Book Review: Hunziker “Depth Typology”
Hunziker, Depth Typology: C.G. Jung, Isabel Myers, John Beebe and the Guide Map to Becoming Who We Are
Write Way Publishing Company, © Mark Hunziker, 2016
Right as Beebe finally publishes his first volume on specifically his eight function model, Mark Hunziker, who had briefly mentioned the model in his earlier Building Blocks of Type (and on his “VTWellness” page) comes out with his own book largely on Beebe’s model. While Beebe’s book is given a June 17 publishing date (on Amazon, at least) Hunziker is listed at July 30. Still, he mentions Beebe’s book as not out yet, at least at the time of writing. In any case, this really makes a great primer for Beebe’s model and thus his book, and for anyone really not familiar with it, they should read this one first!
He starts out (chapter 1) introducing the concept of “Depth Typology”, which is basically the name of this whole, extended theory, completed by Beebe’s model. Its root, of course, is Jung’s “psychological type” theory published in 1921. He points out “Until now, the scope of typology was limited to the conscious side of the psyche”, represented by “the first four functions” or “ego-dystonic” or “primary” stack in the older four-process model. Myer’s “focus was on the conscious side, so she did not speculate about how the framework and dynamics of type might apply to the unconscious”. (Kindle location 553; no “page” numbers available at all for some reason). I note, that to them, the inferior represented the unconscious or “shadow”, even though it has now been placed, technically, on the “conscious” side.
Chapter 2 goes into the development of our sense of “science” and its “assumptions”, based on “the Cartesian World View” of the Newtonian universe, which is “materialistic”, consisting of “objects” which exert influence on other objects, which is what we base our notion of “reality” on. The more accurate view, citing researcher Valerie Hunt, is that the reality of the world “likes in fields which interact with other fields of energy” (in “dynamic chaos patterns that are always evolving to higher levels of complexity”). Also mentioned, as part of “the new sciences”, is “reductionism”. “The great reluctance of scientists to deal with subjective phenomena is part of our Cartesian heritage. Descartes’ fundamental division between mind and matter, between the ‘I’ and the world, had us believing that the world could accurately described without ever taking the human participant/observer into account.” This became the “ideal of all science”. Yet particle physics is one thing calling this into question!
He goes on to discus “systems theory”, and then “Me and not-Me”; the latter, what our theory here (of “consciousness”) is founded upon. “It seems to me that the ‘Me versus Other’ conundrum is at the heart of most of the personal and social dysfunction in our ego-centric modern culture. (#859) Continuing in this “”without/within” division, citing Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers, “We cannot stand outside a system as an objective distant director. There is no objective ground to stand anywhere in the entire universe”. This is basically something Einstein’s “Relativity” taught us, or should have taught us!
(The next section is on a “higher power”, though it’s pretty vague, and basically in terms of “a holistic process of physical/psychological/spiritual human evolution”_)
In “Depth Typology in the New Cosmos”, “Jung envisioned a psychological system in which the Conscious and Unconscious are as real—and as illusory—as the empirical and transcendental realities they reflect. Consciousness is best adapted to processing and coping with the empirical experience of our day-to-day lives; unconsciousness has a greater capacity for connecting to the intangible background reality. Specifically, it is the Collective Unconscious that maintains an awareness of the energic reality around and within us. This awareness is represented to our conscious awareness through the metaphysical feeling-toned-idea imagery that we call archetypes”.
He then discusses the “self-invented ‘I'”.
Similar to trying to swim across a powerful river, “psychology, including typology, is a matter of attention to the subtle energies at work in us, around us, and upon us, rather than about bolstering our defenses against them. It’s about understanding and feeling what we can and facing and embracing what we can’t. It’s about cooperating and collaborating with forces vastly more powerful than ourselves rather than attempting to control them. Ultimately, our psychological mandate is to grow into who we can be rather than defending who we think we are”. The part of our psyche that knows “the rest of the story”—that knows of the reality of our environment and our Selves and remembers the time-tested wisdom accrued by our ancestors—is mostly unconscious.” (#1029) The goal then is to “integrate” the input of the unconscious. Beebe’s model aids this, by addressing those “other four” functions for each type, usually left out of common four-process discussions.
Chapter 3 is “Psychological Type: Evolution of the Model. This covers Jung’s story, basically. We see that “Psychological type itself grew out of his effort to investigate that the differences between his theories and Freud’s and Adler’s might be explained by the three men’s subjective biases“. Recall, as we saw in the Beebe review, to Freud, “the study of the unconscious could only be accomplished rationally through a dialectic of thinking and feeling” (where Jung was using intuition). As we’ve seen in Beebe writings, Jung types Freud as what we would call an INFP, with evidences of “demonic Ti” in the way he named psychological categories. Adler (whose theory included “four styles of life” based on a expressive/responsive-style matrix similar to Interaction styles or DISC), was IIRC, said to be ISTJ. Jung would also see these different types of consciousness in his clients.
At location 1151, he points out that testing out his empirical observations is what led Jung to “incorporate disparate ancient religious, mythological and philosophical texts”, traveling across the world to African, Asian and Native American traditions, and of course incorporating alchemy, as well as theoretical physicists.
This of course would explain why he seems so “pagan”, particularly to Christians, who are often wary of him (I’ve pointed out that the Christian temperament theorists I entered the field through, Arno and LaHaye, don’t even mention Jung, —though LaHaye did briefly in passing mention the four functions as suggested comparative “temperament” categories). When mentioning him to Christians, I try to argue that I’m not so sure how literal his “spiritual” lingo is to be taken; like if he really believed that stuff, like a religion. Being an introverted iNtuitive as it is, the language is often cryptic and hard to know how literally to be taken. Though one person I’ve discussed this with does mention that he did seances. Still, I don’t know if he really believed in it, or was just using it for his studies of these things.
He also mentions “the legacy” of Jung, as embodied in both his own (with Leona Haas), as well as Berens’ models. Two of the principles he then lists (#1251) is that
•”the healthy psychic system is balanced in every aspect [i.e. i/e and j/p] and contains mechanisms of compensation and growth to maintain or regain that dynamic equilibrium”
•”It is the tension between opposites that pulls us toward balance and toward growth”.
Next section is Myers’ and Briggs’ Contributions, which explains the rationale for their readaptation of Jung’s system. The difference between the functions and attitudes are more obvious than the difference between the particular attitudes of the functions, and since identifying the basic preferences was the goal, the increased simplicity and clarity of their instrument was more desired.
