Power, status and the father archetype. Feminine archetypes: their power and influence

Comments

Manager, Organizer, Qualified, Valid, Effective, Productive, Confident, Responsible, Role Model

Desire: control, create a prosperous, successful family, company, community
Goal: create a prosperous, successful society
Fear: chaos, being overthrown
Strategy: power
Weakness: authoritarianism, inability to delegate
Talent: responsibility, leadership
Known as: boss, leader, aristocrat, king, queen, politician, manager


• Archetypes: description. Ruler: to lead or lead.

  From the point of view of people who use the strategies of the previously discussed archetypes, starting with the Guy and ending with the Outcast - naturally, the first. But the Jester is already able to understand what the joke is. The Sage and Magician are even more capable. But they are also able to avoid getting into the circumstances in which the Ruler lives - unlike the Ruler himself.

  Of course, everyone knows (and we already know who “everyone” is) how to recognize the Ruler by his clothes. The ruler is dressed in 1) very new (such that no one else has) 2) very high quality 3) therefore very expensive 4) made from something that is from “little” to “almost absent” in nature, or from what very labor intensive to produce.

  The Ruler, of course, can try to pass himself off as His Boyfriend, as a Seeker, as a Romantic and as anything else, but all the time he will be given away, just as a scout is given away by a parachute dragging behind him, by the habit of the unique quality of the objects he uses. The point, of course, is not only about the objects, and having lost the “Parker” for a couple of thousand rubles, which his friends, Their Guys, used to open the beer, he will be upset not at the cost of the loss, but because the rest of the pens in this house do not so much write as plant blots and paper are scratched.

  At the same time, in the morning, in the minds of their Guys, at the sight of these fragments worth their annual income, standing in line for the toilet, the only thought will be what piece of their skin will be in demand as compensation, and the local Harun al-Rashid, as part of the study of the native ethnic group of the person who undertook this expedition, a thought of a completely different content will be in his head: who is the bitch who passes off the swill that he drank yesterday as beer, and what should be done with it: hand it over to the tax office or directly, without any fuss, in this beer drown. And they are not destined to understand each other.

  He is a backbone, a Ruler, in short, and a terrible bastard, and also a world eater, no matter how you look at it - this is if you look at it from the point of view of His Boyfriend. And the poor child, with fake Christmas tree decorations, which are not pleasing, because even they are according to the regulations, not to mention everything else - this is if you look at it from the point of view of the Jester. But he doesn’t have his own point of view, he has no time to form one in relation to himself, because to be distracted from these
  - weak-willed...
  - club-handed...
  -brainless bastards...
  -to whom you can’t give anything more complicated than a broom into their hands, lest they destroy everything...
  -thinking only about<цензоред>, and unable to go further than thoughts...
  - hooligans and shopkeepers who are capable of doing nothing but doing it...
  - psychos with stupid ideas, practical application without...
  - miraculously not criminals who are dangerous primarily to themselves...
  what, did you find out? yeah, that's exactly what it looks like. From the eyes of the Ruler.

  You'll never know what he really likes to wear. Because it's none of your business (I won't know either, calm down). He will wear... see above, in short, I won’t repeat it. It will be the same with food: you will never know what he really likes to eat, because in front of you he will eat, most likely, according to a protocol drawn up for him by a personal chef (or a personal doctor for a personal chef) or the reception manager . And that's it the best option because there is a worse one: he will eat the same as you, and it will be in pure form etiquette gesture. And you will never know what he looked like the next day and what his personal doctor said when he looked at it. In general, it’s better not to try to play this, the idea is initially a failure. But if you really need it...

  Remember these words well:
  RESPONSIBILITY. No, not yours, don't worry. IN FRONT OF YOU. And you need to be able to ask and demand it. Demand responsibility, yes, yes. Don’t worry about searching for meaning, this is a role.

  CONTROL. Yes, yes, yours. It doesn’t matter that you are completely unaware of what exactly you are going to control, at least at the level of name, let alone functions. You not only have the right to ask a question and demand an answer that you understand, but also an obligation - this is your role.

  WEALTH and WELL-BEING. We're talking about general things. You can mean anyone here.

  STABILITY. By default - your position, the rest is optional.

  AGREEMENTS. With you, yes. And you cannot violate them. If you have the opportunity to hurt in response to violation of agreements without leaving your role, don’t be shy. if not, pretend that there were no agreements. And there was no second contracting party either. And not now.

  CONFIDENCE. To you, of course. Whatever you... let's say, offer.

  STATUS. Yours and everything that comes from you, yes.

  PRESTIGE. See above.

  But these words, on the contrary, forget forever

  freedom - you already have it as long as you are in the role, and the rest will get by, it’s better not to remind you, it’s fraught.
  variety - this word does not dance with the word "CONTROL", which means there is nothing. They have nothing. And you have other words for this case.
  equality - well, everything is clear here: either everyone is equal, and then on what subject is the Ruler here, or is there a Ruler, and then on what subject is the word “equality” mentioned here. So it’s not far from a riot, there’s nothing to it.
  feelings - in relation to your feelings, this is one story, and a very sad one: the fact is that the role of the Ruler is played, if possible, with a poker face instead of a facial expression. Regarding the feelings of others, this is a different story, and also a sad one: the fact is that while you are in the role, you know better what they need, and taking their feelings into account is giving them a reason to doubt you.
  facts - here it’s also clear: either you are aware, and “thank you, I’m aware,” even if you didn’t know about it, you’ll later punish the referee for a puncture; or they poke you in the face with something that is very similar to the consequences of your wrong decisions, and you should have gotten off stage five minutes ago.

