Understanding the Archetypes involving the eight functions of type (Beebe model)The key to understanding exactly how functions play out in each of MBTI's 16 types is the archetypes. Jung's larger theories included hundreds of archetypes, which are "character roles" of sorts (model of a hypothetical person in a particular role), within the psyche. A handful of these began to be associated with the function positions in each type, most notably by Jungian analyst John Beebe.First, we need to understand that functions (S, N, T, F) or "function attitudes" (Xe, Xi), are perspectives; not behaviors or skills-sets as they are often treated. These functions represent the different ways the emotions are brought into relationship with our higher mental operations. They carry what can be called a "sense of meaning" when brought into consciousness by the ego, and when not conscious, come out as felt reactions. In consciousness, they become the "interpreters" of these emotional events. Every person goes though life having to process both concrete and abstract information, and then make both impersonal, technical (logical) and personal, humane (value) judgments. Where our type theory begins; and the whole key to it, is in the way this processing affects us emotionally. The functions are differentiated when a greater value is given to those choices where emotion and reason are in synch. When we use a function that is destined to become "preferred", we feel an emotional investment in what we're doing, and we feel in control of our emotional life, so we keep on doing it. We tend to be more stimulated by the function. It then appears to "develop" or get "stronger", and behaviors associated with it will increase.We also should know something about Jung's division of the psyche or "larger Self".Archetypes are basically defined as "a way of organizing human experience that gives it collective meaning". The conglomeration of images, memories, and emotions surrounding an archetypal core, but unique to ourselves. So they too are tied to our emotional subsystems. This forms the basis of their connection to the functions. So one such human experience involves "heroically" solving a problem. That is one archetype. Another experience is supporting others. Another one is looking up to others to support us. And another involves finding completeness.
When we have individual experiences that fit into these particular collective frames of organization we are discussing, and form a pattern in us, they then enter the personal part of the unconscious, and become complexes. The archetype is at the core of the complex. And then the archetype forms an encasement around the function. The function then becomes the operational perspective or "world-view" of that complex.
Thus we develop an inferiority complex around the inferior function, a superiority complex around the superior function, a "best auxiliary" complex (the caretaker) around the auxiliary function, and an "eternal child" complex around the tertiary function. (Beebe)
However, the ego can still access the function apart from the archetypal "shell". Hence, what many people need to realize is that the function is not fated to be equal to its archetypal carrier. This leaves room for the functions to step away from their carriers and operate independently of what brought them into the ego, and for the carriers to go on being their archetypal selves in the background. It can then be removed from the context of the unconscious structure as needed. They wouldn't be made use of the same way a type preferring the function would. You could even recognize the standpoint a situation calling for the function requires, but the emotions felt in those situations won't be under conscious control. If not so referenced, then it remains conflated with one of the archetypal complexes, at the limbic level of emotional response.To sum it up, the different ways the functions manifest:1) Differentiated (the dominant ego perspective) 2) Undifferentiated: linked to the ego's dominant network ⢠ego-syntonic archetype complexes (auxiliary-parent; tertiary-child, inferior) ⢠general "uses" of the functions. We can all process tangible, conceptual, technical and humane data 3) Undifferentiated: Tied to the emotions at the limbic level through imaginal representation âego dystonic archetypes (Opposing, witch, trickster, demon), other complexes, instinctual reactionsThe full name of these elements is function[-attitude] complexes, or "Archetypal Complexes Carrying the Eight Functions", rather than reducing the complexes to the archetypes or the archetypes to the complexes. Jungian theorist Lenore Thomson (author of Personality Type: An Owner's Manual, and several articles, including Implications of Beebe's Model from a Neurological Standpoint; links at bottom) emphasizes the archetypes being complexes.
To start to understand the archetypes, we first need to understand the process of how they and the associated functions differentiate. This will give an idea of why each particular archetype and function falls in each particular position. The purpose is to present the eight archetypal complexes in a way where they are not conflated with the eight "Xx" "processes" as is often done.
The ego starts with its preferred comfort zone of the inner or outer world. The ego chooses its dominant function, which it uses in its preferred realm.
If Thinking (for instance) is chosen as the dominant, and in the internal world, then everything else is rejected or suppressed by the ego: the external world and the other three functions; Feeling along with both forms of perceiving, which remain undifferentiated. (They are engaged, but not as conscious ego functions, and not really distinguished in orientation, though Jung said they would be associated with the suppressed orientation; this case being the outer world).
"Whatever we habitually put aside to make our willful conscious choices will inevitably make its alliance with the unconscious -- emotions we don't want to feel, desires we don't recognize, etc. That is, the hero who has successfully established a sense of self and assimilated the good, supportive aspects of a Parental figure will be compensated, in the unconscious, by everything s/he's rejected as not part of this self." (Lenore Thomson, Personality Pathways article). Another way of portraying this unconscious realm is that the ego's bright light of awareness focuses on one part of reality, plunging the rest into darkness. What happens is that the person basically sees the part of themselves that perceives and judges through the rejected perspective in the worst light, then suppresses this sense in themselves, and projects it at others instead.In Jung's theory (originally), the orientations are more attached to the ego itself, than to the functions themselves. So there are really four functions, which the ego engages in one of two different orientations, generating eight "function-attitudes".
Soon, an auxiliary will be chosen, which will be of the initially suppressed perceiving mode of processing, as well as it being in the suppressed outer orientation.
These two functions will become apart of heroic and parental complexes. (There is additionally a Persona which also associates with the dominant, which is the face we put forth to the world).
A "child" complex will take on the opposite process from the auxiliary, and align it with the dominant attitude. ("Tertiary Temptation", where the tertiary is more a defense mode that provides justification for remaining in the dominant attitude when the person avoids the tempering influence of the auxiliary).
