Ego Expansion & Ego Contraction; Conventional One-Sidedness & Extreme One-Sidedness

​

In my main blog I have discussed in a variety of contexts the ideas of dichotomies, conventional one-sidedness versus extreme one-sidedness, and ego expansion versus ego contraction. This essay summarizes and integrates those ideas for a convenient review.

​

Dichotomies

Psychologist Carl Jung believed that psychology is based on dichotomies, in other words, pairs of complementary but opposite personality traits. A few examples of dichotomies:

• Extraversion versus Introversion

• Female versus Male

• Chaos versus Order

• Collectivism versus Individualism

• and so on.

​

Jung also divided psychological functions into dichotomies:

• Extraverted Intuition versus Introverted Intuition

• Extraverted Sensing versus Introverted Sensing

• Extraverted Feeling versus Introverted Feeling

• and so on. (For more on the subject of psychological functions, see the main blog.)

 

These dichotomies represent pairs of skills, and to some extent the two opposing skills in each of these dichotomies are mutually exclusive. As we grow older we develop a preference for one side of the dichotomy, and we focus on that one side while disregarding the other. Take the example of the dichotomy of extraversion versus introversion: Extraverts focus on the outer world around them and largely ignore their inner world as a distraction, whereas introverts focus on their personal inner world and largely ignore the outer world as a distraction.

 

When we focus on and hone one skill, it becomes our "dominant" skill or function. The opposite skill or function that is not chosen is increasingly ignored or repressed; it becomes a so-called "shadow" skill or function.

 

Jung talked about the interplay of the dominant and shadow functions with regard to the dichotomy of extraversion versus introversion: "[I]f we consider that no man is simply introverted or simply extraverted, but has both attitudes potentially in him—although he has developed only one of them as a function of adaptation--we shall immediately conjecture that with the introvert extraversion lies dormant and undeveloped somewhere in the background, and that introversion leads a similar shadowy existence in the extravert."[1]

 

But we still have access to our shadow function to some degree. We still have both sides of the extraversion-versus-introversion dichotomy inside us, and we do in fact sometimes "toggle" back and forth between them:

• The healthy extravert occasionally becomes exhausted from being at the beck and call of the community and decides that he needs some downtime and introspection in order to figure out his own needs and priorities; and

• The healthy introvert occasionally gets exhausted from too much introspection, solitude, and navel-gazing and decides that he needs to get out and interact with society in order to get some new input and viewpoints on life.

 

So we can create a two-position continuum or spectrum for extraversion versus introversion, as follows:

• One-sided extraversion <--> One-sided introversion

 

The two-position spectrum shows that we each have a preference for one side or the other, which becomes our dominant function; the dichotomous opposite then becomes our shadow function. (Extraversion and introversion are considered "dichotomous opposites" of each other in that each excludes the other.) But we can also toggle between our one-sided dominant function and our one-sided shadow function at times. This represents the healthy norm for all people.

 

The same holds true for the two sides of any other dichotomy--femininity versus masculinity, chaos versus order, compliance versus noncompliance, care for others versus personal autonomy, and so on. They can be placed on a two-position spectrum, and we each have a preference for one side or the other but have the ability to toggle between the two sides to some extent as needed:

• One-sided femininity <--> One-sided masculinity

• One-sided chaos <--> One-sided order

• and so on.

 

As children we learn about and play with both sides of these dichotomies for a while; eventually we develop a preference for one side or the other but retain some ability to toggle between the two sides of the dichotomy.

 

(For purposes of this essay, I'll focus specifically on the dichotomy of extraversion versus introversion and use it as a proxy for all Jungian dichotomies. In other words, the principles I apply to extraversion versus introversion will apply to all the other dichotomies as well.)

 

Conventional one-sidedness

As we grow older our dominant attitude or function tends to draw more and more energy away from the shadow function, and the shadow function sinks down into our unconscious and becomes less accessible to us. This is because any two dichotomous opposites are at war, each contending for the limited amount of total mental energy ("libido") at our disposal. In this manner our lives tend to be taken over by conventional one-sidedness: We use our dominant function while ignoring or actively repressing our shadow function.