  And yes, here's another thing:
  - if the people who surrounded you at the beginning of the plot somehow strangely fall out of the frame, more and more in an ambulance to the hospital, or without explanation and without saying goodbye;

  If the people who surrounded you at the beginning of the story as independent, responsible, thinking and seemingly reliable, begin to become stupid and oblique:

  If friends to whom you could easily turn your back, with whom you shared books, favorite melodies, the last piece of bread, a sofa in the office after completing a project, money from hackwork and what not, begin to either be rude to your face or openly frame you you;

  If your evening tea partner/s turn to morning coffee are either resentful and unavailable, or do not take you seriously, or are unavailable without explanation
  - you're playing too much. It's time to finish. It would be better to try to disappear from the stage - or from the frame - before you see the first crooked face addressed to you behind your back in a random reflective surface. And everything before they ask you about who you are, in fact, to tell everyone what they should think about this or that matter, feel about certain events and personalities, and what they should love, and what to hate. And keep in mind that the role drags on, and you may not have time to understand that this is exactly what you are seeing.

  If for some reason you suddenly communicate with a living real Ruler, then remember that:

  he most likely loves and is most likely important to him
  UNDERSTANDING (and it is very important for him to be listened to, supported and allowed to be weak and incompetent)
  CARE (and he really needs someone to tell him, like the Fool to King Lear - uncle, you seem upset... - and bring him tea, and take away his phone, and in return give him a picture book)
  ACCEPTANCE (and for him it is priceless when someone tells him “hey, I’m still here, still with you, despite all this mess around you, and I don’t care what others say about you”)
  A FEELING OF SECURITY (and for him more valuable than life, that is, real life are those moments in the flow when he knows that here, now, these people will not evaluate him, neither good nor bad, in any way, that he is here without evaluation needed)

  he probably doesn't like
  - innuendoes and omissions, and even more so outright lies
  -replacement and substitution of the meaning of what was said
  -traps in communication and attempts to manipulate him (although he expects this all the time, especially from loved ones, and here his dislike does not change anything)
  -feelings of ignorance and incompetence, and situations in which this feeling can come upon him
  and what he is most afraid of seeing in the mirror in the morning
  -Universal Evil, real, without cookies.
  -a dumb-faced freak who, for the sake of his own pleasure, launched all these nightmarish flywheels that grind living people into rubble and minced meat.
  - a puppet on strings.
  -crazy.

  And so, if we take all these fears and weaknesses out of the equation, these are wonderful people, both men and women - strong-willed, smart and usually quite decent. Although there is no point in this if you open the brackets...

  P.S.: no director or president was harmed in the process of writing the text

The desire for power is a characteristic feature not only social work, but also medicine. Over the past hundred years, medicine has experienced great progress. New technologies make it possible to help seriously ill patients who, for example, in the last century would have been doomed to death. Many infectious diseases, in particular the plague, have been eradicated. Epidemics are stopped by vaccination. Tuberculosis is under control. Advances in surgical technology have made it possible to perform incredible resuscitation operations. Limbs can be reattached, hearts transplanted. Childbirth fever, which once claimed the lives of many young women, is now a rarity.

According to scientists, in the near future the possibilities of medicine will become even more incredible: gene manipulation and influence on heredity. But only one hundred and fifty years ago medicine was practically powerless. Thanks to modern medicine, human life expectancy has doubled. Its capabilities are so great that you can’t help but think about what enormous power a modern physician has at his disposal. For better or worse, the problem of power should take on a new meaning in this regard and attract the serious attention of doctors.

It seems that in earlier times the problem of the doctor's power was not so acute. Ethnographic research allows us to get acquainted with in the image of a primitive, ancient healer. According to these studies, healers were revered as miracle workers who used their power over their fellow tribesmen and did not disdain any means in order to maintain their power. They may object to me by saying that the power and ambitions of the healer were connected primarily with the fact that he was essentially not so much a physician as a priest. However, we all know from history how often contemporaries exalted and endowed with superhuman abilities those who had power and abused it.

Doctors Ancient Greece were priests of Asclepius, the god of healing. Over time, the image of Asclepius lost its divine features.

Asclepius, as the son of Apollo, heals the same one who kills, that is, sends infections.

Ex. Whether we should be afraid of you as psychologists is a debate. Asclepius became the patron of medicine. Medieval Arab and Jewish healers departed from priestly traditions and were doctors in the modern sense of the word, but at the same time they were strongly influenced by alchemy, which implied contact with the supernatural. The doctors of the Renaissance abandoned their fascination with the otherworldly, and modern doctors seem to have completely lost their priestly traits. However, the Greek physician, the student of Asclepius, the Arab physician, the Italian physician of the Renaissance and the physician of the nineteenth century were respected and feared by their contemporaries, since it seemed to the latter that the healer had power, was associated with the devil, etc. We can say with all responsibility that in those times when the possibilities of medicine were very limited, and doctors had already managed to separate themselves from the environment of priests, they were respected and feared no less than now. Isn’t the power of the doctor, the power of medicine in general, connected with people’s fear of those with scientific knowledge?

