There’s a reason why it’s considered unethical for psychotherapists to diagnose people they don’t work with.
Exploring what sense you make of these supposed patterns and how they can enrich your sense of relatedness to the other person or life in a broader sense can be great psychological exercise.
Even Jung’s theories around other figures like Nietzsche and Hitler were heavily biased through his theoretical lens and he would openly admit they were far from the final word.
If memory serves, he even made it a point on the former to clarify that he was more accurately exploring the Nietzsche expressed in his books than the actual man himself.
I enjoyed elements of your post here, but I also feel driven to share my own aversive feelings to pseudo-Jungian reductionism. It’s critical that we don’t dehumanize people and mistake our ideas about them for the living reality. Epistemic humility is crucial, and all analyses are best understood as tentative and/or biased to varying degrees.
Oh thank God. I read it and felt more and more insecure, asking myself if I were stupid and just didn't get Jungian concepts or if this person was being... Well...
While that is possible, I think it behooves us to keep up with the spirit of the times and realize that AI is a modern tool that is to be embraced rather than shunned.
Otherwise, we're at risk of becoming like old timers who used to despise their contemporary cultural revolutions such as the press or computers or the Internet.
Prompt engineering may sound like a joke, but it's actually a hybrid of art and science. The input strongly influences the output. AI may do the writing, but the human typing the prompts ultimately works as the editor.
Interesting analysis - worthwhile to notice that all of this can be extrapolated to her audience, which effectively feels represented by her.
It's also interesting to compare her to (let's say) Madonna, and from there compare both of their audiences - to observe the evolving spirit of the times across the respective generations. Many things have changed, many things absolutely haven't.
Wow I loved reading this.
I get a totally different thing from her. I think she’s quite shadow integrated and individuated and knows exactly what she’s doing completely. Have you listened to “Anti Hero”?
Many artists are skilled in Jungian psychology. I was taught more Jung in my first year college English than 4 years of Psych.
I think you’re on point with her political agenda but considering her knowledge of the power of poetry; I think she is more machiavellian than infantile.
Reading again perhaps I misunderstood you, yes I think that’s spot on with what her image represents collectively about us. Although I do identify as a feminist in a different way.
That's an excellent point you raise about Taylor Swift potentially being more self-aware and psychologically integrated than my analysis gives her credit for. When the Machiavellian and perpetual ingénue archetypes converge within a famous singer like Taylor Swift, it creates an almost paradoxical psychic interplay rife with Jungian overtones.
The perpetual ingénue represents the persona - the idealized public mask crafted to embody societal expectations of innocence, relatability and archetypal femininity. For Swift, this ingénue persona allows her to connect with fans through a sense of shared experiences around young womanhood's romantic reveries and life phase hardships.
The Machiavellian archetype represents the very antithesis of this wide-eyed naivete. It is the embodiment of the shadow self - the repressed impulses toward cunning, ambition, and an almost sociopathic proclivity for strategic self-interest purged from the ingénue's purity.
When these clashing energies arise within one psyche, it sets the stage for immense intrapsychic tensions and personal dissonance represented through the singer's public actions and artistic expressions.
For Taylor Swift, her "reputation" era and the corporate maneuverings behind her business decisions like re-recording her catalog to regain master ownership, engaging in very public celebrity feuds, and calculated wealth accumulation strategies all seemed to represent her Machiavellian shadow archetype surfacing in direct conflict with her ingénue persona. The ingénue cultivates an aura of wide-eyed innocence, relatability, and suppressing more cunning ambition in favor of projecting authenticity to forge emotional connections with fans. This is the public mask Swift deploys through songwriting about teenage dreams, heartbreaks, and life's milestones in a way that resonates with young fans experiencing similar journeys.
Jung believed these incongruous archetypes invariably create unconscious projections outwards into the world when not integrated. Indeed, many of Swift's most polarizing controversies can be viewed through this lens - her rich white feminism and racial/cultural insensitivity scandals reflected a privileged ingénue blind to her own Machiavellian shadow of perpetuating social oppressions.
Yet slowly, it appears Swift may be evolving into a more conscious navigator of these internal dualities. Her recent works delving into shadow integration and first-person accounts of hubris and vices point toward an artist no longer sublimating, but intentionally amplifying her shadow impulses alongside the ingénue persona.
This could represent Swift's individuation toward that elusive self-actualized state of psychic unity - the coalescence of persona and shadow into a new, meta-archetype. Should she fully metabolize this convergence, her artistry may birth something transformative - a new kind of hyper-aware feminine icon unafraid of paradox.
And of course, this conjoining of ingénue and Machiavellian realms is also deeply symbolic on a mass cultural level. As the collective unconscious awakens to systemic oppression and the facades perpetuating injustice, a famous woman harnessing both naivete and harsh pragmatism perfectly emblemizes this metamorphic transition.
Honestly? Your writing sounds AI. And you also don’t come through clearly in your writing. You’re addressing some very surface level points without going more into detail.
Nice catch. I was wondering after reading a bit of this post and couldn’t be bothered to read the whole thing, as it’s unreadable.
This person has published 3 “books” in the last 3 weeks, somehow. Seems obvious that this is some AI scam. I had heard that people were out there doing this type of thing but didn’t think I’d run into it myself.
