Topic: Is a partner necessary for psychological growth?

[Larry]

I had discussion with my partner the other day which has been haunting me. In fact this issue has been on my mind for a while.

There are many people out there who posit that we place an unnatural emphasis of intimate, exclusive or "romantic" relationships because we suffer a void from the lack of strong relationships with our parents, friends, children- we lack a intimate tribe life and this encourages us to overcompensate by putting so much important on one romantic partner for the rest of our life. This is seen as an inherently neurotic and unnatural.

What's interesting is that, as far as I know, these particular theorists have no recourse to the anima/animus concept and I wonder how these two theories line up with one another or whether they are in conflict at all?

My real question is; is it possible to develop your anima/animus without having intimate/sexual/monogamous relationships with men and women? This seems to my current knowledge, impossible since it is men and women in real life who activate our anima/animus before we can be consciously aware that it is there and that sexuality is important aspect of this.

Or is it more about levels? For example, when you are younger you need a partner to experience your anima/animus but as one becomes more psychologically independent and develops a stronger relationship with their own femininity/masculinity, does the need for an actual intimate partner become unnecessary?

Is a person who doesn't need a partner (assuming they are not overcompensating for their fear of intimacy or fear of the opposite sex) more healthy than a person who stays with a "soul partner" until they die?

[Matt Koeske]

Larry,  incredibly fascinating insights and questions.  You are delving into a a very rich and complex area that is also shrouded with great mystery and littered with innumerable obstacles.

The developmental assumption is that we learn relationality (and relational habits) very early on in the infant/mother relationship.  Less focused on but also important would be relationships between the child and father and between the child and other close relatives.  Even less attended to but I think extremely important is the relationship between pre-adolescent and adolescent children and their peers.

I agree that all of these relationships are formative.  It is unclear to me (and I believe, untestable) just how defining the early mother/infant relationship is.  Obviously it is a part of the psychoanalytic mythos that this relationship is all-important . . . but that is a belief more than a true theory.  It is more or less scientific to presume that this early relationship is very important . . . but just how much it can be reshaped (positively or negatively) by future relationships is impossible to scientifically assess.

Despite the strongly psychoanalytic way of looking at this ("object relations") in developmental Jungianism, the entire developmental/relational narrative is also captured in animi patterns . . . and these are surprisingly much less understood in Jungianism today.

For instance, the anima archetype encapsulates the mother and romantic partner motifs/stages.  I feel the animi are dynamic movements in the individuating psyche that seek to, in essence, "shift libido" from the mother to the romantic partner.  Earlier stages of the anima have distinctly motherly  elements.  In fact, even as a "romance" of sorts develops between the anima and the heroic mode of the ego, the ego's attachment to the anima is in certain ways "infantile".  That is, the ego looks toward the anima as an idealized partner into whom absolute fulfillment and completion are projected.  Perfect love.  Perfect sex.  Eternal contentment.

But the trajectory of what I call the anima work is one that battles against this egoic desire.  In fairytales, there is often a dark male figure that seeks to capture and imprison the anima.  He is a "wizard" or magical monster or manifestation of evil.  I call this archetype the Demon.  The Demon wants to possess the anima, but cannot really relate to her.  She is only a resource for him, a mechanism for his own empowerment and self-fortification.  The Demon is non-relational and therefore static (unlike the animi, hero, and Self, which are dynamic archetypes).  And actually, the Demon needs to imprison the anima in order to stave off any relationship or penetration.

Heroic anima relations tend to differentiate a Demonic figure from a Self figure (in dreams and folktales, etc.) and align the hero with the dynamic Self and against the static Demon.  But the Demon has a subtle yet very powerful influence on the personality and often seeks to impersonate a pseudo-hero who becomes exalted in higher consciousness along with his "anima partner".  In reality, it is his own empowerment and not the freeing/facilitating empowerment of the anima that this Demonic hero is after.  The identification of the ego with this Demonic hero is one of the signature forms of inflation, and perhaps the one most common in Jungian men.

Jung's Two Essays on Analytical Psychology has a few chapters that show very clearly and profoundly where the Jungian man (starting with Jung) falls into association with the Demonic "mana-personality" by "conquering the anima" (i.e., imprisoning her or turning her into a resource for the wizardly empowerment and transcendence of the Demon-identified ego).

My real question is; is it possible to develop your anima/animus without having intimate/sexual/monogamous relationships with men and women? This seems to my current knowledge, impossible since it is men and women in real life who activate our anima/animus before we can be consciously aware that it is there and that sexuality is important aspect of this.

I think it's hard to say and depends on the situation.  The animi are the core relational archetypes, and the animi work reorganizes and drives all of our relationships and constructions of the other.  The farther the anima work progresses, the less it has to do with either parental issues or romantic issues and the more it has to do simply with the other in all of its forms.  I see the impetus of the animi work as directed at the knowledge and facilitation of the other/Other.  Put very simplistically, it deals fundamentally with getting into the other person's shoes and gaining sympathy with their position and personality.

It is true that the first spark and manifestation of the animi tend to be in later adolescence and involve idealizations of a romantic parter or "soul mate".  This is not an ultimate orientation for the anima work, though.  Romantic love is the catalyst for knowing and facilitating the Other.  Why?  because romantic love is defined by being the kind of intimate individual to individual love that shatters all previous boundaries of tribe, affiliation, and identity.  Think medieval romances and the robust fairytale genres that constitute the more folk counterpart to them.

Romantic love is the solvent of pre-adolescent, tribal identity constructions.  In this it goes hand in hand with adolescent trauma.  It is inherently individualistic, and turns the orientation of identity from a dependence on the group to a more personal and internal connectedness (to the Self).

We tend to get stuck in popular culture with "eternal love", "soul mates", and "happily ever afters".  But romantic love is really about the traumatic obliteration of an old skin or younger, more conformed identity that no longer fits a fully functional adult.

Where early romantic love experience that provoke animi projections occur, they tend to disrupt and damage actual relationships with a romantic partner.  Some people might make very deep and intimate connections with one another, but the animi are never located in another person.  They are archetypes of the Other located with each of us.  The more the animi work develops, the more problematic the projections of the animi onto a living partner become. 