Ex.Description of the ideal analyst for yourself. What kind of patient are you?

Having posed this question, we will approach the study of the problem from the perspective of psychology. Healthy people can lead independent lives of dignity and integrity. If life circumstances are favorable, then healthy body allows people to freely and independently pursue their interests. But as soon as a person gets sick, everything changes. He turns out to be a patient; an adult turns into a small child. The once worthy, healthy person now becomes a sick, fearful, groaning creature, tormented by the fear of death. A kind of regression occurs. The patient ceases to control his own body, becomes its victim, and the person’s mental state changes dramatically. Women who have ever had to care for their sick husbands will confirm my words: strong man, defender of the fatherland, the owner of the house turns into a small child who asks for orange juice in a crying voice. Such regression is often observed in hospital patients who exhibit childlike characteristics. A sick person is full of blind faith in the doctor and, for all that, is disobedient, like a schoolboy. He can follow the doctor's orders, or he can violate them at his own whim. Judging by their behavior, the patients cannot be called adults.

In such a situation, the doctor becomes the only hope of the patient, who fears, respects, hates the almighty healer, admires him and values ​​his advice as worth its weight in gold. A doctor who can relieve pain and illness acquires the characteristics of a Savior. Without him, the patient was lost.

In a hospital situation, it can be extremely difficult for a doctor to get rid of the feeling that patients are like unpleasant, annoying and stupid children. Purely theoretically, doctors know, of course, that their patients are people just like themselves. But an honest doctor often has to admit that he is not able to get rid of a negative attitude towards the patient, to recognize in practice that sick people are not a bunch of poor, unfortunate, persecuted creatures, deprived of status and dignity. Sometimes the doctor has the impression that he and his patients belong to different classes of humanity.Patients often reinforce this belief. Therefore, whether we like it or not, the specificity of the hospital is that, on the one hand, there are childishly dependent, fearful patients, and on the other, an arrogant and at the same time polite doctor who is distant from them.

"Menssanaincorporesano" (in a healthy body - healthy mind) is a beautiful image, but, alas, a healthy body is constantly threatened by illness. Man has always been predisposed to disease, his body is weak, and from the moment of birth he is doomed to death. Since man has existed, he has been sick and struggling with diseases. People treated the wounds they received and resisted epidemics that spread like a tornado. The struggle between “health” and “illness” has raged since primitive times, and even then a healer appeared - someone ready to remove a thorn from the foot of a wounded person who was unable to do it on his own. The patient and the healer are archetypal figures. The wounded man cried out for help, and another man hurried to this call.

The situation in which two people collide, one of whom is sick, and the other is a healer attempting to cure him, arose in time immemorial and is no less archetypal than the relationship between a man and a woman, father and son, mother and daughter, etc. This is exactly what C. G. Jung spoke about, understanding by archetype an innate stereotype of human behavior. In an archetypal situation, a person acts in accordance with the fundamental scheme hidden in him, typical for everyone. Does the archetype of healer and patient imply power? To answer this question, it is necessary to briefly consider the general content of the concept of power.

Human relationships involve two subjects who perceive the partner as a subject. Relationships in which power comes to the fore are characterized by the fact that the subject seeks to turn the partner into an object. If the partner submits, the subject gets the opportunity to manipulate the object for his own purposes. This situation gives the dominant subject a feeling of self-importance and at the same time removes any responsibility from the object. This is one type of power. Another type of it is “self-deification” (German: Selbstvergottung). A person with a god complex wants to dominate people like a god. This type of power is extremely dangerous both for the tyrant and for the common people. Caesar, Napoleon, Hitler are some examples of self-deification. Jacob Burckhardt believed that the fundamental basis of such power is evil. Another type of power is observed in the archetypal collective situation of the leader and his gang, the king and his squad, etc., which in principle corresponds to power in politics, industry and the army. Such power does not bring absolute evil. Let's consult a doctor and figure out what impact these types of power have on him. The cult that has currently developed around the image of a doctor (social prestige, worship of the one who “holds life and death, health and illness in his hands”) is a consequence of this problem. This attitude towards doctors is reflected in novels, biographies of doctors, like the history of San

Michele, in popular films and television productions. The cult and the power that doctors have are interconnected. The dictatorial-type head physician, whose whims and mood swings frighten patients, and whose slightest orders are carried out by nurses and students, is a well-known character. He does not tolerate any objections, patients do not dare ask him questions, students admire his authority and respect the “great doctor,” the lord of life and death, who, like a demigod, accompanied by a train of assistants, walks along the hospital corridor. This picture is somehow unpleasant. There is a stamp visible in it. Numerous novels, memoirs and television productions about doctors suffer, as a rule, from sentimentality, bad taste, and their artistic merits are questionable. A politician can be categorical, but he needs power. The head of a company, whose one word can paralyze the entire industry, a manager whose decisions affect the future of thousands of people, a general on whom the life and death of soldiers depends - all of them are characterized by some categoricalness. However, a doctor who abuses his position looks like a small, ridiculous tyrant, a puffed-up and morally insignificant villain. He makes his patients wait for hours for an “audience” while he chats with the nurses. He gives sick people recommendations without explaining anything to them. He causes fear even in the patient's relatives and at the same time enjoys his ability to calm them down. He walks through the department like an oriental despot ruling over slaves and the helpless... But all this is miserable, petty, insignificant, there is nothing majestic in all this.