This is why the tertiary ends up as the same attitude as the dominant, where it was initially thought to be the opposite attitude, like the auxiliary and inferior. On one hand, the ego tends to reject everything else from its dominant orientation, so that the other functions in essence "collect" in the opposite orientation in this less conscious area. But then you have one of these complexes bringing one of the other functions into the dominant realm, as a sort of backup.
The opposite function from the dominant, Feeling, will be inferior and most suppressed, yet (in the opposite outer orientation) will deep down inside carry a connotation of completeness. It associates with Jung's "anima/animus", which is said to convey a sense of the opposite gender, which makes sense, since it involves an overall sense of "otherness". (i.e. In gender, as well as function and orientation).These pairs of opposite functions are known as tandems. Beebe had also named these two tandems. The hero and anima are called the "spine" of consciousness. The parent and child are called the "arm". Since each tandem will consist of either judgment or perception functions, Beebe terms them "rational" or "irrational", being Jung's terms for judgment and perception.
Beebe has made diagrams of these tandems crossing each other, with the spine as vertical, and the arm horizontal, so that it actually looks like a sort of skeletal frame. (And the dominant function is called the "head" while the inferior is the "tail"). But it actually means more than just that. As you may have noticed, the arm deals specifically with our relations to others. The spine, encompassing our main ego function, and the "soul", deals withour relationship to our own selves. These are set in place by the dominant and auxiliary functions. The dominant can be likened to our ego's "operating charter", and the auxiliary is what we often use with others. So it's like the tertiary and inferior as a pair are a mirror image of the dominant and aux. as far as the rationality of the function, and whether it is associated with self, or with others.
As Beebe has expressed it; the spine, which in defining our identity concerns itself more with what we can be or do in and for ourselves. The arm is more focused on the ways in which we use our consciousnesses to reach out to others. Think; a child will look up to others (for help, approval, etc). Just like the parent will try to help children.
This will prove very helpful in understanding his model, and identifying where particular functions fit in determining a type.So with all of this, we can see:For a dominant T, the persona carries a mastery of technical knowledge. Our frail limited humanity (including its emotions) thus feels vulnerable, so we ignore it. We thus feel our humane worth would be fulfilled through impersonal mastery.For a dom. F, the persona carries an air of humane stature. Vulnerability is losing that, and feeling cold and inhuman. When this happens, then they will turn to a cold, technical perspective.For a dom. S, the persona carries an air of tangible stability. Venturing into the abstract world of concepts represents vulnerability.For a dom. N, the persona carries an air of knowing the meanings behind things. Vulnerability is being stuck with only what is tangible.For an I, the persona focuses on the "depth" of the internal world. The external world is seen as shallow and intrusive.For an E, the persona focuses on the external world. The internal world is seen as likely obscure, esoteric and too complex.These orientations then color the perspective of the dominant function.For the arms, there is a similar dynamic, but not as pronounced, as the auxiliary is not as differentiated as the dominant. So the tertiary is not as suppressed as the inferior.For example, when confronted with concrete reality I cannot change or even understand, (and SJ's around me say "that's life"), I have always felt sort of like a child. I then might even begin to act like one, pouting, storming off, other rash "tangible" impulsive actions. etc.Only when I want to have childish relief, do I voluntarily switch to an S perspective. I've noticed, that much of my nostalgia involves a desire to redo parts of the past, but with those "that's life" obstacles removed (basically from the privilege of being older).
Of course, with the four function positions being filled by four out of eight function-attitudes or "processes", we often from here get the question ofwhat about the "other four" processes for each type. This is where Beebe came in with his "eight-process model".
In the older theory, the inferior had been deemed what is known as the "shadow"; basically the least conscious part of the psyche. The type with the same four functions in reverse (inferior as hero, tertiary as aux., etc.; the type with all four letters opposite, or "inverse relationship" according to Beebe) was deemed the "shadow type", with a negative manifestation of it erupting under stress. (See www.teamtechnology.co.uk/myersbriggs.html)
Beebe determined that the inferior was actually apart of the "ego-syntonic" (or primary) range, along with the first three, but that it did border on thetrue "shadow" or "ego-dystonic" range, which is an even less conscious realm where these supposed "other" four processes lied. (So the true "shadow type" would actually end up as the one sharing only the two middle letters, or its inverse, sharing the first and last letter!)
Recall, there are really only four functions, which an ego interprets situations through in an inner or outer orientation, suppressing the unchosen orientation into the unconscious. Jung actually described function orientation in terms of a complete cycle starting from and returning to the preferred attitude, and accessing the opposite orientation along the way. Introverted functions flow from the subject to the object, and then return to the subject as what's irrelevent is subtracted according to the internal blueprint. Extraverted functions flow from the object to the subject, who then merges himself back with the object. So both attitudes are basically implicit in each function. (Hence, really only four functions, once again! And this will explain natural confusion people have telling one attitude of a given function from the other). The ego-syntonic complexes prefer one orientation, which becomes the starting and ending point. So what the ego-dystonic complexes can be seen as doing is "turning up the volume" so to speak, on the "far side" of that process; opposite the starting and ending point! So what Beebe's concept of the shadow really is, is a glimpse into these suppressed orientations of both the functions and the complexes that employ them.
The "hero" degrades into an "opposing personality" interpreting situations through the dominant function in its suppressed opposite orientation. (This is one that Beebe named himself. In Jung's conception, it was just a "negative hero"). Since we're now tapping [further] into what has beenrejected from the consciousness by the ego, this, (along with the next three) will often come out in a negative fashion. Yet this one does also back up and fill in the blind spots of the hero. (It is also said to often be the opposite gender, like the anima).