This then brings us to Beebe and the “depth” he “brings to the model”, by reintroducing the function-attitudes, extending the hierarchy to all eight of them for each type, adding the archetypes (“fields of emotional energies“) and “axes” of compensatory pairs of functions and archetypes.
“No one before Beebe had ventured to extend the map of typology beyond the inferior (4th) function-attitude, the ‘gateway to the unconscious'”. We also see Jung even expressed skepticism about the possibility of doing so, since he assumed the unconscious portion of the personality cannot be grasped cognitively. No wonder everyone shied away from “the bottom four”!
He reiterates the point I had always cited in Building Blocks, that the sequence of development does not necessarily follow the “linear hierarchy”. “It is more accurate and useful to think of each function-attitude as being integrated with ego to the degree that it is conscious, while at the same time, it will have a shadowy and independent nature to the degree that it’s unconcious” (#1395).
Chapter 4 is “Key Terms and Concepts”, such as “personality” and “consciousness”, and the definition of the “ego”. It’s pointed out that “even when we can’t ‘prove’ the existence of something or agree on all the details of its nature, we can still use it as a theoretical construct to aid in our understanding and promote our investigations.”(#1538). It’s later established that “it is the dominant and auxiliary function-attitudes that form the typological core of the ego of most adults”. Also mentioned here is Western society, and its extraverted Thinking “ego-stance”.
In the discussion of the Persona, we get a good example of an undifferentiated function:
For someone who has not fully developed her extraverted feeling function into conscious accessibility, promoting a harmonious environment ill not actually be a major consideration in her egoteam’s decision-making process. But she still may be able to slip on an Fe mask temporarily, conscientiously attending, for example, to the needs and emotional wellbeing of her guests when hosting a party. Likewise, someone who has not differentiated his extraverted intuition into routine consciousness use won’t normally think about future possibilities though he can still participate n a conversation about the likely consequences of an action that’s being considered. (#1706)
Next is the discussion of the unconscious, whose content is “based on the unfiltered raw data of experience and the human condition, which the ego filters “based on what is comfortable and acceptable to us. It is limited to the emotions we are willing to admit to ourselves that we feel, the thoughts that we deem okay to think, acceptable behavior, what fits with our belief system, our cultural/social/moral constraints, what ‘makes sense’ to us, and who we conceive ourselves to be”. So the unconscious part of the psyche “continues to work behind the scenes to attempt to balance the biases and blind spots of the ego”. Without a framework for embracing this, “modern man is rarely prepared to integrate it in healthy ways”. (#1774)
This gets into discussion of the collective unconscious, which is “the part of us where we are psychologically indistinguishable from one another. Jung also entertained the possibility that the source material and nature of the collective unconscious may extend beyond humankind, tot he laws of basic nature, the repeating patterns of the universe itself, to what quantum physicists often refer to as the ‘source field’ and philosophers call the ‘universal substrate'”.
We also along the way see the function-attitudes described in terms of “mental processes that we have not developed into conscious ‘skillsets'”. Again, the functions themselves are “forms of consciousness”, where I think it is better to focus on the complexes or “ego-states”, which are the personalized “archetypes” themselves, as the “lesser senses of ‘I'” to form awareness (of which the ego itself is one).
Then, “projection” and “shadow”, which is “the personification of” and “an active manifestation of certain unconscious contents [which could be added to the ego complex, but for various reasons are not], not the unconscious itself” (#1908), as it is often described as. Where repeated is the point that any unconscious function can be considered part of the shadow, “it is the predictably oppositional, shadowy nature of the ego-dystonic function-attitude-archetypes that earns them the designation of “the Shadow” in the depth typology lexicon”. (#1939) Also, “trying to deal with our shadow directly simply doesn’t work. Everyone’s notion of such an interaction is formed by their ego—and it is precisely that ego stance tho which the shadow is usually reacting”.
Under “Ego-syntonic and Ego-dystonic, it’s pointed out that the simple labeling of the “ego syntonic” half as “conscious” and the ego-dystonic half as “unconscious”(or at least “relatively” so) is misleading, as a gross oversimplification. All are partly conscious and unconscious, and the mix varies from person to person. The ego-syntonic functions are simply “congruous with each other, and therefore with one’s sense of ‘who I am’. They may contradict and battle with each other at times, but they are still on the same team”.
Regarding the ego-dystonic functions:
Because of their incompatibility with the orientation of the ego, the egodystonic function-attitudes can rarely, if ever, be truly integrated with the conscious side of the personality, no matter how well ‘developed’ they may become. In fact, “development” of the ego-dystonic FAs is usually more a matter of accepting their limitations and their primitive, archetypal nature and cultivating our ability to roughly translate their messages while we struggle to use the associated practical skills that would naturally become well-honed if those function-attitudes were well developed.
Archetypal energies “carry” each function-attitude to the degree that the FA is unconscious; a function-attitude that we can engage consciously can be used relatively free of the archetype that carries it when unconscious…freer of the associations and emotional colorings of the archetypes. (#1974, emphasis added)
It’s then mentioned how Jung seemed to engage both extraverted and introverted Thinking, “Hence, the endless debate about whether he was an INTJ or an INTP”. Yet, “if you look closely”, Jung’s use of Ti “always seemed somewhat tortured and convoluted, and a bit tinged with the didactic tone of the Senex archetype”. This is perhaps why I and some others find him so hard to digest!
From a personal communication between him and Beebe, the ego-dystonic functions are portrayed “They work, as do all functions, to support the wellbeing of the entire psyche—trying to compensate for the imbalance of an ego-dominated personality”. This gets into the question of whether the lower archetypes are dispatched by the ego (As “defenses”, as is mentioned here, or rather the Self, as I will address again). So they are almost always “heavily laden with the primitive emotional energies of their associated archetypal complexes”. So it’s the “emotional tone” that will be easier to recognize when they appear.
The chapter concludes with a discussion of the Self, the archetypal complex of “wholeness” or “the true Me”.
