Overthrowing Authority
Today’s photo could be considered “flawed” because of the over exposure at the top. But, it serves a purpose for me because of the excessive light from the sun. Light. Consciousness. Having taught developmental psychology for a number of years, I can’t help but think of that journey of development from the pre-natal waters in darkness, to the bloom of full adulthood when one is standing tall in the light, tall and proud. It is a long journey that is all uphill. But, like this photo, once one has crested the bridge of life, it is necessary to descend, to move back toward the darkness, towards death where human consciousness is no longer.
I want this post to focus on the high point of the bridge. If one looks into the water, into the reflections of consciousness in the body of the collective and personal unconscious, one sees what is not evident above the water, above the bridge. One sees that the self that walks this bridge, must go over the sun, go over the father in order to become a full adult. It’s about becoming the authority over one’s self rather than allowing one’s self to be the subject of the authority of others, especially one’s personal father, or the collective father represented in one’s community, one’s country, one’s religion.
“Also associated with the father imago is the issue of authority. By whose authority do we live our lives, make our decisions, practice our professions, conduct our journeys? Authority as concept is neutral; in praxis it is always valenced. Any authority, no matter how benign an well-intentioned, can exclude its opposite and over time become oppressive. No child can ever wholly evolve into his or her own truth without finding an authentic inner authority. For this reason, the individuation process obliges some form of overthrow of the external authority, whether modeled by the personal parent, the broader culture, or the resident tribal deity.” (Hollis, Mythologems, p. 47)
As one grows up, one discovers self as a separate being. One also discovers that one is helpless at first and must depend upon the Mother and the Father. The original power of these two figures are grounded as archetypes into our very soul. The Mother as nurturer and as the source of life. The Father as authority and the energy of life. The task of growing up leads us to overthrow their authority. Rather than to have one’s father’s voice echo in one’s head and heart guiding all of one’s decisions, one must become the authority. One shifts from being the child to the adult, from being the “subject” to the ruler. One shifts from being a member of a church to being at one with deity, to finding that there is no separation between self and deity.
It’s a long journey, not an easy one. It is a journey that leaves one alone in so many ways. Individuation. And when one has completed the journey, one returns to being at one with others seeing that there is no real separation between self and other as all are part of the whole.
This quote from Hollis is very interesting. I am still in the process of finding my own authentic inner authority. My parents, my mother, even now believes she knows best for me and finds it difficult to trust that I know what is best for me. My husband thought he knew what was best for me as well. Now I am trying to figure out what is best for me, to discover who I am because I only know what I am not, or what others expect me to be.
deb
15 Dec 10 at 11:10 AM
Dear Robert,
This is all well and good at the individual level. We all need to understand our own individuation process, so that we do not become overly guilty when we “overthrow” father and mother. But what about society? How does a society individuate? What are the steps? How are we doing so far (as a society or multiple societies)? What is left to be done?
Sorry to ask so many questions, but my particular interest is at the societal (macro) level; as if society were an _uber_ organism. How do the creative arts (i.e. photography as a case in point) assist with that process? How can they be more or less creative? What are the potential pitfalls? Do we risk facilitating evil if we teach this knowledge with a macro effect in mind? Clearly, Adolph Hitler was self-taught, and I believe he burned Jung’s books so others would not understand the power of what he was doing. This is certainly useful information at the individual level, so that one understands what is needed to achieve “wholeness,” but do we risk opening Pandora’s Box if we teach people to use these ideas at a societal level? Will “good” win out if we do this?
I have my own answer on this, but it would be useful to have your feedback first.
Best regards, Skip
Skip Conover
15 Dec 10 at 12:22 PM
SC,
“Jung was the original anti-psychiatrist, who designated society as mad. He was not concerned with repairing lives to fit into an insane social order, but had to reverse the directions of psychiatry and argue that society was mad and, as such, individual madness is to be expected as a product of a more general madness.”
David Tacey, “How to Read Jung.”
It seems to me that to even begin to get a handle on an individual’s problems we must examine the influence of the culture(at several levels) on that individual.
John Ferric
16 Dec 10 at 12:51 AM
Yes, digging into self to see what is needed to “activate” one’s personal authority over “self.” When one gets there, it doesn’t matter what others expect, believe or think they need. Relationships are a minefield when it comes to “self” authority.
rgl
17 Dec 10 at 8:02 AM
Hi Skip. Hard questions – what about society? Well, there is no collective individuation process. All that one can do is to have as many individuals as possible individuate within a collective. I am sure you are aware that one can have people jump through all the hoops, take all the classes and obtain degrees and certificates enough to decorate huge offices and homes without becoming the least bit aware of their personal shadow, let alone the collective shadow. Doing what you are doing and with myself also doing, there are ripples that in turn shift levels of consciousness. Ghandi did his thing because he had to, no choice as far as his “psyche” was concerned. He didn’t change others by his authority; others changed themselves as they orbited around his presence.
Do we risk in leading by example and showing others the keys to self-discovery? Yes. Is the risk worth it? Well, I think once one has become even a little bit more aware, one has little choice in taking the risk. To deny the risk is to lose one’s soul. The risk is worth it. The risk is necessary.
It comes down to a certain kind of leadership in the end, I think. One becomes a more authentic person as one becomes more aware of self. And living and interacting with the world as a more aware person results in ripples that flow through the others causing authentic change. Scripted change doesn’t result in a real increase in awareness at the collective level. If anything, a script keeps most as unconscious as possible.
rgl
17 Dec 10 at 8:14 AM
Of course, John. The individual is within a container and that container merges with the self – it seems that all boundaries are porous. This is a good thing as the changes in the individual are then shared with the collective. The darkness finds a balance in the light. As mad as a society gets, there is as much sanity lying within that society as a balance force, even if only contained by the fewest individuals as possible. If you want, the story of Christ is an example of one light in a sea of darkness and the power of that light.
rgl
17 Dec 10 at 8:19 AM