The "parent" splits off a "critical" version of itself interpreting situations through the auxiliary function in the opposite orientation. Beebe matched this to Jung's "witch" and "senex" (old man) archetypes (for females and males, respectively). Its good side is that it can provide profound wisdom. (A more accurate female archetype might be "The Crone", which carries the intended "formerly respected, now negated" sense like the Senex, but without the "magical" connotation of the "Witch", which is not really what the archetype is about).
The negative aspect of the "child" receives its interpretations of situations through the opposite orientation of the tertiary and becomes a bratty "bad child", associated with Jung's "trickster" archetype. It rebels and creates double binds for self and especially others, and its good side is comedic relief.
The anima or "soul" is shadowed by a "demon" which interprets situations through the opposite orientation of the inferior. (This is basically a "negative anima", and it appears a "double negative" principle leads to it being the same gender as the person). Since that was already the most suppressed area, then its shadow manifests in a particularly destructive fashion. It can also become an "angel" or "transformer" in bad situations.
The resulting order, it must be stressed, is not to be assumed to be strength. And even though we have used "shadow" as the group of bottom four, even that is not a hard division. According to Mark Hunziker and Leona Haas Building Blocks of Personality Type (Unite Business Press, a division of Telos, 2006): Actually, the shadow encompasses all processes that are primarily unconscious in an individual. Which processes these are will depend on that person's type development and can even include all eight in a very young child. Note also, that the normal hierarchy of preference for processes five through eight has not yet been empirically established, and in practice is likely to vary from person to person. Beebe cautions us not to assume too much on the basis of his numbering, which in many ways is simply for convenience in identifying the various positions. He simply puts it forth as a tool that he has found useful and informative and which at least for the first four functions seems to reflect the order of conscious cultivation of the functions that he has observed. The numbers for the shadow functions are identified merely to mirror the ordering of the first four. (Glossary: "Shadow", p. 215, emphasis added) This theory isn't really describing the functions being "used". It's showing the complexes when they're influencing one's behavior.In actuality, rather than the archetypes constraining the functions, the functions constrain the complexes. That is, when a complex is activated, the behaviors will reflect the function associated with it. When the complex is invoked, the feelings will reach us by way of the associated function; and especially the aspects of it that we don't usually allow into consciousness, or something that we associate with it that strikes us as fitting the archetype. (oppositional or adversarial, cranky or witchy, deceptive or mischievous, or evil and inhuman. It could also hold for the inferior and other primary ones as well). As an example of a more positive side of the shadows, Beebe mentions an INTP husband of an ENFP interviewer, whose dominant function is her Trickster. The "humorous" positive side of this archetype gives us "a certain ability to cope" that "allows you to get through the jungle of human relations". For her, the function conveyed "a sense of humor about introverted people and understood how to get along with them". ("Typology in the Development of Integrity")The different tandems also carry over into the shadow. All four complexes tend to be very negative towards both self and others, but the opposing personality and demon, as the shadow of the spine, will be more connected with the self (ego). The witch/senex and trickster, as the arm will be more about "tying down" others to get them off our backs. Hence, you will see the "Oppositional" process described in Linda Berens' books (theUnderstanding Yourself and Others series and Dynamics of Personality Type; Telos Publications) as being "stubborn" about things, while the "critical parent" is more sharply "critical", and described elsewhere in terms of "low blows" and "looks that stop you dead in your tracks". One is primarily serving the ego it is shadowing, while the other is focused on dealing with the other person.
There also are simply the consecutive pairs, which in Socionics, are called "blocks". The dominant and auxiliary, will be more developed and mature, and the tertiary and inferior (when they develop, in coming years) will be less developed and immature, from being initially suppressed and thus lower on the acceptance order from the first two. This will set the stage for the archetypal roles or complexes mapped to the functions.
Also, from what I have seen, the blocks will also parallel. The opposing and witch will convey the confidence of the hero and parent in a very aggressive way. The trickster and demon, while not really "vulnerable" themselves like the child and anima, nevertheless will compensate for the vulnerability of those complexes, and thus come out very reactively. We are still vulnerable in situations that call for the 7th and 8th functions. Like for me, certain physical acts such as walking elevated tracks. In that case, the Trickster tries to protect me from the potential danger (picked up by the preferred extraverted iNtuition) by making me feel double-bound from moving one way or the other. The gaps look bigger and impassable without tripping, any way I look. Consciously; I know I can get across, but unconsciously, there is something preventing me. So this protection often comes at a price, as it is evident here. The truly "vulnerable" aspect of the archetype in this case is what can be called "the fool". Also, it seems the demon splits into an equally vulnerable, totally pathetic "bad-guy/loser" image we fear becoming if we don't fight the demon without, while projecting the truly powerful evil image onto our opponents).The Trickster and Demon function influenced decisions particularly are said to end up being regretted because they usually erupt in such a rash manner from being the most suppressed, and in the more vulnerable areas.
