Auburn had proposed Fe for Harry Potter, but I see him as Se.
Harry Potter is characterized by impulsivity throughout most of the novels and the movies. I have always seen him typed as high Se on every forum, and I was always inclined to think Se lead, even before I knew my type. His character is embodied by, and characterized by, lacking discipline and being impulsive. He had no discipline in school, but a lot of talent in sports and "feeling the flow" in finding the snitch. The "school-stupid undisciplined kid" who suddenly showed talent in sports. This is stereotypical Se, even based on your own definitions of Se as 'sporty,' 'undisciplined' and 'in the flow.' He is downright moody, flighty, disorganized, immediate - nothing like a parent, a father or a king. He doesn't even have the focus to do his homework.
So many of the crucial events in the early books occur because Harry is 'bored' and sneaking around the school, exploring. He was always breaking rules, bending rules, and popping up where he shouldn't be, then improvising offhandedly to try to evade punishment. Is this not trickster? Hermione's function in the books was to keep the Pe boys in line.
It's more like Harry develops Je right at the end, and still not well. Snape could not even teach Harry to block Voldemort from his mind, because he was so impulsive and emotional, and couldn't discipline himself to learn occulmency. Where's the "mind over body" in him?
He does not seem like the bamboozling type at all, nor a smooth talker. And where's the 'socially conforming' side of Fe? If you're thinking FeSi for Potter, then compare to Obama for instance. Obama doesn't seem like the type who can't master occulmency because he's too 'impulsive.' Yet he does seem like the type to sell water to a drowning man.
Perhaps there's a reason they chose a SeFi actor to play Harry and he did such a good job?
I'm willing to be wrong, of course, but I'm wondering how you would conceptualize this.
I'm at work and can't read everything you guys wrote but I just wanted to remind you of this scene :
Exactly, @bera - he is characterized by having no plan, improvising in the moment and "winging it" offhandedly, in the throes of the moment.
He is a wild card. A Trickster. Nobody knows what his next move will be - not even him!
Is this "Je" ?
To me, an excellent way to compare Se "volition" against Fe "mind over body" is to type Harry Potter as Se lead, and type Black Panther as Fe lead.
Black Panther's story is very clear Fe - he becomes a King, steps into the shoes of his father for the sake of community, and learns discipline along the way.
Harry Potter never feels comfortable in the leadership role, though he takes it on when the moment calls for it, which I'd see as Je development, though he's not characterized by it. He finds himself in a certain position, due to his past, and despite his Pe-ish tendencies toward "exploration" and "fun" he gets his shit together. After the fight with Voldemort, which is mostly improvised and disorganized, he returns to a non-leader position.
Black Panther is a much better Fe character. Leadership, stepping into his father's shoes, representing his society - is his role.
He did have something in mind but in the end, we all do. The thing is :
1. One of the rules of that contest was that the participants must not know what the test will be. Harry found out there were going to be dragons, so he did prepare but the preparation was basically cheating. He also told Cedric, which again was cheating (not that others didn't cheat, I'm just pointing out he was cheating, even though I admit it was to save his life ! )
2. You were also not allowed to take any other magical objects with you except for your wand and Harry basically went around this rule by using a spell to call his broom. 🙂 No other contestant did that. It was not a direct violation of the rule but a clever bending of it, a use of a weakness in the contest rules. A trickster thing indeed or at least that's what I think.
3. Harry uses his broom riding skills in that contest because this is what he does best. Riding a broom is a...magical sport:) that involves being in the flow, quickly reacting to new situations, focus and stunts. Other contestants did other types of spells. It is relevant he chose the broom and not a charming spell or a sleeping spell or a persuasion spell, you know?
I will be back later, this thread is very interesting.
@Bera Sorry, it's been years since I watched the movies so I forgot the details. What I remember is Hermione (I think?) telling him he needed to come up with a plan, and someone reminding him about the broom at the last minute. Hermione was always telling him he needed a plan whereas he, himself, never had one. Yet he excelled at improvising.
