Peterson's work with myth is hugely influenced by Carl Jung, but in light of last week's post I wanted to point out how Peterson and Jung handle masculine and feminine archetypes differently.
(BTW, for those who have joined this series late, Parts 1-9 of this series have been very positive about Peterson. Part 10 was my first critique, and this post continues that critique. As this series involves sharing my thoughts about Peterson, pro-Peterson and anti-Peterson readers will, I fear, have mixed reactions to any given post in light of my thoughts. But my writing, I hope, is always characterized by a hard-to-categorize independence.)
To recap, Peterson conflates Chaos, the Great Dragon archetype, with the the Unknown, the Great Mother archetype. And in last week's post I expressed a worry with Peterson's thought in how the masculine Hero archetype is asked to "order" the Chaos or "slay" the Dragon, both symbolically feminine. This framework pits the masculine against the feminine in an agonistic relationship. True, this relationship is symbolic, and the symbols are bivalent, mixtures of good and bad, but it sets up a worrisome dynamic. Symbols, as Peterson admits, encode value and direct action.
Carl Jung, by contrast, handled masculine and feminine archetypes very differently. In Jung's theory every man has a "feminine side," called the anima. And every woman has a "masculine side," called the animus. Each, the anima and animus, are archetypes in the collective unconscious.
For Jung, the anima and animus embody characteristics symbolically associated with masculine and feminine stereotypes. For men, the anima represents empathy, emotional expression, relationality and nurturance. For women, the animus represents agency, assertion, control, and dominance. During development in many cultures, men are asked to repress their anima, their feminine side. For example, when boys are told not to cry they are being asked to repress their anima. Men who overly suppress their anima become, according to Jung, psychologically unbalanced. When men repress their anima they become emotionally repressed, unable to express love, lack empathy, and are overly competitive and domineering. The man who can't express affection for his children by saying "I love you" illustrates the point. Basically, a repressed anima produces what we'd describe as "toxic masculinity."
For women, by contrast, when they repress their animus they become overly passive, dependent, and needy. This is also an unbalanced situation. When women tap into and express their animus they become strong, assertive, self-determined, brave, capable and powerful. All the "Girl Power" and "Be Brave" memes for young women are trying to get them to express their animus.
Now, we might quibble with why, for example, emotions are associated with the anima and assertiveness with the animus. But the upshot of Jung's analysis is very egalitarian: A whole and balanced person should fully express both the anima and animus. Healthy people express both masculine and feminine characteristics in balanced ways. We are nurturing and courageous. We are sympathetic and assertive. We can both express and control our emotions. Unhealthy people, by contrast, repress their masculine or feminine side.
I hope this brief summary of Jung's theory illustrates the contrast with Jordan Peterson. With Peterson, the masculine has an agonistic relationship with the feminine. With Jung, this agnostic relationship doesn't exist. In fact, the only violence being done is in the act of repressing the anima and animus. For men, to illustrate the point, the anima isn't a dragon to be slayed but a "feminine side" to be embraced in order to become a whole and balanced human being.
And on a final note, from a Jungian perspective Jesus expresses the perfectly balanced person. Jesus is both affectionate and strong. Empathic and fearless. Relational and powerful. Tender and confrontational. Servant and leader. Relaxed with women and children and able to go toe to toe with any man. Able to weep over Jerusalem like a mother hen and able to receive a punch in the face with stoical reserve. Jesus, a Jungian could argue, was the perfect Incarnational blend of anima and animus.