What type of power is typical for a doctor? Archetype of the king and his squad? If this were really the case, then examples of the doctor's power would not be so puny and trivial. An archetype is an initial given, so it cannot be petty. Could it be that the power exerted in the doctor-patient relationship is a consequence of an attempt to turn the subject into an object and contribute to the human degradation of the partner?

However, the assertion that most doctors are guided by destructive principles does not stand up to criticism. In the end, a person chooses a medical profession in order to help people, and there is no reason to believe that he is driven primarily by destructive motives. Then perhaps self-deification? My counter-argument is the same: the pettiness of medical authority. Self-deification is, of course, a great sin, but there is nothing ridiculous about it. The conclusion suggests itself that the insignificance of the doctor’s power cannot be a mere accident. The various types of power described in this chapter do not apply to this problem. Why?

The literature on analytical psychology describes many different features of archetypes, but one feature of them is given too little importance. To avoid misunderstandings, we should once again, but in a different way than in the previous chapter, touch upon the very nature of archetypes, and above all one aspect of it. An archetype can be defined as an innate possibility of behavior developed in the process of human history, or as a class of mental contents, the events of which do not have their source in a single individual. People react archetypally to someone or something in a stereotypical but re-experienced situation every time. A mother or father reacts archetypally to a son or daughter, a man reacts archetypally to a woman, etc. Certain archetypes have two poles because the archetype is based on polarities. How archetypal behavior arose we can only guess. It can be assumed that initially one pole of the archetype dominated in the consciousness of the individual, and the other pole independently existed in another person. However, historical facts convince us that both poles of the archetype have always been contained in one consciousness. Archetypal polarities are present in the human psyche from the moment of birth, therefore, upon contact with the “external” pole of the archetype, the “internal” pole is activated (it should be noted that it can manifest itself without external activation). A child awakens maternal feelings in a woman, since such an attitude towards a child is innate in a woman and is due to the fact that the baby has been in the mother’s womb for a long time. Perhaps we should not talk separately about the maternal, child or paternal archetypes at all, but it would be more correct to talk about the archetypes: mother-child, father-child, etc., just as recently the Senex and Puer archetypes are increasingly not distinguished , considering them in the archetypal senex-puer* combination.

Continuing this thought, we can suggest that there are no isolated healer and patient archetypes. The healer and the patient are just aspects of this archetype. Just as there is no maternal archetype, but only a mother-child archetype, there is no healer archetype, but only a healer-patient archetype. That the healer and the patient are related to each other archetypally may seem at first glance to be a theoretical statement. This idea will become more clear if we make it more specific. When a person falls ill, the traits of the doctor-patient archetype appear. The patient strives to receive help from an “external” healer, while at the same time his “internal” healer is activated. This psychological phenomenon is called the “healing factor.” The latter personifies the “doctor” in the patient himself, helping him no less than the “external” doctor. The healing factor is the doctor contained in human consciousness. Some diseases can be cured without the participation of an “inner healer.” Patients who passively accept their own treatment are often said in everyday language that “they do not want to get better.” The lack of will to recover, of course, has nothing to do with the will of the ego, so it would be more correct in this case not to describe this phenomenon with the words “patient doesn’t want to get better,” but to say that “the inner healer is weak.”

Many illnesses and injuries require medical intervention, but no doctor can help if there is no “internal” doctor. The surgeon can stitch the wounds, but there must be some force in the patient’s soul that helps overcome the disease. It is not difficult to imagine the healing factor in the patient. What does the same thing look like with a doctor? Here we are faced with archetype of the "wounded healer". The centaur Chiron, a student of Asclepius*, suffered from incurable wounds. In Babylon, there was a cult of a dog goddess, who, under the name Gula, personified death and illness, and under the name Labortu, healing. The Indian goddess Kali sent smallpox and at the same time healed it. The mythological image of the wounded healer is very developed. In the context of psychology, this image states the presence of patient traits in the healer. Figuratively speaking, the patient contains the traits of the doctor, and the doctor contains the traits of the patient.

Let's consider aspects of the split archetype, taking the problem of power as a starting point. It is not easy for the individual’s psyche to tolerate polarities; a person loves clarity and, as a rule, strives to eliminate internal contradictions.

Examples about clients.

The need for unambiguity may determine the fact that the polarities of archetypes are, in a certain sense, split. One of the polarities is repressed into the unconscious, which can lead to mental disorders. The repressed part of the archetype can also be projected outward. For example, a patient may project an “inner healer” onto the attending physician, and the doctor may project his own “wound” onto the patient. Projecting the polarity outward instantly creates a satisfying situation. However, in the future, the mental process begins, figuratively speaking, to wander into the thicket. This situation is characterized, for example, by the fact that the patient’s cure ceases to concern him and becomes the responsibility of the doctor, nurse, hospital staff, etc. The patient himself does not have any responsibility for what is happening; in the hope of improvement, he consciously or unconsciously begins to give in initiative to the attending physician, shifting the functions of the “healing factor” to him. Such a patient may follow or violate doctor's orders, take prescribed medications or flush them down the toilet; In clinics and hospitals you can meet thousands of patients of this kind. They are always complaining about something. They no longer have the will to recover and faith in it. They act likeschoolchildren who believe that only the teacher should be active during classes.

