In Beauty and the Beast, the beast is a very generic animus figureNo he is not; remember the polar nature of archetypes. The Beast is one pole, the Father, the opposite pole. . . . but when we want to locate an animus figure in myths, usually we have to take a fragment from a much longer story (one story of many including this character). Seen through the lens of the whole story or all the stories of a mythological character, not everything the character does is compatible with "generic animus behavior". But the animus figures in fairytales like the Beast behave always and only as animus figures. Everything they do is animus-like.Only as one pole of the archetype.
Of course, the interpretation of fairytales is a subjective and creative enterprise. I don't feel comfortable saying that one interpretation is right while another is not. All I can do is give my reasoning for interpreting the tale as I do.
I call the Beast a generic animus figure, because he is a prototype (perhaps THE prototype) for a character in fairytales called the "animal bridegroom". Always this animal bridegroom is married to a woman initially against her will or inclination and almost always because of some transgression her father made. Usually this transgression is expressed in the
Jephthah's Daughter theme, where the father is lost in the woods and meets the animal bridegroom who saves the father but requests in payment the first thing the father sees when he returns home. The father thinks it will be the dog or something expendable, but of course, it's always his youngest, most beautiful, and favorite daughter.
All of these stories have in common a process of transformation for this lost daughter whereby she either comes to love and accept the animal bridegroom in his grotesqueness (which eventually "redeems" him into human form) or else she manages to escape or defeat his imprisonment and find a prince to take his place (but in her escape, she is also transformed or given certain powers . . . "marked"). These two common variations are really very similar from a psychological perspective. All the stories tell (psychologically) of the maturation through a "fathering transgression" of one sort or another. The Freudians would leap to claim this transgression is incest (and nothing but), but this is a projective interpretation that I feel is unnecessary. The transgression could simply be "spoiling" the daughter and keeping her a child past childhood, or it could be eroticizing her, making her into his anima or surrogate mother (which doesn't require actual incest), or it could be a tendency to masculine the daughter in order to make her into a hero who can redeem the father's wounded masculinity that he himself could not address . . . or a number of other things.
The solution to this "Father complex" is always offered by the animus and the heroic relationship with the animus, which moves the daughter out of the prison of the parental complex (the Demonic) and into a post-Coniunctio "rebirth" that is roughly parallel to what the alchemists meant by the White Stone. That is, she gradually warms up to her groom, but just as she decides she wants to be with him, he is lost or wounded (the Nigredo) and she must seek him out heroically in order to redeem him, the accomplishment of which allows them to be "reborn" as one. Like Shakespearean comedies, these fairytales always end in sacred marriage . . . and therefore depict the animus process or the fulfillment of the syzygy motif (two become one).
So when you say, "The Beast is one pole, the Father, the opposite pole", I don't really disagree, but would reply that this is a matter of perspective (and semantics). I would agree because the animus always develops out of the father. More accurately, the animus develops in women almost always in direct response to the dissociation in the Father archetype that they inherited from their fathers or father figures. The animus in a woman is the potential redeemer of the broken masculinity with which the father "saddled" the daughter. Or, we could say that the Father instinct in the daughter (i.e., what she needs from the father in order for this masculine instinct to be expressed in her adaptively) could not imprint adequately on the real father, because the real father was dissociated in his own masculinity. Therefore, she inherited a dissociated masculine archetypal image attached to her instinct for masculinity. The animus work is a later instinctual movement meant to correct this dissociation.
Therefore, the animus figure will begin as a prediction of the unified dissociation (Opposites) of the Father. The way the dissociated father archetype is characterized is typically as a Demonic half (that perpetuates the pain of the dissociation in the masculine that the daughter inherited) and an idealized half (that appears to be the flip side of the Demon, but is actually another manifestation of the Demon's imprisonment of the daughter's Self). The Demonic half neglects or berates of punishes while the idealized half smothers with presents and privileges and cloistering affection. If the daughter tries to reject the idealized father's gifts, he will instantly turn into the Demon and brutalize her for her "ingratitude".
