Here is some further insight from Liz Greene into the hidden psychic dynamics of love triangles presenting another part of her article The Eternal Triangle .
The previous article presented Freud’s psychoanalytic perspective, according to which the cause of love triangles lies in unresolved Oedipal struggles to win one parent and compete with the other. This time, Liz Greene goes much deeper into uncovering the archetypal foundations of the relationships between the three figures – the Betrayer, the Betrayed, and the Instrument of Betrayal – by adding the contribution of C. G. Jung’s analytical psychology.
According to Jungian analysis, triangular relationships in our lives arise from a specific splitting of the anima and the animus, which represents the conjunction of two opposite contents within a single image. The image of the inner woman in the soul of the man is called the anima, and the image of the inner man in the soul of the woman is called the animus.
If we wish to understand the nature of human infatuation and attraction between the sexes, the concepts of anima and animus are fundamental, because they refer to the images that underlie our projections. Our infatuation with another person is stronger the more numerous the “hooks” that the person we fall in love with provides for our unconscious projections.
Splitting into anima or animus occurs when the innate, primary images of the masculine and the feminine within our own psyche contain an internal contradiction. We realize this projection by identifying with one part of the image (for example, that of a devoted individual, deeply committed to his or her partner), while projecting the second part of the image onto our partner (for example, the partner behaves as an independent individual, centered on himself or herself and on personal needs). In other words, we experience our inner contradiction as something external – as a conflict between ourselves and our partner.
The discrepancy between what we want from our relationship and what we actually receive from it can lead to tremendous stress and frustration, because it is impossible to resolve such a conflict externally, namely by trying to make our partner change. At the same time, the last thing that occurs to us in such a situation is to look inward and realize that our partner embodies unlived parts of our own psyche.
“We may also see things in the beloved parent which are not so lovely. For example, a man with Venus in the 10th may also have a Moon–Pluto square or a Moon–Saturn opposition, or Venus conjunct Saturn or Chiron. There are two very different images of mother expressed by such combinations, one of which is beloved and beautiful, the other of which is threatening or hurtful. These two attributes tend to manifest later in life as two people — the Betrayed and the Instrument of Betrayal. This is what Jung called a ‘split anima’, or the female equivalent, a ‘split animus’. Jung was very preoccupied with the psychological dynamics of this pattern because he suffered from it himself. Although his definitions are somewhat rigid and in need of greater flexibility in interpretation, they are useful in helping us to understand why we need triangles, and why the three points are secretly interchangeable. All three people are likely to suffer from the same unresolved parental dynamic.
The inner split seems particularly strong and predisposing to compulsive triangles when apparently irreconcilable opposites appear in the same beloved parent. There are parents in whom the opposites are not terribly opposite, but there are also parents in whom they are very extreme. Such parents are fascinating and often exercise great sexual charisma because they are so unfathomable. The parent is wonderful and lovable, but also very hurtful, cruel, insensitive, devouring, or otherwise indigestible. It is very hard for the human psyche to accept such extremes in the same package, so the individual needs two people through whom to experience the ambivalent feelings. One of them must play Venus, and the other will have to be Pluto or Saturn or Chiron or Mars or Uranus.
Parental images which convey such extreme opposite messages may contribute to the plethora of triangles in adult life. We become involved with someone and, after a while, that person begins to assume one side of the parental image. After a few years of living together, we may find ourselves saying to friends, ‘My partner is so possessive — I just want some space to breathe,’ and lo and behold we find Venus in the 10th or 4th square Pluto. Or we may say, ‘My partner is so restrictive and conservative — I just need to be free to be myself,’ and lo and behold Venus is in the 10th with Moon opposite Saturn. We feel that we are not having enough of the fun, erotic, joyful attitude we had hoped to find in relationship. Then we justify the lover who plays the Venus role. The split plays itself out externally, but in fact reflects two opposing qualities which have not been accepted in our relationship to the parent.
Of course, such parental splits at the deepest level reflect opposites that have not been resolved within ourselves. All triangles, including those rooted in family inheritance, are ultimately connected to our own unlived psychic life.
If we can reconcile our own opposites, we can allow our parents to be contradictory as well. There is nothing extraordinary about a parent having both a charming, affectionate Venus side and a reserved Saturn side or a demanding Pluto side. Human beings have many faces, and they can love us and hurt us at the same time. But it can be very hard to tolerate these contradictions in our own parents if they have not dealt with their own contradictions. In that case, we receive little help in learning how to integrate our own. Some of these oppositions, in astrological terms, are simply too extreme for a child to manage — configurations such as Venus or Moon conjunct Saturn or Chiron require a wisdom that only time and experience can bring. Contacts to the outer planets are also quite impossible for a young child to integrate on a personal level.”
–Liz Greene
So, when we are children, we have no inner resources at all to deal with the inner conflict present in our relationship with a parent, or with the opposing desires within ourselves. Such a task requires a high degree of consciousness, the capacity to withdraw projections, and the ability to think symbolically rather than concretely—levels of maturity that even most adults do not possess. Only self-knowledge, and knowledge of how the human psyche functions, offer the possibility and the hope of breaking out of the vicious circle of recurring triangular relationships in our lives, in which none of the parties involved is truly happy.
Likewise, when we speak of anima and animus, it is important to remember that we are speaking of archetypes—that is, of innate principles within the human psychic apparatus. In this sense, even though it may appear at first glance that our experience of relating to our parents determines the type of people to whom we will later be attracted (including whether or not we will suffer from such a psychic split), in reality the decisive role belongs to our own character disposition. This is one of the significant differences between Jung and Freud—their differing views on the formative influence of parental impact in early childhood.
“Although it seems indisputable that the character and life experience of the parents are important for the developing child, the parents are not really ‘the parents’ at all, but only their images—representations that arise from the interaction between parental traits and the child’s individual disposition.”
C. G. Jung, Collected Works, para. 505
The language of psychological astrology is an excellent tool for describing the archetypal nature of the human psyche, because it describes the causes of events in our lives at the level of the soul. It represents the practical application of the “acorn theory,” as James Hillman calls that third mysterious factor which lies beyond both social and genetic conditioning and which is ultimately decisive for the unfolding of our destiny. If we add to this Novalis’s words—that destiny and character are two names for the same thing—our desire to hold our parents responsible for our own problems and for our tendency toward love triangles largely falls away. Even if our biographies reveal the formative influence of parental patterns on later development, the decisive role is in fact played by the seed—the acorn. On a deeper level, the filter through which we are drawn to our partners is an expression of a disposition of the soul, rather than a biographical conditioning.
Thus, the conflicts within our own soul can be resolved in only one way—through the withdrawal of projections and the realization that what we seek in our partner exists within us, not outside us. Only then can we discover the third solution—a place where the conflict disappears because it has been resolved at the level of the soul, that is, on a symbolic level. Such a resolution requires the sacrifice of desires bound to the concrete, the external, and the material. This is why Liz Greene places such strong emphasis on the enormous role of triangles as agents of our spiritual transformation—but more on that in the next publications. 🙂
Kameliya Hadzhiyska
