Attitude of the Auxiliaries

Whee, I just got a new MacBook. What better way to break it in than to blog about an idea that's been mulling around in my head?

Okay, I've done a ton of reading by Jungian analysts about the auxiliary. Just as I've done in some of my previous entries, I want to start off by talking about some of the ways this has been interpreted in the MBTI theory, then what some of the more traditional Jungian interpretations are. After I do that, I'll toss my own ideas into the mix.

The MBTI states that there is a dominant function, an auxiliary, tertiary and inferior function. The theory states that the dominant function is in the opposite attitude of the dominant. It also states that there is a "tertiary" (i.e. the third function). Some (but not all) MBTI theorists suggest that the tertiary is in the same attitude of the dominant function. This doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, since each function is buried in a deeper layer of unconscious, with the dominant the only fully conscious function. Since Jung's system is divided along I/E lines, if the third function were in the same attitude as the dominant, that would mean it was more accessible than the auxiliary. However, if it's more accessible than the auxiliary, then it wouldn't be the third function. By definition, "more unconscious" means less accessible to consciousness. It should be noted that not all MBTI writers hold to this position, and I've seen some get out of the muddle by simply not specifying which attitude the third is in.

Many Jungians don't use the phrase "tertiary." Rather, they refer to an auxiliary and a third function. In some cases, they say "auxiliaries" meaning the second and third function. Where there is some dispute nowadays is in whether the auxiliary is in the same or opposite attitude as the dominant. Those who say it's in the opposite attitude hold that both auxiliaries and the inferior are in the same attitude. Those who say it's in the same attitude hold that the dominant and both auxiliaries are in the same attitude with the inferior in the opposing attitude. So, for example, someone that held to what I'm going to call the "Opposite Attitude Thesis" (OAT) would say that if you were an introverted feeling type with auxiliary sensing, you'd be like this: introverted feeling-extraverted sensing-extraverted intuition-extraverted thinking. Under the "Same Attitude Thesis" (SAT) the person would be as follows: introverted feeling-introverted sensing-introverted intuition-extraverted thinking.

The conflict over this arises out of differing interpretations of one puzzling phrase in Jung's Psychological Types:

For all the types met with in practice, the rule holds good that besides the conscious, primary function there is a relatively unconscious, auxiliary function which is in every respect different from the nature of the primary function.

So, one might interpret this as saying that, if it's different in every respect, if you're an introverted type, the auxiliary would be extraverted. However, a paragraph above, there is another passage which complicates matters:

Experience shows that the secondary function is always one whose nature is different from, though not antagonistic to, the primary function.

Now, Jung goes on to talk about it in terms of functions. So, if you were in favor of the OAT, you could argue he's only talking about the functions, not the attitudes. However, if you take that position, you have to bite the bullet and say that, in the next paragraph, he's only talking about the functions when he says "different in every respect" as well. The proponent of SAT could additionally argue that since Jung thought the greatest difference was between the introverted and extraverted attitudes, that having a supporting function in the opposing attitude would be antagonistic to the dominant and therefore could not be an auxiliary.

In this article, Andi Lothian explains how, for the longest time, it was nearly blasphemous to suggest that the auxiliary could be in an opposing attitude. While Marie-Louise von Franz doesn't specify an attitude for the auxiliaries, her frequent use of "inferior" to describe both the fourth function and the opposing attitude suggests she held that view as well. She states,

This barbaric quality of the inferior function which is mixed up with the other attitudinal type is one of the great practical problems and constitutes the great split of the human personality, for not only has one to switch from one function to another, but with the fourth function one definitely has to switch to the other attitudinal type, and then one risks (or even cannot avoid) being temporarily possessed by the opposite attitude and thereby become barbaric and unadapted.

(Psychotherapy, pg 121)

Obviously if (a)one has to work through the auxiliaries before getting to the inferior and assimilating it and (b) the difficulty of assimilating the inferior function is due in part to having to switch to the opposing attitude, then the other two functions would need to be in the same attitude as the dominant...if they weren't, then one wouldn't have to switch when they got to the inferior, they would have already done this.

