Archetypes character

An alternative to comparing yourself against constructed types or profiles is to compare yourself against archetypal characters. An archetype is an original model, a prototype, a universally recurring type. In this sense the Transform/ Sheffield authors saw their levels of management development as archetypes. 

Five such archetypal characters, redrawn slightly so that they are recognizable as managerial types, are described in Box 10.3. Probably all of us can recognize some aspect of our self in at least one of these archetypal characters, possibly in several of them. 

It is possible that one particular archetype dominates our behaviour. If so, our persona may be so wrapped up in it that our repertoire of responses to varying situations is blinkered and limited. The greater risk from these stereotypes, however, lies not so much in falling into their patterns, but by not being aware that one is doing so, and being blindly attached to that style of behaving. But normally we all from time to time play most of these archetypal characters. 

In addition to the five archetypal characters described in Box 10.3, we need also to compare ourselves with the archetype of the wise owl. Wise owls were described in Chapter 6 as managers who can handle the politics of their... 

The Bearers attitude to the world, therefore, is essentially one of submission in the service of others. Much of their potential energy is consequently suppressed. They are the archetypal martyr or beast of burden. In mythology, they are symbolized by Atlas. Such characters can even get to look as if they are permanently carrying the world on their shoulders. 

There is often an ambivalence in the Protector s character. Although they seemingly protect and support others, they themselves like to be taken care of, have their affairs looked after. This dependency can cause them to be demanding of attention, which drains and exhausts others. They are the archetypal parent. 

Note on sources These archetypes derive from a drama workshop on mime run by Oily Crick using archetypal masks devised by John Wright of Middlesex University, and the work of Alexander Lowen (1958) on character archetypes. Some refinements come from Relph (1980), Keirsey (1987) and Beilin Partnership notes. 

An altogether different way of looking at your management development in the context of your life and career is provided by a unique book by Carol Pearson entitled The Hero Within (1989). Subtitled Six Archetypes We Live By, the book describes characters we may Inhabit as we move through life. Within each archetype Pearson sees a heroic element, which we need to discover and bring out in ourselves. 

Three of Pearson s archet5rpes, the Innocent, the Orphan and the Martyr, broadly correspond to the archetypal managerial characters, Improviser, Protector and Bearer, described in Box 10.3. The difference is that Pearson has focused more on depicting the negative or shadow sides of these archetypes than I have. But three of her archetypes, the Wanderer, the Warrior and the Magician, described in Box 11.2, are of a different order. These are the heroic archetypes. 

Appearing at the meeting point of history, legend, and myth, Hermes Trismegistus is a tricky character to pin down. He shifts roles and identities from one moment to the next. As the archetypal trickster he is the inner and outer teacher, the balancing point between aU polarities, often referred to as Hermes or Mercurius. 

Perhaps the most challenging dimension for the writer is to create a character who is both an individual and an archetype. At what point does the little boy in The Red Balloon become every little boy At what point do the two men who carry the wardrobe in Two Men and a Wardrobe become everyman In both films the repetitive behavior of the characters is excellent habitual signage, but we have to turn to the plots to illustrate how the archetype is... 

Realism suggests that a balloon can t be human and that slavish devotion to a wardrobe is either extreme anxiety or sheer madness. An antirealistic approach, on the other hand, tolerates the humanized balloon and the devotion to a dresser. When a balloon becomes the stand-in for a human, the discovery of the little boy in each of us is not far behind. Fantasy in the plot is the first prerequisite in creating a character who is both a type and an archetype. 

A second prerequisite for the creation of an archetype is to frame the story in a genre that favors such a use of character. Satire, the fable, and the morality tale all use character in such a way that an archetype is very useful in supporting the core idea. 

Finally, the catalyst that begins the plot can be a tool in creating an archetype, if it is an event with which the audience can readily identify the delivery of a letter mailed four years earlier from a post office seven blocks away the arrival of a draft notice the traffic gridlock that prevents the character from arriving for the job interview or the long-anticipated date of the semiformal. All of these catalytic events create a situation each of us can identify with. 

What is the advantage of creating a character who is both type and archetype Essentially, there is the layer of complexity arising from the kind of identification the viewers have with the situation of the character. When an archetype is created, the space for symbolism becomes even greater, and consequently the meaning of the film can be more layered than is first apparent. 

This, however, still leaves many options. Stories about children often lend themselves to the moral tale. They also lend themselves to excess and fantasy. A good example here is Peter Brook s Lord of the Flies. Novels such as Orwell s Animal Farm have their filmic equivalent in George Miller s Babe in the City. Stories about animals, such as the above mentioned, are naturals for hyperdrama. So too are stories set as fables. Even a film like Warren Beatty s Heaven Can Wait becomes hyperdrama when issues of birth, rebirth, angels, and Heaven become active elements of the narrative. Finally, stories about mythical figures or periods, such as Vincent Ward s The Navigator, work well as hyperdrama. In these stories, the characters are either archetypal or they are metaphors serving the moral tale that is at the heart of the narrative. 

Mary Shelley s character Frankenstein has become an archetype in its own right, universally referred to and providing the dominant image of the scientist in twentieth-century fiction and film. Frankenstein is the prototype of the mad scientist who hides himself in his laboratory, secretly creating not an elixir of immortality but a new human life, only to find he has created a Monster. Not only has his name become virtually synonymous with any experiment out of control, but also his relation with his creation has become, in popular misconception, complete identification Frankenstein is the Monster. The power of the Frankenstein story can be attributed to the fact that, in its essentials, it was a product of the subconscious rather than the conscious mind of its author and thus, in Jungian terms, draws upon the collective unconscious of the race. 

Archetypes in old stories are not literal. Authors apply the technique in a midrashic sense. Compound characters display all the traits that the author seeks to convey to the reader. Some aspects of the characterization are indeed fact but others merely fantasy. Historical archetypes often play a role in many eras, sometimes under alternative names. 

---