Queering Gender: Anima/Animus and the Paradigm of Emergence

Home , Anima and animus, Inner child, June Singer, Monosexuality, Queering

Journal of Analytical Psychology, 2006, 51, 401–421

Queering gender: anima/animus and the paradigm of emergence

Susan McKenzie, Vermont, USA

Abstract: An exploration into the world of the queer others of gender and sexuality moves us beyond the binary opposition of male/masculinity and female/femininity in our understanding of gender and expands the meaning of gender and sexuality for all humans. A revision of Jungian gender theory that embraces all genders and sexualities is needed not only to inform our clinical work but also to allow us to bring Jungian thought to contemporary gender theory and to cultural struggles such as gay marriage. The cognitive and developmental neurosciences are increasingly focused on the importance of body biology and embodied experience to the emergence of mind. In my exploration of gender I ask how gender comes to be experienced in a developing body and how those embodied gender feelings elaborate into a conscious category in the mind, a gender position. My understanding of emergent mind theory suggests that one’s sense of gender, like other aspects of the mind, emerges very early in development from a self-organizing process involving an individual’s particular body biology, the brain, and cultural environment. Gendered feeling, from this perspective, would be an emergent aspect of mind and not an archetypal inheritance, and the experiencing body would be key to gender emergence. A revised Jungian gender theory would transcend some of the limitations of Jung’s anima/animus (A/A) gender thinking allowing us to contribute to contemporary gender theory in the spirit of another Jung; the Jung of the symbolic, the mythic, and the subtle body. This is the Jung who invites us to the medial place of the soul, bridging the realm of the physical body and the realm of the spirit.

Key words: analytical psychology, emergent mind, gender, homosexuality, Jung, post- Jungian, sexuality, transgender

Introduction My research for this paper began in the fall of 1956. I clearly remember the moment. I had just entered the fourth grade and was playing kickball at morning recess in the playground. Dressed in my kickball uniform, blue jeans, T-shirt, and sturdy brown steel-toed oxfords, I was eager to display my skills to the other boys and girls and carve out some athletic territory. After all, I had been the playground kickball champion in my previous school. As I began

0021–8774/2006/5103/401 © 2006, The Society of Analytical Psychology Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 402 Susan McKenzie to play, the playground monitor, a scowling proper older teacher and keeper of the rules of propriety, approached me and pulled me out of the game. In a shaming whisper she told me that girls wear dresses and only boys wear pants. Both playgrounds and prisons have guards and I was abruptly made aware that I was a gender outlaw. This was my first gender trauma, but my feeling of shame was mixed with a touch of quiet rebellion. How could something that felt so right and allowed my body to perform at its highest level be so shamefully wrong. I was too young to challenge conformity then, but I was taking notes for the time when I would be able to stand up to such gender stereotyping. An exploration into the world of the queer others of gender and sexuality moves us beyond the binary opposition of male/masculinity and female/femininity in our understanding of gender and expands the meaning of sexuality for all humans. Queer others force us to examine and transcend our assumptions about the universality of heterosexuality and to begin to weave a new Jungian approach to gender and sexuality. Such a re-examination is long overdue as cultural battles rage over whether same-sex couples are allowed to marry. In the United States, civil unions for gays and lesbians were legalized in Vermont in 2000 (Lewin 2005). In February 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court declared that gays and lesbians must be allowed to marry in the state of Massachusetts (Arce 2004). The mayor of San Francisco also declared that gays and lesbians are to be allowed to marry in his city despite a state law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman (Margot 2004). Civil marriages between same-sex couples have also recently become legal in the UK (Vanderheyden 2005) and same-sex marriage has been legalized in Canada (Panetta 2005). Meanwhile, in reaction to this loosening of gender boundaries, President George W. Bush and the religious right are calling for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (Brown 2004). Gay marriage is a civil rights issue that goes to the heart of our cultural, religious, and scientific beliefs about gender and sexuality. It is time for a new psychological understanding of identity, gender, and sexuality to inform these beliefs. Jungians, with their recent focus on emergent archetype and emergent mind processes, are well poised to participate in this project.

Kate Kate Bornstein is a male to female transsexual and author of the auto- biographical book Gender Outlaw. She takes the reader on a provocative ride through queer gender in the world of the transsexual. As a child, Kate remem- bers playing alone in the basement, where she had rigged up an old chair with ‘all manner of wires and boxes and dials: it was my gender-change machine’ (Bornstein 1994, p. 64). Queering gender: anima/animus and the paradigm of emergence 403

Everyone else seemed to know they were boys or girls or men or women. That’s something I’ve never known; not then, not today. I never got to say to the grown- ups, ‘Hold on there; just what is it about me that makes you think I’m a little boy?’… I was always acting out something that everyone assumed I was. I wonder what it would have been like if someone had come along and in a quite friendly manner had asked, ‘Well, young one, what do you think you are: a boy or a girl?’ (pp. 8–9) She writes about the decision to undergo genital surgery, a two-year process involving psychological evaluations, hormone injections, and surgery: I never hated my penis; I hated that it made me a man—in my own eyes, and in the eyes of others. For my comfort, I needed a vagina—I was convinced that the only way I could live out what I thought to be my true gender was to have genital surgery to construct a vagina from my penis. Fortunately, I don’t regret having done this. (p. 47) Kate is in a committed lesbian relationship following her sex change and iden- tifies herself as lesbian. When she reveals that her lesbian lover of several years is undergoing sex-change surgery from female to male, she poses her ultimate challenge to conventional gender thinking. She writes: Can you imagine? I wake up one morning, A nice lesbian like me, I wake up one morning, and I’m living with a man! There were some questions I didn’t want to ask and I’ve been having to ask them: could I live with a man as my lover? and if I could do that, with a man as my lover, what was I? (p. 237) Kate’s story illustrates gender and sexuality residing in the borderlands of Western culture and resonates with postmodern queer theory that denies fixed identities and calls into question the assumed relationships between biological sex, gender, and sexual desire. The term queer can also be used in a dynamic way to describe identity under construction, in the act of becoming. In this sense queer is not an identity but is, instead, a critique of fixed identities. My particular vision about gender and sexuality has developed over many years of analytic work with homosexual and transgendered analysands. From what I’ve learned from my transgendered analysands and my own experience, I can make the following observations about gender and sexuality: the relationship to one’s own body that we call gender is an individual body/mind experience felt at a very early age. It is expandable over a lifetime and not necessarily related to one’s sexual anatomy. Sexuality, that is, whom we are attracted to, is very complicated and over a lifetime is subject to varying degrees of flexibility concerning the gender traits and sex of the other. 404 Susan McKenzie