Now, some people like Spoto advocate the OAT approach, although he also allows for an "aberrant type" which can be in the same attitude of the dominant. However creative Spoto's idea may be, this may be a bit too loose, and runs contrary to Jung's intent. Under Spoto's aberrant type, you would have a personality that was more comfortable with ambiguity, and may be more emotionally volatile. Unfortunately, he allows for any possible auxiliary, so thinking could have feeling as an auxiliary or sensing accompanied by intuition . The problem is this pretty much would unravel the whole cornerstone of Jung's system: not only does he (many times) explain how the opposing type always represses the expression of the other, but he considers the greatest challenge to be assimilating of the inferior function. However, if a person could have extraverted thinking with auxiliary feeling, then what would the inferior function even be? This seems to remove it entirely. A more probable explanation seems to be that the people who seem to use both are really caught in the throes of a dominant/inferior split, where the inferior was cropping to the surface so much that it seemed more well defined in the personality. The emotional volatility that Spoto recognized would then be better attributed to the touchiness of the inferior function erupting on a frequent basis.

As is no doubt obvious, I'm more persuaded by SAT. However, Andi Lothian makes a compelling suggestion: that we could expand it to a total of 32 types, allowing for the auxiliary to follow either the SAT or OAT pattern. I would guess that people who are better described by OAT might rely more exclusively on the dominant function or take longer to integrate the auxiliary, since they have to make an attitudinal jump. You could think of it as something similar to the enneagram theory, with wings and instincts. Just as there are Social 4w5s , Sexual 4w3s etc, there are NiFis and NiFes, etc. I think the hierarchy of type would go something like this:

8 functions--> so basic qualities and same core issues for people of the same function. e.g. all introverted thinking types have to wrangle with inferior extraverted feeling.
Function + auxiliary-->A distinction is made in how the function is fueled, for example thinking fueling philosophical speculation in introverted intuition with thinking versus fueling artistic vision with feeling.
Function+auxiliary+attitude-->the attitude the auxiliary is in determines how it is expressed. So, as the auxiliary differentiates, how it is expressed is determined through which attitude is dominant.

I do think you need to stick to the traditional auxiliary function breakdown (e.g. rational type with irrational auxiliary and vice versa), otherwise it just becomes an attempt to account for everything to the point of losing its value as a construct and a psychological tool...but allowing for either attitude as subtypes gives enough flexibility to incorporate both theories. I would say, the important thing is to stay consistent: if you're an introverted sensing type and determine yourself to have extraverted feeling, then your thinking has to be extraverted too. No attitudinal leapfrogging, please.

Jungian Functions and the Fine Arts

So, I'm acutely aware of summer rapidly approaching its end. In just over two weeks, my teaching appointment for the semester begins, and a week after that, I'll be teaching two undergraduate philosophy classes, as well as taking two graduate text seminars. I have a few ideas I've been tossing around, so hopefully I get them all done. Once the semester starts, my posting may slow down again. I'll probably focus on my personal(ish) blog when the time allows. (When being the operative term.)

In the meantime, here's something quick(ish) that I've been tossing around for awhile.

There are certain associations people make about Jung's types and the arts. One of the myths I've seen most frequently is that artistic production belongs to the realm of the feeling types. In actuality, all of the types have some contribution to the arts, but the different functions have different areas of mastery.


Intuition: Jung is quite clear in Psychological Types that intuition represents artistic inspiration. This is the sort of "aha!" that comes in, where one has a sudden inspiration or idea. This makes no claim to the ability. The person could be a tormented genius like Blake, or they could be that guy who sits around in a cafe, writing really bad poetry that everyone secretly wishes he won't ask them to read. There is something very unstructured about this. It is pure inspiration, what the ancient Greeks often referred to as divine madness. If you would like to get an idea of what this looks like, go read Plato's Ion on this website. It's one of Plato's shorter dialogues, and the section on divine inspiration gives you a good idea of this process.

