[Note: the entire book is available in digital form at no cost to those who access the Library of Professional Coaching. Here is the link: New Johari Window. ]
In this excerpt from the book that updates a widely known and used model of interpersonal relationships (the “Johari Window”) the author focuses on the fourth quadrant of the Window which deals with aspects of self and interpersonal relationships that are known neither to self or other. Bergquist extends the original concepts offered by the Johari Window co-author (Joseph Luft) by introducing other models of intrapersonal and interpersonal processes and recent research findings that reveal many of the most important dynamics operating in this “unconscious” realm of interpersonal relationship.
Most of us have heard of the Johari Window and assume that it somehow came out of the blue or from heaven if we happen to admire and use this insightful model of interpersonal relationships. There is an author and there is a book. The person is Joe Luft. The book is On Human Interaction. Actually, Joe Luft isn’t the only author and On Human Interaction is not really the source of the Johari Window. The Johari Window was presented first at a human relations conference held in Ojai California during the 1950s. As is typical of this type of high-level and high-powered conferences, senior staff members were asked by the conference dean to prepare brief presentations that relate specifically to the dynamic events emerging from the intense interpersonal experiences of the conference. At this particular Ojai conference, two of the senior staff members—Joe Luft and Harrington Ingram—were asked to prepare a presentation on interpersonal relationships that would be presented the following morning at a general session. Joe and Harrington sat down with a flip chart page and magic marker in hand to prepare this presentation. On a now-fabled tree stump they sketched out a four cell model of interpersonal relationships that focused on the degree to which two people are open with one another in sharing their thoughts and feelings (especially about one another).
Luft and Ingram presented their model the following morning and then went their own separate ways without much fanfare. One year later, Luft was attending another human relations conference and was approached by a conference participant who wanted Joe to make a presentation on the “Joe-Harry Window”. Luft had no idea what this person was talking about and remained bewildered until the participant began describing the four cell model that Joe had presented a year earlier with Ingram. Apparently, several of the Ojai participants found the four cell model to be insightful and began using this model in their own training. An informal authorship was assigned to the model (soon to be shortened to “Johari”). Since it had four cells and looked like a window, the model became known as the “Johari Window.”
The Original Johari Window
Joe Luft’s original model contained four quadrants that represented the total person in relation to other persons. These four quadrants also define the essential features of the New Johari Window. The following definitions and principles are substantially the same as those presented in both On Human Interaction (Luft, 1969) and his second major book, Group Processes (Luft, 1984):
Quadrant 1 (Q1): the open quadrant, refers to behavior, feelings, and motivation known to self and to others. [often called “public self”]
Quadrant 2 (Q2): the blind quadrant, refers to behavior, feelings. and motivation known to others but not to self. [often called “unaware self”]
Quadrant 3 (Q3): the hidden quadrant, refers to behavior, feelings, and motivation known to self but not to others. [often called the “private self”]
Quadrant 4 (Q4): the unknown quadrant, refers to behavior, feelings. and motivation known neither to self nor to others. [often called the “potential self”]
The original Johari awareness model was applied to questions of human interaction. These questions were brought into focus with the aid of the four quadrants. The model was then used by Joe Luft to engage in speculation. For example, what happens in a group when someone gives an unsolicited interpretation of another’s blind area? What happens to Quad 1 or Quad 3? The original model helped to clarify changes in awareness and openness as well as changes in tension, defensiveness, and hostility. Certain universal questions were addressed through the model—questions about the effect of unknowns on human interaction, trust, levels of miscommunication, ancient and primitive leadership patterns, and appropriate disclosure of self.
The New Johari Window
While the original Johari Window offers wisdom regarding human relationships that still holds true, I have modified and expanded on this Window in several ways, suggesting that wisdom contained in the original model can be expanded through additional analysis. First, I have sought to create an expanded model that is responsive to the profound shifts that are now occurring in 21st Century societies. Along with many other social analysts, I suggested in a book I wrote more than a decade ago (Bergquist, 1993) that we are moving into what might best be called a postmodern society. This shift from a modern to postmodern social system holds many implications for interpersonal relationships. In the new Johari Window model I spin out some of these implications. Second, there are important analyses and studies regarding interpersonal relationships that were offered or conducted after Luft presented his initial model. I believe it is important to incorporate these findings in the Johari model, if this model is to be truly integrative.
Third, I believe that the Johari Window will be more fully integrative if it also incorporates other major interpersonal models that fully compliment the ideas presented by Joe Luft. Some of these alternative interpersonal models can be traced back to sources from early in the 20th Century, while other models have been offered since the initial introduction of the Johari Window. A more extended exposition of all four quadrants will be presented in a new book that I am authoring. In this article, I focus on one of the four quadrants (Q4) and trace out its implications for organizational coaching.
The fourth quadrant is filled with paradox and enigma. It provokes convoluted questions similar to the one we all confronted in elementary school as junior philosophers: “If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is present, then does it still make a sound?” In the case of our Johari Window, the question is: “How do we know Quad Four exists, if no one is aware of what’s in it?” Even if we accept “on faith” that the tree does make a sound and that Quad Four material does exist, how do we discover what is in this quadrant and how do we appreciate the impact which Quad Four content has on the other three quadrants?
Potential for the Future, Residue of the Past
We can learn about our Quad Four material, Luft suggests, by reflecting back on our life experiences. Through reflection backwards in our life, we may uncover memories (retained experiences and associated feelings) that seem not to be part of actively conscious experiences that are either shared (Quad One) or kept secret (Quad Three) from other people. Erik Erikson —a famous psychoanalyst (and former actor)—addresses the concept of potential and residue by introducing a theatrical metaphor: each of us is standing on a stage, playing eight different parts (developmental phases of life) (Erikson, 1950). At any one moment, one of these eight parts is front stage and in the spotlight. We (the ego—or audience) are focused on this one phase; however, all of the other seven players are always present on the stage and are always part of the “play.” They reside at the back or side of the stage and are out of the spotlight; however, they always influence the phase that is in the spotlight. Some represent a phase that was formerly in the spotlight (residue). Others represent a phase that is yet to occupy center stage (potential).
