Thoughts on Jungian prejudices regarding gender and sexual orientation
I’m in the midst of writing a long form piece, and have gotten my self stuck down a few rabbit holes while working through that material. One of these rabbit holes involves nagging thoughts on C.G. Jung, Marie-Louise von Franz, and their approach to gender and homosexuality within some of their most well known writings.
For years now, I’ve talked up Jung’s work (particularly his latter work) to anyone who will listen. I’ve noticed that Jung is misunderstood and/or misrepresented online by people who seem afraid of women and LGTBQ+ rights - people like Jordan Peterson. This has led to me to reflect on what Jung’s message really was. Had I in fact been talking up a reactionary figure? Does his work serve as a justification for reversing progress in the movement for women’s rights and LGTBQ+ rights?
In short, my opinion is that:
As a wealthy European man born in the late 19th century, Jung had noticeable prejudices when it came to women and the subject of homosexuality (race too, although that’s not the focus of this piece).
We shouldn’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. These prejudices don’t provide a justification for reactionary arguments against women’s rights and LGTBQ+ rights. They also don’t undermine Jung’s momentous body of work.
I’m sure there are excellent in-depth books and articles written on this subject, but this isn’t one of them, and I don’t refer to any others. Maybe I’m lazy, but this piece is meant to be an informal outlining of thoughts - which I’m only writing to de-clog my mind and hopefully get back to writing my long-form project. What follows are thoughts based on having read several of Jung’s well known works, and those of his close collaborator Marie-Louise von Franz, as well as having spent the last decade living through the kinds of bizarre life transforming experiences that Jung described in his work.
This all started when I noticed that several of the case studies that Jung and von Franz’s mention in their books involve individuals who wanted to be “cured” of their homosexuality or who weren’t aware of supposed homosexual tendencies until it was brought to light by the analyst. It became pretty clear to me that homosexuality is viewed as pathology, something to fix. Now to an extent one can write this off as simply a facet of the era in which these two great minds worked. In 8 Circuit Yoga, I very briefly touch on how homosexuality was viewed as a mental illness by the Western psychological establishment until the 1970s. But with Jung’s analytical psychology, there’s more to it than that.
Very broadly speaking, analytical psychology centers around the interaction between a human being’s conscious psyche (including their personality structure, a.k.a. ego) and the much less understood unconscious psyche. An important pillar of analytical psychology is the idea that two unconscious forces - the anima and the animus - have a major influence on one’s personality, regardless of whether one is aware of them or not. This is a very detailed theory which I won’t get into deeply, but in essence the anima is the unconscious “inner woman” inside a man, and the animus is the unconscious “inner man” inside a woman. If these unconscious inner factors aren’t consciously engaged with and transformed into friendly factors within an individual’s mind, they will have a malignant influence on the conscious personality: the individual will become more and more like the worst example of the opposite sex - a problem in and of itself - but when things get real bad, apparently homosexuality tendencies arise.
It’s been my impression for a while now that Jung and von Franz’s definition of a normal healthy personality doesn’t include gender fluidity and room for homosexuality. I think any modern progressively-minded individual who wants to meaningfully engage with analytical psychology must reconcile this aspect of Jung and von Franz’s work - particularly when they get into the subject of how the anima and animus influence an individual’s conscious personality.
Below are several points that I wrote out in order to clarify my understanding of the issue. While this subject matter can be dense and complex, this exercise allowed me to resolve my concerns sufficiently.
Personality is defined by Dr. Timothy Leary as “the multilevel pattern of interpersonal responses (overt, conscious or private) expressed by the individual.”
All human personality structures conditioned within post-industrial society will repress specific behavioral traits.
Every individual - regardless of their biological sex, socially defined gender role, and sexual preferences - is subjected to this conditioning.
The conditioning has behavioral consequences - some which can be seen in externally facing societal behaviors - and some only observed as private behaviors shown only to close confidants.
Two notable groupings of repressed traits can be better understood via the Chinese philosophical principles of Yin and Yang. This is preferable to calling them “feminine” and “masculine” traits.
Yin - a receptive, understanding, empathetic, yielding, and relationship management approach to interpersonal behavior. Yin favors intuitive knowing over logic and reason as a guide to navigating situations.
Yang - a forceful, action-oriented, apathetic, defiant, and individualistic approach to interpersonal behavior. Yang favors logic and reason, and shuns intuitive knowing as a guide.
An individual who has a personality with overly repressed Yang traits, will be impacted by an unconscious set of Yin personality traits - and vice versa. This unconscious set of traits can be understood as a hidden second double personality.
Those with personality structures that society labels as “male” or “manly” routinely repress Yin traits - traits considered to be overly weak.
This repression creates imbalance in the psyche. Personality traits that are avoided and repressed grow stronger because the psyche (mind) strives to find balance.
Externally the neurotic socially conditioned man presents himself as strong and powerful, but internally, and in private, the man feels and acts like a wimp.
Due to our society’s patriarchal nature, the sort of personality imbalance just described is more often than not advantageous for men operating within social hierarchies. It is only when the wimpy-ness begins to bleed into external social behavior that the individual notices its undesired affects.
Unfortunately Jung, coming from his specific time and place, described this as a man becoming effeminate, emotional, and a womanly. It seems to me that Jung believed that men who embodied primarily Yin traits, or were in a sense possessed by Yin traits, would exhibit homosexual tendencies.
Those with personality structures that society labels as “female” or “womanly” routinely repress Yang traits - traits considered to be an indication of strength.
