Brilliant article and I'm familiar with Jungian analysis and shadow work, but regarding these archetypes are they not too restricting? Though useful in character creation for creative fiction do they not fall short of the reality?
Whenever confronted with a limiting archetypal model, it begs the question 'Why only these personas?' Take the female tripartite goddess model of "Mother, Maiden, Crone", would any woman accept that they can ONLY fit into these classifications? Are women so restricted to these roles that are based on child bearing and the inability thereof? Likewise, are men so simple as to be either violent, sagely, amorous or controlling? Do not the seven ages of Man as portrayed in Shakespeare's As You Like It more apty define male gender roles?
Furthermore, I have issue with the King archetype as being the epitome of a "complete man" and can such a man ever exist? A kingly man is an amalgamation of the other three archetypes. If you succeed in incorporating them all and then slip due to some form of hubris and lose an element of an archetype are you no longer kingly? The shadow of the king are surely all of the shadows of the three other archetypes.
The king itself represents control. It is inherent to kingliness, to be authoritarian even if justified. But can a man only be complete if he is in full control? Is there not something to be learned in knowing you have no control?
I have no answers, only thoughts and questions. Perhaps more depth and variety could be found in character creation by instead considering The Tarot as archetypes? Consider the man as Hermit, as Fool, Priest, Death etc.
You have inverted the logic here. Rather than fitting these limited archetypes into personalities, they often serve as the pillars or lighthouse to what young men should try to emulate to have a fulfilled or a complete personality. These are meta-traits, hence regardless of one's occupation, desires or goals in life, men would benefit if they acquire these traits.
Interesting point! From a psychoanalytical perspective though these archetypes are more often seen as caricatures or labels by which to measure an individuals personality or personal mental growth. Of course one could emulate any of the traits of these four archetypes but it raises the question of who decides what a "man" should be?
My point and i think i rambled too much to make it clear is that, these four archetypes are too restricting. You say that "men would benefit if they acquire these traits", but would they not benefit from acquiring traits of other archetypes? Though I love Jungs work the moment we start to simplify individual personas is the moment we over simplify human beings, who are complex, multifaceted creatures. Perhaps the only thing that would "benefit" from these four archetypes is a rigid social structure?
Consider ancient pagan deities, these are archetypes that people attempted to emulate, and they had their flaws or shadows, but there were never just four of them, and further the gods were maleable, they altered with time, the cultures that adopted them and the social values at any given time.
So, a young man may try to emulate these archetypes to become the king or "complete" personality, but I fear he will be very lacking and incomplete a person.
I understand what you're saying but I think this article just touched upon those archetypes rather than describing them on their whole. There must be more to them.
I would go the other way too. Or rather, it would depend upon which way you're drawing the causal arrow .
Like generalizations in sociology. The generalization is just an average, and helps you understand the bigger picture within which different individuals fit. But the generalization doesn't negate the distribution of individuals along whatever scale. If the average man is 5'7 tall, it doesn't negate the 7-ft basketball player, or the 5 ft horse jockey. They're both men. The average is just the average .
Stereotypes are a problem when we try and fit that actual lived humans that are the data into a model. The horse jockey and the basketball player are the actual real people, and there's nothing wrong with them. The wrong part is to say that there is a problem with them because they're not 5'7 average.
As such these archetypes are great for writing, drawing characters, understanding mythology, and perhaps giving direction to our lives. But every man, every woman, is his or her own entity, and these expressions just might help us understand them as individuals.
So these archetypes are just the model, not the boxes we're trying to squeeze real humans into. At least that's my read.
Forgive me, but I am so confused by your comments here. I am going to reference both of your above comments throughout my reply. You say a lot in both of your comments here, but much of it is moot and the rest just circles in contradiction. I wholeheartedly disagree with you and wonder if we read the same article. You ask if these archetypes are too restricting... in what way? I can't wrap my mind around a king or a magician being restricted in any way. They are so useful in character creation because art is many, many times often rooted in some token or glimmer of truth. Art imitates life imitates art imitates life etc. Do they not fall short of reality? Of course they fall short of reality, one of them is Gandolf, but you're burying the headline.
