V

What is an Stereotype?

What is a stereotype? I don't know. Is there any relationship between a stereotype and an archetype? I don't know. What I do know is that most people think a stereotype is something bad, insulting, unflattering or undesirable, and often conclude that such a thing could not possibly have any relationship to anything of archetypal influence like a tarot card. But why? Why can't archetypal influence (as defined elsewhere on this site in the essay What is an Archetype?) contribute as much to the definition of something undesirable, unflattering, insulting or bad as it does to things that are considered good or flattering (see essay on Good and Bad elsewhere on this site)? Personally, I do not see much difference at all between something theorized to be of archetypal influence, like an icon of tarot, and any common stereotype. As I see it, our perceptions that there is any kind of difference between these two comes from two important considerations working off each other: the intent of an author, vs. the perception of a viewer.

In our ongoing interpretation of meaning, those who prefer to internalize the meaning of everything they see might view the contributions of authors to be of minimal interest. People who follow the internalization path typically decide for themselves if something is good or bad, and do not allow the intent of an author to influence them that much. But I see the determination of good and bad as a give and take struggle in understanding. Meaning... if someone knows that the intent of an author was to present something good, in a good way, it might mitigate their perception of how bad it seems to them. Like wise, if they know the intent of an author was to present something bad in a bad way, it might limit the amount of positive "spin" they put on something. Below is a chart to show how I see this give and take exchange working in the creation of good and bad icons of archetypal influence... or good archetypes and bad archetypes... or... a negative disparaging epitome and a positive flattering epitome.

Ultimately, I believe the same equation could also be applied to non-human signs and symbols.

Basically the Valuation Equation chart says: Intent vs. Perception = Value. My intent, vs. someone else's perception, determines how relatively objective the good or bad value of something is within any given context. Archetypal influence is then projected, from this foundation, into the world, as a human icon or character (see The Archetypal Equation chart elsewhere on this site). That icon or character might be illustrated on a card within a tarot deck, or put up on a stage as an actor in a costume. Either way, archetypal influence remains the source of all expression. Thus... I believe that anyone who might accuse someone of perpetuating a stereotype within their tarot deck, is simply expressing their 'Moral Perception' within this Valuation Equation, and would do well to also consider the 'Author's Moral Intent,' before making a value judgment. I also believe that people who refuse to allow an Author's Moral Intent to influence them in making a value judgment are being selfish and narrow minded. Which makes them not much better than the person they are accusing of stereotyping!

A stereotype might be mean, but... whether someone is maliciously stereotyping or not, labels happen. People fall into types, whether we like it or not. For the most part, it can't be helped. In falling into types, some might not like the labels that get attached to them. Others might welcome the labels that get attached to them, seeing them as liberating... or as a comfortable form of establishing a desired identity. Either way, no kind of label will ever be a complete picture of who we are. We will always be individuals... individuals, with multiple facets, like a diamond... each facet getting a label to describe it, in order to differentiate it from the others. Thus... the facet that we most frequently face forward to the world (our persona), will be the label that gets used most often to describe us - like it or not. But that does not mean that other facets don't exist. It just means that it's up to each individual diamond to sparkle as much as it can. Those that don't sparkle, run the risk of falling into stereotypes they don't like.

-----

Limiting Labels

Lots of people use frequency of occurrence throughout cultures as an important part of their definition of what an archetype is... by pointing to how often certain personality types reappear within and between cultures, and thereby contribute to the idea of what Carl Jung called a collective unconscious, or what this study of consciousness calls a Universal Consciousness. In defining these icons of archetypal influence, very short and simple descriptions usually follow: the mother figure, the father figure, the wise old man, the fool etc. These are not complex and elaborate descriptions. In defining a stereotype, many claim that stereotypes are insulting because they are limited descriptions of a person. If lack of complexity defines something as an insulting stereotype, then how do we locate the threshold between a complex character that is the embodiment of archetypal influence, vs. a less complex character that is seen as a stereotype? Any time someone describes a "type" of person, a person who is that "type" can come forward to declare that that is not all they are about, and that the person describing them is insulting them by focusing on limited parts of who they are. So how much do we have to show, to not be in violation? Who decides how much we have to show to not be in violation?