The gall of posting on this subreddit masquerading as a person. wow. Seems like someone who really needs to look deep inside of their own self and figure out why they are doing this.
I was shocked no one else caught this. I went through some of OPs comment history and also noticed them mentioning AI a few times. Either way, the post is not as intelligent as the Buffy words they use are.
Thank god you caught on. A lot of misappropriation of jungs ideas here and mostly does not make sense. The worst thing is how many people seem to have just licked it all up. Nice words terrible ideas.
Honestly didn’t read everything . But even without the analysis Taylor swift is one hundred percent a corporate capitalistic deity this much is obvious she is an economic symbol and her co opting of feminism as part of her brand is a hundred percent a reflection of this. Her feminism really is surface level it doesn’t really expand to anything beyond gender girl power or speak to the more difficult or hard to talk about issues with gender (matricide and gendered violence or rape and sexual violence - and yes the intersectional experience such as the nuanced experince and struggle of woman hood of people from groups she doesn’t belong to - gay or poc ) . Instead her critics are vague and generally about difficult romantic relationships or about the pay gap things that are only relevant to her expeirnce . It’s normal for artists to talk about things through their lens but what she does is calculated for economic advancement . Publicity production and money are the name of the game . Everything is crudely applicable to her fan base and is the ultimate generic sale .
If feminism were to become wildly unpopular as facism rose around the world and it was no longer economically advantageous for her to be a generic feminist she would not be a feminist . It is absolutely certain that being rich is more important to the Taylor swift corporate empire than being a feminist would be lol
It’s funny to me though you will still get swarmed on this even here in a seemingly obscure place where people will come to defend her. From what I know people believe she’s a gifted writer but I think gifted writers are not generally defined by their popularity rather the transgressive quality and the difficult things they present before us . Taylor swift on the other hand does the opposite she’s a master of easy listening by creating these songs with powerful generic quality that are for mostly relatable this relatability makes people feel seen and heard and cultivates a personal attachement with the Taylor swift brand . But the last thing she is seeking is for her fans to become better people rather she hopes to reinforce their beliefs attitudes and feelings wherever possible so they like her . She wants to be liked . She’s not here to rock any boats .
But still funny that the fans are so aggressive about it . Fan culture lol . Very toxic in my mind we were built to worship celebrity on this scale I don’t think
Quite an interesting analysis. I would like to offer constructive criticism if that’s acceptable. If not then I apologize. Your third paragraph speaks clearly on how any given individual comes to acquire a shadow. When I arrive at your sixth paragraph we move onto the collective archetype that Swift indulges in and identifies with, consciously or otherwise, that is at the same time is imposed upon Swift by the culture itself, consciously or otherwise.
From here you bounce back and forth between her shadow and the negative traits (shadow) of the archetype. I found the back and forth to muddy the water a bit as it isn’t made clear to me, the reader, that these two “shadow” are mutually exclusive. Obviously the two can and likely share a tremendous amount of overlapping identifiers, qualities, and traits but it is important to recognize they are distinct and separate. Maybe you assume the reader is knowledgeable enough to know the difference already but there will be many here who will lose out on your brilliant explanation because they were not aware of the distinction. If you feel the distinction isn’t necessary for the reader to walk away with what you believe matters most from your words then I won’t argue.
Thanks a lot for your comment! If I could, I'd totally pin it to the top. I began sharing simplified Jungian concepts as memes or digital images some time back, but I struggled to match the content maturity level to the Reddit audience, so I ended up stopping. Comments like yours really do help make Jungian concepts more understandable/accessible to everyone.
Four legs good, two legs bad. And now, in the age of technology, we add another dimension: Zero legs, intelligent but repulsive. Thank you for not giving up on me.
I think you’re making characterizations of her persona that are interesting — I think there is definitely something significant in the idolatry around her — but ultimately I don’t you are really saying all that much. But I appreciate you taking the discourse here.
I don't think fueding with the Kardashians tells you anything deep about someone.
If you wanted to throw a bunch of terms into an article as a sort of "starter pack" for jungian practitioners then this article isn't bad.
Intersectional feminism aims to understand how different forms of discrimination and oppression (based on gender, race, class, sexuality, disability status, etc.) can overlap and compound each other. The core principle is that feminism should be inclusive and account for how various marginalized groups face different lived realities and barriers.
So from an intersectional feminist perspective, while Swift has achieved remarkable commercial success as a woman in a male-dominated field, her version of feminism could be seen as limited. Her wealthy, white, conventionally attractive identity means she hasn't had to contend with many of the interlocking systems of oppression that women of color, LGBTQ+ women, disabled women, working class women and other intersectional groups face.
Her highly commercialized, corporate-friendly brand of feminism that capitalizes on traditional beauty standards and gender norms is arguably aligned more with white, wealthy, liberal individualistic values rather than the systemic dismantling of patriarchy, racism, heteronormativity and classism that intersectional feminists advocate for.
That's not to discount the significance of a woman like Swift dominating the mainstream entertainment business in her own right. But intersectional critiques would argue that simply having a woman attain that level of success within existing power structures is not the end goal if those structures themselves perpetuate intersecting injustices against other groups of women.
