Following the US election results, I have been finding it hard to help people who feel distressed, hurt, and confused after the victory of Donald Trump. Politics aside, I understand this as stemming from a collective traumatic wound that is felt not only as triggering but as re-traumatizing. Clients feel victimised and angered, and two of them said this week that they would like the destruction of the other side and those who represent it, while at the same time grieving for the division of their people. When this group attempts to understand the other side and recognises that their voting also comes from collective trauma, they can only reconcile their worldviews by thinking that the opposite side is wrong, misinformed, or manipulated. This places them in a superior ontological position, and they either want to educate or pity them. Unsurprisingly, this asymmetric relationship is not welcome, as this is felt as patronising and condescending, and not as an equal ontologically speaking. This situation transcends the US; even though I don’t live in the US, I have relatives that do, and it has been challenging to have a conversation with them about this. I wanted to organise my thoughts, so I am writing this blog to help me communicate these ideas in a way that is therapeutic and leads to healing, growth, and transformation, rather than remaining stuck in a victim position.
As I was reflecting on my week’s work, I realised that a lot of my couples therapy work, or where there are relationship problems, involves validating the other, and that this is very difficult when one feels hurt by them.
I want to be able to help clients connect better with the “other” so that they can each see themselves in the other, in the same way that we try to help clients integrate parts of their psyche and internal conflict in order to transcend dichotomous positions. I am drawn by Jung’s ideas of the psyche, especially the collective unconscious, the shadow and of archetypes that encompass and symbolise important driving forces of our psyche. I am also drawn to evolutionary theory and it has been written about how these archetypes also correspond to evolutionary drives (for example, by Stevens, 1982). I think that once the ideas of archetypes or general principles are understood, one can have a conversation at the level of values and archetypes rather than necessarily about “facts”, however one would need to include in the conversation how one believes one’s values are threatened and why they are important.
For instance, we may want to help clients to work on integrating and owning their shadow, which consists of parts of the psyche we tend to reject.This would also involve taking responsibility with regards to the harms that those aspects can cause and at the same time recognises that the opposite archetype is not represented by its shadow (its toxic elements) but by its positive and necessary aspects.
In politics, the "right" often embodies qualities of authority, tradition, and the father archetype associated with Logos, structure, and discipline. The father archetype of course is not a literal representation of a father or traditional male authority. It symbolises rationality, structure, boundaries, discipline, and restraint. It represents the principle of differentiation, providing clarity, limits, and the capacity to say "no" when necessary. Ideally, the father archetype protects and sets boundaries that enable growth. It embodies the principles of responsibility, the ability to overcome obstacles, and the promotion of individual competence and agency. It is important to highlight that the gender may not necessarily be directly related to the archetype as we embody both male and female aspects, as in Jung’s concept of anima and animus. If this archetype becomes distorted by its shadow, this protective function can become shadow into authoritarian control (toxic masculinity) if it becomes rigid and domineering.
In healthy expressions, the father archetype is not oppressive but guiding, providing structure that helps individuals and societies grow. However, when this archetype is demonised, dismissed as inherently toxic, ignored and invalidated we lose its balancing qualities, creating a cultural vacuum that can be filled by its distorted counterpart. The needs for boundaries and discipline is pathologised through a tendency to conflate healthy expressions of discipline, authority, and structure with authoritarianism or oppression. The “left” on the other hand, is related to the mother archetype, symbolically associated with Eros, represents care, nurturance, and the communal. It embodies qualities of compassion, empathy, and the desire to care for the collective. While these qualities are essential, in its shadow (toxic) form, they can become overbearing or smothering when not balanced by the structure and discipline of the father archetype. In this form, nurturance and care can become overprotective, stifling individual growth and autonomy. This archetypal energy manifests as a kind of maternal control that prioritises safety and comfort to the point of inhibiting risk-taking, personal responsibility, and the development of competence. An unbalanced mother archetype might promote dependency and fear of separation, mirroring dynamics seen in enmeshed family systems where the child is unable to differentiate from the parent. Therefore, the shadow often manifests as dependency, victimhood, or a reluctance to take personal responsibility and these are what constitutes as threats to the balanced father archetype. The "Devouring Mother" archetype, when projected onto cultural institutions, can manifest as an overprotective state that limits freedoms in the name of safety and care, potentially leading to authoritarianism masked as nurturance.
