Hillary Clinton and the Feminine Archetype: Part II September 27, 2016
“At the beginning of a new millennium, we are participating in the birth of a new evolutionary era, one with radically different aims and values from those which dominated the patriarchal era. Mythologically speaking, this new era invites the marriage of lunar and solar consciousness and the birth of the ‘child’ of a new kind of consciousness arising in the soul of humanity that would be the fruit of this union and the true ‘saviour’ of our species. . . It is a tremendously exciting, challenging and creative time to be alive.” ~Jungian Analyst Anne Baring, “Awakening to the Feminine.”
An obsession with the solar archetype during the patriarchal era has conditioned us to minimize lunar consciousness. We think the resulting conflicts are inevitable. They’re not. It is possible to live with inner and outer harmony, but we just haven’t evolved that far yet. The multiple wars and societal chaos characterizing the 20th century are finally awakening us to this imbalance and forcing us to take the lunar archetype seriously.
“If we can abandon our addiction to weapons and war, directing the trillions saved on feeding, educating and caring for the children of the world, the result will be an infinitely better world and the possibility of our own survival as a species. We need to challenge the arcane warrior ethos of governments . . .” Baring, “Awakening to the Feminine.”
As Baring notes, feeding, educating and caring for the children of the world is a primary aim of lunar consciousness, and it is crucial that our governments act on this. The fact that Hillary Clinton has devoted her life to this cause is a major reason I say her feminine archetype is well activated. Consider these facts:
Instead of signing on to a prestigious law firm after graduating from Yale, she went to work for the Children’s Defense Fund—focusing her career on the fundamental need for quality public education for every American child. She also worked with teenagers in adult prisons in South Carolina and families with children with disabilities in Massachusetts.
When she was appointed to the Arkansas Education Standards Committee, she investigated public schools throughout the state, listening to parents and teachers and working with a team of educators to create policy that would better prepare Arkansas students for a 21st-century economy. Before that she had already co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, which would later make huge strides in standing up for children in the welfare system.
In 1995, as first lady, she boldly declared “women’s rights are human rights” at a U.N. conference in Beijing. This was much more controversial than it sounds today. Many in the U.S. government didn’t want her to go to Beijing. Others wanted her to pick a less “polarizing” topic. I think it’s a sign of her sincere passion for this cause that she stood up for her beliefs and spoke out about human rights abuses at a time when this was not a popular stance. A Huffington Post article says,
“Globally, no candidate has done more for women’s rights than Secretary Clinton. In her time as Secretary of State, she appointed the first-ever Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues at the State Department; oversaw the creation of the U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security; and introduced the Global Health Initiative (GHI), investing $63 billion to help partner countries provide robust maternal and infant health services. Secretary Clinton has worked tirelessly to elevate women’s rights as the key towards economic prosperity and global stability. Her public and private initiatives have appropriated millions of dollars towards providing secondary education to young girls around the world, and tackling the obstacles that face at-risk youths.”
In 1997 she worked with Republicans and Democrats to secure health care for millions of American kids. As first lady she fought to help pass health care reform. When that failed, she worked with Republicans and Democrats to help create the Children’s Health Insurance Program. CHIP cut the uninsured rate of American children by half, and today it provides health care to more than 8 million kids.
As U.S. senator from New York, she supported comprehensive immigration reform legislation, co-sponsored the DREAM Act three times, and worked to expand health care access for low-income immigrant mothers and children.
The presidential candidates are running for the highest office in a system dominated by solar consciousness and numerous examples of corruption. Ideally, we’d prefer the winner to be above ethical compromises, but as Dr. Carl Jung asserts, it is humanly impossible for any individual to exist without a moral shadow. We all have one. It therefore seems more fruitful to compare Clinton’s and Trump’s observable shadows than to hold one of them to an unattainable standard while dismissing the character flaws of the other. I’m not advocating lowering the bar. I’m facing the realities of human nature in a flawed system and only asking that we view the facts objectively and judge accordingly.
