Are Your Attitudes Cultivated by the TV-world or the Real-world?

“The more people spend ‘living’ in the television world, the more they are likely to believe the social ‘reality’ portrayed by the television world.”

-George Gerbner

Cultivation Theory (sometimes referred to as the cultivation hypothesis or cultivation analysis) was an approach developed by Professor George Gerbner, dean of the Annenberg School of Communications at the University of Pennsylvania. He began the "Cultural Indicators" research project in the mid-1960s, to study whether and how watching television may influence viewers’ ideas of what the everyday world is like. Cultivation research is in the effects tradition, maintaining that television has long-term effects, which are small, gradual, indirect but cumulative and significant.

Social scientists emphasize the effects of television viewing on the attitudes rather than the behavior of viewers. Heavy watching of television is seen as cultivating attitudes, which are more consistent with the world of television programs than with the everyday world. Watching television may tend to induce a general mindset about violence in the world, quite apart from any effects it might have in inducing violent behavior. Cultivation theorists distinguish between “first order” effects (general beliefs about the everyday world, such as about the prevalence of violence) and “second order” effects (specific attitudes, such as to law and order or to personal safety).

Gerbner argues that the mass media cultivate attitudes and values, which are already present in a culture: the media maintain and propagate these values amongst members of a culture, thus binding it together. He has argued that television tends to cultivate middle-of-the-road political perspectives. And Gross considered that television is a cultural arm of the established industrial order and as such serves primarily to maintain, stabilize and reinforce rather than to alter, threaten or weaken conventional beliefs and behaviors (Boyd- Barrett & Braham, 1987). Such a function is conservative, but heavy viewers tend to regard themselves as “moderate.”

Cultivation research looks at the mass media as a socializing agent and investigates whether television viewers come to believe the television version of reality the more they watch it. Gerbner and his colleagues contend that television drama has a small but significant influence on the attitudes, beliefs and judgments of viewers concerning the social world. The focus is on "heavy viewers." People who watch a lot of television are likely to be more influenced by the ways in which the world is framed by television than are individuals who watch less, especially regarding topics of which the viewer has little first-hand experience. Light viewers may have more sources of information than heavy viewers. Judith van Evra argues that by virtue of inexperience, young viewers may depend on television for information more than other viewers do (van Evra, 1990), although Hawkins and Pingree argue that some children may not experience a cultivation effect at all where they do not understand motives or consequences. It may be that lone viewers are more open to a cultivation effect than those who view with others (van Evra, 1990).

Television as seen by Gerbner, dominates our "symbolic environment." As McQuail and Windahl note, cultivation theory presents television as "not a window on or reflection of the world, but a world in itself" (1993). Gerbner argued that the over-representation of violence on television constitutes a symbolic message about law and order rather than a simple cause of more aggressive behavior by viewers. For instance, the action-adventure genre acts to reinforce a faith in law and order, the status quo and social justice.

Since 1967, Gerbner and his colleagues have been analyzing sample weeks of primetime and daytime television programming. Cultivation analysis usually involves the correlation of data from content analysis (identifying prevailing images on television) with survey data from audience research (to assess any influence of such images on the attitudes of viewers). Content analysis by cultivation theorists seeks to characterize "the TV world." Such analysis shows not only that the TV world is far more violent than the everyday world, but also, for instance, that television is dominated by males and over-represents the professions and those involved in law enforcement.

Audience research by cultivation theorists involves asking large-scale public opinion poll organizations to include in their national surveys questions regarding such issues as the amount of violence in everyday life. Answers are interpreted as reflecting either the world of television or that of everyday life. Respondents are asked such questions as, “What percentage of all males who have jobs work in law enforcement or crime detection? Is it 1 percent or 10 percent”? On American TV, about 12 percent of all male characters hold such jobs, and about 1 percent of males are employed in the USA in these jobs, so 10 percent would be the “TV answer” and 1 percent would be the “real-world answer” (Dominick, 1990).

Answers are then related to the amount of television watched, other media habits and demographic data such as sex, age, income and education. The cultivation hypothesis involves predicting or expecting heavy television viewers to give more TV answers than light viewers. The responses of a large number of heavy viewers are compared with those of light viewers. A tendency of heavy viewers to choose TV answers is interpreted as evidence of a cultivation effect.