Erikson further suggests that the former phases (or specific developmental issues associated with these phases) are likely to play particularly powerful roles (in relation to the spotlighted phase) if they were not very successfully played out or negotiated when in the spotlight. We move on to the next phase, but the “baggage” (to mix our metaphors) from the previous phase(s) lingers and continues to interplay with or even interfere with the role being played by the phase that is currently in the spotlight. This, in turn, increases the chance that current developmental issues won’t be successfully addressed. This, in turn, increases the chances that this phase itself will linger and impact on the next phase when it is in the spotlight. Thus, the complexity and breadth of developmental issues at each phase may increase, if we don’t successfully play out the current role and phase. The so-called mid-life crisis and despair of later life exemplify this compounding effect. With regard to the fourth quadrant of the Johari Window, this means that the residue of the past may be increasingly influential or even disruptive if developmental issues associated with this residue are never successfully addressed. Q4 is likely to intrude more often in Q1. There is likely to be more unintentional leakage into Q3-External, and our clear and accurate receipt of feedback (Q2 to Q1) is less likely to occur. Our developmental “ghosts” appear at in-opportune times—as they did in the life of Charles Dicken’s Ebenezar Scrooge—and demand attention.
From a more positive perspective, I would suggest that Quad Four is an exceptional source of nourishment and life for each individual and the relationship itself. Experiences and aspects of our self seem to linger without life or purpose in our selves. They then sink into unconsciousness—seemingly lost forever from our consciousness. Yet, this lost material remains a source of inspiration and reassurance—a source of psychic nutrition. It is these “lost” aspects of the relationship, lingering below the surface of human interaction that may give this relationship its texture and character. Bette Midler sings about this in “The Rose”—a flower remains alive throughout the winter, buried beneath the snow, waiting for the warmth of spring. Employed an equally poetic image, Eric Berne writes about the important role that the child in each of us plays in any authentic human relationship. We don’t want to “analyze” away this child or our dynamic unconscious life for the sake of being “realistic” or “mature.” Our beloved poets and novelists have repeatedly reassured us that romance and mystery are essential to a life well lived and to a relationship that is vital and fully engaged at every moment.
The Paradoxical Self
Quad Four is a source of surprise, of learning and of nurturance in the individual psyche and relationships in large part because it is the repository of content and dynamics processes that contrast with and often offset or counterbalance the content and processes of one or more of the other three quadrants—especially Quadrant One. We live in paradox as a result of the elements of Quad Four. Paradox exists not only because of the contrast, but also because Quad Four is dependent on the other three quadrants. It exists in opposition to the other quads. Jungians suggest that the brighter (more powerful) the light (Quad One), the darker (more powerful) the shadow (Quad Four). The more Jack Parr would be upset with and try to control Jonathan Winters, the more outrageous Jonathan Winters became. The more that rebellious comedians (like Lenny Bruce and Mort Sahl) are criticized and “repressed” by the press and critics, the more outrageous and unbridled they become. The dark needs the light and the light needs the dark.
In a human interaction, Quad Four is increasingly powerful if both parties to the interaction deny its existence. Both parties are “too busy” to worry about “unconscious stuff.” Neither wants to appear “irrational” or “inappropriate” in this relationship. The usual assumption is: “if we don’t talk about it, maybe it will go away and we can assume that it never existed in the first place.” The truth about what is happening in the relationship is pushed from both Quad Two and Quad Three to Quad Four. Such is the dynamic that operated in many Victorian novels: something is happening that is unmentionable; hopefully, this is only a temporary yearning or (better yet) “a figment of our imagination(s).”
Often the self-contradictions are only apparent when Quad 4 is made more conscious. The contradictions seem to erupt out of nowhere when Quad 4 is blocked off. Quad 4 is challenging not only because its content may be scary or unanticipated, but also because it often makes a paradox more explicit. Quad Four, after all, is the realm of images. Contradictions and paradoxes that can be reasoned away in the more conceptual world of the first three quadrants are more vivid and less amenable to conceptual manipulations in Quad Four. These paradoxes stand out clearly: two powerful forces situated on two hilltops ready to go to war over a principle, a course of action, a desire. These paradoxes specifically seem to play out in four domains. We will borrow from the work of a remarkable social systems analyst, Talcott Parsons, in identifying and describing these four domains (Parson and Bales, 1955). Parsons suggests that any social system consists of four domains: adaptation, goal-attainment, integration and latent pattern maintenance.
The Adaptive Paradox: The first domain—the adaptive system—focuses on the creation of resources. It is in the business of importing resources from outside the system or cultivating resources from inside the system. Parsons identifies this as the agricultural subsystem in a society. The paradox inside a relationship inevitably centers, in part, around this adaptive function. What is it that nourishes our relationship? Is it those aspects of our relationship that we intentionally import or cultivate—such as our trustful disclosure and feedback—or is it something that remains mysterious and, ultimately, unknowable?
The Goal-Attainment Paradox: The second domain that Parsons identifies concerns goal-attainment. This is the political and governmental subsystem in a society—and in an interpersonal relationship. What are the goals of this relationship and how is this relationship guided toward these goals? The goal-attainment paradox consists of the pull between explicitly stated goals and strategies in the relationship, on the one hand, and the implicit, tacitly-held goals and strategies of the relationship, on the other hand. This is the tension between the explicit convening task of a relationship or group, and the implicit “basic assumption” task of the relationship or group.
The explicit task may be to design a new software program (group) or choose a piece of recorded music to play (interpersonal relationship). The implicit, basic assumption task might to demonstrate (once again) that members of this group can’t do anything (such as design a software program) without the group’s wise and benevolent leader (a group-based assumption of dependency). Similarly, the two parties to the relationships are always in disagreement about their musical tastes and their selection of a recorded piece of music. Thus, each of them must firmly hold their ground or be run over by the “bad tastes” of their loved one.
The paradox is that members of the group or the two parties in the relationship must repeatedly reaffirm their basic assumption—even if it is no longer (or never has been) valid. The software design group may no longer need the wise leader, yet its viability depends of the group members’ yearning for the leader. Similarly, the conflicting couple might discover that their musical tastes have actually become quite similar in recent years; yet, their relationship is vitalized by their seeming differences in musical taste. Thus we see a paradox of goal-attainment manifest in both the group and relationship.
The Integration Paradox: Parsons’ third domain is integration. This is the judicial subsystem in a society or relationship. This domain enables the social system to operate in a balanced and consistent manner. This domain concerns equity, fairness and values. The paradox of integration, in turn, concerns the source of interpersonal justice in both the explicit (Quad One) and implicit (Quad Four) norms of the relationship. The third stage in relationships and groups concerns the setting of norms and values in a relationship. What do we both want in this relationship? How do we go about ensuring that these needs are met? What happens when one of us feels that their personal needs aren’t being met in the relationship? This is Parsons’ domain of integration.