Repressing one of the polarities of the archetype leads the doctor to the opposite situation. He gets the impression that weaknesses, illnesses, and injuries have nothing to do with him. He begins to feel like an omnipotent, invulnerable healer, living in a different dimension than the poor creatures called patients. Such a doctor does not contribute to the manifestation of the healing factor in his patient. He is only the healer, and the patient is only the sick. The situation is extremely clear: on the one hand, the doctor, healthy and strong, on the other, the patient, sick and weak.

Elimination of archetype splitting through power.

The choice of profession for many doctors is determined by a deep inner need to help people. Therefore, a doctor who represses one of the polarities of the archetype, projecting the disease onto the patient and identifying himself with the healing factor, very rarely finds satisfaction in this. The polarities of the split archetype tend to reunify, since the suffering of the patients does not leave the doctor alone, whether he wants to or not. How does the split archetype of the “wounded healer” reunite in the physician?

The splitting of the archetype is eliminated through the use of power. That is why the doctor’s power looks so insignificant and pompous: after all, it is a consequence of the psychological and moral failure of both - the doctor and the patient. The doctor forgets about his potential “wounds,” that is, he ceases to feel his pathological capabilities, considering only the patient as a patient (and potentially sick). Such a “healer” objectifies the disease, does not want to take into account his own weaknesses, exalts himself to the skies, thereby relegating the patient, and achieves power not thanks to his own merits, but through the fault of psychological failure. In other words, one of the polarities of the archetype is repressed, and the archetype is reunited through the exercise of power. By the way, the patient can do the same thing, only in reverse. The question arises, How often do split polarities of archetypes come together through power? Whether this happens with all archetypes, I cannot say for sure, but, in my opinion, this phenomenon occurs quite often. For example, if the mother-daughter archetype splits, then the

play the problem of power. In practice, this means that the mother ceases to feel the daughterly principle in herself and does not recognize any weaknesses, while the daughter becomes a helpless creature, dependent on the mother, who, using force, manipulates the daughter.

A relationship arises between a strong, dominant mother and a weak, dependent daughter who does not feel the maternal principle in herself. The combination of power and submission is the result of an attempt to unite a split archetype through power.

The doctor also tries to reunite the split archetype precisely through power; the patient may recognize the doctor’s authority, submit to him, or become childishly indignant at injustice. The manifestation of power in medical practice also has its positive aspects. The doctor at least makes an attempt to eliminate the splitting of the archetype, although he bypasses the primary cause of the problem. This course of action is still preferable to taking no steps in this direction. The insignificant tyrant doctor, in his own way, struggles with fundamental medical problems, in contrast to the jovial healer, who makes no effort to even minimally dominate the patient. An indifferent “healer” can repress one pole of the archetype to such an extent that he ceases to need its projection onto the patient, or such a doctor is completely unconcerned with the fundamental medical problem, since the choice of profession in his case was superficial. The consequences of splitting the “wounded healer” archetype are in many ways dangerous for both the doctor and the patient because the sick person becomes a passive patient; his healing factor ceases to be activated. As a result of the same process, the doctor develops into an arrogant, self-confident, narrow-minded gentleman who does not pay due attention to his own psychological development. Believing that he is healing, that is, feeling that he himself is the healing factor, such a doctor completely forgets that the function of the healer is only to provide the healing factor with the opportunity to realize itself. In a certain sense, he becomes like a priest who decides to declare himself the Lord God. Such a “healer” is very far from the image of a Greek doctor. The Greeks believed that healing gods come to the aid of a suffering person, and a person who devotes himself to healing only contributes to the manifestation of divine healing power.

The key difference is between analysis and manipulative techniques, when we use power to deprive the effectiveness of the inner healer. I

It is therefore necessary to eliminate any misunderstanding in this matter. I do not mean identification with the patient. That would be just sentimentality. We are talking about an outwardly expressed re-unification of the poles of the archetype. Identification is evidence of the weakness of the ego, a hysterical method of uniting opposites. The image of the “wounded healer” symbolizes an acute and dramatic awareness of illness as a condition ambivalent to health, a conviction in the potential decomposition of one’s own body and spirit. By experiencing such feelings, the doctor achieves empathy with the patient, ceases to dominate him and, most importantly, no longer needs power. The psyche of every person contains an archetype of health and illness. However, for a doctor this archetype has a very special, almost magical meaning. Following his inclination, a person chooses medicine as a profession. The choice of a medical career, as a rule, is not at all dictated by the temptation of easy access to power; quite the opposite - the doctor wants to treat people. And although doctors are often reproached for being more interested in the diseases themselves than in curing them, nevertheless, such a statement is only half the truth. Doctors are attracted to the archetypal opposites of health and illness; the doctor wants to fully experience them on himself. Unfortunately, not all of those who become doctors are able to endure the coexistence of the two poles of the “wounded healer” archetype for a long time - the healer and the patient.

