the self,
as Jung observed, it is likely to be used not to unite humans but to
further divide us according to our shadow projections. To acknowledge
that African-descendancy as an influence in one's psyche may contribute to
a different psychic language is simply to honor that unique voice. The
dark side of this is obvious: books like The Bell Curve, for example.
It gets tricky here, doesn't it? I agree with you -- there's no reason
"anger" has to be either blamed on or attributed to the masculine force.
This is ludicrous. Bly and Hillman both reject the idea that water is
symbolic of the feminine. I think we're getting more sophisticated about
understanding the nature of different genders, both physically and
psychically. This sophistication seems to me related to *telos*; what
does this particular image "do?" At the base level, the only difference
between genders is reproductive. Men contain the seed and the impliment
to plant it, women contain the egg and the environment to incubate it to
birth.
This allegory, if we don't falsely wipe it from our too politically
correct books, can prove extremely useful in understanding the internal
psychic goings on of the individual, male or female. This woman may be in
her seeding stage of life, this man in his incubation phase, and so on.
Both sexes may nurture or conquer with equal force, and neither need to
"breed" to understand procreation. To paraphrase Mary Renault, "The
children of dreams outlive the children of people." In the gay and
lesbian world, we are the ones who seek symbolic, rather than literal,
procreation (often). Occasionally, we also produce offspring.
If you look at anything close up, it defies any categorizing. Electron
microscopy shows the atomic level, seemingly completely neutral. But
occasionally the broader picture is useful in order to recognize patterns
and assign them a paradigm, however incomplete or generalized.
I reaffirm the *general* need for recognizing the influence of two
genders, male and female, and the resonant parallels in the unconscious,
while I acknowledge your observation that, upon extremely close scrutiny,
everything is far more complicated and possibly androgynous.
I relish your responses, by the way! This is a conversation needing many
voices. Can you provide your name at your next response? I'm Brent.
peace
brent
Collin A. Bachert
I sent a long post on this subject yesterday, but it was not on the list
today. I'm wondering if I had accidentally done a respond to sender
instead of a respond to readers. If anyone got my message please
forward or let me know if you deleted it. Thanks.
Blue
Don Dimock
The thread seems to have gotten off track a bit and it is my fault as
much as any other.
Dr. Graham Jackson is presently writing a book on the anima in gay
males. It will be published by Inner City Books in about a year. If
it is as good as his other two books published by Inner City Books, it
will be well worth reading.
I did not mean to suggest that opposites do not exisit. I merely
suggest that one person may have elements of both of the opposites. I
see no reason why an individual cannot have opposite archetypes at the
same time, or have a gender opposite to biological sex.
About 40 years ago I knew a woman who was a log truck driver. She
looked and acted like a man, chewed tobacco, spat, swore, drank in
red-neck saloons. . . . If she weren't so promiscuous she probably
would have been taken for a man by the community. She was married to
a man (it is difficult to avoid saying "another" man) who had much the
same personality. They both had much the same gender identity. For
sex, they prefered the opposite biological sex. How do you classify
either of these people? To my notion, neither were gay, just
different.
The word "gender" is being screwed up. Originally it was a behavioral
term. Now people are asked to state their gender on employment
applicatiuons. Honest answers could proove interesting! Changes in
language produce confusion.
Where I got the thread off the track was in switching to gender
identity instead of the anima\animus in gay\lesbian relationships.
I am sorry about that.
Don D.
Collin A. Bachert
remember what I had written.
There was a lot of discussion concerning my suggestion of the
androgynous animum so that is where I'll start (again). When I use this
term, despite its origin, I'm not actually saying that it is a
combination of masculine and feminine. I'm coming from a more 70's view
(this according to a friend's psych book) in which the androgynous
person is one that does whatever the situation calls for whether or not
it fits his/her gender's (here synonymous with sex's) appropriate
behavior such as a woman engaging in deadly force in an attack or a man
picking up a bottle and feeding a baby. Ckulk has said a lot about
getting rid of gender because it is a meaningless term as it is
socially constructed, and this applied to androgyny as well. I agree
completely, but I must also add that these are vocabulary terms used to
deal with a world that does have gender in mind. For all intents and
purposes, my use of androgyny is the same as saying that it has no
gender.
Don has sided with Ckulk on the above issue and both have gone so far a
to call for a complete dissolution of duality in favor of unity. It is
a nice idea in someways, but I believe it is just as dangerous.