Chapter 5 is “Individuation, Differentiation and Type Development”. Cited is Jungs’ definition of “individuation” as “the development of the psychological individual as a being distinct from the general, collective psychology”. Later, Beebe’s eight function model is pictured as making the model of psychological type fully capable of encompassing the concept of individuation. (It’s then reiterated from a quote of Jung, that this process will be essentially short-circuited by “conscious intention”, because of the “typological attitude that excludes whatever does not fit in with it”. So this, on its own “can never be more than an attempt to better understand and pick up some coping tricks and an opportunity to practice some unfamiliar skills…and emulate function-attitudes that remain essentially as unconscious as ever. It does not create a fundamental shift in that ego standpoint, which is what individuation is all about.” (#2285)
Also discussed is how “differentiation” means functions being separated from the other functions (whether the “natural” ones, that is; S, N, T, F, or the two attitudes of a particular function). It’s pointed out that to bring one function-attitude into consciousness will involve some differentiation of the opposite attitude, even though one will be four places lower from the other in the stack. But the lower one, not so much that it is developed “into skillfull, conscious use or cleanly separated from the unconscious”. There will be an “energic readiness” to to engage the [“natural”] function in general, but one of the attitudes will be honed in and relied on more, as it will be more successful.
Now we enter Part II, on “Beebe’s Depth Typology Model”. Chapter 6 is on “the Function-Attitudes”. This begins with the basic definitions of the four “natural” functions, and then moves into the specific “attitudes”. The unconscious ones “don’t behave in the clear, skillset-related ways that we have learned to identify”. They’re more like “primitive predecessors”.
This, I point out for Fi (which is tertiary or lower for the Thinking types teaching the models, and thus often colored by that “primitive” form) would be the “screw everyone else; only what I feel/value matters” often described. But if you read FP type profiles (where it is dominant or auxiliary, and thus developed into its most “mature” form), you can see the evidence of a completely different manifestation; of using that “selfish” feeling to “put yourself into the other person’s shoes” and thus infer their needs or wants, and thus “respond to them” just as much as an extraverted Feeling type. (Hunziker soon mentions that “they would not tend to try to win others over to their point of view” —as some assumptions of the functions imply, though, again, this is more likely the TJ types’ less developed form of it. “They’d often go along with what they assume to be others’ deeply held convictions—as long as their own are not violated”). So it often leads to the opposite of “selfishness”, in them going along with people against their [lesser] wishes or values. (basically the “Supine” or even “Sanguine” ‘weak will’, since the FP types comprise those temperaments).
Next is “The Sequence of the Eight Function-Attitudes”. Starting with just the first four commonly discussed, with no one attempting to explain how the other four fit in, “because the focus of MBTI users was on the issues of the ego-syntonic side of personality, the incompleteness of this picture was not considered problematic, indeed it was hardly even noticed”. (#2581)
Next is discussed how the order is based on the need of “balance”. The tertiary was believed to be the same attitude as the auxiliary and inferior (the opposite of the dominant, to basically counter the “powerful dominant function-attitude” with “the collective weight of all three” of the others. But Beebe’s view forms a more elegant, and more plausible balance. What wasn’t thought of, was that if #2, 3 and 4 had to balance the dominant with an opposite attitude, then their shadows, #6, 7 and 8 would end up the same attitude as the dominant. How would the “shadow” end up so in sync with the dominant?
Of course, it should really be pointed out that the people disputing the orientation of the tertiary were likely not thinking strictly in terms of solid “function-attitude” units like we do, but thinking of the “natural” functions separately from the two attitudes. So you stack S, N, T, F for each type, and then ask which attitude each function bears, separately. Whatever the dominant one was, the other three would be opposite (or maybe the tertiary, the same as the dominant). The “other four” were really the “other attitude” of these same four, and not anything stacked separately from them.
In this juncture, we get another clarification of something we’ve heard Beebe cited on before, but now given a specific reason: “It is not uncommon for children to develop some skill and comfort in using their seventh (Trickster) function-attitude in response to the overwhelming power of their parents“. Now that explains everything! (including, as he will point out later, that this is why the attitude of the tertiary became ambiguous to begin with!)
Also mentioned, is that to think “opposition” to the heroic tendencies comes solely through the fifth function-attitude (the “Opposing Personality) would be to misunderstand the nature of the model because the shadow functions are too indistinct and unseparated to operate consistently like coherent, differentiated entities. They “rarely operate as discrete units. More often, they’re confusingly mixed together or form ad oc alliances“. (#2638) This, I take it is referring to even when they are attached to the archetype. I would again point out that it’s the archetypal complexes or “ego-states” that make the distinctions.
But then remaining still “mixed together” somewhat would make sense, and explain for instance, when I’m trying to think of examples of Ni (which I would expect to be involved in the negative premonitions I get in a “Senex” state), and then I have to wonder if it’s really Ne; Ni being the hardest to understand and distinguish from its opposite attitude. I notice that whenever I think it’s Ni, there’s always some “object” I’m comparing it to, and I figure it must “become” Ni, when I come out of Senex mode and am trying to analyze it with my normal TiNe. But this point here gives another explanation as to why shadow functions are hard to pin down, and can be easily confused with their more conscious counterparts.
He soon acknowledges the point I’ve been emphasizing, that “Unconscious function-attitudes are carried by emotional energies that tend to form archaic mini-personalities known as ‘archetypal complexes'”.
Also, “Unconscious function-attitudes usually operate as defenders of the Self. When our conscious resources are not able to take care of our normal business, or if an inflated ego is itself the source of dysfunction, our unconscious resources rise to combat the problem.
Defending the Self often conflicts with the ego-syntonic function-attitudes’ orientation toward supporting and strengthening the Ego.”
This again gets into a bit of confusion I have about this, because most of our “shadow” reactions seem to be defending the ego-position. (As I’ll show below). Under traumatic stress, or in the later stages of the individuation process, is when the Self dispatches the shadow complexes, from what I was told.
Also, “Unconscious function-attitudes, but their connection to the collective human experience, can draw upon a deeper and broader wisdom than the relatively limited experience and perspective of our conscious side.” They “defend us from outside threats and from internal imbalance”. That “outside threats” part is what I would think would be dispatched by the ego rather than the Self.
Chapter 7 goes onto the Archetypes.
The “energy factor” that gives the function-attitudes life, is said by Beebe to lie in “the innately archetypal nature of the unconscious—and therefore of all unconscious content, including any function-attitudes that are not fully conscious” (#2712). The archetypes manifest in “specific down to earth physical, emotional and cognitive embodiments”. To Jung, they are assumed to be “the deposits of the constantly repeated experiences of humanity. Endless repetition has engraved these experiences into our psychic constitution, not in the form of images filled with content, but at first only as forms without content, representing merely the possibility of a certain type of perception and action (1953/1966 ¶109; 1959/1969a, ¶99)”. (Thinking they themselves consisted of “images” was a mistake I made when Lenore was explaining this stuff to me. The way she put it was “images freighted with emotion“. Her correction said pretty much the same thing, that S, N, T and F “are just names that we’ve given to different ways of bringing experience into cognitive awareness. They’re not things [as I, following much of the rest of the online type community, had fallen into seeing them]. They’re perspectives, ways of determining what matters in a situation.”)
