Sunday, May 3, 2009

What is America's Shadow?

The subject of this essay comes from a question posed to me in the Q&A after my presentation at the International Association for the Study of Dreams conference in July 2008. A member of the audience asked me to describe America’s shadow. I responded off the cuff, knowing this was a rich question worthy of a more thoughtful, in-depth reply. As with many essays on this blog, it has a Jungian component, and it relates closely to both the essay of last month and to the essay that will appear next month.

As I have done with other essays I will begin by defining the “shadow,” in Jungians terms; then I will consider the link between the shadow and the typological functions. After that I will consider the specific elements of America’s shadow and how our collective shadow manifests pathologically. Finally I will examine how it relates to American exceptionalism.

What does “shadow” mean?

As used in Jungian thought, the term “shadow” refers to the “hidden or unconscious aspects of oneself,”[1] which the ego has either repressed or simply not recognized. It is “shadow” because we are “in the dark” about these parts of ourselves.

While we will focus primarily in this essay on the negative aspects of the shadow (which are more problematic than the positive) we should note that the shadow contains all the parts of ourselves that we don’t recognize as “us.” That is, there can be positive or good qualities, like creative impulses, realistic insights, and qualities that are not developed in our consciousness:[2] things or activities we are not good at, or aspects of living where we are awkward or unadapted. So, for example, gross motor coordination (fine athleticism) is part of my shadow (I can’t walk and chew gum at the same time!). Athleticism is a good thing, to be sure, but it is not something I do well and it would be very difficult for me to develop my gross motor skills to a high degree. So we might say that athleticism is part of my shadow.

More difficult—what Jung called “a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality”[3]—is to work with the negative forms of the shadow. We will focus on this form in the rest of this essay.

In its dark guise, the negative guise, the shadow includes all the things we are not proud of or would not want to see as part of us: repressed desires, uncivilized impulses, resentments, childish fantasies, morally inferior motives, behaviors that are anti-social or illegal.[4] Because we don’t want to think poorly of ourselves, we very rarely actively seek to discover our shadow. Jung felt the shadow showed up, or confronted a person, at the outbreak of a neurosis.[5] At such a time, we are confronted with both embarrassing insights into ourselves and also new possibilities (because the shadow offers the opportunity to enlarge our sense of self).

At this point we face a choice: We can take up the task of working with the shadow material OR we can willfully repress the shadow. But note this: repression does not make the shadow go away. It continues to exist in the unconscious and begins to express itself indirectly (e.g. in outer life) in situations that are not pleasant.[6] Often in these situations we “project” the shadow out (unconsciously, of course) and then find ourselves having to deal with people who carry the projection.[7] Life gets more difficult. Jung even uses the word “dangerous” at this point.[8] The shadow wants to be reckoned with. Doing so produces change.

If we take the more prudent (but less palatable) course and confront the shadow, what happens next? Jung describes the process: We come to feel stuck. Many of the certainties in life come to seem doubtful. We find it hard to make moral decisions. We may feel ineffective or begin to question our convictions.[9] In short, life does not get better immediately because the process of assimilating the shadow takes time.

Much as we might wish for a guaranteed “cookbook” approach to resolving the shadow problem, there isn’t any. Each person grapples with it in his/her unique way. It is always an individual process.[10] But certain steps have been identified by Jungian analysts.

First, we must accept the shadow as part of us and take it seriously. Second, we must become aware of the shadow’s qualities and intentions. How to do this? By paying conscious attention to our moods, fantasies, impulses and dreams.[11] Dreamwork is one of the most effective ways to get to know and monitor the shadow. Third, we hunker down for a long “process of negotiation,” what Jungians call (using the technical term in the German original) “Auseinandersetzung,” or “having it out with oneself.”[12] In this process we metaphorically “wrestle” with ourselves inwardly, engaging the shadow material, then backing off, coming in again, withdrawing again and again. This phase of inner work can take months, but there is no set timetable and, as I remind my dream students, this is not a race: the work will take as long as it takes.