So now, we can make generic terms for the eight archetypes. They can be reduced down to three variables which should give a more concise idea of what they are about:positive (primary) vs negative (shadow) confident (top two of four functions) vs vulnerable (bottom two) ego-focused (spine) vs others-focused (arm)hero: positive, confident, ego-focused parent: positive, confident, others-focused child: positive, vulnerable, others-focused anima: positive, vulnerable, ego-focused opposing: negative, confident, ego-focused witch/senex: negative, confident, others-focused trickster: negative, vulnerable (compensatory), others-focused demon: negative, vulnerable (compensatory), ego-focusedI also believe there is a sort of "mirroring" dynamic in the shadows, where even though the opposing and witch shadow the confidence of the hero and parent, it also does reflect in a way, the vulnerability of the child and anima. This is masked by the aggressiveness of them, and can be evidenced in descriptions of the opposing as "avoidant". Hence, Beebe has been cited ("A Closer Look at the Auxiliary Function" lecture, 2008, APT, Sacramento, CA) as saying that intimidating the child will trigger both the witch and trickster. The trickster is the shadow of the child, but the witch is sort of a larger reflection of the child. (Just like, as was pointed out, the child is a reflection of the parent). In fact, in classic Jungian theory, the Senex was the shadow of the Puer, rather than the Good Parent. (Many pairs of comedians or characters reflect a Puer/Senex duo, with one being silly and simpleminded, and the other, grumpy and serious). Hence, the good child ends up compensated by both the critical parent, and bad child. This is also what I believe explains the opposing personality being opposite gender, like the anima/animus. It is a negative compensatory reflection of it. Likewise, the trickster and demon shadow the vulnerable child and anima, yet reflect (in a negative way) the strength of the hero and parent. Think of the word "trickster", as well as a "devil" who often "appears as an angel of light". They tend to appear innocent, yet end up as the most dangerous. Just like there was classically a Puer/Senex duo, then the similar contrast to the good Parent would be the Jester; the polar opposite of the king or authority figure who is threatened by anything that isn't conventional. This would represent a pairing of Parent/Trickster in certain forms. (This mirroring concept will be expanded a bit, further down).Here, in a nutshell, is an example of the degradation of all four "primary functions and archetypes, into all four shadows:Jung had defined the concepts of "abstracting" and "empathy" in terms, respectively, of introversion and extraversion (rather than intuition and Feeling, as they came to be used). To "abstract" is to devalue the object and strip it of all irrelevant elements, and to empathize is the essentially merge the subject with the object, trusting the object. Basically, "subtracting" and "adding", respectively.So for shadow degradation, it then makes sense that if I prefer to devalue the object in favor of subjective content in technical relationships (the dominant ego perspective), and then tend to trust the object with humane relationships, and this is a vulnerable, shaky area (inferior); then if I constantly get "burned" there, I'll eventually withdraw the value from the object and place it back into the subjective content, in which I then strip it of its association with irrelevant elements (which don't make sense to the subjective content). The issue is still one of humane relationships, so it's not simply the dominant perspective "mixing" with the inferior, as some four-process theorists would argue.This is a negative, reactive response that is not consciously controlled, and using a humane perspective I normally dissociate from the subjective content. Likewise, when it comes time to take action through technical means, I'll merge with the object in a negative way to support ego's goals (and thus oppose the threat). This covers the spine.As for the arm, the child seeks relief (in my case, nostalgia about the past) through Si, in which I devalue the tangible object in experience, and instead save the most relevant images. But the preferred perspective this is filtered through is still Ne, which merges with the conceptual object and says things should be open, and unique. If something conventional and closed is forced on me, that will make me feel like an oppressed child. So then, how will the person or institution responsible for this come across? As a negative, limiting parent, and one who forces a particular negative pattern, in which the object is now devalued, and a particular relevant element is locked in on, and thus not open and flexible. Thus, the projection of the Senex through the perspective of Ni. And then, how does this child deal with this perceived bad parent? Try to get him off my back through trickery, merging with the environment of emergent tangible data; being "bad" myself through the Trickster with Se (which is also simultaneously projected onto the other person in the form of a menacing bully). The understanding of the complexes starts with the ego, and its boundaries; both external ones (against all that is not self), and internal (between the conscious and unconscious), in addition to the ego's defenses. Particularly against painful emotions that can be damaging to us. When these defenses are challenged, then the ego's integrity is at stake.The way this seems to work is that the Self tries to bring the shadow perspectives into consciousness, and the ego resists this, trying to keep them out of consciousness when they go against the ego's goals. When they do come into consciousness against the ego's wishes, it will often take the form of an erratic reaction, often responding in kind through the perspective of the function, or behaviors associated with it. This is what would be commonly misconstrued as "uses of shadow functions". So from what I have been able to gather, the specific complexes are basically "constellated" in response to the following threats to the ego:The Opposing Personality is a reaction towards the ego and especially its heroic dominant perspective and persona being opposed or obstructed. Obstruction might also be when ego's connection with the anima is obstructed.The Senex/Witch is the reaction against negation and vulnerability. Negation would seem to be a challenge to the parental authority of the auxiliary perspective, and vulnerability would be from threats to the child. Hence, intimidating the child said to trigger both the witch and trickster (We can notice so far, the "mirroring" dynamic that has been mentioned).The Trickster is a reaction against being controlled or put upon. (Child feels burdened, parent feels powerless).The Demon is basically a reaction against a threat against the ego's integrity structure. The extreme case of this would be "ego death": the removal of its boundaries. So, in lesser cases of stress, it might erupt when the ego feels totally helpless, especially when the anima is under strong attack. Where the anima represents our connection to "life", the Demon reprsents "death".Again, you can see in this how the spines deal more with the ego itself, while the arms are about others.The Demon and Trickster are also said to specifically appear at times when there is danger of ego disintegration. This is when the ego's boundaries (mainly, in this case, its defenses) are totally breached. We would then be left defenseless against damaging emotional content. So the unconscious area of our personality dispatches these last stands to protect the ego's integrity. This might occur in the aftermath of trauma, especially when trying to get back to normal, where demonic figures appear in dreams threatening to destroy you in some way, or the the person's ego might confuse itself to bind him from taking action that might expose him to more trauma.From here, there is a debate as to whether these complexes surface only in those kinds of severe instances, or in everyday situations. The