 

In adulthood, given that only one side of a dichotomous pair is conscious, conventional onesidedness might seem like an inefficient or even unhealthy arrangement. But conventional one-sidedness represents a healthy attitude. We develop our dominant side (and our corresponding narratives and personas) in response to the environment around us, and our one-sided conscious preferences tend to embody common, socially-approved narratives appropriate to our immediate environment. 

 

In other words, our preference in functions represents our response to our environment while growing up, so it's reasonable and healthy that our dominant function or skill would lead the way and that its opposite would be ignored as a distraction.

 

Conventional one-sidedness is affected by ego expansion and ego contraction. So I'll take a couple paragraphs to explain ego expansion and contraction, and then I'll return to the subject of conventional one-sidedness.

 

Ego expansion and ego contraction in childhood

Children develop personality traits by playing with those traits and using them to understand the world around them. In the process, children sometimes take them too far. Children have growing egos; they want to separate themselves from their parents and establish themselves as independent entities. They test the limits set by their parents, and they throw tantrums when their parents punish them for their opposition. 

 

In this manner children learn that attempting to assert their ego past certain bounds results in punishment from the powerful parents. So childhood turns into a tug-of-war over the size of the child's ego: Children learn that they are no match for their parents and punishment is inevitable, but at the same time their growing ego drives them to test their parents' limits and determine how much they can get away with. 

 

As a result, a conflict arises in the child between the desire for self-assertion on one side and the fear of punishment by his parents. That conflict is registered in the form of anxiety. The child engages in ego expansion (self-assertion), but as ego expansion approaches excessive amounts, the child begins to feel anxiety in the form of a "sense of approaching doom" associated with the increasing probability of parental punishment. In response to anxiety the child learns to practice ego contraction (backing down when faced with the possibility of punishment).

 

This is the childhood "socialization" process. When we are children our parents define the limits of our world, and we develop our personality functions around our interactions with them (their supervision, punishments, and rewards). If socialization proceeds correctly, we learn to moderate our functions and personalities. We learn that ego expansion is fun, but it risks provoking pushback and punishment from those around us when taken to extreme levels: We encounter resistance and pushback from our parents or from the community around us, and we feel anxiety as the possibility of conflict increases. So eventually we reverse course, engage in ego contraction, and retreat back to a state of moderation, accommodation, and conformity.

 

To sum it up: In childhood, ego expansion takes us from a state of conventional one-sidedness into a state of over-stimulation, anxiety, and conflict with our parents. Ego contraction reverses that process and returns us to a state of healthy moderation and conventional one-sidedness.

 

Ego expansion and contraction in adulthood: Extreme one-sidedness

As we grow older, we continue to alternate between ego expansion (self-assertion) and ego contraction (backing down when faced with the possibility of negative consequences). 

 

Ego expansion can take the form of pursuit of a temptation, indulgence of a hedonistic pleasure, venting of an irritated rant, expression of a strong emotion such as boldness or rage, and so on. Ego expansion is basically any form of assertiveness or projection of oneself into the world more than usual, often accompanied by emotion. For example, consumption of alcohol removes inhibitions and is generally a quick route to ego expansion.

 

Initially ego expansion is often accompanied by a sensation of relief or pleasure--it's gratifying to throw off the shackles of conventional behavior and indulge our raw instincts once in a while. Breaking a diet and indulging a hedonistic binge on a forbidden food, throwing a tantrum, testing a boundary--all of these things can bring pleasure as a type of self-assertion and ego expansion.

 

But after pushing the limits a bit, we typically start experiencing anxiety: We fear making a fool of ourselves, or getting pushback from others around ourselves who are inconvenienced by our actions, or ruining a relationship, or violating the law, and so on. Or we simply feel that we're too far outside our comfort zone of conventionality. So we stop, reconsider, rein in our ego, and practice ego contraction to head off any possible negative consequences of our actions. In this context, ego contraction equates to self-punishment in the form of retreat: We reverse course, deny ourselves these desires and needs that lie outside the limited space of socially-approved narratives, and retreat back to the safety of conventional one-sidedness.