So Hunziker, quoting John Gianni soon points out one of the main things Lenore had taught me, that “the complex is a historical experience and a particularized manifestation of an archetype. A complex is a complete incarnation of each archetype (2004, p 143)”, They are “given concrete form by real-world experience”.
Along the way, the “collective unconscious” is discussed, and the role of “the residue of the experiences of our ancestors”, and then, the notion of a “higher power”, being “something much bigger”, being implied by the archetypes, and thus this informs our notions about the nature of God, in addition to “our sense of place in the universe”, “our entire world view”, etc. So “In daily life”, “we are profoundly influenced by the psychological frames that make our lives manageable, as well as the energies that give our experiences their impetus and emotional flavors. And these energies/frames are largely predetermined by the archetypal forms and the related experiences that crystallize them into complexes”. (#2814)
In “the case for eight particular archetypes”, he cites Beebe as saying the archetypes are “roles” the individual enters when expressing a particular consciousness. He acknowledges that thinking of them as “roles” (which is basically what Berens replaces them with in renamed form in her re-framing of the model) might be seen as a bit of a simplification. But:
We’re all aware that we slip from role to role in our lives. We go to work and slip into the role that fits our job description; we came home and move into a parental role with our kids and another role with our partner; and into other roles in our various civic functions, social activities, and relationships. So we can relate to the idea of playing multiple roles. And to the extent that we carry unconscious associations into them, they are all archetypal. That is to say that if we were completely conscious at any given moment, we would not be playing a role at all. We would be supremely present, acting from our core true selves, seeing them with unadulterated clarity and empathy, and relating to them with complete authenticity. But the reality is that everything we do is tinged and clouded by our sense of the archetypal roles in play. (#2878)
This corresponds perfectly to the description of “ego states” as I discussed from the Hartman/Zimberoff article “Ego Surrender” (see https://erictb.wordpress.com/2012/11/01/a-quantum-explanation-of-the-soul/#comment-1247 and https://erictb.wordpress.com/2014/04/18/a-start-to-understanding-complexes).
But then again, the focus is in practice shifted back to the function-attitudes themselves as “the actors in our personal drama, each possessing certain traits and skillsets”, and from there, “each assigned a certain archetypal role through which they can apply those talents.”
This again is where I differ, seeing the complexes themselves (which are but the concretized or “filled with personal experience” archetypes, as just discussed above) as the “actors”, which then take on the different FA perspectives as their “world views”. The “ego” itself is but the main one taking on the dominant function and attitude, and the “Hero” and “Persona” go along with it. The Parent takes on the opposite attitude, and then the opposite rationality (j/p) of function. As the other six archetypes involved are but reflections and/or “shadows” of the first two, they take on the opposite functions and/or attitudes. And from there, we have Beebe’s “eight archetypal complexes using the eight function-attitudes” model!
But what I think should be ‘personified‘ are the complexes, not the functions.
Next is questioned “Why would eight particular ones be the ones that tend to carry our function attitudes?” and the answer, as discussed in the last review, was that Beebe “arrived at this configuration from personal reflection, dream interpretation and observation, and has validated it by decades of insights and feedback from clients and workshop participants.” Also, a clue from Jung, that “the archetypes most clearly characterized from the empirical point of view are those which have the most frequent and the most disturbing influence on the ego (1959/1969b ¶13)”. So Hunziker concludes
the roles that most routinely color our conscious business do indeed fit with the heroic, parental, childlike, or idealized opposite gender patterns. And those archetypes that he subsequently linked to the ego-dystonic function-attitudes, seem to fit the description of “most disturbing” to the Ego. The Opposing Personality, Witch/Senex, Trickster and Demon/Daimon, once we come to understand them, seem to encapsulate most of our disturbing eruptions from the unconscious.
Just as the eight function-attitudes of type are the eight narrow primary ‘personalities’ available within us for playing out life’s drama, Beebe’s eight archetypal images describe the key roles that these eight actors inevitably need to fill. Every whole human being needs to be part heroic leader, part nurturing parent, part carefree child, part idealized mate, part oppositional anti-hero, part fearsome old crone, part untrustworthy trickster, and part dark “Other”.
Here we see more clearly that the function-attitudes are the “personalities”, and the archetypes are the “roles”. Again, I would reverse that. Using the term “complexes” more, rather than “archetypes”, and especially emphasizing that they are “ego-states”, helps understand how this works. He continues “There are many other archetypal images beyond Beebe’s eight, but this particular collection appears to cover the basics”. They make “a balanced and effective team for inner collaboration”. (The way Lenore put it, the eight are simply “the complexes that structure an ego identity”. At http://www.personalitypathways.com/thomson/type3-3.html “As far as I’m concerned, Beebe’s model is a very good one, but only if it’s clear that it’s talking about complexes. Complexes are the way in which instinctual energies become available to consciousness. The model, in this respect, doesn’t show us how the type functions operate. Rather, [it tells us what happens in the psyche when we borrow instinctual energy from the unconscious to further our ego-based choices.” original e-mail version: “…it shows the archetypal structure underlying an established ego identity“]. And now, Beebe himself has stated this in his book, as mentioned in the other article).
Next is pointed out that the eight archetypes aren’t inexorably tied to the hierarchy positions. “Like most elements of Jungian psychology, and indeed in modern science in general, it’s a matter of probability.” The scheme “tells us which archetypal energies are likely to be carrying which function-attitude in a given typology”. They also, as stated earlier, become harder to identify the further down in the hierarchy the FA resides, being a defining characteristic of the unconscious is the lack of differentiation of its contents.
Next is the “Eight Archetypes of Typology”. We get a table with Beebe’s three columns of names (“Persona level”, “ego level” and Self-level”) for each of the FA’s, as was mentioned in the previous review, then descriptions of each archetype. For the Hero, “the greatest danger for the Hero/Heroine is inflation, an exaggerated sense of the heroic function-attitude’s ability to take care of everything, without help from other people or from other function-attitudes”. This is linked to Einstein’s definition of insanity; trying to solve a problem using the same way of thinking that hasn’t been working.