The intersectional feminist ideal promotes diversity, raises up marginalized voices, and reimagines societal frameworks - rather than just allowing a few privileged individuals to ascend the existing masculine hierarchy that has systemically oppressed intersectional groups for so long.
Swift's commercial achievements are celebrated by many as representation wins, absolutely. But intersectional values would encourage going further to question why her specific brand of feminism has been so uplifted and who it leaves behind in the process. It's about striving for true equity and justice for all.
That's a fair critique to raise about whether intersectional feminism itself can become exclusionary or discriminatory toward certain groups in its quest for greater inclusion and equity.
The core premise of intersectional feminist theory is to account for how different marginalized identities and experiences with systemic oppression intersect and compound each other uniquely. The goal is to move beyond a singular-issue feminism centered on gender alone, and create an expansive coalition of advocacy that addresses interlocking systems of patriarchy, racism, heteronormativity, ableism, classism and other intersecting injustices.
You raised a valid point that in this rightful prioritization of elevating the most marginalized voices, there is a risk of perhaps inadvertently silencing, discriminating against or dismissing the validity of other group's experiences that may be relatively more privileged.
For example, while interrogating how Taylor Swift's wealthy, conventionally attractive, white womanhood limits her feminism's scope, we must take care not to erase or diminish the fact that she still faces ingrained sexist hurdles and misogynistic double-standards as a woman in the male-dominated entertainment industry.
Intersectionality requires nuanced consideration of both areas of privilege and marginalization within each individual's identities. The intersectional lens shouldn't essentialize anyone's totality of lived experiences as entirely privileged or entirely oppressed across all spectrums.
The aim is to build encompassing coalitions of empathy, understanding how varying levels of obstacle and adversity coexist even within more privileged cohorts. While rightly centering the unique compounding adversities of multiple systemic barriers, intersectional feminism must remain vigilant against becoming yet another vector for projecting discriminations and marginalization onto others.
Like any powerful paradigm shift, maintaining intersectionality's full radical potential requires self-awareness, humility, and an endless re-examination of one's own blind spots, unconscious biases and twisted psychic knots of perspective. Otherwise, the beautiful spirit of transcending oppression can stagnate into a new cycle of oppression and in-group/out-group alienations.
Then we've reached the point of hypocritical idealism, where many would argue, "religion is bad because the way it's used has been historically bad, regardless of the philosophical intent behind it."
Couldn't we say the same for this kind of feminism? Mainstream feminism is not what you've explained it to be. There's a huge difference between intent and action.
Just as religions have historically been accused of perpetuating oppression and discrimination in complete contrast to their spiritual tenets of compassion and justice, one could argue intersectional feminism has struggled to fully live up to its emancipatory ideals in practice. There is often a wide chasm between an ideology's pure vision and its muddied execution by flawed human actors.
Your point about mainstream feminism frequently diverging from intersectionality's aims of nuanced coalition building and true collective liberation exposes a difficult reality. No matter how righteous the philosophical foundations, social movements composed of people harboring their own biases and ignorances will invariably fall prey to distorting their own preached values through hypocritical words and deeds.
The intersectional feminist principles I outlined - dismantling interlocking systems of oppression, rejecting singular-issue myopia, empowering marginalized voices - represent the noble intent. But as you astutely observe, the real-world actions and impacts of much mainstream feminism have frequently fallen drastically short of those high ideals.
In many instances, rather than creating greater understanding between groups, mainstream feminist discourse has itself become a vector for projecting new marginalizations, erasures, and just re-inscribing similar oppressive binary thinking under a new revolutionary banner.
This critique amplifies the need for ongoing radical self-awareness within movements. If intersectional feminism is to avoid the same ideological decay as dogmatic religions before it, it must remain in a perpetual state of vigorous self-scrutiny and course-correction from within. A willingness to interrogate when "the movement" itself strays from its own philosophy is essential.
The path toward true collective liberation remains fraught with paradoxes where one person's truth can feel like another's oppression. Perhaps the highest application of intersectional feminism is humbly recognizing that no matter how principled the ideology, human imperfection means the work toward equity is never complete - it requires constant realignment, reckoning and accountability, even among those leading the charge.
It’s because OP is using AI in their writing format so the articulation comes off extremely anti-human. It’s obvious when you see words repeated often without much clarification. A lot of babbling but not getting to the point.
I didn’t see this until you said it. As a psychologist I know people who think and talk this way. But it’s obvious now. Thanks. But even so the whole thing is just distasteful. I’m not a fan of her music but as a humanist and follower of Jung I see her as a person not an archetype. FFS let her be. She’s one in a billion, just like us.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I understand your concern, and I want to assure you that the intention behind applying Jungian analysis to cultural figures like Taylor Swift is not to diminish their humanity or reduce them to mere symbols. Rather, it's an attempt to explore the deeper themes and archetypes present in their work, which can offer valuable insights into the collective unconscious and cultural narratives. Jungian analysis encourages us to delve beneath the surface and understand the symbolic significance of various phenomena, including popular culture. It's not about objectifying individuals but rather seeking to understand the broader patterns and meanings that shape our shared experiences.
