Hate-Read with Lydia: She by Robert A. Johnson

This picture of a raging bonfire perfectly captures my emotional state while reading this book.
(from Wikimedia Commons)

Hello, and welcome to Hate-Read with Lydia. In this installment, we will be reading She: Understanding Feminine Psychology by Jungian psychologist Robert A. Johnson. 

The prequel to this blog post discusses how I discovered this book, and the process that I used in order to write a blog post about it. She: Understanding Feminine Psychology revolves around the myth of Eros and Psyche. If you are not familiar with this myth, I would recommend brushing up on the Wikipedia synopsis before we jump into a few of the most outrageous quotes from the text.

A paperback copy of She: Understanding Feminine Psychology by Robert A. Johnson sits on top of a black-and-white polka dot cloth. The edge of the book is lined with a total of 30 blue, pink, purple, and yellow sticky tabs.

Psyche and Aphrodite

Psyche brought a new kind of femininity that was distinct from Aphrodite's old brand of femininity, and Aphrodite was upset about this change. Johnson justifies Aphrodite's ruthlessness by explaining that: 

she is beyond morality; she is before the time of morality. She will use any means at her disposal to down an opponent. She is, in fact, a thorough bitch. Every woman knows this through her own sudden regressions to her Aphrodite nature. (7)

The fact that the one and only time that the author swears in this text is to refer to a woman as "a thorough bitch" speaks volumes about his perspective. 

Johnson follows this explanation of Aphrodite's nature by stating that, when a woman regresses to her Aphrodite nature,  "Every male around her trembles, for men are terrified of Aphrodite. It is a calmer household where someone can gently say, “Now look, sweet, remember Aphrodite?” (7). 

Psyche, despite being a beloved king's daughter, was not courted. Johnson explains that all women have a part of them that is like Psyche--beautiful and perfect, but unable to truly connect to anyone. In what is, perhaps, my favorite quote to read aloud, he claims that "If the Psyche nature is a large part of a woman, she has a painful task on her hands. She bursts into tears and says, 'But nobody understands'. And it is true; nobody understands" (10). 

On Marriage

According to Johnson's telling, a man who marries "is adding to his stature; his world is getting stronger and he has come up a peg" (16). For a woman, however, marriage kills the Psyche within her. Johnson claims that "All husbands are death to their wives in that they destroy them as maidens and force them into an evolution toward mature womanhood" (21). While this quote may merit a mature discussion of the role of marriage in a person's life, the conversation that sparked between the CITs (counselors-in-training) and I revolved largely around how Johnson was referring to women as though they were Pokémon and men were Pokémon trainers.

The following passage was particularly striking to me as an example this author's perspective and values: 

Nearly every man wants this of his wife: if she will just not ask for consciousness, if she will just do things his way. He wants the old patriarchal marriage, where the man decides all the important issues, the woman says yes to him, and there is no trouble. Every man harbors within him the hope that this is how it will be, and for a little while there is the possibility that the marriage will go forward in this way. (16)

Peculiar Metaphors

Johnson discusses the difference between the metaphorical lamp, which women can use to illuminate a situation, and the metaphorical knife, which women can use to attack others, particularly their husbands. 

Illuminating the lamp can often allow women to see the true greatness of their husbands, as Robert A. Johnson describes in this passage: 

At his best, a man knows who he is, and he knows he has a god, a magnificent being, somewhere within him. But when a woman lights the lamp and sees the god in him, he feels called upon to live up to that, to be strong in his consciousness. Naturally he trembles! Yet he seems to require this feminine acknowledgement of his worth. Terrible things happen to men who are deprived of the presence of women, for apparently it is the presence of women that reminds each man of the best that is in him. (25)

This paragraph inspired me to ask the young men of my pod whether they felt like they had a god inside of them. In the perplexed silence that followed, a nearly-11-year-old boy from a neighboring pod shouted "Yes!". Beyond reminding me of the experience of reading this book at camp, this passage is concerning, and, frankly, dispiriting. Why do men need women to acknowledge their worth in order to feel that they have value?