I think you simplify these examples and undermine their back stories. Shakespeare's 'Seven Ages of Man' speech is not comparable or interchangeable with what the author has done here. Shakespeare utilizes clever, delicate prose to detail the literal aging of man. The writer gives four critical, compelling, and complex characters that do illustrate depth and diversity. I disagree that these characters are used as labels or caricatures to measure anyone's personal mental growth. Again, I think you're missing the point. You ask who decides what a man should be? Men. These four protagonist masculine archetypes have detailed, existential, personal trials and tribulations. This provides ample layers for empathetic relatability and inspiration. She was clever to use shadow theory to highlight the weaknesses and failures of the characters. It destroys the idea that this is too narrow a selection or lacks masculine relatability.
All the ramblings about being king, I think you've taken it too literally. Perhaps you don't have a good reference point of the archetype she's referencing. But there's also nothing simple in being the king. Sacrifice. Lots of sacrifice in these character studies.
The part where you really lose me is the coo coo bananas idea to include four random Tarot cards and a handful of anonymous Pagan deities to fill the need for emulation and variety.
The author missed the mark by not including Tarot Cards: Fool, Death, Priest, and Hermit as well as the malleable Pagan deities!? And you don't you think your suggestions fall short of reality? You may need to reposition your perception of reality and men. On behalf of Aragorn, I'm totally incredulous.
Obviously these archetypes serve as a basis, a reference point.
They are also bound by morality, societal and cultural constraints.
Hillman arguably developed a more complex and interchangeable array of archetypes that serve as a basis.
In shadow work, or the modern journey towards Individuation - often played out in the therapist’s office rather than via pre modern rites of passage; one benefits from adding personal touches, experiences and essentially using them as an outline from which to build upon.
My main issue at this point is the unhelpful, unrealistic, persistent portrayal of men as buffoons, boors and perpetrators.
In commercials we are often portrayed as clueless, with a woman entering in order to correct our ineptitude via instruction.
And evermore pervasive is the portrayal of men in film as representative of an outdated, corrupt moral system, with the flawless feminine epitomising a new era of ‘betterment’ - pointing didactically and scornfully at the new way.
Whether this is just the manifestation of a cultural pendulum swinging too far one way, or indicative of Hollywood taking advantage of the cultural zeitgeist I’m not sure.
I do know that it is not representative of reality. We do have a responsibility to help balance the historical books, yet being constantly scolded, instructed, and reduced isn’t helping. It’s almost as if we are reaching a point we just existing as a man comes with a set of unwritten dark potentialities that need to be protected against.
Pre-emptive legislation and checks and balances like coercion and control, men being presumed guilty based on accusations without evidence concerns me.
However those are conversations for another time and place.
I think this is excellent and worth deep consideration by all men. The problem is that we run the risk of "thinking too highly of ourselves" by aspiring to be more than clueless buffoons in the eyes of society. Any conversation whatsoever on healthy masculinity and what it means to be a man is met with judgement and derision and plays off of instant assumptions that we're descending into toxic masculinity simply by asking the question. And so, because of what you mentioned in your second-to-last paragraph regarding automatic presumption of guilt, men have slowly walked themselves into an archetype that I'll just call the Jester—the obsequious and passive buffoon.
An excellent book, I found it very illuminating and better than Jung at capturing archetypes of the masculine. Very practical too. I strongly recommend both men and women to read and understand.
Well said. This reminds me of something I wrote about male friendship: "If friendship is addition, male friendship is linear algebra: much less intuitive and orders of magnitude more complicated. It is a strange equation made up of aggression, degradation, hostility, loyalty, competition, and love."
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Matt 20:25-28)”
Moore and Gillette have nicely exposed the mythic blueprint behind every complex male character while warning at the same time what happens when those archetypes are forgotten.
One could argue that men today lack what it takes to succeed in a single archetype. However, they’re more likely stuck between archetypes and no one ever taught them the way through.
Thank you for adding this thoughtful analysis to the Substack readers’ discourse! It is consciousness-raising, reminding us of the numinous aspect of life! Please keep your work coming! I love this!
Brilliant article and I'm familiar with Jungian analysis and shadow work, but regarding these archetypes are they not too restricting? Though useful in character creation for creative fiction do they not fall short of the reality?
Whenever confronted with a limiting archetypal model, it begs the question 'Why only these personas?' Take the female tripartite goddess model of "Mother, Maiden, Crone", would any woman accept that they can ONLY fit into these classifications? Are women so restricted to these roles that are based on child bearing and the inability thereof? Likewise, are men so simple as to be either violent, sagely, amorous or controlling? Do not the seven ages of Man as portrayed in Shakespeare's As You Like It more apty define male gender roles?