Here are the facts as cited by the Washington Post Fact-Checker site. In comparing claims made by both candidates, out of 52 rated claims made by Trump, 63 percent were rated false. Out of 36 rated claims made by Clinton, 14 percent were rated false.
Hillary’s Personality and Likability
“Awakening to the Feminine means becoming protective of the whole of creation; dying to all the divisive ways of looking at life and each other; being born into an utterly different vision of reality.” ~Baring, “Awakening to the Feminine.”
Some perceive Hillary to be harsh and overly aggressive but people who know her disagree. I attribute this to three factors. First, we are unconsciously influenced by longstanding stereotypes about what women’s roles and behavior ‘should’ look like. Second, our history and art have trained us to empathize with white men and go easier on their flaws. Third, we have few cultural models of strong, complex, confident, female leadership.
As Hillary explains in a recent post for Humans Of New York,
“It’s hard work to present yourself in the best possible way. You have to communicate in a way that people say: ‘OK, I get her.’ And that can be more difficult for a woman. Because who are your models? If you want to run for the Senate, or run for the Presidency, most of your role models are going to be men. And what works for them won’t work for you. Women are seen through a different lens.”
Few would disagree that Hillary has a highly activated masculine side. Good. We need that. But we also need a leader with a highly activated feminine side. The fact that Hillary has both convinces me that she is the only candidate capable of leading us safely into the new kind of consciousness required for economic prosperity and global stability.
Click here for The New York Times endorsement, “Hillary Clinton for President.”
Image Credits: Google Images.
Jean’s newest book, Healing the Sacred Divide, can be found at Amazon and Larson Publications, Inc. Ebook versions of The Bridge to Wholeness and Dream Theatres of the Soul are also at Amazon as well as Kobo, Barnes And Noble, and Smashwords.
Three Signs of a Healthy Ego April 26, 2016
We make roots, we cause roots to be, we are rooted in the soil, and there is no getting away for us, because we must be there as long as we live.
That idea, that we can sublimate ourselves and become entirely spiritual and no hair left, is an inflation.
I am sorry, that is impossible; it makes no sense.” ~Carl Jung, Kundalini Seminar, Page 29
This quote reminds me of a true story. In 1848 England, art critic John Ruskin married 18 year old Effie Gray. Five years later their marriage was annulled because Ruskin had failed to consummate it. As Effie told her father:
“He alleged various reasons, hatred to children, religious motives, a desire to preserve my beauty, and, finally this last year he told me his true reason… that he had imagined women were quite different to what he saw I was, and that the reason he did not make me his Wife was because he was disgusted with my person the first evening 10th April.” Wikipedia
On their wedding night John discovered that Effie had pubic hair. His malady, which by today’s standards may seem laughable, was psychological. But consider the context: John grew up in Victorian England. His father, John James Ruskin,
“helped to develop his son’s Romanticism. They shared a passion for the works of Byron, Shakespeare and especially Walter Scott…. Margaret Ruskin, an Evangelical Christian, more cautious and restrained than her husband, taught young John to read the King James Bible from beginning to end, and then to start all over again, committing large portions to memory. Its language, imagery and stories had a profound and lasting effect on his writing.” Wikipedia
A romantic, an idealist, and the only child of an evangelical Christian mother, John had so sublimated his instinctual, physical roots that it hadn’t occurred to him that his beautiful young wife’s body would be any different from the smooth, marbled statues of Greek goddesses he so admired.
By ‘sublimate’ Jung meant to unconsciously transform socially unacceptable impulses or idealizations into acceptable actions or behaviors. Freud believed this was a sign of maturity in individuals and civilization. By this means one could deflect the sexual instinct with its erotic energy into so-called “higher” and “socially useful” physical, scientific, artistic, or religious achievements.
Likewise, a person with aggressive tendencies can channel them into acceptable contact sports like football or boxing. A person with an urge to kill someone might join the military where he could justify his urge in the name of protecting his country. A literary example is provided in Agatha Christie’s novel And Then There Were None. In this story a judge with homicidal urges gives unusually harsh sentences to guilty criminals in the name of protecting the citizens and upholding the law.