This repression creates imbalance in the psyche. Personality traits that are avoided and repressed grow stronger because the psyche strives to find balance.
Externally the neurotic socially conditioned woman initially presents themselves as a receptive embodiment of Yin values, but in fact acts like a bully.
Due to civilization’s patriarchal nature, this sort of personality imbalance is controversial and often criticized - “she’s a stone cold bitch.”
Unfortunately Jung, coming from his specific time and place, described this as a woman becoming “overly opinionated” and manly. It seems to me that Jung believed that women who embodied primarily Yang traits, or were in a sense possessed by Yang traits, would exhibit homosexual tendencies.
This personality type may be advantageous in some post-industrial social hierarchies, particularly the business and political realm, but at the same time those that value these traits often consider it a failure for a woman to neglect Yin values, which they believe a woman is expected to represent when fulfilling the “duty” of a mother or wife.
For me, Jung’s outdated prejudices don’t invalidate the larger point that repression causes an imbalance and conflict within the psyche, that in turns leads to unconscious compensatory behaviors, and a second hidden personality which expresses itself unconsciously. Personality #1 isn’t aware of personality #2.
But for all of Jung’s brilliance, in my opinion many of the points that Jung made on this subject seem to be needlessly gendered. I suspect that Jung gendered the anima and animus probably due a combination of factors: the influence of Sigmund Freud’s overtly sexual psychoanalysis, the fact that interpersonal behavioral issues are typically most strongly brought out in romantic relationships, and that images of the opposite sex are very common and meaningful symbols within dreams and fantasies. Often these images are charged with energy, which isn’t dissimilar from sexual energy. Jung referred to this as the libido.
But from what I understand stirring images of different sexes and genders appear to both men and women within dreams and fantasies. Women dream of anima figures and men dream of animus figures all the time. I noticed that Jung and von Franz couldn’t quite elucidate what animus figures represented, offering different roles for the animus to play depending on the patient. Anima figures on the other hand tend to be more consistently meaningful for people of all genders.
From my vantage point, it is less useful to dwell on the gender dynamics between the dreamer and the dream image, but instead more useful to reflect on why the unconscious mind chooses a specific image to impart meaning to the dreamer. And it seems to me that working through one’s relationship with the anima is actually the first step to finding psychological well being (a.k.a. Jungian individuation) for people of all genders.
It’s my view that pretty much everyone in our so-called civilized society has had their Yin (anima, receptive, “soulful”) qualities stunted, and their Yang (animus, forceful, “egoic”) qualities over-emphasized.
I think Jung made a strong case that “possession” by repressed unconscious forces in the mind can be a great danger to humanity, but viewing homosexuality as a pathology based on unconscious possession runs counter to what modern day established science says on the subject of sexual orientation. Plus, it should go without saying that there are many heterosexual men who strongly embody Yin traits, and there are many heterosexual women who strongly embody Yang traits.
Now it must be said, there are more subtle esoteric aspects of Jung’s work where female and male descriptors can serve as appropriate metaphors, such as the exploration of the ancient idea of hieros gamos, the sacred marriage. Still, it’s probably not very helpful to refer to behavioral traits as male and female when discussing personality characteristics. In relatively straight forward discussions on personality traits, it seems to me that it is better and more accurate to use descriptors like forceful, receptive etc. - or if broader terms are necessary - refer to Yin and Yang.
Where I fault Jung the most is in seemingly failing to appreciate the incredible difficulties that an individual encounters when playing the role of “woman” within post-industrial society. Most of his writing is about men and their interactions with the anima, the repressed Yin within the unconscious mind. That’s been remarkably helpful to many, including me. But the animus, on the other hand, seems less defined, more like an after thought. A woman’s journey to find psychological balance isn’t discussed nearly as much as a man’s.
The way I see it most women in this society are given essentially the same routine soul lobotomy, and amplification of Yang behavioral traits that men get, but are also expected to retain a connection to the Yin nature of life. Men are not typically expected to retain that connection to the same extent. It’s a double whammy for women: they receive pressure to embody Yin and be Yang enough to survive in this era of self-determination. Being torn between the two can be brutal to a woman’s inner life (for example, see the response to the book Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead). Some argue that the solution to this is for women to drop any aspirations of being a Yang figure, and revert to a submissive role within society - a role with limited rights. From what I understand, this was not the argument that Jung was making. What he advocated for was an appropriate balance between Yin and Yang within the psyche of all individuals.
These days the rapid commoditization of every notable social interaction is putting everyone’s ability to retain a functional conscious personality to the test. This makes it even more difficult for a woman to balance polar opposite personality traits during this very precarious era for psychological health.
Two excellent works that demonstrate a pathway for a woman to find psychological balance, Jungian individuation, within Western culture are:
The book Women Who Run With Wolves: Myths and Stories of the Wild Woman Archetype by Clarissa Pinkola Estes.
The surrealist film Everything, Everywhere All at Once directed by The Daniels and starring Michelle Yeoh.
I’ve put together a similar set of notes on the subject of individuation for women, which I may post in the future.
Thankfully, Jung stated that his groundbreaking theories were provisional - for others to flesh out and revise where appropriate. This leaves room for broader thinking in Jungian circles, and allows subsequent generations the opportunity to refine and build on the important work he did.
Related reading
Two Essays on Analytical Psychology by C.G. Jung
Man and his Symbols by C.G. Jung and others
Various works by Marie-Louise von Franz
Interpersonal diagnosis of Personality by Timothy Leary