The movie "The Breakfast Club" dealt with High School stereotypes. It had an assortment of characters that we see recurring again and again in our culture. They were summed up with very short descriptive titles: The Brain, The Jock, The Criminal, The Princess, The Basket Case... and The Authoritarian as portrayed by the oppressive teacher. I knew types like the ones in the Breakfast Club movie, when I was in high school. Sometimes it was a phony facade. Sometimes it was accurate to who they really were, whether there was more to them or not. What's the difference between an insulting stereotype and someone expressing who they are by flocking together with birds of their feather? Don't people just sort of fall into the type they are, without any help from others? And then go about displaying who they are with appearances and attitudes that are typical? Isn't that just putting their archetypal essence first, before the full complexity of their character? Everyone is a hybrid of types, with incomprehensible complexity. Often one facet emerges as dominant. What's evil or bad about focusing on the dominant archetypal influence of someone, separate from their other influences?

The movie "Revenge of the Nerds" also portrayed stereotypes, but they were the good guys. How is that possible? They were stereotyped as nerds, but the intent of the author was to portray them as something good. So... audiences cheered for them as heroes. How does that change our perception of a stereotype? If limiting the complexity of a character is to be considered evil, shouldn't we be declaring every formulaic movie clichè as grounds for objection? If we did, what percentage of movies would we consider to be clichè - i.e. using stereotypes or formulaic plot lines with formulaic characters? I'd say... just about ALL! So the question remains... how much showing of a character is required to not be accused of evil stereotyping? And if someone creates a character with enough complexity to not be seen as an evil stereotype, don't we end up with a character that is a hybrid of multiple influences? Wouldn't a character that is a complex hybrid of influence be less "essential" and more of a "compound?" Wouldn't being a compound make that character more removed from that of archetypal essence? Conversely, doesn't limiting the complexity of a character reduce it to a truer more fundamental essence of archetypal influence? Wouldn't that make it a well defined character... archetypally speaking?

EVERYONE wears a costume that says something about them that is not a complete picture of who they are. In a similar manner, characters in a theatre wear costumes to help the audience know who they are. In the end, aren't we all just walking stereotypes, being judged unfairly by people every day of the week? Isn't it the people in the audience of our theatre who are guilty of disregarding what lies beneath - our authored intent? If we are all wearing costumes of our own choosing, to identify who we are to the world, what do we call something that FAIRLY categorizes and judges us? What do we call a character, in a movie or real life, that is a shining example, or the quintessence of something... meaning... not a complex and layered hybrid, but something that is simple and true to a fundamentally inspired influence that is archetypal ? Simple, obvious, and easy to understand... is that always going to be viewed as an insulting stereotype? If a character is necessary to a story, but there is no time to develop complex layers and show what's beneath the surface, is it automatically an insulting stereotype? If someone is trying to be simple, for the sake of children, is every character they create automatically considered an insulting stereotype? Let's pretend that our goal is to tell a story that kids will like, with simply drawn characters that they can easily understand, are they all insulting stereotypes... just because they are not complex?

The point of the Breakfast Club movie was to show how the costumes that people wear are not all they are about. But, at the same time... the costumes they wore were accurate to part of what they were about. So it was the people within the movie, and the people in the audience, who were categorizing and judging unfairly. But regardless of whether any judging was occurring or not, the costumes were not inaccurate, and... did not go away at the end of the movie. Each character remained a representation of their type, while also showing other facets to their existence. Their dominant facet did not go away. It remained forward as a primary representation of their persona, and they took on a certain pride in their defined identity with that major facet. Which begs the question of what would happen if someone were to take those same characters, and instead of writing a story about how hurt they felt by the stereotypes they had fallen into, what if they wrote a story about how they all worked together as a team to solve crimes or something? What if we changed the story to be about how each character's stereotypical presentation of personality is utilized, like a specialist, to help a team? The Brain is the brains of the operation. The Jock is the muscle. The Criminal is a deceiver. The Princes is a beguiler. And... before we know it, It's starting to sound like an episode of the old TV show Mission Impossible. Hmmm, the TV show Mission Impossible: insulting stereotypes, or specialists, utilizing their primary archetypal influence to its best advantage?