In discussing the shadow, we must mention a key point which relates to the quality of the shadow. By “quality” I refer to how dark or light the shadow is. This degree of darkness “depends on how much we consciously identify with a bright persona.”[13] By this Jungians mean how highly we think of ourselves. If we think we are wonderful, superior to others, special, or gifted, our shadow is likely to be very dark and full of all sorts of stuff we are not likely to want to see or face. Why is this? Because the shadow stands in a compensatory relationship to our conscious sense of ourselves.[14] This is important to remember when we examine America’s shadow in a later section of this essay. In the next section, we consider the link between the shadow and the type functions.

The link between the shadow and type functions

By “function” Jungians mean the 4 elements—Intuition (N)/Sensation (S), Thinking (T)/Feeling (F)—that Jung identified as the elements of personality type. This is not the place to get into a long disquisition on typology,[15] so we will briefly describe the functions and then indicate how type relates to the shadow. Then we will relate all this to our collective American shadow.

Early on in his career Jung explored possible causes for his split with Freud and came to conclude that, to a degree, their falling out was due to a fundamental difference in personality.[16] Jung realized that certain personality features are innate and he termed these “functions,” two being “rational” (i.e. able to be explained)[17]—Thinking and Feeling—and two being “irrational” (i.e. not able to be explained through the use of reason)[18]—Intuition and Sensation.

The rational functions, Thinking and Feeling, refer to how we make decisions, Thinking types preferring logic and reason and stressing objectivity, Feeling types preferring to use their feelings and values, with more of a subjective or personal focus. The irrational functions, Intuition and Sensation, relate to how we gain awareness or information about the world. Sensates use their senses, while Intuitives use something that circumvents the senses, their intuition.

In addition to the 4 functions, Jung recognized 2 personality attitudes, Extraversion and Introversion.[19] These relate to the flow of psychic energy. In Extraverts, psychic energy tends to flow out to the external world providing the Extravert with more interest in outer reality than an Introvert usually has. In Introverts, psychic energy flows inward, giving the Introvert more awareness of his/her inner life than an Extravert usually has.

A final component of Jungian typology is the J/P distinction. “J” stands for “Judging” (not “judgmental”) and “P” for “Perceiving.” These terms refer to a person’s style of decision-making. Judgers prefer closure; they like to get things settled and agreed upon. They plan ahead and work well with deadlines and timeframes. Perceivers prefer to keep things loose and often find it a challenge to meet deadlines. They tend to resist closure and like to keep gathering information.[20]

In Jungian convention, the types are described in a 4-letter system. So we speak of the ESTJ type,[21] the INFP type[22] and so on. If you are interested in pursuing the subject of Jungian types further, see the Bibliography. For our purposes, we must consider next the question of what the types have to do with the shadow, and, more specifically, what all this has to do with America’s shadow.

As we live our lives there often is a correlation between one’s type opposite and the shadow, especially if a person has a strong preference for an orientation and function.[23] If, for example, a person is a strong ESTJ—highly oriented to the external world (E), operating strongly through the 5 senses (S), with a marked preference for objective, logical reasoning (T) and being decisive (J)—an encounter with a strong INFP (the type opposite) will be a confrontation with someone who carries some of his/her shadow qualities. Both parties might find it hard to work with, understand or resonate with the other (or, as often is the case with couples, both might find the other fascinating, albeit also mystifying, hard to fathom and, at times, exasperating).[24]

My use of the ESTJ as an example is not haphazard: I chose it because the ESTJ is the type preference of nearly 75% of Americans.[25] Given this marked preference in the American population, what sort of typological portrait can we paint of the typical American?