Kate’s experience of her gender and sexuality was certainly evolving. Kate is a performance artist as well as a writer and was invited to a sexuality confer- ence I attended several years ago. On the evening of her performance, I sat about five feet from her as she walked back and forth in her miniskirt, multi- coloured knit top, and fluorescent heels. She talked about the hard work involved in getting her voice to pass as female, letting her voice go up and down as she described the hours of arduous voice training. The stories of her transsexual life were presented with skill and always with an edge of dark humour. The darkness of the humour deepened for me as I became aware of my growing anxiety. I felt uneasy as Kate told stories of the surgical removal of her male parts and her use of hormones to develop her femaleness, and her constant fear of being confronted as a man trying to pass as a woman. I began to think clinically about her, guiltily wanting to diagnose this person who was making me so uncomfortable! Her powerful transsexual appearance was pushing my personal transgendered limits; my gender position was de-integrating. She told the story of attending her mother’s funeral shortly after her surgery had been completed. Relatives who knew nothing about her sex change asked about her relation to the deceased; they didn’t recognize the son who was now a daughter. From this dark descent Kate pulled us back into light with a lively narration of how it takes seven years for every cell in the body to be replaced. It had been fourteen years since her operation, time for two entirely different bodies to form. Did she become mostly female those first seven years? She didn’t know. She did know, however, that she had become something new again after fourteen years. She said, ‘I never felt I was male, and I knew I didn’t really become a woman, but now I’m not a man or a woman, and it doesn’t matter anymore. Now I’m not a man, and I’m not a woman but what I have become is sexy’. She said this sensuously drawing out the word ‘sexy’ and repeating it several times with the love of her transsexual body permeating the room. This was not entertainment; this was the flesh of her fluid gender experience, neither masculine nor feminine, but the subtle body of desire that flows between. Kate Bornstein got to her fluid gender experience by first identifying herself as a woman, as feminine. She responded to the desire to have a body that reflected her experience of her gendered self, her subtle-body self. As a transsexual, she knew she wasn’t biologically a woman and yet had never felt she was a man either. The choice to try to become a woman was for Kate a ‘bearable prelude’ to her later realization that she was neither a man nor a woman, just sexy. Jung’s animus/anima theory can stretch itself to understand Kate’s initial need to have a properly sexed body to match her gender feelings, but it cannot explain Kate’s later experience of herself as neither male nor female, just sexy. Gender experiences in the world of the transgendered and transsexual are destabilizing. I have experienced the discomfort of feeling my own queer Queering gender: anima/animus and the paradigm of emergence 405 gender position starting to slide around under my feet as I listened deeply to the experiences of transgendered individuals, those people who do not fit neatly into the two categories of sex, male/masculinity and female/femininity, and to transsexuals, those who seek to make their bodies correspond to their opposite gender feelings through hormones and surgery. Empathic reverbera- tions are at the heart of analytic understanding in any realm of human feeling. A deeper understanding of the queer others has a lot to offer us in a post- Jungian examination of the experience of gender and sexuality in the flesh.

Culture and gender Kate Bornstein and the ubiquitous presence of transgendered and homosexual individuals throughout all cultures and times are a form of scientific evidence of gender fluidity in human development. Cultural gender beliefs have a profound influence on an individual’s gender performance and their ability to feel at home in their assigned gender. Understanding the links between the emerging mind and its environment is vital to understanding a particular culture’s impact on the formation of gender complexes. George Hogenson (2001) presented an understanding of Baldwinian evolution that furthered the idea of the archetype as emergent and delineated the co-evolutionary relationship between cultural artefacts and the development of the human mind. In a more recent paper, he presented a dynamic systems model for an emergent Self that resonated with my exploration of the impact of culture on emergent gender. His model ‘includes the physiological characteristics of the infant, the intentional attributes of the caregiver, and the cultural or symbolic resources that constitute the environment’ (Hogenson 2004, p. 67). Myths and symbols are understood to be cultural artefacts and ‘are part of the system that bootstraps the infant, and subsequently the developing individual, into the world of intentional objects, meaningful action, and relationships’ (ibid., p. 75). Artefacts are the creative products of a culture, created by collective minds and handed to each new generation through cultural memory. Arte- facts are an external inheritance, our cultural inheritance. The cultural gender artefact would reflect the gender complexes specific to the culture, just as our gender, as we experience it, would reflect our personal collection of gender complexes. The idea that the cultural gender artefact co-evolves with the gender experiences of individuals in the culture is readily illustrated by the same-sex marriage debate in America. As homosexuality and transgender become more visible in our culture—in TV shows, movies, music, and political debate—it seems that the prevailing gender belief that only one man and one woman can define a marriage is changing. Conversely, we can see, particularly in younger generations, that as America’s gender beliefs become less rigid, it seems that individuals’ experiences of their gendered selves become more expansive. 406 Susan McKenzie

When we look at gender beliefs across cultures and times we can observe that gender beliefs or artefacts vary from culture to culture and co-evolve with a culture’s religious, biological, and psychological artefacts or beliefs. The transgendered individuals in many aboriginal tribes were believed to be closely connected to the hermaphroditic gods of their creation myths. The aboriginal Navajo culture recognized and highly valued third- and fourth-gender individuals, males who took female gender roles and females who preferred male gender roles (Roscoe 1998). Anthropologist Walter Williams writes: the family which counted a transvestite or had a hermaphrodite child born to them was considered by themselves and everyone else as very fortunate. The success and wealth of such a family were believed to be assured…as they grew older and assumed the character of nadle (male third gender spiritual role), this solicitude and respect increased. This respect verges almost on reverence in many cases. (Williams 1988, p. 63) Western monotheistic cultures have historically recognized only two genders, and severely punished those individuals whose gender presentations did not conform. In 1431, Joan of Arc is burned at the stake for political and religious reasons, but her refusal to dress as a woman while in prison is a primary focus in her trial and eventual execution (Sackville-West 1991, p. 282). The orthodox Catholic position on gender has been historically devastating to aboriginal cultures: Antonio de la Calancha, a Spanish official in Lima, sang the praises of Vasco Nunez de Balboa, who on his expedition across Panamá saw men dressed like women; Balboa learned they were sodomites and threw the king and 40 others to be eaten by his dogs, a fine action of an honorable and Catholic Spaniard. (Williams 1988, p. 137) Those transvestite men were their culture’s spiritual leaders. Even today, orthodox Western religions cannot find a way to deal with the boundary dwellers of gender. In testimony before the Vermont Judiciary Committee on February 2, 2000, when the legislature was considering the Civil Union bill, The Most Reverend Kenneth Angell, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, Vermont, had this to say: They [gays and lesbians] are my people, and I want them to know how much it distressed me to disappoint them. I am not deaf to their plight and to their pleas. I am aware of their pain. I think I have even heard them crying in the night, as I lay sleepless myself, praying on how best to serve them and still obey God. But I cannot do one without the other, really. Because, there is only One Truth, One Way, One Life.…We believe that marriage is a sacred covenant between one man and one woman.…We base these beliefs on the teachings of God and Jesus Christ as revealed to us through Scripture and Tradition. In contrast, many less-orthodox Christian religions are beginning to invite homosexuals into their religious houses. A recent and highly controversial Queering gender: anima/animus and the paradigm of emergence 407 event was the ordination of an openly gay man as Bishop in the Episcopal Church. Beliefs about biology are also central to the evolution of gender beliefs. Transgendered and inter-sexed individuals in aboriginal cultures were given distinct positions in their tribes. The forms that God created in nature were considered sacred, and all members of a society had a purpose (Williams 1988, p. 86). Biological beliefs in the history of Western civilization were not so open-minded. Soranos, a physician in second century Rome, diagnosed sexual activity between women as a physical problem. He presumed an enlarged clitoris to be the cause of a woman’s active sexual preference for women. Active or penetrating sexuality was believed to be the natural domain of a man: a woman was considered to be naturally passive in her sexual expression. The treatment for this condition was the surgical removal of the offending organ (Brooten 1996, p. 163).