This is because the animi are essentially prefigurations of the Self and represent something no physical partner can or should be.  That's not to say that we shouldn't be attracted to those people that evoke our animi.  We can't help but be attracted to them.  But until we have learned to facilitate the animi/Self in our relationships with them. Our hunger for the animi is likely to violate and wound our physical partners.

The most intense stages of the animi work are those early ones where we long for and at times want to possess the animi Demonically.  It is hard to maintain healthy relationships in this predicament.  Yes, the relationships are enormously exciting and filled with mystery and amazing potential passion and transcendence, but they also put great strain on the personal growth of the individuals involved.

Of course all of these "warnings" are fairly pointless because no one is "strong" or "wise" enough to resist the objects of their animi projections . . . even where they refrain from acting out those desires.  But this is why there are complicated systems of internalizing the animi work like that depicted in the alchemical opus.  The solution is convoluted, "heroic", and filled with enormous sacrifices.  So, of course, few bother to take that less traveled path and we instead repress our desires or act them out in unproductive, unconscious, often destructive ways.

Or is it more about levels? For example, when you are younger you need a partner to experience your anima/animus but as one becomes more psychologically independent and develops a stronger relationship with their own femininity/masculinity, does the need for an actual intimate partner become unnecessary?

I think having relationships with intimate parters is extremely valuable.  The animi relationship should not replace them.  The animi work moves toward a point at which the animi relationship helps facilitate the physical relationships with partners and others instead of hindering them.  Because every other-object is valuable in its own way . . . and not because it resembles or doesn't resemble some ideal.

Is a person who doesn't need a partner (assuming they are not overcompensating for their fear of intimacy or fear of the opposite sex) more healthy than a person who stays with a "soul partner" until they die?

All kinds of relationships are or should be valuable.  The animi work points toward the realization of this goal.  There is, of course, great potential value in having an intimate "soul partner" as long as that partner isn't in distinct competition with physical relationships.  The animi is always a kind of gateway for other relationships, so if the animi/ego relationship is dysfunctional, the relationships with physical others are also likely to be hindered in various ways.

Describing all this as I am doesn't do the actual experience of it justice.  This is all enormously hard to do, and animi and physical relationships constantly blend and fall into conflict.  We are not heroes and perfect lovers.  We are always somewhat selfish and victims of our needs and desires.  I don't think it is possible to totally separate our animi figures from those we are most likely to project them onto.  Perhaps the best we can do is to have very healthy, facilitating animi relationships so that the conflation of animi and physical other has a greater likelihood of turning out positive rather than negative.  Relationality is essentially messy and complex.  It is always a kind of heroic (or anti-heroic) journey governed by forces we cannot master or determine.

We do the animi work to gain insight into this messiness and to strive for a more ethical relational conduct.  This effort is not always thankful.  It involves a lot of sacrifices, and there are usually times in which we end up losing the very thing we wanted merely by choosing to do the "right thing".

Best,
Matt

[Larry]

The animi are the core relational archetypes, and the animi work reorganizes and drives all of our relationships and constructions of the other.  The farther the anima work progresses, the less it has to do with either parental issues or romantic issues and the more it has to do simply with the other in all of its forms.  I see the impetus of the animi work as directed at the knowledge and facilitation of the other/Other.  Put very simplistically, it deals fundamentally with getting into the other person's shoes and gaining sympathy with their position and personality.

So the mature person's animi development has transcended the need for parental and romantic relational needs and so can have relationships on a broader level which satisfies their sense of intimacy with others. They have in a way, fulfilled their parental and romantic needs so that they don't need it from an intimate partner.

I think having relationships with intimate parters is extremely valuable.  The animi relationship should not replace them.  The animi work moves toward a point at which the animi relationship helps facilitate the physical relationships with partners and others instead of hindering them. Because every other-object is valuable in its own way . . . and not because it resembles or doesn't resemble some ideal.

It seems that our sexual instincts necessitates close and constant intimate relationships because sex would harm other types of relationships that are considered just a valuable- friendship and family for instance. And then there are different types of friendships- relation to older people "parent figures", relations to children and young people and sex would obviously be unhealthy and damaging in these.

It is true that the first spark and manifestation of the animi tend to be in later adolescence and involve idealizations of a romantic parter or "soul mate".  This is not an ultimate orientation for the anima work, though.  Romantic love is the catalyst for knowing and facilitating the Other.  Why?  because romantic love is defined by being the kind of intimate individual to individual love that shatters all previous boundaries of tribe, affiliation, and identity. Think medieval romances and the robust fairytale genres that constitute the more folk counterpart to them.

Romantic love is the solvent of pre-adolescent, tribal identity constructions.  In this it goes hand in hand with adolescent trauma.  It is inherently individualistic, and turns the orientation of identity from a dependence on the group to a more personal and internal connectedness (to the Self).

So you are saying that romantic love is a necessary catalyst for breaking away with tribe identification, in order for the individual to find their true self? This kind of statement is what contrary theorists would argue is false because being a member of the tribe is all you need. Any needs being expressed outside of that will be seen as a symptom of neurotic discontent.

This is clearly not right. I mean, it is right if the continuation of a tribe is the ultimate goal but we know that certain individuals will have the inclination to grow outside the bounds of their tribe to strive for higher consciousness. This is both threatening to the tribe but positive for the growth of the individual. I'm starting to think that the ideal of the self-contained tribe will always be naïve if the growth for higher consciousness is not taken into consideration. In fact a tribe or small society that takes the care of it's family seriously will always morph and change but it has to be a real change that is still in line with instinct and growth, not just change in materialistic way. So there is a necessary conflict between the child born into family life and relationships and the need for romantic love for when the child grows older in order to ultimately transcend those parental needs.

We tend to get stuck in popular culture with "eternal love", "soul mates", and "happily ever afters".  But romantic love is really about the traumatic obliteration of an old skin or younger, more conformed identity that no longer fits a fully functional adult.

I see soul mate and soul partner as two different things; the soul mate being the naïve concept that there is one perfect person for you out there vs. the soul partner as anyone you come into contact with where there can be mutual individuation through your love for each other. The former gives way to the infantilism you speak of the latter the suit that fits a functional adult as you say.