Humankind is prone to dividing up the world into opposing catagories, or
opposites. Why? Does it serve some psychic function? I can't concrete
put a reason to it, but I think it does, and we can't deny that these
opposites exist as Ckulk has suggested. Yes, they are inconsistent and
depend on a point of reference, but they do exist. Up is up and it is
opposite down in the frame of reference of one individual despite the
fact that the place he calls up may be another's down (if he is up
higher). Masculine and feminine may require a whole hell of a lot more
reference and because of this seem completely meaningless, but they
still exist from a point of reference, namely a cultural definition. In
that sense (and that sense alone, in my opinion) they are valid
opposites. Don, I'm assuming you are gay as I don't have anything that
says one way or the other, and I Ckulk has already stated that she is a
lesbian. Our community tells us to celebrate diversity, and the two of
you seem to have embraced that idea with all your talk of continuums and
intersexed and transgendered individuals. Could we have a continuum
without a basic duality to play off of? Could there be an inbetween
without something to be between? A basic duality is necessary
especially for vocabulary and the expression of ideas. On this topic
I'll leave you with a passage from the Tao: "The Tao produced One; One
produced Two; Two produced Three; Three produced All things. All things
leave behind them the Obscurity (out of whcih they have come), and go
forward to embrace the Brightness (into which they have emerged), while
they are harmonized by the Breath of Vacancy."
To Brent's concern that this will open up the possibility of more than
two genders: This will only be a revival of older systems, foreign
systems. Many cultures around the world have had more than two genders.
They had no problem with it. Why should we? Duality is important to
some extent, but we must cling to it to the neglect of whatever else
there is. If that be multiplicity then so be it. If it is unity that
that is good too. I will not leave you with a void because of the
neutrality. The atom is neutral, but look at all the power it contains.
Granted it is from the coming together of opposing forces, but it is
it's present neutrality that allows for the power.
Gender-sex similarities-differences:
20/20 did an hour long show on the subject a while past that stated (at
least this is how I took it) that there is a difference between boys and
girls generally, but that there is also a great deal of overlap. this
was based on looking at very young children, hopefully reached before
society could create its difference, or at children raised in "gender
neutral" environments. To me this says that there may be some general
differences, but in the whole scheme of things these differences fade
into the overlaps. Who can say if the gender neutrality was a
legitamate assumption? No one. This issue is very complicated and it
will be a long time before we can untangle environment from nature if we
really can at all.
I don't remember what this was in response to, but I had written
something about learned archtypes so that is where I'll go now. I
believe that there are archetypes that are learned or should I say have
a strong learning component to them. The archetypes of the Masculine
and the Feminine are the learned archetype par excellens. My opinion is
that archetypes are conserved neural patterns or systems of neural
connections. It is not a big jump to say that they can be effected by
learning as this produces new neural connections. IN the case of the
anima (and the shadow as well) I think connections between two
archetypes have been made for some reason. In this way the anima has
been strongly tied to the feminine even though it, on its own, has no
connection.
That's all I can remember to reply to- not doing too good on a few hours
of sleep. If old message does turn up in someone's box, pleas forward
it to the list. I know there was more to be said, somethings were said
differently with a possibly different effect. I'm glad to see see there
was a lot of discussion of the topic over the weekend, unfortunately I
can only read my mail during the week.
Blue
Collin A. Bachert
Do not apologize. Threads grow as we wish them to. The change would
have occurred sooner or later- at least with me in it. I was not saying
that you felt opposites should be abolished completely. This was more
towards Ckulk's actual statement to this effect.
I too am amused with the general use of gender on applications and
surveys when sex is meant. Though I haven't had an employment
application that had done this, on surveys I write in an extra block and
put Other then check that. Next to it I write "If you are inquiring of
my sex, it is male."
I would say that the truck driver woman is just that a woman (meaning
female). I wouldn't necessarily go into gender. If forced to I would
say she was either a man (to use a word people are familiar with, and
refering to gender) or I'd pull out some third gender catagory that
refers to a female with "male" gender.
The whole point that I was trying to make with this androgynous stuff is
that it seems silly to me to put a specific sex on something so
abstract. Its sex is self determined through a whole host of
influences. Mine will show itself in male and female form. These are
my experiences as a "gay male" which was part of the original post, I
believe. If I do project it onto someone in a relationship, I can just
as easily project it onto a male, hence a gay relationship. I don't
think we can equate our sexuality with this anima/us stuff. I think
they are separate, but interacting, overlaid on each other.
Blue
mike bodkin
>
>There was a lot of discussion concerning my suggestion of the
>androgynous animum so that is where I'll start (again). When I use this
>term, despite its origin, I'm not actually saying that it is a
>combination of masculine and feminine. I'm coming from a more 70's view
>(this according to a friend's psych book) in which the androgynous
>person is one that does whatever the situation calls for whether or not
>it fits his/her gender's (here synonymous with sex's) appropriate
>behavior such as a woman engaging in deadly force in an attack or a man
>picking up a bottle and feeding a baby. Ckulk has said a lot about
>getting rid of gender because it is a meaningless term as it is
>socially constructed, and this applied to androgyny as well. I agree
>completely, but I must also add that these are vocabulary terms used to
>deal with a world that does have gender in mind. For all intents and
>purposes, my use of androgyny is the same as saying that it has no
>gender.
>
I realize this is not (exactly) on the original thread, but this one
draws a response from me...Calling gender "meaningless" because it is
"socially constructed" seems to me to miss the point of gender entirely.
