What is a stereotype? I don't know. Most people think a stereotype is something bad, and immediately conclude that they could not possibly be archetypal. Why? Why can't archetypal influence (as defined elsewhere on this site in the essay What is an Archetype?) contribute to the definition of something, undesirable, unflattering, insulting or bad? Personally, I do not see much difference at all between something of archetypal influence and a stereotype, except, as many argue, one is good and the other is bad (see essay on Good and Bad elsewhere on this site). As I see it, that difference comes from two sources working off each other: the intent of an author, vs. the perception of a viewer.

In the case of people who choose to ignore the intent of an author, and just personalize and internalize everything they see using intuition and Flexible Association, the relationship between author and viewer might not make much sense, or have much value. To people like that, they decide if something is good or bad, not any external author. 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.

Here 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 Valution Equation chart says: Intent vs. Perception = Value. My intent, vs. your perception, determines how relatively objective the good or bad value of something is within any given context. Archetypal influence is then projected into the world as a human icon or character (see The Archtypal 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.

I believe that people who might accuse someone of perpetuating a stereotype within their tarot deck, are simply expressing their 'Moral Perception' within this 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!

But whether someone is stereotyping or not, labels happen. We might not like the labels that get attached to us, or they might be seen as liberating... as a comfortable form of establishing a desired identity. Either way, none of them will ever be a complete picture of who we are. We will always be a individuals... a individuals, with multiple facets, like a gemstone... each facet geting a label to describe it, in order to differentiate it from the others. The facet that we most frequently face forward (our persona), will be the label that gets used to describe us most often, like it or not. But that does not mean that other facets don't exist. It's up to each individual to sparkle.

-----

Limiting Labels

Some say 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 and define 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 shows 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: The Brain, The Jock, The Criminal, The Princess, The Basket Case... and The Authoritarian as portrayed by the oppressive teacher. Lots of people use frequency of occurance as an important part of their definition of what an archetype is... i.e. how often certain personality types reappear within and between cultures, and thereby contribute to the idea of a collective unconscious.

I knew types like the ones in the Breackfast Club movie, when I was in high school. Sometimes it was a phony facade. Sometimes it was accurate to who they were, whether there was more to them or not. What's the difference between an insulting stereotype and someone expressing who they are... i.e. which "birds of a feather" they choose to flock with? 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 attitude that is 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?

How much does context play in defining a stereotype? The movie "Revenge of the Nerds" portrayed stereotypes, but they were the good guys. Isn't every formulaic movie clichè grounds for objection? What percentage of movies do you think are clichè, using stereotypes i.e. using 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 stereotyping? And if someone creates a character with enough complexity to not be seen as a stereotype, don't we end up with a character that is a hybrid of multiple archetypal influences? Doesn't limiting the complexity of a character make it truer to the essence of a single 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. Aren't we all walking stereotypes, being judged unfairly by people every day of the week? Characters in the theatre wear costumes to help the audience know who they are. Isn't it the people in the audience who are guilty of disregarding what lies beneath? What do we call something that FAIRLY categorizes and judges people? What do we call a character that is a shining example, or the quintessence of something... not a complex and layered hybrid, but true to a single archetypal influence? Simple, obvious, and easy to understand... an insulting stereotype?

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 who were categorizing and judging, and maybe some people in the audience. But the costumes were not inaccurate, and... did not go away at the end of the movie.

What if someone were to take those same characters, and instead of writing a story about how hurt they felt by the stereotypes they have fallen into, they wrote a story about how they worked together as a team to solve crimes or something. Now the story is about how each character's stereotypical persona is utilized, like a specialist, to help a team. The Brain is the brains. The Jock is the muscle. The Criminal is a deceiver. The Princes is a beguiler. 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?

How much does intent play in defining a stereotype? How much does perception play in defining a stereotype? How much does complexity play in defining a 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 a stereotype? If someone is trying to be simple, for the sake of children, is it a 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?

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 think 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.

This is why I want people who look at my deck to understand that the drawings are just one person's attempt to illustrate concepts that come from a study of abstract patterns in nature, and to please examine ALL those abstract patterns with as much focus as you give to the cards. Because, when it comes time to actually interpret those abstract notions into a character or 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 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 a pigeonhole, 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 something of archetypal influence and a so called stereotype.

-----

The Ugly Truth

To some, an archetype is organic, and a stereotype is poisoned; an archetype is pure, and a stereotype is not. I agree that there are good and bad, or flattering and disparaging representations of archetypal influence, but I don't agree that either one is impure. What people call stereotypes seem highly contrived, with lots of attention to detail. They may be limited, unflattering or used to hurt someone's feelings, but as a cultural embodiment of human behavior patterns, they contain details that point to behavior patterns that people see over and over again throughout cultures and times. They may be the least flattering qualities a person could have, and they may be brought out and pointed to for the expressed purpose of humiliation, but... the culture builds the stereotype, just as the culture creates the mythology that many see as the embodiment of archetypal influences. Stereotypes are part of our social reality - they are part of our mythology.