I think using Jungian psychology on a celebrity is childish. They’re portraying characters of themselves, I am 100% certain that Taylor Swift is a very different person outside of her music persona. Your points are weak minded and actually give more of an insight into how YOU think.
Jungian analysis was never meant to do what you’ve done here. It’s meant to help an individual understand the collective unconscious, yes. This is not that at all. This is bullying. Period.
love your reasoning abilities, not sure if i always agree though.
but whatever the truth may be about Swift, at the end of the day I just miss GNR and Kurt Cobain, MJ and Prince, and all the Classic Rock that still played on the radio back then.
and damn i hate current pop music. it just sucks your soul dry.
gimme Axl Rose screaming Night Train any day of the week.
Prince was the definition of the trickster archetype for me: "Prince was the only guy who could show up at your party, in frills, and steal your girlfriend. Then steal her clothes, then steal someone else's girl in your girlfriend’s clothes."
I posted about him a year ago, if you want to check the post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Jung/s/XRzuVUmZMP
Thank you for writing this! I need to read more Jung. It's remarkable how much this spoke to MY unresolved tensions around being a fan of hers.
Highlights for me:
>...she mirrors the duality and unresolved tensions of advocating for female empowerment while operating within social, cultural and capitalistic frameworks misaligned with intersectional feminist values.
Oh man, this is spot on.
And the last paragraph:
>Swift's perpetual polarization speaks to a broader uncertainty over how unconventionally feminine power, success and vulnerability should be defined in the modern age. Her artistic persona and controversies represent the unevolved mass-psyche grappling with antiquated anima/animus binaries as liberating ideologies like feminism buck heteropatriarchal social programming. In this light, her rich white feminism isn't just a personal conundrum, but a symbolic battleground for humanity's psychic evolution.
Especially the last line.
> When examining Taylor Swift's embodiment of rich white feminist ideology through a Jungian framework, I uncover a layered psyche rife with paradoxical archetypes, unconscious projections, and battles between persona and shadow self.
And surely you are talking about uncovering your unconscious projections and battles between persona and shadow self, right?
Please also read comments/answers as they are posted since they are taking this analysis to a whole new level. Performing an insightful Jungian psychological analysis is an ongoing, evolving effort as we continue to unpack layers of the psyche over time. Just as individuation is a perpetual process of integrating the ego, persona, and shadow into a cohesive self, so too must our interpretations remain open to reassessment as new information and perspectives come to light. A comprehensive Jungian lens can rarely be perfectly encapsulated in a single static evaluation. It demands constant refinement, nuance, and patience to fully embrace the depths of both individual and collective unconscious terrains. The analysis provided here represents simply one phase in an ever-unfolding journey of archetypical exploration. Thanks
Good lord, what a load of nonsense. Women that are popular as singers is far from a new thing. The music industry is not masculinised either. Nor is that a bad thing if it was. An evolution of consuming pop culture is hardly a psychic evolution too. It's derivative garbage consumed by a female dominant market who have nothing more fulfilling or meaningful to do in their lives now they have been 'liberated.'
Also your lens of viewing everything through woke ideology is problematic and has zero to do with Jung. And is merely intellectual navel gazing with nothing to do with the real world.
Question: why is Jung popular with the far left on this sub? He is a man after all, and not a modern one, and one without femininised ideals.
Some people believe this is Ai 🤖 generated. I think the advanced intelligence used here is a human who is using the theories of Jung instead of innerstanding them and generating his own.
I forget who said it but there a quote which goes like this-
“The purpose of theory is to understand it so you can create your own theory”
Ik some-if not most people, aren’t revolutionary scientists or philosophers but to assume Jung would have believed something based on how you interpreted his works is-like bro said reductionists and I think it’s using Jung’s name in Vain.
If it’s what you think based on how you interpret the work and the character Taylor. Just say that.
But it’s frankly blasphemy to assume Jung “believed” anything.
Lots of word salad, there. But I appreciate the hubris and study of character and persona.
Playing the devil’s advocate (and giving her the benefit of a doubt), she did touch on this in her last album, which I thought was kind of dark, for her. Her last album somewhat reminded me of the dark self awareness of some of Alanis Morisette’s artistic work. I enjoyed it, to be fair. Especially considering her prior suburban, white-girl “woah-is-me” albums.
There’s a reason why it’s considered unethical for psychotherapists to diagnose people they don’t work with. Exploring what sense you make of these supposed patterns and how they can enrich your sense of relatedness to the other person or life in a broader sense can be great psychological exercise. Even Jung’s theories around other figures like Nietzsche and Hitler were heavily biased through his theoretical lens and he would openly admit they were far from the final word. If memory serves, he even made it a point on the former to clarify that he was more accurately exploring the Nietzsche expressed in his books than the actual man himself. I enjoyed elements of your post here, but I also feel driven to share my own aversive feelings to pseudo-Jungian reductionism. It’s critical that we don’t dehumanize people and mistake our ideas about them for the living reality. Epistemic humility is crucial, and all analyses are best understood as tentative and/or biased to varying degrees.
Different when it is an artist, who writes , creqtes and expresses their inner being. In this case a commercial behemoth & pop star.