By equating all expressions of masculine authority to toxic masculinity, we risk suppressing healthy masculine traits like assertiveness, risk-taking, and the drive for achievement. This suppression can lead to resentment, alienation, and a crisis of masculine identity, especially among young men, and unfortunately leads to the rise of toxic masculinity again and further polarisation. So what is perceived as a cultural dismissal of the father archetype by conflating toxic masculinity with the protective one (as seen often when right wing ideas are referred to as extreme or far-right) alienates the individual and causes further injury. I believe this is what drove people to vote for a candidate that often represents the toxic aspects of masculinity in an attempt to rebalance the toxic aspects of the mother archetype. The same of course takes place when the mother archetype is dismissed by conflating its “toxic” shadow aspects with the healthy necessary ones.
I have for some time used the metaphor that in order to row a canoe in a straight line, we need to row to the left and to the right, otherwise we start moving circles. An important point here extending this metaphor is that we are not going to correct what is seen as veering too much to the left by rowing further to the left, albeit in a moderate and healthy expression of the archetype; instead, if it is perceived that by rowing right the course is straightened this is what it is going to happen (and what has happened), however there is the risk that it may be overcompensated and steered too much to the right in which case the course may need to be straightened again by rowing left again next time.
Integration takes the form of recognising that both the mother and father archetypes can work together to raise a balanced, metaphoric societal child. Neither archetype is inherently good or bad; they are complementary forces that, when balanced, provide a holistic foundation for both personal and societal development.
For instance, the synthesis of the masculine (Logos) and feminine (Eros) principles can create a more adaptive and resilient cultural framework. Logos brings clarity, order, and differentiation, while Eros offers connection, compassion, and unity. Together, they allow for both individual growth and communal care. Culturally, we must create space for healthy expressions of both masculine and feminine energies. This involves reclaiming the father archetype as a source of positive discipline, guidance, and protection, while also honouring the mother archetype's nurturing and inclusive aspects. The path forward therefore, should involve recognising and integrating both archetypes, allowing for a culture that values both boundaries and nurturance, order and care, individual responsibility and collective compassion fostering a more balanced and integrated cultural psyche.
Meditative Practices, may be also helpful by focusing on both archetypes to help the client experience a felt sense of balance between the archetype that encompassess compassion and the other that encompasses discipline and restriction including the archetypal father and mother figures and their interplay. Focusing and recognising and owning our own destructive shadow side is also essential, since when this is not conscious, it is acted out and we perpetuate a cycle of injury and trauma.
Using principles from Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), we can embrace the dialectical tension between these opposing forces. Instead of viewing them as mutually exclusive, we see them as interdependent. The challenge is not to eliminate one side but to hold the tension of opposites and find a synthesis that includes the strengths of both.
In therapy, one may want to engage the client in dialogues with these internalised aspects as in Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy (for example, the strict father versus the nurturing mother) to explore how these figures influence their worldview. It stands that their lived experience with these archetypes will reflect the formation of those “protective” parts. We may also try to identify where unconscious biases against one side might reflect unresolved aspects of the self. For instance, a rejection of "personal responsibility" might indicate a resistance to one's own autonomy. A compassionate enquiry into the origins of their resistance to certain political ideas may involve exploring childhood experiences with authority (father figures) or collective care (mother figures) and we may find beliefs that prevent the client from integrating new perspectives. For instance, the client may fear that integrating right-wing principles (e.g., self-discipline, overcoming obstacles) could mean disregarding their lived experience of injustice. Other examples of “blocking beliefs” may include, "only my side can see the truth; everyone else is brainwashed.", "I must stay in pain to honour my suffering", “if I change my mind, it would mean I was wrong all along”, “the other side is too dangerous or ignorant to engage with”, "If I stop fighting, nothing will change”, etc. Here, various internal parts of the client from both sides of the argument can have a dialogue about what each part is trying to protect or express without seeing these as mutually exclusive.
The goal is to transcend duality by recognising the value in both perspectives. This helps the client hold the tension of opposites, a key process in achieving psychological wholeness. Another way of looking at it is as finding the middle path or balance, where the client can embody the strengths of both sides without falling into extremes.