This is because the animi are essentially prefigurations of the Self and represent something no physical partner can or should be.  That's not to say that we shouldn't be attracted to those people that evoke our animi.  We can't help but be attracted to them.  But until we have learned to facilitate the animi/Self in our relationships with them. Our hunger for the animi is likely to violate and wound our physical partners.

So it's a kind of contradictory thing. You cannot talk about the animi without real people to relate to and there is no impetus for relationship to real people without the animi!

Of course all of these "warnings" are fairly pointless because no one is "strong" or "wise" enough to resist the objects of their animi projections . . . even where they refrain from acting out those desires.  But this is why there are complicated systems of internalizing the animi work like that depicted in the alchemical opus.

Fascinating. I have not touched the alchemical parts of Jung's work yet but that does go a long way to making me feel more interested about it.

[Larry]

Matt, the things you say about the Demon and control of the anima made me think about pornography. Do you think it's a stretch to relate your concept of the demon archetype to the collective trends of male-centred pornography? Do you have any theories about what porn says about the anima in men?

[Matt Koeske]

So the mature person's animi development has transcended the need for parental and romantic relational needs and so can have relationships on a broader level which satisfies their sense of intimacy with others. They have in a way, fulfilled their parental and romantic needs so that they don't need it from an intimate partner.

I'm hesitant to designate a kind of ideal "mature person" or other kind of enlightened being.  There is, I feel, a progression in this thing I'm calling the "animi work", but it isn't like a linear ascent.  It's more like an expansion in all directions that doesn't preclude earlier positions and orientations.  One acquires more conscious options and a more complex perspective that incorporates richer and more accurate constructions of others.  We, as individuals, don't exactly "evolve" and transcend ourselves.  Our relational contexts complexify.

That's pretty abstract, but I want to discourage any kind of "stepping stones" construction of development or individuation.  Most of individuation is falling back.  Yes, we trudge forward a step here and there.  Then we fall back a few steps.  Depending on how you want to "quantify it", you might not end up with a lot of clear "progress".  Let's say, a devoted individuant works her or his ass off for 30 years.  Looking at this journey in one way, we can say Individuant X took 3000 steps forward (hooray!) in this time.  What an achievement, eh!?  But looked at another way, we might say X only managed to take three steps in a progressive direction in all.  The rest of those steps were merely compensations for backsliding.  Not really a great investment when looked at like this.

My preferred way to imagine these steps is that, in all, many thousands of steps back and forth were made in the name of a Work, a magnum opus of sorts, and where these steps led to is not all that important.  Ultimately, they described the story of a lived life over 30 years.  The individual her or himself is better or worse than when s/he began.  Either way, the difference is marginal and probably not that noticeable to others.  But the story . . . the story of that "individuation" is a great epic.  It collected and became all those thousands of steps. 

We give our "individuations" away.  They are not for us.  We give the Work to the storying of ourselves.  And those stories are largely for others to enjoy (or ignore, as the case may be).

Anyways, that said, we will always love and seek the animi.  We will always project them and feel romantic (although not only romantic) longing for them.  The parental aspects diminish with the animi work . . . but they always remain divine Others that might at some unpredictable time bestow a parental kind of grace and love upon us (if we are lucky).  They are probably more likely to do this where we learn to be less desirous for and dependent on such grace.

The relational goal for the animi work is to uphold a facilitating position toward the animi rather than a usurping or dependent position.  But they facilitate us (the ego) in return some times.  That, for me, was the harder and later lesson to learn.  I got stuck very much in the heroic, self-denying mode of facilitation.  I then had a dream (after many years of de-sexualizing the anima) that I had sex with my anima partner.  And there was a symbolic shame reaction because I had worried that I had caved into a desire for dependence and regressed back to an earlier anima stage.

But the dream language portrayed this shame and concern in a Demonic figure, a monstrous thug who flew into an infantile rage because he had lost his "bullet".  In working with that dream, I realized that I had placed too severe and artificial a restriction on my anima relationship.  I had forced it to seem a one-way relationship in which I gave and provided like a father might provide for a daughter.  But the animi relationship is a two-way relationship.  That is a part of valuating the other.  You have to learn to accept its gifts and love and sacrifices . . . its need and want to sustain and influence you.

I'm still learning this lesson, but I definitely took the first step while working with that dream.  So late-animi work lesson number one for me was: don't expect you have it all figured out and everything will remain in its place.  And don't pretend you have no wants and needs . . . because your anima knows the truth.


And as for intimate partners, well, there is no selflessness in physical relationships.  We share our needs and desires with our partners, and these are precious, fragile things.  We expose ourselves with the entrusting of these things.  We might not want them to grow too hungry and dangerous, but we have to entrust some hunger to the care and keeping of the other.

The animi work helps keep us conscious of how this whole process might work and how much we really need from the other.  But we are human.  We have desires . . . and these desires are not innately bad or destructive.  We can't conceal our shadows from our intimates . . . or we do a disservice to that intimacy.

Still, we try (where ethical consciousness prevails) not to expect our partners to be our animi figures.  It's always a challenge to stay conscious about this.  And, where a relationship is strong, we can carry the projection of the animi form the other for a little while.  As long as it doesn't become a usurpation.  It is fine to reflect that animi at times and in certain ways.  There is deep love in that . . . but it's best executed where both partners understand it is a kind of fantasy, a temporary act.

And regrettably, there is no permanent fulfillment. We consume, we run down.  We always need something.

It seems that our sexual instincts necessitates close and constant intimate relationships because sex would harm other types of relationships that are considered just a valuable- friendship and family for instance. And then there are different types of friendships- relation to older people "parent figures", relations to children and young people and sex would obviously be unhealthy and damaging in these.

Sex is volatile, even potentially toxic, in our society . . . because of the way we socially construct sex, what it "means", what it symbolizes.  Sex also tends to penetrate into relationships where it is especially toxic and unnecessary when there is some kind of wound or frustration surrounding our sexual experience and personality . . . which is extremely common.  My sense is that most people have at least some scarring around their sexual beings.  Sex is very often misused and abused . . . and also exalted and drenched in inflated expectations.  It often becomes an emblem of our intimate woundedness.