Stereotypes link a single person with a group that they may or may not want to be associated with. Take "The Jock" from "The Breakfast Club" as an example. Some people don't mind having the label Jock attached to them, because it implies some athletic prowess that they already know they are guilty of flaunting and are very much proud of. Others might take it as an insult, thinking that it implies that someone is all muscle and no brains. Stereotyping is... typing, or type casting... saying to an individual that they are such-n- such a type, based on observed characteristics, or known associations. Our observations may be limited, or inaccurate, or unfair, or they may be spot on. In any case, whatever label we put on someone will not be complete. Such is true of verbal labels, as well as visual labels, or... how we portray archetypal influence in the iconic images of a tarot deck. Because... when it comes time to actually interpret archetypal influences into the visual image of an icon on a tarot card, an artist, no matter how good they are, eventually has to make decisions about what to draw, as a representation of what they archetypally "see." They have to make decisions about costume, pose, props, facial expression, backgrounds, historical time frame etc. Each and every one of those decisions imposes a personal bias, and limits the range of expression for that image. No drawing can say everything an artists wants it to say, so every drawing could ultimately be criticized as being an insulting, limited stereotype, or some other grotesque attempt to categorize and label different types in limited ways. It doesn't matter if it is a flattering image or an insulting image... as an iconic image, with costume, pose, props, expressions, backgrounds, historical time frame etc. it is a grotesquely limited expression. That's why I don't see much difference between an anthropomorphized icon of archetypal influence on a tarot card, and a so called stereotype. Every archetypally refined image is a stereotype!

Lots of people think that the image we see on a tarot card is an archetype, and that a stereotype is something else that is insulting. But in fact, most experts consider an archetype to be an invisible conceptual notion, or a transcendent pattern of nature, that lies beneath, or behind the actual image. Thus... in this way, the image we see is not an archetype, it is an "archetypally inspired" image, that... by occurring frequently throughout cultures and times, becomes an icon, or paragon, or... stereotype!

-----

The Ugly Truth

Telling someone that they fit such-n-such a stereotype my be taken as insulting or not. An insult may have been intended or not. According to my Valuation Equation chart, if intent and perception agree that something is not insulting, it's a Positive Flattering Epitome, if intent and perception agree that something is insulting, it's a Negative Disparaging Epitome. In either case, if archetypally inspired, BOTH outcomes will be seen as expressing archetypal influences i.e. recurring patterns seen over and over again within and between cultures and times. Or, in the case of human embodiments, recurring patterns of behavior that are seen over and over. Whether a flattering label, or an unflattering label, a person could object to either one as being inaccurate to the totality of who they are. Thus I conclude that a stereotype can point very accurately to recurring archetypal patterns as much as anything. I also think a stereotype can go to the heart of a matter just as much as anything. The ugly truth hurts, it cuts right to the bone. Ask anyone who has had an unflattering stereotype attached to them. Stereotypes often depict an ugly side of life, or are used when someone's intent is bad. That, to many, is their purpose. But, I propose, that their purpose or intended usage does not make them any less archetypal.

If my intent is to depict the embodiment of archetypal influences in a way that does not intend to exalt the human condition, but instead has the desire to depict the worst of our human condition, what do we call that archetypally inspired portrayal? Every culture has unseemly or undesirable characters in their mythology. Undesirable characters are often portrayed as stupid, ugly, mean, weak, suspicious, wretched, destructive etc. etc. What do we call a malicious, ugly, representation that is drawn from an archetypal "knowing" of recurring patterns seen throughout cultures and times? No such thing? Because it happens to be a character that no one would ever want to be, it can't be archetypal? I don't think so. The ugly truth may hurt, and we can apply the label of stereotype to it as a way of pushing it away in denial. But I believe archetypal influence does not know the difference between good and bad, and will always provide a source for either without prejudice or bias. We then use those mythological expressions as we see fit, to help or hurt... to describe the best of life or the worst of life. Some of us then use them to describe each other in very limited, and sometimes insultingly brief ways.