The other strange metaphor that Johnson uses is that of "sorting". In the myth, Psyche is forced to sort through a ludicrous number of seeds. In his retelling, Johnson applies this metaphor to many parts of a woman's life, saying that:

A man goes to a woman for this household sorting. The man is off to more important things, as he sees it, in the affairs of the world, and it is left to the woman to keep order in his home life. Yet a man typically does not think of a woman as being well able to sort, to discriminate, to order.

When a man makes love to a woman, he gives her seeds past comprehension, millions of seeds. She has to choose one. There, on a very rudimentary level, is the sorting. It is she who chooses, unconsciously in this case, which of these many, many seeds to develop. Nature in its excess produces so much, and the woman sorts. (46)

I have little to say about this passage, other than to point out the peculiarity of this metaphor and Johnson’s obliviousness to (or willing participation in) double entendres.

On Women’s Relationship to Men and Masculinity

In Ida M. Tarbell’s 1912 book The Business of Being a Woman, she discussed the theory of separate spheres. Essentially, according to her ideology, women are to focus on the inner sphere of household and family, while men are to focus on the outer sphere, or the outside world.

Johnson uplifts this ideology, and discusses the consequences that he believes will result if women do not focus on the inner sphere. He says that:

It often happens today that both partners face toward the outer world and neither is aware of the unconscious or inner world. The family is left unguarded at this point. I would urge women to take up their natural and noble work of facing and mediating the inner world for themselves, for their husbands and families, and for society, while helping others to learn to see the inner world for themselves. Sorting out the influx of emotions, moods, and archetypes for the family is a beautiful, feminine act. (48)

This attitude, while frustratingly explicable in a book written in 1912, feels out of touch and out of place in a book that was published in 1976. Johnson expands on his statement by saying that “Many women say they want just as much focused consciousness as a man. This is not reasonable or safe. One must be a woman with masculinity backing her up” (54).

He encourages women to take life one thing at a time so that they do not become overwhelmed. Although this is not, perhaps, the worst idea, Johnson frames this advice in a manner that suggests that women should be more quiet and less disorderly. According to him,

Almost every woman I know is too busy. She is into this, studying that, driving in a car pool to this and to that, working hard on some big project, racing around until she is ragged. She needs to be quiet, to approach the vastness of life’s responsibilities in a more orderly manner, to do one thing, take one crystal goblet at a time, concentrate on it, and do it well. Then, she may move on to other things. (59)

General Nonsense

As a modern reader, I was grossed out by Johnson’s description of a proposal from one of his Indian readers.

My own Western sentiments were touched the other day when I received a letter from a twenty-year-old Indian whom I don’t know well, but with whom I had set up a correspondence. He had decided that I would be the perfect husband for his eighteen-year-old sister, and he wanted to know if I would agree to this. A dowry and such things could be discussed. A dowry and such things could be discussed. I went around on a cloud all day. With no effort whatsoever, without even falling in love, I could have a bride, and an eighteen-year-old one at that. It did my morale no end of good. Then I wrote back and told him that it was not possible, that I was much too old for his sister. (32)

Why, if Robert A. Johnson was so flattered by the suggestion that he could marry an 18-year-old, did he feel the need to share this information with his audience? This instance screams of a fundamental lack of self-awareness on the part of this particular author.

I was also a little appalled by an anecdote that Johnson shares about setting boundaries. According to him, “We do not have the bony hands of beggars in our society, but we have the demands on our time” (63). Johnson’s assertion that the United States does not have beggars is, quite frankly, inaccurate. The ensuing anecdote about the fact that “it took a lot of courage” (63) for him to turn people down when they came to his door asking him to give money to charity is incredibly out of touch.

Conclusion

I hate this book. To quote one of our CITs, “if you truly want to give up on humanity, read the Amazon reviews for this book”. The reviews are overwhelmingly positive, and discuss how helpful the people reviewing this book found it to be. I am shocked that this book was reprinted in 1989, and that it is still in print today. I cannot understand the appeal of this book in the modern age.

At the same time, I love to hate this book. It is terrible! Everything about it is terrible! Still, I want to read quotes from it aloud! I want other people to rant with me about how terrible this book is! Reading this book is a miserable, humorous (but kind of in a sad way?), and anger-inducing experience that has inspired me to include you all in my misery.

I hope that you have enjoyed hate-reading this book with me, and that you will join me in yelling on the internet about this pathetic excuse for a book.

Best wishes,

Lydia