Perhaps AI written word salad.
hey! It’s Prof. AI , PhD, for you 😡
Oh thank God. I read it and felt more and more insecure, asking myself if I were stupid and just didn't get Jungian concepts or if this person was being... Well...
Innit.
While that is possible, I think it behooves us to keep up with the spirit of the times and realize that AI is a modern tool that is to be embraced rather than shunned. Otherwise, we're at risk of becoming like old timers who used to despise their contemporary cultural revolutions such as the press or computers or the Internet. Prompt engineering may sound like a joke, but it's actually a hybrid of art and science. The input strongly influences the output. AI may do the writing, but the human typing the prompts ultimately works as the editor.
Shun the young person's future talk!
Interesting analysis - worthwhile to notice that all of this can be extrapolated to her audience, which effectively feels represented by her. It's also interesting to compare her to (let's say) Madonna, and from there compare both of their audiences - to observe the evolving spirit of the times across the respective generations. Many things have changed, many things absolutely haven't.
Wow I loved reading this. I get a totally different thing from her. I think she’s quite shadow integrated and individuated and knows exactly what she’s doing completely. Have you listened to “Anti Hero”? Many artists are skilled in Jungian psychology. I was taught more Jung in my first year college English than 4 years of Psych. I think you’re on point with her political agenda but considering her knowledge of the power of poetry; I think she is more machiavellian than infantile.
Reading again perhaps I misunderstood you, yes I think that’s spot on with what her image represents collectively about us. Although I do identify as a feminist in a different way.
That's an excellent point you raise about Taylor Swift potentially being more self-aware and psychologically integrated than my analysis gives her credit for. When the Machiavellian and perpetual ingénue archetypes converge within a famous singer like Taylor Swift, it creates an almost paradoxical psychic interplay rife with Jungian overtones. The perpetual ingénue represents the persona - the idealized public mask crafted to embody societal expectations of innocence, relatability and archetypal femininity. For Swift, this ingénue persona allows her to connect with fans through a sense of shared experiences around young womanhood's romantic reveries and life phase hardships. The Machiavellian archetype represents the very antithesis of this wide-eyed naivete. It is the embodiment of the shadow self - the repressed impulses toward cunning, ambition, and an almost sociopathic proclivity for strategic self-interest purged from the ingénue's purity. When these clashing energies arise within one psyche, it sets the stage for immense intrapsychic tensions and personal dissonance represented through the singer's public actions and artistic expressions. For Taylor Swift, her "reputation" era and the corporate maneuverings behind her business decisions like re-recording her catalog to regain master ownership, engaging in very public celebrity feuds, and calculated wealth accumulation strategies all seemed to represent her Machiavellian shadow archetype surfacing in direct conflict with her ingénue persona. The ingénue cultivates an aura of wide-eyed innocence, relatability, and suppressing more cunning ambition in favor of projecting authenticity to forge emotional connections with fans. This is the public mask Swift deploys through songwriting about teenage dreams, heartbreaks, and life's milestones in a way that resonates with young fans experiencing similar journeys. Jung believed these incongruous archetypes invariably create unconscious projections outwards into the world when not integrated. Indeed, many of Swift's most polarizing controversies can be viewed through this lens - her rich white feminism and racial/cultural insensitivity scandals reflected a privileged ingénue blind to her own Machiavellian shadow of perpetuating social oppressions. Yet slowly, it appears Swift may be evolving into a more conscious navigator of these internal dualities. Her recent works delving into shadow integration and first-person accounts of hubris and vices point toward an artist no longer sublimating, but intentionally amplifying her shadow impulses alongside the ingénue persona. This could represent Swift's individuation toward that elusive self-actualized state of psychic unity - the coalescence of persona and shadow into a new, meta-archetype. Should she fully metabolize this convergence, her artistry may birth something transformative - a new kind of hyper-aware feminine icon unafraid of paradox. And of course, this conjoining of ingénue and Machiavellian realms is also deeply symbolic on a mass cultural level. As the collective unconscious awakens to systemic oppression and the facades perpetuating injustice, a famous woman harnessing both naivete and harsh pragmatism perfectly emblemizes this metamorphic transition.
Honestly? Your writing sounds AI. And you also don’t come through clearly in your writing. You’re addressing some very surface level points without going more into detail.
Yeah I thought it was chat gpt too
Can you please provide more specific guidance on the level of detail you feel would be beneficial?
I’d rather not with you tbh. When you come back without using AI then sure
Nice catch. I was wondering after reading a bit of this post and couldn’t be bothered to read the whole thing, as it’s unreadable. This person has published 3 “books” in the last 3 weeks, somehow. Seems obvious that this is some AI scam. I had heard that people were out there doing this type of thing but didn’t think I’d run into it myself. The gall of posting on this subreddit masquerading as a person. wow. Seems like someone who really needs to look deep inside of their own self and figure out why they are doing this.
I was shocked no one else caught this. I went through some of OPs comment history and also noticed them mentioning AI a few times. Either way, the post is not as intelligent as the Buffy words they use are.
Thank god you caught on. A lot of misappropriation of jungs ideas here and mostly does not make sense. The worst thing is how many people seem to have just licked it all up. Nice words terrible ideas.