The point is, gender itself *is* archetypal, that is a universal
phenomena of constructing ideas about the nature of male, female, and
other possibilities (3rd genders, etc). What is "objectively"
true--i.e., what is universally true, valid cross-culturally, etc. about
gender is much less interesting than the universal phenomenon of gender
itself as a theme. This, for me, makes it an archetypal--
imaginal--activity of the soul. Michael Meade said something like this
in a workshop, that gender is a "domain" that men and women can make up
as they like. If women say "women are strong", that's a part of the
women's domain. Its exact expression will differ between cultures. But
the sense of having access to the domain of your gender I think of as
universal, whatever the gender rules for that culture. The thing is,
this means that men need to learn how to be tender (for example) *as
men*, they need to learn how men do it. Women need to learn strength *as
women*. If either gender copies the other, a sense of falseness, a lack
of ground, ensues. You see this with so-called "soft men" and with women
trying to compete in a tough capitalist workplace environment in a
typically masculine way--it violates something in them. Being
*identified* with the anima, for a man, leads to a blocking of the
clarity and strength of the masculine spirit, and a lack of true
relationship to the emotional side. But the way through is to find ones
own way, within ones gender domain, to access that energy authentically.
You can draw on the Gods or Goddesses (Hillman, Bly and others tend to
feel at home in the Greek world) for images of these energies expressed
via one's own gender.
Helen Luke has a beautiful chapter in her posthumous book *The Way of
Woman* about the need for women to develop the "sword of her conscious
discrimination". She writes of Eowyn in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, a
woman who disguises herself as a man to go into battle. Her father has
refused her permission to ride with the warriors.
I'd like to quote from Helen Luke's book at some length to give a deeper
flavor of her rich viewpoint:
"He (the father) refuses without understanding, with the usual hackneyed
masculine lecture on woman's place being in the home. But Eowyn, like
all awakened women since this century began, knows that, if she accepts
this platitude any longer and refuses to stand by her certainty that she
has the courage and the ability to 'wield a sword,' then her creative
spirit will wither and die, and despair will finally destroy her. It is
absolutely essential for Eowyn at this point that she defy the father's
authority--as it became essential for modern woman to rebel and to
disobey and to enter the arena of the male-dominated world. And at
first, like Eowyn, in order to free themselves, they have been compelled
to disguise themselves as men--and many have come to imagine that there
really is no difference anymore. They forget they are disguised and so
identify with the emerging spirit.
" It is, however, precisely at this point in the story that Eowyn's
repressed and despised femininity begins to assert itself from her
unconscious. It is the cricial moment for every woman who is driven by
the creative spirit into the Logos world. Will she imitate man, in which
case her spirit will turn sterile and demonic; or will she, in the midst
of her intoxicating freedom, be true to her basic nature? ..."
She ends up using her sword to strike at the chief Rider, the evil
forces...but..."She had spoken of fighting like a man with men, but in
the heat of battle the inherent strength of her womanhood instinctively
takes over. She cannot kill for any cause, however great, simply to
conquer. She can only kill to save a person whom she loves." ..."...she
must actively use her sword, but in that moment she has no thought of
causes or her own wish to be as like a man as possible. The hand which
wields the sword of her spirit is wholly a woman's hand. Faced with the
threat of the worst that despair can do to mind and body, she laughs in
the face of the horror. 'Do what you will--but I will hinder it, if I
may.' She will defend the integrity of personal devotion, of the human
heart, to the death and beyond. And now she reveals herself with pride
and joy as a woman indeed.'Thou fool. No living man may hinder me,' he
cries, and she answers:
"'But no living man am I! You look upon a woman. Eowyn I am,
Eomund's daughter....' Tolkien further tells us: 'Her eyes grey as the
sea were hard and fell, and yet tears were on her cheek.'
"So many women have forgotten how to weep that they have lost the
meaning of tears. 'Women must weep': this is not a badge of weakness;
it is an essential strength. (Weak tears of self-pity are of course
quite another thing.) Eowyn's cheeks are wet at the moment of her
greatest masculine act."
Brent Blair
> I realize this is not (exactly) on the original thread, but this one
> draws a response from me...Calling gender "meaningless" because it is
> "socially constructed" seems to me to miss the point of gender entirely.
etc.
I couldn't agree with your last entry more, Mike.
You have articulated, with the Eowyn story, the dark side of what I
couldn't quite pinpoint in my earlier response about the *need* to
recognize the archetypal essence, and informing power, of the different
genders.
I'll look for this Tolkein passage. Thanks!
CKulk44
on the messages posted over the past week. Most of what I have to say is
in response to Brent's posting from a week ago, though there are a few
notes at the end in response to later postings. Also, I feel like I'm
missing something. You all seem to be making reference to things I've not
seen posted. Were these private letters that were exchanged through
e-mail?