As an Extravert, the typical American is:
· sociable and friendly
· focused on outer circumstances
· keenly aware of trends, fads and fashions
· civic-minded
· outgoing
· a “joiner,” seeking to belong to groups around him/her
· venturing easily into unknown situations
· identifying the causes of things outside him/herself, e.g. “I’m moody because of the weather”
· not given to much introspection or reflection[26]
· in Jung’s own experience of Americans (both his students in Zurich and on his multiple trips to America) he found the typical American to be talkative, business-like, unself-conscious, a “jolly fellow” in an “eager and excited collectivity.”[27]

As a Sensate, the typical American is:
· practical
· sensible
· down to earth
· realistic
· concerned with things
· materialistic
· concrete, with little patience for abstractions and theories
· mechanical, with a gift for technical matters
· the master of detail
· security-seeking
· the preserver of the status quo
· distrusting of intangibles
· loving new gadgets, with a creativity that is practical and technological[28]

Jung found Americans had lots of physical endurance, and were efficient and very much focused on the “yellow god.”[29]

As a Thinker, the typical American is:
· objective
· analytical
· concerned about laws, principles and policies
· “oriented to objective reality”[30]
· a poor listener
· well-suited for business, industry, production, the sciences and law[31]

Jung felt the typical American invested words with power and his thinking was simple and straightforward; with his feeling less adapted, Americans were inclined toward sentimentality and unrestrained emotions.[32]

As a Judger, the typical American is:
· punctual
· decisive
· good at planning and scheduling
· comfortable with deadlines and timeframes
· moralistic
· likely to see the world in black-and-white terms
· likely to jump to conclusions or to decide too quickly
· likely to judge others according to his own rules and principles
· likely to judge others without looking within, at his own actions[33]

Jung regarded the American on this score as efficient, righteous, sectarian, promiscuous, impetuous and concerned with “conspicuous respectability.”[34]

Given this description of the typical ESTJ American, what might we expect the American shadow to look like? Type theory would suggest that some of our collective shadow would be drawn from qualities found in the INFP type. Specifically, we might expect to find our collective shadow[35] shows up in our:
· giving little time to introspection
· disinclination to do much inner reflection
· preference for the superficial, with a tendency to project inner “stuff” on to others, leading to a poor or inaccurate assessment of reality
· mistrust of intuition, with a denigration of right-brained activities (e.g. “Oh, that’s just your imagination!”)
· falling into gross hedonism
· putting a premium on things (“He who dies with the most toys, wins!”)
· becoming susceptible to dark fantasies and suspicions
· exploiting people and animals
· failing to listen well; poor listening ability
· projecting feelings, leading to jealousies, anxieties and suspiciousness
· tough-mindedness, the flip side of which is denigration of caring and caretaking
· fondness for talking of Truth, leading to a moralizing style full of “oughts” and “musts”
· trying to force others into our mold or ways of doing things
· having poor access to our feelings, producing poor relationships and crude tastes
· believing that “the end justifies the means”
· becoming hypersensitive, leading to pettiness, aggression and mistrust of others
· becoming rigid and dogmatic
· becoming fearful of doubt, which can lead to fanaticism
· creativity becoming stagnant and regressive
· falling into what Jung called “mental passivity”[36]
· having difficulties in handling moral ambiguity
· jumping to conclusions
· having naive attachments to religious movements
· “grotesquely punctilious morality”[37]
· falling into “blatant Pharisiasm, religious supersitition and meddlesome officiousness”[38]

Our ESTJ character well suits the businessman, entrepreneur, lawyer, scientist, academic, athlete and engineer.[39] Shadow occupations, in our culture—those that require more of an INFP temperament—include child care worker, social worker, minister, psychotherapist, artist and counselor. Given the bias toward the ESTJ it is no wonder that the caring professions get short shrift and less pay.

What is America’s shadow?

We’ll consider this question from several angles: historical (how our national shadow has appeared in our past) and topical (how our collective shadow has affected our foreign and domestic policies, our personal lives and lifestyle choices, and our attitudes and habits of thinking).