Cultivation theorists are best known for their study of television and viewers, and in particular for a focus on the topic of violence. However, some studies have also considered other mass media from this perspective, and have dealt with topics such as gender roles, age groups, ethnic groups and political attitudes. A study of American college students found that heavy soap opera viewers were more likely than light viewers to over-estimate the number of real-life married people who had affairs or who had been divorced and the number of women who had abortions (Dominick, 1990).

The difference in the pattern of responses between light and heavy viewers (when other variables are controlled) is referred to as the cultivation differential, reflecting the extent to which an attitude seems to be shaped by watching television. Older people tend to be portrayed negatively on television and heavy viewers (especially younger ones) tend to hold more negative views about older people than lighter viewers. Most heavy viewers are unaware of any influence of television viewing on their attitudes and values.

Cultivation theorists argue that heavy viewing leads viewers (even among high educational/high income groups) to have more homogeneous or convergent opinions than light viewers (who tend to have more heterogeneous or divergent opinions). The cultivation effect of television viewing is one of “leveling” or “homogenizing” opinion. Gerbner and his associates argue that heavy viewers of violence on television come to believe that the incidence of violence in the everyday world is higher than do light viewers of similar backgrounds. They refer to this as a mainstreaming effect.

In light of the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign, would you agree or disagree that television tends to cultivate middle-of-the-road political perspectives? If so, how? If not, what perspectives do you think television cultivates?

In light of the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign, what examples of mainstreaming effect might result from television campaign advertisements?

Thoughts?

Life is a Drama

Dramatism pertains to the important role that the public plays in persuasion. Dramatists believe that unless the audience identifies with the speaker, persuasion is not possible. The public refers to listeners, consumers, and audiences—playing a role in deciding the extent to which others will affect us.

Dramatism, as its name implies, conceptualizes life as a drama, placing a critical focus on the acts performed by various players. Just as in a play, the acts in life are central to revealing human motives. Dramatism provides us with a method that is well suited to address the act of communication between the text.

Kenneth Burke’s "Theory of Dramatism" allows us to analyze rhetorical choices in a situation (how the situation is framed, say by a politician or other public speaker) and responses to these choices. Drama is a useful metaphor for three reasons:

1) Drama indicates a grand sweep, and Burke does not make limited claims; his goal is to theorize about the whole range of human experience. The dramatic metaphor is particularly useful in describing human relationships because it is grounded in interaction or dialogue. In its dialogue, drama both models relationships and illuminates relationships;

2) Drama tends to follow recognizable types or genres: comedy, musical, melodrama, and so forth. Burke feels that the very way we structure and use language may be related to the way these human dramas are played out; and

3) Drama is always addressed to an audience.

In this sense, drama is rhetorical. Burke views literature as “equipment for living,” which means that literature or texts speak to people’s lived experiences and problems and provide people with responses for dealing with these experiences. In this way, Dramatism studies the ways in which language and its usage relate to audiences.

Burke’s theory compares life to a play and states that, as in a theatrical piece, life requires an actor, a scene, an action, some means for the action to take place, and a purpose. The theory allows a rhetorical critic to analyze a speaker’s motives by identifying and examining these elements. Furthermore, Burke believes, guilt is the ultimate motive for speakers, and Dramatism suggests that rhetors are most successful when they provide their audiences with a means for purging their guilt.

Assumptions of Dramatism

Ontological issues concern how much choice and free will humans possess. The assumptions we make about human nature are articles of faith about basic reality. Burke’s thinking is so complex that it is difficult to reduce it to one set of assumptions or to a specific ontology.

I) Humans are animals who use symbols.

The first assumption speaks to Burke’s realization that some of what we do is motivated by our animal nature and some of what we do is motivated by symbols. For example, when I drink my morning coffee, I am satisfying my thirst, an animal need. When I read the morning news and think about ideas, I am being influenced by symbols.

II) Language and symbols form a critically important system for humans.

In the second assumption about the critical importance of language, it is difficult to think about concepts or objects without words for them. Thus, people are restricted (to an extent) in what they can conceive by the limits of their language. People use their language but they are used by it as well. Furthermore, when a culture’s language does not have symbols for a given motive, then speakers of that language are unlikely to have that motive. Thus, because English does not have many symbols that express much nuance of opinion about certain behaviors and motivations, our discussions are often polarized.

