Archetypes
Everything in human life comes down to stories, and stories are all about relationships. Sociologist Carl Couch uncovered nine fundamental human relationships, and the four "existential concerns" that I’ve referred to in various ways elsewhere each suggest a particular fundamental "character contrast". To me, this amounts to thirteen archetypical pairs (or 26 archetypes in all) that have the potential to apply to almost any human experience. For your entertainment, I here provide a list and summary of each.
Since archetypes are invoked for the purposes of guiding behavior in given contexts, I’ve tried to frame my descriptions of them in terms of roles, experiences, and behaviors. One may find that she or he invokes a number of archetypes in certain contexts, or, perhaps, prefers a particular archetype across contexts.
According to Carl Jung, archetypes emerge from a complex of universal human experiences. A number of archetypes working together, then, constitute a complex of complexes. This suggests that isolating and untangling archetypes can be a tricky proposition. However, with time, focus, and, sometimes, professional help, most people find that they are able to master the archetypes they invoke rather than being mastered by them.
That said, please understand that suggestions I offer for overcoming particular archetypes are oversimplified at best and do not serve as professional or guaranteed advice.
delicious
diggHere are the breakdowns as I originally envisioned them...
Sage vs. Rogue -- Irrelevance
Innocent vs. Elder -- Isolation
Daughter vs. Son -- Impermanence
Genius vs. Idiot -- Ignorance
Friend vs. Enemy -- Solidary Relationship
Lover vs. Rival -- Romantic Relationship
Master vs. Apprentice -- Parental Relationship
Citizen vs. Thief/Miser -- Accountable Relationship
Merchant vs. Patron -- Exchange Relationship
Monarch vs. Subject -- Authoritarian Relationship
Rebel vs. Tyrant -- Tyrannical Relationship
Hero vs. Martyr -- Representative Relationship
Immortal vs. Priest -- Charismatic Relationship
For all you Stuck fans... here's how the characters in the strip were originally conceived to conform to the above pairs (respectively):
Wyrx
Ninja
Vik
Tina
Fay
Knight
Monk
Cap
Sam
Doc
Caesar
Amy
Ray
Breakdown
One thing I'm seeing missing in all of this is the idea of judging these archetypes based on a frame... but I think that's because I'm seeing this within the description of the archetypes themselves to an extent. Some are presented far more "optimistically" than the others... and seen as preferred even.
To me that presents a little bit of a problem.
The frame within which that you judge the traits of each archetype - such as an optimistic frame vs. a pessimistic frame - can be the cause of the conflict (it's not as simple as in "Stuck" land - where the conflicts are created by a true and honest representation of what the character values and how that all plays out)... and it affects how you judge which archetype you are facing in yourself or someone else.
The fact is that every archetype has it's mirror opposite that will give the appearance that you fit in that category, but what can put you there is related to the strength of your fear and your coping mechanisms placed around that. It can present an equally strong and convincing representation of that archetype that is not intrinsic to a core character trait. It would be related to how a person (regardless of the dydaic pair) faces conflict of any sort. Do you accept responsibility and confront or do you deflect - and do you do both of these in the positive vs. a negative way?
Speaking of only negative deflection at the moment - I believe also that fear itself mutates when it's not directly confronted, but deflected and denied. You jump between different dyadic pairs. I find that even my fears - aren't as simply pegged to one dominant pair that I revert back to in a time of crisis. I also see a jumping around between fears as played out in the general romantic narrative that's been discussed on this forum quite a bit. (I'll explain a bit more in a different post.)
If judgment of these archetypes is implicit within the definitions of the archetypes themselves - how to do separate out which one you really are, vs. which one you really want to be? How do you know the social implication of "optimist/pessimist" isn't influencing your analysis? You can't.
Having the judgment implicit in the definition of the archetype is actually very polarizing in and of itself. I don't know of many self proclaimed "tyrants"... so this label and definition mainly serves only to judge others. Simplistically this creates a sort of war type scenario between people of different archetype pairs... much like Stuck, but it also can create a sort of war within oneself about what you want to admit or deny about who you are.
The coping skills one adopts are a manner of self preservation of sorts... so they are very difficult to sort out and break through on ones own. Face the fact that you are the best judge of what is true about yourself and then - so...that's what frustrates me the most about all this. It sets up a "no win" situation of sorts. Are you and optimist as a coping skill or a pessimist as a coping skill - and is this what is driving you to define yourself this way - or are you really seeing your true values and not just your darkest fears about what you think you see about yourself?
In truth ... I think there is a positive way to be optimistic, and a negative way to be optimistic. There is a positive way to be pessimistic - there is a negative way. Though these archetype definitions were meant to be boxes of a sort ... I believe the definitions would be more helpful if the judgement of each archetype presented only the positive optimistic view and the positive pessimistic view of each - outside of the social judgement setting. I think to truly be an archetype and not just a listing of character traits one may desire or not desire - it has to be presented in more neutral terms than what I see in some of these definitions.