The way sex becomes intertwined with possession and self-definition or self-image is often pathological.  But that is what our society dictates.  We battle both to differentiate sex from intimacy and to allow sex to be a genuine and healthy expression of intimacy.

This is incredibly hard work that I suspect few care to undertake and fewer still manage to find much success with.

So you are saying that romantic love is a necessary catalyst for breaking away with tribe identification, in order for the individual to find their true self? This kind of statement is what contrary theorists would argue is false because being a member of the tribe is all you need. Any needs being expressed outside of that will be seen as a symptom of neurotic discontent.

It's the old Romeo and Juliet motif.  The houses/tribes abhor and fear romantic love where it threatens to destabilize tribal identity (as it often does).  Both the lovers and the tribes have valid arguments.

I'm not sure one needs to experience romantic love to individuate, but the former does often catalyze the latter, and there are many overlaps along the way.  That's why individuation fairytales usually involve "true love" motifs.  But thinking about "true love" like a teenager doesn't necessarily lead to individuation.  Few are willing to make the kinds of sacrifices needed for that alchemical reaction to take place.  Think Romeo and Juliet, again.  Doesn't end well.  But if you look at that story through the lens of alchemical symbolism, then you understand that the lovers (as complementary opposites) must die after the Coniunctio.  But while Romeo and Juliet ends in that tragedy, the alchemical opus uses that as the foundation for a new beginning (the construction of the Philosopher's Stone).

My own individuation journey began with "falling in love".  My anima was activated.  There was a lot of grief in my physical and mental lives.  But with the aid of Jungian ideas (and my own abundant revisions), I was able to differentiate and preserve an anima relationship that grew richer and richer even as the catalyzing physical relationship eventually faded away.

That physical relationship, I eventually learned, had little to do with my anima relationship.  But they did become entangled and subsequently battled with one another.  Most people aren't willing to give up much for the animi.  It takes a fool, really.  I gave up everything I had.  Not just everything I was up to that point, but much of what I might become or eventually obtain or possess.  I was a fool.  But only fools individuate.  By which I mean, individuation is the purchase of fools.  Let all the negative and the positive connotations of that statement stand.

So it's a kind of contradictory thing. You cannot talk about the animi without real people to relate to and there is no impetus for relationship to real people without the animi!

It's still a mystery to me just what the animi are (if they can be said to have substance beyond their representations in dreams and other texts).  I know that the animi symbol/pattern/systemic organization is a deep and important part of human relationality.  I've had a very rich personal experience of the anima, but I still struggle to put what it represents or "means" into more psychologized language.

But, yes, we always need to relate to real people.  Typically, animi figures (at least after a certain point of development) seem to favor the ego's engagement with others.  They are not, like Jung's anima, seductive and misleading.  They aren't selfish and possessive.  They don't pit "reality" against "fantasy" and try to steal the ego away from its outer relationships.  They are very autonomous.  And the sense is that the relationality the animi encourage is fairly universal.

But people have plenty of impetus for relationship without the animi.  The animi are patterns specific to individuation events.  They are not the "spirits" of all relationship.  The relationality the animi are tied up with is that which engages the heroic ego and has a distinctly transformative aspect.

But we don't need the animi to be able to relate to others or to love or experience intimacy.  And only at a later period of development do the animi seem to have a functional influence on those things.  During the most intense period of the animi work, the animi can often be distracting and problematic for our physical relationships . . . mostly because of the projection of the animi onto our partners.

But, as far as I have seen, the animi are very specialized, rather esoteric figures.  The earliest precedent I have seen for the animi relationship is in Shamanic experience.  Often, tribal shamans had intimate spiritual spouses and partners.  My feeling is that the animi are really shamanic phenomena, and not something that every individual can or should engage with.

Animi relationships are very demanding at times.  They require a lot more sacrifice than physical relationships usually do.  At the same time, few people would be satisfied with or sustained by an animi relationship that had no physical counterpart.  I don't see the animi as prescribable.  And one is not less a person (or less enlightened) just because one doesn't have an intimate experience of the animi.

Best,
Matt

[Larry]

I'm hesitant to designate a kind of ideal "mature person" or other kind of enlightened being.  There is, I feel, a progression in this thing I'm calling the "animi work", but it isn't like a linear ascent.  It's more like an expansion in all directions that doesn't preclude earlier positions and orientations.  One acquires more conscious options and a more complex perspective that incorporates richer and more accurate constructions of others.  We, as individuals, don't exactly "evolve" and transcend ourselves.  Our relational contexts complexify.

That's pretty abstract, but I want to discourage any kind of "stepping stones" construction of development or individuation.  Most of individuation is falling back.  Yes, we trudge forward a step here and there.  Then we fall back a few steps.  Depending on how you want to "quantify it", you might not end up with a lot of clear "progress".  Let's say, a devoted individuant works her or his ass off for 30 years.  Looking at this journey in one way, we can say Individuant X took 3000 steps forward (hooray!) in this time.  What an achievement, eh!?  But looked at another way, we might say X only managed to take three steps in a progressive direction in all.  The rest of those steps were merely compensations for backsliding.  Not really a great investment when looked at like this.

My preferred way to imagine these steps is that, in all, many thousands of steps back and forth were made in the name of a Work, a magnum opus of sorts, and where these steps led to is not all that important.  Ultimately, they described the story of a lived life over 30 years.  The individual her or himself is better or worse than when s/he began.  Either way, the difference is marginal and probably not that noticeable to others.  But the story . . . the story of that "individuation" is a great epic.  It collected and became all those thousands of steps. 

We give our "individuations" away.  They are not for us.  We give the Work to the storying of ourselves.  And those stories are largely for others to enjoy (or ignore, as the case may be).

Anyways, that said, we will always love and seek the animi.  We will always project them and feel romantic (although not only romantic) longing for them.  The parental aspects diminish with the animi work . . . but they always remain divine Others that might at some unpredictable time bestow a parental kind of grace and love upon us (if we are lucky).  They are probably more likely to do this where we learn to be less desirous for and dependent on such grace.

The relational goal for the animi work is to uphold a facilitating position toward the animi rather than a usurping or dependent position.  But they facilitate us (the ego) in return some times.  That, for me, was the harder and later lesson to learn.  I got stuck very much in the heroic, self-denying mode of facilitation.  I then had a dream (after many years of de-sexualizing the anima) that I had sex with my anima partner.  And there was a symbolic shame reaction because I had worried that I had caved into a desire for dependence and regressed back to an earlier anima stage.

