Tower of Stars

The Vague “You”

Who are you referring to when you say the word “you”? Moreover; who am I referring to when I use “you” in that sentence above? What about “I”? Maybe “me” too is subject to the same debate?

Asking the question “Who am I?” is not an uncommon thing for a teenager or young adult to be asking. When one is trying to come to terms with their personal “worth” to the world and how they will contribute to society, one must understand who they are to themselves before they can convey themselves to anyone else convincingly — like when applying for a job.

When trying to come to terms with the way I see myself, I initially came across Freud's theories and psychosexual concepts. The internet-centred statement “Freud Was Right” may just seem an excuse to find sexual imagery in everything or to inflate the vocal minority of certain “fandoms”; but it is not entirely false.

I later came across Carl Jung, and found his concepts poorly segregated, and sometimes needless. The anima and animus are particularly infamous in that they're described as being “true selves”, despite their being a separate self entity in his theory. However less focus on sexual drives was a welcome relief from Freud's theories.

The “true self” or ego can also be sometimes compared to the concept of a soul. This concept has been and shall forever be argued and disputed until someone can “prove” their existence, because souls or spirits are often considered separate from both the body and the mind and in turn inaccessible to mortal eyes and technology save for the possessor of the soul.

The purpose of this article is to take these theories and find an optimal and clear-cut mid-point between them. One that doesn't favour sexual drives, one that doesn't favour false stereotypes, or try to force you to only acknowledge one part of your personality as your “true self”.

So who are you?

The Web of the Conscience

Freud describes our minds — the conscious and unconscious processes our brains produce — as being made of three areas. The Id, the super-ego and the self to mediate between the two. The self is often called the ego, but to avoid confusion with the super-ego and to maintain consistency with Jung I will refer to it as the self.

The Id is instinctual urges and drives, while the super-ego is similar to the conscience in which it dictates morality and following a socially acceptable image. The ego/self is talked of sometimes as the result of the Id and super-ego agreeing, in a similar fashion to a chemical reaction turning two chemicals into a third. Other statements refer to it as the mediator trying to satisfy the Id without causing embarrassment or endangerment to the super-ego. Freud talks of “ego defence mechanisms” the self puts in place to try and cope with the on-going fight between desires and regulations.

These defence mechanisms range from things like throwing your anger out at something other than what one is angry at — to relieve oneself of the stress without causing trouble, to simply not focusing the problem and putting it out of sight into the unconscious.

As the Id is instinct and drives, it is quite central to Freud's “sexual” psychosexual concepts. While these are not entirely false, they're much too emphasised. Take for example his sexual development in children.

An infant is in the oral phase: it has the sexual desire to put things in its mouth. It later moves on to the anal phase, where it will try to gain control of its bowel movement. Does this mean infants find these actions as fetishes and sexually appealing? They most certainly don't — they aren't even aware of these concepts. Do they find these actions pleasurable? Yes. Sexual though?

The Id is incredibly primitive and under-developed; taking this into account it may react to things that the self and super-ego are neutral or in great interest about, like a child left out of a ball game. This theory takes the saying “Freud Was Right” and pushes it flat on its face. The Id may be the centre of drives, but that doesn't necessarily mean that when it does react it is always the centre. It merely joined in on this “great interest”.

This is the issue with Freud's theories — it does not differentiate between desire and sexual desire. So my point here is that something that may encompass one's subconscious cannot but help to also include the primitive, instinctual side.

People love to argue about this, some don't think about this and just use Freud's theories as an excuse to feed their Id — thus my point is null, and some try to hide behind masks while their selves groan in agony at what is happening before them...

Fragmented Personal Guides

Jung talks about entities called “archetypes”, pieces of the self based around certain stereotypes, and formed from our own personality. Some of these archetypes — e.g. the anima or animus are vaguely described across many sources, and thus this is where my deconstruction and rethinking come in.

Jung described seven individual archetypes: the persona, shadow, anima/animus, mother, child, wise old man, and the self. Jung talks of these as being part of the self, but as is clear — there is already a 'self' archetype. Not only is this clearly at fault; Jung himself admits the archetypes can never be truly broken down.

Or can it?

An archetype works as an internal guide that often may appear in dreams or during difficult situations. Based on certain stereotypes the archetype will try work out an appropriate reaction. This is just how a persona — described as one of the archetypes - works. So instead let's consider a persona not an archetype itself, but an archetype a term used to identify a specific persona.

The persona is often a term used in relation to acting, role playing, or the internet sub-culture. All of these are the same — the persona is a mask used to pretend to be someone else (or a variation of ourselves) to fit with the situation at hand.

For example; if a mother is trying to convince their child not to pick at their birthday cake until the big day - the child archetype may appear to bring the mother down to their child's point of view, while the mother archetype will give the mother the reason to say “My mother told me on my birthday...” and so on. The persona flips through a roulette of reactions, protecting the inner self, and then deciding what to bring forth as if pulling a trigger.