An illustration of this can be seen in medical students who, during their studies, experience a stage of fear at the prospect of getting sick from all the diseases they have studied. For example, having become familiar with the symptoms of tuberculosis, they begin to suspect that they are sick with this dangerous disease. Having come into contact with patients suffering from cancer during practice, students are afraid that they themselves will get cancer, etc. This psychological phenomenon is often understood as neurotic. Experienced doctors laugh at suspicious students and complacently remember how they themselves experienced similar things, but do not attach any importance to it. However, it is precisely the so-called neurotic stage of training for medical students that turns out to be a kind of crossroads for the latter and confronts them with an internal choice. At this moment, students begin to understand that all the diseases being studied are inherent in them, since the doctor is also a person. In this way, students become “wounded healers.”Often the burden is unbearable for them, and they displace the pole of the disease. However, students can find the strength needed to embrace their own vulnerability, integrate it, and become true “wounded healers.” Some on this important stage fail Some of those who fail the test later become famous doctors (and “famous” is not the same as “good”). Many of those who passed the test with honor may, on the contrary, not make a career for themselves.

I would like to emphasize: the use of power in medical profession doesn't have anything positive in it. The use of power is proportional to the decrease in the effectiveness of treatment; however, I will never tire of repeating that the desire to restore the archetype through power is preferable to indifference. Let's talk briefly about modern doctors. Modern medicine is highly technological and specialized. The parish doctor, whose image is known to us from the literature of the 19th century, a doctor who knew the whole family, could serve as a prototype of the “wounded healer.” He had no power, but when he appeared in the house, children, exhausted by fever, calmed down. Yes, it happened that he wore a pitiful, sloppy dress, and his appearance was deplorable; often parish doctors were prone to alcoholism, thereby trying to relieve the unbearable tension from which they suffered as people, for a long time experiencing both poles of the archetype. But the parish doctor did not have delusions of grandeur; he was a good “wounded healer.” Conservative-minded people tend to believe that a modern doctor is no longer able to experience both poles of the archetype even in emergency. Indeed, at first glance, a modern doctor may seem like a technician who works in a hospital as if on an assembly line. Among modern doctors there are sometimes pure engineers. However, we must not forget about the existence of doctors who once experienced the archetype of the “wounded healer”, but could not bear the tension of the two poles of this archetype. One cannot help but get the impression that the family doctor was a wounded healer par excellence, while the modern, technically oriented specialist tends to rather push away the polarity of the archetype. Such an opinion, however, rests on a misunderstanding of the essence of the archetype phenomenon. The archetype is both external and inner reality, and its manifestations are very diverse. Medicine has often changed its character in the course of historical development. The bush healer had his own method, which was not similar to the methods of the educated Greek doctor. The medieval doctor who prescribed Arabic medicines to patients did not work in the same way as the 19th-century family doctor who made visits in a horse-drawn carriage.

The more I immerse myself in the study of archetypes, the more voluminous and interesting the world around me becomes. The article on the Ruler/Sovereign Archetype was the most difficult for me, because a fascinating study of the real bearers of this archetype threatens to turn into a large book.

Let's start with a brief excursion into ancient Greek mythology. The most classic example of a Ruler is Zeus. He clearly stands ABOVE Olympus. All other gods are his “children”. And, of course, they need his skillful leadership!

Ruler-Father Zeus has an equal attitude towards all his “sons and daughters” and strictly ensures that the “enterprise” has an excellent reputation and provides Zeus with his status. In the “Olympic structure,” each celestial resident knows his area of ​​work. In the hands of Zeus, the destinies of people are happiness and unhappiness, good and evil, life and death. Two large vessels stand at the gates of Zeus's palace. In one vessel there are gifts of good, in the other - evil.

Zeus has a specific goal, and he leads the whole world towards it. He installed new order in the world, built a system of relations between gods and people and himself personifies the guarantee of the fulfillment of the laws of the universe.

If everything goes in the established order, the gods feast in the clouds, led by Zeus on the golden throne. He graciously distributes gifts and is able to become closer to the people, even descend from heaven to earth. But woe to those who violate the order established by Zeus. Whether it is a simple person or a resident of Olympus, the rebellion is suppressed uncompromisingly and brutally.

Describing Zeus, I named all the features of the Ruler. It is clear that in order to manifest these traits, at a minimum, a group of people is needed that is controlled by the Ruler. If we look at the diagram we can see that the function of this Archetype is to structure the world, create systems and establish control over them.

A ruler is power, order, control. As well as status, prestige, wealth

At first glance, everyone would like to have such a set. This is evidenced by the incredible number of training proposals with the title: “ Become a Leader! “, “Become a queen!”, “Feel like a Goddess!”

But is it really fabulous luck to become Queen?

And nothing that, apart from status and power, the Queen/King/Ruler receives in addition real responsibility for the fate of people, countries, the world?

The ruler chooses power and “in addition” receives the path of dedication

Caring for the prosperity of the state, the real Queen rarely finds personal happiness. Remember Grand Duchess Olga, Queen Elizabeth I of England, and All-Russian Empress Catherine II. Where can personal happiness come from if all the time is devoted to establishing and maintaining order in the entrusted state.