 

However, ego expansion in adulthood differs from ego expansion in childhood. Problems can arise if we indulge ego expansion to the point where it becomes unbalanced and extreme and we refuse to back down and engage in ego contraction: 

• In childhood the forces of socialization are unassailable; when we are young and engage in ego expansion to the point of excess, we run up against the brick wall of parents and community and have to yield and practice ego contraction to moderate our personalities back down to the point of conventional one-sidedness.

• But in adulthood we have more freedom and leeway to indulge ego expansion to the point of excess and beyond. That can take us into the realm of extreme one-sidedness.

 

To spell that in more detail: As I said above, conventional one-sidedness represents a healthy attitude; it is typically our baseline and our comfort zone. But comfort zones can become boring. When our comfort zone begins to feel too confining, we respond by engaging in ego expansion, departing from our routine narratives, and pushing our dominant function in a new direction. Extraverts typically expand in the direction of greater extraversion, while introverts expand in the direction of greater introversion.

 

Soon we assert ourselves to the point that we encounter pushback and resistance from the people and society around us due to our excessive behavior, opinions, or values. We feel anxiety as we become increasingly isolated by the negative attention. But in adulthood we can choose to ignore the conflict and anxiety and continue practicing ego expansion despite all the opposition. When this happens, the process of ego expansion can take us from conventional one-sidedness to extreme one-sidedness.

 

Extreme one-sidedness is a position of excessiveness and anxiety. When we reach the point of extreme one-sidedness we tend to run into strong resistance and opposition from the community around us, which makes us defensive, rigid, and combative. The result tends to be constant stress and conflict.

 

I'll illustrate this in the context of the dichotomy of Extraversion versus Introversion by showing how extreme one-sidedness operates on the two separate sides of the two-position spectrum. Taking extraversion first:

• The natural home base for extraverts is conventional one-sided extraversion. Extraverts typically practice ego expansion in the direction of greater extraversion, in other words, increased socializing, interaction with the collective, and care for others. But ego expansion can't be maintained indefinitely. Eventually extraverts hit the point of extreme one-sided extraversion: Excessive attentiveness to the needs of others brings extraverts to the point of burn-out and depression. At that point anxiety appears, and extraverts have two options: They can engage in ego contraction and retreat back to the comfort zone of conventional one-sided extraversion, or they can continue pushing the limits of extreme one-sidedness and sink ever further into anxiety, tantrums, scatteredness, and ill health.

• The natural home base for introverts is conventional one-sided introversion. Introverts typically practice ego expansion in the direction of greater introversion, in other words, increased withdrawal from the collective, autonomy, and pursuit of personal interests. But introverted ego expansion can't be maintained indefinitely. Eventually introverts hit the point of extreme one-sided introversion: Excessive seclusion and focus on oneself brings introverts to the point of isolation and loss of meaning and purpose. At that point anxiety appears, and introverts have two options: They can engage in ego contraction and retreat back to the comfort zone of conventional one-sided introversion, or they can continue pushing the limits of extreme one-sidedness and sink ever further into tunnel vision, irrelevance, alienation, and ill health.

 

Above, I suggested that a two-position spectrum for the dichotomy of extraversion versus introversion would look like this:

 

One-sided extraversion <--> One-sided introversion

 

Incorporating extreme one-sidedness, that spectrum now has four positions on it:

 

Extreme one-sided extraversion <--> Conventional one-sided extraversion -- Conventional one-sided introversion <--> Extreme one-sided introversion

 

The two middle positions of conventional one-sidedness (one for extraversion and one for introversion) represent our healthy baselines, that is, our comfort zones. When ego expansion takes place, we expand outward toward extreme one-sidedness: Extraverts expand to the left, and introverts expand to the right.

 

We can remain in extreme one-sidedness and conflict with the community for an extended period of time. But eventually we tire of the pushback from the community, and we engage in ego contraction to reverse course. Ego contraction takes us in the opposite direction: When we tire of the constant anxiety, stress, and conflict of extreme one-sidedness, both extraverts and introverts practice ego contraction and retreat back toward the healthy middle positions of conventional one-sidedness.

