![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Awkward Awareness
Last night I went to a wonderful talk on Jungian psychology and the experience of shifting archetypal energies into ones body and watching that work flower. There was an odd side effect of it, though, which I lay solidly and gratefully on the doorsteps of my friends.
Jungian psychology, as it stands now, is missing stories. And it's missing stories because it is making into objects those who could bring us these stories if they were subjects. That all sounds horribly confusing, doesn't it? I'll get more explicit.
There is an archetypal figure that is called the "Black Madonna." She is a large, dark skinned woman who started showing up in the dreams of thin, white women. She represents warmth, wisdom, earthiness, pleasure, and a whole host of wonderful things, but she is a story that arises from people who view those with dark skin as objects, not subjects. It is a taking of a type of person - an image of a person - and making them an internal reference.
More and more this bothers me. At a basic level, this objectification is bourne out of ignorance, and even if complimentary it is still something which makes other that which I would call friend; makes stereotype that which I would know individually.
Of course.... I say this as a large, pale woman... so I don't know how much validity that carries.
But the absence of these stories - these dreams - and the wall that seems to be built around something I love - is a physical pain for me, and I don't know what to do about it.
Jungian psychology, as it stands now, is missing stories. And it's missing stories because it is making into objects those who could bring us these stories if they were subjects. That all sounds horribly confusing, doesn't it? I'll get more explicit.
There is an archetypal figure that is called the "Black Madonna." She is a large, dark skinned woman who started showing up in the dreams of thin, white women. She represents warmth, wisdom, earthiness, pleasure, and a whole host of wonderful things, but she is a story that arises from people who view those with dark skin as objects, not subjects. It is a taking of a type of person - an image of a person - and making them an internal reference.
More and more this bothers me. At a basic level, this objectification is bourne out of ignorance, and even if complimentary it is still something which makes other that which I would call friend; makes stereotype that which I would know individually.
Of course.... I say this as a large, pale woman... so I don't know how much validity that carries.
But the absence of these stories - these dreams - and the wall that seems to be built around something I love - is a physical pain for me, and I don't know what to do about it.
no subject
no subject
By my understanding, archetypes themselves are a kinda Platonic from or ideal version of whatever they represent, and by extention are not actually the thing in question, just it's quintessential characteristic. If a human image is used to quantify a charateristic, does that really objectify people? Would it still be objectification if the achetype was based of an idealization of the person percieving it? Does a human image that differs from the viewer's immediate sphere objectify the whole of the culture it derives from?
If the mark was missed, I appologize. The curiosity that got me here, comes from this thought after reading the post...
Characters from stories, I take to be highly specialized archetype forms. Heros, villans, and thier friends, mentors, loves, can come from anywhere, be anything, and come to represent and ideal to fans of thier media. (Books, movies, and especially, interactive medias like video games, and tabletop RPGs.) After absorbing the story, a person may form a custom achetype for a personal characteristic they appreciate the most based off of... an anti-social elf? A do-gooder vampire? A tax accountant? (To have fun with the idea :)
It is understandable that pre-created images have the benefit of being a different race (or even species) then the perciever before bring utilized as an archtype, but would that be objectification? Creating an image consciously or subconsciously to represent an ideal on would wish to obtain seems to be based on pulling from unexplored areas in one's own head, so a radicaly different image may be part of the deal, particularly if the characteristic is something the creator may not see in themselves.
In that light I don't think it's racism that's showing it's head, but if I may ask, to understand your view:
Are archetypical images, themselves, objectifying?
Is RPing a character of a different race objectifying, and if not, does the subconscious genereation of such a character count?
And on the chance I've completely missed what you were saying, I REALLY, appologize for blogging your LJ, this was alot longer then I thought it'd be! Happy trails!