I agree that it's significant, that he chooses sports, stunts and improvising in the moment, for his spells.
Where's the "persuasion" aspect? Je leads would default to some method of persuasion in their spells.
For example, Hermione (Je) always has an array of memorized solutions.
About cheating: Harry never had any issue with cheating. Hermione had something against it at first, but learned that bending the rules was necessary to get a desired result. Her character in the first place was more "rule-bent" but she grew up as she understood results were more important than the rules that were imposed. As for Harry, rules just never existed to him at all.
Oh, here they are. 🙂
So, what I was saying about Harry Potter :
@Animal - I think he found out about the dragons from Hagrid but I'm not sure, I should watch it again. 🙂 I believe he thought of using the broom before he entered into the contest but after that everything was improvising in the moment.
I don't think this shows that he is not a Pe lead, because it was not a very well thought out plan, it was not a strategy with every possible outcome analyzed and nicely written on a piece of paper. It was just an idea about a possible opportunity that he could use.
I didn't know that the actor is SeFi, I actually thought he might be an Ne lead. I will watch the movies again and try to see more of his vultology and actions from that perspective. Anyway, I think it's more important to see if the character was thought as an Se lead or an Fe lead (or anything else) because the actor could be a totally different type and still play him well and SeFis are usually known to be good actors.
@Auburn, is Daniel Radcliffe SeFi? Because if he is, he would be a wonderful addition to the new database, this is what I mean by good examples. 🙂
This topic took multiple turns, so I've split the matter of Harry Potter's fictional type to its own thread.
Firstly I should note that what I said of Harry Potter was: "Less explicitly, we also see an example of Aler in the myths of King Arthur and in Harry Potter, both of whom were able to wield a hallowed sword after being judged as noble and worthy by some supernatural force."
Notwithstanding that I qualified it by saying Harry Potter was a "less explicit" example of the hero myth, I'll highlight the elements that I find do fit the narrative.
The Fe hero often begins as undisciplined, uneducated, and yes jovial and aloof. The epic itself is often written as the transformation of an imprudent youth into the character of the Hero King. The fact that he starts out imprudent does not invalidate the myth, but is actually complementary to it. If he started out disciplined, noble and strong there would be no reason to rise, ascend, improve and step into his father's shoes.
But that still does not subtract from the fact that Harry Potter, as a narrative, is a classic hero journey. I can't really see a way around this. It's a typical epic; an odyssey where he's continually confronted with the forces of evil, has to rise up to the occasion and face his fears. He fights dragons, slays giant snakes, is healed by a phoenix's tears, becomes his own father (the patronus charm being representative of the Stag, and also of him fathering himself, when he saved himself from the dementors). He is guided by the wise old man/senex Dumbledore, he has a Dark Father figure in Snape, and even a "rival" or adversary in Draco Malfoy. He fits the story of the Hero down to the letter.
What you are focusing on is the attributes of his initial personality. Yet again, the hero journey is not the tale of an already-made hero triumphing over everything, but of someone who becomes the hero through trials, because a divine force has chosen them and given them the responsibility. We see this in Neo from the Matrix as well, as he first starts out uninitiated, as a wimpy computer geek.
Black Panther seems to be a symbol of the King, proper. Or rather, he is a Father Archetype. Now, the hero becomes the Father, so there is overlap too. But in youth the hero is often an undisciplined child.
We may then think about the hero myth as "The Call to Develop Fe/Je" in a sense. Someone consumed by the Fe hero myth (whether or not it's their lead function) will be driven to that. Again, what I am describing is the myth itself in that section, not the types of the characters necessarily.
Yes, but the character often informs the choice of an actor. Regardless, in and of itself you're right that an actor's type is not necessarily an indicator of the character's type.
But, here are some Fictional & Non-fictional Conductors:
MLK Jr, Jordan Peterson, Hermione, Dumbledore, Black Panther, Lincoln....