Jung, gender, and sexuality It would be easy to dismiss Jung’s contribution to contemporary gender thinking by focusing on his culturally biased gender writing that claims inherent gender characteristics linked to biological sex. Jung’s anima/animus (A/A) thinking leads us into a trap of linear order- liness, fixed identities, androgynous symmetries, and archetypes that are differentially inherited, based on sexual anatomy, a breach in the universality of the collective unconscious. His gender theory does however allow for both genders to reside in an individual but posits a slow and sex-appropriate emergence of the contra-sexual from the unconscious. Jung’s A/A cannot account for the transgendered experience with its reversal of starting points and fluidity of sexual attractions. Jung’s A/A is a terrible fit for our time. We live in an era of emergent, not fixed realities, and are beginning to value the overt display of masculinity and femininity in both sexes. Fortunately, there’s another Jung who is an early queer theorist in his fascination with the archetypal third of the transcendent function, and the psychoid realm of the subtle body. Jung gestures to the subtle body of gender when he speaks of body as a representation of the physical materiality of the psyche (Jung 1959, para. 392). This is the subtle body of gender and sexuality residing in an intermediate realm between mind and matter and moving in an emergent process rather than fixed in biological fundamentalism—a gender that shimmers and hovers around body. The Jung who writes about psyche in motion, about fluid identity fed by archetypal process in the ego-self field, and about the relationship between psyche and world, the unus mundus, is quite relevant to contemporary gender discussions. This is Jungian queer theorizing that could be used to describe identity under construction and the individual in the act of perpetual becoming. It is this Jung that enables us to take a ride on Kate Bornstein’s gender changing machine. 408 Susan McKenzie

Jung in his 1936 essay ‘Concerning the archetypes and the anima concept’ hints that the image of the homosexual has an important function for the collective psyche by preserving the wholeness of original man. In this somewhat ambiguous statement about homosexuality, Jung says that for a young male to achieve sexual maturity, he must leave his identification with his mother, the feminine. Jung indicates that something different is going on for artists and homosexuals. For them he states that: it is rather a matter of incomplete detachment from the hermaphroditic archetype, coupled with a distinct resistance to identify with the role of a one-sided sexual [gendered] being. Such a disposition should not be adjudged negative in all circum- stances, in so far as it preserves the archetype of the Original Man, which a one- sided sexual [gendered] being has, up to a point, lost. (Jung 1959, para. 146) Four years later in a passage from his 1940 essay ‘The psychology of the child archetype’, Jung makes another reference to the primordial image of original man. He states that the image of the archaic hermaphrodite that originally referred to the twilight time of unconsciousness has evolved to symbolize ‘the creative union of opposites, a “uniting symbol” in the literal sense.…[T]he symbol no longer points back, but forward to a goal not yet reached’ ( Jung 1959, para. 293). An understanding of this forward pointing gesture is suggested in Myste- rium Coniunctionis, finished in Jung’s 80th year. He writes that ‘The one after another is a bearable prelude to the deeper knowledge of the side by side, for this is an incomparably more difficult problem’ ( Jung 1963, para. 206). In the ‘one after another’ Jung is referring to linear sequential thinking, a kind of thinking that produces A/A kinds of foundational gender theory and visions of integrated and fixed wholeness like the half-male and half-female image of the androgyne. The side-by-side reference suggests the difficulty we have in experiencing disproportionate and shifting combinations of archetypal contents rather than attaching to polar opposites and linear symmetries. Jung’s side- by-side statement gestures towards our current evolutionary path, our emerging awareness that the concrete experience of opposites is an artefact of identity or ego formation that screens us from the deeper experience of totality, the side-by- side that also resides in the psyche.

