Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
As you may well imagine, the behavioral and developmental expectations that went along with that frame of thought could be very different from ours! A Roman female might be - and be expected to behave as - a 'matrona' (a full adult) in her late teens.
Those differences can't be compressed down into a single archetype. That said, it is no surprise that Jung thought they could - 19th and early 20th century scholarship is full of scholars blithely assuming that the standards of their culture were universally applicable.
The tendency to uncritically retroject modern-period European values in particular is a real enduring weakness of that older 19th and early 20th century scholarship.
He's recommending a book I haven't read 'King,Warrior, Magician,Lover: Roadmap on Traversing the Masculine Psyche' I haven't read it, so I'll reserve my comments, except its hardly a promising title Also, my cats are amusing themselves with a spring-door-stop and its hilarious
He closes on how using archetypes makes for powerful fiction. I'm sure it does. I have to admit, one thing I find truly frustrating is how many storytellers fool themselves into believing that a good story is the same as a true story...
...or that being a good storyteller equips one in any way to be a good observer of contemporary society, or understander of past societies. Lots of self-congratulatory 'stories are the most important thing' written by writers of stories.
On to Ep. 8, "The Warrior Archetype." I find it odd that we covered so much Sparta so far, but no other culture. If the goal is to prove that this archetype as universal, we haven't any comparative evidence fit for the purpose.
But if the goal was to show how Sparta conforms to this archetype, then surely we ought to have begun with the archetype and then discussed Sparta afterwards so we could see the blocks fall into place? I would not have organized things this way, but that's me.
"The warrior archetype kicks in...sometime around the age of 12, 13, 14" If this were a student paper, I'd be writing "Evidence?" in the margins. And if the citation Jung, I'd be circling the publication date and writing "be careful of very old scholarship!"
Needless to say, this is not how (good) historians make and defend arguments. But this is a historical argument being made!
"For instance...when the warrior archetype kicks in, we suddenly want to put on a football helmet and beat the crap out of our buddies on the field." Oh boy is that awkwardly universalizing the narrow US-experience when the rest of the world is thinking 'red card?'
Also, if the warrior archetype is linked to aggression, studies have shown that human aggression develops very early, often evident in infancy. Children are capable of intentionally using force on each other and violently competing for status in single-digit ages.
Personally, I am extremely competitive (too much so, honestly), but never felt the desire to express that physically. Sports of any kind never grabbed me; I always competed in mental activities. Did my 'warrior archetype' just never 'kick in?'
"We have this tremendous urge to hang around with our peers...if we're 16, 17..." Welcome to things that are very much socially contingent! Most societies do not separate into defined age-bands like this. Small hunter-gatherer groups don't (group size too small often).
The idea that all of the 18-year-olds ought to hang out together certainly doesn't appear in Greek or Roman thought, where mixed-aged groups are clearly preferred in social organization at almost every level.
My understanding is that the consensus is that the idea that defined age-bands should hang out together like that is largely a product of universal education and the need to brigade together students at similar stages of intellectual and emotional development.
Though I can't claim expertise on that point. Nevertheless, I can absolutely say it doesn't seem to me to have been a common feature in pre-modern societies, which seem to me to almost always prefer cross-age-group groupings.
With the notable exception being the two big lines, between children and adults (often set in the teens) and the line between young adults and mature adults (often set in the thirties for men; the two lines are often identical for women). But much variation culture to culture.
Mention of the agoge, "it was all military training" It was not. There was no drill or weapon's training of note in the agoge. It was training in social obedience. For more, see: https://acoup.blog/2019/08/16/collections-this-isnt-sparta-part-i-spartan-school/ … The Agoge was not a school and it was not a boot-camp.
"what's interesting too...and it hasn't been studied that much; I wish it had is how the warrior archetype works for women..." Gonna suggest it hasn't been studied in women as much because it is just as much BS mumbo-jumbo there as in men, but w/o the toxic-masculinity baggage?
"women in all female groups...I wish there was some real science on this" It is moments like these I wish I was a different kind of specialist, but I am going to guess there probably actually is a lot of real science on that, it just doesn't flatter Pressfield's preconceptions.
That said, one thing I find honestly infuriating about these videos is how Pressfield is presenting himself as an expert on things he doesn't have expertise in. We've already seen before what an absolute trainwreck his ancient history scholarship is...
...but, you know he's an old white guy sitting in a comfortable looking leather chair with a bookshelf behind him, so a lot of viewers will take him for an expertise - they will assume that there is some substance to back up his claims. So far I haven't seen any.
This is a big part of why, for the bigger blog series I run, I am careful to include bibliography and reading lists - I want my readers to know that I have done my homework for real. And it is also why I am careful to say "I don't know" when I don't know.
And "I don't know" is *not* the same as "we don't know" The latter implies a question not yet settled by the field and ought to only be made by an expert in that field who can survey from some height to determine that the question has not been answered.
Anyway, what Pressfield is very good at here is presenting an image of expertise (probably easier as a white male with thinning hair, speaking from experience), but he has not actually done the legwork to earn that perception by actually building expertise. Very frustrating.
Long personal anecdote about his marine training and the emotional impact of being accepted at the end of boot camp as a marine. He attributes this to his 'warrior archetype' but the more obvious element is the scientifically well documented human need for social-group-belonging
The moment when I came back after defending my diss. at UNC and was greeted by my advisor and committee with "Congratulations, Dr. Devereaux" was also really emotionally moving! I was being accepted into the 'guild of scholars' Not a lot of 'warrior' about it though.
Once again this point - about social structures, survival and the evolutionary pressure towards larger group sizes - is a point just made better and more clearly by Azar Gat without relying on Jungian mumbo-jumbo.
"Every aspect of the warrior archetype has a dark side and a light side" ...I know he's citing the book I mentioned above, but are we admitting George Lucas as evidence now? Are the Spartans the Sith? They're Sith, right?
And yes, I know we're touching on the Jungian concept of the 'shadow' but I'm not sure that's any more helpful than just assuming this is The Force.
Alright now on to Ep. 9: 'Why Study the Warrior Archetype' Which is a really good but difficult question, given that at this point I am pretty convinced that the 'warrior archetype' is bunk.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