way they were originally conceived is more the former. Beebe, of course, introduced the latter view. For now, I believe it is a combination of both. You could say the everyday constellations of the complexes are miniscule versions, for when the ego's boundaries feel threatened in more miniscule, everyday ways, especially by emotional pain. The former view does acknowledge that more positive versions of the two complexes appear later in life, to help us grow towards individuation. The Trickster, for instance, then floods consciousness with double-binds to force the ego to grow beyond its normal perspectives. This might be a bit closer to what Beebe's theory is trying to convey.It is true, that the Trickster and Demon, as discussed by Donald Kalsched were originally more about trauma. I have also seen a notion that the whole shadow (which originally to Jung was one single archetype) was more likely what we know as the Opposing Personality. Sort of like four-process theory, where the inferior is considered the whole shadow, this would be basically a five-process theory.I found this review of one of Kalsched's books by Beebe where he provides a bit of rationale for having four shadow complexes rather than them being "blurred into a master mythologem like Jung's dark Mercurius, who too easily becomes a metaphor for the whole shadow in all its shape-shifting aspects": Book Review: The Inner World Of Trauma: Archetypal Defenses of the Personal Spirit by Donald Kalsched)Seeing now that the original concepts were about trauma made me have to consider if the Trickster and Demon were necessarily the best archetypes to assign to the negative child and negative anima roles. (There were actually hundreds of archetypes to choose from. The ones we discuss are just those Beebe chose to represent the ego's cognitive dynamics. There are actually several different archetypes bundled in these "roles" as it is). Still, for now, apparently, it seems there are miniscule versions of the energies that hail from this space for lesser threats, that are nevertheless seen as grave to the ego's position. These "traumatic" occasions would be special instances of the Trickster and Demon, where the Self now tries to keep damaging information out of consciousness, despite whatever the ego is trying to do with it.Hence, both the 7th and 8th functions as brain hemisphere lateral alternatives or "mirrors" of the dominant and aux, as well as shadows of the tertiary and inferior. Also, the 5th and 6th functions both mirroring the same-hemisphere tertiary and inferior, as well as shadowing the dominant and auxiliary.Examples of the shadows in my experience What the complexes are all about is projection. The complexes (especially the shadows) are what we project onto others, and the goal of ego-development is to "own" them, and see them as apart of ourselves. Hence, the larger self, which encompasses both the ego consciousness, and the personal and collective unconscious is said to constantly be trying to "get our attention" through means such as conflicts and reactions, as well as dreams. This is because the ego thinks it's the center of the psyche, when the larger Self really is.
When we project the encompassing complexes onto people, they seem to fit those roles, likely through the lens of the function-attitude in that position in some way, and we react often antagonistically in kind through that function. Or, they might genuinely be fitting the role in their own behavior. Projection can be "positive" as well, though that can still ultimately become a negative thing. The anima projection on a loved one is an example (and there is a danger of becoming over possessive, or the feelings seeming to go away when the sense of "otherness" about the person wears off), and we also are projecting onto people when we are jealous of them, thinking they have something we don't.To own the complex instead of projecting it at others, we must see ourselves as playing those roles; our own worst enemies. This is hard, because these parts of us are what we have shut out of our consciousness.
When we withdraw the complex, we then become more receptive to interpretations of situations through the function that has become embedded in the complex's archetype. We can then experience the positive side of the perspective more.
This is what has somewhat misguidedly become shorthanded as "developing the functions". That again assumes the functions are "skills" we "use". But you're not really developing functions; you're expanding consciousness and recovering (integrating) suppressed perspectives, as that again is what the function attitudes are. The hypothetical goal is called "individuation". While this would yield a more balanced perspective in living, it is really not simply being "strong" in "all eight functions".
Really, self-growth is what all of this stuff is really, ultimately all about!Naturally, what happens in midlife, is that when the ego grows a bit bored of seeing life through its lifelong perspectives (seeing they haven't really solved the pains of life), it weakens its defenses, and the suppressed perspectives will be able to come into consciousness more. For instance, the Trickster will be "flooding consciousness with paradoxes that have no solution within the framework the ego has established". (Lenore Thomson, Personality Pathways). The ego can either continue trying to resist, or instead become more open to them. (Hence, it's not a matter of the functions automatically "developing" like the first four did). This is what is supposed to lead towards "individuation".In short, the four basic positions can be summed up as 1, 5 ego's identity and advancement 2, 6 ego's authority over others 3, 7 ego's submission or deference 4, 8 ego's connection to life, aspirationsSo it seems, the way the complexes (the more negative ones, mainly) are constellated, is that 1) we feel {inferior, obstructed, negated, double bound, ego threatened} 2) we then project this onto others 3) we then respond in kindSo here now are the pertinent complexes. The thing to remember, is that anyone can do any of these things using the functional perspectives, but for the type with that function connected to that archetype, there will be a heightened emotional investment in the action or reaction, as the function translates the emotional responses involving the complex into cognitive information.
HERO (dominant)
Since this is the ego's main standpoint, we probably don't often project it at others. We "own" it right off the bat. It is "us", at least in our conscious self-image. I imagine it's when we're really young, and we look up to those who manifest the perspective that will become dominant in our own consciousness. We then seek to be like them and emulate them; becoming better and better at the process as we go on. We eventually master it, and thus are able to withdraw the projection; seeing ourselves as the "hero" in this area.As "operating charters", the emotionally positive sense of heroically solving a problem would best be captured by the rational mind through the following perspectives:Se (ESxP): The environment must be scanned for tangible experiences Si (ISxJ): Life must be familiar to my storehouse of data Ne (ENxP): The environment must be inferred for alternative possibilities Ni (INxJ): Life must have an underlying significance inferred by me Te (ExTJ): The environment must be efficiently organized Ti (IxTP): Life must make technical sense to me Fe (ExFJ): The environment must be socially friendly Fi (IxFP): Life must be humanely congruent to meGOOD PARENT (auxiliary)
You would think we likewise don't project this much, since we see it as just as integral to our type as the dominant. But since (according to Lenore) we often jump straight to the tertiary defense, we apparently do not always completely own the complex. When we do, we reportedly gain a strong motivation to teach and mentor others, and sometimes going to the opposite extreme of wjhat's been called "preaching the auxiliary". The person now rigorously "parents" others with their perspective, including their method of owning the complex.