Jungians, psychoanalysts, gender and sexuality In the early 1970s James Hillman’s archetypal theory loosened the emphasis on the linear concreteness of the opposites (Samuels 1985). His focus on the multiplicity and simultaneity of archetypal aspects rather than the opposi- tional struggle between them allowed us to imagine a multidimensional dance of gender traits in the psyche of both sexes. The work of Hillman and many other archetypal Jungians suggested the fluidity and plurality of archetypal Queering gender: anima/animus and the paradigm of emergence 409 experience, holding open the theoretical door for the current paradigm of emergent-archetype and emergent-mind process and gesturing toward a new vision of gender and sexuality. June Singer updated Jungian gender theory in Androgyny: Toward a New Theory of Sexuality (1976). Her writing reflected the gender (r)evolution that was taking place in the 1960s and 1970s. The feminists introduced us to the notion that humans are not so easily divided by biological sex and gender categories. Singer was trying to fit this new cultural consciousness into the linearity of the historic A/A gender theory. Her concept of androgyny focused on the union of opposites, an imagined state of gender totality: ‘this shifting of energies [masculine and feminine] once thought to be separate will occur so rapidly, so smoothly, that the oscillation will be practically indiscernible’ (p. 273). Singer also adhered to Jung’s heterosexual bias when she stated that oscillat- ing sexuality is not part of this image of gender unity: ‘the new androgyne is not in confusion about his or her sexual identity. Androgynous men express a natural, unforced and uninhibited male sexuality, while androgynous women can be totally female and have their own sexuality’ (p. 19). While this book gave me permission to openly experience my masculine traits, it did little to help me understand my emerging midlife homosexuality. The androgyne image invoked in Singer’s work was also a problem. Gender and gendered sexuality are much more complex and fluid in both same-sexed and opposite-sexed couples than any union-of-opposites model could begin to describe. Gender appearance does not always predict the sexual role being played out between partners. Karen, a midlife lesbian, came into therapy to work on sexual identity and coming out anxieties. She felt confused about calling herself a lesbian, because after fifteen years of heterosexual marriage, she found that she felt more feminine with her new lesbian lover than she had ever felt as a heterosexual woman. Karen asked, ‘How can I be a lesbian if I feel more like a woman now?’ Nathan Schwartz-Salant in the first line of his paper ‘Anima and animus in Jung’s alchemical mirror’ (1992) made the startling statement, ‘I do not find the concepts, anima and animus to be clinically useful’ (p. 1). He observed that: ‘Desire inheres in the field of the syzygy in which there is no next question but an imaginal simultaneity.…Once our orientation centers upon the field of the syzygy rather than some allocation of its parts, it appears that gender is not very useful’ (pp. 5–7). Schwartz-Salant’s statement resonates with Kate’s experience of herself as neither a man nor a woman, just sexy. By the end of the 20th century the post-Jungians were beginning to grapple with homosexuality. Robert Hopcke (1991) facilitated research on Jung and homosexuality by compiling Jung’s writing on homosexuality. Christine Downing (1991) suggested that homosexuality had an archetypal basis by tracing its rich mythological history. Others explored the idea that same-sex love might be a viable path to individuation (Hopke, Carrington et al 1993; Kulkarni 1997), posing a challenge to Jung’s heterosexist A/A theory. Jungians 410 Susan McKenzie were beginning to write about homosexuality but hadn’t yet resolved the problem of the A/A archetypes. I was grateful for the appearance of these books but longed for a substantially new theoretical understanding of gender from which to begin to think about the complexity of the sexualities. As Jungians made the turn into the 21st century they opened the discussion of Jung and postmodernism, the philosophical stance that underpins queer theory and resonates with the concept of mind as an emergent process. Chris- topher Hauke’s (2000) groundbreaking work Jung and the Postmoderns. The Interpretation of Realities explores the relevance of Jung’s work to postmodern thinking and helps us to create a bridge from Jung’s writing to contemporary gender theory. Hauke’s book and Susan Rowland’s (2002) Jung. A Feminist Revision allow us to apply postmodern Jungian concepts to the revision of Jungian gender theory. The Feminine Case: Jung, Aesthetics and Creative Process (Adams & Duncan 2003) is an important collection of papers exploring the role of the feminine in Jungian analytic thinking. Chapter four, ‘Individuation and necessity’ by Andrea Duncan, and chapter five, ‘Jung’s search for the masculine in women: the signification of the animus’ by Tessa Adams, are particularly relevant to the re-visioning of Jungian gender theory. A brief foray into the extensive psychoanalytic writing on gender would help to illuminate my gender theory. Robert Stoller and Joyce McDougall are dominant figures in the early development of psychoanalytic gender thinking. Stoller sees non-normative gender expression as a perversion resulting from parental trauma to a child’s core gender (biological sex) or to his or her early expression of masculinity or femininity (1975, p. xvii). Male transsexuals, however, are an exception in that having no initial identification as male there is no trauma to their core gender feelings. Male transsexuals experience a seamless symbiotic relationship with their mothers (pp. 138–43). Female transsexuality, according to Stoller, is traumatic and one must assume therefore a perversion. The trauma is a ‘flawed symbiosis with their mother’ (p. 161), followed by an identification with masculinity with its inherent discouragement of symbiotic attachment. My gender theory deconstructs the assumed natural link between core gender identity (biological sex) and subsequent gendered feelings. While considering attachment experiences as factors in gender development I do not see parental influences in transgender development as having interrupted or traumatized some natural progression toward normative gender expression. Joyce McDougall presents a different version of linear, normative gender development. For her, bi-sexuality is an innate psychic structure that requires from the individual ‘the obligation to come to terms with one’s monosexual destiny’ (1995, p. xi) achieved ‘through the renunciation of their bi-sexual longings’ (p. x). The failure to make this integration, according to McDougall, is the cause of subsequent non-normative genders and sexualities. In this model integration of monosexuality is both an achievement and an endpoint of psychic gender development. I acknowledge the need to form some degree Queering gender: anima/animus and the paradigm of emergence 411 of gendered identity position, but see this as a somewhat temporary ego platform from which to explore and expand one’s gender capacity. My post-Jungian theorizing leads to a final phase of rediscovery and conscious integration of the innate potential for masculinity and femininity within every individual, regardless of biological sexual beginnings or initial gendered positions. In a sense, I return to conscious bi-sexuality (emergent gender fluidity) as an achievement of gendered maturity. The psychosexual dimensions of gender development are the primary focus for both Stoller and McDougall, whereas I am more interested in the psychosocial (both attachment and cultural) influences. I also draw on the sciences that have a lot to say about gender determinants that are outside of the psychosocial/sexual realms; in particular brain development and prenatal hormo- nal influences that may turn out to be the most powerful determinants of gendered feeling. In the same spirit as my post-Jungian psychoanalytic thinking, Adrienne Harris (2005), a psychoanalytic developmentalist, has recently published, Gender As Soft Assembly, an integration of psychoanalytic theory, non-linear systems theory, developmental psychology, and gender theory. Her ideas offer convincing support for my project to develop and articulate a Jungian gender theory that will allow us to bring our Jungian voice to this area of analytic inquiry. In reading Harris’s book I came upon a passage that reflected my personal experience in relation to writing this paper. Harris writes about tomboy experience first quoting Philip Bromberg: ‘a human being’s ability to live a life with both authenticity and self-awareness depends on the presence of an ongoing dialectic between separateness and unity of one’s self-states, allowing each self to function optimally without foreclosing communication and negotiation between them’ (1998, p. 272). Harris goes on to say, ‘in the tomboy’s identity, a boy in a girl, a boy and a girl, a girl and more than a girl, a girl whose phallic activities may be dystonic or syntonic, are all shifting self states in play’ (Harris 2005, p. 146). The passage invoked my own feelings of past, present, and future in this project; the child, the analyst, and the future-seeking theorist in me, all conversing in this endeavour and, it also sparked a fantasy. I imagined an idealization of James Hillman’s notion of the interplay of archetypal images; those sibling gods and goddesses of our psychic homes, living side-by- side, and competing for attention but with enough parental control that none are overly traumatized or killed off. A substantial revision of Jungian gender theory requires a revision of our concept of the archetype. A new understanding of archetype as an emergent mind process is currently under construction. Taking this idea further, I suggest that gender is a particular example of emergent archetype in emergent mind process. Jungian dialogues within the fields of attachment theory, the neurosciences, dynamic systems theory, and evolution are instrumental to this contemporary understanding of the concept of archetype in mind and gender 412 Susan McKenzie as an emergent aspect of the self-organizing mind. From a survey of recent scientific and analytic papers addressing these areas, I will present the fabric of a more suitable Jungian gender theory, one that will fit all genders and sexualities. The scope of this paper and my own limitations in these scientific areas restrict this inquiry to a preliminary survey. My intention is to initiate an exploration of new Jungian analytic theory about gender and sexuality while simultaneously putting flesh on the ongoing discussion about the nature of archetypes. A revision of Jungian gender theory that embraces all genders and sexualities is needed not only to inform our clinical work but also to allow us to bring Jungian thought to contemporary gender theory.