But the dream language portrayed this shame and concern in a Demonic figure, a monstrous thug who flew into an infantile rage because he had lost his "bullet".  In working with that dream, I realized that I had placed too severe and artificial a restriction on my anima relationship.  I had forced it to seem a one-way relationship in which I gave and provided like a father might provide for a daughter.  But the animi relationship is a two-way relationship.  That is a part of valuating the other.  You have to learn to accept its gifts and love and sacrifices . . . its need and want to sustain and influence you.

I'm still learning this lesson, but I definitely took the first step while working with that dream.  So late-animi work lesson number one for me was: don't expect you have it all figured out and everything will remain in its place.  And don't pretend you have no wants and needs . . . because your anima knows the truth.

And as for intimate partners, well, there is no selflessness in physical relationships.  We share our needs and desires with our partners, and these are precious, fragile things.  We expose ourselves with the entrusting of these things.  We might not want them to grow too hungry and dangerous, but we have to entrust some hunger to the care and keeping of the other.

The animi work helps keep us conscious of how this whole process might work and how much we really need from the other.  But we are human.  We have desires . . . and these desires are not innately bad or destructive.  We can't conceal our shadows from our intimates . . . or we do a disservice to that intimacy.

Still, we try (where ethical consciousness prevails) not to expect our partners to be our animi figures.  It's always a challenge to stay conscious about this.  And, where a relationship is strong, we can carry the projection of the animi form the other for a little while.  As long as it doesn't become a usurpation.  It is fine to reflect that animi at times and in certain ways.  There is deep love in that . . . but it's best executed where both partners understand it is a kind of fantasy, a temporary act.

And regrettably, there is no permanent fulfillment. We consume, we run down.  We always need something.

Yes, it's dawning on me that our anima development is very mysterious and complex work. I am frightened and excited about how much I learn about myself through coming to grips with this part of me. There are many parts of myself, my anima, that I don't understand and that constantly surprise me, especially my reactions to women I come across as I go through life. Paradoxically, a lot of my reading Jung's writing on the anima always seemed to make me more confused about it. It took me a long time until I understood what it was. It took me to read Erich Fromm's "The Art of Loving" and bits and bobs of ML Von Franz to get a psychological grip on masculinity and femininity and undo the popular notions that these modes of being are just outdated or simply societally conditioned gender roles and nothing of real substance. Of course, society and culture has a massive impact on the way the sexes present themselves and this shouldn't be underestimated.

Sex is volatile, even potentially toxic, in our society . . . because of the way we socially construct sex, what it "means", what it symbolizes.  Sex also tends to penetrate into relationships where it is especially toxic and unnecessary when there is some kind of wound or frustration surrounding our sexual experience and personality . . . which is extremely common.  My sense is that most people have at least some scarring around their sexual beings.  Sex is very often misused and abused . . . and also exalted and drenched in inflated expectations.  It often becomes an emblem of our intimate roundedness.

I find this subject absolutely fascinating. I wonder, could you point me to any literature or particular writers on this this subject? It is something I have wanted to really delve into as I have thought and had discussions about it a lot. How sex is confused with other things and used as wound healing seems like a very complex and deep subject. There is a lot of mystique around sex as a psychological phenomena for me and a lot of intellectual and emotional development for me on this subject.

"Scarring around their sexual beings", I totally see this in myself and others. How the parents, early child hood experience, genetics, social experiences, cultural and societal values influence how sexuality is expressed both healthily and neurotically in people is fascinating to me. I am looking for healing myself in this way and for intellectual knowledge on the subject.

I mean, what is healthy sexuality? What is neurotic? Where is the line between conscious consent and unconscious bondage to masochism/sadism? It's that feminist sex wars conflict; are there certain things that are and always will be an expression of neurosis and pain or is the complete, uncensored expression of consensual sexual needs and desires the only moral imperative? Questions, questions...

The way sex becomes intertwined with possession and self-definition or self-image is often pathological.  But that is what our society dictates.  We battle both to differentiate sex from intimacy and to allow sex to be a genuine and healthy expression of intimacy.

How do you feel as a father, about your children' future experiences of representations of sexuality, or even of sexual neurosis in society? Do you have any particular thoughts or feelings on how to facilitate healthy sexuality in children as they grow into adolescence and into adults?

[Matt Koeske]

Hi Larry,

I apologize for the very slow reply here.  I didn't actually see this post until now (guess I must have clicked to read it but then never got the chance).  Things have been very hectic in my life lately.  Too many irons in the fire.

Yes, it's dawning on me that our anima development is very mysterious and complex work. I am frightened and excited about how much I learn about myself through coming to grips with this part of me. There are many parts of myself, my anima, that I don't understand and that constantly surprise me, especially my reactions to women I come across as I go through life. Paradoxically, a lot of my reading Jung's writing on the anima always seemed to make me more confused about it. It took me a long time until I understood what it was. It took me to read Erich Fromm's "The Art of Loving" and bits and bobs of ML Von Franz to get a psychological grip on masculinity and femininity and undo the popular notions that these modes of being are just outdated or simply societally conditioned gender roles and nothing of real substance. Of course, society and culture has a massive impact on the way the sexes present themselves and this shouldn't be underestimated.

Jung's and a lot of Jungian writing on the anima (and animus) are highly problematic.  In my opinion, Jung had a serious sexism issue that colored all of his constructions of gender.  It is pretty well acknowledged in modern Jungian thought, but no one really knows what to do about it.

I belong to the IAJS (International Association for Jungian Studies), which has a pretty active discussion group.  We are just coming off of a fairly intense e-seminar on feminism in Jungian thought.  My take on those conversations is that Jungians don't really have specifically Jungian answers to contemporary gender issues.  There has been a lot of recoil because Jung's sexism is often despised by post-Jungians.  But there has been little if any repair of Jung's theories.  Feminist Jungians seem to compartmentalize. Where gender issues are concerned, they affiliate with feminist schools of thought and really have no Jungian approach or analysis.  Jung's gender ideas are just cleaved off.

