# The Shadow, the Light and the Balance



## David Baxter PhD (Jan 6, 2009)

The Shadow, the Light and the Balance
By Michael J. Formica
January 06, 2009 

Sometimes we need to get our hands dirty. As my esteemed blolleague Stephen A. Diamond was so good to remind us in his recent post _The Psychology of Spirituality_, the business of self-inquiry - whether through psychology or spirituality -- is often a messy one and not for the faint of heart. As I am one who could easily be accused of falling into the "airy-fairy-everything-is-beautiful-just-breath-and-it's-all-good" side of things, I'd like to run with some of his thoughts on the matter and add a few of my own, as well. 

In earlier posts (1, 2) we discussed that one of the major failings of post-modern psychology, which began as a study of the Spirit (psyche), was its divorce from spirituality. Curiously, one of the major failings of post-modern spirituality has become its divorce from psychology. These two interdependent disciplines, by virtue of their individual imperatives and much to our disadvantage, have become juxtaposed to one another in the extreme - darkness (psychology) and light (spirituality).

Western psychology often begins with the premise that we are ill, that there is something "wrong" with us. Because of the inappropriate imposition of the medical model (see Thomas Szasz, _The Myth of Mental Illness_) and, by association, the disease model upon psychotherapeutic practice, we start from a place that assumes we are broken things that need to be fixed, as opposed to fundamentally healthy individuals facing challenges for which we are not yet prepared.

By contrast, post-modern New Age often spirituality begins with the premise that everything is sweetness, light, grace, and angels. There is within this arena and all its attendant disciplines an almost self-conscious imperative to avoid the darkness, focusing solely on the light.

It is vitally important to understand each of these disciplines in contrast with the other. An understanding of spirituality is critical to an understanding of psychology and vice-versa, as they are not two things, but, rather, one that has fallen into the ubiquitous duality of our culture of opposition.

All things exist in balance. In order for a thing to be, its mirror (not its opposite) must also be present. The construct of duality, the splitting of things into two separate, but unrelated, elements and the dependent notion that these two things must be in opposition to one another is -- as both Buddha and Joseph Campbell were wont to point out -- a socio-mythic legacy that plagues us more than anything else. Rather than creating balance, a natural state, the construct of duality forces us into creating imbalance. Whether we are talking about spirituality or psychology we end up rejecting parts of ourselves, our community, our culture and our world.

It is quite necessary to seek the light within the darkness, and recognize the darkness within the light. This notion is at the heart of Tao, and it is a dynamic construct. A profound error that we make in the West is to view the Yin/Yang symbol as static. When discussing the origins of the Feng Shui and the I-Ching, we discover that Yin/Yang is, in fact, moving - constantly blending and balancing, not separating -- darkness and light. For us to become truly whole -- body, mind, soul and spirit, egocentrically, ethnocentrically and geocentrically - we need to pursue exactly this and get our hands dirty in the process.

To that point, what remains unexpressed within you? As I mentioned in _Archetypes, Neuroses and Templates of Behavior_, the Shadow is that part of ourselves that we have rejected; a perfect example being that if you identify yourself as a Democratic, the Libertarian, Republican and Independent dwell in your Shadow - but as soon as you complain about your taxes, your Republican has bled into your Democrat. Think about it.

So, what have you rejected? Consider it seriously because this question is at the core of self-inquiry; what we reject in ourselves is the engine that drives us every bit as much as that which we accept in ourselves. And what we reject, because it is not integrated into who we are, but denied, is usually what comes out sideways.

The sex addict is driven by issues of his or her own sexuality. The alcoholic or addict is running from something that s/he cannot or will not face. The gambling addict finds solace in risk and reward. The depressive fears his anger. The anxious individual fears the unknown. The narcissist hates herself. The oppressor despises the weakness in himself. From this perspective, the list is endless.

Digging in the dirt, getting our hands dirty, looking into the darkness, we find the light. We affirm who we are by virtue of whom or what we are not. This is the essence of owning ones own shadow. It is a necessary exercise that draws the disciplines of psychology and spirituality back into the same arena and, by returning balance to the construct, affords us the opportunity to bring balance to our own interior landscape, promoting our personal evolution into a whole being, maximizing our human potential

_1 The Failure of Psychology and the Death of Psychotherapy, Pt. 1 | Psychology Today Blogs
2 The Failure of Psychology and the Death of Psychotherapy, Pt. 2 | Psychology Today Blogs_


----------



## amastie (Jan 6, 2009)

An interesting article and I will keep it for myself.
I believe in the separation of religion (any faith-based belief) and science, which is not to say that I don't also believe we are richer for incorporating both into our lives.  But I find it scary when "Divine Creationism" is to be taught in schools. (I haven 't heard of that being the case here in Australia, but maybe it is in some religious-based schools.)  I admit that I find it less scary to have spiritual zealots declare the end of the world is nigh.  I see those people as being more hysteria-driven and less believable because it’s not based on scientific fact.