The neurosciences, archetype, and gender In the last few decades there has been a rapid growth in the scientific understanding of conscious and unconscious processes inspiring a new Jungian exploration of archetype and complex. The developmental neurosciences are increasingly focused on the body, on the importance of body biology and embodied experience to the emergence of mind. From Daniel Stern’s (1985) concept of the ‘preconscious emergent self’ to Antonio Damasio’s (1999) more recent ‘proto-self’, we are introduced to the neurobiology of body feeling states that precede consciousness, ‘having the feeling is not the same as knowing the feeling, that reflection on feeling is yet another step up…all of these processes—emotion, feeling, consciousness— depend for their execution on representations of the organism. Their shared essence is the body’ (Damasio 1999, p. 284). The cognitive neurosciences help us to bridge from unconscious brain/body concepts such as image schemas and mental models to the elaboration of categories in the conscious mind. Cognitive linguist George Lakoff emphasizes the importance of body and culture to categories of thought: Thought is embodied, that is, the structures used to put together our conceptual systems grow out of bodily experience and make sense in terms of it; moreover, the core of our conceptual systems is directly grounded in perception, body movement, and experience of a physical and social character. (Lakoff 1987, p. xiv) I believe that there is something in the basic biology of individuals that tips us toward what is subsequently organized into initial masculine or feminine identity positions. I suggest that one’s primary gender feelings are part of a pre-conscious proto-self (Damasio 1999) or emergent self (Stern 1985) that is related to our earliest body/mind organization. This emergent sense of self pre- cedes the organization of archetypal imagery and complex formation. Jung’s archetypes in this neurological framework would be second-order organizing mechanisms in the mind and not first-order archetypal principles that deter- mine body or gender feeling. Queering gender: anima/animus and the paradigm of emergence 413

An individual’s attachment experiences are also important factors in the formation of a conscious sense of gendered self. The internal experience of our gendered self is shaped and focused, both positively and negatively, by early relational experiences with primary caretakers and those experiences are primary factors in our emerging gender complexes. Gender complexes also emerge in a dynamic relationship to the cultural artefacts of gender beliefs, the cultural gender myths that one is born into. I borrow the concept of ‘nesting’ (Hogenson 2004, p. 73) to suggest that gender identity is a weaving together of an individual’s body/mind development, nested in its attachment experiences, which in turn are nested in the gender artefacts specific to one’s cultural environment. This weaving is a living tapes- try, a personal art form that is a work-in-progress that continues throughout a lifetime. Attachment theory brings an understanding of the impact of interpersonal relationships, particularly the mother-infant bond, to the developmental and cognitive aspects of the emerging mind. Attachment research has emerged from its infancy in John Bowlby’s (1969) work to its sophisticated elaboration in Allan Schore’s (1994) integration of developmental neurobiology and attachment research. The interface between contemporary research on the mind and a new Jungian understanding of gender will be the focus of the remainder of this paper. In my gender project I asked how gender comes to be experienced in a developing body and how those embodied gender feelings elaborate into a conscious category in the mind, into a gender position. I struggled with the place of the Jungian concept of inherent archetypes, in particular the A/A archetypes that assume an inherited gender disposition linked to biological sex. The more recent Jungian concept of archetype as an emergent property of mind allowed me to imagine a new Jungian understanding of gender. Papers by Jean Knox (2001), George Hogenson (2001, 2004), Peter Saunders and Patricia Skar (2001), Joseph Cambray (2002), Margaret Wilkinson (2004), and many others that re-examined the Jungian concepts of archetype and complex in light of emergent mind research, have been vital to my Jungian gender thinking. Emergent mind theory suggests that one’s sense of gender, like other aspects of the mind, emerges very early in development from a self-organizing process. Gendered feeling, from this perspective, would be an emergent aspect of mind and not an archetypal inheritance, and the experiencing body would be key to gender emergence. What is important to contemporary gender thinking is that whatever story we tell about ourselves at the higher levels of consciousness, something we ascribe to identity, if it is to feel true, must be in a close relationship to our early body feelings, which, in turn, are influenced by our attachment experiences, and our interaction with cultural beliefs. 414 Susan McKenzie

Attachment, schema, and gender Recent research in developmental and cognitive neurobiology suggests that the earliest experience of embodied gendered feeling involves the activity of image schemas, ‘the spatial models that are formed very early in the process of mental development and encode core information about the spatial relationships with objects in the world around us’ (Knox 2003, p. 66). In my gender model, an individual’s feeling experience of certain image schema interactions would have strong gendered overtones. A social cognition study suggests that there are image schemas that underpin what is experienced in the body as masculinity and femininity. The study proposed that the kinaesthetic image schemas of compulsion, blockage, and containment are at the root of a sense of spatial power or dominance: the construction of gendered spaces, is viewed here as a process of interaction< the interaction of those containers we call our bodies…(and) may be related as follows in terms of kinesthetic image schemas: masculinity and masculine spaces are constructed through repeated instances of (or the exhibition of the potential for) exert- ing force over animate and inanimate objects and overcoming obstacles, resulting in an increase in the size of territory controlled. Femininity and feminine spaces are constructed through submission to force and avoidance of or submission to obstacles, with the resultant decrease in the size of territory controlled. (Umiker-Sebeok 1996, p. 4) Another reflection on image schemas of feminine space can be found in Jean Knox’s recent book, Archetype, Attachment, Analysis. She suggests that an image schema of containment could replace the concept of the archetypal mother and, further, that the image schemas as ‘the earliest psychic structures.…offer a contemporary developmental model for archetypes.… correspond(ing) to the archetype-as-such’ (Knox 2003, pp. 66–67). In my model of gender emergence, the embodied feeling states experienced in the ‘agency’ of acquiring territory and the ‘communion’ of shared space and the balance between the two experiences would inform our sense of ourselves as masculine, feminine, or androgynous. Further, the feeling tone of the image schema actions involving ‘agency’ and ‘communion’ would vary for each of us according to our particular attachment experiences, prenatal and postnatal endocrinology, and cultural beliefs. Cognitive research proposes that image schemas underlie the formation of the more elaborate mental organization of internal working models, which according to Knox, might correspond to the Jungian notion of the complex. Unlike the image schemas, gestalts that are without any representational con- tent, the internal working models, or complexes, ‘function as a store of meaning accumulated by experience, as a body of core meanings which are drawn upon and used but outside conscious awareness’ (Knox 2003, p. 102). Saunders and Skar (2001) suggest that the archetypes are emergent organizational categories of complexes (p. 312). Whether we’re considering Knox’s archetype as Queering gender: anima/animus and the paradigm of emergence 415 image schema or Saunders and Skar’s archetypes as organizational categories of complexes, the archetype is in a dynamic process in body/mind organization and the gendered feeling that emerges from that same dynamic process is not as predictable or static as Jung’s A/A theory suggests. In light of current scientific knowledge it seems reasonable to imagine that one’s conscious gender position involves a somewhat fluid set of complexes or internal working models that emerge from an interweaving of image schemas, attachment experiences, one’s particular body biology, and culture.

