Taking Nazi Germany as an illustration of the pattern outlined in the first example above, I note the enormous power ascribed by Jung to "the masses". Far from being innocent victims of a powerful despot, according to this theory, these Germans did not kill Jews because of coercion on the part of their omnipotent ‘Fuehrer’ and his henchmen, but, rather, Hitler arose to such heights of despotic power out of the unconscious desire of the masses to kill Jews, who they viewed as archetypal tyrant figures who deserved to be destroyed.

David Jonah Goldhagen (1996) supports this view. In this study of ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, his account emphasises the historical background of anti-Semitism in Germany, particularly in the nineteenth century. He notes that anti-Semitism was so ingrained in German society as to be regarded as a "given" which no one thinks to question. In Jungian terms, anti-Semitism was in the collective unconscious of the German people. With regard to the prevailing view even among liberals in nineteenth century Germany, Goldberg writes (ibid, p. 55):

‘One liberal "friend" of the Jews opined, "The Jew appears … as a distortion, a shadow, the dark side of human nature." ‘

By projecting the evil side of their own natures onto the Jews, the Germans were able to blame them for all the ills of their society, and, in the depressed economic climate of post WWI Germany, this unconscious "tyrant" feeling towards the noxious Jew – even amongst the many Germans who lived in rural areas and had never met a Jew – came to consciousness in the figure of Hitler, the leader who arose from the masses and gave a voice to these unconscious feelings. Goldhagen notes that, far from being terrified people who did not dare to speak out against Hitler’s policies, people did in fact speak out, and even refuse to carry out orders, over many issues – but there were few dissenting voices with regard to anti-Semitic policies, as these were in accord with the unconscious wishes of the people. Having projected all the ills of society onto the figure of the Jew, they unconsciously believed that Jews deserved to die. Goldhagen has uncovered evidence that, at least in the police battalions – characteristically made up of men who were too old or otherwise unfit for military service, not usually members of the Nazi party, and having received minimal Nazi indoctrination – men were often given the option, by their commanders, to declare themselves to be "not up to" the task of killing Jews. Any who stepped forward were immediately excused from the killing operation, without repercussions. However, not only did few men ask to be excused, but the majority volunteered happily, and not only killed but mocked and tortured their victims, especially those who in appearance epitomised the "archetypal Jew". Here the complex had taken over to such an extent that these ordinary men dehumanised their victims, seeing themselves as the victims of an archetypal evil which must be removed, as we see in the words of an Auschwitz doctor quoted by Goldhagen (ibid, p.269):

"Of course I am a doctor and I want to preserve life. And out of respect for human life, I would remove a gangrenous appendix from a diseased body. The Jew is the gangrenous appendix in the body of mankind."

By contrast, the second category, where an acknowledged group of victims turn into a group of tyrants, is one in which the average person may well begin by feeling sympathetic towards them due to their victim status, but rapidly lose sympathy upon seeing the results of bullying tactics on the part of these same people. Characteristically, these groups are unable to understand why they have lost the sympathy of others. In their conscious minds, they are the victims, and the loss of support from others only serves to reinforce this feeling and persuade them that they are doomed to be eternal victims. Freeman writes (ibid, pp. 2-3):

‘ A recent Israeli prime minister used to justify each and every criticism of his government’s policies by saying, in effect, "We who are the survivors of the Holocaust have no choice in what we do." … In those words you can listen to typical victim feelings and you can hear and feel the tremendously repressed rage of the victim which in his mind gives him the permission to do anything he wishes. It will even permit him to victimise others in the very manner in which it was once done to him.’

Here we can clearly see the effects of ‘positive feedback’ upon the complex. Due to their conscious victim feelings, such a group is unable to see the tyrant in their unconscious, even when engaged in perpetrating outright acts of cruelty upon others. When, inevitably, they are shunned due to their behaviour, positive feedback creates this sense of themselves as eternal victims.