I imagine projecting the parent would mean you would see others as parent figures you want to help you with the perspective of the function in that position. Running to the tertiary, we're playing a role of "child" (that function's archetypal shell) anyway. Again, when we mature in the function, we then take a more "parental" role, and would then withdraw the projection.
But being in a heavy SJ environment, I have probably not had many people I could project this onto, so I believe I owned it pretty early, making my Ne very strong (as reflected by the cognitive process test), to the point of seeming to be possibly my dominant.The emotionally positive sense of authoritatively supporting others is best captured by the rational mind through: Se (ISxP): Aiding others in tangible experiences Si (ESxJ): Teaching others according to what's familiar Ne (INxP): Showing others alternative possibilities Ni (ENxJ): Showing others underlying significance of things Te (IxTJ): Directing others to efficiently organize the environment Ti (ExTP): Teaching others according to logically truth Fe (IxFJ): Instructing others on group ethics or values Fi (ExFP): Teaching others by one's own personal relation to situationsPUER/PUELLA ("eternal child", tertiary)
Since this would be the function our egos run to to maintain the dominant attitude, we probably don't project this associated complex onto others. The ego naturally owns it quickly. (Projection would be seeing others as "children" in some way).
The tertiary thus "inflates" itself, aiming to appear full of "wisdom and maturity" and be equal to the dominant or auxiliary of others. Yet then it deflates itself, and I (for instance) become like a child wanting to be taken and led into the innocent past through nostalgic interests. It also tends to "tell us what we want to hear" (for me, relying on what I know to be factually true).
Actually, all conscious complexes tend to inflate themselves. It's actually the ego that is doing the inflating, as it seeks to be the center of the psyche (in place of the Self). So since the tertiary is the ego's first line of defense of the dominant perspective, it seems to be the one that is seen "inflating" the most.The emotionally positive sense of child-like relief is best captured by the rational mind through: Se (ENxJ): Looking to be led by others in tangible experiences Si (INxP): Nostalgic enjoyment of memories, especially childhood Ne (ESxJ): childlike exploring of alternatives, new possibilities Ni (ISxP): childlike exploring of underlying significances Te (ExFP): Finding relief in organizing the environment Ti (IxFJ): Childlike exploration of logical frameworks Fe (ExTP): childlike when connecting with others Fi (IxTJ): Find relief through internal harmony; personally relating to situations represents innocenceNow, we enter the realm of the less conscious complexes; the ones that do get heavily projected onto others, and need to be owned.When we project the encompassing complexes onto people, they seem to fit those roles, generally involving the function-attitude in that position in some way, and we react oppositionally in kind with that function. Or, they might genuinely be fitting the role in their own behavior. To own the complex instead of projecting it at others, we must see ourselves as playing those roles; our own worst enemies. This is hard, because these parts of us are what we have shut out of our consciousness.
ANIMA (inferior, aspirational) What it is about, and which function it encases:
The collecting place of our sense of "otherness", including life, libido and and instinctual energies. The word means "soul". Shaped largely by the parent of the opposite sex, projected onto those we fall in love with, and encases the inferior function.We likely feel inferior in both the internal or external orientation, and the functional perspective associated with the inferior.Possible drawbacks from the emotionally freighted sense of connecting with life:ISxJ's might feel inferior in new possibilities. INxJ's might feel inferior with current tangible experience. IxTP's might feel inferior in humane (personal) matters (including one's standing in social groups). IxFP's might feel inferior in technical (impersonal) matters, such as regarding logical organization. ESxP's might feel inferior (spaced out) by conceptual frameworks such as archetypes and symbolism. ENxP's might feel inferior when it comes to a storehouse of tangible acts, such as learned order ExTJ's might feel inferior on a humane level, including personal integrity. ExFJ's might feel inferior on a technical level, such as regarding logical understanding.
How we project it onto others:
ISxJ's Cling to dominant perspective. Criticize NP's as irresponsible regarding learned knowledge INxJ's Cling to dominant perspective. Criticize SP's as reckless IxTP's Appear insensitive or unfeeling and openly complain about FJ types. IxFP's Criticize other's organization ESxP's Criticize this stuff as irrelevant. ENxP's Dismissed learned methods as irrelevant ExTJ's Become defensive and develop a martyrdom complex where it's everyone else's ethics that are bad. ExFJ's Criticize others as illogical.
In each case, there's a deep down inside longing for what they are brushing off, that they might realize if they look for it. Espsecially in mid-life, when individuation takes us inward.We (at least unconsciously) feel we would be best completed in the orientation by someone by our side who somehow fulfills the perspective. (Since this is a projection onto the person, they are not necessarily a type that prefers the function).I imagine this might come out in the emotional images that surface when we think of a beautiful romantic day:ISxJ's exploring new possibilities, to "create new memories". INxJ's enjoying rigorous tangible experience together, and extracting meaning from it. IxTP's strolling through a beautiful setting involving an atmosphere colored by other people; admiring technical things. IxFP's working side by side at some sort of logical organization with a humanitarian purpose. ESxP's someone to get lost with in a world of conceptual frameworks such as archetypes and symbolism, and then realizing their dreams. ENxP's enjoying nostalgia together, and exploring them as exciting possibilities ExTJ's someone who gives them a sense of personal integrity, giving them further incentive for their logical ordering. ExFJ's exoploring technical wonders, and feeling connected through this.Yet in real life, no one can ever fulfill this ideal companion, so we tend to just find fault with people who use the opposite perspective.