Clinical illustration Let me put some flesh on the possible influence of early attachment to an individual’s gender position. Jan was an openly transgendered lesbian whose strong male cologne accompanied all of our sessions and lingered in the room long after the hour was over. Jan had some early attachment experiences that may have contributed to her powerful transgendered presentation. She grew up in a family dominated by an abusive father and brother. Jan often wit- nessed her mother being beaten by her father and very early in her life became her mother’s defender, physically placing herself between her father and mother. She was also the protector of her little sister, who was routinely sadis- tically abused by an older brother. Jan described the need to be strong enough to take on her father and brother. In image-schema terms, she needed to feel the manly strength to claim and protect the physical space around her mother and sister. Jan always wore a single gold stud earring, ‘like a gay guy’ she would say. Soon after her mother died she came to a session with two gold studs, one in each ear. I asked her about the change, and she said that now that her mother was gone it seemed okay to have the other earring, it seemed okay to appear more feminine. Clearly not all little girls in abusive households become transgendered lesbians, and Jan did not go through a gender conversion after her mother’s death. She just relaxed a bit and allowed herself more room to explore the other side and to command less space. I speculate that a biological predilection to transgenderism, explored in the next section, might be enhanced by an attachment situation that prejudices the acquisition of the attributes of one gender over another. For Jan it was much safer to feel male.

Attachment, biology, and gender Recent research is suggesting that the body’s neurochemistry and attachment experiences interact in the emergence of a gendered self. Allan Schore’s inte- grative work on the neurobiology of emotional development, Affect Regula- tion and the Origin of the Self (Schore 1994, p. 264), presents a body of research showing that psychological gender differences in the postnatal developing brain circuitry are related to the production of gonadal hormones 416 Susan McKenzie between the ages of 18 and 24 months. Developmental neurobiological studies also show that the production of those hormones is dependent on ‘the rearing environment…social stimulation and imprinting experiences in the early psychosocial environment (an environment that) critically and permanently shape(s) psychological gender’ (p. 264). Recent biological research also suggests that early transgendered play patterns in girls are correlated with prenatal exposure to androgens circulating in the mother’s body. In this study it was shown that females exposed to high levels of androgens during foetal development have a greater preference for boy playmates, and display higher energy expenditures and participation in more rough-and-tumble activities…the influence of prenatal androgen on their childhood gender role behaviour is robust, has been demonstrated in many independent studies, and occurs when there’s virtually no androgen in the blood. (Friedman & Downey 2002, p. 74) The implication is that the prenatal exposure to the higher levels of androgens leads to some as yet undiscovered developmental brain influence that predi- cates male gendered play behaviour in girls. These and many other studies suggest that there are biological factors that influence the expression of gender and sexuality that are not linked to genital biological sex. Many of my lesbian analysands preferred boy play, dress, and physicality in childhood. This preference did not disappear after the tomboy years. It fre- quently went underground in early adolescence as a forbidden gender desire and was often followed by same-sex sexual attraction. In my analytic work with these women, on occasion I stumbled in my gender assumptions. Beth, a midlife lesbian whose gender presentation was conventionally female, was recounting her early gender experiences to me. As she was describing her lusty tomboy experiences of being the best athlete among her many male cousins and the heroic defender of her little brother on the school playground, I referred to the little girl of her interior world. Beth stopped me and said, ‘Oh no, it’s a little boy and his name is Jim’. Jim turned out to be an important character in her current struggle to defend herself against the homophobic bullies she perceived in her adult world. On another occasion, I was working with Jan, the openly transgendered lesbian I spoke about earlier (p. 415). Jan’s mother had just died, and in an attempt to deepen her connection to her vulnerability, I made reference to her sad little girl. She was understandably indignant when she corrected me; her inner child imago was a boy, not a girl. Contemporary Western biology is searching for brain structures or genetic factors that will scientifically explain the presence of transgendered and homosexual people. If the biological ‘cause’ of transgender or homosexuality were discovered, would it be used to validate gender variance or would it be used to find cures to fix the queer outsiders? How biology might co-evolve with gender beliefs and medical interventions is a question of great importance to those of us who are transgendered and/or homosexual. Queering gender: anima/animus and the paradigm of emergence 417

Conclusions—the queer symbolic Psychoanalysis and psychology are cultural artefacts with a long history of co-evolving with gender and sexuality beliefs. Jung and Freud had their differences about the meaning of sexuality and gender, and each has had tremendous influence on cultural beliefs about gender and sexuality. The co-evolution of psychology and sexuality beliefs can be observed in the removal of homosexuality as a psychological disorder in the DSM-III in 1980. Transgender, however, remains a pathological category in the DSM-IV diagnostic manual. The diagnostic categories of 302.3, Transvestic Fetishism, 302.6, Gender identity disorder in children, and 302.85, Gender identity disorder in adolescents or adults suggest that gender purity remains a much more entrenched cultural artefact than sexuality. This is consistent with our Western cultural inheritance; throughout the history of Western civilization, gender boundaries have been much more rigid and consistent than the boundaries around sexuality (Brooten 1996; Downing 1991). As civilization develops, the bisexual primordial being turns into a symbol of the unity of personality, a symbol of the self, where the opposites find peace. (Jung 1959, para. 294) Jung’s quote (above) is friendly to postmodern queer theory but, in the whole of Jung’s writing about gender, it is clear that he suffered the gender panic common to his era and tended to celebrate the spirit of the bi-sexual symbol while avoiding the flesh of it. In this era of emergent mind with its focus on embodied experience I believe it is the responsibility of contemporary Jungians to engage in a revision of Jungian gender theory. A new gender theory would unburden us of the confining A/A thinking and allow us to offer a Jungian contribution to gender thinking in the spirit of the other Jung: the Jung of the symbolic, the mythic, and the subtle body. This Jung brings us the medial realm of the soul, the bridge between the realm of the physical body and the realm of the spirit. As Kate’s story revealed, to grow up transgendered is to grow up aware that gender is not a fixed and opposi- tional truth. The culturally induced instability of a transgendered person’s gender experience facilitates a subtle-body awareness of the side-by-side of gender; a multiplicity of gender that is experienced in the very flesh of the transgendered individual. Those who carry the transgendered experience have existed in all cultures and times. Could the image of the transgendered body, as a symbolic and mythic body, be a living artefact that holds open a culture’s potential for the development of hermaphroditic consciousness, a consciousness that reaches far beyond gender and pierces the veil of opposition in all realms? Perhaps we might then experience otherness as a kind of seduction of fluid differences, more subtle differences than mere opposition—a seduction whose power lies in the preservation of the strangeness of the other. 418 Susan McKenzie