Brent: I guess it's my turn to feel confused. You acknowledge, on the
one hand, that biological sex does not determine behavior, but then you
assert that "Gender is not in any way constructed." That sounds
contradictory to me. If gender weren't constructed, that is, if it were
"natural," we wouldn't be having this discussion. There has been a huge
amount of feminist research and commentary (20/20 notwithstanding) that
indicates that the perceived developmental differences between boys and
girsl are biased not only by socialization, but also by patriarchal
lenses, values, and thinking.
With reference to your assertion thatt other cultures have less baggage:
(1) Which cultures do you have in mind? (2) I would argue that there are
no cultures in the world, past or present, "with less baggage than our
own." Gender oppression has been fairly universal (both for women and
men). Some cultures allow, intellectually and abstractly, for some form
of "equality" (e.g., yin and yang) -- something like the Jungian idea of
"complementarity" -- but, in actual fact, there are virtually no cultures
where women are treated as equals to men. Like Peter Mudd, I believe that
we do not have a clue about whether there really are any significant
differences between women and men. We would have to stop pretending that
we "know" what it means to use categories like "masculine" and "feminine"
(or "anima" and "animus") and allow any real differences to emerge in a
climate that is at least relatively free of prejudgments about the meaning
of those categories before we can know anything.
Yes, by extension, I would argue that the influence of race is also
culturally constructed. It's about as important as the color of a
person's eyes. If I am brown-eyed and live in a society that hates
brown-eyed people or in one that thinks that brown-eyed people make better
athletes than others, I will be affected by that, but not because
brown-eyed people are inherently different. Jung's ideas about the
creation of the self were fraught with misunderstandings and prejudices,
especially in relation to the issues of gender and race. (The most
significant work on this has been done by Andrew Samuels. If you're
interested, check out the chapters on anti-semitism in *The Political
Psyche.*) Jung's clear and overt racism cannot be dismissed simply as an
attempt to "honor" the voice of Africans or Jews. Frankly, I find that to
be a naive view. It only serves to have us ignore the real damage done by
Jung in the name of acknowledging "differences." Also, I am at a loss to
understand your reference to the bell curve as an example.
Although I very much appreciate Hillman's work, I don't see Bly in the
same category. Bly is not the least bit "sophisticated." What he's
doing (to quote Samuels) "is to legitimize what already exists, not to
change anything." For example, his "notion that 'displaying the sword'
can be detached from the social reality of male violence urgently needs to
be challenged."
You say: "At the base level, the only difference between genders is
reproductive. Men contain the seed and the impliment [sic] to plant it,
women contain the egg and the enviroment to incubate it to birth." I find
this to be offensively reductive. My identity as a woman (whatever that
means) cannot be reduced to the fact that I could have had children if I
had chosen to. I am not my reproductive system. The fact that I have
female plumbing says virtually NOTHING about who I am, though it may say a
lot about how I was socialized and how I am treated. In my opinion, your
analogy is NOT "extremely useful in understanding the internal psychic
goings on of the individual." Whether gays and lesbians choose symbolic
versions of procreation is, in my opinion, irrelevant. Many hets do, too.
Having or not having children may impact a person's life and shape their
identity, but it is not an essential difference between gays and
straights, or between men and women.
\
I did not understand your analogy about electrons. What is "the broader
picture" for humans? I would argue that it is our humanity itself, not
our sex or gender. But I will ponder some of the more recent references
to this analogy.. Maybe that will help me understand what you are saying.
I don't believe that there is a "*general* need for recognizing the
influence of two genders, male and female" or that there are "resonant
parallels in the unconscious." What we "see" of the unconscious is always
filtered through the lens of culture. Even Jung admitted that -- when it
was convenient for him to do so.
I a later posting you say "there must be a reason for the opposites."
Why? What makes you thing that 'the opposites' aren't just limitations in
our ability to see something more? Is there "a reason" for everything?
Is there a reason for racism, for example?
Collin talks about androgyny as neutral. Then what does it mean and why
do we need it? In addition, it is not a neutral term in the context of
people's understanding. It has loads of cutural connotations and can be
defined only in terms of trying to "integrate" things like "the masculine"
and "the feminine."
Finally, I am NOT arguing for unity. I don't believe in it. I am arguing
for multiplicity and pluralism. And just because we tend to see a
continuum as a straight line drawn between two points doesn't mean that's
the only way to see one. Why not as a circle, for example? Then, maybe,
we don't need to see "the opposites" as defining what's in between. I do
agree, there's lots in between, but I don't agree that we need duality to
create the in between.
I think that's it for now. Hope no one takes offense at my sometimes
strong language. I love a good and lively debate and look forward to more
on this thread.
Claudette
P.S. By the way, not sure what the rules are, but would be interesed in
knowing something about each of you and the background you bring to this
topic -- if that itself is not considered off topic and/or inappropriate.
.
Chris A Coakley
>
> I'd like to quote from Helen Luke's book at some length to give a deeper
> flavor of her rich viewpoint:
>
Thank you for sharing this, Mike.