Think back to other controversies you have talked about (such as the moral implications of cloning, stem cell research, dealing with North Korea, invading Iraq, immigration issues, same-sex marriage, the 2012 presidential election, the recent terrorist activity in Libya, and so forth). Unfortunately, discussions as either/or propositions—positions were cast as either right or wrong. Burke’s response is that symbols shape our either/or approach to these complex issues. Words, thoughts, and actions have extremely close connections with one another.

Burke’s expression for this is that words act as “terministic screens” leading to “trained incapacities,” meaning that people cannot see beyond what their words lead them to believe (Burke, 1965). For example, despite educational efforts, U.S. public health officials still have difficulty persuading people to think of the misuse of alcohol and tranquilizers when they hear the words “drug abuse.” Most people in the United States respond to “drug abuse” as the misuse of illegal drugs, such as heroin and cocaine (Brummett, 1993). The words “drug abuse” are “terministic screens,” screening out some meanings and including others. For Burke, language has a life of its own, and “anything we can see or feel is already in language, given to us by language, and even produced as us by language” (Nelson, 1989).

This explanation is somewhat at odds with the final assumption of Dramatism, humans are choice makers.

III) Humans are choice makers.

Burke persistently suggests that behaviorism has to be rejected because it conflicts with human choice -- conceptualization of agency, or the ability of a social actor (you or me) to act out of choice. There is a difficult task of negotiating a space between complete free will and complete determinism. Burke’s thinking continued to evolve on this point, but he always kept agency in the forefront of his theorizing. To understand Burke’s scope in this theory, we need to discuss how he framed his thinking relative to Aristotelian rhetoric.

Dramatism as New Rhetoric

Burke maintains that the definition of rhetoric is, in essence, persuasion, and his writings explore the ways in which persuasion takes place. In so doing, Burke proposes a new rhetoric (Nichols, 1952) that focuses on several key issues, chief among them being the notion of identification. In 1952, Marie Nichols said the following about the difference between Burke’s approach and Aristotle’s: “The difference between the ‘old’ rhetoric and the ‘new’ rhetoric may be summed up in this manner: whereas the key term for the ‘old’ rhetoric was persuasion and its stress was upon deliberate design, the key term for the ‘new’ rhetoric is identification and this may include partially ‘unconscious’ factors in its appeal.” Yet Burke’s purpose was not to displace Aristotle’s conceptualizations but rather to supplement the traditional approach.

Identification and Substance

Burke argues that when there is overlap between two people in terms of their substance, they have identification. The more overlap that exists -- the greater the identification. The opposite is also true, so the less overlap between individuals -- the greater the division that exists between them. However, it is also the case that two people can never completely overlap with each other. Burke recognizes this and notes that the “ambiguities of substance” dictate that identification always rests on both unity and division. Individuals will unite on certain matters of substance but at the same time remain unique, being “both joined and separated” (Burke, 1950). Furthermore, Burke indicates that rhetoric is needed to bridge divisions and establish unity.

The Process of Guilt and Redemption

Consubstantiality, or issues of identification and substance, are related to the guilt/redemption cycle because guilt can be assuaged as a result of identification and divisions. Patricia Sullivan and Lynn Turner (1993) argued that Zoe Baird, President Clinton’s first, unsuccessful, nominee for U.S. attorney general, acted as a sacrificial vessel for the country to expiate our feelings of guilt about inadequate child care. Using Burke, Sullivan and Turner argue that Baird was consubstantial with many Americans because the problems of adequate child care are widespread. Yet her uncommon wealth separated her from most, allowing people to blame her without condemning themselves.

For Burke, the process of guilt and redemption undergirds the entire concept of symbolizing. Guilt is the central motive for all symbolic activities, and Burke defines guilt broadly to include any type of tension, embarrassment, shame, disgust, or other unpleasant feeling. Central to Burke’s theory is the notion that guilt is intrinsic to the human condition. Because we are continuously feeling guilt, we are also continuously engaging in attempts to purge ourselves of guilt’s discomfort. This process of feeling guilt and attempting to reduce it finds its expression in Burke’s cycle, which follows a predictable pattern: order (or hierarchy), the negative, victimage (scapegoat or mortification), and redemption.

Saying no to the existing social order is both a function of our language abilities and evidence of humans as choice makers. When Burke penned his often-quoted definition of Man, he emphasized the negative: Man is the symbol-using inventor of the negative
separated from his natural condition by instruments of his own making goaded by the spirit of hierarchy and rotten with perfection. (1966.) When Burke coined the phrase “rotten with perfection,” he meant that because our symbols allow us to imagine perfection, we always feel guilty about the difference between the real state of affairs and the perfection that we can imagine.