TRANSLATIONS OF ABSTRACT Une exploration dans le monde des autres étranges quant au genre sexuel et à la sexual- ité nous amène au-delà l’opposition binaire de masculin/mâle et féminin/femelle pour ce qui est de notre compréhension du genre et permet d’étendre la signification du genre et de la sexualité à tous les humains. Une révision de la théorie jungienne des genres qui inclut tous les genres et toutes les sexualités est nécessaire non seulement pour aborder notre travail clinique, mais aussi pour nous permettre à la pensée jungienne d’apporter sa contribution à l’ensemble de la théorie des genres contemporaine et aux luttes culturelles telles que le mariage homosexuel. Les neurosciences cognitives et développementales se centrent de plus en plus sur l’importance de la biologie du corps et du vécu corporel pour le développement de la pensée. Dans l’exploration que je fais ici sur la question des genres, je me demande comment le genre en arrive à être un vécu dans un corps en développement et comment ces sentiments de genre ancré dans un corps s’élaborent pour devenir une catégorie consciente dans l’esprit, une position déterminée quant au genre sexuel. Ma compréhension de la théorie de l’émergence de la pensée m’amène à avoir l’idée que le sens que l’on a de son genre, tout comme d’autres aspects de l’élaboration de l’esprit, émerge très tôt dans le développement à partir d’un processus auto-organisant qui s’appuie sur la biologie du corps de l’individu, le cerveau, et l’environnement cul- turel. Le sentiment du genre, de ce point de vue, serait un aspect émergeant de l’élabo- ration de la pensée et non pas un héritage archétypique, et le vécu corporel serait central pour l’émergence du genre. Une théorie du genre jungienne révisée transcenderait quelques-unes des limitations de la pensée sur le genre A/A de Jung ce qui nous permettrait de contribuer à la théorie contemporaine sur le genre dans l’esprit d’un autre Jung: le Jung du symbolique, du mythique et du corps subtil. C’est le Jung qui nous invite à donner une place médiale à l’âme, faisant le pont entre le champ du corps physique et le champ du corps de l’esprit.

Eine Untersuchung der Welt von Homosexualität und Gender bringt uns über die Grenze der binären Opposition von Mann/Männlichkeit und Frau/Weiblichkeit in unserem Verständnis von Gender hinaus und erweitert die Bedeutung von Gender und Sexualität für alle Menschen. Eine Revision der Jungianischen Gender-Theorie, die alle Gender-Formen und Sexualitäten umfasst, wird benötigt, nicht nur, um unsere klinische Arbeit zu bereichern, sondern auch, um uns zu ermöglichen, Jungianische Gedanken in die zeitgenössische Gender-Theorie und in kulturelle Phänomene wie homosexuelle Heirat einzubringen. Die kognitiven und entwicklungspsychologischen Neurowissenschaften fokussieren zunehmend auf die Wichtigkeit der Körperbiologie und die verkörperte Erfahrung bezüglich der Entwicklung des Bewusstseins. In meiner Gender-Untersuchung frage ich, wie Gender in einem sich entwickelnden Körper erfahren wird, und diese verkörperten Gender-Gefühle sich herausarbeiten in eine bewusste Kategorie der Psyche, in eine Gender-Position. Aufgrund meines Verständnisses der Theorie der Bewusstseinsentwicklung habe ich den Eindruck, dass die Gender-Wahrnehmung eines Menschen, ebenso wie andere Queering gender: anima/animus and the paradigm of emergence 419

Aspekte der Psyche, sehr früh in der Entwicklung eines selbstorganisierenden Prozesses auftaucht, und dabei eine individuelle, besondere Körperbiologie das Gehirn und die kulturell-gesellschaftliche Welt mit einbezieht. Aus dieser Perspektive wäre das Gender- Gefühl ein auftauchender Aspekt des Bewusstseins/der Psyche und nicht ein archetypis- ches Erbe, und der sich erfahrende Körper würde den Schlüssel zur Gender- Entwicklung darstellen. Eine revidierte Jungianische Gender-Theorie würde einige der Grenzen von Jungs Animus/Anima-Gender-Vorstellungen transzendieren und uns erlauben, einen Beitrag zur zeitgenössischen Gender-Theorie im Geiste eines anderen Jungs beizutragen; und zwar des Jungs des symbolischen, des mythischen und des feinstofflichen Körpers. Dies ist der Jung, der uns in die Mitte der Seele einlädt und den Bereich des physischen Körpers und den Bereich des Geistes überbrückt.

Un’esplorazione nel mondo degli altri ambigui nel genere e nella sessualità, ci sposta oltre l’opposizione binaria di maschio/mascolinità e femminile/femminilità nella comprensione del genere e espande il significato di genere e di sessualità per tutti gli esseri che ci umani.. E’ necessaria una revisione della teoria del genere che abbracci tutti i generi e le sessualità non solo per essere informati nel nostro lavoro clinico, ma anche per permetterci di portare il pensiero junghiano nelle teorie contemporanee di genere e nelle lotte culturali quali i matrimoni tra gay. In modo sempre più crescente le neuroscienze ed evolutive stanno ponendo l’accento sull’importanza della biologia del corpo e sull’esperienza incarnata per l’emergere della mente. Nella mia analisi del genere mi domando in che modo il genere arriva a essere esperito in un corpo che si evolve e in che modo tali sentimenti di un genere incorpo- rato vengano elaborati in una categoria conscia nella mente, in una posizione di genere. La mia comprensione della teoria di una mente emergente mi fa pensare che il senso di un proprio genere, come altri aspetti della mente, emerga molto presto nello sviluppo da un processo auto -organizzativo che implica una particolare biologia corporea, il cervello e l’ambiente culturale. Il senso di appartenenza a un genere, da questa prospet- tiva, sarebbe un aspetto emergente della mente e non un’eredità archetipica e il corpo che fa esperienza sarebbe la chiave per un emergere del genere. Una teoria junghiana del genere dovrebbe andare oltre alcuni dei limiti del pensiero di Jung che ci permetta di contribuire alla moderna teoria del genere nello spirito di un altro Jung: lo Jung del simbolico, del mitico, e del corpo sottile. Questo è lo Jung che ci invita allo spazio mediale dell’anima, al trovare un ponte tra il regno del corpo psichico e il regno dello spirito.

