In the introduction to this blog, I say that the podcast “This Jungian Life” inspired the chronicling of my dreams. The pod has also been a source of comfort and insight both in the time of corona, and even before the pandemic. However, their episode last week entitled “Riots: When the Collective Catches Fire” is not something I would recommend. I felt compelled to write them a letter, an email which I’ve copy-pasted below in this post. I’ve yet to look back at my dreams to see if/how my unconscious has been processing current events, but below is my conscious attempt at critiquing white analysis of the protests.
Critique on Episode 114 – Riots: When the Collective Catches Fire (email sent 05 June 2020)
Dear Ms. Marchiano, Ms. Stewart, and Mr. Lee:
First, let me say I’m a regular listener and fan of your podcast. It has been a source of solace not only during this time of crisis, but also even before the pandemic. For the most part alone (I’m a Filipino-American immigrant/expat living in southern Portugal), I look forward to your episodes weekly as they offer insight and wisdom, as well as community. I’m sure I’m not the only one who has been both touched by your words, and felt included in your conversations as friends, projections though this may be.
This is the first time ever I’m sending out an email to comment on an episode. Actually, yours is the first and only podcast I’ve ever reached out to–I listen to a number of pods, one of which, by the way, is also NYT’s “The Daily,” Mr. Lee. I’ve decided to write up this email because something about this week’s episode was just off for me; it resonated, and then it didn’t, so I hope to clarify that here.
I understood by the title and with Mr. Lee’s introduction that the focus is to be on the riots, through a Jungian lens. With this lens the conversation is to put aside politics: even though “social justice” voices from your backgrounds and training clamor, you want to elevate archetypal patterns, to move beyond the concrete tumult, to sublimate it and see the transpersonal, which may then offer some relief and refuge from the chaos.
I think it’s this focus or maybe the framing that is off here, at least for me. I was thrown off by Ms. Marchiano’s statement that “it’s easy to get swept up, to identify with the voices experiencing pain and rage, and that’s important and somehow it can lead to one-sidedness.” Are you saying that the protests and peaceful demonstrations are one-sided with the rioters?
I think the conflation of peaceful protesters with the agitators becomes more apparent when Ms. Marchiano says “while I so resonate with the moral outrage that protestors are feeling, the acts of violence when I see the footage of it, it’s like what is the remedy being sought. . . ?” You all seem in agreement that the “telos” or forward movement of the protesters offers no remedy, or that they offer no “telos” at all. But I think they do. I speak as one who is not demonstrating (I hope this is no hyprocrisy), but from what I’ve read in news reports both from the U.S. and here in Europe, protesters are clear in their demand for the arrest and prosecution of the officers involved, as well as the defunding and demilitarization of the police.
The protesters, I think, are not the agitators who, mostly under cover of night, take advantage of the unrest. The agitators’ “telos” is easy to discern: it is anarchy, destruction, looting. I take your point that rage can infect and ignite more easily and rapidly in crowds. But I also want to add that many of the protesters during the day, before curfew, are with families and children. They are not the “berserker” agitators. The “berserker” image for me is not of these protesters but of the police officer that pepper-sprays a child, or the police car ramming into crowds, or the military in D.C. tear-gassing peaceful demonstrators during this pandemic of a virus that attacks our lungs.
The episode also made me wonder who your perceived or intended audience is. It seems on the one hand you are speaking to the rioters, asking they self-reflect, and sit with their feelings before taking their rage out on the streets. On the other, you’re speaking to listeners like me who are feeling the anguish and the helplessness, the anger and the fear, yet are not contributing to the chaos, but are taking walks, journaling, and writing emails like this. I appreciate your reminding us to humanize the rioters; it’s just that the emphasis on them without much discussion on the police brutality prior to the riots felt too vast and empty a gap for me.
The framing and emphasis of the episode on rioters, I believe, actually shifts the conversation away from what protesters have been demanding, projecting unto them a monolithic mass that is reactionary, not self-reflective, not responsive, not responsible. There’s validity in discussing the mob mentality of the rioters, to be sure. And I appreciate the contrasting example of the Atlanta mayor who with wisdom was able to speak to and resonate with protesters. But what I don’t understand is, in referring to the individual “mass man,” with his fanaticism and divisiveness, there’s no reference at all to the U.S. president. I’m sure you’d agree that he’s probably the most powerfully divisive, populist strong-man, with the biggest bullhorn but without much wisdom nor compassion. Here I come back to the premise that the episode is supposed to put aside politics, and I don’t think this is at all tenable. I realize, too, that the episode has avoided the mention of race except once, and wonder if the whole discussion on riots is supposed to be devoid of race in our minds? Why not address the president’s characterization of the protesters as “thugs” that must be shot when looting?
I do not believe you all see property as more valuable than people. I’ve listened to almost all of your episodes, and will keep on listening for your wisdom and humor, the compassion in your voices. I’m just engaging with the episode in the best way I know how, in a creative way, I hope, not reactive. I actually listened to the episode twice, drafted this email last night, but only now deciding to send it out. . .
I’m not sure about the concluding connection between the murders of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and George Floyd. Yes, both Caesar and Floyd were murdered. But I believe one was intended as an “honor” killing of a powerful dictator by fellow politicians, the other was of a man whose people have been demanding greater political power since slavery, and has inherited generations of bigotry and discrimination. I can see the “havoc” that the rioters have caused, but Antony’s “dogs of war” resonates more with the president than with rioters.
I appreciate the acknowledgement that we’re all holding an enormous amount of tension, that we can’t underestimate the suffering with the rate of unemployment reaching Depression levels. I remember episode 87, “The Racial Complex with Dr. Fanny Brewster,” in which you discuss that the inner work is to lift up our racial complexes into consciousness, to be more self-reflective so that we may act with greater agency and choice. I would appreciate hearing Dr. Brewster’s take on the riots, if possible.
I relate to the image of heartache and sorrow, of tears. Like many, I find myself weeping almost everyday, like yesterday, when I first listened to the episode and Ms. Marchiano spoke of love as connection with the soul. . . I’ve lost an image of love in the course of lockdown, and am still learning to accept that she will never return. I also thought I heard Ms. Stewart’s voice break a couple of times, which didn’t help in holding back the tears. This image of tears moved me, mirrored me, and, while it’s hard to bear, it’s also keeping me from raging. I think it keeps me real, so I thank you all for it. Then on the second listen, the mention of tears summoning the angel brought up for me an image of mothers and fathers who have lost their children to police brutality, yet I don’t know if they would say angels have come for them. . .
Other images mentioned in the episode about the embracing police and protester, or the police down on one knee in solidarity with protesters are also medicinal. But the comment on them becoming viral on the internet made me think these images may be easily co-opted. They may become empty images, or worse, like the president’s posing with the bible, a fabrication of the establishment of trust between authority and people.
I appreciate the exercise of naming my feelings, specifying them so that I may manage or self-regulate better. I appreciate the acknowledgment that you all were hypothesizing, not speaking from certainty, and also the mention of Buddhist meditation on the archetypal frame of creating, sustaining and dissolving. I’m not a Buddhist, but I can see how this meditation practice, accepting the cycle of “natural suffering and occasional joy” can temper my anxieties and fear for my family in the states, as well as my disappointment of dashed plans for this year.
I hope my critique here is constructive. If it is unfair or unjustified, I remain open to correspondences. I really do sincerely appreciate and respect your work.
Yours truly,