-----

Archetypally Inspired

One day, I purchased a calendar that featured a series of paintings of Pirates, by artist Don Maitz. In the accompanying text he said that it was his desire to paint an 'accurate view of an age where mankind's horizons were being expanded.' He goes on to say more about the nature of those times. Then he says 'When one adds greed, drunkenness, and opportunities afforded by slow communication on wide oceans to tarnished altruistic principles, and exciting mix of human stereotypes is revealed that I find engaging.' I thought that was interesting. People describe stereotypes as inaccurate, and yet this particular artist said he was trying to be historically accurate. Is he wrong to call his creations stereotypes? People say that stereotypes are based on superficial characteristics that debase the human condition. But I didn't get the feeling that Don saw his paintings as superficial characteristics meant to debase more than elevate the human condition. He didn't say "I hope you enjoy my attempt to pigeonhole and marginalize a group of people with superficial characteristics meant to debase and poison the human condition with degrading stereotypes." Was he using the word stereotype incorrectly? How'd that get past the editors and publishers? Perhaps what he actually meant was to describe his paintings as:

"A conventional or formulaic conception or image" - Dictionary.com.

Based on a dictionary definition of stereotypes, it sounds like a stereotype doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. Looks like it can just mean formulaic, conventional, and... who knows, maybe even archetypal. Personally, I don't see being formulaic as intrinsically evil or degrading to the human condition. Once again, the intent of the author is important to consider. If an author's intent is to degrade the human condition, or attack a specific group or type of people, then a conventional, formulaic depiction that accentuates the undesirable characteristics would be effective. However, if that author is writing a sit-com for TV, maybe their intent is to laugh WITH a group of people that they know are willing to laugh at themselves. Lots of people laugh at Jeff Foxworthy's "You might be a Redneck" jokes. Lots of the people who laugh, are laughing because they see themselves, or people they know and love, but who have foibles that are worthy of jest. It's good to laugh at ourselves. Other people, however, might use a stereotype to laugh AT a group of people. If someone said "kill all rednecks" and used Jeff Foxworthy's jokes to help people identify them, ridicule them, and vilify them, that would be an evil use of stereotyping. Thus, intent and perception combine to define the good or evil of an archetypally inspired stereotype.

Flattering stereotypes or unflattering stereotypes... it doesn't matter, they are all drawn from archetypal influences, and in that way are as cross cultural as anything. Take those Breakfast Club characters. The movie review that I read called them stereotypes. But doesn't every school in every culture have a "brainy" type? Doesn't every culture have a rebellious or "criminal" type? Doesn't every culture have a "jock" type? Each expression of a jock might not dress exactly like the jock in the movie, but one who focuses on the physical and athletic, possibly to the detriment of their intellect, is probably a pretty universal type. Same with the "princess" stereotype. Doesn't every culture have its share of princesses who obsess over perfect appearances? Aren't these so called stereotypes drawing on some pretty universal patterns of behavior seen across a multitude of cultures throughout history? Wouldn't that frequency of occurrence make them archetypally inspired stereotypes?

-----

Formulaic Halloween Fun!

I've been told that if I want my deck to have strong appeal, it has to be an accurate representation of recurring patterns in life. I agree, and I think it is! In fact... in an effort to prove the validity of that opinion I would challenge anyone to a simple test of tarot decks! To frame the parameters of this challenge, I would point to the idea of how costumes worn by tarot icons, as well as actual living breathing humans, reveal their archetypal associations, and would subsequently bet anyone that kids, trying to choose a costume for Halloween would understand the icons in my deck much easier, and in less time, than the icons of most traditional tarot cards! I think a lot of people forget how utterly esoteric traditional tarot images appear to people at first glance. While on the other hand, every Halloween, kids dress up as Beauty or Beast, Hero or Villain, Wizard or Witch, Angel or Devil, God or Ghoul. These are all characters from my decks! Thus, I would challenge anyone to walk into any Halloween costume shop and ask for a costume that represents any of these icons - either by name or by my drawn image... I bet they'll have them all, ready to go. Then... ask them for their "Hanged Man" costume, or their "Chariot" costume, or their "Judgment" costume. Ask them to show you their "Temperance" costume, or "Wheel of Fortune," or "Tower,' or "World."