I'm not really satisfied with this compartmentalizing approach.  It leaves too much unconscious, unreconciled baggage.  Instead, I feel Jungianism needs to be reformed in a way that utilizes Jung's approach to the psyche and the data he collected but dissolves his prejudices and corrects his errors.  But that becomes a tall order, because any revisionist has to be able to truly understand the root problems in Jung's thought and correct them.  Not many Jungians are really up to that.  Jung holds too much "mana".  He is the great genius and patriarch of the tribe.  He can be seen as either a guru and prophet or demonized as a poor thinker and morally impaired person . . . and a Failed Father.  There is no room in between for a complex and fully human Jung (due to the projections of many Jungians onto Jung).

Many post-Jungians are understandably standoffish when it comes to the anima and animus theory.  It's tainted (by Jung's sexism) so they don't want to have anything to do with it.  I feel that's a mistake.  There is a great deal of empirical validity to the anima and animus observations of Jung, and I believe good data can be salvaged from the lens of sexism Jung filtered it through.  But the anima and animus have to be entirely reconstructed on a theoretical level.  A great deal of my thinking and writing at Useless Science are devoted to this project.

In short, I feel Jungian thinking about the animi is "complexed" by the inheritance of Jung's prejudices and/or a gut reaction against that inheritance.  So to understand the animi, new models are needed.  I base my own remodeling primarily on folk and fairytales and other contemporary animi narratives.  I have found that these correspond much better with the dreams of contemporary men and women I have been able to hear and work with (my own included, of course).

Jung (and classical Jungians) often didn't focus as much on folk texts for archetypal data as he did on patriarchal myths and epics.  This skews his data and his theories toward patriarchal constructions of gendered archetypes like anima and animus.  Sadly, Jungianism has not recovered from this error . . . and perhaps hasn't even recognized it.

Von Franz did make statements suggesting that folk tales provided purer archetypal representations than myths, but she didn't take this far enough to go toe to toe with "the master" . . . and the standard for archetypal constructions in Jungians has remained Greek and Roman myths.  My opinion is that these texts are typically far too beholden to modern patriarchal civilizations to provide provide deeper, more robust gender models.

Basically, a lot more work needs to be done, and Jungianism still has little insight to offer the experience and woundedness of gender in our modern patriarchal societies.  As a result, even many men who have initially profound anima experiences have no models or guides to get them through the complicated labyrinths of the anima work.  The anima remains a creature of fantasy and desire and doesn't become a mode of relationship to the Other (which I feel is its true teleology).

And Jungian-influenced women have an even harder time with animus experiences (let alone animus work) than women not deeply touched by Jung's ideas.  This is because the animus is a very dark and undesirable figure in Jungian thought, drenched in sexism.  Jungian women often reject the animus altogether due to Jung's extremely sexist characterizations of it.  Reasonable as that is on some level, it also cuts off Jungian women radically from their relationality and transformative experience of the Other.  From what I've seen women interested in dream work are hindered by being "too Jungian".  Those who don't have deep affiliations with Jung and Jungian thought tend to have much richer and more progressive dream work experiences where the animus is concerned.

But that's a perfect example of why Jungian gender constructions and analyses need to be repaired rather than simply cordoned off or amputated.

I find this subject absolutely fascinating. I wonder, could you point me to any literature or particular writers on this this subject? It is something I have wanted to really delve into as I have thought and had discussions about it a lot. How sex is confused with other things and used as wound healing seems like a very complex and deep subject. There is a lot of mystique around sex as a psychological phenomena for me and a lot of intellectual and emotional development for me on this subject.

I believe there is a great deal of literature on this subject in sociology, gender studies, and feminist theory.  Regrettably, I am not very well versed in those fields.  My exposure to feminist theories took place years ago when I was in school.  I was generally sympathetic to feminism (even very radical feminism), but a lot of it is extremely academic for my taste.  I identify more with the more politicized, less academic expressions of feminism.  Where it gets into extremely abstract constructions of gender and culture theory and gets into bed with academic postmodernism, I lose interest.  I have numerous gripes with many postmodernist theories (even as I share many sympathies and foci with postmodernism).  I am turned off by postmodernism's abstraction and elitism and faux-radicalism.  It combines extreme intellectualism with a kind of adolescent drive to tear down any modern constructions.  Adolescent, because it doesn't adequately respect the way these constructions, even if diseased, are the matrices of all of our identities.  The post-modern analyses of self and identity are often astute, but the program of "treatment" is childish, unsympathetic, hypocritical, and often destructive.

That feminism has partnered with these forms of academic postmodernism marks, for me, its fall into futility and self-delusion.  I also feel that feminism has never managed to formulate an adequate understanding of and sympathy for the damage patriarchy has done to the construction of masculinity and maleness.  I understand its desire to throw off the masculine Other, but this becomes self-wounding.  All progress comes through shadow work and through relationship with the Other.  That can seem counter-intuitive at times, but this is my experience.  And I suspect that feminism lost its earthly grounding and became excessively academic (in many of its expressions) because it has failed to grasp the value of the animus-Other.  But that's a very complex and debatable topic.

"Scarring around their sexual beings", I totally see this in myself and others. How the parents, early child hood experience, genetics, social experiences, cultural and societal values influence how sexuality is expressed both healthily and neurotically in people is fascinating to me. I am looking for healing myself in this way and for intellectual knowledge on the subject.

Yes, a lot of my own inner work has had to focus on gender and sex, too.  I was raised by a pretty radical feminist mother.  And this had positive and negative outcomes.  On the positive side, I became hyper-vigilant about sexism and the habits of patriarchal gender constructions and assumptions.  I learned a lot of sympathy for women and the feminine-Other (which enormously facilitate my own anima work . . . as I didn't have to work through as many patriarchal prejudices like those Jung was mired with).  On the negative side, I learned first hand how feminist constructions of men and masculinity are tinged with shadow projections . . . and my own sense of masculinity and selfhood was impregnated with shadow identification in large part because my mother projected these feminist constructions of masculinity onto me.  I grew up feeling masculine in a very conventional way (as a heterosexual male in a patriarchal society), but I also grew up feeling deeply ashamed of this.