Brent Blair
Claudette, I applaud your vigor, and find my heart racing after reading
your response. This is obviously a topic that needs emotional
intelligence, to borrow a concept from Gloria Steinem. And, by the by,
quoting accuracy aside, I type at the speed of my thoughts and may slip a
letter or two hereafter, so I don't think you need to remind me with your
parenthetical "sic". :)
Ouch. Still stinging, but you've given me pause to think a lot. I dated
a woman for a few years in between my sexual identification with men (i.e.
before and after her, I was dating men). We had a rip-roaring argument
once, one that I'll never forget. She knocked me off my marble pedestal
and made me walk on earth again...
She worked in a book store. I'd just finished teaching a voice workshop
to a group of men at a Robert Bly workshop (yep. you guessed it! My ex
thought he was dangerous, as I think you do too...), so I was excited
about the "men's movement" as a conversation and a bridge to connect men
to their sons in a way my father never connected with me. At any rate, as
I browsed through the small store in Lenox, MA where she worked, I saw
shelves of books identified by category: "African-American History;"
"Women's Literature;" "Gay/Lesbian Health," and so on. I asked her, with
a lilt in my voice (thought I was being cute), "where's the 'Men's
Section?'" She exploded! "The whole ----ing bookstore is a 'men's
section'!!"
I was baptized in her fire, and I learned a lot from her about the voice.
We both trained voice under Kristin Linklater, by the way, who is a
staunch defender of the liberated, non-patriarchal expression of the
individual voice, non-conformist work in every way. Our language,
religion, political system -- in fact, after listening to her, it seemed
to me nearly everything was filtered through/created by/influenced by the
patriarchy.
This doesn't indict anything that is male, though, but it speaks volumes
for where we need to open up our thinking.
Allegorically, in the theatre (I teach at USC), we struggle with old
training methodologies that often discourage or completely annihilate
diversity. Of the productions we did last year, all were written by white
men, most dead. None had challenging things to say about race or gender,
few even offered 'non-traditional' views of culture, and none had roles
specifically written for minorities. Many students' independent projects,
thankfully, spoke out with a clear voice. New plays about abortion, gay
rights, early slavery and Native Americans during the Trail of Tears, to
name a few. Directors involved in the "mainstage" productions were loathe
to cast them non-traditionally, and old stereotypes were reinforced over
and over again. I walked out of several productions and we have rallied
our Dean to the cause.
Oddly, he argues that theatre should be color blind, in much the same way
you argue that gender is a construction of social culture. He argues for
students of all color to play all roles. The dark side of this worries me
greatly, and I think it should also worry you. Suppose white students
want to audition for _Raisin in the Sun_? What do you think we should
do? Dean encourages this. I heartily discourage it. For years we've
listened to white voices, seen white actors. When a good play with
African-American or Asian-American characters comes along, I feel it's
time the whites sat back and cleared the boards. On the other hand,
Shakespeare or Carol Churchill should be open to minority actors and *not*
just to whites.
We are not color blind. Color is important. You mistook my quote of _The
Bell Curve_ (a racist elitist view of intelligence from Harvard) for 'the
bell curve.' Read it -- it'll make your skin crawl. In it, scientists
convincingly link race and intelligence. This is old! We've been down
this road, and it kills us all. It is fallacious, disconnected and
dangerous.
It bears no comparison at all to celebrating the diversity of our
beautiful colors and cultures! You argue convincingly for "multiplicity
and pluralism" -- but how can we celebrate this without recognizing how
unique black is from white, red from brown, male from female? _WE_ don't
have to revisit our parents' bigoted mistakes on our future generations
simply because we can see the green of the grass, the blue of the sky, the
red of a sunset. We can even detect different characteristics and (yes)
archetypal resonances between green, blue and red. We may not need to say
"green means grass and growth always." But we can acknowledge that it
carres resonance that's different from red and blue.
Women carry resonances that are, yes, are different than men. Not just
because they have "the plumbing", or the chemicals, or the exoskeletons,
or the addition of tissue in places and its absence elsewhere. This
essential difference is one of many of nature's brilliant diversities.
My favorite author (and I'll read your suggestions as well) is Carol
Gilligan, a close friend of mine through my "ex." She declares, in _In a
Different Voice_, that women and men are in fact different, and this is
what the feminist movement needs MOST to recognize so it doesn't simply
step into the shoes of patriarchal models. Your mention of the model of
the circle, instead of a line, is a vivid example. Patriarchese tends to
move us into "this and that", rather than the interconnectedness of all
things, or the continuum as you say. There is a place for discernment and
separation, analysis and definition (the "male") and a place for
connectedness and continuum, the circle and the plurality, equality of all
things (the "female" if you want). No one suggests that these concepts
aren't rife with confusion, and maybe it's the language we need to change,
but I cannot believe we are not saying somehow the same thing.
Whew! My fingers are tingling. I hope, across these network roads, that
part of my personality can come across. Thanks for your invitation to say
something about our personal journeys. I'd like to close by touching on
my fear, which I suspect is the root of my strong opinion. I'm afraid, as
a gay male, that the world is disappearing me. Pat Robertson, Pat
Buchanan, Dole, Gingrich, and the Californian Dornan who's homophobia
knows no bounds. I've been in their shadow long enough, and my friends
are dying because our love lives have to hide in gay bars and bath
houses. Because the world has no room for diversity, the diverse are
dying. Don't suspect for a moment that I don't appreciate this fact.