We see one of the first examples of our shadow in history in the very earliest days of the Puritan settlement of New England. Our Puritan ancestors claimed to be chosen by God as moral exemplars to the world, and then went out and massacred the Pequot Indians.[40] We Americans then spent the next 200 years systematically decimating millions of other native peoples and wiping out their cultures.[41]

We waxed eloquently about human beings’ inalienable rights while we enslaved millions of Africans for the economic advantage slavery meant to us.[42] We even went so far as to write slavery into our Constitution.

We fought a Civil War to settle the debate about slavery and after that war we enfranchised all men, but left one-half of our population out of the political process. It took women another 55 years to gain the right to vote and we are still waiting to see full equality.[43]

We exult in our honor and moral probity, yet the United States government broke over 400 treaties made with its native populations.[44] Clearly “keeping our word” counts only in some contexts.

We claimed we had a “manifest destiny”—called by God to “liberate” the people of the Philippines from Spain—and, in the process of doing so, we killed 600,000 Filipinos in 1899.[45]

The Vietnam War was rife with examples of America’s shadow side, from the twisted logic of destroying villages to “save” them, to the massacre of civilians at places like My Lai.

Most recently, the Bush Administration determined it had a mission to free the Iraqi people from the yoke of the dictator Saddam Hussein, and in doing so we caused the death of tens of thousands of people, the looting of the antiquities of the country, and the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

Our wars afford numerous examples of our shadow. In other ways our foreign policy is also replete with shadow. In the previous essay on American exceptionalism we noted the principle of “exemptionalism,” in which the United States exempts itself from treaties, like the Kyoto protocol on climate change.[46] We demand special treatment by other countries, even as our own court system disregards the legal decisions of other nations. In foreign policy, the United States plays by its own rules and the result is that the world sees us as “an exceptionally arrogant bully.”[47] For our part, we are blind to how other countries perceive us.[48] Our rhetoric in foreign affairs is high-minded, hiding our ulterior pursuits or actions. This causes other countries to charge us with hypocrisy. For example: we champion human rights and then produce an Abu Ghraib; we capture prisoners in Iraq and hide them from the International Red Cross; we deny Afghan prisoners the protections of the Geneva Conventions by classifying them as “enemy combatants,” but raise all sorts of objections if other nations fail to treat U.S. soldiers according to the rules.[49] We force our system on other countries while undermining individual liberties at home. In trying to remake the world in our own image we run a foreign policy full of “imperial delusions,”[50] but, in our unconsciousness, we fail to see what we are really doing. And finally, we rely on military power to conceal the problems caused by our domestic profligacy.[51]

Our domestic policies provide numerous examples of our American shadow. Take health care. We run it under a business model,[52] which reflects the failure (typical of the ESTJ type) to value caring and caregiving. So we put the health of the pocketbook before the health of people, and produce a disease-care system in which the human being is defined as “an income-generating biological structure,”[53] or as a source for “spare parts” (kidneys, lungs etc.). We create a class and political system that favors the wealthy and powerful, resulting in a venal government that is more a plutocracy than a democracy.[54] We maintain a host of civic myths—like the viability of the two-party system—at a time when our society is getting more and more multi-cultural and diverse and in need of multiple parties and a variety of forms of political expression.[55] In our Extraverted tendency toward “group think” we suppress dissent.[56] We regard violence as an appropriate way to solve problems and our culture (e.g. television, movies, video games) promotes violence.[57] We incarcerate more people per capita than any other country in the developed world.[58] When faced with an assault to our high-minded rhetoric (like Abu Ghraib) we refuse to engage difficult ethical issues, refusing to ask ourselves why such tragedies happen.[59] We also refuse to recognize the fundamentally amoral nature of capitalism and the consequences this has on our body politic.[60] We continue to use the death penalty, when the rest of the Western world recognizes its barbarity.[61] Our Sensate nature promotes materialism, and this materialistic ethos has led to our living far beyond our means, on both the individual and collective levels. Our huge national debt is causing crises economic, political and military, thanks to “our national self-indulgence.”[62] We fail to see how our political system is held hostage to corporate lobbyists, and we turn a blind eye to how “we are squandering our wealth and power now,”[63] as we compromise our freedom. We fail to see how our federal government has become warped, with the rise of the “imperial Presidency.”[64] Despite 9/ll and the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, we are unable to recognize how our national security system is broken: it cannot provide us with accurate, reliable intelligence. We cannot see how we are now contracting out the business of national security, and how the Pentagon has consistently lied about its capabilities.[65] Our democracy now is “hollow” and “false:”[66] we believe the two parties—Democrats and Republicans—are substantially different and that changing the party in power will really result in substantive change, but in reality the “elements of continuity far outweigh the elements of change.”[67] This means stasis in our political system. The Sensation Judging type does not like change. Change is part of our American shadow. But change is also a central part of life and we Americans, with our ESTJ bias, resist change at our peril.