Telling someone that they fit such-n-such a stereotype my be taken as insulting or not, and may have been meant to be insulting, or not. According to my Valuation Equation chart, if it's not insulting, it's a Positive Flattering Epitome, if it's insulting, it's a Negative Disparaging Epitome, BOTH of which are derived from 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. I say that a stereotype points very accurately to recurring archetypal patterns as much as anything. I think a stereotype goes 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.

If my intent is to depict the human embodiment of archetypal influences in a way that does not elevate the human condition, what do we call that? Every culture has unseamly or undesirable characters in the mythology of their collective unconscious. Undesirable characters are often portrayed as stupid, ugly, mean, weak, suspicious, wretched 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? If it happens to be a character that no one would ever want to be, it is not archeypal?

-----

Pirates Are Not Bad

One day, I purchased a calendar that featured a series of paintings of Pirates, by artist Don Maitz. In it he says that it was his desire to paint an 'accurate view of an age where mankind's horizons were being expanded.' He says more about the nature of those times that lead to pirates. 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.'

People describe stereotypes as inaccurate. But he was trying to be historically accurate. Is he wrong to call them stereotypes? People say that stereotypes are based on superficial characteristics that debase the human condition. But I didn't get the feeling that he felt his paintings were based on 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? Or maybe he just meant that his paintings were:

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

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. A stereotype might be more locally limited in the understanding of its manifest form, and they might exclusively depict undesirable characteristics (like the greed, drunkenness, and tarnished altruistic principles of a pirate), but it would appear that the act of depicting a stereotype is itself not necessarily an evil thing to do.

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, or an individual type of person, by revealing their foibles in a conventional formulaic way that a mass audience can easily recognize. 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, or an individual type. If someone said "kill all rednecks" and used Jeff Foxworthy's jokes to help people identify them and vilify them, that would be an evil use of stereotyping.

A stereotype might be a very locally understood image, but it looks like many of them are 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? He/she might not dress like the jock in the movie, but one who focuses on the physical and athletic, possibly to the detriment of his/her 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 make them archetypally inspired?

Perhaps, if I had written to Don Maitz about his Pirate calendar, he might have written back to say "Thank you for buying my calendar of standardized mental pictures that represent an oversimplified opinion and prejudiced attitude, I truly enjoyed making each and every insulting stereotype" Or, maybe I should say to him "Thank you for your calendar of standardized mental pictures that represent an oversimplified opinion and prejudiced attitude, I truly enjoyed each and every insulting stereotype" and see what he says.

-----

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 think it is! In fact... I'll bet anyone that kids, trying to choose a Halloween costume, would understand the icons in my deck in less time than the icons of most traditional tarot cards! I think a lot of people forget how utterly, and intimidatingly esoteric tarot images appear to people at first glance. While on the other hand, every Halloween, kids dress as Beauty or Beast, Hero or Villain, Wizard or Witch, Angel or Devil, God or Ghoul. These are all characters from my decks. Walk into any Halloween costume shop and ask for any of these, I bet they'll have them all, ready to go. Then ask them for a "Hanged Man" costume, or a "Chariot" costume, or a "Judgement" costume. Ask them to show you their "Temperance" costume, or "Wheel of Fortune," or "Tower."

When someone sends their little girl out for Halloween dressed as a Beauty, or an Angel or a Witch, are they 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. They certainly repeat every year, like a fixed or general pattern. 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. But I don't see being formulaic and conventional in the personification of a primordial 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, you 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, but I believe the idea of using very simply crafted, highly recognizable personifications as representations of essential patterns is a sound practice. If people don't see that as being archetypal, that's fine with me, but I don't agree that it is necessarily evil, and definitely not inaccurate. We see the characters in my tarot deck again and again and again... every Halloween.

No tarot image is complete. A person can use symbols and be lyrical, amorphous and inferential in their portrayal of a referent... which may lead to a desired ambiguous multivalence of subjective interpretation. Or, they can use signs and be literal, specific and intentional in their portrayal of a referent... which may lead to a desired lucid, monovalence of objective recognition. Either way, they are being incomplete. I believe the objective recognition of a simple, deliberate, explicit, obvious sign has more potential for accuracy than the subjective interpretation of a complex, arbitrary, implicit, obscure, esoteric symbol. At least on Halloween, where people are making public statements about our social reality that they want others to easily recognize.

I think the so called stereotypes from The Breakfast Club movie are pointing to ideas 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 anthropomorphised icon, or manifest symbol 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 stereotyping enters the equation by intent and/or perception, which is why I invented the Valuation Equation chart. Please us it, before calling anything a stereotype.