 

If we express the four-position spectrum in terms of comfort zones and anxiety, it looks like this:

 

Extraverted anxiety <--> Extraverted comfort zone -- Introverted comfort zone <--> Introverted anxiety

 

To sum it all up in terms of ego expansion and ego contraction:

• Ego expansion moves us from conventional one-sidedness to extreme one-sidedness: While in conventional one-sidedness we experience a desire, a conflict, a need, stress, etc. and we meet the challenge by asserting ourselves and projecting our ego out into the world more than normally. If ego expansion continues far enough, it brings us to a state of extreme one-sidedness. While in extreme one-sidedness we tend to exhibit excessive behavior, we get pushback from the people around us, and the conflict makes us anxious, defensive, rigid, and combative.

• Ego contraction reverses the process and moves us from extreme one-sidedness to conventional one-sidedness: While in extreme one-sidedness we eventually tire of the stress and anxiety of conflict with the people around us, we resolve our differences with the community, and we return to the comfort zone of healthy moderation represented by conventional one-sidedness.

 

Once again, these same principles hold true for the two sides of any other dichotomy: Ego expansion can transport us into extreme one-sidedness and anxiety; and from extreme one-sidedness and anxiety, ego contraction can then bring us back to conventional one-sidedness. 

 

Thus other dichotomies will have four-position spectrums that resemble that of the dichotomy of extraversion versus introversion:

• Extreme one-sided femininity <--> Conventional one-sided femininity -- Conventional one-sided masculinity <--> Extreme one-sided masculinity

• Extreme one-sided chaos <--> Conventional one-sided chaos -- Conventional one-sided order <--> Extreme one-sided order

• Extreme one-sided collectivism <--> Conventional one-sided collectivism -- Conventional one-sided individualism <--> Extreme one-sided individualism

• Jungian functions such as those illustrated in the main blog: Extreme one-sided Extraverted Intuition <--> Conventional one-sided Extraverted Intuition -- Conventional one-sided Introverted Intuition <--> Extreme one-sided Introverted Intuition

• and so on.

 

Extreme one-sidedness in middle age

Other things can also push us in the direction of extreme one-sidedness, such as the simple process of growing older. Jung says that as we get older we increasingly become a victim of our own success. We get better and better at our dominant function and rely less and less on our shadow function. Why do we do that? Because we get in a rut and go with what works. The more successful we are in the workplace, in our relationships, and in life in general, the more we're going to stick to a winning formula. 

 

As a result, the extravert becomes more extraverted on a permanent basis, and the introvert becomes more introverted on a permanent basis. But in this process, our one-sidedness becomes more pronounced. There is less toggling between the two sides. Our lives increasingly become all dominant function and little or no shadow function.

 

This is the origin of problems like mid-life crises. It's why life can be fun and challenging for years and even decades, and then slowly turn hollow and empty even though we aren't doing anything differently. Jung says that in such cases we have simply gotten too good at what we do, leading to boredom with our own one-sidedness.

 

To spell it out a bit more: As healthy and comfortable as conventional one-sidedness may be, the two separate one-sided positions (conventional extraverted one-sidedness or conventional introverted one-sidedness) each represent only one half of a truth. In other words, our conscious values, choices, and actions typically only represent one side of a dichotomy; the other side is increasingly repressed and largely forgotten. But once we hit middle age and are reminded of our mortality, we begin to reflect upon the paths we didn't take and choices we didn't make, representing the other half of the dichotomy. In other words, our missing shadow function begins to haunt us by virtue of its absence from our life. The result is a mid-life crisis.

 

Extreme one-sidedness can also crop up due to stress and conflict. As we grow older and our world expands, our "one half of a truth" may fall out of alignment with reality. In other words, we project our one-sided expectations onto life; but those expectations may be more a reflection of ourselves and our experience (or lack thereof) than objective reality. We may be acting upon sentimental, self-serving narratives and agendas. We devote ourselves to a circumscribed, one-sided, whitewashed view of life and love rather than face countervailing narratives, because the countervailing narratives represent unknown territory and appear threatening. So we push back against unfamiliar narratives and insist on the righteousness of our comfortable sentimental views, which makes us more and more one-sided.