Our collective shadow also shows up in our lifestyle choices. Look at our poor dietary practices: the popularity of “fast foods” and junk foods, and the epidemic of obesity and diet-related diseases like heart disease, hypertension and diabetes. “Consumeritis,”[68] “omnivorous consumerism,”[69] leads us to “shop til we drop.” We are told by the media and powers-that-be that consuming is our civic duty. The materialism of the Sensate leads us to compulsive acquisition of stuff and this “getting and spending” that Wordsworth so decried[70] has produced an unsustainable economic system and a soul-deadening focus on continuous material growth. Not that we have much time to enjoy all our gadgets and gizmos: “24/7, 365” is the emerging standard in the workplace, leading to widespread workaholism and lack of balance in our daily lives. Other forms of addiction are common too: abuse of alcohol and illicit drug use are growing problems. Our cultural definition of success is “the good life,” interpreted in strictly material terms: “status objects,” accumulated wealth and the “newest, new thing.” We ignore completely the truism that the best things in life are not things. Our refusal to live within our means has produced a national way of life that is both unsustainable and spiritually destructive.[71]

Finally we see examples of our national shadow in our attitudes and habits of thinking. We claim to be the “land of opportunity” open to immigrants, but we have demonstrated prejudice against immigrants from the time of the “Know Nothings” up to our present resentment of Hispanics and illegal aliens.[72] With our attitude of superiority we claim to have the best system, but refuse to recognize our flaws and foibles. The recent election saw numerous instances of racist rhetoric and racial slurs. Another example of a shadow attitude is our arrogance in thinking we are capable of operating a global war on terror.[73] And we see shadow in our attitude of denial.
As I noted in the essay on Denial in the Wake Up/Leap Frog set of essays elsewhere on this Web site, denial is not that river in Egypt! Denial is a dangerous psychological defense mechanism that warps our perception, prevents healthy change and contributes to the growing pathology of our culture. Our national shadow has become pathological. Why pathological? Because it is producing suffering.

We are suffering, as a culture, from high rates of child mortality, child poverty, and failure in our schools. Poor single mothers and their families are suffering as we eliminate welfare for them, while fat-cat corporations get all sorts of bailouts and handouts from Washington. We suffer from high rates of crime, incarceration and gun ownership. We suffer from high levels of repression, causing a large percentage of our population to experience addictions, neuroses and psychoses. We suffer as we denigrate and devalue caring, compassion, vulnerability, feelings and weakness.[74] Because denial blocks change we are not likely to shift our system any time soon. Stasis is even more likely due to the effect of American exceptionalism, which was the subject of the previous essay.

How American exceptionalism relates to our collective shadow?

We mentioned earlier how the quality of the shadow is keyed to how much one identifies with a bright persona. If we think very highly of ourselves, if we see our public image in a very positive light, then our shadow will be the opposite: very dark. The brighter the conscious self-image, the darker the shadow.

As we noted in the essay on American exceptionalism,[75] there is a tradition in the United States, especially among conservatives and Republicans, of regarding America as exceptional, in the sense of being more moral, a moral exemplar, superior, having the best system of government in the world. In short, our national persona is very bright. So our national shadow is very dark.