Empress Catherine II

What is there, personal happiness. In principle, it is rare for anyone to understand a ruler. The people expect protection and justice from the sovereign. But it is unrealistic to be fair to everyone. After all, everyone understands justice in their own way.“Fair” to you means “unfair” to your neighbor.

Look at any hierarchical organization - in best case scenario, the leader is respected - there is no need to talk about love. The ruler has to make unpopular decisions and suppress riots. This is inevitable to maintain order in the structure.

«… the sovereign cannot observe everything for which people are considered good, and is often forced, in the name of saving the state, to act against faith, against mercy, against humanity, against religion..." (N. Machiavelli "The Prince")

So who's counting it a good man after that? Every unpopular decision increases the distance between the leader-Ruler and the people.

POWER is always separated from people. Power is always ABOVE us

No, the Ruler cannot earn love, and he does not need it.

«… since the love people experience depends on themselves, and the fear on the sovereign, a wise ruler must rely on what is in his power, and not in the power of others (on fear)", Niccolo Machiavelli continues to instruct.

The most obvious manifestation of this archetype is in monarchs.

Archetype Ruler in History.

History knows much more would-be kings and one-day rulers than the brightest and most worthy leaders of states with the Ruler archetype. But still, the world has seen many talented Rulers. I will refrain from telling you about everything in detail; I will only name the signs of real Lords.

How are real rulers different?

Real emperors created strong states, so they usually ruled for a long time and the time of their reign is usually called the “golden age” by descendants.

Most often, descendants add the adjective “ Great»:

• Alexander the Great (Macedonian)
• Catherine the Great (Catherine II)
• Peter the Great
• The Great Mongol (Genghis Khan)

Or they give special names:

• Sun King (Louis XIV)
• Good Queen Bess (Elizabeth I)
• Father of the Fatherland (Octavian Augustus)

Roman Emperor Octavian Augustus

There was also "oh father of all nations"if you remember.

Historical figures with the Ruler archetype:
Winston Churchill
Margaret Thatcher
Cesare Borgia (prototype of "The Prince" by Machiaveli)

Actors
Innokenty Smoktunovsky
Meryl Streep

How do Rulers manifest themselves if they do not have a kingdom at hand?

IN Everyday life a strong ruler creates his own kingdom.
Cult movie " Godfather » - the clearest example manifestations of a strong Ruler and the structure he ideally built. In Cosa Nostra, everyone feels protected as long as they live by its laws and perform their function, like a cog in a machine. Everyone knows the rules and knows what the consequences are for breaking them.

Al Pacino as The Godfather

The tragedy of the Ruler is that in an ideal system he is also not a person. He is a function of Power

He cannot relax control and cannot have truly important matters outside the controlled group. He cannot show emotions and do as he pleases without risking the destruction of the empire. "IN Kings can do everything, kings can do everything, and sometimes they decide the fate of the whole earth...”, only there are things that he has no right to do “ no king».

Watching the hero of the film “The Godfather”, we see what unlimited Power gives and what it deprives.

How to detect Rulers in our daily life?

Just remember emergency situations in a random group of people when no one knows what to do. And here a Leader will definitely appear, who will understand the task, outline ways to solve it and distribute roles among the participants.

So, the Rulers are the few people who build safe world out of chaos, takes responsibility for people. In fact, they, like the Atlanteans, hold the world on their shoulders, and the reins of power in their hands. At his best, the Ruler helps our world become a better place.

Ruler in Marketing.

Marketing loves this archetype. This is what they mean when they talk about charisma or influence. Images of this archetype in branding are very powerful when used skillfully. And if not done properly, Sovereign brands can easily turn into “plasticine” ones.

Consumers belonging to this archetype desire high-status products because they enhance their status, prestige, and image. successful people. Product-Brands using the Ruler archetype must have external shine and inspire respect, since luxury is an external indicator of Power. All kinds of closed clubs, VIP zones, individual design - all offers that are inaccessible to the majority - have a chance to be noticed by the Rulers.

The Sovereign brand is best realized as:
High-status products or services used by powerful people to increase their influence
Helping people establish their own power
Actions aimed at making others more organized
of people
Lifetime warranty on your products and services
A sense of stability and security in this troubled
world.
High price

Ruler brands include:
Vatican
Supreme Court
Thought
The White House, which so successfully copied the symbol of Roman power, the Capitol

The White house. Washington

Companies-Brands:
Microsoft
IBM
American Express
Armani
Rollex
Mercedes Benz

The Ruler archetype is accessible not only to something big and unattainable for most people. Simple Products can also be packaged in this form. For example, the juice brand Rich does this quite successfully with its message: “C but something that cannot be repeated».

Archetypal symbols of the Ruler.

Symbolism is very important for this Archetype. The first thing the Rulers did was to create coats of arms and flags of states.

Scepter. The shepherd controlled his flock with the help of a staff. The shepherd's crook subsequently became a symbol of power among church ministers and the prototype of the scepter.
Crown
Sun
Throne
Obelisks and columns
Lion or eagle - kings of nature

The language of the Ruler.

The ruler associates himself with the names: King, Queen, King, Queen, Emperor, Leader, Boss, Father, Shepherd, Master, Manager, Manager, Director, Politician, President, Aristocrat, Lord, Alpha Male, Goddess, Leader. By calling it that, you acknowledge its importance and power.