Compared to these characters & people, Harry Potter and his trajectory really stands out. He does not fit on that list. He's a wide eyed kid, whose adventures arise from being bored, and then he finds himself in situations he didn't expect and reacts impulsively.
For any heroic character, becoming a leader in some capacity is often necessary. This does not make them necessarily Je lead.
Harry does not have a 'personal vision' of being a hero, a King or a leader. He is "put into a position" and steps up to the plate out of love for his friends specifically. He is more a 'compass' type, or a revisor - pointing everyone in the right direction - than he is a leader, an organizer, a king, a conductor or an implementer. Dumbledore, Snape and Hermione take the conductor role, showing him "how to make it happen" - whereas he has the "good hearted innocence" (higher Ji) and the childlike impulsivity of Se lead. He loses some of that innocence as his Je develops later out of necessity, but he never loses his impulsive character.
Again, notice @animal how the profiles are written. I say "the Fe user" in all cases, or I say "the Fe function." And the profile starts out saying:
"The focus of this article is to paint as complete and undiluted a picture of Fe’s behaviorism as possible, in an abstract sense and without modulation from any adjacent functions in a type’s hierarchy."
The profile (as with all 8 profiles) is describing Fe as a function, not necessarily Fe dominants. So to say Harry Potter is not an Fe-dominant is irrelevant. What I am pointing out is the mythical narrative of Fe in the story itself, which I think is valid and present.
The profiles are describing Fe as a function, not necessarily Fe dominants. So to say Harry Potter is not an Fe-dominant is irrelevant. What I am pointing out is the mythical narrative of Fe in the story itself, which I think is valid and present.
@Auburn Sorry - Our posts crossed there. I was continuing my argument and hadn't seen yours yet *hides*
I see what you're saying with this. Point taken re: not typing Harry as Fe.
But... hm, this begs another question: are you making the case that a mythical narrative of a hero story is always Fe, regardless of the types of the characters? Basically, let's say a hero of my story is SeFi - and he rises from the ashes to defeat a Fe lead villain. Is this still a Fe mythical narrative?
What I'm getting from this is: regardless of the specific characters or story, the archetypal appeal of 'rising from the ashes' to fulfill a greater purpose and become a better man or woman, fighting your inner demons to rise above, is an appeal to Fe regardless if it's written by a Delta or Gamma. So there's a universal appeal to Fe 'hero's story' or 'mythical narrative' that any type can tap into and become a vehicle to fulfill. This would mean there's no equivalent hero story for other functions - Fe represents the mythical hero narrative of good triumphing over evil (in yourself or in the world).
But if so, that would beg the question: where is the appeal for Fe coming from in those who don't have Fe? Why is this mythical story so universally appealing, and so deeply necessary for everyone?
Isn't everyone's polar function their "hero" - in a way?
But… hm, this begs another question: are you making the case that a mythical narrative of a hero story is always Fe, regardless of the types of the characters?
Here is a segment from the mythology section of this article.
They are archetypes which occupy a role in the individual mind as well as in the collective. The net effect of these archetypes existing in the population produces large-scale social structures which define our political and global climate.
Due to this influence, the archetypes are also able to penetrate society as a whole, not just individuals with the function in question. All people can experience analogs to all the 8 myths whether by direct contact with them from their own psyche or from exposure to it from the outside. If it is from the outside, the dynamic is one of a super-ego relationship. An Fe type may be overtaken by the rationality of the Te myth which is praised in their parent culture –causing them to be driven by the myth through their own Fe function.
The mythology material of CT is not something necessarily existing at the individual level, but is part of a collective mythology. So for example, an Se-lead can be driven by an Fe hero myth. An example of this is Korra from The Legend of Korra, who is an SeTi character pushed into an Fe myth.
The myths don't belong to any one type. There are plenty of Ti-leads driven by Fe hero myths, and it's even possible for a non-Fe user to be driven by the myth as a kind of super-ego relationship (via their own Te). We even see this in how FiNe's can be taken in by an Ni myth, and our member @umbilicalsphere also seemed very Ni-esque for a while there because of his fascination with the subject.