“One is only confronted with the spiritual experience when one is absolutely human.” ~Carl Jung, Visions Seminar, Page 394
But Jung had higher hopes for individuals and societies. He believed we could be transformed into psychologically whole and spiritually enlightened beings without denying our instinctual roots. And he knew that when the defense mechanism of sublimation remains unconscious, it is an obstacle to an individual’s fullest and healthiest development. Individuation only becomes possible when our egos consciously acknowledge our instincts and choose to channel them in harmless and healing ways. To remain unconscious of them leaves them free to attain toxic extremes.
An ego which denies its entanglement in the roots of the physical body and unconscious psyche can become dangerously inflated, capable of doing unspeakable things while believing itself to be virtuous. One can’t help but wonder what hidden evils the Spanish Inquisition‘s zealous Tomás de Torquemada was striving to deny when he had around 3,000 people tortured and executed for heresy against the Catholic Church.
The same might be asked of more contemporary political leaders like Stalin, who it is widely agreed was responsible for millions of deaths; Hitler, who was responsible for the genocide of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other victims whom he and his followers deemed socially undesirable Untermenschen (“sub-humans”); Cambodia’s Pol Pot whose policies were responsible for from 1.7 to 2.5 million out of a 1975 population of roughly 8 million; and Saddam Hussein whose security services killed an estimated 250,000.
If we don’t start taking the human psyche far more seriously, countries including our own will continue to enable toxic, minimally conscious egos to acquire positions of far-reaching power. We can change that by learning to recognize three signs of an ego that is growing into health and consciousness:
It explores its unconscious roots with an ongoing self-reflective practice;
It recognizes and reins in its defense mechanisms, including projection and sublimation; and
It acknowledges its shadow without allowing it to control its thoughts, words and actions.
Meanwhile, we might ask ourselves, “Does anyone in the next election show signs of an unhealthy ego?”
Image Credits: My thanks to Lewis Lafontaine for sharing the Jungian quotes and images on his Facebook Jung site.
The King and Queen at Work November 30, 2012
In this final post in my series about the King and Queen archetypes, I’d like to share an example of someone whose psychological awareness influenced her work life. Since I’ve known her, my friend Trish’s personality has been characterized by warmth, empathy, caring, listening, understanding, supporting, and cooperating behaviors that show respect for individual differences and seek the kind of unity and harmony one associates with a loving family. These qualities all point to a highly activated Queen.
In Jungian psychology it’s understood that beneath our conscious personalities there are opposite, undeveloped qualities of which we remain unconscious. Sometimes these unlived shadows sneak into our outer behavior and cause problems. Trish discovered this some years ago when she was hired as manager of marketing and public relations for a large company and found herself smack in the middle of a “family” organized almost entirely around the King’s priorities. There, her unconscious King began to butt heads with the corporation’s over-zealous King.
Early on she wrote a memo from her department to the entire organization. Had she been more aware of her King she would have thought twice before doing this, for in typical King fashion, there were guidelines for sending out memos, and there was a hierarchy of people who had to approve them before they were released. Since her Queen saw the other employees as brothers and sisters with whom she could communicate as directly and spontaneously as she wished, it had not occurred to her that there would be a chain of command. Later she learned that her letter had offended several co-workers.
When Trish arrived her department was demoralized. As a tiny minority of creative thinkers in a profession of linear thinkers, her team felt invalidated, unappreciated, downtrodden, and powerless. No one had listened to their complaints or cared what they thought and they’d never been complimented for their work. In true Queen fashion, Trish gave attention to each individual, acknowledging their work and encouraging them to do more of what they loved.
But while Trish’s willingness to listen, understand, and support did wonders for the team’s morale, it created a whole new set of challenges. As the work environment grew more relaxed and the team members interacted openly with each other on a more confident, informal basis, they began to experience some of the problems that every group of intimate equals invariably faces.