More than this, Jung regarded us as “one-sided.”[76] In being willing to look only at our bright side, in our reluctance to examine our faults, even when, as in 9/ll and Abu Ghraib, they are thrown in our face, we are in denial. And this can have dire consequences.

Jung warned that such one-sidedness leads to the build-up, in the collective unconscious, of a huge enantiodromia.[77] The term Jung took from the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Heraclitus. It means “a running to the opposite,” and it refers to the compensatory nature of the unconscious. If our conscious orientation is very one-sided, the unconscious “compensates” by building up energy on the other side. Eventually this situation becomes unstable and there is a dramatic shift. In a collective, this has very severe consequences.

Jung recognized that Americans historically have projected our collective shadow on to our black and “Red Indian” populations,[78] as well as on to Communists (during the Cold War). Were Jung alive, he would see we are doing the same thing now with jihadists and terrorists. To what end?

Jung was quite explicit on this score and we disregard his warning at our collective peril: In America, he said, “there seems to be an astonishingly feeble resistance to collective influences...”[79] and collective action “... makes people unaware of themselves and heedless of risks.”[80]

Heedless of risks. We are failing to heed Jung’s warning. The size, cause, nature and deep background of the coming American catastrophe is the subject of the next essay in this series.


Aldrich, Nelson (1988), Old Money: The Mythology of America’s Upper Class. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Bacevich, Andrew (2008), The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism. New York: Henry Holt.
Baltzell, E. Digby (1964), The Protestant Establishment: Aristocracy & Caste in America. New York: Random House.
Birmingham, Stephen (1968), The Right People. New York: Dell
Carman, Harry, Harold Syrett & Bernard Wishy (1961), A History of the American People, 2nd ed., 2 v. New York: Alfred Knopf.
Deloria, Vine (1988), Custer Died For Your Sins. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
DuBois, W.E.B. (1965), The Souls of Black Folk, in Three Negro Classics. New York: Avon.
Eland, Ivan (2004), “American Exceptionalism,” The Independent Institute (October 26, 2004); available on the Web; URL:
Flexner, Eleanor (1975), Century of Struggle: The Woman’s Rights Movement in the United States, rev. ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Friedan, Betty (1963), The Feminine Mystique. New York: Dell.
Fussell, Paul (1983), Class: A Guide Through the American Status System. New York: Summit Books.
Giannini, John (2004), Compass of the Soul: Archetypal Guides to a Fuller Life. Gainesville FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type Inc.
Hannah, Barbara (1976), Jung: His Life and Work, A Biographical Memoir. New York: G.P. Putnam.
Hollis, James (1993), The Middle Passage: From Misery to Meaning in Midlife. Toronto: Inner City Books.
Hymowitz, Carol & Michaele Weissman (1978), A History of Women in America. New York: Bantam Books.
Eland, Ivan (2004), “American Exceptionalism,” The Independent Institute (October 26, 2004); available on the Web; URL:
Jackson, Helen Hunt (1881/1965), A Century of Dishonor: The Early Crusade for Indian Reform. New York: Harper.
Jacobs, Ron (2004), “American Exceptionalism: A Disease of Conceit,” Counterpunch (July 20, 2004); available on the Web: URL:
Johnson, James W. (1965), The Autobiography of an Ex-Colored Man, in Three Negro Classics. New York: Avon.
Jung, C.G. (1959), “Aion,” Collected Works, 9ii. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1963), “Mysterium Coniunctionis,” Collected Works, 14. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1969), “Psychology and Religion: West and East,” Collected Works, 11. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
________ (1971), “Psychological Types,” Collected Works, 6. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Keirsey, David (1998), Please Understand Me II: Temperament, Character, Intelligence. Del Mar CA: Prometheus Nemesis Books.
________ & Marilyn Bates (1984), Please Understand Me. Del Mar CA: Prometheus Nemesis Books.
Kluger, Rivkah Scharf (1995), Psyche in Scripture: The Idea of the Chosen People and Other Essays. Toronto: Inner City Books.
Kroeger, Otto & Janet Thuesen (1988), Type Talk. New York: Dell.
________ (1994), 16 Ways to Love Your Lover. New York: Delacourt Press.
Liptak, Adam (2008), “One in 100 U.S. Adults Behind Bars, New Study Shows,” The New York Times (February 28, 2008).
Moelaert, John (1974), “The Epidemic in Our Midst,” Earthkeeping: Readings in Human Ecology, ed. C. Juzek & S. Mehrtens. Pacific Grove CA: Boxwood Press.
Monkerud, Don (2008), “Isn’t It Time for the U.S. to Rejoin the World?,” Counterpunch Weekend Edition (October 17/20, 2008); available on the Web: URL:­_exceptionalism
Myers, Isabel Briggs with Peter Myers (1980), Gifts Differing. Palo Alto CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Nash, Gary ed. (1979), The Private Side of American History, 2nd ed., 2 v. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
Nichols, Roger (2003), American Indians in U.S. History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Rossi, Alice, ed. (1973), The Feminist Papers. New York: Bantam.
Seis, G. (2003), “American Exceptionalism.” URL:
Sharp, Daryl (1991), C.G. Jung Lexicon: A Primer of Terms & Concepts. Toronto: Inner City Books.
________ (1987), Personality Types: Jung’s Model of Typology. Toronto: Inner City Books.
Spiro, Peter (2000), “The New Sovereignists: American Exceptionalism and Its Fall Prophets,” Foreign Affairs (November/December 2000), available on the Web: URL:
Stamp, Kenneth (1956), The Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. New York: Vintage Books.
Vogel, Virgil (1972), This Country Was Ours: A Documentary History of the American Indian. New York: Harper & Row.
Von Franz, Marie-Louise & James Hillman (1971), Jung’s Typology. Dallas TX: Spring Publications
Waldman, Carl (2000), Atlas of the North American Indian. New York: Checkmark Books.
Warner, W. Lloyd (1960), Social Class in America. New York: Harper & Row.
Washburn, Wilcomb (1975), The Assault on Indian Tribalism: The General Allotment Law (Dawes Act) of 1887. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott.
Washington, Booker T. (1965), Up From Slavery in Three Negro Classics. New York: Avon Books.
Zinn, Howard (1993-2006), “The Power and the Glory: Myths of American exceptionalism,” Boston Review; available on the Web: URL:

[1] Sharp (1991), 123.
[2] CW, 11, ¶134 and CW, 9ii, ¶ 423.
[3] CW, 9ii, ¶14.
[4] Sharp (1991), 123.
[5] Ibid., 124.
[6] CW, 14, ¶514.
[7] Sharp (1991), 123.
[8] CW, 14, ¶514.
[9] Ibid., ¶708.
[10] Sharp (1991), 124.
[11] Ibid.
[12] For descriptions and elaboration of this concept, cf. Hollis (1993), 108-109, and Kluger (1995), 74-75.
[13] Sharp (1991), 124.
[14] Ibid.
[15] For in-depth discussions of Jungian type theory, cf. CW, 6 (especially “General Description of the Types, ¶556-671; “Definitions,” ¶672-844; and the Appendix: “Four Papers on Psychological Typology,” ¶858-987; Sharp (1987); Keirsey & Bates (1984); Myers (1980); Keirsey (1998); von Franz & Hillman (1971); and Kroeger & Thuesen (1988).
[16] Hannah (1976), 132-133.
[17] I.e. “...based on a reflective, linear process...” Sharp (1987), 16.
[18] “...beyond or outside of reason;...” ibid., 17.
[19] Ibid., 12.
[20] Keirsey & Bates (1984), 22-24.
[21] I.e. Extraverted Sensate Thinking Judging
[22] I.e. Introverted, iNtuitive, Feeling, Perceiving; note the use of “N” for “Intuitive.” Since “I” was used for “Introvert” another letter had to be used for “Intuition.”
[23] If a person has a weak preference, i.e. is not strongly one-sided, the shadow may not be so pronounced in terms of the person encountering people who would carry it.
[24] See Kroeger & Thuesen (1994) for insights into how type theory is applied in love, marriage and intimate relationships.
[25] Keirsey & Bates (1984), 25. For Thinking/Feeling and Judging/Perceiving, the rate is 50%.
[26] Keirsey (1998), 104-107; Sharp (1991), 141; Sharp (1987), 56.
[27] CW, 10, ¶95, 954, 957.
[28] Keirsey & Bates (1984), 25; Keirsey (1998), 104-107.
[29] CW, 10, ¶102, 946.
[30] Sharp (1987), 54.
[31] Keirsey & Bates (1984), 25; Myers (1980), 88; Sharp (1987), 45.
[32] CW, 10, ¶100, 946, 957, 958.
[33] Keirsey & Bates (1984), 25-26; Keirsey (1998), 104-107; Myers (1980), 86.
[34] CW, 10, ¶946, 958, 962.
[35] This composite portrait of the American shadow is drawn from Sharp (1987), 44-58.
[36] CW, 10, ¶929.
[37] CW, 6, ¶608.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Sharp (1987), 45.
[40] Zinn (1993-2006), 1.
[41] For a detailed account of our systematic extermination of native peoples, cf. Jackson (1881/1965); Vogel (1972); Nichols (2003); Washburn (1975); and Waldman (2000).
[42] On the history of our enslavement of African peoples, cf. Stamp (1956); Nash (1979); Washington (1965); DuBois (1965); and Johnson (1965).
[43] On the campaign for women’s equality, cf. Hymowitz & Weissman (1978); Rossi (1973); Friedan (1963); and Flexner (1975).
[44] Deloria (1988), 28.
[45] Zinn (1993-2006), 3-4.
[46] Ignatieff (2005), 1.
[47] Monkerud (2008), 2.
[48] Ibid.
[49] Eland (2004), 1.
[50] Bacevich (2008), 7.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Monkerud (2008), 2.
[53] I read this phrase some years ago, in an article by the Princeton healthcare economist Uwe Reinhardt, but the exact citation is now lost.
[54] Monkerud (2008), 2.
[55] Bacevich feels it is a myth that the Democrats and Republicans are really different; Bacevich (2008), 10; cf. Monkerud (2008), 2. Another civic myth claims that we are a classless society. See Aldrich (1988), Baltzell (1964), Birmingham (1968), Fussell (1983), and Warner (1960) for studies that debunk this myth.
[56] Seis (2003), 2.
[57] Ibid.
[58] As of February 2008 the United States had over 2.3 million persons in federal, state and local prisons; this works out to 1 in 100 Americans; see Liptak (2008).
[59] Seis (2003), 2.
[60] Jacobs (2004), 2.
[61] Spiro (2000), 3.
[62] Moyers & Bacevich (2008), 6. For an incisive critique of contemporary America, see Bacevich (2008).
[63] Moyers & Bacevich (2008), 7.
[64] Ibid.
[65] Ibid.
[66] Ibid., 10.
[67] Ibid., 9.
[68] This term was coined by John Moelaert, a Canadian conservationist; see Moelaert (1974), 219.
[69] Seis (2003), 2.
[70] In “The World Is Too Much With Us,” line 1 (1806).
[71] Moyers & Bacevich (2008), 10.
[72] Carman, Syrett & Wishy (1964), 512-513.
[73] Moyers & Bacevich (2008), 9.
[74] For an in-depth analysis of the pathology of the ESTJ personality, in its collective form, see Giannini (2004), 509-558.
[75] Posted on the Jungian Center blog in April 2009.
[76] CW, 7, ¶75.
[77] Ibid., ¶111.
[78] “Red Indians” is how Jung referred to the native indigenous peoples of North America; CW, 5, ¶267.
[79] CW, 10, ¶957.
[80] Ibid.

No comments:

Post a Comment