Victimage

Victimage is the way in which we attempt to purge the guilt that we feel as part of the human condition. There are two basic types of victimage, or two methods to purge our guilt. Burke calls the type of victimage that we turn in on ourselves mortification. When we apologize for wrongdoing and blame ourselves, we engage in mortification. In 1998, Republican leaders said they would have felt more sympathetic about President Clinton’s sex scandal if he had admitted he was wrong and had not perjured himself. Clinton refused to engage in mortification. Instead he turned to another purging technique called scapegoating.

Scapegoating

In scapegoating, blame is placed on some sacrificial vessel. By sacrificing the scapegoat, the actor is purged of sin. Clinton attempted to scapegoat the Republicans as deserving the real blame for the country’s problems after confessing to an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky. When the news of the sex scandal first broke in 1998, before Clinton admitted his relationship with Lewinsky, Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared on television suggesting that the rumors about her husband were the result of a complex “rightwing conspiracy” that was out to get her and her husband. This type of rhetoric illustrates Burke’s concept of scapegoating. In the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy, President Bush also engaged in scapegoating. When Bush spoke of the “Axis of Evil” and used stark contrasts between good and evil, he operated within Burke’s concept of scapegoating. People who objected to this rhetoric pointed out that the United States itself had some responsibility for the fact that people from developing countries harbored resentments against the United States.

Redemption

The final step in the process is redemption, which involves a rejection of the unclean and a return to a new order after guilt has been temporarily purged. Inherent in the term redemption is the notion of a Redeemer. The Redeemer in the Judeo-Christian tradition is the Savior (Christ) or God. When politicians blame problems on the media or on the opposing party, they offer themselves as potential Redeemers—those who can lead the people out of their troubles. A key in the redemption phase is the fact that guilt is only temporarily relieved, through the Redeemer or any other method. As any order or hierarchy becomes reestablished, guilt returns to plague the human condition.

The Pentad

In addition to devising the theory of Dramatism, Burke (1945) created a method for applying his theory toward an understanding of symbolic activities. He called his method the pentad because it consists of five points for analyzing a symbolic text like a speech or a series of articles about Martha Stewart, for instance. The pentad may help determine why a speaker selects a particular rhetorical strategy for identifying with an audience.

The five points that make up the pentad include the act, the scene, the agent, agency, and purpose. Almost twenty years after creating this research tool, Burke (1968) added a sixth point, “attitude,” to the pentad, making it a hexad, although most people still refer to it as the pentad.

1. The act is what is done by a person.
2. The scene provides the context surrounding the act.
3. The agent is the person or persons performing the act.
4. The agency refers to the means used by the agent to accomplish the act.
5. The purpose refers to the goal that the agent had in mind for the act—that is, why the act was done.
6. Attitude refers to the manner in which an actor positions himself or herself relative to others.

How might we as members of the human race, or as citizens of this United States, talk about the 2012 presidential campaign in a less polarized fashion?

Can you use the pentad to analyze Obama or Romney and their discourse surrounding the attack in Libya involving these two political figures?

Do you agree that guilt is the primary human motive? If not, what do you think is the primary human motive?

Thoughts?

Have You Befriended Your Dark Side?

"Star Wars” is a series, which exemplifies in a clear-cut manner many of the archetypes of Jungian psychology. These films are modern retellings of ancient myths. Carl Jung has described myths as "fundamental expressions of human nature" (Hull, 1991). In the films, fairy tale motifs such as typical clothing, animals, knights, princesses, and emperors, along with primeval settings, are projected into the future with star ships, death stars and light sabers as swords. Although the films take the viewer far into the future, connections to an unconscious past are never forgotten. The popularity of these films could be attributed not only to the actors, special effects, and adventure, but more than that, to the connections with the collective and personal unconscious the trilogy continually evokes.

In the first episode of the “PBS Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth” series (1988), “The Hero's Adventure” and the fifth chapter of the book, "The Hero's Adventure," Bill Moyers and Joseph Campbell discuss George Lucas' report that Campbell's work directly influenced the creation of the “Star Wars” films. Moyers and Lucas filmed an interview in 1999, modeled after “The Power of Myth.” It was called the “Mythology of Star Wars with George Lucas and Bill Moyers” and further discussed the impact of Campbell's work on the Lucas' films.

