Two different perspectives in the fight for Integration in Civil Rights
This I thought of, in light of what I’ve been learning regarding better ways to understand and apply the concepts of the Jungian functions; from remembering how I felt when watching the stories of the Civil Rights struggle; especially Martin Luther King Jr.
I recalled how I felt when in the presence of people who at least I felt or feared didn’t like me, and also was warned about wanting to grow up and move to nice suburbs, where I might not be wanted.
So watching footage of King and others, I wondered how they could stand to go through all of that (marching and all the hatred they faced), in forcing integration. This actually also served to create the “reverse-victim” mythos common in Conservative rhetoric. The big bad liberals, and overly demanding minorities forced themselves on them and took what was rightfully theirs, and lowered the quality of life at the same time. This is what has by today transformed into anti-tax/”government programs” and “multiculturalism” rhetoric.
Fighting segregation with integration, vs disengagement.
For me: Primary humane relationships (F) are merged with the object or externally set (e), and inferior in ego complex position.
I empathize with the object in not wanting to be where I’m not wanted. I basically trust that if all the people don’t want me there, I shouldn’t be there. I then disengage and seek to go elsewhere.
When a person’s humane judgment (F) devalues the object, being internally focused (i), they “abstract” from it by freeing it from its association from elements irrelevant to their subjective humane standard.
This might be a universal value that all people are created equal, and that we should all love one another or at least get along. (This is not necessarily an externally set objective; it’s just something a person’s ego chooses to adopt). Thus what the people want (in its own right) is irrelevant. It is violating universal values.
Therefore, the person is more likely to stand his ground, and demand equal treatment, forcing integration. (Just for “the principle of it” if nothing else). Knowing they are “in the right” and maintaining “integrity”, they will be more confident of their stance, and thus likely more tolerant of whatever mistreatment they get for the name of the cause. That’s how they could endure all they faced then.
I too devalue the object on the humane level, when circumstances don’t permit me to escape it. Or if it is in some way so threatening to the ego, that its very existence makes me feel there is no escaping it wherever I go; it must be completely eradicated for me to feel comfortable.
This takes on the form of passionately denouncing the system or its defenders; trying to destroy it ideologically. This in total opposition to the greater tolerance of opposition manifested by those for whom that function is ego-syntonic.
If I had been old enough back then, facing filthy “colored only” facilities, and riding the back of buses, and all the other mistreatment, all wrapped up in God and the Bible on top of everything; my attitude would have been more “screw you people; who wants your stinking society!” I would likely have been among those pushing for a return to Africa, where I could safely sit back and watch from a distance all the smug self-righteous racists gain their country back, and then see how well they do, when all that evil can no longer be turned on me. They would NOT have lived “happily ever after” as they would have thought. They would have ultimately destroyed themselves, or in their utter hubris, angered some other power so much, they would have been attacked, and no one come to help them.
I also would have taken the Bible and turned it back on them, showing how they were actually denying the very essence of the “Gospel” they upheld: that there was no division of “good” and “bad” people or societies; all were naturally sinful, and needed Grace, and that they, in mimicking the Old Testament in much of their beliefs and action, were actually repeating Israel’s rejection of Christ, even as they professed His name. In John, you saw Israelites who “believed in Him”, and it was these people who He called the children of their father the Devil, because they were “believing” for the wrong reasons; thinking of themselves as “the chosen ones” in a very self-gratifying sense, and their “belief” in the Messiah was tied up in a warrior who would make them the rulers over everyone else; despite their own sinfulness. The conquering “Christian” civilization believed essentially the same exact thing, only Christ was in their past, so it looked like they were the “true” chosen and heirs of divine world rule.
Fe preferrers (FJ’s) might also be a bit more willing to stay and work at creating social harmony in the situation, but once the object makes it clear the subject is not wanted, they then will likely disengage as well (where I would disengage more readily because of the inferiority complex already felt through the function). If the Fe type could not escape, then they would likely devalue the object in an oppositional or critical way.
Te preferrers would likely favor integration over disengagement, since their preferred humane perspective is also subjective. But they would likely have much less of a tolerance for resistance than Fi types.
The flipside of the preferred perspectives is that the disengaging TP frees the object from irrelevant technical elements and realizes that it will be completely inconvenient for him to remain there. (Value is placed on the subjective technical content of convenience).
The FP or TJ forcing integration now moves his libido towards the technical aspect of the object, by taking action (legal, etc) to make integration happen.
King is often portrayed as an INFJ (which is an Fe preferrer), but generally, more peaceful visionary types like him always are, generally. It does seem he was some sort of “Chart-the-Course” or Melancholy type on the surface. It seems to me he might have been ISTJ (the pure Melancholy), which is very common in the black community, but I would have to look at him more. (Same with Obama, who seems similar, and everyone makes him INFJ or one of the other NF’s as well).
Tertiary Fi in that case could have been very developed and visible, making him look possibly like a Feeler (and this is even more pronounced for women). This seems to be more the case. But Te organizational skills were certainly there too.
Malcolm X would appear to have had more of a Ti/Fe perspective, and I liked his approach, minus the earlier “white devils” belief, and (though a bit understandable) the focus on potential violence.