If a scientific think-tank comes out together and says the same thing, I’m running for cover!  (Not that that would help <lol> )

There is danger in not distinguishing between what is spiritual and what is scientifically provable.  And I say that as one who is unabashedly Spiritualist.



			
				 By Michael J. Formica said:
			
		

> ...the business of self-inquiry - whether through psychology or spirituality -- is often a messy one and not for the faint of heart.]...


Totally agree!



			
				 By Michael J. Formica said:
			
		

> ... the inappropriate imposition of the medical model... we start from a place that assumes we are broken things that need to be fixed, as opposed to fundamentally healthy individuals facing challenges for which we are not yet prepared....



I find it confusing that the author doesn’t take into account the very real imposition of physical, scientific, elements in the making of many of the most troubling mental illnesses.  I like to think that “fundamentally individuals facing challenges” are not dismissed as “mentally ill” in order not to see in them the pain that is so often (always?) entirely justified by life’s circumstances (or at least their relation to those).  That is easy to do since physical explanations are less confronting to others that psychological ones.  Neither would I have that those people who suffer from chemical imbalances in the brain not receive proper acknowledgement of their real-world experience.


			
				 By Michael J. Formica said:
			
		

> post-modern New Age often spirituality begins with the premise that everything is sweetness, light, grace, and angels. There is within this arena and all its attendant disciplines an almost self-conscious imperative to avoid the darkness, focusing solely on the light


That has not been my experience.  In over 30 years as a Spiritualist, I’ve never met one who doesn’t acknowledge darkness.  Many Spiritualist and spiritually oriented people devote much of their spiritual work bringing darkness to Light in a variety of ways.  I define darkness, in Spiritual terms, as ignorance of and the inability to access Light (the source of spiritual upliftment) and, in psychological terms, not being able to access positive feeling and thoughts.



			
				 By Michael J. Formica said:
			
		

> An understanding of spirituality is critical to an understanding of psychology and vice-versa


Yes.  I would only argue that it is critical to have an understanding of the impact of an *individual’s” spirituality on their psychology.  To generalize is to miss the point of the effect of a given belief on a particular client.  Even people who would say that they hold the same basic beliefs - Christian, Muslim, Jewish etc etc - will hold those views differently from one another, and will often respond very differently to them.



			
				 By Michael J. Formica said:
			
		

> ......what we reject in ourselves is the engine that drives us every bit as much as that which we accept in ourselves. And what we reject, because it is not integrated into who we are, but denied, is usually what comes out sideways...


Much truth to that.



			
				 By Michael J. Formica said:
			
		

> Digging in the dirt, getting our hands dirty, looking into the darkness, we find the light. We affirm who we are by virtue of whom or what we are not. This is the essence of owning ones own shadow. ...


A book I liked very much was called “The Dark Side Of The Light Chasers” by Debbie Ford (Amazon reference is Amazon.com: The Dark Side of the Light Chasers: Reclaiming Your Power, Creativity, Brilliance, and Dreams: Debbie Ford: Books )


----------



## stargazer (Mar 12, 2009)

amastie said:


> I find it confusing that the author doesn’t take into account the very real imposition of physical, scientific, elements in the making of many of the most troubling mental illnesses.



I had to read this part of the article a couple times myself, but I think the author is referring to the standpoint of Thomas Szasz as distinct from his own, which, if you know anything about Szasz, is very radical in disavowing the validity of mental illnesses.  



amastie said:


> That has not been my experience.  In over 30 years as a Spiritualist, I’ve never met one who doesn’t acknowledge darkness.



Same thing here.  I found this part of the article awkward, but I think the author was trying to make a point about two extremes.  Unfortunately, he seemed to stereotype New Age spirituality in the process.  Also, if one doesn't read it carefully enough, there's an implication that all spirituality is of this variety, which I find a bit disheartening because of my own spiritual leanings.  

But I think his basic point was that psychology and spirituality ought to go hand and not be dualistically opposed, with which I would think most of us would agree.  In fact, I'm not sure where the idea that they would be at all opposed in the first place is coming from.  Had the terms been "science" and "religion" that would have been one thing.  But in whatever circles I find myself these days, intellectual and otherwise, "spirituality" and "psychology" tend to refer a lot more to things they have in common than to things that they exclude from each other.

Of course (at the risk of yet another stereotype), I live in California.


----------



## forgetmenot (Mar 14, 2009)

wow a very interesting article thanks Mary


----------