People who don't like my decks might accuse them of including insulting stereotypes that represent an oversimplified opinion with a prejudiced attitude. Does that mean that when someone sends their little girl out for Halloween dressed as a Beauty, or an Angel or a Witch, they are using their child to express an oversimplified opinion, with a prejudiced attitude? When they send their little boy out for Halloween dressed as a Wizard, Devil or Beast are they teaching their children how to stereotype, and showing the neighborhood what prejudiced bigots they are? Is Halloween one of those archaic practices that is no longer politically correct and should be abolished? Should we picket the costume stores and demand that they burn all of these evil stereotypes?

Are my icons stereotypes? I think... in the best possible way, they might well be. Because of things like Halloween, they certainly repeat every year, like a fixed or general pattern. Like Don Maitz's pirates they are all conventional or formulaic conceptions or images... or standardized mental pictures that are held in common by members of a group i.e. just about everyone! I think that makes them not only stereotypical, but also very archetypal ! A stereotype may be insulting at times. But I don't see being formulaic and conventional in the personification of an archetypal pattern as insulting. People may prefer multivalent symbols, and multifaceted personalities, because they are more interesting to study. But to really get at the true essence of something, I believe we really can't beat simplicity. To me formulaic means simple. A formula is also a pattern. If I am trying to convey to someone the essence of a basic, simple, primordial pattern, why not be formulaic? To me conventional means patterned. If I want someone to have immediate recognition of what I'm saying, why not be conventional, instead of esoteric? Formulaic and conventional might have some bad connotations among those striving to be unique, but I believe the idea of using very simply crafted, highly recognizable personifications as representations of essential patterns is a sound practice. If people see that as insulting, and don't want to see is as archetypal, that's fine with me, but I would not agree that it is necessarily evil, and definitely not inaccurate. We all see the characters in my tarot deck again and again and again... every Halloween, and throughout all of our movies, books, plays and costumed mythology.

-----

Icons of Tarot

In conclusion... I think the limitations of our language are at fault here. If the image is not an archetype, but only archetypally inspired, then what is it? What do we call these conventional, formulaic, ever-repeating personifications of archetypally inspired essence? Some call them icons, reserving stereotype for insulting intent. I say we call them all stereotypes if they fit the criteria of being archetypally inspired and seen throughout cultures and times. I say we call them stereotypes, regardless of how someone might use them to flatter or insult. By this criteria, I think the so called stereotypes of The Breakfast Club are archetypally inspired.

In my opinion... the so called stereotypes from The Breakfast Club movie are pointing to archetypally inspired notions that I believe to be isomorphically identical to that of common tarot cards. The Brain points to the same use of intellect as The Magician. The Jock points to the same ideas of power and influence as The Emperor. The Princess points to the same ideas of sensitivity and perfection embodied by The Empress. The Criminal points to ideas of deceptive behavior and evil influence embodied by The Devil. The Basket Case hides under her hood and hair, like a High Priestess under her veils. And The Authoritarian teacher points to the word of law embodied within the Hierophant. I think it would be rather simple to conclude that because a characterization is unflattering, disparaging or used to hurt, that it can't be archetypal, or point to archetypal influences. But that is an opinion coming from a perspective that views an archetype as a primordial pattern and not the anthropomorphized icon, or manifest image seen on a card. I see the Breakfast Club characters as the embodiment of the same primordial patterns as their associated tarot icons. The way I see it, the evils of stereotyping enter the equation by intent and/or perception, which is why I invented the Valuation Equation chart. Please us it, before calling anything a stereotype.