Integral Theory, developed by Ken Wilber, also offers a useful framework for transcending political dichotomies. Where multiple Perspectives Are True but Partial. Each political ideology (e.g. left and right) represents a different aspect of a more complex reality. Transcendence Includes, integrating the healthy aspects of both the left (empathy, equity) and the right (stability, discipline), forming a higher-order synthesis that respects the truths of both. This can look like engaging in dialogue where the focus is on shared values rather than divisive policies. For instance, both sides might care about well-being and security but differ in their approach. Identifying these shared values can help shift the conversation from antagonism to collaboration.
Particularly in the context of interpersonal relationships, Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) principles can also be useful as it focuses on holding the dialectical tension of opposites, a skill that can help individuals transcend black-and-white thinking and foster healthier interactions. A DBT-informed approach would help the client see that both perspectives have inherent value and can inform a more holistic understanding of societal dynamics. In relationship conflict, differing views are seen as complementary rather than antagonistic. A key aspect of DBT is using validation as a key skill in fostering healthy interpersonal relationships. This involves recognising and acknowledging another person's feelings, thoughts, and experiences without necessarily agreeing with them. This skill is crucial when integrating opposing political or ideological perspectives.
DBT identifies six levels of validation, from basic listening to radical genuineness. In the context of integrating political perspectives: 1. Active Listening: Demonstrate attentive listening to the other person’s viewpoint. 2. Reflective Validation: Reflecting back what you’ve heard, acknowledging the underlying emotion or belief without judgement. 3. Mindful Validation: Recognising the historical or personal context that informs the other person's beliefs. 4. Normalising: Acknowledge that given their experiences and values, it makes sense for them to hold their viewpoint; and 5. Radical Genuineness: Engaging authentically, expressing an understanding that the person's viewpoint is part of their deeply held values. DBT encourages finding a synthesis that honours the valid aspects of both positions. The therapist can guide the client in exploring how they can hold both truths simultaneously, leading to a more integrated stance. Integration therefore does not mean to compromise in a way that negates the client's values but rather a transcendence of the dichotomy. The aim is that the client can hold a complex, enriched worldview that includes both sets of archetypes in equal measure without negating their personal experiences of suffering or injustice.
A challenge is that each party usually engages in this synthesis by thinking that the other doesn’t understand, or doesn’t see the reality (for example, through ignorance or being misinformed), where one truth is more valid than the other. However, this leads the other to feel condescended to/patronised or being seen as unequal or less than the other, which does not lead to true synthesis or a balanced/equal relationship. It is therefore necessary for individuals to develop flexibility in their thinking. This means exploring the possibility that both sides might have partial truths or that their own perspective might be incomplete while understanding how their identity may be linked to some beliefs. This approach does not invalidate one’s political beliefs but rather creates space for the possibility that the opposing view might have its own internal logic or truth.
This requires epistemic humility, which is the recognition that our knowledge is always limited and partial. This stance can be particularly useful in politics, where complex issues are often simplified into binary oppositions. This can make us more resilient to be able to embrace uncertainty and complexity. Intellectual humility exercises might include practices that challenge certainty such as asking oneself, "What evidence might exist that contradicts my current belief?" or "What could I learn from the other side if I approached this with curiosity instead of defensiveness?". Role reversal exercises, or “Stealmanning” can also help by encouraging individuals to temporarily argue from the other side’s perspective, in order to genuinely understand the emotional and cognitive underpinnings of a given viewpoint.
In interpersonal relationships, the challenge often lies in seeing the other person’s stance (e.g., conservative versus liberal) not as inherently antagonistic, but as an expression of underlying needs or fears. For instance, a preference for the "protective father" archetype (right-wing) might be rooted in a need for safety and security, whereas a focus on the collective care (left-wing) might be linked to a need for belonging and feeling accepted. Therefore, instead of arguing the content of the beliefs, explore the underlying emotional needs they represent. This can create a shift from conflict to connection, where both parties feel seen and validated.
