1. Moore & Gillette (1991) “King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine”: This is a superior self-help book (I quite like self-help books). But it suffers from a generational misreading of Jung.
-
Show this thread
-
2. The authors claim that the 4 masculine archetypes (King, Warrior, Magician, Lover) are embodied in each man, and each has its shadow. The problem is that they identitfy the shadow of the king/warrior with the “patriarchy”.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
3. It strikes me that Jung saw archetypes stretching back over millennia. They didn’t just suddenly become “wrong” in a generation. Moore & Gillette think men should be “nurturing” and “mentoring”, but there should be no discipline.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
4. Or, more accurately, very little discipline or assertive energy. This was, after all, published in the time of “Three Men and a Little Baby” etc. I sort of vaguely recall this idea of the “nurturing man” from the media at the time. The “new man” as they called it then.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
5. Moore and Gillette depict men like Patton and Churchill as stable examples of heroic masculine energy, offset by the lover energy (artistic snsibility) as opposed to the “bullying” drill camp instructor (they think military drill too harsh). This is wrong.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
6. Patton and Churchill were incredibly brutal men. They wouldn’t have balked at harsh military discipline. Moore an dgillette want the “warrior energy” to be some sort of mystical nurturing chief (i.e. they want men to be women).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
7. This must contradict Jung, whose archetypes were deeply embedded. Basically, Moore and Gillette update Jung for the late 80s/90s. They rely quite heavily on films to understand the world (they are American) and end up interpreting the masculine as feminine in some ways.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
8. Another abuse of Jung is found in the Myers-Briggs personality test, which used to be popular for career management. This divides people into different personality types (INFJ, ENFJ etc). But Jung’s psychology was holistic. It was against dividing people in this way.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
9. Especially to turn them into “Human Resources”. He may have acknowledged the predominance of certain traits, but the goal would be to work these traits together into a whole. But Myers-Briggs is anti-holistic. It encourages people to think of themselves as a label, “I’m INTP!”
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
10. I’m an INFJ, according to this schema. But really the goal should be to bring all these elements together.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread
11. In fairness to Myers-Briggs, their schema does describe how a person can bring together their different psychological functions into a whole in their lifetime. But it effectively functions as a tool for companies and individuals to pigeonhole themselves, becoming static.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.