From there - what I want to know... in any instance - as applies to yourself or to dealing with someone else - how do you diffuse the negative traits of each archetype in order to form a more true and healthy picture?
"Button pushers" and deflectors make it a point to know how to manipulate another person's fears within these archetypes - and they are good at it because this coping skill is a necessary coping skill in order to survive. They might not even be aware that they are doing it... let's not villify anyone here...
...but how do people who only want to help, not hurt/manipulate (themselves or others) - cut through the bs and the lies to get through to the positive (not necessarily the stereotypically optimistic) point of view? We need some coping tools here too, IMO.
Frames
DL, I see what you are saying about the judgment implicit in the definition. But are you seeing this as a problem because a particular archetype is going to be dominant (and then few would claim a negative as their dominant)? I actually can't think of any on the list that I don't experience sometimes though some I identify with more than others. I would say my tyrant tends to show up in meetings for instance :-)
But I agree that there is a positive/negative to both optimism and pessimism.
Another framing that I think about is just the usual way in which the words are used--"Lover" and "romantic relationship"--I was thinking about that below because to think that Knight represents the romantic relationship is very odd to me at first if I'm thinking of the words in their usual frame in our culture.
Coping tools--hmmm something besides the "if you find this dominating..." advice under the archetypes?
Psychological tool vs storytelling tool
Well there's only a problem if these particular archetypes are used as a sort of psychological evaluation of oneself or others... there will be a temptation to identify with the traits that you want to have - not necessarily the traits that you do have. It's not always easy to have such a balanced view as the one you present. I do believe you're an exception to the rule to be able to acknowledge your "inner tyrant".
A lot of people have a "blind spot" when it comes to their own issues. This will often obscure their perception of other peoples and these other people's "issues" as well.
Because the terms and their archetypical definitions themselves are steeped in the diagnosis of what is good or bad about society - not only is the archetype villified, but also any trait associated with the archetype - whether or not in actuality it is a positive or negative trait. The "good" archetypes and their traits are glorified. People then that are evaluated by these standards are being evaluated not on their own merits on a core level or even by how closely they match these archetypes - but evaluated by what their value is to society as a whole as based on a tally count of how many "positive character traits" they show - to the exclusion of anything negative associated with the "positive" archetypes.
The definitions as they stand are not a good diagnostic tool. The "self help" information at the bottom won't be helpful to a person who is self deceiving or deceived by others because they are "optimistically" looking at a positive archetype in what I would consider to be a negative - or "unrealistic" way. Or conversely - "pessimistically" looking at the negative archetype in what I would consider to be a negative or "destructive" way... not in a way that would help a person reach an understanding of "the tyrant" or any other on the reviled list.
Interesting...
Jung's awesomeness
Heh, very interesting.
I think my kind of archetype is such that, like what Jung says, when an archetype is activated by an emotionally charged event, other related events tend to draw near. In this way the archetype become a doorway that provide us access to the experience of meaningful (and often insightful) coincidence. 
And I like your comment below that using these archetypes helps build you're stories--that makes a great deal of sense.
stories, archetypes, meditation
This meditation book I'm reading has a section on archetypes and talks about meditation as one way people can become aware of some of the more shadowy or frightening aspects of themselves and come to a more full realization of who they are. An important point I found for me was the idea that getting in touch with painful or angry aspects of myself doesn't really mean having to relive them--it's more like awareness is a vessel that holds pain, anger, despair--acknowledges it without having to relive or to judge.
Some stories that use archtypes that really stand out in my mind are "Lady in the Water" (a movie by M. Night Shyamalan which I just saw, Shyamalan generally uses archetypes in all his stories though) and a fantasy series by Patricia Briggs--Raven's Strike & Raven's Shadow. The other things I like about the Briggs books is that they don't have a single heroic figure--the heroes are at first a couple, then eventually both this couple and their children. I also like the way one of the archetypes, the Guardian, is very much a combination of protective and destructive forces.
And then of course there's "Twilighteners"--just haven't figured out quite how those archetypical figures correspond yet--and maybe it isn't a one to one correspondence.
Re: stories, archetypes, meditation
Interesting thoughts.
I should probably dedicate some space here to Jung's archetypes now that I think about it, so folks don't confuse these archetypes I've just "made up" for his. I find these archetypes particularly helpful to me when I'm building a story.
And if you're looking for stories with strong archetypes, don't forget Stuck. 
Stuck
. Hmmm, so does that mean the character in Stuck that you like the best is your dominant archetype? For me that would be Ninja, which would make me "Innocent"? Odd. 
Carl Couch