Furthermore, I have issue with the King archetype as being the epitome of a "complete man" and can such a man ever exist? A kingly man is an amalgamation of the other three archetypes. If you succeed in incorporating them all and then slip due to some form of hubris and lose an element of an archetype are you no longer kingly? The shadow of the king are surely all of the shadows of the three other archetypes.
The king itself represents control. It is inherent to kingliness, to be authoritarian even if justified. But can a man only be complete if he is in full control? Is there not something to be learned in knowing you have no control?
I have no answers, only thoughts and questions. Perhaps more depth and variety could be found in character creation by instead considering The Tarot as archetypes? Consider the man as Hermit, as Fool, Priest, Death etc.
Again good article! It raises many questions.
You have inverted the logic here. Rather than fitting these limited archetypes into personalities, they often serve as the pillars or lighthouse to what young men should try to emulate to have a fulfilled or a complete personality. These are meta-traits, hence regardless of one's occupation, desires or goals in life, men would benefit if they acquire these traits.
Interesting point! From a psychoanalytical perspective though these archetypes are more often seen as caricatures or labels by which to measure an individuals personality or personal mental growth. Of course one could emulate any of the traits of these four archetypes but it raises the question of who decides what a "man" should be?
My point and i think i rambled too much to make it clear is that, these four archetypes are too restricting. You say that "men would benefit if they acquire these traits", but would they not benefit from acquiring traits of other archetypes? Though I love Jungs work the moment we start to simplify individual personas is the moment we over simplify human beings, who are complex, multifaceted creatures. Perhaps the only thing that would "benefit" from these four archetypes is a rigid social structure?
Consider ancient pagan deities, these are archetypes that people attempted to emulate, and they had their flaws or shadows, but there were never just four of them, and further the gods were maleable, they altered with time, the cultures that adopted them and the social values at any given time.
So, a young man may try to emulate these archetypes to become the king or "complete" personality, but I fear he will be very lacking and incomplete a person.
Thanks for the comment, it was very engaging.
I understand what you're saying but I think this article just touched upon those archetypes rather than describing them on their whole. There must be more to them.
That's interesting.
I would go the other way too. Or rather, it would depend upon which way you're drawing the causal arrow .
Like generalizations in sociology. The generalization is just an average, and helps you understand the bigger picture within which different individuals fit. But the generalization doesn't negate the distribution of individuals along whatever scale. If the average man is 5'7 tall, it doesn't negate the 7-ft basketball player, or the 5 ft horse jockey. They're both men. The average is just the average .
Stereotypes are a problem when we try and fit that actual lived humans that are the data into a model. The horse jockey and the basketball player are the actual real people, and there's nothing wrong with them. The wrong part is to say that there is a problem with them because they're not 5'7 average.
As such these archetypes are great for writing, drawing characters, understanding mythology, and perhaps giving direction to our lives. But every man, every woman, is his or her own entity, and these expressions just might help us understand them as individuals.
So these archetypes are just the model, not the boxes we're trying to squeeze real humans into. At least that's my read.
Forgive me, but I am so confused by your comments here. I am going to reference both of your above comments throughout my reply. You say a lot in both of your comments here, but much of it is moot and the rest just circles in contradiction. I wholeheartedly disagree with you and wonder if we read the same article. You ask if these archetypes are too restricting... in what way? I can't wrap my mind around a king or a magician being restricted in any way. They are so useful in character creation because art is many, many times often rooted in some token or glimmer of truth. Art imitates life imitates art imitates life etc. Do they not fall short of reality? Of course they fall short of reality, one of them is Gandolf, but you're burying the headline.
I think you simplify these examples and undermine their back stories. Shakespeare's 'Seven Ages of Man' speech is not comparable or interchangeable with what the author has done here. Shakespeare utilizes clever, delicate prose to detail the literal aging of man. The writer gives four critical, compelling, and complex characters that do illustrate depth and diversity. I disagree that these characters are used as labels or caricatures to measure anyone's personal mental growth. Again, I think you're missing the point. You ask who decides what a man should be? Men. These four protagonist masculine archetypes have detailed, existential, personal trials and tribulations. This provides ample layers for empathetic relatability and inspiration. She was clever to use shadow theory to highlight the weaknesses and failures of the characters. It destroys the idea that this is too narrow a selection or lacks masculine relatability.