It's too close to me.
Perhaps if you remind the fascists in charge of how alike we all are, I
can work from my end to remind us that our differences continue to divide
us over and over again until we are each completely unique, therefore
connected again.
I hope this makes as much sense in the reading of it as it seems to in my head.
Thanks for your fire.
brent
T. Mckittrick
i enjoyed your response to this thread. i haven't really been following
it and just sort of dropped in. it was truly educational. i have been
reading much on the anima and animus and have some trouble (much trouble
sometimes) with my own personal conceptualization of them. meade's idea
of gender that you gave has helped immensely. thank you.
tmook
CKulk44
I'm addressing this to you since you seem most interested in responding,
but hope others will join in. I'll start by responding to your posting,
but then will try to get back closer to the original topic of this thread
-- although I believe all that we have been discussing is foundational to
a deep discussion of anima/animus.
Me, too -- i.e., I'm enjoying this exhange of ideas with you. Sorry about
the "sic." Hadn't meant to offend -- I just have this
obsessive-compulsive streak about things like quoting accurately. It says
a lot about you that you were so open to your old girlfriend. I agree
that a feminist critique does not "indict anything that is male." That's
the point really, isn't it? Under the rubric of "differences" between the
sexes, we often end up labeling men and women in ways Jung called
'levellin' -- i.e., generalizing about 'men' or 'males' as if all men,
e.g., are some monolithic group.
A point of clarification. I am not arguing that we can or should be blind
to color or gender. I'm arguing that what we believe about these
categores has been constructed. Therefore, if these categories have any
real or innate meaning, and if we honestly want to know what that might
be, then we must first admit that we don't yet know what they mean. Then
we have a chance of learning what they do "really" mean. I don't believe
we can be "blind" to the constructs of gender and color at least until
they have been challenged and deconstructed. Then we'll have to see. As
you point out, it's not a simple matter. On the one hand, yes, e.g., it's
great to cast people of all colors to play all roles. (Does he extend
this to sexes, too? Now, that would be very interesting.) In the
meantime, however, I think just the opposite. That is, we need to
acknowledge that race and gender are extremely important, but not
necessarily in any innate way. They're important because they have been
used as categories of oppression and discrimination. That's real and
cannot be ignored. Therefore, I agree with you that, e.g., productions of
works like *Raisin* should be enacted by African Americans for the reasons
you cite -- though I can't help but wonder if there might not be some room
here for whites to find ways to learn about black experience by enacting
such role -- I'm not sure on that one.
I'm not against recognizing how black experience is unique -- I'm just not
sure how much of it has to do with "being" black vs how blacks have been
socialized and oppressed. So, I challenge the categories of "black" and
"white." Here I follow the arguments made by many, but very articulately
by Toni Morrison in *Playing in the Dark,* The category of "white" does
not have deep historical roots. It's a concept that was constructed
fairly recently and that has been defined essentially in opposition to the
concept "black." So, what does it really mean to be "white"? And what is
so "diverse" about lumping people into two (or more) categories (e.g.,
male and female) and then talking about them as if the people in these
categories are all alike? What do pairs of opposites have to do with
diversity? Pluralism does not constrict discussion by limiting it that
way. This is easier to see when we discuss race -- there at least we can
refer to a bunch of colors. But, even then, there is a great danger (the
shadow side) of reducing people to their racial or ethnic identity. It is
absolutely essential for community life that we value diversity -- but the
celebration of diversity (a worthwhile project) is often disguised as
"difference" and used to label and limit others. This is particularly
true, I believe, when we use binocular vision, insisting on looking
through a lens that has only two categories.
As you might guess, although I appreciate and admire the pioneering work
of Gilligan and the way it undermines the work that came before it, she is
not one of my favorite authors. Men and women may indeed be "different"
-- BUT how much of that difference is innate vs socialized AND, even if
some of it is innate, how much does that matter? As you say, perhaps we
are saying the same thing. And, yes, we DO need to change the language --
that's my point. For me, it is no longer acceptable to label things, like
a circle, as "female." It serves NO useful function. I am remined here
of Haddon's book on *Body Metaphors." Although she is still stuck in a
contrasexual model, she at least makes the point that to associate certain
qualities with 'male' or 'female' is to miss something: e.g., to say that
'the masuline' is 'thrusting' (because of the action of the penis) is to
miss the fact that males also have testes which are 'soft' and
'vulnerable' -- qualities that are usually associated with 'the feminine.'
In other words, definitions of 'masculine' and 'feminine' are in the mind
of the beholder and arise out of a particular point of view.