For example, when some of them violated the dress code and grew more casual about promptness and working the prescribed number of hours, Trish was called to task by her boss. Someone had to enforce the standards. That’s when she knew she had to develop her healthy King. At first her awareness of the damage the one-sided King mentality had done to her staff made it difficult to know how. As she told me, she often felt like she was walking a tightrope, and sometimes she felt incompetent because the King’s domain was such unfamiliar territory. But with time she found effective ways to express her King without betraying her Queen.
Empowering both leadership styles has made a difference in other aspects of her life too. When a close relationship threatened her financial security she stood firm in her authority, refusing to be taken advantage of. Her King energy was also very useful when she launched a successful marketing business. By bravely opening to her depths, Trish is strengthening an inner partnership that is establishing her sovereignty over her outer life.
How has partnering your King and Queen made a difference in your life?
The Shadow King and Queen in Relationships November 27, 2012
If we haven’t developed the self-confidence, personal authority and sense of moral responsibility of the Sovereign it’s because we’re still unconsciously stuck in one-sidedness of some kind. This not only impacts our leadership abilities but also contributes to problems with our partners and peers. Here’s an example of a couple that embodies negative extremes in their relationship.
Tina is stuck in the mind-set of an obsessive King. Her husband Jay is stuck in his undeveloped Queen. Tina and her sisters had a very authoritarian father and a timid, submissive mother. Consciously, the girls sided with their mother and rebelled against their father, but unconsciously, they grudgingly admired him for the power and respect he had in the community and felt sorry for their mother who seemed weak in comparison.
Too long under her father’s thumb, Tina overcompensates by being overly dominant in her own home, while Jay, who disliked his authoritarian step-father and identified with his gentle and sacrificial mother, is overly passive and accommodating. If one of their children has a problem, they go to Jay because they know he will sympathize, whereas experience has taught them that Tina will be insensitive and quick to criticize.
Tina is so convinced of the rightness of her opinions and so defensive when Jay challenges her that he doesn’t speak up when he feels she’s being overbearing. Instead, he goes to the children when she’s not around and offers them treats and sympathy. Tina knows this and gets furious at his betrayal of her. Jay gets angry at her stubborn self-righteousness, but he hates conflict so he stuffs his feelings inside until they erupt in occasional uncontrollable outbursts.
Tina’s need for control combined with Jay’s subtle resentment and undermining of her has caused the children to side with him and rebel against her. Although Tina and Jay have switched gender roles from those of their parents, they haven’t changed the dynamics they observed in their parental models. One parent is an overly authoritarian Shadow King, the other, an overly sacrificial and submissive Shadow Queen. Unless Tina and Jay recognize and heal their shadows, their children will inherit them.
This scenario is extremely common because the one-sided paradigm of the dominant King still has a strong hold on our psyches even as we envision reciprocal partnerships between our masculine and feminine sides. Both intuition and experience tell us that this new paradigm will birth creative solutions in everyone’s best interest. Yet with comparatively few models of healthy Kings and Queens to emulate, we’re struggling mightily to subdue him and understand and respect her.
It won’t be easy for Tina and Jay to change habitual patterns of behavior. They may never even try. Both secretly yearn for more self-respect and better relationships with each other and their children, but so far they’ve resisted stirring up this hornet’s nest. Changing Woman and her companions, Conflict and Chaos, guard the threshold to our noble inheritance and inspire fear and apathy in every traveler. Yet they alone hold the keys to our noble birthright.
This is as true for society as it is for individuals. Our world family is suffering through painful change. The one-sided Kings of many countries are learning difficult lessons about softening their rigid positions and listening, compromising, and relating. Repressed Queens everywhere are trying to find their voices and defend their truths without creating undue conflict or causing others pain. But one thing we can be assured of: with every step we take toward healing our own Kings and Queens, we will empower the Sovereign that’s struggling to be born in us, our relationships, and the next generation.