Sensing: Sensing is the function most associated with artistic production. It's the sensing type who can do really detailed, realistic drawings, paintings and sculptures. In contrast to intuition, which has inspiration but can often lack technique, sensing types are skilled with technique, but may have trouble with the risk taking and imaginative leaps that the intuitive type is so comfortable with. As you can imagine, both are essential to artistic creation, and either in the extreme could result in artistic failure: the intuitive type fails on account of being pure idea with no way of communicating it, while the sensing type fails by doing technically proficient works that are nonetheless uninspired. This exemplifies the need for both types to become integrated with the inferior function. When the sensing type becomes more integrated, she's able to be more courageous in her work, while the intuitive type who engages her inferior sensing is able to finally master the technique necessary to make her inner vision comprehensible to others.

Thinking: Thinking is what gets us theory. In the extraverted thinking type, this lends itself (as von Franz points out) to the art historian who situates the work of art in a movement. It's extraverted thinking that determines what sort of art is thought to belong in a museum, what school it belongs to and what year a certain work was likely created. By contrast, introverted thinking type asks questions about what a work of art is, what sort of criteria we ought to have to determine both what qualifies as a work of art and how one ought to conclude whether or not a work of art is "good." The introverted thinking type might, for example, look at The Museum of Bad Art's website, and say, "Well, wait a minute, what sort of criteria are you using to determine 'bad art?' What do you mean by 'bad,' for that matter, what do you mean by 'art?'"

Feeling: The feeling function would most properly belong to the MOBA site referenced above. The feeling type rules neither artistic production nor artistic inspiration, but rather rules the judgments made about art. This is not the same as an intellectual process used to determine how art relates to a concept or to the data, but rather, a pre-set criteria through which the art is deemed good or bad. For the extraverted feeling type, this will refer to social norms. How art fits the current standard will be the criteria. For example, the extraverted feeling type might look at the latest trends in the art world as shown by a magazine like Art Forum and, when viewing a work of art, determines whether or not it ought to be viewed in a respectable museum. The introverted feeling type's aesthetic judgment will be keen as well, but will be based on some sort of internal criteria which is hard to articulate, and will simply be experienced as a moving experience. Edvard Munch's The Scream is deemed a beautiful work of art because it is very moving, the person relates to it or because they had some sort of aesthetic experience while viewing it that is difficult to articulate and even harder to pin down.

Again, both of these are rather one-sided. The philosopher of art who has never had an aesthetic experience won't be able to say anything meaningful about the work itself. She may try to concoct a logical proof for determining a work of art's worth, which, to the feeling type, will seem to miss the point entirely. By contrast, the feeling type without considering either the history of the work or the philosophical questions behind it gets reduced to the "I don't know a lot about art but I know what I like" stereotype. She may seem at best to subordinate the work to her own pre-existing expectations and at worst will only mimic the views of others. Each function has to engage with its opposite to really have any sort of insight into the artwork.

From here, you can piece together the likely approaches from the combining of the dominant and auxiliary. Remember that the dominant will be the most prominent. The auxiliary serves the aims of the dominant only loosely and until deliberate efforts or circumstances push the auxiliary to fully differentiate, it will usually be more toned down. (Some people, though, have both so well developed that it can be hard to determine which their dominant function really is.) This probably shouldn't be used to type others, since Jung considered that to be not only difficult but contrary to the system's intent. (Most Jungian analysts suggest he would have been against the use of personality inventories too, and that the only way to really learn your type is to live with the system for a long time. Not to say you can't use them if you find them helpful, but even MBTI practitioners urge just using it as a starting point and that ultimately you, not the test, are the best judge of your type.)

However, where the aesthetic approaches may be helpful is in getting a deeper understanding of what each of the functions does. In that sense, it can help with self-typing. Also, as so much of Jung's system was developed through examining the type problem in philosophy, literature and the arts, I believe the approach to aesthetic issues to be yet another useful avenue in finding one's own type. Examining one's approach to the arts in light of this may reveal important information about the self which can then be used as a starting point for further self-exploration.