I share your fears about the political scene. I think you make my point
eloquently. Diversity is dying precisely because we live in a culture that
is obessed with such a fear of difference that it tries to control the
variety of life by putting everything in one of two boxes: male/female,
gay/straight, white/black. Diversity needs more than that. Otherwise, it
only serves the purpose of crowd control.
And that brings me back to the source of this thread: anima/animus.
Demaris Wehr and Lyn Cowan have made similar points about how men often
resonate to the concept of the anima while women usually feel confused
about the idea of the animus. There's a good reason for this. We've all
been socialized to believe that males are innately one way and females
innately an Other ('complementary') way. So, we've all been socialized out
of some portion of our humanity. Men, as the dominant group, have been
socialized to project these 'feminine' qualities onto women, but women,
the oppressed group, have, in addition, been socialized to *internalize*
this oppression under the guise of 'the animus.' This is a hugely
simplified version of their arguments, but Cowan uses this to then show
how Jung's use of a/a (entrenched as they are in the concepts of
complementarity and contrasexuality) is basically heterosexist. Why, she
asks, does sexuality have to be 'contra' at all? When gays and lesbians
buy into this model, we are basically accepting the idea that in order to
be "whole" (whatever that means), we must find some way, no matter how
convoluted, to recognize the basic building blocks of heterosexuality
(i.e., the so-called 'masculine' and 'feminine' principles -- here
disguised as a/a). Why do we need these concepts at all? Why not take a
more pluralistic view (archetypally or otherwise) and enlarge our
understanding of the psyche rather than trying always to get everything to
fit into two heterosexist categories? Then how might we think about
G/L/B/T relationships? Let's open up our thinking rather than limiting
ourselves! When you are in a relationship with a man, what happens to
your so-called anima? Jung says that gay men are immature because they
identify with their anima (an inflation). All of this precisely *because*
Jung sees the anima as 'feminine' and doesn't know what to do with it in a
homosexual matrix. But what if the anima is not restricted to gender
associations (I'm not talking androgyny here) -- what if it's neither
'feminine' nor 'masculine.' I think that idea scares most Jungians. I
believe that this is where G/L/B/T experience can challenge Jungian theory
and where we can begin to construct some understanding of what it means to
be a G/L/B/T person.
That's it for me for now. Looking forward to responses from you and
others.
Claudette
Brent Blair
I was most impressed and opened up by your last article. I now understand
much more clearly what you mean in terms of redefining the a/a
relationships not in terms of the binocular vision of old (and I knew that
even Jung operated under heterosexist models!), but in more (dare I say)
multi-ocular perspectives.
I wrote a monologue once about a man who imagined he saw the world from
the perspective of a housefly. Tiny and with a multiplicity of points of
view. It was difficult to make out things at first, but he could see in
every direction and was stunned by how much his brain actually could take
in. I think you represent a way of seeing that is perhaps as complex and
perplexing to us binary people, and I hope you go much further down the
road towards articulating your perspective.
I disagree, I think, on one seemingly fundamental point:
For me, it is no longer acceptable to label things, like
> a circle, as "female." It serves NO useful function.
I think it does serve a useful function, just as much as NOT labeling
things serves an equally useful function. Just because we realize now
that the world is more complicated than we'd ever imagined (like your
analogy of what's "hard" and "soft" as being "male" and "female": I
wanted to add that the man who labelled these qualities was never entered
by another man!), and I think it rocks our world (in a good way) to
challenge these assumptions, it is equally destructive to throw out the
baby with the bathwater. The simple things, generalizations and
oversimplifications serve a vital purpose. The binary principles are not
all constructed. Many are, but nature operates in binary all the time.
You're quite right to suspect what are ACCEPTED binary principles,
though. Like male/female; I just saw *Guys and Dolls* (gahhhhggggg)
tonight. Not a more poignant, clear example of constructed stereotyping.
On the other hand, the seed that falls grows roots down and branches up.
If you turn it upside down after a little while, they reverse functions or
directions, depending on the plant. This natural binary principle is a
simple one, exploring opposite directions. It is only a beginning,
though. Some roots turn into food (potatoes, carrots), others continue to
channel water, branching ever further down. Even the branching is sort of
binary -- rarely do you see more than one split at a time. Usually one
root branches into two, than each branch into another two, and so on.
This ability to discern the duality helps us to see the overall shape of
the root, and know the whole plant a bit better. When we split into the
male and female, we are often mistakenly subscribing to societal
constructs, but if we are cautious and accurate, we'll begin the next
splits soon after, and so on. The difference is that the matrix of the
root system splits do not allow the roots to grow back together further
underground. Archetypes merge and blend all the time. In this sense,
there's probably only the vaguest applicability to viewing the psyche's
messages in the initial split of genders, but then only in the context of
many other influencing factors: class, age, type, appearance,
feeling/mood, symbol, period or era of origin, etc. Eg. If I dream of a
figure, I might first recognize it by its gender: male or female? then by
any number of factors. Is this a constructed bias? Do you feel that if
we were less hung up about gender, I'd view this dream figure first in
terms of function or action in stead of gender or appearance? You may be
right... I don't know.