For Mother/Father (i.s. Parent) he discusses how the archetype gets confused with extraverted Feeling, because of the connotation of “nurturing and support”, and addressing people’s needs. Now, FA gets defined as “a mode of thinking and operating” which “doesn’t relate to a particular role or the drive to fulfill that role”, which lies in the “feeling-toned archetypal energy complex”. So people for whole Fe is ego-dystonic are no less capable of being great parents; they just might not but, support and protect in as “warm and fuzzy” a style as an Fe preferrer might.
In “possession” by the Parent archetype (i.e. inflation), as we read briefly in Berens, we become “overprotective”, or “parenting” when not appropriate to take that role. Posession by the Child (Puer/Puella) “usually involves refusing to take responsibility for the results of our actions. Likewise, projecting the Child (usually done by people who are stuck in overly-responsible, too serious mode) means regarding the target of our projection as refusing to ‘grow up’ and ‘act like an adult’.”
Under Anima/Animus, we see another great point Lenore had given me, that “Jung was likely reflecting the cultural bias of his day in associating ‘Eros’ with Feeling function and primarily with women (who would therefore be presumed to have a ‘Logos’/Thinking-oriented Animus) and vice versa for men“. Then, in the 80’s and 90’s, “there appeared to be a movement to redefine Jungian eros as the drive to connect or merge and logos as the drive to separate, discriminate or distinguish“. (#3062) This I have seen a lot, in online sites about the Anima or Jung. He then provides better ways of describing the anima and animus, given the entanglement with cultural assumptions that have shaped the notions of “masculinity” and “femininity” often used to describe them. (this also touches upon something Lenore was saying).
Also mentioned is “one of the main reasons why one develops a persona is so as not to expose inferiorities, especially the inferiorities of the fourth function”. The “persona” is usually portrayed as an alternate “dominant place” archetype alongside the hero, and here we see its purpose is to essentially counter the inferior.
Relatively unconscious, but still ego-syntonic, it is still consciously accessible, meaning we can connect with it. Also, Jung is quoted “It is because we are not using them purposefully as functions that they remain personified complexes. So long as they are in this state they must be accepted as relatively independent personalities (1953/1966 ¶339)”.
Of course, projection of it is what drives attraction to people who exhibit inverse qualities where we “form archetypally idealized ideas of them, (and to then be disappointed when they fail to live up to that ideal)”
The Opposing Personality “is most often activated in defense of the personality from real or imagined outside threats. The different attitudes of each function “senses the other as an encroachment on its own province” (Jung). Again, the contrasexual nature of the complex is mentioned (which along with sharing the same i/e attitude makes it difficult to distinguish from the anima/animus, as I’ve realized in my own projections and fantasy life), but nothing about this coming from it being energized by the anima.
The Witch/Senex, or “critical Parent” “can be a necessary attitude to take toward the Eternal Child in others (and perhaps in ourselves)—the ‘tough love’ needed to avoid overindulgence”. But it lacks a governing mechanism of consciousness to ensure it’s only used appropriately. Citing Beebe, it “moves shame into guilt, and “makes us ashamed of our shame”.
The Trickster, like the Eternal Child “is puerile, but not in a timid or helpless way”. It’s often what “defends our vulnerable Eternal Child from the Senex attacks from others”, which is a great specification, and of course, often does this by catching the attacker in double-binds. As Lenore explained to me regarding the more Kalsched-ian notion of the archetype for when a person is ready to grow, it’s a “catalyst for individuation” and “breaks down self-limiting structures, creating disorder, in order to open up new options that lead to a new order“. So it ignores boundaries including self-imposed, societal and parental limits, representing “autonomy from parental patterns”. It “can be activated in compensation for an attitude of hyper-responsibility, a characteristic of the internal Senex” (#3254).
The Demon/Daimon is essentially, “our inferior inferior”. It’s “what we need to be ashamed of—the flaw in our character for which integrity exists and is needed”. Patterns of its projection are often at the root of social inequities and wars, as we saw at the very end of Beebe’s book; with the most demonized enemies of ESTJ American typology, typically condemned for “assumed perceived lack of or misguided and perverse values“. (He says “not for flawed logic, intuition or perception of facts”, but they certainly do throw the “logic” and “facts” charge at the “liberals”. Perhaps this is the projection of the OP and Senex. Those are basically the side issues, at the most emotionally fervent charge, regarding “values”).
As I’ll mention again, I wonder if these are supposed to be “Self”-dispatched defenses, but they sound a bit like ego defenses.
Chapter 8 is “Depth Typology Dynamics”. This covers Myers-Briggs and the relationship between Cognition and Emotion. Here, we have another subject Lenore had discussed, and that’s the role of the cerebral cortex in conscious thought, while archetypes are more heavily influenced by the older limbic system, the seat of emotions”. “A great deal of what we see in depth typology, then, may come down to an ongoing process of two distinct and differently functioning neurological systems, striving to collaborate.” (#3387) So, “Once we have intellectually grasped the nature of the eight archetypes, function-attitudes are often most easily recognized by the emotional energy of the archetypes that carry them. If we ask ourselves whether what we’re experiencing feels heroic, or nurturing, immature, embarrassing, oppositional, hypercritical, manipulative or undermining, we can often detect the emotional tone of what’s going on typologically before we are able to grasp it intellectually.”
Next is the claim that function-attitudes “trigger” the archetypal complexes, and that the archetypes trigger the function-attitudes. Citing Beebe, 2010, “the most common trigger for any function-attitude archetype is when we engage the function-attitude”. This includes when others engage a function attitude associated with a particular archetype for us. “Obviously, often it will be difficult to know which aspect—archetype or function-attitude—is the cause and which is the effect”.
This, I’ve seen (especially from my discussions with Lenore) we have to be careful with, as it can be overgeneralized. It makes it sound like every time I have to look at/hear/touch, etc. something, or if someone else does it in interaction with me, I’ll go into “Trickster” mode. (Again, as I said in the other review, I really wish she had some input in these book projects.