Una exploración dentro del mundo del mundo de los otros extraños en cuanto a su gén- ero y sexualidad nos mueve mas allá de la oposición binaria de macho/masculinidad y hembra/feminidad en nuestra comprensión del género y expande el sentido del género y la sexualidad para todos los humanos. Es necesaria una revisión de la teoría de los gén- eros de Jung que incluya a todos los géneros y sexualidades no solo para informar nuestra labor clínica sino también para que podamos adecuar al pensamiento Junguiano a las teorías contemporáneas y a los luchas culturales tales como el matrimonio gay. Las neurociencias cognitivas y del desarrollo se han cada vez mas focalizado en la importancia de la biología corporal y en la experiencia de corporización para la 420 Susan McKenzie emergencia de la mente. En mi experiencia del género me pregunto como el género viene a ser experimentado en un cuerpo en desarrollo y como esos sentimientos de corporización del género se elaboran en una categoría consciente de una posición genérica en la mente Entiendo de la teoría emergente de la mente me sugiere que el propio sentido del gén- ero, igual que otros aspectos de la mente, emerge muy temprano en el desarrollo desde un proceso auto-organizante que involucra una biología corporal particular del individuo, el cerebro y el entorno cultural. El sentimiento de generización desde esta perspectiva, sería un aspecto emergente de la mente y no una herencia arquetipal y la experimentación del cuerpo sería la llave para la emergencia del género. Una teoria Junguiana revisada sobre el género trascendería algunas de las limitaciones del pensamiento de Jung sobre la A/A permitiéndonos contribuir a la teoría contemporánea sobre el género en el espíritu de otro Jung; el Jung de lo simbólico, lo mítico y lo sutil. Es este el Jung que nos invita al puesto mediador del alma, haciendo puente entre el reino del cuerpo físico y el reino del espíritu.

References Adams, T. & Duncan, A. (Eds.) (2003). The Feminine Case: Jung, Aesthetics and Creative Process. London: Karnac. Arce, R. (2004, February 6). ‘Massachusetts court upholds same-sex marriage’. CNN. Retrieved February 19, 2006, from http://www.cnn.com. Bornstein, K. (1994). Gender Outlaw. New York: Vintage. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss. Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Bromberg, P. (1998). Standing in the Spaces. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press. Brooten, B. J. (1996). Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Brown, A. (2004, February 24). ‘Bush Proposes Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage’. CNN Newsnight. Retrieved February 19, 2006, from http:// www.transcripts.cnn.com. Cambray, J. (2002). ‘Synchronicity and emergence’. American Imago, 59, 4, 409–34. Damasio, A. (1999). The Feeling of What Happens. San Diego, New York & London: Harcourt. Downing, C. (1991). Myths and Mysteries of Same-Sex Love. New York: Continuum. Faderman, L. (1981). Surpassing the Love of Men: Romantic Friendship and Love Between Women from the Renaissance to the Present. New York: William Morrow. Friedman, R. & Downey, J. (2002). Sexual Orientation and Psychoanalysis, Sexual Science and Clinical Practice. New York: Columbia University Press. Harris, A. (2005). Gender as Soft Assembly. Hillsdale & London: The Analytic Press. Hauke, C. (2000). Jung and the Postmodern; The Interpretation of Realities. London & Philadelphia: Routledge. Hogenson, G. B. (2001). ‘The Baldwin effect: a neglected influence on C. G. Jung’s evolutionary thinking’. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 46, 4, 591–611. —— (2004). ‘What are symbols symbols of? Situated action, mythological bootstrapping and the emergence of the Self’. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 49, 1, 67–81. Hopcke, R. (1991). Jung, Jungians and Homosexuality. Boston: Shambhala. Hopcke, R. H., Carrington, K. L. & Wirth, S. (Eds.) (1993). Same-Sex Love and the Path to Wholeness. Boston & London: Shambhala. Jung, C. G. (1959). The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. CW 9i. Queering gender: anima/animus and the paradigm of emergence 421

—— (1963). Mysterium Coniunctionis. CW 14. Knox, J. (2001). ‘Memories, fantasies, archetypes: an exploration of some connections between cognitive science and analytical psychology’. Journal of Analytical Psycho- logy, 46, 4, 613–35. —— (2003). Archetype, Attachment, Analysis. Hove & New York: Brunner- Routledge. Kulkarni, C. (1997). Lesbians and Lesbianisms: A Post-Jungian Perspective. London: Routledge. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago & London: Univer- sity of Chicago Press. Lewin, A. (2005, April 26). ‘Vermont Marks Five years of Civil Unions’. ABC News. Retrieved February 19, 2006, from http://www.abcnews.go.com. Margot, B. (2004, August 12). ‘Court annuls San Francisco gay marriages’. MSNBC. Retrieved February 19, 2006, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com. McDougall, J. (1995). The Many Faces of Eros: A Psychoanalytic Exploration of Human Sexuality. London: Norton. Panetta, A. (2005, June 28). ‘Canada approves same-sex marriage’. Canadian Press. Retrieved February 19, 2006, from http://www.canada.com. Roscoe, W. (1998). Changing Ones: Third and Fourth Genders in Native North America. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Rowland, S. (2002). Jung. A Feminist Revision. Oxford & Malden: Polity & Blackwell. Sackville-West, V. (1991). Saint Joan of Arc. New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell. Samuels, A. (1985). Jung And The Post-Jungians. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Saunders, P. & Skar, P. (2001). ‘Archetypes, complexes and self-organization’. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 46, 2, 305–23. Schore, A. (1994). Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Schwartz-Salant, N. (1992). ‘Anima and animus in Jung’s alchemical mirror’. In Gender and Soul in Psychotherapy, eds. N. Schwartz-Salant, M. Stein, Wilmette: Chiron, 1–23. Singer, J. (1976). Androgyny: Toward a New Theory of Sexuality. Garden City: Anchor Press/Doubleday. Stern, D. (1985). The Interpersonal World of the Infant. New York: Basic Books. Stoller, R. (1975). Perversion: The Erotic Form of Hatred. London: Karnac. Umiker-Sebeok, J. (1996). ‘Power and the Construction of Gendered Spaces 1’. International Review of Sociology, 6, 3, 389–403. Vanderheyden, T. (2005, December 5). ‘Civil “Marriage” for Gays Reality in UK’. Lifesite News. Retrieved February 19, 2006, from http://www.lifesite.net. Wilkinson, M. (2004). ‘The mind-brain relationship: the emergent self.’ Journal of Analytical Psychology, 49, 1, 83–101. Williams, W. L. (1988). The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Cultures. Boston: Beacon Press.