Yet, there is a paradox here, for we don’t wait for this third stage in a relationship to set norms. We don’t operate without norms and values until we feel free to be open with one another. Obviously, some norms and values—guidelines if you will—exist from the first moment two people (or members of a group) meet one another. These guidelines, however, are usually implicit. They are externally derived or even imposed. Furthermore, they tend to reside in Quad Four, being unavailable, in explicit form, to either party. This is the paradox of integration: where do the relational guidelines reside and how are they influenced prior to the stage of norming and openness?
The Paradox of Latent Pattern Maintenance: The fourth domain that was identified by Parsons is perhaps the most important—and clearly the one which is most closely associated with Parsons. This domain is called latent pattern maintenance. As this rather clumsy name implies, this domain is about conservation. In the case of interpersonal relationships, this domain concerns the conservation or maintenance of deeply-embedded (latent) patterns of behavior, feelings and interpretations in the relationship. Parsons considers this to be the religious function that exists (in some form) in all societies. The associated paradox is profound and the focus on many studies, theories and speculations.
This paradox of latent pattern maintenance concerns the ability of anyone to alter a relationship pattern once it is firmly established. Parsons would suggest that a massive amount of energy in any social system will be diverted to this fourth domain if it is threatened with change (whether this change is good or bad for participants in the system). The paradox resides in the fact that we can fairly easily become aware of this pattern maintenance dynamic (which primarily resides in Quad Four—the “latent’ quality of the domain). Yet, becoming aware of the pattern (bringing it into one of the other three quadrants), doesn’t mean that we can change it. This is the paradox and the often-pessimistic perspective that the British school brings to our understanding of human interactions.
To better understand the nature of the paradoxical self (and in particular the dynamics of latent pattern maintenance) and the complex nature of Quad Four, I will turn to both old and new sources: (1) Rudolph Otto’s numinous, (2) the Jungian identification and description of undifferentiated and unconscious life, (3) recent findings from the cognitive and neurosciences and (4) recent findings from research on the nature of complexity and chaos.
The Numinous
In what some scholars identify as the first “psychological” analysis of religious experiences, Rudolph Otto identified something that he called the “numinous” experience. In his now-classic book, The Idea of the Holy, Otto (1923) creates a new word, “numinous” (from the Latin word “numen” and paralleling the derivation of “ominous” from the word “omen”). Otto (1923, p. 11) writes about a powerful, enthralling experience that is “felt as objective and outside the self.” Otto’s numinous experience is simultaneously awe-some and awe-full. We are enthralled and repelled. We feel powerless in the presence of the numinous, yet seem to gain power (“inspiration”) from participation in its wonderment.
Using more contemporary psychological terms, the boundaries between internal and external locus of control seem to be shattered when one is enmeshed in a numinous experience. The outside enters the inside and the inside is drawn to the outside. We are transported to another domain of experience when listening to a Bach mass or an opera by Mozart or Puccini (depending on our “taste,” i.e. amenability to certain numinous-inducing experiences). The horrible and dreadful images and pictures of gods in primitive cultures continue to enthrall us—leading us to feelings of profound admiration or profound disgust. We view a miracle, in the form of a newborn child or the recovery of a loved one from a life-threatening disease. This leads us to a sense of the numinous. Somehow, a power from outside time or space seems to intervene and lead us to an experience that penetrates and changes (though we don’t know how) our fourth quadrant.
Jungian Theory
Carl Jung built on and extended Otto’s portrayal of the “numinosum.” Jung (1938, p. 4) describes a numinous experience as one that “seizes and controls the human subject . . . an involuntary condition . . . due to a cause external to the individual. The numinosum is either a quality of a visible object or the influence of an invisible presence causing a peculiar alteration of consciousness.” Elsewhere, it is noted that Jung’s notion of numinous is “rooted in experience and not just in ideation. The numinous is an experience which the individual undergoes and not simply the nonrational quality of dream-thoughts and mythologems. The numen or object present in or to the numinous state of mind is experienced as a powerful and meaning-filled other. It transcends conscious intention and control.”(Chapman, 1988, p. 89)
The numinous experience for Jung can be evoked by an exceptionally beautiful sunset or by the overwhelming prospect of a loved one’s death. It can be evoked by a particularly powerful interpersonal relationship—one filled with lust, love, compassion or hatred. In Johari terms, the numinous experience speaks directly to Quad Four and elicited responses from Quad Four that can break directly into Quad One or that can be manifest indirectly through either Quad Two or Quad Three. Thus, our fourth quadrant, from a Jungian perspective, is filled not just with unconscious ideas or assumptions, but also with a wealth of rich and even overpowering experiences that align in some manner with our own inner beliefs and values.
More generally, Jung seems to be speaking to the gradual evolution of human consciousness when writing about the numinostic experience. As one of his protégés, Eric Neumann (1954), has noted, human consciousness (replicating the evolution of organic life) begins in an undifferentiated state (which Neumann calls the “uroborous”). This state is represented in many symbolic forms, ranging from the many images of chaos (floods, wind, ocean) to the more stylized image of the snake that is circling around to begin devouring its own tail. Jungians suggest that the experience of the numinous (and the comparable role played by Quad Four in the Johari model) represent the reemergence or re-solicitation of the uroborous.
We experience this undifferentiated Quad Four state when outside sensations are cut off—as in the case of sensory deprivation or the absence of feedback (theorized by some as a cause of schizophrenia). The undifferentiated Quad Four state (and experience of the uroborous) can also be experienced when the opposite occurs—when there is excessive sensations from outside or from both outside and inside (as in the case of many hallucinogenic drugs). Perhaps the high-volume rock concert produces a numinous experience (undifferentiated) state through its excessive stimulation. Might we expect to witness direct or indirect expressions of Quad Four during these concerts?
Jung suggests that the numinous experience is quite frightening and often not welcomed. He proposes that we build societal norms and institutional structures to protect us from the numinous. Jung nominates the Catholic Church as an institution that has provided protection from the numinous, though its rituals and priestly roles. He suggests in Psychology and Religion that the Protestant revolution shattered this protection and left those who adhere to a Protestant faith fully exposed to the powerful presence of the numinous. (Jung, 1938, pp. 22-23) Without this religious institutional protection, Protestants have looked elsewhere for a barrier that can be erected between self and numinous (and blocks intrusion of Quad Four material). In Psychology and Religion (based on the pre-World War II 1937 Terry Lectures), Jung suggests that the Nazi regime in Germany may powerfully and horribly exemplify the substitution of a secular institution for a religious institution in blocking the emergence of numinous experiences.