Since in the typical Beebe order where the eight are evenly divided four and four, the inferior usually falls on the "ego-syntonic" side, where the next four are "ego-dystonic" and negative. So Berens includes it with the first three as generally positive, having a negative side, rather than generally negative, having positive side. So the "negative" side of this "aspirational" function she calls "projective"; and often the first aspect of it experienced. We "project our fears, shoulds and negativities onto others". What happens, is that it basically shapes ideals we feel inferior in, which are then projected outward at others by thinking of them as what they "should" do.In reality, it is all the shadows or unconscious complexes that get projected onto others. Of course, this harmonized with standard four-process theory, where the inferior IS considered to be the whole "shadow".
So that is another aspect of the inferior projection besides just the opposite gender stuff.How to own it: We see others as completing us (i.e. we're inferior), but we need to see this completeness in ourselves. We need to become better at what we feel inferior at ourselves, rather than placing demands on others. In the deeper Jungian concept, there is also a whole sense of "libido" or "life-giving energy" we tend to project onto the opposite sex (especially men projecting onto women). When we come to see this in ourselves, we will withdraw the projections, and also again gain more access to the unconscious. The anima/animus then becomes a "sage", and ultimately, an inner source of wisdom. There are two links on the anima below (Donald Kalsched, Paul Watsky) which will provide more information on this.What is trying to be brought into consciousness is the need to own the shadow; what is "not I", the ego-dystonic; and a good place to start is with the [yet ego-syntonic] perspective of the opposite function and orientation together.Now, to "the shadow", proper. "The Shadow" was originally (to Jung) a single archetype that gets projected onto our enemies. In this model, it is of course divided into four distinct roles, shadowing the primary archetypes. (In the older model, it is just the inferior itself. So in this model, the inferior or anima/animus is often called "the bridge" to the unconscious).
OPPOSING PERSONALITY COMPLEX What it is about, and which functional perspective it encases:
We feel negative emotions of our dominant perspective being obstructed by things in the opposite orientation. Then, we become stubborn about them. The complex then defends the dominant perspective in that opposite orientation.
ISxJ's Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about tangible reality. INxJ's Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about emergent meanings and possibilities IxTP's Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about the way things are organized IxFP's Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about group standards ESxP's Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about their perceptions of how things once were ENxP's Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about their perceptions of how the future will be ExTJ's Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about models and principles and robotically following them ExFJ's Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about personal values
How we project it onto others:
The subconscious attitude generally is: "you're obstructing me, so I'll oppose you". [I'm so immersed into my dominant orientation and oppose the opposite one, and project the opposition onto you]ISxJ's Think that living in the moment is irresponsible. (However, some who do it are sexy). INxJ's Probably think that multiple possibilities are absurd. The patterns point to one right conclusion. IxTP's Think that agreed upon logical rules are stupid and a waste of time. Spunky Te types might be sexy IxFP's Think that agreed upon ethics do not get to the real needs of people; affect them negatively, etc. ESxP's Memorized rules and such are stupid and limiting of freedom. ENxP's Taking only one possibility is stupid and limiting. ExTJ's Breaking things down into trivial detail is stupid, inefficient and a waste of time ExFJ's Tailoring everything to individual personal needs is too much trouble
How to own it:
We're making others into "opposing personalities" ("negative heroes" or "villains"), but we're really our own villain.
What is trying to be brought into consciousness: the need for the rejected orientation.Ji/Pe types have chosen P and suppressed J. And Je/Pi types have chosen J and suppressed P. Hence, P's might not really make many decisions externally, but instead just try to get by under other people's order, with which we can easily find fault, but not offer much of a better solution ourselves.
If we were to exercise (own) more of a J attitude (as represented by our dominant function's opposite orientation), we would be more proactive in the outer world and thus able to attain better positions of control and not feel so at the mercy of others. We would then be able to withdraw some of the vilification or criticism we direct at those in power. Likewise, if J's would likewise take on more of a [suppressed] P attitude, they would withdraw a lot of their blame on others for not being organized enough.This complex is also usually contrasexual, like the anima/animus. It seems to be what we "lust" after in the opposite sex. While the anima is "madonna" or the "nice guy" we "love" in the opposite sex, this complex is the "whore" or "bad boy". (My own observation). This will especially be prominent in men who have not developed their anima to the stage where they dissociate it from their mother.
WITCH/SENEX ("critical parent") What it is about, and which functional perspective it encases:
We feel negative emotions connected to extreme crankiness, as like an authoritarian figure whose position is negated, and then become "critical and disgruntled" (Berens) about the associated perception or judgment perspective. "Parent" others negatively in a limiting, authoritarian fashion.
ISxP's Feel negated in or become disgruntled about rememberance of facts. INxP's Feel negated in or become disgruntled about patterns and perceived significance of events (and what they appear to lead to). IxTJ's Feel negated in or become disgruntled about variable logical principles IxFJ's Feel negated in or become disgruntled about personal ethics ESxJ's Feel negated in or become disgruntled about current sensory experience (what things look like, etc). ENxJ's Feel negated in or become disgruntled about alternative possibilities. ExFP's Feel negated in or become disgruntled about group values ExTP's Feel negated in or become disgruntled about set logical order
How we project it onto others; how it might play in their subconscious mind:
ISxP's Avoid past rememberances, except to blame, and will make them critical if others dwell too much â¢I'M the authority on factual data, and you have dwelled too much on the past and should move on [I feel bad about the past, and project it onto you]INxP's Interpret everything in terms of a "big picture" in which the worst will happen, and blame those around them: â¢I'M the authority on concepts and inferences. What you're doing fits (implies, infers, etc.) a negative pattern I see, and I'm going to stand against it. [I feel the patterns are against me, and project it onto you].IxTJ's Will often angrily hit others with logical "truth" or principles: â¢I'M the authority on logical order. You are being totally illogical! [I subconsciously know my logic is not very deep with my external focus, and I project this onto you]IxFJ's Can angrily hit others with personal or universal ethical "truth": â¢I'M the authority on ethics! Your behavior shows a lack of personal integrity. [I feel I'm not living up to the personal (internal) side of ethics with my external focus, and I project it onto you].ESxJ's Very critical about the way things look, which they easily spot to find fault with (I call them "hawks") â¢I'M the authority on tangible reality (e.g. how things look). What you're making is ugly. [I feel deficient in this area, and project it onto you].ENxJ's Might attack people for bombarding them with alternative possibilities and meanings, especially if they do not have any "authority" to do so: â¢I'M the authority on conceptual ideas. Your ideas are totally ridiculous! [I cannot handle multiple emergent possibilities and project this onto you]ExTP's Will fight, compete and one-up others over the way things are ordered. â¢I'M the authority on logical sense. You are being totally illogical! [I subconsciously know my logic is not readily practical to others with my internal focus, and I project this onto you]ExFP's will authoritatively chastize those perceived as disrupting social harmony (and end up disrupting it themselves), and will reference standards imposed upon themselves: â¢I'M the authority on ethics. You're displaying bad social behavior [I go against external values when they conflict my internal standard, yet my conscience bothers me about this, and I project it at you].How to own it:
We see others as shaming, blaming "critical parents", setting limits on us in an authoritarian (Hunziker) fashion (and then react in kind), but we're really our own critical parent, and blaming others for this.