All the ramblings about being king, I think you've taken it too literally. Perhaps you don't have a good reference point of the archetype she's referencing. But there's also nothing simple in being the king. Sacrifice. Lots of sacrifice in these character studies.
The part where you really lose me is the coo coo bananas idea to include four random Tarot cards and a handful of anonymous Pagan deities to fill the need for emulation and variety.
The author missed the mark by not including Tarot Cards: Fool, Death, Priest, and Hermit as well as the malleable Pagan deities!? And you don't you think your suggestions fall short of reality? You may need to reposition your perception of reality and men. On behalf of Aragorn, I'm totally incredulous.
Obviously these archetypes serve as a basis, a reference point.
They are also bound by morality, societal and cultural constraints.
Hillman arguably developed a more complex and interchangeable array of archetypes that serve as a basis.
In shadow work, or the modern journey towards Individuation - often played out in the therapist’s office rather than via pre modern rites of passage; one benefits from adding personal touches, experiences and essentially using them as an outline from which to build upon.
My main issue at this point is the unhelpful, unrealistic, persistent portrayal of men as buffoons, boors and perpetrators.
In commercials we are often portrayed as clueless, with a woman entering in order to correct our ineptitude via instruction.
And evermore pervasive is the portrayal of men in film as representative of an outdated, corrupt moral system, with the flawless feminine epitomising a new era of ‘betterment’ - pointing didactically and scornfully at the new way.
Whether this is just the manifestation of a cultural pendulum swinging too far one way, or indicative of Hollywood taking advantage of the cultural zeitgeist I’m not sure.
I do know that it is not representative of reality. We do have a responsibility to help balance the historical books, yet being constantly scolded, instructed, and reduced isn’t helping. It’s almost as if we are reaching a point we just existing as a man comes with a set of unwritten dark potentialities that need to be protected against.
Pre-emptive legislation and checks and balances like coercion and control, men being presumed guilty based on accusations without evidence concerns me.
However those are conversations for another time and place.
I think this is excellent and worth deep consideration by all men. The problem is that we run the risk of "thinking too highly of ourselves" by aspiring to be more than clueless buffoons in the eyes of society. Any conversation whatsoever on healthy masculinity and what it means to be a man is met with judgement and derision and plays off of instant assumptions that we're descending into toxic masculinity simply by asking the question. And so, because of what you mentioned in your second-to-last paragraph regarding automatic presumption of guilt, men have slowly walked themselves into an archetype that I'll just call the Jester—the obsequious and passive buffoon.
Love this. Clear, concise, and insightful. Thank you
Like I needed another reason to re-read The Lord of The Rings.
An excellent book, I found it very illuminating and better than Jung at capturing archetypes of the masculine. Very practical too. I strongly recommend both men and women to read and understand.
Very nice.
Well said. This reminds me of something I wrote about male friendship: "If friendship is addition, male friendship is linear algebra: much less intuitive and orders of magnitude more complicated. It is a strange equation made up of aggression, degradation, hostility, loyalty, competition, and love."
More here: https://www.whitenoise.email/p/from-boys-to-men-to-friends
Seems to be missing a craftsman figure. The Smith or whatever. Making and fixing is a vital part of many men's lives, from engines to software.
Magician?
That's the Magician! Think of car restoration YouTubers, diorama makers, contractors, mechanics... their force is knowledge + ingenuity.
Mc Gyver TV show character is a mix of Magician and Warrior.
Details about something I knew nothing about. Learning learning learning without feeling bored. Thank you once again!
astrology, but for men
Not really, no. Definitely missing the 5th archetype though, your archetype - the gay
sheesh gottem
“You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Matt 20:25-28)”
Humility, seems to fall under the "lover" archetype
Moore and Gillette have nicely exposed the mythic blueprint behind every complex male character while warning at the same time what happens when those archetypes are forgotten.
One could argue that men today lack what it takes to succeed in a single archetype. However, they’re more likely stuck between archetypes and no one ever taught them the way through.
Thank you for adding this thoughtful analysis to the Substack readers’ discourse! It is consciousness-raising, reminding us of the numinous aspect of life! Please keep your work coming! I love this!
Brilliant! Fascinating how this is all embodied in Tolkien’s Lord of The Rings.
C'mon you're a good page with real scholarly work, brilliant work you usually have... What incel stuff is this?
Absolutely brilliant article- and you use two of my favorite collections of work!
loved this, thanks