I worked on this for many years as a young adult (and with the aid of my anima work experience), and I finally found a good deal of healing and reformation and self-acceptance.  It's impossible not to have scars, though . . . even where old wounds have healed.

I mean, what is healthy sexuality? What is neurotic? Where is the line between conscious consent and unconscious bondage to masochism/sadism? It's that feminist sex wars conflict; are there certain things that are and always will be an expression of neurosis and pain or is the complete, uncensored expression of consensual sexual needs and desires the only moral imperative? Questions, questions...

Obviously, these big questions don't have clear answers.  All I can say is that I think there is no way to be entirely sexually or gender healthy in a society where sex and gender are systemically diseased.  Because sex and gender are largely sustained by the cultural matrix.  Where there is any chance to seemingly rise above the cultural complexes attached to gender, tremendous pressure is placed on individual, intimate relationships to provide some kind of "salvation".  But this probably asks too much of these relationships and of our intimate partners.  And it forces (as in the romantic love model) these partnerships to exist in conflict with many social constructions and forces.  No doubt so much of this is arbitrary, and one model of relationship is not going to provide the most intimacy and satisfaction for every couple or individual.

Sex and intimacy will always be problematized by the tremendous importance they have for identity on both biological and social levels.  Sexual desire and relational bonding are unavoidable expressions of gene-level drives while certain kinds of control of these forces are typically essential to the ways social contracts are negotiated and enforced.

Wherever there are limited resources essential to our survival and competition arises, anxiety and wounding are inevitable.  So much of this is beyond our determination.  So even if all these things could be psychologically understood in very thorough ways, the fallout of sexual injuries, conflicts, and desires will never be small.  There is often no vessel, no safe and sacred space, in which to heal and repair.

How do you feel as a father, about your children' future experiences of representations of sexuality, or even of sexual neurosis in society? Do you have any particular thoughts or feelings on how to facilitate healthy sexuality in children as they grow into adolescence and into adults?

I'm not sure, really.  I don't know what preemptive measures in parenting could possibly facilitate functional sexuality in children.  My own upbringing on the matter of sexuality was pretty odd.  My feminist mother was also a psychologist and professor who taught college classes in human sexuality and theories of personality, development psychology, and trauma.  I grew up with a library of sex books written for various ages . . . and I grew up in the 70s where there was a much freer and more radical interest in the sexual development of children then there is today (in the US at least).  Today, the fears of sexual predators and the toxic sexual environment of our society restricts the kind of experimental openness that characterized the 70s.

For me, it was almost like growing up as a child in the Kinsey household.  Have you ever seen the movie Kinsey (2004) or read anything biographical about Kinsey?  When I saw that film where there was talk about sexuality around the dinner table with both the parents and the kids, I thought, "Wow!  This is so much like my childhood!"  Of course my experience wasn't quite so radical as that of the Kinsey children, but it was close enough as to feel very familiar to me.

But I'm not sure if any of that had a positive or a negative effect on me.  A bit of both, I guess.  And as a parent, I'm still not sure at all what to do, how to discuss sexuality with my sons.  Even the oldest is still so young and hasn't expressed any particular curiosity or asked any big questions, so I haven't tried to have any sex talks with him.  These talks were sort of forced on me at very early ages during my own childhood.  I'm not sure I was given the opportunity to become naturally curious.

Still, I feel like maybe my older son is missing out by not having some kind of discussion by this point.  And my wife is probably a little less willing and ready to have "the sex talk" with him.  I'm happy to do it, but I just don't know when.  So I keep waiting for him to bring the topic up or to ask a loaded questions.  So far, nothing.

One thing I feel pretty certain of is that no matter how much knowledge and practice one is armed with, these sex talks never achieve some kind of perfect presentation and conveyance of important knowledge.  My mother had all kinds of knowledge and theories on the subject, but her intellectualized and information-overloaded approach didn't really benefit me in especially positive ways.

Perhaps the best we can do is to not shroud sexuality with feelings of guilt and shame when we talk about it with our children.  It's not the information, but the attitudes we maintain toward it.  Kids, I think, can sense our feelings about these things, even when they can't completely understand those feelings.  If we are anxiety-ridden or conflicted in some way about sexuality, we won't be able to talk supportively enough about sex with our kids.

But typically, the sexual wounding or shaming process is handed down from parent to child.  And then we do our best to focus on repair rather than on preparation.

Best,
Matt

[Matswin]

Postmodernism and feminism are appalling and very destructive ideologies. Please read "Political Correctness": A Short History of an Ideology, W.S. Lind (Ed.), (here). M-L von Franz took strong exception to feminism (Cf. Archetypal Dimensions of the Psyche, 1999, p.248).

The notion, forwarded by Jung and von Franz, that a relation to a woman is necessary to integrate the anima, builds on the principle that projection precedes integration. In a Jungian understanding, the content which is to be integrated must first be projected. If projection doesn't occur the psychological content cannot be integrated with consciousness. The intelligent subject sooner or later realizes that the projection does not square with reality. The projection will be duly withdrawn. If he is an introvert, this gives rise to the conscious realization of spirit, namely the "moon goddess", or the "Madonna", etc. If he is an extravert, the projection will fall out on another woman. In the global perspective, the majority of men never experiences an anima projection. It is mainly a characteristic of the Western male; perhaps a majority of them. Thus, the Jungian spiritual path is only accessible to a portion of the population. In fact, the projective function, as such, is only present in the advanced cultures.

But this also means that Jung and Franz are also polemizing against the ascetic spiritual tradition, which negates womankind and anything worldly. If they do not relate to the world, how can they progress on the spiritual path by way of projection and integration? This is formally correct. However, they do not heed the fact that there is a complementary spiritual path associated with the "complementarian self" (my notion, see my homepage). There is a Zen Buddhist koan, "The Muddy Road", that relates to this:

Tanzan and Ekido were once travelling together down a muddy road. A heavy rain was still falling. Coming around a bend, they met a lovely girl in a silk kimono and sash, unable to cross the intersection. "Come on, girl" said Tanzan at once. He lifted her in his arms and carried her over the mud.

For a long time Ekido did not speak, until he could no longer restrain himself. "We monks don't go near females," he told Tanzan, "especially not young and lovely ones. It is dangerous. Why did you do that?"

