Monday, October 9, 2017

On Men and Masks

In Carl Jung's school of analytical psychology there are believed to be "two primary anthropomorphic archetypes of the unconscious mind" - the Anima and Animus. That is to say that the psyche (i.e. soul, mind, spirit, ego, person, subconscious, or whatever else one prefers to call it) is understood to be androgynous (i.e. "partly female and partly male; of indeterminate sex") despite one's sex or "default orientation". Said psyche is thought to create a contra sexuality in the inner life of a person (i.e. a female's masculine contra sexuality - the Animus - is expressed in her "rational thinking" function and a male's feminine contra sexuality - the Anima - is expressed in his "irrational feeling" function. Note: Neither rational nor irrational are better than the other).

The Anima and Animus are understood to serve many roles. They allow us to relate more fully to the world and those in it with an equal measure of head and heart despite our predisposition of personality as governed by our genetically assigned sex and the psychosocial pressures that govern the way people behave according to said sex. Within this particular purview, neuroses (i.e. anxiety, depression, obsessive behavior and so forth - the precursor to psychosis) may arise due to an imbalance of the aforementioned.

One could argue that the imbalance has been cultivated by an enduring & biased patriarchal dogma (i.e. set of principles or tenets) which has strongly influenced how we have historically thought and behaved as a species. One need only look to our religious or profane institutions to see how profoundly masculinized we are. This prevailing masculine perspective has shaped our folkways and mores in disproportionate measure to the influence of the feminine perspective. Keep in mind that the prevailing masculine perspective dates as far back as the Neolithic era (i.e. 10,200 BCE to between 4,500 and 2,000 BCE), to when - it is theorized (Gerda Lerner) - that paternity was arrived at due to the practice of private ownership, a then burgeoning desire to bequeath property and an accompanying need for certainty that a male’s descendants were in fact their own (see “virgin”).

That said, in the process of sublimating a very real part of who we are (i.e. the unconscious mind), for the sake of fitting in or maintaining outward appearances according to centuries old decorum at present, we make the conscious decision to ignore what cannot be denied. And now, we can no longer deny what was once subjugated, trivialized or ignored. The scales have to be reconciled.

If all a male is concerned with is thinking and behaving "like a man," as defined solely by whatever has been mandated, modeled or normalized, they will inevitably be faced with the consequences of suppressing those feelings (i.e. Anima) - which naturally arise - despite their preconceived notions on the appropriateness of said feelings as regards their sex. Also, If all a female is concerned with is thinking and behaving "like a woman," as similarly defined, they too will be faced with similar psychological consequences. What they suppress will surface, be it through mental breakdown or aberrant behavior. To deny the less obvious aspects of our heredity (i.e. Animus & Anima) only makes it more difficult on oneself (and others). Humans - no matter what they identify as - are both rational and intuitive, so it follows that we ought to allow for the healthy expression of both (and truly all aspects) of our being, no matter the mandate, model or norm.

For me, I view woman's suffrage, feminism, LGBTQQ and many instances of mental sickness (certainly not to say that woman's suffrage, feminism or LGBTQQ are forms of or the result of mental sickness) as expressions of several centuries worth of oppression, repression and/or sublimation. I view these phenomena collectively as Anima/Animus rising, or more accurately correcting itself. Some people are offended by modern feminism and the direction toward which the pendulum currently swings, but after having spent centuries in that part of the arc which has been predominantly governed by masculinity it only makes sense that the pendulum start swinging in the other direction (see Isle of Man, 1881). It's been gaining momentum over the past century and almost four decades, which in the grand scheme of things is a very short period of human history considering how far back it is thought to have originated. Only now are we participating in an unprecedented expression of the feminine (not to say that it hasn't always been expressed to some degree or another).

In terms of masculinity (not just American), I feel that it benefits everyone to exercise both reason and intuition towards healthier selves. Since each individual is a constituent of the whole of society, and biosphere in general, we all must be held accountable for the state of our collective affairs at the level of whatever imbalances go unaddressed within us as individuals. To heal the whole you heal its parts. This is true for business, in medicine, for car mechanics, in relationships and so forth. It seems a universal law of sorts.

Males (and others) will benefit greatly if they adopt and continue to cultivate those behaviors and thoughts conducive to a healthy expression of that side of themselves that has long since been denied. If the masculine employ honesty and vulnerability - embracing said Anima - we can begin to drain the swamps of stagnant emotion and unaddressed suffering and allow the healing waters to flush out and revitalize this shared space. The feminine must be healed within and without. This part of the arc has just begun to build momentum. I wonder if it swings back-and-forth in perpetuity or if at some point in time in the far-off future it finds rest somewhere in the middle. What might that world look like? And, what of our roles within it?

No comments:

Post a Comment