The birth of the animus in her psyche will usually see him as possessing attributes of both the Demonic and the idealized halves of the father . . . but he will also be younger and more attractive to her. He is attractive to her, because he represents the union of dissociated Opposites and the healing of the wound that the father bore and could not deal with.
But where I would disagree with your characterization of Beast/father as Opposites is in the implied notion that the beastliness of the Beast is a reflection of the Father's beastliness. In fact, we have no indication in the text of the story itself that the father is beastly (where beastly would imply animalistic, rough, instinctual). I think the beastly enchantment that Beast is trapped by is on one hand an indication of his Self-driven instinctuality (i.e., he is the animus archetype and the animus is a configuration of the Instinctual Self) and on the other hand, a representation of his Otherness and ugliness in the eyes of Beauty. In
the most famous version of the fairytale, Beast is characterized by his notable honor and his "plainness" or unadorned emotional and personal straightforwardness. That is, his personality is held in contrast to that of a wooer of great wit, decorum, and deceptive seduction. But he is not rough and never behaves like an animal.
The very name he choses for himself, "Beast", is a misdirection. He is naming himself out of humility or shame for his enchanted appearance. He is naming himself based on the way he knows other people of limited insight will see him. But this is not his "True Name", it is not descriptive of his character.
Despite this disagreement, I do not contest that he is held up as a parallel of Beauty's father . . . but I think it is a parallel that hides within it a solution. The circumstances appear to be similar for Beauty both at home with her father and in her engagement to Beast, but really, her life with beast allows there to be a solution to her Father-wound that is not offered her at home. That is, her situation is something like this: rich father loses his wealth, and the family is forced to make do with humble means. This creates a split in the daughters. On one hand, they could accept humility without judgment or complaint (against the masculine). This would be the noble thing to do. Or, they could bitch and moan about how their stupid daddy couldn't hold on to his wealth and give them the pampered life they feel entitled to. That is, they could resent their father's squandering or loss of
their wealth.
Beauty represents the noble humility of the former and her sisters the crass selfishness and entitlement of the latter attitude. I think it's fair to say (psychologically speaking) that these are the two attitudes toward the masculine/father that are at war in the daughter's ego. The selfish, entitled attitude is the child's attitude who wants the father to be the eternal provider and protector, and the humble, accepting attitude is the adult's attitude. It can accept and even embrace independence.
This dilemma is reconfigured in the Beast's palace (where, or course, Beauty wound up as a result of her father's transgression . . . picking the rose). Although picking the rose from Beast's garden could be seen as an incest symbol ("defloration" that is violating), we could, less pathologically, look at it as an attempt of the father (or father complex) to take something from the garden of the animus. And of course, the father cannot bestow animus gifts on the daughter . . . as to do so would violate and/or imprison her.
In Beast's palace, Beauty is given unbelievable wealth and privilege, and it is a kind of fairy-wealth or Plutonian gold. It is a temptation, and it is the hero's task to resist temptations like these. We see in the reaction of her sisters when they find out about her wealth that they become greedy and envious. The hero's task, though, is to differentiate this great and tempting wealth (a Fatherly providence) from the genuineness and true beauty of Beast. She recognizes her true feelings for Beast only after a Fall. That is, she returns to her father's house and is tempted by that old comfort and by her sisters' jealousy. But in the moment of her temptation, she realizes that this life was not what she wanted, and what she really needed and desired was the simple and intimate companionship of Beast. She therefore rushes back to him and finds him near death because of her infinitesimal transgression. But now she understands and confesses her love and concern for him. He, in all his beastliness and simplicity and humble decency, is the thing of true and lasting value in her life. And this recognition reanimates him.
So the story that plays out is one in which Beauty must learn to valuate the ugly and seemingly worthless while living in the lap of luxury. She has to pick the true animus over the wealthy provider (surrogate father figure). Because she's a heroine, she eventually succeeds (where her sisters, the shadow element in her ego . . . or the Demon of the complex, fail).It seems to me you are doing the very thing MLvF warns against. The Beast is simply the ugly aspect of her own being she needs to come to terms with.