This is why the mythology section is the 4th layer, and the most removed from the source, but also the most "epitomized" expression of a function. It's as though you take 100 Fe users, and super concentrate all their Fe qualities into an extract, in order to discover what the essence of Fe is; what it's trying to get at fundamentally.. and that is the myth or archetype. As Jung would say, the archetype is eternal, formless, and abstract. It only manifests in specific instances imperfectly, but it itself is undefinable.
Now, an Fe-lead is actually in a unique position of becoming a living representative of that archetype (and so forth for all types). But many Fe-leads don't choose to embody the archetype which they might have the option to embody. Someone like Jordan Peterson is twofold, he's an Fe-lead and he's in an Fe myth -- which makes him a contemporary manifestation of the eternal Aler.
But again, the spirit of the myth can be cultural. An entire culture (including those of different types) can act out a myth. So for example, Japan is very Fe/Ti in its culture, even though it surely has many Fi/Te users. Those Fi/Te users will be participants in this narrative and to some degree may also integrate the philosophy into their being.
America as a whole is driven by a Te Meritocratic myth of the King. So some Fe users within the USA are driven by Edar. This is possible again because the "archetypes" are not specific to any person, but are part of a collective unconscious. At least, that has been my observation of how myths play out in reality. I am still learning about them too, and it's a very voluminous --but fascinating-- domain.
Oo! Yippee! I just watched all ten films this past week so I'm very fresh! 🙂
I agree that Harry Porter's tale is a classic hero's tale: Harry's story has been compared to Luke Skywalker's, but for their very different backgrounds/settings etc. But here I wonder about the utility of applying the myth this way because it's the nature of basic story-telling for the protag to be a hero.
However! I also completely disagree with any notion that Harry is Je lead. Harry is not quite as Pe as Ron Weasly (or the older Weasley twins!), but he's no Je. Hermoine? Check! But Harry? I can't think of many Je moments. Harry's heroism seems waaaaay more Ji than Je to me, particularly Fi, and I think it's because of JK Rowling's strong Fi.
Your answer makes a lot of sense. Thank you for explaining. 🙂
This is some excellent food for thought. Given that my interest in typology began with wanting to improve my writing, I am deeply fascinated by this and I'm going to be chewing on this idea for a while.
I think what happens in my novel is that my mirror character, the SeFi, embodies the Fe myth - although his base character is very much Trickster/Hunter/Oversexed Aphrodisiac 😉 -- but he has to rise from the ashes to overcome ailments beyond his control, and defeat the demons that rise within himself. The FeNi character embodies the Te King myth, or tries to. Meanwhile my TiSe lead is pretty consistently the compass and "Muse." In true Ji fashion. Though she takes on some Ni-style ventures.
This is very true to real life, as all these characters are based on real people (including myself, and I seem to have embodied the phoenix, like him, for similar reasons). So I guess the myths don't have to be embodied directly in someone's "trajectory" - but rather, in their basic character, and how they do their trajectory.
Am I making sense? Words hate me today.
Yeah, originally I typed Harry Potter as FiSe, though I came to think SeFi was better due to his extreme impulsivity. However, I could see a case for either, and would not get up in arms about either. Je is just off for his character. I do see Auburn's point about the wider myth trajectory.
Hahaha, when I thought he said Harry Potter was a Fe lead, I went like thiz
`I agree that Harry Porter’s tale is a classic hero’s tale: Harry’s story has been compared to Luke Skywalker’s, but for their very different backgrounds/settings etc. But here I wonder about the utility of applying the myth this way because it’s the nature of basic story-telling for the protag to be a hero.'
@fae - exactly !!! I think in this case the myth of the Hero is actually more representative of Fe and not the myth of the Hero's Journey, if that makes sense and @Auburn, correct me if I am wrong. But then again, they are connected to each other...