Meanwhile, as we saw above, Hunziker did acknowledge that when conscious, the FA is then more able to be used free of the archetype. But it’s easy to forget this in the above statement; and he also said that they’re rarely truly integrated with consciousness. I would go with “general” [versus “special”] uses of the functions, as the “conscious” uses, where no particular archetype is constellated at that moment. Beebe on the other hand had also acknowledged to me these regular “generic” uses of the functions; that “the function attitude is not fated to be equal to its archetypal carrier”; “the archetype is the shell in which the function-attitude lives and grows, and out of which the ego can scoop the function-attitude for its own purposes”).
Se being in “7th place” means I might be less likely to pay full attention to current sensory data (and I now notice this all the time), and this is not necessarily something “observed by its archetypally-tinged symptoms, which are somehow the same in everyone”, as Lenore put it. It’s just less conscious, or less relevant to the ego. I also notice that NJ’s tend to be pretty averse to revisiting old conflicts. Some testify to being poor at remembering certain things (not that they can’t remember anything at all, outside of the archetype). Again, there is no specific “Trickster” or “Demon” necessarily constellated at that point. It’s a more “generic” form of [partial] “unconsciousness”.
So it may be more that it’s the complex that constellates first, and being a “lesser sense of ‘I'” (i.e. “ego-state”), it then sees the situation through the perspective of the associated FA. What I find is that a situation calling for the given FA might constellate the complex if it is tied with a longstanding “issue” regarding that functional perspective. Hence, people’s “self-contented” form of “moralizing” triggering the Demonic Personality for me (because of issues of guilt stemming from experiences), or certain physical situations making me feel tricked or trapped (based, again, on experiences).
We next get some personal examples, such as that Mark himself once reported as an introverted Thinking type on the MBTI assessment, and determined that this was from his Senex being constellated at the time, due to a task that required a lot of Ti, which was making him cranky, impatient and inflexible.
“Archetypal baggage”is described “Whenever we enter into a situation that seems to fit a common theme and whenever we unconsciously engage a function-attitude, a certain amount of archetypal energy engages as well. Since most situations fit one or more archetypal patterns and since we rarely if ever, engage our function-attitudes in complete consciousness, archetypal complexes are essentially always part of the type dynamic”. If not aware of this, the archetype may dominate the situation and we respond to the archetypal preconceptions more than to reality.
Next, “Axes of personality” deals with the tandems, including the arm and spine concept, and later, “Interpersonal friction between differently oriented axes”. He shows how each FA needs to work in conjunction with its opposite, like his dominant Ni “anchored in present reality” via inferior Se, etc. Discussed are dynamics like how types that look like they have a lot in common (because of common dichotomy preferences) may really be very different and clash.
This is also where he discusses the phenomenon Beebe had called “crossed spines” (though that term isn’t used here). I had mentioned this on my intro to type page, though later had some reservations about it after thinking about my own marriage experience, and this would be a good place to discuss what I believe is a needed qualification of that concept. As INTP and ESFJ, we are both “rational” types” (and thus “rational spines”), both having Ti/Fe dominant/inferior, though reversed. I do often find that I think she’s making a judgment, when she then claims to be simply making an observation or seeking information. This is what supposedly happens when two people have “crossed spines”. Since I once had to grapple with whether I was really Ne dominant or not, then I had to figure this out. (Or perhaps if she were really Se dominant).
Hunziker gives an example of an ENTJ and ISFJ. Both “J” types, but J refers only to the extraverted judgment function, whether dominant (as for the ENTJ) or auxiliary (As for the ISFJ, who is actually a dominant “perceiving” or “irrational” type). Since the ISFJ will be “‘all about’ gathering information, even though this may not be apparent from interacting with him”, and the ENTJ will be about making decisions, this can create conflict. Not just on the dominant “spine” level, but even on the arms, such as the auxiliary), where they’ll be reversed in rationality. (The ENTJ will now relate by perception, and the ISFJ through judgment. So “the ISFJ may ‘hear’ the observation as a call to act on information”).
But since this carries across both spine and arm, it assumes the two parties always being in spine or arm “mode” at the same time. But if different complexes or ego-states (and here’s another case where thinking in this term helps) are in executive control in a given moment, then the rationality may still end up getting “crossed”. So I notice when I’m deep in dominant or Heroic mode, and my wife will then try to “Parent” with Si, or make a playful suggestion with Ne (or in more stressful times, the Witch or Trickster may even get involved); I’ll hear it as a call to make a decision. She’ll then protest that “It’s just an observation”. Or “I just want more information”. Making this more complicated, is that part of the reason this happens, is because there are times when, particularly with that “childlike” idea, that she switches back into “spine” mode, and the perception does become a judgment. So (perhaps in my “vulnerable” Si “child” mode that holds on to past incidences), I anticipate that, and then it figures for my spine orientation, and I guess it’s often when I’m too immersed in dominant mode, and so really averse to any disruption.
(Plus, there’s also the old J/P difference, where even though we’re both “rational” types, my domniant judgment is introverted, and perception extraverted, while her dominant judgment is extraverted. This leads her to want action, while I need to take in more information first before making a decision).
In “Dynamics Within the System”, “When an extraverted Sensing Hero becomes inflated, the introverted sensing Opposing Personality rises to object, and the introverted Intuitive Anima insists ‘Hey, don’t forget about me!'”.
“Beebe says that the target of the harsh, belittling, limit-setting criticism of our sixth function-attitude Witch/Senex is usually the Eternal Child in others and ourselves. In fact, he has observed that this ‘problem of the Witch/Senex and Eternal Child’ is behind many self-limiting psychological issues” (#3872). I can definitely see this, in the perpetual battle between trying to redo the past, and the premonition of the inevitable repeat of the issues that caused the pain in the first place. I begin countering these premonitions of “what’s [apparently] meant to be” (based on [a model of] “the way it is” that the Child perceives and is hurt by) with exaggerated descriptions of situations (and often consciously recognized as such, but the emotions keep driving the distortions; it “feels so good”) with the purpose of proving that I’m being “cheated” in the [Senex’s] big “scheme” of things.
So here we see the surprising point that, “It appears that in order for the tertiary function-attitude Child to develop, the seventh function-attitude Trickster must first become sufficiently differentiated to come to its defense—to make it safe enough for the Child to come out of hiding and become conscious.” (This corresponds [in part] with Lenore’s “Crow’s Nest” that gets replaced with the tertiary function when we mature. Though the crow’s nest also included the 8th function, which is omitted here).
So the realization, mentioned before; “This might very well explain the ongoing debate regarding the attitude of the tertiary—i.e., that the seventh could easily be mistakenly assumed to be the ego-syntonic tertiary due to its level of development“.
