Archetypes the Three Archetypes Identified

Archetypes

The three archetypes identified in this specific society include teachers, artists, and leaders. Teachers make about 50% of society, with artists and leaders making 25% each.

Teachers include school teachers, parents, religious leaders, professors, and medical professionals. These archetypes generally operate from a basis of mutual respect, which is their most important attribute. The respect both others in their varied profession as well as those they teach. Teachers also command respect from those they lead Secondly, they are altruistic, caring for those they teach, imparting their knowledge as best they can. In this they are also cooperative, creative, rational, and finally competitive. In order to function at their optimal level, teachers are also somewhat competitive, but never to the detriment of their other, more people-oriented attributes.

Artists include writers, performing artists, painters, sculptors, and any other persons in predominantly creative professions. The most important attribute for this archetype is creativity. In this, they are also highly self-interested and competitive, mainly functioning as individuals rather than in cooperative groups. They also tend to be irrational, but can have mutual respect for each other. This is however a minor attribute and would never be chosen in favor of the self-interest or competitive components of their characters.

Leaders generally include politicians, company managers, and others in leadership positions. These people generally tend to be cooperative, with mutual respect also being high on the list of priorities. Good leaders are altruistic and recognize that leadership involves a democratic approach and helping people to meet their needs. Leaders can also be competitive and creative, but not to the detriment of the other qualities.

The society in which these three archetypes dominate will be supportive and harmonious. Each archetype will fulfil its function towards the optimal functioning of the others. The three archetypes support each other and work in harmony rather than in competition, although competition may be inherent in the individual archetypes. Politics will be the arena of the leader archetype. Because it is cooperative and creative, the leadership will also harmonize with the other archetypes, which include these attributes to some degree. The economic arena will be that of both the teacher and the leader, as they tend to be more rational than the artist archetype. Artists find creativity much more important than rationality, and will therefore benefit from leaving the economic system in the hands of the other archetypes.

If I were to return to the society 50 years later, I believe that there may be a slightly greater proportion of artists and fewer teachers. This will not be a major difference, however, and the society will remain more or less the same. Harmony will prevail, as the archetypes remain more or less the same, with a sufficient number of each archetype to fulfil its contributions to the society.

It is imagined that some leaders may evolve into the economicus archetype, with their rationality and competitiveness also beginning to include the self-interest of the economist. The effect of this upon society will perhaps be a greater focus upon the economy and exactly how each archetype contributes to the economic well-being of the society. Some conflict may arise, as economics tended to be the arena of the leaders and teachers. Those who do not evolve into the economicus type may become resentful and wish to take economic power back from the new archetype. This could cause resentment and disharmony.

I believe that it is better to understand people in terms of being self-interested or altruistic rather than good and bad. The concepts of "good and bad" have many different connotations, and could have an individual meaning for each person. Furthermore, the concepts of good and bad tend to categorize people into two very distinct positive and negative camps. This is no longer conducive to an effective understanding of people. All people have both "good" and "bad" qualities, which may not necessarily relate to the fact that they are either altruistic or self-interested. Indeed, certain types of self-interest may be classified as good while others are bad. While a predominantly 'bad' person may not be self-interested but rather self-destructive. Because humanity is so complex, a much more accurate understanding of human beings can be achieved by examining their nature as altruistic or self-interested. In this way, these two broad categories can also be subdivided to further such an understanding. Finally, the goal is to gain an understanding of humanity rather than condemning people as bad or praising them as good. These paradigms also often refer to actions rather than the inherent nature of the persons involved.