 

But reality won't be denied. As we become more and more one-sided, we run into resistance and opposition from different ways of thinking (such as from people who represent the opposite side of the dichotomy). This results in stress and conflict. We often react to resistance and opposition from others by doubling down on our original position, which may lead us into extreme one-sidedness.

 

In our youth we have some ability to toggle between conventional extraversion and introversion; but with stress or age we stop toggling between the two middle positions and move toward more extreme one-sidedness on a regular basis. In other words, our four-position spectrum looks like the following:

 

Extreme one-sided extraversion <-- Conventional one-sided extraversion X--X Conventional one-sided introversion --> Extreme one-sided introversion

 

Again, age, stress, and conflict push us in the direction of extreme one-sidedness, and extreme one-sidedness tends to lead to anxiety. As I said above, people who are stuck in extreme one-sidedness tend to run into resistance and opposition from the community around them, and they become defensive, rigid, and combative in response. Extreme one-sidedness tends to represent a neurotic state: Extreme one-sidedness represents a predicament where something healthy (conventional one-sidedness) becomes so lopsided and excessive that it turns into something that could make you ill (extreme one-sidedness).

 

People can find themselves stuck in a state of extreme one-sidedness on a temporary basis (such as when dealing with a stressful short-term problem that resolves itself quickly) or for long periods of time (such as when forced to work long-term under high-stress conditions, or in a mid-life crisis).

 

To sum up: Conventional one-sided extraversion and conventional one-sided introversion are healthy by nature.  But they also can also be taken to such an extreme that they become maladaptive. Concerning the extremes, Jung warned repeatedly against too much one-sidedness in either direction, saying that it results in neurosis.

 

Example: Extreme one-sidedness in the dichotomy of collectivism vs individualism

Above, I demonstrated how extreme one-sidedness operates in the case of the dichotomy of Extraversion versus Introversion and I developed a four-position spectrum to illustrate it. The same principles apply to other dichotomies as well: The conventional middle positions are healthy and normal, but the extreme positions are unhealthy and tend to crop up with stress and/or age. 

 

Early in this essay, for example, I mentioned the dichotomy of Collectivism vs Individualism. When viewed as personality traits, collectivism tends to map naturally to extraversion; individualism tends to map to introversion. The two-position spectrum for this dichotomy appears as follows:

 

One-sided collectivism <--> One-sided individualism

 

When these two opposing traits take the form of conventional one-sidedness, they are both healthy:

• Conventional one-sided collectivism typically tends toward participation in the community and care for others;

• Conventional one-sided individualism typically tends toward self-development and personal autonomy.

 

But when these traits exhibit themselves in the form of extreme one-sidedness, they can both turn unhealthy and maladaptive:

• Extreme one-sided collectivism turns into excessive attentiveness to the needs of others to the point where the extravert follows the crowd and neglects to think for himself; self-development is neglected in favor of self-sacrifice to the needs of the community;  

• Extreme one-sided individualism turns into excessive isolation from the world to the point of self-centeredness, narcissism, and navel-gazing.

 

From this, we can create a four-position spectrum similar to the one for extraversion versus introversion:

 

Extreme one-sided collectivism <--> Conventional one-sided collectivism X--X Conventional one-sided individualism <--> Extreme one-sided individualism

 

Again, we tend to toggle between the conventional one-sided positions of collectivism and individualism in our youth, but we move in the direction of more extreme one-sidedness when we encounter stress or just due to aging.

 

The daemonic

There is one more problem with extreme one-sidedness: When we become extremely one-sided in favor of our dominant function, our shadow function reappears as a "daemonic" influence, which can push us even further into extreme one-sidedness.

 

To recap: I said above that as we get more one-sided in our use of a dichotomy, we focus on and hone one skill, which becomes our dominant skill or function. The opposite skill or function that is not chosen is increasingly ignored or repressed; it becomes a so-called "shadow" skill or function. Over time our dominant attitude or function tends to draw more and more mental energy ("libido") away from the shadow function, and the shadow function sinks down into our unconscious.

 

A shadow function that is repressed in this manner may become a little too repressed, in which case it later reappears in our consciousness as something that Carl Jung calls "the daemonic." (The word "daemonic" comes from the Greek word daimon, meaning "belonging or pertaining to a spirit of lesser divinity"; from that we get the Christian word "demon.") 