I also think it might be a good idea to keep in mind that many people read these articles without having all the relevant knowledge about functions or about archetypes, so maybe this distinction should be clarified a bit more...but then again, Auburn, your quote is pretty clear, I don't know why I didn't see it before !!! It's probably in an article that people should read before they delve into the articles about each function, right? 🙂 But I obviously directly read the ones about the functions like a Pe lead would be expected to do. :p
When I read the Se article, I didn't think that the Joker was just a representation of the general Trickster myth. I thought the Joker is an Se lead who also represents the Trickster myth.
So, I think there is a risk that this might happen with Harry Potter in the Fe article too.
Most people start learning about CT by reading the articles about the functions, so there is a risk for newcomers to make this confusion (since we made it ourselves 🙂 ). Hm, maybe it would be a good idea to somehow directly lead people to first read a short disclaimer that the examples in the mythology part of the articles don't necessarily show characters who use these specific functions but that they represent general archetypes that can be experienced by anyone at some point but that are usually more prominently experienced by people who have these functions conscious or who develop them?
This is just me empathizing with the confused people who just got here and who directly jump into the functions and then may get even more confused and say hey, but Harry Potter looks like a Pe lead, how is he representative of Fe?
So, this has actually nothing to do with what you said but with how the information is presented and possibly perceived by others. I'm starting to think I will soon develop Fi under the influence of this forum. 🙂 And Te ! Maybe I'm on the Hero's Journey too. :))
@animal - :)))
Isn’t everyone’s polar function their “hero” – in a way?
I think Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell and Jordan Peterson (all high Fe's, and perhaps the most influential in popularizing the current rendition) have inserted parts of their personal bias in the equation when describing the hero myth.
It's my opinion that not all protagonists are Fe heroes, and I say so in the article:
Aler is a psychological archetype appearing as the Hero, which is a specific mythical protagonist who endures a series of impossible challenges, confrontations with evil and is often tasked with ascending to power.
I have a book here with me:
And when I read it I see all sorts of different protagonists with different mythologies that don't follow the particular scaffold Jung/et-al would consider "universal." These elements being roughly:
This blueprint is a very particular type of story, and is not what everyone experiences. Marie Von Franz (who was Te/Fi) seems to do a better job of differentiating things, as she was into fairtytales too. If you study the structure of fairytales, you'll see all sorts of variations. But Jung/etc considered the Fe hero myth as "the meta story" that all other stories were variants of.
I disagree with this fundamentally.
I think Jung/Campbell/Peterson see it as the meta-story because it is for them, but in a day-to-day sense, I honestly see people dominated by many other myths that are far more central to them. Relevant (especially at the bottom)
For example, the primary motif for many Ne-leads is: Wanderlust & Home
The obsession of their journey may be the tension between Peter Pan and the The Shire. If you try to get them into an Fe spirituality, they'll often defect. In fact, I think a lot of the reason why religions like Christianity fail to have "true followers" or avid adherents is because the myth is trying to be a universal answer to everyone, and it's falling short. The Pe-lead who doesn't really wanna be there at church may be getting nothing out of it. It's not their myth.
But myths have a tendency to become collective, and thus imposed beyond the individual level. It's my personal opinion that Christianity is an Fe myth, essentially a messiah myth (and messiah myths predate Jesus of Nazareth), embedded into a wider context. So high Fe users may feel like the message of Christianity is intrinsically right, because it better aligns to their heroic journey. And meanwhile all the Ne and Se leads are chastised as sinners and they inherit a great deal of damage and even shame for being how they are.
I'm going off on a tangent, but I wanted to primarily make note of how "we don't all have an fe hero myth" and the structure of the myth that is most central to a lot of people isn't the structure of the Fe template.
But if so, that would beg the question: where is the appeal for Fe coming from in those who don’t have Fe? Why is this mythical story so universally appealing, and so deeply necessary for everyone?