I'll look for the articles and books you mention, especially *Body
Metaphors* by Haddon.
Gilligan is still right on the money about so many things, I think. I
think you'd really like her work on girls' development into womanhood, and
how the voice of the patriarchy really kicks in after this period. As
they start thinking about becoming adults, many girls slip into the "how
do men view women? What kind of women get ahead in society? I'll bury my
girl instincts in order to conform to the patriarchal picture." And the
process of destruction begins.
She may be coming from a heterosexist point of view, I haven't thought
much about it, but I find her views revelatory.
great to talk with you as always! are you writing articles/books?? you
should think about it....
peace
brent
Curious692
multi- ocular, multi-aural, multi-olfactory, multi-tasting (for lack of a
better term), and multi-tactile. Common sense is the premise on which the
intellect ought to ride.
CKulk44
I'm not sure what you intend to convey by this comment, but I imagine it
to be a defense of Jung's humanness. If so, I agree. Speaking for
myself, my remarks, although they are a critique of Jung, are not meant
to diminish his work. They are intended rather as an attempt at righting
some wrongs and pushing Jungian thought beyond Jung. I firmly believe
that if Jung were still around he would be leading this effort. That's
what it means, to me, to be "a Jungian" (echoing Jung's often cited
comment about how he wouldn't want to be "a Jungian" because that would
have been too limiting for him, requiring him to pledge allegiance to
someone else's ideas.
But, if you intended something else, please say more. I also do not
understand your comment that "Common sense is the premise on which the
intellect ought to ride." In my experience, common sense is not so
'common' and I'm not sure that the intellect has a corner on it anyway.
Would be interested in your response.
Brent-- The rest of this is for you and any who want to join in.
Got back from an invigorating bike ride yesterday (yes, spring is coming
to the northeast/midwest -- I live on the borderline in Pittsburgh) and
found your latest message. And then got a reprieve from work this
morning, so thought I'd respond to it.
I liked your analogy of the housefly. Interesting, isn't it, that nature
is full of such metaphors, but that we often are very selective in what we
seen and choose to use about 'nature.' What led you to come up with that
monologue? I am interested in what you wrote about how "nature operates
in binary all the time." I'll have to give this some thought. I feel
that I don't know enough about botany, for example, to have an immediate
response. I don't mean to doubt your description really, but I'm
wondering if it is based in 'scientific' understanding or if it is,
perhaps, a simplified description of a much more complicated process done
for the sake of analogy? I sincerely do not mean this as a criticism.
I'm really just trying to get a better grasp of the point you are making.
Actually, Andrew Samuels has some interesting things to say about the way
we humans have constructed our understanding of nature so that it reflects
our own views and prejudices. There is actually so much variety in
nature, yet we often use examples that simply promote our particular
agenda. (I include myself in this.) Of course, we do this with many
other things as well! Anyway, I'll think more on what you've said.
Re: the dream figure. I do tend to see any dream image as multifaceted,
so I'm not sure I see it any particular way "first." I think it all
depends upon the dreamer's psychology really. After that, I use some
intuition, for what it's worth, but I don't think I automatically go to
"function" or any other particular point of view.
I agree that Gilligan has done some excellent descriptive/phenomenological
work on the experiences of girls and women. Most psychoanalytically-based
models are heterosexist -- not sure so much about her specifically. She
clearly is doing a service if her work feels revelatory to you. That's
good. I'm going to a weekend workshop in Boston in April where some Stone
Center people will be presenting some of their latest "finding." Theyseem
very Gilligan-like to me, but I don't know if she/they would agree. Maybe
I'll have more to say after that.
In response to your closing question/remark: Thanks for the
encouragement. It arrived at a very synchronistic moment. I do love to
write, but I've done only a very limited amount of published pieces
(mainly a couple of reviews for The Round Table Press Review). However,
my dissertation (on lesbianism from a post-Jungian perspective) is
currently being considered for publication. There will have to be some
rewrites and reorganization -- that will be a lot of work, but exciting.
In fact, I just got a letter from the potential publisher this morning (in
the middle of writing this response) and they've asked for some kind of
written response from me about the reviewers' comments by March 7.
Doesn't give me a lot of fime to think things through (what with working
full-time, having a small private practice, doing volunteer work, having
an astrology consulting business, wanting to bicycle more, and enjoying
meeting people like you on the Internet)! So, I will keep my eye on this
thread, but probably will stick to briefer response for a while.
Take care. Regards,
Claudette
Collin A. Bachert
>associations (I'm not talking androgyny here) -- what if it's neither
>'feminine' nor 'masculine.' I think that idea scares most Jungians. I
>believe that this is where G/L/B/T experience can challenge Jungian theory
>and where we can begin to construct some understanding of what it means to
>be a G/L/B/T person.
This was my whole point all along. Perhaps my use of the word androgyny
obscured this, but that is how I conceptualize it. To me, androgyny is
the same as genderless. I apologize if the derivation of the word has
caused confusion here.
Blue