The Lords have a weakness - they love compliments and do not tolerate instructions. State the question something like this: “ Oh, great and powerful sovereign, of course you thought about it! I, a modest person, tried to think with my little mind, and now I dare to offer one little thought to solve a difficult problem in the interests of the enterprise. My proposals cannot compare with the brilliance and greatness of your mind...»

In fact, I'm exaggerating, of course. The main thing here is not to overdo it and not slide into flattery or irony. The Ruler does not tolerate this either. But there is some truth in this. Perhaps you have had to deal with the fact that the head of an enterprise “forgot” about a subordinate’s sensible proposal for some time, and then passed it off as his own.

Words - beacons (words that the Ruler often uses):

Responsibility, right, power, management, arbitrariness, encouragement, punishment, duty, holiness, severity, law, greatness, order, decree, mandate, instruction, leadership, children, father, freedom, choice, justice, cruelty, state, organization, structure, system, hierarchy, ladder, device, obligations, power, word, good, evil, protection, eternity, business, goal, chaos, order, task, plan, model, leadership, personality, security.

Punish, manage, direct, protect, conquer, establish, punish, encourage, approve, welcome, indicate. And also, the habit of using verbs in imperative mood: do it, bring it, don’t you dare, etc.

Statements characterizing the Archetype of the Lord and the principles of Power:

« The king should be a shepherd, not a wolf. His task is to protect and protect the herd».
“Freedom and power require responsibility. (Nehru Jawaharlal)

« When the sovereign obeys the law, then no one will dare to resist it»
(Peter I)
“True power cannot be given, it can be taken” (Mario Puzo)

“Orders are not discussed”
"I have everything under control"
« If you get it, I’ll reward you with gold and silver, but if you don’t get it, my sword will take your head off your shoulders." (from a fairytale)

“The intelligence of a ruler is first judged by the kind of people he brings close to him” (Machiavelli Niccolo)
« A sovereign is valued if he is a true friend and a true enemy."(Machiavelli Niccolo)

PS. I recommend reading Niccolo Machiavelli’s treatise “The Prince” to anyone who has discovered the traits of a Ruler or is generally interested in issues of power. For 500 years this work has been considered best description ideal Ruler and continue to be studied at Leadership schools.

Articles about other archetypes:

Man is a biosociocultural being. Its biological essence is manifested not only in the structural features of the body and psyche, but also in their archetype. That is, people have something in common with animals, which allows them to be related.
In particular, mental archetypes have been identified in people, recognizable in the collective behavior of people and animals. And this sometimes allows us to draw parallels when analyzing the behavior of higher animals and people.
Thus, Doctor of Biological Sciences, Professor, Chief Researcher of the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences V.R. Dolnik. in the article “The Nature of Power” it is noted that “in all anthropoids, males form a hierarchical ladder among themselves.”
In macaques, power relations in a flock have different manifestations. In particular, “as soon as the dominant (leader) begins to punish one of the subdominants, others rush to the aid of the leader. All macaques are capable of this, but especially those occupying the bottom of the pyramid.”
Domestic researcher A.M. Chirkov notes that sometimes “a pack is tyrannized by the leader-leader and several monkeys close to him. There is a struggle for first place within the elite group.”
Now is the time to move on to hierarchy in the human environment. We can, for example, recall that on November 1 (14), 1917, Lenin spoke at a meeting of the Petrograd Committee. L. Trotsky mentions this in his work “Stalin’s School of Falsifications.” He writes: “The minutes of the meeting of the St. Petersburg Committee clearly show how Lenin treated issues of discipline in those cases when they tried to cover up an obviously opportunist line with discipline. According to the report of comrade Fenigstein, Lenin said: “If there is a split, let it be. If there is your majority, take power in the Central Executive Committee and act, and we will go to the sailors.” It was with this bold, decisive, irreconcilable formulation of the question that Lenin protected the party from a split.” That is, Lenin retained his place as leader (not leader) in the Bolshevik hierarchy.
Stalin adopted the policy of supporting the Bolshevik leader among the rank and file from Lenin. Stalin relied on the lower majority of society, the lower classes paid him in the same coin.
But under Khrushchev the hierarchical archetype changed. And this is connected not only with the 20th Congress of the CPSU and the exposure of Stalin’s personality cult in February 1956.
On June 1-2, 1962, striking workers in Novocherkssk were shot. The action had not only a terrifying significance. It confirmed the change in the hierarchical archetype. Now power could not be maintained alone, as Lenin and Stalin did. There could be no “cult of personality.” At the same time, the path was cleared for palace coups and revolution from above. The results were immediate.
As is known, in October 1964, as a result of a conspiracy, N. Khrushchev lost all his posts and was sent into retirement. Well, in the late 1980s and early 1990s there was a revolution from above. The lower classes were left out.
Now, for the purpose of forecasting, we can say that the current presidents of the Russian Federation will not be able to retain power, as Lenin and Stalin did. With this archetype of power there is no reliance on the lower classes of society - the proletariat and petty bourgeoisie. In the current conditions it is possible palace coup, but revolution from above is impossible. At the same time, the road has been cleared for revolution from below. It can be bloody or bloodless. The revolution of disobedience was proposed by the Indian political and public figure Mahatma Gandhi. It was based on a philosophy he called “nonviolent resistance.”