This mentality can be seen in the more extremist forms of radical feminism in the 1970’s. Although even the most rabid separatist groups did not go to the extremes of rounding up men and killing them or putting them in concentration camps, one can see the pattern nonetheless in their attitudes. The feminist writer Marilyn French, for example, frequently has female characters in her novels liken the plight of women to that of Jews in Nazi Germany. This literary device is used to express the view that woman is the eternal victim and cannot, therefore, be expected to feel any compassion for men, no matter what the circumstances. Her novels promote the view that a woman’s status as a victim justifies antisocial behaviour. Although modern feminism is, thankfully, more balanced in outlook, one can still meet with views which hark back to this era, often in unexpected circumstances. I remember, for example, a recent discussion with friends. One man said that in today's "politically correct" America, the policy of "affirmative action" had been taken to such extremes in some places that men were now complaining about discrimination in the workplace, having been passed over for promotion in favour of less qualified and capable women. A female friend – a highly intelligent and generally fair-minded person, instead of questioning the truth of the statement (which, after all, was presumably subjective) – simply said, "Good! Men have had it all their own way for far too long – it’s our turn now!" I was amazed at her inability to see that replacing Subject-Verb-Object with Object-Verb-Subject is, in fact, no change at all! In my view, the only hope is to find a way of changing the verb – otherwise we find ourselves in the stalemate situation of my third example.

This third scenario, of which modern Israel is a classic example, is particularly problematic in that here, both sides have genuine grounds for feeling themselves to be victims. This being the case, each projects the tyrant onto the other, and justifies their own actions – however brutal – as "self-defence". The violence escalates and, as well as fighting one another, there is an increasing tendency to fight amongst themselves. Just as the militant feminists of the 1970’s were not only anti-men, but also disparaged other women who did not share their views, so factions emerge among Jews and Arabs in Israel. One group emerges which believes itself to be "holier" than the rest. This begins with actions such as throwing stones at cars on Shabbat, and leads to extreme action such as the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin by a religious fanatic, who is almost certainly still convinced that he performed a holy act.

The common factor in extreme political or religious movements is that they are driven by a complex in the unconscious of the masses, and are therefore rooted in negativity. The Jungian analyst Alice O. Howell has a saying:

‘Anger should be for something, not against.’

Jung (CWX, P 539-540) points out the danger of the individual being engulfed in the mass "mob rule" mentality:

‘The suffocating power of the masses is paraded before our eyes in one form or another every day in the newspapers, and the insignificance of the individual is rubbed into him so thoroughly that he loses all hope of making himself heard. …

Resistance to the organised mass can be effected only by the man who is as well organised in his individuality as the mass itself.’ (italics in original).

Healing, in Jungian terms, cannot take place at mass level, but can only be effected in the emerging consciousness of individuals. With respect to the complex under discussion, Jung said (CWXVIII, P 1354):

‘The healthy man does not torture others.’

How, then, does this complex manifest itself in individuals, and how is healing to take place?

Keeping in mind the dual nature of the complex, Marilyn French’s novel The Bleeding Heart (1980) makes a remarkable psychological study. Although ostensibly there are two protagonists, in my mind there are three – one man, his mistress, and his wife. The wife is an offstage character, but she and the mistress clearly illustrate the two extremes of the tyrant-victim complex. At surface level, Dolores, the mistress, appears as the "tyrant figure" – the angry, embittered feminist who resents her own involvement with this man and is continually fighting with him. Edith, the wife, is the epitome of the victim – paralysed due to a failed suicide attempt upon the discovery of a previous affair of her husband’s, she sits passively in her wheelchair, still playing the dutiful Scarsdale wife, while her husband is away in England amusing himself with yet another mistress. Further exploration, however, reveals the shadow side of each: inside Dolores is the wounded victim, scarred by a tragic life; and inside Edith is an angry tyrant who rules the entire household with her passive dependency.

Jung emphasised the compensatory nature of such complexes. He outlines a case (CW XVII. P. 213-215) of a child, ostensibly a "victim", who was taken to a psychologist due to the emergence of the "tyrant" in the form of uncontrollable rages. The child was physically handicapped and had been diagnosed (incorrectly) as mentally defective. Despite this, he had ostensibly been a happy child until the birth of his baby brother. It transpired that he had been content with "victim" status as an only child, as this afforded him special attention from his parents. However, when he felt unfavourably compared to his baby brother and to the other children at school, the rage of the tyrant emerged. Jung writes:

‘It is a clear case of Adlerian psychology, here the inferiority gives rise to a power complex. The symptomatology shows how the neurosis attempted to compensate the loss of efficiency.’ (italics mine).

This situation, of course, also occurs in reverse. Take the case of a woman who batters or smothers her small baby to death. When such cases are reported in the newspapers, the nation is in uproar. How could she be so cruel to a helpless child? The police, however, see a different side to the story. She tells them: "He wouldn’t stop screaming. Whatever I did, it was never enough. He was always at me. I just wanted to shut him up!"

Morally, at least, such a woman is not guilty of murder, as she did not act with intent to kill. Psychologically, she is caught in the ‘victim complex’ – although, logically speaking, the victim is the little corpse who once depended upon her for everything, at the time of her action, in her own mind, she was the victim of the child’s incessant demands.