According to Baxter and Babbie (2003), virtually anything can function as a social text, so long as it has symbols and meaning – including films. A qualitative approach to analyzing a film or a series of films as social text, involves understanding the meaning of that social text. In this case, I analyze the meaning behind the “Star Wars” film series by filmmaker George Lucas (with a little help from our friend, Carl Jung). My endeavor is an interpretive one, not a numerical one (as with a quantitative analyses). For this assignment, the social text, the “Star Wars” series, functions as the primary data being analyzed. There are many messages communicated within the work, known as “Star Wars.” My approach to analyzing this particular social text is “Communication Criticism.” Baxter and Babbie (2003) believe that there is little difference between the qualitative approaches to communication and the more humanistic approaches found in communication criticism. Communication criticism focuses on four stages: textualization, analysis, interpretation and judgment (Baxter & Babbie, 2003).

Sometimes documents (whether electronic, visual, or written) are helpful as resources for participants, including the researcher, as they conduct their everyday lives. Also, they are helpful in providing information that is not easily found through observation or interview. Studying the history, religiosity, and psychology embedded within the “Star Wars” series, can be fascinating. One can see that the films are conceptually very rich and robust, and quite self-revealing, if you look closely.

Although I had seen the film series time and again, I chose to watch critically to gain a better and deeper understanding of the meaning of the social text, “Star Wars.”

Many people judge simply on entertainment value. To know the difference between being truly joy-ful or being simply entertained is a life’s lesson many never comprehend. Any one of the films in the “Star Wars” series is never simply a good or a bad film. Each installment in the series is much more than a film in front of which we sit and munch popcorn. If aware, a viewer understands that each film is an invitation to look inside our selves. Each film offers us a reminder, an opportunity to visit that “shadow” or “dark side” which resides within each of us. It is the collection of negative or undesirable traits we keep hidden. Most of us never analyze our own dark side…and we don’t recognize it even when it’s larger than life on a 50-foot movie screen. Our own dark side is the collection of negative or undesirable traits we keep hidden – the things we don’t like about ourselves, and certainly don’t want others to recognize in us. These are things we are afraid to admit: egotism, non-politically-correct proclivities, extreme material desires, a gross need for power, and forbidden sexual desires, for examples.

However, as evidenced by the character, “Anakin,” a very likeable character who later becomes “Darth Vader,” a very unlikeable character, we know deep inside that we too have the capacity to go to the dark side. We have an equal (or greater, if you’re lucky) capacity for positive (yet often untapped) potential. This potential includes qualities that we admire in others but may disavow in ourselves. Befriending our dark side enables us to live a more authentic life. Had Anakin heeded the wise words of his mentor, the series may have turned out quite differently (Anakin’s loss is our gain). He was weak and naïve, became distrusting and greedy. We too fall prey to the negative behaviors fear and anxiety can perpetuate.

I find great value in analyzing “Star Wars” from a Jungian perspective. Jung was interested in the collective subconscious (Hull, 1991). If a film is consciously Jungian then the subconscious content that was clearly being portrayed was made for psychological self-realization – and to earn money, of course. Do you believe that Jung’s subconscious archetypes really exist? If you take the time to analyze “Star Wars” you will see, as George Lucas did, “A great classic hero saga, dealing with the classical questions about religion and history based on a psychological theme, played out in the futuristic setting of space” (Moyers & Lucas, 2010).

I believe that the “Star Wars” series falls within the social tradition of communication criticism because it highlights what we all share in common, a capacity for good and evil. The series does a good job of constructing shared meaning between people. Even for those who are not seeking the meaning in the messages within the film series, one cannot help but walk out of the theater with a need to reflect on “The Force,” God, the Self, or god-within, as some people refer to the universal force that is greater than we our selves are.

To understand, and truly appreciate the “Star Wars” film series you have to understand the main theme, a classical saga. In the series, the saga is the religion – a conviction; a system of values or beliefs -- and religion is something with which we can all identify, whether a religious person or not. The series presents the viewer with a story where an ordinary person, faced with many of the same challenges we experience, is faced with life-changing opportunities or challenges (again good versus bad). He, as with most of us, must go on a life quest where a number of life-challenges and struggles between good and evil, present themselves. These struggles are evident throughout history. Many pit fear against love, ego against spirit, the devil against God. But we all have “the Force,” as considered by many, intuition within us.