It's not as universally appealing as it may sound. Perhaps it's appealing in the sense of it being captivating, but myths are like that anyway. I enjoy Fi Disney myths a lot, but it isn't "me" and it doesn't snare my soul. I think, beyond entertainment and fascination, many people don't fee the Fe myth at their core or as a root motivation in life. We have to distinguish fascination from the above.
Hmm, there's a lot here to think about and I am going to write a more comprehensive reply tomorrow. As I mentioned in the other thread, my tone may sound more rude and immediate than I intend, because I haven't slept properly and I'm struggling to get the words out. I apologize for that, on this thread or the other. 🙁
My initial response is this:
I don't care about society, 'random fascination' or what others have told me. I've always been driven by my own muse, something deep within myself. I wrote my first long novels when I was less than 12 years old! My real life story wrote itself - and the phoenix rising from the ashes, facing my demons, is very real and natural. Being my own hero is not a 'fascination.' It's a necessity and a life-long pattern. I could not fake the way I dug myself out of my own grave, spiritually, emotionally and artistically. This is real.
So I have to maintain that the hero story, rising from the ashes and battling my own demons with will, fire and brimstone - is natural, instinctual, imperative and heartfelt. And I've tapped into similar themes to the ones in your phoenix/Fe posts.
I can't agree with the idea that society told me to do this, or it's a 'fetish' or 'fascination' to be my own hero and defeat my demons - or, that this is why I tapped into such things as a writer. I have no need to become a leader or a queen, but deep need to battle my own demons and rise above them, as written on the first page of my website: "The enemy is within, the hero is within, the savior is within." Such sentiments rose from my heart, even in my dreams and my LSD trips. They are not fake, socially crafted, 'fascination' oriented or forced. They are a realistic commentary on my real, lived experience.
You see how deeply I embody the Animal, the Hunter, the Trickster, the Aphrodisiac - so you know I have embodied my nature. You see how my website descriptions mirror your Fi and Se mythology. You see how deep I have gone. And yet the hero myth arises from that place, in my life and my stories. So if this is specific to Fe, I wonder why it is something that is as natural to me as breathing?
Ahhhh this is such a deep topic, I'm just spilling over here.
Pe is regenerative. Rebirth, newness, the unexpected. You mention this in your profile, and @teatime and I have discussed it.
The thing that makes the "trickster" myth is that you don't know what to expect. Ne is also about 'newness.'
I think Phoenix rising from the ashes - as a myth - is a myth of regeneration. I think this belongs with Pe.
Pe, is regenerative. It dies over and over again, and becomes something new. Rises again, gets back up, rebuilds itself. Pi is what helps to ground Pe into something more lasting, solid and dependable. Otherwise Pe will just keep regenerating.
Perhaps this is part of why you and I both have alter-egos that arise as our experiences change. New versions of ourselves that rise from the ashes of ruin, or something like that. We don't have Pi.
I cannot see the 'phoenix' per se, as Fe alone. I understand why you associate it with Fe, but regeneration is a part of Pe.
The King/Queen myth is Je -- this is the part that my mirror character does not do, but my Je character does. So I don't know what that means about my story as a whole, in Jungian terms. My Ji & Pe characters find who they are, and battle their own demons to grow on their own, rather than to become leaders. They fulfill their own destinies, become better people, better lovers, more heroic in their own lives, more inspirational. They regenerate from the ashes of trauma, as all humans tend to, when they are traumatized - or else they perish.
Thing is, every one of the characters has to become their own hero, and hero for each other; because that is what all real people have to do, one way or the other. Not all of them have to become king or queen, and take on the burdens of society (this is more a Je myth), although sometimes it's the Trickster who finds the magic potion that changes the world. And certainly, Pe leads will regenerate from their own wreckage, thus embodying the phoenix.
Does that make sense? Am I on the right track here, or am I wacko ? 😀
lol, I'm spilling over too here. So maybe I can add something. I made this video several months ago as I was driving and the thoughts were congealing:
Now I'll go read your latest post lol! Sorry, I just wanted to get this out there too.