Sometimes people become so "caught" in one or the other side of this complex that they become totally identified with it. We see this in the "professional victim"; for example, in battered wives. Time and time again, such women find the courage to call the police, to go to a women’s refuge for help; only to turn around, drop the charges, and return to their abusive husbands.

When such a woman genuinely seeks help, be that in therapy, assertiveness training or a women’s "consciousness-raising" group, what typically happens is an enantiodromia reaction during the healing process. The passive, dependent female releases her inner tyrant and becomes loud, angry and complaining. Generally, she has become so identified with the "victim" archetype that she is unable to see the negative effect this behaviour has upon others. She wonders why people cannot see how hurt she is and feel sorry for her, and often develops a tendency to tell the litany of her life over and over in a bid for sympathy. If forced to accept that she has behaved in an inappropriate manner, she may "apologise", but will characteristically excuse herself by emphasising her own sufferings and explaining that she is "learning to get in touch with her anger".

In order to assist such a person to move beyond the phase of angry survivor in her journey from passive victim to wholeness, Jungian psychiatrist Jean Shinoda Bolen (1984, p. 260) advocates the use of the Psyche myth, especially the second task of acquiring the golden fleece. She writes:

‘Acquiring the golden fleece without destroying Psyche is a metaphor for the task of gaining power and remaining a compassionate person. In my psychiatric practice, I find that keeping this task in mind is very helpful to every woman who is learning to assert herself. Otherwise, by focusing only on expressing her needs or anger, her conversations become alienating confrontations that do not help her achieve what she wants and that present her in a harsh, destructive light.’

This is a clear illustration of a move beyond the destructive cycle of "power over", in which the world is divided into winners and losers; to the state of "power to", in which the individual can remain grounded in her mastery, not over others but over the complex.

In cases where a person has become overidentified with the tyrant, it usually takes a dramatic occurrence for such a person to become conscious, such as illness, imprisonment or a dramatic religious experience (and often a combination of these). The most obvious example is that of Saul on the road to Damascus. As in the case of the "professional victim", the healing process is again threefold. Saul begins as a tyrant, then is brought down by a flash of lightning to a state of abject humiliation. For three days, he is blind, dependent upon others to lead him, and does not eat or drink. At the end of these three days, his sight is healed and he is transformed from persecutor of Christians to ardent follower of Christ, even receiving a new name.

Dramatic conversions continue to happen in the evangelical churches today. Just as there is a danger of the "victim" remaining in the interim stage of the angry, complaining "survivor", so the "tyrant" can remain in a similar interim phase of negative inflation. An important part of most revival meetings appears to be personal testimony. Often when such people stand up, they almost appear to be boasting about the terrible sins they committed before their conversion. I remember being taken to such a meeting by a Christian friend as a teenager. The speaker was a man who had "found the Lord" in prison. He recited a long list of crimes, which included robbery and violence, against strangers and against his wife (who was in the congregation). At the end of each confession he shouted, "But Jesus has forgiven me!" and everyone (except me, or so it appeared) was waving their arms in the air and shouting, "Hallelujah!" This man had not found a job on his release, but had a "full-time ministry" travelling around the country telling his story and "living by faith" (i.e. the collection at the meetings and goodwill of parishioners). Although pleased that he had stopped his life of violent crime, I felt that there was something missing in his "rehabilitation".

Edinger (1972, pp 76-96) amplifies the book of Job as a way to pass beyond this phase of negative inflation on the journey from ego-inflation to wholeness. He writes (p 80):

‘Evidently Job still has some tendency to inflation. In spite of his blameless reputation, or perhaps because of it, there is some question whether or not he knows decisively the difference … between the ego and the Self. … Apparently the Self needs conscious realisation and is obliged by the individuation urge to test and tempt the ego in order to bring about full ego-awareness of the Self’s existence.’

Edinger then amplifies the Hebrew myth, with Job’s "comforters" in the role of a psychic cast of characters during an active imagination. Gradually he draws us through the myth, and we follow Job through the states of ego-inflation, through abject humiliation, to true humility. He concludes (p 96):

‘Having experienced the transpersonal centre of the psyche, the ego recognises its subordinate position and is prepared to serve the totality and its ends rather than make personal demands. Job has become an individuated ego.’

On the subject of healing, writing specifically about the "obsession with power" which I see as a driving force in the "tyrant-victim complex", Jean Shinoda Bolen (1992, p.12) writes:

‘The space where I meet my patients is visibly an office. When trust is established, it becomes a temenos, which means "sanctuary" in Greek. I am pledged to keep it a safe place for their confidences and vulnerabilities, a place where they will not be exploited or betrayed, where their many parts can find sanctuary, where they can tell the truth. It is a place where psychological armour and weapons can and must be put down if healing is to take place."