What is the Force? I believe it is an energy that resides within each of us at a cellular level. It can guide you and show you your life’s path. One is still left with the concept of free will to choose the “right” path or the “wrong” path. Many interpret the Force as God or as a positive, at the very least, and the dark side as the devil, or a negative at the very least. However, what many viewers fail to recognize is that there is no good guy or bad guy…there is only both within each of us. Our intuition may guide us but we still have free will to choose to do the right thing or not.

In Carl Jung’s collective unconscious, that which can be likened to the Force, intuition shows us what to retreat from and what to embrace; it is a gift of knowing, inherited from those who have gone before us…it heavily influences our free will, it guides us. The idea that we create our own reality correlates with this. In other words, if one lives in fear and negativity, bad things happen. If one lives with hope and positivity, good things happen.

The dark side of the Force attracts people/characters to power in a Machiavellian sense. Influence is seen as being afforded to those with power. Those with power can use their power for good or evil. The problem arises when leaders become dictators and influence is no longer enough, such that power and greed take over a person’s character. We see this all the time with politicians running for office who want to solve the problem and later, as elected political leaders, become the problem. Pure greed, without any struggle with conscience, gives the illusion of great power. Just because someone avoids struggling with his conscience does not mean his issues go away. The shadow or dark side will lie dormant until one day without warning will rear its ugly head and all will be lost. Again, we see this often with those same political leaders. Anakin suffered from never having embraced his dark side and all the while the fear and insecurity worked its black magic inside him until fear and greed were all he knew. When one is distrusting, it is often a sign that he cannot be trusted. Anakin relinquished his power to the dark side – the collection of his undesirable traits that had remained hidden from others, and himself. As presented in mythology, the Bible, psychology, and even in “Star Wars,” denying or worse, ignoring the dark side will only result in fear and anxiety –the presence of the ego, the devil, whatever negative name we wish to give “it,” returning to make demands of us.

Filmmaker George Lucas says that “Star Wars” is a classical saga, but in a futuristic environment (Moyers, B. & Lucas, G., 2010). But what is a classical saga? Adolf Bastian (1826-1905) first proposed the idea that myths from all over the world seem to be built from the same "elementary ideas.” Bastian was a 19th century ethnologist best remembered for his contributions to the development of ethnography and the development of anthropology as a discipline. Modern psychology owes him a great debt, because of his theory of the “Elementargedanke” (Britannica, 1999). This led to Carl Jung's development of the theory of archetypes, which he believed to be the building blocks not only of the unconscious mind, but also of a collective unconscious (Hull, 1991).

The Jedi Knight represents a basic psychological theme that fits well with the hero archetype. To the naïve, young Jedi, Luke Skywalker, the wise, old Jedi, Yoda states, "A Jedi's strength flows from the Force. But beware of the dark side. Anger...fear...aggression. The dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice." Luke then says, "Vader. Is the dark side stronger?" to which Yoda replies "No...no...no. Quicker, easier, more seductive." And Luke again asks "But how am I to know the good side from the bad?" and Yoda replies, "You will know. When you are calm, at peace. Passive. A Jedi uses the Force for knowledge and defense, never for attack” (Yoda, a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away).

We all have the Force within us; we all have free will to choose to use the Force for good or evil. As Jung stated, the shadow is a very common archetype that reflects deeper elements of our psyche, where “latent dispositions” which are within us all, arise (Hull, 1991).

It is, by its name, dark, shadowy, unknown and potentially troubling. It embodies chaos and wildness and tends not to obey rules. As such, it may plunge us into a world of chaos as it did to Anakin in the film series. It has a sense of the exotic and can be disturbingly fascinating and mythical, like mysterious fighters and dark enemies. We may see the shadow in others and, if we are truly healthy, know it in ourselves. Mostly, however, people deny it and project it onto others. Our shadow or dark side may appear in dreams and hallucinations as it did with Anakin, often as something or someone who is bad, fearsome or despicable in some way. It may seduce through false friendship (think Sith Lord). Encounters with it, as an aspect of the subconscious, may reveal deeper darker thoughts and fears. 

Do you acknowledge your dark side and if so, how do you manage it?

In what setting does your dark side rear its ugly head most?

When people disagree with your beliefs do you shut them down or open your mind to alternative beliefs?

Do you have a far right conservative friend whose opinions differ from yours? How do you handle?

Do you have a far left liberal friend show opinions differ from yours? How do you handle?

Thoughts?