Now we enter Part III, about applications of the model. Chapter 9 is on the value of teaching the Beebe model. It’s actually easier to understand type by the FA’s than remembering sixteen type profiles. It yields more of a “Here is how it may work for you” dynamic rather than “Here’s who you are”, as profiles seem to imply. Every time we talk about a “trait”, we can backtrack to the basics of the [natural] function and explain why its engagement in one or the other attitude would logically result in such a trait.
Chapter 10 is on its usefulness in Counseling, Coaching, and Psychotherapy. (Again, we see the FA’s portrayed as “little voices” and “some other parts of me” that operate in the background of consciousness. The complexes themselves are the “other parts of us”; the other, lesser senses of “I” under the main ego).
Here is a part that raises questions of understanding for me. “In response [to FA’s being “called”, or archetypal energies “triggered”], our existing ego-centric toolkit typically becomes energized to defend itself against the threat to the status quo. The harder the unconscious, “internal Other” elements work to get our conscious attention, the more threatening and invasive they seem to the ego—and the more the ego digs in to resist the invasion”. (And when the relatively developed “ego-identified” FA’s become over-energized, “we become caricatures of our normal selves” trying to fix the problem with our normal approaches. The hero may become a “super-Hero”, etc. The basic dilemma that has most people seeking counseling or therapy is that “the Ego/Me views the very parts of oneself that hold the solution, the No-Me shadow, as the threat to be defended against”).
I wonder, isn’t the “egocentric toolkit” using the shadows to “defend itself” then being dispatched by the ego, and not the Self at that point? Lenore had described the Kalsched concept of the Trickster and Demon, in either trauma, or the later stage toward individuation, being dispatched by the Self (see http://www.personalitypathways.com/thomson/type3-3.html), but then that to me left open the question of whether at the other times, the shadows were being dispatched by the ego. It sure feels like it, when I get those OP, Senex, Trickster or Demon reactions, ruminations or projections, specifically defending ego against the threat. But then the thing is that she doesn’t really believe any below the OP are constellated in normal situations. Like the Demon, she said, was “so far from the Ego that it can never be integrated or controlled” (or “so far from the Heroic self-image that they’re more like intrapsychic messengers from the unconscious”, ibid). The Senex, she would later tell me, is present in any function that becomes too one-sided, and that too would be presumably Self-dispatched.
But then this seems to be left ambiguous by Beebe and Hunziker (unless I’ve missed something). I guess, the complexes themselves are dispatched by the Self (since it “owns” them, where the ego thinks it owns them, which is the definition of “inflation”), and while it’s the ego that essentially is “using” them for its defenses, since they are out of the ego’s conscious control, they don’t come out the way the ego wishes, and hence why they are so problematic. The “message from the Self” then is that these “problematic” manifestations are what the Self is trying to “get the ego’s attention” through).
So what I was really looking for here, was a clear distinction between the Beebe “everyday” constellations of the archetypes, and the Kalsched [via Lenore] “trauma” or “individuation” constellations. I guess it’s all dispatched by the Self, but Beebe’s theory simply has the Self dispatching lesser constellations of them for everyday ego defenses, in order to try to make the ego aware of how its defenses are coloring its perception and judgment. That is what makes perfect sense.
These last chapters now getting smaller; Ch. 11 is on Self Development and Self-Help. In projection, “Our internal rationale insists that since these thoughts, feelings, attitudes and desires don’t fit with our idea of who we are, someone else must be responsible”. (#4319) Tying in with the question I just raised, “We protect our Ego rather than our Self”.
Chapter 12 is on “Relationships and Communication”.
Chapter 13 is “cultural Personalty Type”. In a quote, it’s pointed out that humans were designed for cooperation, but only with some people, that is within groups, in the context of personal relationships. Our brains didn’t evolve for cooperation between groups.Hence, all the “Me vs Other” played out on a societal scale, where the “Me” becomes “Us”. So “Without some perceived OTher, we’d have no one to carry our projections; we’d be forced to face the truth that the unacceptable Other is within each of us.” (#4603)
(Next is mentioned the influence of Christianity and its ego-syntonic members of the “trinity” [which he says “systematizes” denial of the “unacceptable Other”], on the shaping of Western culture, and how other religions have a quaternity of deities, with one representing that base, unacceptable side. But this ignores that the Son, though “good”, still bore the Shadow of sin for us. A fourth Person was not necessary.
[This can lead to the debate of whether the “Azazel goat” of the Day of Atonement or Yom Kippur (which is today!) ritual, who ultimately had all the sin symbolically placed on him, and sent off into the wilderness, represented Christ or Satan. “Orthodox” apologists generally protest that that would essentially add Satan as a fourth entity in our redemption, in addition to the Father, Son and Spirit. However, those who say it is Satan, which I’ve seen among the sabbatarian groups, point out that Satan is the one banished in the end, never to return].
So whenever projecting onto others, we can ask “what function-attitudes does the ‘threat’ seem to be acting out…? What archetypal energies do we associate with this “Other? What archetypal reactions are triggered in us?”
There’s also the possibility of cultural typology influencing this as well. Mentioned is that the split between US conservatives and liberals seems to be according to “two different family models”. The conservatives take a “strict father” model where human nature is flawed and must be tamed and molded into “right behavior” by rewards and punishments to train people to survive in a hostile world. As I’ve been pointing out for years, it’s a “scarcity-based view”, where there must be “winners” and “losers”, and that right behavior leads to success, while wrong behavior leads to failure. (Hence, social “entitlement” programs promote laziness). Of course, this is supposed to be based on “the Biblical doctrine of ‘sin'”, which liberals had long rejected. But what the conservatives fail to remember is that this “flawed nature” includes they themselves, and this whole approach is based on Law, which was necessitated by the “knowledge of good and evil” that marked the Fall to begin with. It lacks “Grace”, and then one’s own ongoing sin (or societal sin) must be denied, in order to prove that one has “earned” success. This is why, for instance, they deny racism and its effects, while then casting blame on the victims of it (and then proceed to put down “victimhood”).
So the liberals use the “nurturing parent” model, which is more in accord with Jungian thought. Human nature is basically good if properly guided and supported (which we see is what the conservatives have long condemned them for). They have an “abundance-based” view that assumes individuals will succeed if their parents protect, support and enable them to find out “who they are”. (And the conservatives are right to an extent, that this is an ideal that fails to take into consideration human sin. But again, they too as well, in setting up their own ideals).