Whether or not Jung is correct in linking the Third Reich and ultimately the Holocaust to the threat of numinous (Quad Four) experiences, we certainly can acknowledge and respect the power of Quad Four, and recognize its potentially destructive role in the distortion or even destruction of interpersonal relationships. I propose that Quad Four is likely to be destructive if the material contained in this quadrant is blocked off or denied. One should be able to allow Quad Four material into one’s consciousness whether through ritual or priestly confessions, whether through self-reflection or supportive coaching.
Without this acceptance—when there is no self-reflection and when there is no source of feedback from the powerful external forces of life—then it is hard to distinguish between reality and fantasy. We are faced with the threat of pure projection in our relationships with other people. They become nothing more than the representations of unacknowledged Quad Four materials. Our sense of self becomes rigid and our interpersonal relationships become stagnant, for there is only a recycling of false reality in our personal and interpersonal life. We become a closed system (which by definition is dead or dying).
On the other hand, Quad Four material and the numinous can serve a constructive role. It is the Jungian trickster (the ego-deflator) who leads us to recognize the falsehood of the shadow cast on the wall of our psychic cave. We stumble or even fail in a specific relationship and come to recognize that we have not really wanted to be in this relationship. Though a slip of the tongue or through an awkward interpersonal exchange of feelings, we reveal something true about ourselves and our relationship with another person. This revelation steers this relationship toward a more honest and constructive pathway. We also witness the constructive role to be played by Quad Four and the numinous in the passion we feel for another person. This passion reminds us that we are alive and that we can care deeply about another human being. Jungians would speak of this as the interplay between our conscious psyche and the unconscious power of anima (the male archetype) or animus (female archetype). This interplay is often evident in our favorite love songs. Jungians suggest that these love songs are not concerned ultimately with other people in our lives about whom we are passionate. Rather, they are about the tender and passionate relationship between our own conscious self and these archetypal forces that exist within ourselves (our fourth quadrant).
While the forces of lust and love can be very destructive and lead us into major interpersonal problems, they can also be forces that are positive and lead us to long-term, enriching intimacy and life-long interpersonal commitments. The Jungians are quite right in suggesting that we may have little control over the intrusion of awesome numinous experiences into our psychic life. However, we do have considerable control over our willingness to acknowledge and appreciate the nature and power of these Quad Four intrusions. We can engage and incorporate these intrusions into our conscious and purposeful lives.
The Cognitive, Neuroscience and Physical Science Revolutions
For many years, researchers in the ancient field of psycho-physics were aware of something they call the “apperceptive mass.” It is the very concrete, unprocessed material of our senses—the raw visions, sounds, smells, tastes and patterns of touch that enter our brain from the many sensors in our body. These sensations last for only a moment in raw form, yet they can have profound impact on the way in which we feel at any one point in time and the way in which we subsequently interpret the meaning of these many sensations, while turning them into comprehensible perceptions.
The apperceptive mass conveys something about the unregulated, interwoven nature of these incoming sensations. A sound can influence how we perceive a visual stimulus (as in the case of an attention-grabbing car crash), and a visual stimulus can influence how we perceive a taste (as in the case of the presentation of food or wine). These senses are all interconnected and they may influence our content in Quad Four without us knowing it. More specifically, our fourth quadrant perceptions of and attitudes regarding another person may be strongly influenced by the intermingling of sounds, images, smells, tastes and touches associated with this person. It is in the areas of smell, taste and touch that the impact may be greatest on Quad Four—and may be least accessible to our conscious mind.
In more recent years, the neuro-scientists have added to this picture of unprocessed, influential stimuli. They have found that the early processing of these stimuli is directly connected to a specific sub-cortical area of the brain—called the Amygdala (a small walnut-size component of our mid-brain). We find deeply-embedded, permanent templates in the Amygdala that provide us with initial impressions of the newly-processed stimuli. These templates serve as guardians at the gate—among other functions. Is the incoming image potentially dangerous to us? Does it look like a snake? Does it look like my father (whom I love and fear)? Does it look like my best friend?
We undoubtedly create templates for the people we love in our life. Their physical presence sends a jolt of recognition to our brain and signals the release of many different kinds of hormones into our body (that may bring about an immediate sense of contentment—perhaps also a sense of apprehension). We are likely also to send (at least initially) the same signals to our brain and body when we encounter someone that reminds us of someone we love. Psychodynamic theorists would identify this as a “transference” process. We now know that there is a neurological base for this transference that resides at least partly in our Amygdala.
Our higher-functioning cortex will subsequently re-examine the immediate conclusions reached by the Amygdala and adjust the appraisal of potential threat associated with these incoming stimuli (that are now organized by the cortex into coherent perceptions). However, the immediate visceral reaction associated with a positive match between the Amygdala template and the incoming stimuli sends an emotional charge through our entire body that can’t help but influence how we subsequently perceive and treat these incoming stimuli. We undoubtedly store this sequence of events in our long-term memory, setting the stage for even stronger future reactions to this specific person (in the case of templates related to other people and interpersonal relationships).
Locus of Control
While Quad Four may seem to be out of our control, there is much that each of us do within our own psyche to influence both the content and dynamics of Quad Four. In fact, the so-called depth psychologists (including the Freudians, Neo-Freudians and Jungians) believe that much of what happens in our psyche is determined by internal Quad Four content and dynamics. While Quad Four content and dynamics are usually outside our conscious awareness, in some instances, we can gain greater internal control if we become aware. This, after all, is the primary purpose of long-term psychodynamic therapy: bringing Quad Four into Quad One (at least the Quad One that is shared by patient and therapist).
Internal Locus of Control
What then is the nature of internally-based Quad Four (Q4-I)? At the very least, Q4-I consists of memories from times past in our lives. Recent neuro-science studies suggest that we move certain short-term memories into long-term storage (usually shifting these memories at night, when we are asleep). These memories tend to be relatively permanent; however, they are not easily accessed. The keys to retrieval of these reserved memories are often not words or even visual memories. The retrieval often is linked to smells, taste, touch or emotions. We whiff a fragrant flower or taste a delicious spaghetti sauce and recall a special moment in our childhood. The touch of our ear or forehead elicits a vivid memory of our mother. A frightening walk through a dark alley provokes the terror associated with some childhood memory. As I have already noted, many of these memories are apparently stored in our Amygdala, to which smell, taste, touch and emotions (in particular) are closely linked.
These are the most widely accepted and empirically-verified elements of the internally-controlled Quad Four (Q4-I). Other elements are introduced by neuro-scientists and psychiatrist, in a speculative (but empirically-derived) manner, and by psychoanalysts, spiritual counselors and poets in a highly intuitive manner. While there are many provocative models of Quad Four functions, I shall briefly focus on only two—the “shadow” function that was first introduced by Carl Jung, early in the 20th Century, and the model of “limbic resonance” that was recently introduced by Thomas Lewis, Fari Arnini and Richard Lannon (2000) in their remarkable book, A General Theory of Love.