But again, is the "moral of the story" suggesting that Beast is ugly? His ugliness is a facade, an illusion brought on by a failure to see deeply into his nature. In fact, he is the Self.
I'm not sure what it is I'm doing that MLvF warns against. Certainly, I am not accentuating a personalistic interpretation. To say that the Beast is the ugliness of Beauty is more personalistic and interpretive than what I have said. What I'm outlining here is a purely archetypal/instinctual interpretation. The superficial ugliness and beastliness is an archetypal aspect of the animus . . . and requires no personalistic projections onto the text. Like a dream, Beauty and the Beast pretty much just says what it is.
As far as Beauty's "ugliness", this is never indicated in any way in the text. She is always demonstrating her notable character and honor and heroism. The text tells us that the "ugliness" is in her sisters. This is sans any interpretation (as I said, a fairytale pretty much says what it is). Now, if we want to psychologize the text, then we could say that Beauty is the ego (or heroic ego) and her sisters are her shadow (or Demon of the complex). Recall that in many variations of this story theme, it is the sisters who see only ugliness in the animal bridegroom, while the heroine sees deeper.
But ultimately, any story in which there is a hero who solves a heroic task is about individuation.That is not what this story is about, as MLvF states it about the Self attempting to solve a problem given by nature.
Well, in this statement, I think von Franz has overstepped her logical orientation and exaggerated or spiritualized a bit. But it's mostly the phrasing I dislike. For instance, this is not a problem given to the Self by nature. This is a problem given to the Self (as whole personality, including ego) by culture (or by experience). Nature didn't create the problem . . . unless you consider having instincts problematic. But the Self IS instinctual, so this all gets very airy. For me, this is one of the many fairytales that talks about an individuation experience in a woman (which always involves the animus in some form).
So, all this is pretty much exactly the same as what I said above (taking into account my "deviant" definitions of archetype and complex). Von Franz and I are rejecting the "personalistic complex"Where did this term come from? Certainly not from MLvF, she mentions "personalistic approach," but I cannot see how that term can equate, in any fashion, with "personalistic complex." She is clearly referring to archetypes, not complexes.
I placed this term in quotes with the intention to indicate that it was an "as-if" or an amalgam. Sorry for the confusion. What I meant was that a "personalistic complex" would be like a Freudian complex, not an archetypal complex. That is, it would not be characterized by archetypal themes and energies, but would be attributed (by a psychoanalyst) to personal experiences, probably in childhood. I.e., "blame the parents". I see archetypal methods of interpretation as different from the "blame the parents" approach, because they are less likely to pathologize transformation. The personalistic approach sees damage and neurosis, but the archetypal approach (that I and I think von Franz advocate) sees a common individuation theme, and therefore a "cure" for damage and neurosis . . . and not a reenactment of the neurosis (Oedipus style). The story ends in resolution, not imprisonment. Only tragedies end up with the Demon of the complex defeating the potential hero. Fairytales depict successful individuation experiences.
And by the way, now that I look more closely, my comment above says that she was REJECTING the "personalistic complex" notion. I did not attribute it to her.