Of course, there are flipsides of this, like Christian writer Michael Horton criticizing conservatives for one of the same points as liberals, in that human nature is basically good, if properly guided. It’s just that their “rewards and punishments” are the “proper guiding” in their view! This again, is where they fail to see their ideal is no better than the liberals.
So Hunziker points out that both groups exist within the prevailing ESTJ American typology, where Si takes on the Parental role, and its shadow, Se, the Witch/Senex. So they see each other as “shadowy Bad (Se) Parents of our society”. Liberals see conservatives as lacking empathy that a parent should have, while conservatives see liberals as overly permissive . (But they also see them as overly authoritarian, toward the general, tax-paying public. Liberals can charge that conservatives are overly permissive to corporations and banks). He points out “the trouble is, that the current U.S. culture is a no-very- functional version of ESTJ typology“.
In this chapter, he also cites Lenore’s book, p.8, that societies tend to favor some typological configurations more than others. “Types that are well represented will have more options for using their strengths, but they are also less likely to see the limits an possibilities of social institutions”, while uncommon types will have to “work harder to be understood, but are less likely to be seduced by a collective illusion”. (Earlier, in the ch. 5 section on “Individuation” he also cited her from p.24 on us being “hardwired for the kind of tension that makes change possible”).
Chapter 14 is on Spirituality and Creativity and 15 is Health and Wellness
“Spirituality is about engaging our human body/mind to attain deeper awareness of what our lives really are and how to live them happily and successfully—to remember our ‘original instructions’ rather than arrogantly attempting to impose our ego will in an attempt to control our lives. Instead of trying to dam and redirect the flow of the river of live, the spiritual part of us humbly accepts the capriciousness of that river and seeks to swim with the current”. (#4729)
“Being ‘responsible’ doesn’t imply that we have complete control and therefore are culpable for everything that happens. Our responsibility is simply to participate in our well being. Blaming is ego-directed judgment, always based on the flawed assumption that we know, from our ego-perspective, what we should do and things should be. It seems out sense of who we could be—an idealized self-image—raises our expectations of ourselves and thus increases our disappointment and frustration when we fall short”. (#4979)
This is what I’m grappling with. It seems unbalanced, as some types (like Se and Te-preferrers) have more of a talent for “swimming with the current” (or at least seeing the opportunities to exploit it with the least resistance), and thus gaining the most power and influence in the world (this would be the “temperament” part of “Timing-Talent-Temperament”, and it also makes the “talent” part easier to cultivate, and then “timing” or forces out of our control get dismissed, and then they often get credited as if it were pure will on their part), and then the rest of us have to bend our will and “roll with the punches”.
At #5238, is discussed from Myers’ Gifts Differing how “satisfaction can and must be earned”, which children don’t learn if they are never allowed to fail, or “everything works for them”,so they become “spoiled” and don’t learn that it must be be earned) , where if they are never allowed to succeed, or “nothing works”, and thus don’t learn that it can be earned. But I believe that our notions of “earning” are skewed to begin with, ignoring these factors that are beyond our control. Yet the “narratives” created and widely held still posit that some have completely “earned”. The above quote acknowledges that we don’t have complete control, but in practice in the world, the message is that we do. This makes it difficult to know how or when to just “participate”, and what “swimming with the current” or “our proper role in the system” (as mentioned at the end, below) really means.
(Then is mentioned “increasingly or predominantly ego-initiated volition”, which reminds me of the shadow constellations, which are said to be Self-dispatched).
Also covered is addictions and compulsions, which stem from a sense of “incompleteness”, and the focus on punishment assumes it’s all a matter of “will”. “The Me is successfully resisting the internal ‘Other’, perceiving it as a threat. Facing an entrenched, fortified ago-resistance, the natural response of the unconscious is increasingly insistent and powerful attempts to break through and the ego in turns, with increasingly desperate defense, including, at some point, even other unthinkable destructive behaviors”. As we demonize and resist the activities of the activated unconscious functions, what we’re really yearning for is the integration of the Anima or Animus ‘soul function'”. “the ‘hole’ that addictive and compulsive behaviors are making a misguided attempt to fill is the felt shortcoming of the integrity of the self that results from such a sense of inferiority. And the perceived ‘pain’ is the associated shame”.
Chapter 16 is Decision-Making and Problem-Solving. The eight FA’s are listed as an outline of “steps” in a decision-making process. It’s pointed out how in four “natural” function processes, “it tends to be the extraverted versions of each function unless individual typology or team culture brings certain introverted functions to the fore”.
Chapter 17 is on Parenting, Teaching and Learning Styles. Early childhood is a period of experimentation, where they learn which mental processes work best for them, and then go back to them more an more, thus “developing” skillsets” around them. Any dynamic of power and responsibility versus incapacity and dependence (such as employees and bosses, political leaders and followers, and even spouses) may be an occasion for the possible interactions of the Parent and Child functions. If it’s coming from the Child, it will have an emotional tone of helplessness and vulnerability. Yet it will also take on more than it can handle and then become overwhelmed and withdraw in fear. This is what has elsewhere been called the “inflation and deflation” specifically described for the tertiary. Given are examples of several FA’s in the Child position. We are cautioned “In dealing with someone; Eternal Child…the nurturing, supportive and protective energy of the archetypal Mother or Father is not always what’s needed. Sometimes, the Critical Parent role must be assumed to set necessary limits”.
Chapter 18 is Cultivating Effective Leaders, Workers and Teams, and the final chapter, 19 is “saving the World”, which shows how “ego inflation” is humans’ “Achilles heel”. “We can and do operate on self-constructed, inaccurate ideas of who we are, we ignore information that does not reinforce our faux self image, and we live in false relationship with our environment. The three basic requirements for successfully participating in any system are thus distorted by our mistaken notions of who we are—of our proper role in the larger system”. (#5436) This then becomes collective also, such as religious and political “isms”, which further reinforce flawed notions of our place in the world. “We project our problems and waste most of our precious time and energy blaming and fighting ‘Them’. Humanity is in a state of collective hubris with an unjustifiably inflated notion of its own wisdom and importance”.
So if the roots of the problem is in ego inflation and shadow projection, then what’s needed is “depth typology”.
So again, this is a must read for anyone trying to understand or introduce or familiarize themselves with Beebe’s model, and Jungian theory in general. It certainly will help one understand Beebe’s book better.