When groups carry unprocessed trauma, whether from historical injustices, cultural upheavals, or existential fears, these traumas become intertwined with political ideologies. The ideology then serves as a container for the trauma narrative, providing a sense of coherence and identity but also playing out dynamics where the roles of victim, perpetrator, and rescuer can easily be identified. In Transactional Analysis, this dynamic is known as the Karpman Drama Triangle. When a group or individual identifies deeply with one of these roles, it shapes their worldview and political stance. In left-leaning ideologies, which tend to emphasise systemic injustices, inequality, and the plight of marginalised communities, the narrative centres around the experience of being oppressed or exploited by powerful forces (e.g., corporations, the wealthy, patriarchal structures). For those on the left, the right can be seen as embodying the perpetrator archetype, oppressive, controlling, and dismissive of the vulnerable. Conversely, those on the right may perceive left-leaning policies as a form of coercive control, stripping individuals of autonomy and imposing a collectivist agenda. Both sides often view themselves as the rescuer, the left seeing itself as advocating for justice, protection, and systemic change, while the right as defending individual freedoms, personal responsibility, and traditional values.
To transcend this cycle, we can aim to shift a destructive cycle into a constructive one as represented by the “Empowerment Triangle” by working towards changing focus from conflict and blame to collaboration and growth (after validating each other’s suffering as described in the DBT approach above). Here, the victim becomes the creator. Instead of viewing oneself as powerless, the shift is towards seeing oneself as a Creator of their own reality. This perspective invites both sides to acknowledge their agency in shaping the future, rather than being stuck in a narrative of helplessness or blame. The perpetrator becomes the Challenger - a force that can push for growth and innovation. Lastly, the rescuer becomes the Coach, guiding and supporting others without imposing solutions.
Personally, I have found writing this helpful. Having these conversations at an abstract level can be helpful, rather than getting into a discussion about facts. Talking in this way with clients or friends and family, can serve as a bridge offering common ground.
References
Alexander, J. C. (2012). Trauma: A Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bly, R. (1990). Iron John: A Book About Men. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Emerald, D. (2009). The Power of TED: The Empowerment Dynamic. Polaris Publishing.
Farrell, W., & Gray, J. (2018). The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It. BenBella Books.
Gendlin, E. T. (1981). Focusing. Bantam Books.
Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. New York: Pantheon Books.
Hanh, T. N. (1998). The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching: Transforming Suffering into Peace, Joy, and Liberation. New York: Broadway Books.
Harris, T. A. (1967). I’m OK—You’re OK. New York: Harper & Row.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1812-1813). Science of Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence—From Domestic Abuse to Political Terror. New York: Basic Books.
Hillman, J. (1996). The Soul's Code: In Search of Character and Calling. Random House.
Johnson, R. A. (1991). Owning Your Own Shadow: Understanding the Dark Side of the Psyche. HarperOne.
Johnson, S. M. (2004). The Practice of Emotionally Focused Couple Therapy: Creating Connection. New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Jung, C. G. (1953). Psychology and Alchemy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jung, C. G. (1959). The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness. New York: Delta.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Karpman, S. (1968). Fairy Tales and Script Drama Analysis. Transactional Analysis Bulletin.
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder. New York: Guilford Press.
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Skills Training Manual for Treating Borderline Personality Disorder. New York: Guilford Press.
Linehan, M. M. (2015). DBT Skills Training Manual. New York: Guilford Press.
Maté, G. (2019). The Wisdom of Trauma. Documentary and associated works.
Mindell, A. (1985). Working with the Dreaming Body. Routledge.
Neumann, E. (1954). The Origins and History of Consciousness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Peterson, J. B. (2018). 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos. Toronto: Random House Canada.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On Becoming a Person: A Therapist's View of Psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Schwartz, R. C. (1995). Internal Family Systems Therapy. New York: Guilford Press.
Stevens, A. (1982). Archetype: A Natural History of the Self. London: Routledge.
van der Kolk, B. (2014). The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma. New York: Viking.
Wilber, K. (1996). Integral Psychology: Consciousness, Spirit, Psychology, Therapy. Shambhala Publications.
Wilber, K. (2000). A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science, and Spirituality. Boston: Shambhala Publications.
Wilber, K. (2000). Integral Psychology: Consciousness, Spirit, Psychology, Therapy. Shambhala Publications.
Comments