interpretation for fairytales in favor of a purely archetypal approach . . . and seeing "myth" as comparatively less generic/"abstract"/purely typical. Speak for yourself. MLvF is saying the same thing Jung said, the the complex is the royal road to the unconscious, not the dream. When MLvF writes "to a very personalistic approach" she is correctly identifying a common problem among Jungians. The problem is that of "identifying" with an archetype. Most Jungians, including analysts are like Bush, where he sees a terrorist behind every tree and rock, the Jungians see archetypes. And it is identifying personally with an archetype that destroys the healing factor. She is clearly not speaking of a personal complex. She is saying that the archetype that is at the core of the complex is very pure and undiluted, and therefore affords the best opportunity to study unconscious processes. Why is the archetype so pure and undiluted? Because it was constellated or precipitated out of the collective unconscious by the environment, it is this interaction between archetype and the environment that forms the basis for all our behavior and experience. And it is the feeling-toned "ideas" that form around the constellated core archetype that create the complex. Complexes, according to Jung are found in the personal unconscious which contains things that once were conscious and repressed, or have merely been forgotten. But the key item is that the contents of the personal unconscious are capable of being brought to consciousness. This allows us to study and identify the archetype. The contents of the collective unconscious, on the other hand, cannot, by defintion be made conscious, and must be inferred and studied indirectly.
Well, this all leads back to the problem of me defining some of these terms differently than Jung and von Franz do. I don't wish to restate those arguments which can be found above and elsewhere on the site. Also, my preferred model of the psyche owes more to modern neuroscience than Jung's model did. For instance, I don't really accept the existence of the "Collective Unconscious" except as a metaphor. Also, I don't think the unconscious (again, another metaphor) is divided up into personal and collective (but again, I understand and sympathize with this as metaphor). Additionally, I don't think there is a interaction of archetype and environment behind all behavior. Archetypes for me are abstract categories . . . and it wouldn't be entirely accurate in my opinion to say that all behavior is the result of interaction between instinct and environment. That would require too mystical a definition of instinct for my tastes. I would be OK with saying that all behavior is the product of interaction between
brain and environment, or generically, "body" and environment. But I see archetypal instincts as specific behavior conditioning factors in our species, not as the exclusive behavior conditioning factors.
As for the myth vs. fairytale distinction, the quote from von Franz I had in mind was: "But such [personalistic] interpreters ignore what Max Luthi found to be essential for magical fairy tales, namely, that in contrast to the heroes of adventurous sagas, the heroes or heroines of fairy tales are abstractions - that is, in our language, archetypes." This was the very same argument that I made in the thread on the hero archetype. I merely cast it as "the 'true hero' is to be found in fairytales more so than in myths, where what we see is more the 'conquering hero'". I am substituting the word "myth" for the term "adventurous saga", and perhaps von Franz's term is better . . . but I think we mean the same thing.
On the topic of identifying with archetypes, yes this can definitely be problematic when it occurs, because an archetypes denotes an instinct that is autonomous and Other to the ego. Therefor, the ego can never be like an archetype, and any claim or desire to be archetypal in this sense is delusional (but not uncommon). To read this into a fairytale, though, I think we have to recognize that various characters collectively represent psychic structures. This is why I say that a psychologization of the story would see Beauty and her sisters as aspects of the same ego, an ego with divided attitudes on her situation. This is what we see in dreams commonly. Characters in dreams (especially ego/shadow characters) are often divided based on the different attitudes they represent. In the waking state, we hold these attitudes simultaneously (although often one dominates the others). In dreams, each attitude is differentiated into its own personage, and the interaction between attitudes is narrativized.
Fairytales ask us to identify with the hero of the story, which is essentially an invitation to identify with the heroic ego. I see this is similar to the process of individuation, in which individuation or healing dissociations must be done by taking up the heroic attitude toward the complex. This is not a "believing that one is a hero", but a willingness to see the hero archetype as a positive model and to say, "Yes, this is the right thing to do . . . even if it will hurt a bit." Identifying with non-egoic archetypes like the animi or other Self manifestations is more pathological. I also suspect that such inflated identifications involve a power play by the Demon of the complex, which has managed to successfully impersonate the hero and has become the new model for the ego to emulate. I think this is most common in instances where the attitude one takes toward heroism is mostly in the conquering vein. If one doesn't understand that real heroism is sacrifice, honor, and humility (as demonstrated by Beauty in this story) and thinks it is toughness, power, fortitude, then inflation is almost definitely going to be an issue (where inflation is basically a Demonic attempt to fortify oneself by claiming the supposed power and indestructibility of the Self).