With this goal in mind, I would like to discuss the tyrant-victim complex, and the ways in which it can potentially threaten this sacred relationship between analyst and analysand. If we are to take this complex as an autonomous and universal one, with the potential to affect each and every one of us if not fully brought to consciousness and integrated, we must look at the possibility that the complex has the potential to affect the therapeutic relationship as well, often because of the firm hold which it exerts upon the patient, but, at least potentially, also on the analyst. I am not talking here about horror stories of analysts who have seduced or abused patients, but about places where the unconscious components of such a complex can creep into the relationship. I am assuming an analysis where there is no question of a breach of ethics on the part of the analyst, nor of a breach of boundaries due to inability on the part of the analyst to set and maintain them, and both parties are consciously committed to the analytic relationship and to the health and wholeness of the analysand, but where the analysis has reached a setback due to the unconscious manifestation of the tyrant-victim complex. Possible examples would be:

patient, and the scenario is only problematic if the analyst allows him or herself to be overwhelmed in the countertransference. Freeman (ibid, p.8) writes:

‘Sometimes, somehow, the victim makes the analyst want to victimise him. … The analyst can feel very battered by the hidden yet attacking rage of the victim and may even feel that he wants to hit him. Somehow, unconsciously, the victim is demanding to be victimised. It is the only way he knows how to relate.’

Here, although the countertransference may well be personally distressing to the analyst, it should be an easy one to recognise. The main problem here is how to get the patient to see the part which they themselves play in their own victimisation.

Where a patient is particularly aggressive, this can be equally hard to deal with. Here, the unconscious "tyrant" is projected onto the analyst, against whom the patient erects an impenetrable wall of defence. No matter how caring the analyst, the patient refuses to allow them in. The analyst is likely to experience feelings of impotence in the transference, which he or she can see no way to overcome.

In the YHWH analogy above, the complex appears in the unconscious of the analyst. One possible reason for this could be feelings of frustration if the analyst feels that the work is not progressing sufficiently rapidly. Ironically, this could be because he or she is blocking the work themselves by trying to be too directive. Harriet Gordon Machtiger (1995) writes:

‘Analysts need to withstand the impulse to control the therapy by imposing their frames of reference or theoretical orientations onto patients. At times it is exceedingly difficult for analysts to struggle with their own countertransference reactions and wait for patients to do the analytic work at their own pace.’

Alternatively, the analyst may be overidentifying with the persona of the "doctor", perhaps in a defensive reaction to an aggressive patient, and using technical terms such as ‘projection’ as a defence mechanism. Or, they could adopt this role unconsciously in response to a very submissive patient who actually wants to be dominated.

If the desire for control is a problem with the analyst, he or she will eventually have to face this fact, as the analysis will not progress until they do. If, however, the patient enjoys being dominated, it could be harder to spot, as it may appear on the surface as though the analysis is progressing successfully. This is closely related to my third example, which in my view is the most problematic of all.

In the third example, the complex is present in the unconscious of both analyst and patient, and manifested in a way which is pleasing to both. Although I associated maternal female analysts with this phenomenon, it can, of course, emerge in men as well. I do, however, identify it with the archetype of the Great Mother Goddess, a more primeval image than that of the sky god with whom I associated the more obvious manifestations of inflation on the part of the analyst. The "sky god" archetype is easier for the analyst to spot, being a distancing image and therefore not compatible with a comfortable therapeutic relationship. The Great Mother, in contrast, encompasses all, and in a sense takes the god(dess) image still further. Overidentification with this particular archetype can lead to an unconscious feeling that her patients are in some way "part" of her. One famous Jungian analyst, for example, frequently uses large sections of her patients’ written material in her books, and even appears as first author (not editor, but author) on one book to which she contributed relatively little, the main part of the book having been written by three other people. Unquestionably, she must have had permission, and presumably, in the case of the book on which the other writers’ names appear (albeit in smaller type than hers) they approved it before it went to press. My interest in this phenomenon is the reason for the needs of both analyst and patient to be locked into this type of symbiosis.

Alice O. Howell says:

‘Power is safe only when used for others, guided by wisdom and love.’ She also provided a charming image of power-wisdom-love as a three-legged milking stool!

Taking this image as the ideal of "power to", we see that an imbalance (power over) occurs when wisdom, love, or both, are removed.