 

Carl Jung says that if our life becomes extremely one-sided, the shadow function may sink down into the deep recesses of our unconscious id, where it taps into energy from our rawest, oldest, most infantile emotions and reappears in daemonic form. The daemonic tends to reappear in the form of neuroses, obsessions, panic attacks, voices out of nowhere, or some other debilitating problem.

 

In other words, repressed functions gain energy from repression in the deepest part of the unconscious, and they pop back up like beachballs released underwater. But when they pop up, they re-emerge in daemonic form and they trip us up and confuse us. Daemonic functions are frightening: The more a weak or unused function is repressed, the more it becomes the material of nightmares, dread, and chaos. 

 

Repressed functions show up as fears, cravings, and weaknesses that we frankly don't want to admit to or even recognize as our own. So we try to repress them even further, which makes us even more lopsided and extreme in our use of our dominant function. In the end we become so lopsided in our thinking--and our daemonic repressed shadow functions become such huge obstacles in our life--that crises occur and we become neurotic.

 

Furthermore, the daemonic often takes the form of anxiety and fear of persecution or punishment. So when we become extremely one-sided, we cling to the safety of our dominant function, we refuse to acknowledge the daemonic as the creation of our own unconscious; instead, we project our daemonic fears out into the world around us. As a result of this projection, we come to believe that our own one-sided view of the world is inherently good, whereas evil comes from the world around us (the daemonic "other") rather than from our own increasing neuroticism and extreme one-sidedness. 

 

In other words, our own conscious, one-sided, sanitized, whitewashed, conventional narratives increasingly seem good and worth defending in our eyes, and anyone who doesn't align with our narratives becomes the daemonic "other" from whom evil proceeds. And because this is happening at a time when we are in a state of extreme one-sidedness, we are probably already encountering some resistance and opposition from the community around us; so our daemonic fears align with our experience of opposition from our environment and may seem a reasonable explanation for the pushback we are receiving from the community.

 

So our projection of daemonic fears out into the world around us causes us to escalate mundane conflicts into some kind of good-versus-evil confrontation. From this comes our ideas of the perfectibility of humankind: In other words, from our perch of extreme one-sidedness we come to believe that humankind could achieve peace and perfection if only everyone would simply see the light and live according to our own conventional one-sided narratives just as we do: If only we could defeat our opponents and eradicate their pernicious beliefs from the world once and for all...

 

This is the downside of clinging to our one-sided narratives under conditions of stress or conflict: Once we get stuck in extreme one-sidedness, any differences that arise between us and others tend to blow up into a grand conflict that seem insurmountable. At such times, our extremely one-sided narratives in combination with our daemonic fears infantilize us. They remove any agency on our part with regard to creating the situation or addressing the problems that arise. We see ourselves as beset by obstacles and enemies, and we choose conflict over compromise.

 

To sum up the preceding ideas on extreme one-sidedness: 

 

Age, stress, and conflict tend to push us from conventional one-sidedness into extreme one-sidedness. As our values, opinions, and narratives become more extreme, the following occurs:

• we tend to encounter increasing resistance and pushback from the community around us,

• we become more defensive, rigid, and combative, and 

• we feel increasing anxiety as a result of conflict and operating outside our usual comfort zone.

 

The anxiety of extreme one-sidedness is generally an unpleasant experience, and in childhood we resolved the situation by practicing ego contraction: Faced with the growing prospect of parental punishment, we felt anxiety and reversed course back to conventional one-sidedness. But once we become adults, years of relying on our dominant function and repressing our shadow function results in the reappearance of our shadow function in daemonic form. We then project our daemonic fears out into the community around us, which makes the world seem hostile and even evil.

 

Our daemonic fears cause us to get stuck for a time in extreme one-sidedness by making us fear and run from our shadow function--the missing half of the dichotomy. Despite the anxiety generated by extreme one-sidedness, it often seems safest to double down on our extreme one-sidedness and ride out the anxiety, as opposed to changing course, facing the unknown, and yielding to the daemonism of the world around us.

​