The Shadow Function: Though first introduced by Carl Jung, the image of a powerful intrapsychic shadow was described earlier by playwrights, such as William Shakespeare (King Lear), and novelists, such as Robert Lewis Stevenson (Dr. Jeckel and Mr. Hyde). I have chosen to focus on the Jungian concept of “shadow” because of the apparent impact of this Quad Four element on interpersonal relationships. The Jungians would suggest that much of the “leakage” from Quad Three occurs with the assistance of the Shadow function, and that much of what other people see in us, but remains opaque to us, is influenced (and perhaps made opaque) by the Shadow. What then is the nature of this powerful, though unacknowledged, player in our fourth quadrant?
As I noted above, Jungians love to dwell upon the fourth quadrant. Jung devoted considerable attention to the numinous experience and its impact on the human psyche. He spent even more time describing the “Shadow” that resides in that part of our psyche that is usually unconscious (Quad Four). If the Jungian “Persona” or mask captures the essence of the intentional or presentational self in Quad One (Q1-I), then the Shadow represents the opposite—the unintentional (but present) aspects of the self in Quad Four (Q4-I). As described by one Jungian, Joseph Henderson (1964, p. 118), “the shadow cast by the conscious mind of the individual contains the hidden, repressed, and unfavorable (or nefarious) aspects of the personality.” We see the influence of Sigmund Freud and his concept of the repressing unconscious forces that operate in human experience in this initial statement by Henderson. Henderson (1964, p. 118) and many other Jungians, however, go beyond Freud in describing a highly complex and multi-dimensional shadow function in unconscious life (and Quadrant Four): “[the] darkness [of the shadow] is not just the simple converse of the conscious ego. Just as the ego contains unfavorable and destructive attitudes, so the shadow also contains good qualities—normal instincts and creative impulses. Ego and shadow, indeed, although separate, are inextricably linked together in much the same way that thought and feeling are related to each other.”
The Jungians go even further in linking the shadow function to powerful and universally-represented symbols: “The ego . . . is in conflict with the shadow, in what Dr. Jung once called ‘the battle for deliverance.’ In the struggle of primitive man to achieve consciousness, this conflict is expressed by the contrast between the archetypal hero and the cosmic powers of evil, personified by dragons and other monsters.” (Henderson, 1964, p. 118) According to an eminent Jungian, Maria von Franz (1985), there are two sources of the shadow. One source is the personal unconscious. The personal shadow “represents unknown or little-known attributes and qualities of the ego—aspects that mostly belong to the personal sphere and that could just as well be conscious.” (von Franz, 1985, p. 168) We each have our own personal shadow that is interwoven with our personal ego. Our personal shadow balances off this ego with the counter-weight of alternative images of self and alternative (and often devalued) sources of distinctive, personal strength. The collective unconscious is a second source of shadow. It is in this domain that the powerful, universal and archetypal symbols find expression and resonate with our personal sense of self. (von Franz, 1985, p. 169)
Shadow and Quad Four: If we apply these complex Jungian concepts of the shadow to our analysis of Quadrant Four we arrive at five conclusions. First, Quad Four material consists of images and visions of our self that are both positive and negative in nature. We keep Quad Four material out of consciousness, in some cases, because we find this material to be threatening or antithetical to our positive image of self. In this regard, the “repression” of Quad Four material is comparably described by Freud and Jung. We would expect this Quad Four material to emerge into Quad Two, Quad Three or even Quad One when the setting is safe or, at the opposite end, when one is so threatened or subjected to stress that all defenses break down and Quad Four material leaks out or even leaps out everywhere.
Quad Four material can also be quite positive and attractive. We find bravery, creativity and interpersonal insight in Quad Four. These positive aspects of Quad Four often are displayed in spontaneous acts (bravery), moments of relaxation (creativity) and dreams [a source of many interpersonal insights according to Erich Fromm (1976)]. So why do we keep these positive elements in Quad Four? They may scare us—because we would be expected to do great things with this material or underlying talents if it were acknowledged. These elements might be socially unacceptable—after all, we can’t all be comedians, fools or eccentric celebrities. In some cases, we simply are unaware of them, given that we are preoccupied with our busy, saturated postmodern life and dwell in a world where technical rationality reigns supreme.
The second conclusion arises specifically from Jungian theory. The Quad Four material (particularly if it comes from what the Jungians identify as the collective unconscious) is likely to move into one of the other three quadrants if one is confronted with compelling images (symbols, rituals, awe-inspiring and numinous experiences) that are aligned with and elicit Quad Four material. We participate in a church service that is “inspiring.” It brings us to recognition of deeply felt (and usually unconscious) images of a better world or more moral pattern of personal conduct. We engage in meditative practices or enter a sanctuary in which we discover our own inner sense of divinity. We find God in a sunset, autumn leaf or Monet painting. Each of these experiences often leads us to move Quad Four material into the conscious quadrants of our psyche. These experiences may evoke nonverbal behavior that reveals something important about our self to other people (Quad Two), as they witness us interacting with these powerful symbols, rituals or life-altering experiences.
While these profound experiences of the numinous can provide us with great personal insight through the movement of Quad Four material into consciousness, these experiences can also be quite confusing with regard to the ultimate source of Quad Four material. Internal Quad Four material (Q4-I) is revealed through and often reflected in the external world. We see things out in the world only when they are first manifest in our internal world. At a mundane level, I see hybrid cars everywhere only after I have bought one myself. At a more profound level, that which I choose to value most in my life (my internal life) manifests a glowing presence when I discover that which I value out in the world (the external life). When my wife enters a room, the room seems to “light up,” as it does when one of my children or grandchildren enters the room. Moments when my own teaching seems to be working take on a magical quality—the room seems to take on a golden quality that I can not readily describe. I find that a particularly skillful performance of a symphonic work that I greatly value similarly yields a glowing visual presence. I suspect that I am not alone in witnessing these numinous experiences in my life. That which I value internally is under my control. That which represents my values out in the world is not under my control, but is perceived in a particularly distinctive and emotionally charged manner by myself.
