The Depth Coach | Anima and Animus: The Need to Relate
"Denovus Insights", Life coaching, depth coach, depth coaching, meaning, happiness, self-help, human potential, self-improvement
2505
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-2505,single-format-standard,woocommerce-no-js,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,smooth_scroll,

Blog

11 Feb / Anima and Animus: The Need to Relate


As discussed in a previous blog, an archetype is an organizer of the psychic experience and what it yields is a pattern of psychic functioning. Jung’s concepts of anima and animus (i.e., syzygy) are two of the most important and too often misunderstood archetypes in the Jungian lexicon. Thus, further discussion regarding their meaning is in order. Just as no man is purely masculine, no woman is purely. Both genders share both masculine and feminine qualities, which could be said to border on the androgynous. The very idea of gender roles suggest a certain archetypal quality. For instance, women by and large are viewed as being more willing to exercise mercy and patience in most situations; whereas men are more prone to demand swift justice. Naturally, there are always exceptions to the rule, however, the general rule usually holds. In the most fundamental sense, anima and animus are personifications of one’s inner soul image. The soul image, whether in its anima configuration or animus configuration, mediates the ego’s relationship to the other (inner or outer). In this way, they are often seen as a mediator or mediatrix, a third party that negotiates throughout the relationship. In an early work, Jung (1921/1971) explained how the contrasexual aspect of the anima/animus archetype worked: “For a man, a woman is best fitted to be the real bearer of his soul-image, because of the feminine quality of his soul; for a woman it will be a man” (CW6, para. 809). Elsewhere, Jung (1951/1959) indicated the following:

Woman is compensated by a masculine element and therefore her unconscious has, so to speak, a masculine imprint. This results in a considerable psychological difference between men and women, and accordingly I have called the projection-making factor in women the animus, which means mind or spirit. (CW9ii, para. 29)

In a time of ever evolving cultural vicissitudes and changing social roles, Jung’s traditional viewpoint regarding gender roles may come across as outdated and as they say, “old hat.” However, I think Jung again was turning to the general rule, which one could say still applies today. I should add, however, and I think Jung would agree, any age would have to account for its exceptions. We fail to honor psychological diversity when we try to subjugate the universal for the sake of the particular, or pauperize the particular to further advance the universal.

Anima has often been associated with the principle of Eros, the principle of relatedness, whereas, the Animus has usually been associated with the principle of Logos, the capacity to structure and discern. Although there are parallels between the principle of Eros and Anima, as well, as the principle of Logos and the animus, it is important to point out that Jung was merely underscoring general distinctions with the two principles that could, but did not have to, apply to the concepts of anima and animus. Jung also associated the soul-image with face of our ego that looks inward, whereas the outward looking face, he called the persona. The persona mediates the outer attitude of the personality, which relates to the external world of things and objects, whereas the soul-image mediates the world within, which consists of images and ideas. This is a very important distinction. Persona looks outward, and the anima/animus looks inward, that is to say, toward the unconscious. Given this illustration, one should note that the psyche, like the Roman god Janus, has two faces, and can look both inward and outward. The anima facilitates the inward gaze toward the unconscious, whereas the persona facilitates the outward gaze toward the external world.

It is important to point out that elsewhere Jung referred to the anima as “the archetype of life itself” (1934/1959, CW9i, para. 66). In a peculiar way, anima and animus characterize life, and perhaps even one’s drive to live. It is a difficult idea to adequately articulate discursively because one practically needs to feel it to know that it is true, however that is the soul-image, feeling and values over the cold hard facts. One need only read Jung’s (2009) record of his encounter with Salome in Liber Novus to appreciate how the soul-image functions (p. 246). Lastly, a recent dream seems apropos to illustrate to the reader how the anima appears in dreams. Not long ago I had a dream where my wife, daughter, and myself, were all descending rapidly in a dark water. Although I could not see them directly, I knew they were there and this knowledge brought me comfort. Although the dream suggests something foreboding, the dark descent did not strike terror into my heart, instead it helped me realize what the anima really is, at least for me, a means to relate to my own inner feminine. For it provided me orientation in a dark place. Both wife and daughter, mother or sister, can symbolize the anima in a dream, just like a husband, brother, or uncle can represent a woman’s animus. Such relationships and roles do after all point toward a vital activity, which corresponds ultimately to relatedness. I should add that where such distinctions become most fuzzy, is in the middle.


References:

Jung, C.G. (1959). The concept of the collective unconscious. In H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler & W. McGuire (Eds.), The collected works of C.G. Jung (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.) (2nd ed., Vol. 9i, pp. 290-354). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1934).

Jung, C.G. (1959). Aion: Researches into the phenomenology of the self. In H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler & W. McGuire (Eds.), The collected works of C.G. Jung (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.) (2nd ed., Vol. 9ii). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1951)

Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types. In H. Read, M. Fordham, G. Adler & W. McGuire (Eds.), The collected works of C.G. Jung (R. F. C. Hull, Trans.) (2nd ed., Vol. 6). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1921)

Jung, C.G. (2009). The Red Book: Liber novus. Sonu Shamdasani (ed.). Philemon Series. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.

By The Depth Coach in Life, Psychology, Relationships
4 Comments
  • Sherry S.

    I really liked this post, and I appreciate how you provided multiple references regarding the anima/animus concept. I should add that as a feminist I don’t agree with every aspect of Jung’s theory on this one, but I think it’s a big enough theory to accommodate multiple points of view. Well written.

  • The Depth Coach

    Sherry,

    Thank you for taking the time read the blog and respond. Some people find some of Jung’s more traditional ideas as being antiquated and no longer applicable to emergent views regarding gender and social roles. We live in an ever changing world. I think Jung however was focused on the big picture rather than the particulars and that is why some people feel left out within the scope of his psychological system.

  • Max

    What else is Feninism if not the internalisation of the Animus in a woman?

    • The Depth Coach

      Max, Thanks for the note. I think you bring up an interesting idea, though you really did not elaborate on what you meant. I imagine that feminism could be viewed as an external expression of the animus, perhaps as a means to compensate for the domination of patriarchal values for so many years. As I aspired to show, these ideas (anima and animus) are often difficult to engage between we are dealing with parts of ourselves that are not only contrasexual but also partially unconscious. Thanks for the comment.

Post a comment