What is trying to be brought into consciousness through this is wisdom neglected in our preferred Parental complex.TRICKSTER (bad child, clown) What it is about, and which functional perspective it encases:
Emotions connected with that of a bad child; either dealing with one, playing tricks and binding the ego, or then being one to get back at or rebel against the threat, will often come through the perspective. Where the Puer tells us what we want to hear, the Trickster tells us what we don't want to hear! We feel "bound", and then, in a rebellious fashion, try to turn the tables by using it for deceiving, double-binding, trapping others
ISxP's Might feel 'double-bound' by alternative possibilities INxP's Might feel 'double-bound' by tangible reality (physical things, etc), and then it seems to become the perfect vehicle to try to turn the tables on others with, or to be silly with. IxTJ's Might feel 'double-bound' by social values, and use them to trap others into behaving or conforming IxFJ's Might feel 'double-bound' by set logical order, and make mistakes trying to implement it themselves ESxJ's Might feel 'double-bound' by patterns or inferences, and use them to trap others into confirming their worst fears ENxJ's Might feel 'double-bound' by memorized facts that go against ego, and use them to trap others ExTP's Might feel 'double-bound' by a focus on personal values, and use them to trap others ExFP's Might feel 'double-bound' by variable logical principles and use them to trap others or be silly
How we project it onto others; how it might play in their subconscious mind:
ISxP's See people tossing out alternative possibilities and meanings as bad children or clowns: â¢HA! Got you! You're trying to bind me [I feel lost with emergent inferences and project it onto you] so I'm going to bind you with concepts and possibilities.INxP's People performing rigorous stunts are clowns; people pointing out tangible reality that goes against the ego seem like "bullies": â¢HA! Got you! You're trying to bind me [I feel bound by tangible reality and project it onto you], so I'm going to bind you with tangible realityIxTJ's might criticize others' social behavior to scare them by saying they are bringing rejection on themselves: â¢HA! Got you! You're trying to bind me with social rules [I feel bound by social rules and project it onto you], so I'l bind you with social etiquetteIxFJ's see people organizing things logically as "bad children": â¢HA! Got you! You're trying to bind me [I feel confused by externally set technical order and make mistakes with it, and project it onto you] so I'm going to bind you with technical order.ESxJ's see symbolism and inferences as silly, yet unconsciously use them themselves under stress, in a "bratty" fashion: â¢HA! Got you! You're trying to bind me [I feel confused or lost with stored conceptual patterns and project it onto you], so I'm going to bind you by proving that you're confirming my worst intuitions.ENxJ's People who dwell on the past (instead of moving on) are "puerile", and yet they might distort it to get them off their back: â¢HA! Got you! You're trying to bind me [I feel trapped by stored facts and project it onto you], so I'm going to bind you with stored facts (including making you look crazy for bringing them up; e.g. the past).ExTP's see opponent's passion in a dispute and try to outdo it themselves in a childish fashion: â¢HA! Got you! You're trying to bind me [I feel bound by the personal side of situations such as universal values and project it onto you] so I'm going to bind you with ethical values.ExFP's: All this archetype stuff ("puers trigger witches", etc. logical frameworks) is just excuses for bad behavior (I actually had one say this to me!): â¢HA! Got you! You're trying to bind me [I feel confused or lost with technical variables and project it onto you] so I'm going to bind you with technical details.How to own it:
We see others as a bad child or binding us, but we're being a bad child or binding ourselves.
What is trying to be brought into consciousness is the perspective orientation opposite the dominant one our "child" complex runs to. In severe trauma, the Self uses it to try to keep information out of consciousness, and bind a person from taking action that might expose the ego to more damaging content.DEMONIC PERSONALITY COMPLEX What it is about, and which functional perspective it encases:
The most suppressed area of consciousness. Also named by various theorists, "Internal Saboteur", "Bad Object" or "anti-libidinal ego". Carries emotions associated with evil, either someone trying to destroy the ego (real or apparently, imagined), or the ego in turn trying to destroy a [perceived] threat. Where the anima represents our connection to "life", the Demon conveys a association with death. Encases the opposite function of the dominant perspective orientation.
ISxJ's deep conceptual meaning is an area of the unknown and runs totally counter to the concrete structure needed INxJ's The past is highly irrelevant, and likely haunting IxTP's the personal factor in situations, or conscience might be a nagging, guilt-provoking issue we wish could go away. IxFP's Logical analysis totally depersonalizes life ESxP's Interpretations of current reality are highly irrelevant ENxP's "may get caught up in a binge of being in the physi