"I left the girl there," said Tanzan. "Are you still carrying her?"

One can assume that a relation to a woman is indispensable if life is led according to the Jungian ideal, namely the "self of completeness". But this is not the only self ideal. Projection and subsequent integration is not the only spiritual path. "Complementation" (vide: my homepage) exists in ritual form and as a theological notion in comparative history of religion; namely the "sacrifice".

In my understanding, "anima work" is all about the realization of the spirit. Thus, the integration of the anima unequivocally leads to a transformation of the self ideal into the "spiritual self", which is complementary to the Jungian worldly self. I now believe that the notion of a continued integrative path beyond the anima is a falsification owing to Jung's Neoplatonic proclivity. Arguably, at this stage in the process, Jung loses his bearings. His conclusions toward a continued conscious expansion aren't valid anymore. It approximates religious notions. It's a bold thing to say, but I'm not going to hide the fact that my spiritual awareness is different.

In the koan, Ekido falls in love, which is fine as it shows that he is capable of integrating the anima. Thus, the spirit lives within his soul, longing to be realized. It is not a capacity connected with the average male. Thus, he may become a true master. Jung said that if a man integrates his anima, he has the right to title himself "Master" in the telephone book. He was certainly right in this.

The question remains as to whether the spiritual path also belongs to average man, that is, the majority of people who cannot integrate the anima to become true masters. Jung and von Franz vehemently rejected this. As for myself, I don't know. There is a spiritual tradition of preserving childlike innocence and naïveté. In Tibet, little children were enjoined to do service in the monasteries. In isolation from the world, they retained their childlike purity in adult life, arguably with a direct line to the spirit. This notion is reminiscent of the great respect that medieval Christian monks and Zen Buddhists had for cats. They viewed them as perfect role models. Watch this video of a cat in contemplative mode, here.

It is as if it has a direct line to God. But for a man living in Western society, this is not an option. His naïveté is soon shattered by the impact of the world. It seems as if the spiritual path has two modes, namely that of the true master, who has integrated the anima, versus that of the cat or the naïve Tibetan monk. The rest can, hopefully, find their salvation in religion. It is probably for this reason that Jungian psychology, under the rule of extraverts, has a tendency to become a Neoplatonic religious cult--or on the American arena, something considerably worse, namely Archetypal Psychology.

Spiritual awareness must be reestablished. The master experiences that the self changes face and becomes a spiritual self, remote from the world. This is my take on spiritual progress. I don't think that it occurs independently of the integration of the anima. It could not occur in the life of the Western male whose direct line to God is lost. For this reason, I believe that most cenobitic traditions are expressions of religious devotion, and not spiritual paths proper. Nevertheless, it is likely that there are gifted spiritual persons to whom anima integration is not a requirement, since they have not parted with childlike innocence. 

Mats Winther

[Larry]

Hi Matt, thanks for your reply, very interesting and illuminating for me, as usual. I don't have much of a reply on the subjects of Jung's sexism, feminism and post-modernism as I don't really know much about it but your's and Mats' analysis of feminism is something I have kept in mind as I come across the subject every now and then.

All I can say is that I think there is no way to be entirely sexually or gender healthy in a society where sex and gender are systemically diseased.

This is something that has recently dawned on me. In relation to the question of healthy sexuality in children too, I think now, there is no real way not be wounded by society.

One thing I feel pretty certain of is that no matter how much knowledge and practice one is armed with, these sex talks never achieve some kind of perfect presentation and conveyance of important knowledge.  My mother had all kinds of knowledge and theories on the subject, but her intellectualized and information-overloaded approach didn't really benefit me in especially positive ways.

Perhaps the best we can do is to not shroud sexuality with feelings of guilt and shame when we talk about it with our children.  It's not the information, but the attitudes we maintain toward it.  Kids, I think, can sense our feelings about these things, even when they can't completely understand those feelings.  If we are anxiety-ridden or conflicted in some way about sexuality, we won't be able to talk supportively enough about sex with our kids.

But typically, the sexual wounding or shaming process is handed down from parent to child.  And then we do our best to focus on repair rather than on preparation.

Yeah, my conclusion so far is that what I am really asking is something of myself. In a way, my focus on the issue only exists because it is an issue with me. My partner doesn't think much about it because she is not wounded or conflicted in the same way that I am. She is remarkably un-neurotic in this sense. I don't believe these sort of things can be "taught", only that influence and healthy relations can do their thing and we just repair to the best of our ability any damage that may occur.

[Larry]

What I struggle with, is whether the modern western configuration of relationships is supposed to be an advancement of our consciousness and relation to Otherness, or whether it is just a convenient institutionalisation of the teleology of the animi for the means of control and regulation.

[Matswin]

Jung says that East Asians, while they lack the intermediate complexes (anima/animus/mana personality...) that stand in they way of the Self, have recourse to a direct route to the Self. I understand this in the way I sketched above, namely as the "spiritual path of naìveté". But this requires that the seeker stands aside from the world, in the way of the Tibetan monk. Thus, it seems as if Jung acknowledges that the spiritual path of immanence, advocated by him, has a transcendental counterpart. However, he probably saw it as only attainable for East Asians.

Reasoning in terms of compensation, the anima compensates the masculine adult psychology of the Westerner, characterized by heroism. But what does Jung's notion of the "mana personality/wise old man" compensate? Why did this archetype emerge in Jung's psyche? I have argued (here) that "Elijah" is a representative of the otherworldly trinitarian spirit. Thus, it compensates Jung's fixation on worldly individuation, which is a process of psychic realization in terms of projection/integration.

It is for this reason that I view the wise old man, unlike the anima, as unauthentic, while it is not a necessary milestone in the individuation process of Western man. It would be, if the average Westerner was imbued with pagan and Neoplatonic thinking, similar to Jung. I, for one, am mostly affected by Christian trinitarian thoughtways. Thus, this compensatory figure is not prone to constellate. Arguably, it is a product of Jung's personal psychology. That's why I used the term "falsification", because it puts the demand on people to individuate according to a Neoplatonic conscious complexion. This is not good. However, I must emphasise that, on the whole, I have the highest appreciation of Jung's writings. It is chockful of wisdom and learning.

Mats Winther