When Helping Hurts: The Archetypes of Giving and Receiving Part 4

Part 4 -- The Full Context of Giving and Receiving

For the sake of simplicity, we have talked about the simplest context for giving and receiving, namely, one giver and one receiver.  But in real life, that is almost never the context.  There are significant others surrounding the giver and the receiver, contributing to the complexity of the situation.

In terms of the six-way diagram, imagine a situation where there is a committed couple who have decided to jointly provide help to a receiver. There is a six-way relationship already in place for this couple – their egos are in relationship, and so are their unconscious factors.  They are projecting some part of their anima or animus on each other, and they are projecting some part of shadow onto each other.  Now insert the receiver of the gift.  This will alter the balance of the couple’s relationship.  For example, each of them will probably shift part of their anima/animus and shadow onto the receiver, instead of on each other.  This is the basis of jealousy.  Or one of  members of the couple may project anima onto the receiver, while the other member of the couple projects shadow.  The conversation goes something like this:  “I think things are going very well.  John really seems to appreciate the help we are providing”  “Really?  Are you serious?  I think John is a manipulative schemer.  You only feel that way about John because he is seducing you.  Maybe you actually love John more than you love me.”

It is just as complicated, and potentially destabilizing, when there is a single giver and multiple receivers.  Suppose Sally decides to help John and Chris.  Now it is John and Chris having the conversation about Sally’s motives for giving, Sally’s preferential treatment of John or of Chris, all sorts of motives ascribed to Sally, and so on.  Complexity layered upon complexity.

It can be particularly disturbing to be a friend, spouse, or other significant other observing the six  problematic patterns of receiving.  You can see clearly that your friend is offering help only because he equates giving with loving, and gratitude with being loved.  You are seriously concerned that he is being manipulated.  What do you do about it?  If you interject yourself into this kind of projection, you do so at your own peril.  You sense that perhaps your spouse is living vicariously by giving lavishly and becoming obsessed with the details of the life of the receiver of help.  Again, what do you do?  And, of course, what does it mean about your relationship with your friend or spouse if they seem to be neglecting you in favor of this other person?  Or is that you just projecting your insecurities about yourself into the situation?  Again, complexity layered upon complexity.

The five patterns of giving can also apply to giving and receiving involving multiple people.  Suppose two givers , Carl and Jack are giving to Pauline.  Carl is basically “book keeping” in his orientation, while Jack has another pattern going on, like substituting or manipulative.  Carl, the “book keeper,” wants the relationship with Pauline to balance out, if not immediately, in the foreseeable future.  But, Jack sees it very differently. Jack feels guilty that he can’t give Pauline the perfect fathering she really wants, so he keeps giving Pauline money.  It can’t balance out, no matter how much money he gives Pauline, because it is a substitution model, and money is an inadequate substitute for a loving father.  Or, Pauline is manipulating Jack’s shadow around sexuality.  Jack has sexual feelings toward Pauline, which he can’t really admit, even to himself.  Pauline senses this and manipulates Jack into one sacrifice after another, while Carl looks on, seeing it all very clearly, but reticent to point it out to Jack – from a book keeping point of view, it will only balances out if Jack actually has sex with Pauline, but that feels too much like prostitution.  See  how complicated it can get.

Again, the individuation model is the Jungian ideal, even when there are multiple receivers and or multiple givers.  But just as the individuation model is extremely difficult and rare where there is only one giver and one receiver, it is only more so where there are multiple people involved. The individuation model asks all of the parties to see it as mutual engagement in a drama.  They acknowledge that each of them has a shadow and it is involved in how the giving and receiving will happen – they give due regard to the multiple, overlapping six-way relationships going on.  They know that this drama, like all dramas, has the potential to show each all of them who they really are.  This is perhaps the most important outcome of all.  For the individuation model to actually work, a few things must be true.  All of the parties must be willing to be vulnerable, to admit that they have shadowy motives of which they themselves are only partially aware.  All of the parties must be capable of self reflection and of conscious analysis of what is going on.  The power shadow must be made conscious – in fact, the receiver or receivers might be the more powerful parties, if revelation of shadow and light of consciousness are the criteria.