Wisdom is necessary to identify the complex. I find personification very helpful here, and attach great importance to naming the image. Some people assign rigid gender categories, perceiving the tyrant as male (so assigning it to the shadow in men and the negative animus in women), and the victim as female. Even in the restricted circle of myself and my friends, I have not found this to be the case. What I have found, is that, as soon as I discuss the possibility of the "tyrant voice", giving a brief outline of its characteristics without being gender-specific, people can always attach an image to it.

As this complex is double-edged, it is important to realise which voice speaks the loudest, tyrant or victim. The "victim voice" characteristically complains, whereas the "tyrant voice" attacks. Although each person will come up with an image which is specific to them, for convenience I will use figures which are familiar from mythology. My archetypal victims are the Sumerian goddess Ereshkigal, and the Greek god Hephaestos; and my tyrants are the Greek gorgon Medusa and the Hebrew YHWH as epitomised in the book of Job.

Love is needed to heal the wounds of each. Taking our victim, Ereshkigal or Hephaestos, first, the most important thing to remember is that, typically, complainers do not actually seek solutions, at least not at first. Their main desire is to be heard and understood. In her amplification of the descent of Inanna to her dark sister Ereshkigal, Sylvia Brinton Perera (1981) assigns the role of "therapist" to the god Enki, who sends two mourners down to lament with Ereshkigal. In this way, healing takes place. They echo her moaning, and she is transformed from a goddess of destruction into one of generosity.

The "tyrant voice" is more problematic, because more difficult to approach. Looking into the eyes of the Medusa turned men to stone, a man who beheld the face of YHWH was consumed by flames. Here, I feel that it is important to remember that the tyrant force usually arises for protection. A person who habitually speaks in the voice of an angry tyrant can occasionally speak with the voice of a very small child. For example, someone who is given to jealous or vindictive rages, especially with a spouse or someone close to them, will often say, at the first sign of withdrawal on the part of the other, "Please don’t leave me." Such a person needs to be "disarmed" by the knowledge that the vulnerable child will be loved. Then, the voice of wisdom is needed as a mediator. In Greek mythology, Perseus defeated the Medusa with the help of Athena, the goddess of wisdom, who provided him with mirrors to avoid looking directly at the goddess, and then guided his sword. In his ‘Answer to Job’, Jung suggests Sophia (wisdom) and Christ (Logos) as the mediators between man and the punitive YHWH.

It is interesting to note that these mediators are regarded as the more positive or compassionate aspects of the same deity. Lawrence G. Corey (2000) writes, in a lecture related to Jung’s ‘Answer to Job’:

[YHWH] ‘is like a deranged killer with a gun who first shoots and then helps random victims in a shopping mall – and the human Soul is like a cop who must "talk him down" from this rampage, gradually gain his confidence, ask him for his gun, and even give it back to demonstrate his trust in him. And when this give-and-take, this Auseinandersetzung as Jung calls it, is accomplished we have transformed this enemy, this ‘amoral’ adversary (as Jung calls him) into a benevolent ally. By such efforts, we have helped to heal the breach within his nature – to "Repair His Face", as it were – by helping him to know (and prefer) the "good" side of his enantiodromia over the "evil".’

It appears to me that, if seen as an "equation", then

Power + Wisdom + Love = Compassion

Compassion is the necessary mediator between conscious and unconscious, in order to discover the true Self, the "good" side of the divine. If any of the three components on the left hand side of the "equation" are missing, then we are in the cycle of "power over", in which the autonomous complex is always the winner.

Bolen, Jean Shinoda: Goddesses in Everywoman, Harper & Row, 1984

Ring of Power, HarperCollins, 1992

Bonabeau, Eric, Dorigo, Marco & Guy Theraulaz: Swarm Intelligence, OUP,

Corey, Lawrence G. (Yakov Leib haKohain): "Essays on the Transformation of

Edinger, Edward F. : Ego and Archetype, Penguin Books, 1972

Freeman, David: ‘Victim Power’, The Guild of Pastoral Psychology, 1991

French, Marilyn: The Bleeding Heart, Summit Books, 1980

Goldhagen, David Jonah: Hitler’s Willing Executioners, Abacus, 1996

Howell, Alice O. : personal communication

Jung, C. G. : CW VI, Psychological Types

Machtinger, Harriet Gordon: ‘Countertransference’, in Murray Stein (ed) Jungian

Perera, Sylvia Brinton: Descent to the Goddess, Inner City Books, 1981

Pelikan, Jaroslav (ed.): Sacred Writings: Vols. I & II