Quad Four and Synchronicity: In some of his more esoteric work, Carl Jung writes about a phenomenon that he calls “synchronicity.”(Jung, 1960) This refers to an “acausal” relationship between two or more events—meaning that events occur in a simultaneous manner that reveals something about the meaning and even purpose of each of these events, without these events in any way being causally connected to one another. Clearly, this form of synchronicity is evident in the interplay between internal Quad Four material regarding personal values and the “glowing presence” of an experience in the outer world that is aligned with these personal values. The internal value does not cause the external glow, nor does the external experience create the internal value; yet, the external event can enhance one’s own awareness, understanding and appreciation of the internal Quad Four values. Internal and external forces can metaphorically “dance” together without one causing the other.
Jungians would offer a further suggestion regarding ways in which Quad Four material can come into conscious awareness. Awareness of Quad Four material can come through an intermediary—namely another person. As Maria von Franz (1964, p. 168) notes:
When an individual makes an attempt to see his shadow, he become aware of (and often ashamed of) these qualities and impulses he denies in himself but can plainly see in other people—such things as egotism, mental laziness, and sloppiness; unreal fantasies, schemes, and plots; carelessness and cowardice; inordinate love of money and possessions—in short, all the little sins about which he might previously have told himself: ‘That doesn’t matter; nobody will notice it, and in any case other people do it too.’
Thus, an unacceptable sense of oneself is often projected onto another person and only reclaimed as an aspect of one’s self under conditions of substantial interpersonal trust and support.
Love and the Neurosciences: I have already introduced several of the concepts that have recently emerged from the neurosciences – particularly with regard to the Amygdala. Some of the most profound implications for interpersonal relationships, however, may come from a much broader (and still speculative) analysis of studies conducted more generally on the structure of memory in the cerebral cortex and the nature and dynamics of the limbic system (of which the Amygdala is one component). In their investigation of the biological basis of love and related emotions, Lewis, Amini and Lannon (2000, p. 140) have suggested that there is one type of memory (implicit memory) that strongly influences the ways in which we form and interpret relationships, while there is a process of limbic responsiveness or resonance that determines the strength and character of those relationships we do form. All of the complex processes being described by Lewis, Amini and Lannon are outside our immediate and rational awareness. They belong, therefore, in the fourth quadrant of the Johari Window and, given the presence of these previously unknown processes, we may be under-estimating the power and influence of this quadrant with regard to the nature of human relationships. I will briefly trace out the primary points being made by Lewis, Amini and Lannon as they seek to increase our understanding and appreciation of love and related human emotions.
Implicit Memory: many neuroscientists in recent years have pointed out that each of us has two operating memory systems. One of these systems is called the explicit memory system by Lewis, Amini and Lannon, the other being called the implicit memory system. The explicit system contains all of our conscious memories. In essence, this is our working memory – the place where we solve problems, make decisions, recall names, theories and facts, and formulate the interpersonal strategies that dictate what we chose (Internal Locus) to share with other people (Q1:I) and withhold from other people (Q3:I). The implicit system contains all the operations we perform without any conscious awareness. It contains our habits and skilled performances—such as our well-perfected golf swing or our “automatic” adjustment of the steering wheel, accelerator and brake when driving. While we make use of our explicit memory system when we first learn to drive, our driving operations soon move over to the implicit memory system. In fact, as experienced drivers we shouldn’t pay attention to our driving; rather, we should be paying attention to the road in front of us, as well as the behavior of other drivers. We should leave the minor adjustments in steering, accelerating and braking to our implicit system. Our implicit system, however, does much more than perform habitual functions. The implicit system establishes and holds our convictions about interpersonal relationships – convictions that are formed during our first years of life.
It is not just that we store early memories and use these memories as Quad Four templates for later relationships—we are attracted to other people who conform to and reinforce these templates. Furthermore, we interpret our emotions with regard to other people through these templates. These attractor templates are constantly being re-confirmed, with our distortion of the interpersonal reality that is impinging on us: “a person’s emotional experience of the world may not budge, even if the world around him changes dramatically. He may remain trapped, as many are, within a virtuality constructed decades ago. . . “(Lewis, Amini and Lannon, p. 140)
The notion of limbic attractors relates directly to a concept I call “the psychic echo.” Our implicit interpersonal memories are not only powerful in influencing how we interact with other people, they are also frequently being reinforced by the confirming echoes back from other people (particularly if we hold power over many of the people with whom we interact). Lewis, Amini and Lannon (2000, p. 163) speak of this dynamic not as a psychic echo, but rather as an emotional magnet or force field “that acts on the people we love, evoking the relationship attributes we know best. Our minds are in turn pulled by the emotional magnets of those close to us, transforming any landscape we happen to contemplate and painting it with the colors and textures they see.” Thus, we are immersed in not only our own psychic echoes, but also those of people with whom we closely relate. And all of this is ultimately stored in our fourth quadrant.
The Limbic Brain: Lewis, Amini and Lannon believe there are even more profound processes operating in our fourth quadrant – processes that reside not in our highly-evolved cerebral cortex, but in our more primitive limbic system (located in our mid-brain). The limbic brain serves four important functions that relate directly to the nature and dynamics of our interpersonal relationships. First, the limbic brain establishes our mood. This, in turn, sets the table for the quality (and outcomes) of our interpersonal relationships. Mood is a general tone that is influenced by events and internal physiological operations which may be far removed from the specific relationship in which we are participating. Yet, mood is a critical part of relationship and is generally an unconscious component of Quad Four.
Second, the limbic brain monitors both our internal bodily environment and the internal state of other organisms (particularly other people). The way in which we feel about another person is strongly influenced by such factors as our blood pressure, heart rate, digestive processes, and even the temperature of our body. All of this is monitored by the limbic brain, which in turn offers Quad Four interpretations of what these physiological processes mean in terms of our relationship with this other person. While these processes may be primarily influenced by other environmental conditions and by our current mood, we tend to look to our immediate relationships when identifying the “cause” of how we feel. We also interpret how the other person is feeling about us—this is a capacity called “limbic resonance.” We are taught how to do this delicate monitoring during our childhood and primarily in relationship with people who parent us. Without this resonance, we are lost. Lewis, Amani and Lannon suggest that there are severe consequences when we lack resonance. We either become superficial in our relationships with other people (looking for external clues, having few internal cues) or grow indifferent to the welfare of other people (experiencing no resonance—or empathy—regarding anyone else.)
A third function of the limbic brain concerns nonverbal communication. Our limbic brain produces our facial expressions and other nonverbal expressions that we can’t directly control (Quad One: External). These nonverbal expressions, in turn, influence how other people see us (Quad Two) and how they chose to interact with us – thus, further reinforcing the interpersonal templates that we hold in our implicit memory.