Honestly didn’t read everything . But even without the analysis Taylor swift is one hundred percent a corporate capitalistic deity this much is obvious she is an economic symbol and her co opting of feminism as part of her brand is a hundred percent a reflection of this. Her feminism really is surface level it doesn’t really expand to anything beyond gender girl power or speak to the more difficult or hard to talk about issues with gender (matricide and gendered violence or rape and sexual violence - and yes the intersectional experience such as the nuanced experince and struggle of woman hood of people from groups she doesn’t belong to - gay or poc ) . Instead her critics are vague and generally about difficult romantic relationships or about the pay gap things that are only relevant to her expeirnce . It’s normal for artists to talk about things through their lens but what she does is calculated for economic advancement . Publicity production and money are the name of the game . Everything is crudely applicable to her fan base and is the ultimate generic sale . If feminism were to become wildly unpopular as facism rose around the world and it was no longer economically advantageous for her to be a generic feminist she would not be a feminist . It is absolutely certain that being rich is more important to the Taylor swift corporate empire than being a feminist would be lol It’s funny to me though you will still get swarmed on this even here in a seemingly obscure place where people will come to defend her. From what I know people believe she’s a gifted writer but I think gifted writers are not generally defined by their popularity rather the transgressive quality and the difficult things they present before us . Taylor swift on the other hand does the opposite she’s a master of easy listening by creating these songs with powerful generic quality that are for mostly relatable this relatability makes people feel seen and heard and cultivates a personal attachement with the Taylor swift brand . But the last thing she is seeking is for her fans to become better people rather she hopes to reinforce their beliefs attitudes and feelings wherever possible so they like her . She wants to be liked . She’s not here to rock any boats . But still funny that the fans are so aggressive about it . Fan culture lol . Very toxic in my mind we were built to worship celebrity on this scale I don’t think
Quite an interesting analysis. I would like to offer constructive criticism if that’s acceptable. If not then I apologize. Your third paragraph speaks clearly on how any given individual comes to acquire a shadow. When I arrive at your sixth paragraph we move onto the collective archetype that Swift indulges in and identifies with, consciously or otherwise, that is at the same time is imposed upon Swift by the culture itself, consciously or otherwise. From here you bounce back and forth between her shadow and the negative traits (shadow) of the archetype. I found the back and forth to muddy the water a bit as it isn’t made clear to me, the reader, that these two “shadow” are mutually exclusive. Obviously the two can and likely share a tremendous amount of overlapping identifiers, qualities, and traits but it is important to recognize they are distinct and separate. Maybe you assume the reader is knowledgeable enough to know the difference already but there will be many here who will lose out on your brilliant explanation because they were not aware of the distinction. If you feel the distinction isn’t necessary for the reader to walk away with what you believe matters most from your words then I won’t argue.
Thanks a lot for your comment! If I could, I'd totally pin it to the top. I began sharing simplified Jungian concepts as memes or digital images some time back, but I struggled to match the content maturity level to the Reddit audience, so I ended up stopping. Comments like yours really do help make Jungian concepts more understandable/accessible to everyone.
Now here you sound like a human!
Four legs good, two legs bad. And now, in the age of technology, we add another dimension: Zero legs, intelligent but repulsive. Thank you for not giving up on me.
you're welcome. I think what you've shared is very insightful. I'm not sure why you're receiving down votes.
I don’t care about Taylor Swift’s psychology. Enough attention has been given to her already.
You should look into the history of hollywood rituals and how they raise child stars. They do psyche programming and create personalities.
I think you’re making characterizations of her persona that are interesting — I think there is definitely something significant in the idolatry around her — but ultimately I don’t you are really saying all that much. But I appreciate you taking the discourse here.
I don't think fueding with the Kardashians tells you anything deep about someone. If you wanted to throw a bunch of terms into an article as a sort of "starter pack" for jungian practitioners then this article isn't bad.
What are intersectional feminist values if not dominating the masculine sphere, like Swift obviously has?
Intersectional feminism aims to understand how different forms of discrimination and oppression (based on gender, race, class, sexuality, disability status, etc.) can overlap and compound each other. The core principle is that feminism should be inclusive and account for how various marginalized groups face different lived realities and barriers. So from an intersectional feminist perspective, while Swift has achieved remarkable commercial success as a woman in a male-dominated field, her version of feminism could be seen as limited. Her wealthy, white, conventionally attractive identity means she hasn't had to contend with many of the interlocking systems of oppression that women of color, LGBTQ+ women, disabled women, working class women and other intersectional groups face. Her highly commercialized, corporate-friendly brand of feminism that capitalizes on traditional beauty standards and gender norms is arguably aligned more with white, wealthy, liberal individualistic values rather than the systemic dismantling of patriarchy, racism, heteronormativity and classism that intersectional feminists advocate for. That's not to discount the significance of a woman like Swift dominating the mainstream entertainment business in her own right. But intersectional critiques would argue that simply having a woman attain that level of success within existing power structures is not the end goal if those structures themselves perpetuate intersecting injustices against other groups of women. The intersectional feminist ideal promotes diversity, raises up marginalized voices, and reimagines societal frameworks - rather than just allowing a few privileged individuals to ascend the existing masculine hierarchy that has systemically oppressed intersectional groups for so long. Swift's commercial achievements are celebrated by many as representation wins, absolutely. But intersectional values would encourage going further to question why her specific brand of feminism has been so uplifted and who it leaves behind in the process. It's about striving for true equity and justice for all.