Not everyone necessarily possesses all of these archetypes, and some may even possess unlisted archetypes: Jung said there may be as many archetypes as there are individual persons and experiences. This concept can be considered similar to the literary idea of a brainchild. When one creates a character in their mind for a story, in artwork, or whatever creativity they may delve into — it is a brainchild.

These brainchildren can — when a tight bond is formed — become personae, and fill the roles of the archetypes. A mechanic character may become a subconscious sarcastic minder to one trying to fix a car.

This person may know themselves what they are doing is wrong but instead of thinking of the issue themselves, the character is pointing it out for them. In fact - they are thinking of it themselves; the mind is simply using the personae as an internal guide because it is much easier to interpret information if seen as a separate entity.

When one is creating beings based on parts of themselves, it is only natural to find something that is really them - personifying your real personality.

Who is it that's sitting behind those masks?

The Soul

On a journey to “self-realisation” or finding personal identity, one will internally break through the layers of the self to try and reach one's core existence. Beyond the personae roulette is the Shadow.

The Shadow is the equivalent of the Freudian Id; being driven mostly on instinct and being made up of negative qualities of our personality. These negative elements may manifest if one's mask is broken, or they are shocked, and the self is put at risk. If the Shadow is ignored, it may grow darker; if it is acknowledged as part of the collective self, it calms and may be less inclined to come forth. Take for example one coming to terms with anger management problems. When one acknowledges the issue — the Shadow — they will be more aware of it and can stop it — the anger - from coming forth.

The anima and animus mentioned in the previous topic are described as being a second barrier protecting the self - as part of one's true opinions of the outside world, and sometimes part of the self on its own; I prefer the former as it makes more sense considering what details Jung focuses on.

The anima appears to males, and the animus to females. They are of opposite gender to whoever they appear to and represent how one sees the opposite sex. In relationships — boyfriend, girlfriend, wife, or husband — they may be “projected” onto the partner, in turn reflecting one's judgements of that gender and tying in with the Shadow/Id's wish to satisfy sexual desires.

If one sees this entity as an equal or acknowledges the Shadow's feelings to it, the self may release this internal mask and reveal itself. Alternatively if one identifies with their anima/animus, or the Shadow is ignorant to it; it can bring about homosexual feelings and desires. The self may retain the anima/animus mask, or even assimilate with it.

The self works similarly on both Jungian and Freudian terms, however under Jung's diagram the self would have to “reach through” the Shadow to manage the personae, as opposed to it meditating between the drives and masks as if sitting between them. The self is often compared to the concept of a soul or spirit, representing the “real you” unbound by physical traits or manipulation of the psyche through style of upbringing.

It is not uncommon for those of a creative affinity to produce — unconsciously or otherwise — a personification of the self, but the self alone is so complex and always changing, that this personification is rarely consistent. Jung describes the self as being incomprehensible, with the rest of the psyche unable to grasp its form.

The self may take the form of emblems, prominent figures, mythological — or simply powerful - animals, or a collective average of one's interests. Jung describes the self as the “midpoint of the personality”, so it only makes sense that the last of these is what one may most often identify with.

Can We Answer Anything?

To be blunt, no.

What you may come to notice however is that throughout this analysis I have talked about and used the term “one”, but there is no “one” at all. We cannot deny or be separated from elements of our selves; we can only be ignorant of them, leaving them to grow dark and one day bite back.

One is we. We are our personae, our Shadow, our body, our inner characters, and our soul. We are a unified being that creates a whole new conscious existence that looks one — but is in fact many.

Our personae and super-ego act to the outside world through our body, our inner self sits in watch with the soul through the blanket of the Shadow, and yet we can never consider any of these really a “true” self because that in turn must mean the other parts are “false”. We cannot do this, as our darker sides will in the end turn on us and consume what we think is “true”.

Our “true” self is everything that we hold within and around us taken with caution. We take what we like, and take what we'd wish we didn't have when it is necessary. What we call our self may have direct relations with the soul; but can only be considered the pilot. It still needs the rest of our existence to be “true”. Without the rest of our psyche, we'd just be dead.

Bibliography

• ROWLANDS Mark, The Philosopher at the End of the Universe, Random House, 2003
• ROMERO Anna, KEMP Steven, Psychology Demystified, McGraw Hill 2007
• http://www.religiousworlds.com/fondarosa/jung03.html, Summary of Jung's Psychology
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_and_animus, Anima and Animus
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persona, Persona
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_%28psychology%29, Shadow
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_mind, Unconscious Mind
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daimonic, Daimonic

Personal Credits

• MW — Loads.
• VGJustice - [17:19] VGJustice: The soul has been a subject of debate for hundreds if not thousands of years. I wouldn't feel too bad if you can't figure it out. :P