A fourth function is perhaps of greatest importance in terms of the quality of interpersonal relationships which we find and create during our lives. Lewis, Amini and Lannon suggest that the limbic brain produces our capacity (and strong desire) to attach to other people. They note that we are attracted to specific people in part because our limbic brain releases certain opiates when we are in the physical presence of these people. Even more broadly, a baby learns what love feels like through his attachment to a mothering figure and through the intricate and reciprocal interplay of emotional states, and physical connectedness (touching, viewing, seeing, smelling) between parent and child. Through this interplay, the child learns not only what loves feels like, but also how to establish a loving relationship. This interpersonal learning (stored in Quad Four) may be appropriate or it may be terribly flawed.
External Locus of Control
The shadow seems to play an important internal role in defining the nature and purpose of Quad Four, as do the neural networks of the cortex and structures of the Limbic Brain (in particular the Amygdala). These dynamic Quad Four systems keep the content of Quad Four inside our head (and heart)—even though we may have very little control over these internal processes. There are many contributors to Quad Four over which we never have had and never will have control—not because they are unconscious, but because we believe (rightly or wrongly) that they reside outside ourselves.
In some case, we believe that there is an external source, when in fact this source may be internal. There are many people—and many cultures—that view many of the very powerful and emotional elements of their life as residing outside themselves. They believe they are “victims” or beneficiaries of externally imposed emotions or attitudes. I believe that someone else has made me feel bad or made me feel alive. Many songs tell us that someone else has made us feel like a “real man” or a “real woman.” Rogers and Hammerstein offer a powerful example of this external perspective in a song—“Love look away”—from their Broadway musical, Flower Drum Song. Looking plaintively at a man that will never care for her, the singer views “love” as an external force in her life and asked this external force (“love”) to “look away from her” and “set her free” from her unrequited yearning for this man. Is this external focus common in the culture she represents (Chinese), or is this Rogers and Hammerstein’s stereotyping of this culture? Whether it is a stereotypic or an insightful perspective on an external locus in Quad Four, “Love looks away” certainly is a lyrical (and touching) expression of the desire we have all felt at times for external assistance in resolving a difficult interpersonal dilemma.
In many other instances, it is very appropriate for us to assign Quad Four content to external sources. Clearly, there are externally-based social-culture determinants of Quad Four content. There may even be inherited content – though this is a much more controversial assertion. I will briefly address each of these sources of external content.
Social Cultural Determinants: We can never escape our social-cultural upbringing. Some researchers, for instance, suggest that our fundamental interpersonal values are acquired when we are five to ten years of age. These values have changed very little since then. I was a young child during the late 1940s. My values were forged during an era when the American suburb was flourishing and the Cold War was fully in force. By contrast, I interact in the classroom with younger men and women who hold values that were forged during the era of Viet Name, Watergate and collapse of the Soviet Union. According to the values-formation researchers, the values held in my fourth quadrant are profoundly different from those held in the fourth quadrant of my younger students.
Neuro-Templates: Even if we declare that social-cultural values and perspectives from childhood can be modified, there are recent findings from the neuro-sciences that suggest the immutability of other Quad Four elements. We return to the Amygdala for the source of these elements. Apparently, there are not only memories in the Amygdala that are highly resistant to decay; there are also “wired-in” templates to which we often refer when roughly assessing whether or not something is dangerous. There also may be positive wired-in templates—templates that induce an instance sense of joy or trust.
Recent research regarding the Amygdala (that I have already described) opens up a very controversial issue—the presence of more complex, innate images or “archetypes” in what the Jungians call the “collective unconscious.” Jung was among the first to explore the notion of a collective unconscious. It is one of his most controversial explorations. His collective unconscious serves as the intermediary between personal unconscious and culture. It is either inherited or the product of powerful societal forces. The first option has usually been dismissed; yet, in recent years, findings from the neurosciences [especially the work of Joseph Le Deux (1998)] suggest that specific neuro-structures (the Amygdala) may hold primitive (even inherited) templates. Thus, the Amygdala may hold not only the memories (and related templates) of our early life experiences, but also wired-in templates that existed in our brain when we were born or appeared spontaneously at a critical period during our development.
A second option is also possible—and it may compliment the notion of a more primitive and probably quite limited inherited templates. This second option is based on the assumption that we are strongly influenced throughout our life not only by our family, but also by the organizations in which we work. As Nevitt Sanford (1966) notes in his analysis of the interaction between self and society, some organizations (such as family, schools, enlightened prisons, and training institutes) are purposefully designed to be influential in the ongoing development of self and personality. Actually, whether it wants to or not, every organization ultimately plays a major role in the ongoing development of all people.
The leaders of our organizations and society should acknowledge this fundamental institutional responsibility. How are attachments formed? How does the continuing development of adults occur? Perhaps we pick up “habits of the heart” (Bellah and Others, 1985) from the implicit norms, values, and culture of organizations—especially organizations that are based on strong (enmeshed) cultures rather than weak (disengaged) cultures. Perhaps even more importantly—as Sanford suggests—the nature and extent of this development relates to the balance between the challenges posed and the support provided by the organization. As Lewis, Amini and Lannon suggest, this development relates to the strength and appropriateness of attachments we form within and to the organizations we join. We have much more to learn about this lifelong developmental process, about attachments to organizations, and about ways in which external, social dynamics help to create enduring templates in our limbic system (especially our Amygdala) or in the collective unconscious we all share.
Implications and Applications: What to Do with Quad Four Material
I will offer a few summary comments about the direct implications of my Quad Four analysis for coaching in organizations. I will specifically describe a three step process of discovery, acceptance and engagement of Quad Four material.
Step One: Discovery
I propose that a powerful law operates in Quad Four. This is the Law of Initial Conditions. Early life experiences have a profound, though often unacknowledged, influence on us. We know this not only because Freud and Jung proposed this law many years ago, but also because recent neuro-scientific studies seem to confirm the existence of a primitive set of templates (located in the Amygdala) and because recent scientific studies (chaos and complexity theory and research) suggest that this Law of Initial Conditions operates in all systems (including the human psyche).
Given this law, I propose that all of us would benefit from asking our coaching clients probing questions about past history. What really influences my client’s decisions? What really influences my client’s behavior? What really influences the ways in which my client reacts to important people in her life? This does not require five years of psychoanalysis, but it does require that we invite our clients to reflect back on or do research about their early life experiences. I recently talked with my sister and brother about our parent’s differing social-economic backgrounds. As mature adults, the three of us realized for the first time that our parents came from quite different backgrounds (my mother coming from old wealth and my father being raised by immigrant parents from Scandinavia). This led us to explore our own attitudes about wealth and social class. We realized that we still hold both the fear of our father about not having economic security and our mother’s confidence that sufficient funds would always be available.