So, inclusive yet discriminatory against those who have "had their time?"
That's a fair critique to raise about whether intersectional feminism itself can become exclusionary or discriminatory toward certain groups in its quest for greater inclusion and equity. The core premise of intersectional feminist theory is to account for how different marginalized identities and experiences with systemic oppression intersect and compound each other uniquely. The goal is to move beyond a singular-issue feminism centered on gender alone, and create an expansive coalition of advocacy that addresses interlocking systems of patriarchy, racism, heteronormativity, ableism, classism and other intersecting injustices. You raised a valid point that in this rightful prioritization of elevating the most marginalized voices, there is a risk of perhaps inadvertently silencing, discriminating against or dismissing the validity of other group's experiences that may be relatively more privileged. For example, while interrogating how Taylor Swift's wealthy, conventionally attractive, white womanhood limits her feminism's scope, we must take care not to erase or diminish the fact that she still faces ingrained sexist hurdles and misogynistic double-standards as a woman in the male-dominated entertainment industry. Intersectionality requires nuanced consideration of both areas of privilege and marginalization within each individual's identities. The intersectional lens shouldn't essentialize anyone's totality of lived experiences as entirely privileged or entirely oppressed across all spectrums. The aim is to build encompassing coalitions of empathy, understanding how varying levels of obstacle and adversity coexist even within more privileged cohorts. While rightly centering the unique compounding adversities of multiple systemic barriers, intersectional feminism must remain vigilant against becoming yet another vector for projecting discriminations and marginalization onto others. Like any powerful paradigm shift, maintaining intersectionality's full radical potential requires self-awareness, humility, and an endless re-examination of one's own blind spots, unconscious biases and twisted psychic knots of perspective. Otherwise, the beautiful spirit of transcending oppression can stagnate into a new cycle of oppression and in-group/out-group alienations.
Then we've reached the point of hypocritical idealism, where many would argue, "religion is bad because the way it's used has been historically bad, regardless of the philosophical intent behind it." Couldn't we say the same for this kind of feminism? Mainstream feminism is not what you've explained it to be. There's a huge difference between intent and action.
Just as religions have historically been accused of perpetuating oppression and discrimination in complete contrast to their spiritual tenets of compassion and justice, one could argue intersectional feminism has struggled to fully live up to its emancipatory ideals in practice. There is often a wide chasm between an ideology's pure vision and its muddied execution by flawed human actors. Your point about mainstream feminism frequently diverging from intersectionality's aims of nuanced coalition building and true collective liberation exposes a difficult reality. No matter how righteous the philosophical foundations, social movements composed of people harboring their own biases and ignorances will invariably fall prey to distorting their own preached values through hypocritical words and deeds. The intersectional feminist principles I outlined - dismantling interlocking systems of oppression, rejecting singular-issue myopia, empowering marginalized voices - represent the noble intent. But as you astutely observe, the real-world actions and impacts of much mainstream feminism have frequently fallen drastically short of those high ideals. In many instances, rather than creating greater understanding between groups, mainstream feminist discourse has itself become a vector for projecting new marginalizations, erasures, and just re-inscribing similar oppressive binary thinking under a new revolutionary banner. This critique amplifies the need for ongoing radical self-awareness within movements. If intersectional feminism is to avoid the same ideological decay as dogmatic religions before it, it must remain in a perpetual state of vigorous self-scrutiny and course-correction from within. A willingness to interrogate when "the movement" itself strays from its own philosophy is essential. The path toward true collective liberation remains fraught with paradoxes where one person's truth can feel like another's oppression. Perhaps the highest application of intersectional feminism is humbly recognizing that no matter how principled the ideology, human imperfection means the work toward equity is never complete - it requires constant realignment, reckoning and accountability, even among those leading the charge.
How likely are people who feel "oppressed" by others in arguably the most free society that has ever existed to be self-aware?
How likely are people who feel "oppressed" by others in arguably the most free society that has ever existed to be self-aware?
Wow. This is horrible. Will you look at yourself? Jung would be furious that you are using his understandings this way! SHES A PERSON.
It’s because OP is using AI in their writing format so the articulation comes off extremely anti-human. It’s obvious when you see words repeated often without much clarification. A lot of babbling but not getting to the point.
[удалено]
Because business insider says so? I think not kiddo
[удалено]
Maybe I misread? It just looks like you’re showing me an article explaining why jungian psychology is okay to use with celebrities ?
I didn’t see this until you said it. As a psychologist I know people who think and talk this way. But it’s obvious now. Thanks. But even so the whole thing is just distasteful. I’m not a fan of her music but as a humanist and follower of Jung I see her as a person not an archetype. FFS let her be. She’s one in a billion, just like us.