I also propose that it is valuable for each of us as coaches to assist our clients in preparing a life narrative in which key events are examined and broad, repeating themes are identified. This narrative can be completed independently through use of a life-planning manual (they are readily available) or through attendance at a life planning workshop. I personally find the journaling process of Ira Progoff (1992) to be of great value and much of his process is described (and can be followed independently) in his book, The Journal Workshop. Even more direct is an analysis by our clients of their fundamental assumptions about interpersonal relationships. This can be conducted through in-depth examination of surprising events in our client’s life. Why has my client’s usual way of operating in the world not worked—in particular, my client’s ways of engaging in interpersonal relationships? Perhaps some of my client’s assumptions (that are often self-fulfilled) have been found wanting in this particular relationship. This is a wonderful time to uncover and explore the nature of these assumptions. This can be a “blessing in disguise.” I would encourage you to make use of the left and right column exercises of Chris Argyris and Don Schön (1974) when exploring the surprising events in your client’s life.
Step Two: Acceptance
Erik Erikson (Erikson, Erikson and Kivnick, 1986) suggests that one of the major developmental tasks during our mature years is an appreciation and final acceptance of our parents and the way in which they parented us. We come to appreciate the social context within which they lived, their own hopes and fears, and the often-conflicting priorities in their lives. As we come to accept our parents, Erikson proposes, then perhaps we can finally even come to terms with ourselves—we can come to appreciate and accept our own decisions and actions in life. We come to this appreciation by recognizing that our own decisions and action occurred within a specific context and in relation to a myriad of conflicting priorities that we, like our parents, have faced in our life.
We must come to accept our parents and ourselves because of the impact which initial conditions have had on our parents’ lives and our own lives. We are not totally victims of our past, but we certainly have been influenced by our early life experiences and often are unaware (Quad Four) of the nature and source of these influences. Thus, a second step in addressing the content of Quad Four must always be some form of acceptance. We must forgive our parents (and ourselves)—and this is a big task. As coaches, we can help our clients come to this acceptance by exploring ways in which their own parents continue to influence their decisions and actions: “What would your father/mother say at this point?” “What was your father’s/mother’s favorite saying, motto or words of advice regarding leadership, money, responsibility, ethics (or some other dimension of organizational life)?”
Step Three: Engaging
To the extent that we encourage our clients to actively engage material in their fourth quadrant, they are in some way moving backward—at least as viewed by the outside world. We are inviting our clients to venture back in time–to a previous point in their life. They are likely to spend time talking about their own childhood (as my sister, brother and I did in talking about our parents’ differing socio-economic backgrounds). The engagement of Quad Four material is likely to appear regressive because this material is usually primitive in nature. Simple, but powerful thoughts and feelings, such as envy and naïve hopefulness, that are usually neither expressed nor even acknowledged, can be brought to conscious awareness and discussed.
It is understandable that one would want to back away from this material, given it’s primitive and socially unacceptable nature. After all, that’s why it was stored in Quad Four in the first place. This regression, however, is quite healthy and enriching. Psychodynamic theorists and psychotherapists often use the term “regression-in-the-service-of-the-Ego” when speaking of this engagement of Quad Four material. As implied by this term, regression can be of great value to reality-based functions (the Ego) in that we now have greater access to our own fundamental beliefs and assumptions. We can more readily correct our own biases and can more effectively address the conflict-filled interpersonal relationships in which we find ourselves. Most importantly, we can live more comfortably with ourselves, having brought some of the “demons” to the surface and having discovered that these demons are not overwhelming. They are terrifying and powerful, but not impossible to confront. We can encourage our clients to assume an internal locus of control with regard to all four of our quadrants—at least that’s how it looks from the somewhat optimistic (and perhaps naïve) perspective of the organizational consulting and coaching school to which both Joe Luft and I belong.
Conclusions
Many books have been written about the use of unconscious (Quad Four) material—ranging from self-help books to manuals that tell us how to tap into our creative potential. There is no need to replicate the analyses or repeat the recommendations made in these books. Furthermore, neither Joe Luft’s original model nor the new model I have proposed are primarily about intrapsychic processes; rather both models are primarily concerned with interpersonal relationships—with the interplay between Quads One, Two and Three. Both Luft and I have focused on Quad Four not because this is where most interpersonal dynamics reside, but because Quad Four influences the dynamics operating in the other three quadrants. Both Luft and I hypothesize that Quad Four material tends to move into Quad Three and, in turn, leaks out into other people’s Quad Two or is brought intentionally or unintentionally into Quad One. It would seem, therefore, that no effective organizational coaching practice can ignore these unconscious Quad Four dynamics, for our client’s critical interpersonal relationships in an organization inevitably implicate the interwoven texture of conscious and unconscious processes.
References
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1974) Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey-Bass.
Bellah, R. and Others. (1985) Habits of the Heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bergquist, W. (1993) The Postmodern Organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chapman, J. (1988) Jung’s Three Theories of Religious Experience. New York: Edwin Mellen Press.
Erikson, E. (1950) Childhood and Society. New York: Norton.
Erickson, E., Erikson, J. and Kivnick, H. (1986) Vital Involvement in Old Age. New York: Norton.
Fromm, E. (1976) The Forgotten Language. New York: Henry Holt.
Henderson, J. (1964) “2. Ancient myths and modern man,” in C. Jung (ed.). Man and His Symbols New York: Doubleday.
Jung, C. (1938) Psychology and Religion. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
Jung, C. (1960) Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Le Doux, J. (1998) The Emotional Brain. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Lewis, T., Amini, F. and Lannon, R. (2000) A General Theory of Love. New York: Random House.
Luft, J. (1969) Of Human Interaction. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
Luft, J. (1984) Group Process: An Introduction to Group Dynamics. (3rd ed.) Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing.
Neumann, E. (1954) The Origins and History of Consciousness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Parsons, T. and Bales, R. (1955) Family, Socialization and Interaction Process. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Progoff, I. (1992) The Journal Workshop. New York: Tarcher.
Rudolph O. (1923) The Idea of the Holy. [Translated by J. Harvey] London: Oxford Press.
Sanford, N. (1966) Self and Society: Social Change and Individual Development. New York: Atherton.
Von Franz, M. (1964) “3.The process of individuation,” in Carl Jung (ed.) Man and His Symbols. New York: Doubleday.
Von Franz, M. (1985) Interviewed in Suzanne Wagner, Matters of the Heart, [Videotape] Los Angeles, CA: C. G. Institute.