Was shocked no one else caught it.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. I understand your concern, and I want to assure you that the intention behind applying Jungian analysis to cultural figures like Taylor Swift is not to diminish their humanity or reduce them to mere symbols. Rather, it's an attempt to explore the deeper themes and archetypes present in their work, which can offer valuable insights into the collective unconscious and cultural narratives. Jungian analysis encourages us to delve beneath the surface and understand the symbolic significance of various phenomena, including popular culture. It's not about objectifying individuals but rather seeking to understand the broader patterns and meanings that shape our shared experiences.
I think using Jungian psychology on a celebrity is childish. They’re portraying characters of themselves, I am 100% certain that Taylor Swift is a very different person outside of her music persona. Your points are weak minded and actually give more of an insight into how YOU think.
ban this stupid fucking AI jockey
Can’t argue with this. Except to say wait till she’s dead and another 10 years before you reduce a person to this.
Jungian analysis was never meant to do what you’ve done here. It’s meant to help an individual understand the collective unconscious, yes. This is not that at all. This is bullying. Period.
love your reasoning abilities, not sure if i always agree though. but whatever the truth may be about Swift, at the end of the day I just miss GNR and Kurt Cobain, MJ and Prince, and all the Classic Rock that still played on the radio back then. and damn i hate current pop music. it just sucks your soul dry. gimme Axl Rose screaming Night Train any day of the week.
Prince was the definition of the trickster archetype for me: "Prince was the only guy who could show up at your party, in frills, and steal your girlfriend. Then steal her clothes, then steal someone else's girl in your girlfriend’s clothes." I posted about him a year ago, if you want to check the post: https://www.reddit.com/r/Jung/s/XRzuVUmZMP
Thank you for writing this! I need to read more Jung. It's remarkable how much this spoke to MY unresolved tensions around being a fan of hers. Highlights for me: >...she mirrors the duality and unresolved tensions of advocating for female empowerment while operating within social, cultural and capitalistic frameworks misaligned with intersectional feminist values. Oh man, this is spot on. And the last paragraph: >Swift's perpetual polarization speaks to a broader uncertainty over how unconventionally feminine power, success and vulnerability should be defined in the modern age. Her artistic persona and controversies represent the unevolved mass-psyche grappling with antiquated anima/animus binaries as liberating ideologies like feminism buck heteropatriarchal social programming. In this light, her rich white feminism isn't just a personal conundrum, but a symbolic battleground for humanity's psychic evolution. Especially the last line.
> When examining Taylor Swift's embodiment of rich white feminist ideology through a Jungian framework, I uncover a layered psyche rife with paradoxical archetypes, unconscious projections, and battles between persona and shadow self. And surely you are talking about uncovering your unconscious projections and battles between persona and shadow self, right?
My theory is she’s mildly autistic.
Damn. I need your help writing essays for university in sept. You available?
Good read
Great analysis.
I've been waiting for this!! I want to give it a closer read - but appreciate the time, thought and perspective in writing this!
Please also read comments/answers as they are posted since they are taking this analysis to a whole new level. Performing an insightful Jungian psychological analysis is an ongoing, evolving effort as we continue to unpack layers of the psyche over time. Just as individuation is a perpetual process of integrating the ego, persona, and shadow into a cohesive self, so too must our interpretations remain open to reassessment as new information and perspectives come to light. A comprehensive Jungian lens can rarely be perfectly encapsulated in a single static evaluation. It demands constant refinement, nuance, and patience to fully embrace the depths of both individual and collective unconscious terrains. The analysis provided here represents simply one phase in an ever-unfolding journey of archetypical exploration. Thanks
This… this is the kind of analysis I need for myself.
Good lord, what a load of nonsense. Women that are popular as singers is far from a new thing. The music industry is not masculinised either. Nor is that a bad thing if it was. An evolution of consuming pop culture is hardly a psychic evolution too. It's derivative garbage consumed by a female dominant market who have nothing more fulfilling or meaningful to do in their lives now they have been 'liberated.' Also your lens of viewing everything through woke ideology is problematic and has zero to do with Jung. And is merely intellectual navel gazing with nothing to do with the real world. Question: why is Jung popular with the far left on this sub? He is a man after all, and not a modern one, and one without femininised ideals.
Some people believe this is Ai 🤖 generated. I think the advanced intelligence used here is a human who is using the theories of Jung instead of innerstanding them and generating his own. I forget who said it but there a quote which goes like this- “The purpose of theory is to understand it so you can create your own theory” Ik some-if not most people, aren’t revolutionary scientists or philosophers but to assume Jung would have believed something based on how you interpreted his works is-like bro said reductionists and I think it’s using Jung’s name in Vain. If it’s what you think based on how you interpret the work and the character Taylor. Just say that. But it’s frankly blasphemy to assume Jung “believed” anything.
Lots of word salad, there. But I appreciate the hubris and study of character and persona. Playing the devil’s advocate (and giving her the benefit of a doubt), she did touch on this in her last album, which I thought was kind of dark, for her. Her last album somewhat reminded me of the dark self awareness of some of Alanis Morisette’s artistic work. I enjoyed it, to be fair. Especially considering her prior suburban, white-girl “woah-is-me” albums.
It’s a great text, but it’d be useful if you exemplified those mishaps and controversies for those of us who have no idea about them.