Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Language: | |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18745336 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866901215112069120 |
|---|---|
| author | Panasiuk, Mariia |
| author_facet | Panasiuk, Mariia |
| contents | <p><span>In an era when globalization masks its colonial appetites under personal growth and self-knowledge, neopatriarchy presents itself as an exquisite form of neocolonialism, penetrating the most intimate spheres of female consciousness, where Carl Gustav Jung's archetypes, extracted from the collective unconscious and generously seasoned with domostroy moral teachings, serve as a tool for powdering patriarchal norms, transforming female autonomy into a convenient dependence on male "inspiration," and psychoanalysis, from Freud to Lacan, becomes an apparatus of power, as described by Michel Foucault in "The History of Sexuality" (1976), where discourses about the psyche and gender produce subordinate subjects, colonizing bodies and minds through normalizing practices. Under the pretext of Jungian archetypes, as in the video by Alexey Arestovich and Taïs Krymova "Archetypes of Power: Artemis and Athena" (2026), where Artemis and Athena are proclaimed models of "strong women," but only to ultimately encourage the transition to "light" Aphrodite, women are invited to "transformation," which in reality boils down to an elegant return to the kitchen, into the bosom of financial and emotional dependence, where their strength is measured by the ability to "inspire" men, too weak to coexist with feminists, and where the Lacanian "phallus" as a signifier dominates, making a woman "non-existent" outside male desire, as criticized in feminist dialogues with Lacan in the work of K.S. Daniel "Dialogues between Feminists and Jacques Lacan on Female Hysteria and Femininity" (2009). This narrative, where Jung's archetypes, once conceived as universal patterns of the psyche in "Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious" (1959), are perverted into a hypnotic tool of neopatriarchal control, represents a philosophical diversion, where the collective unconscious is colonized by gender stereotypes, and female identity — through the prism of male desire, veiled under therapy, and where Foucault sees in such discourses a mechanism of biopower, normalizing female subjectivity as dependent and eroticized. Feminist criticism of Jung, as in the work of Naomi Goldenberg "A Feminist Critique of Jung" (1976), emphasizes that his archetypes, imbued with patriarchal assumptions, only strengthen gender stereotypes, making "femininity" synonymous with passivity and emotionality, while "masculinity" is associated with activity and rationality, thereby colonizing the female mind with the idea that true strength — in renouncing independence for the sake of the male gaze, and Lacanian theory, with its formulas of sexuation, enhances this phallocentrism, as discussed in the Reddit "The Woman does not exist: Lacan's formulas of sexuation vs. Neo-Jungian Phallogocentrism" (2023).</span></p> |
| format | Recurso digital |
| id | zenodo_https___doi_org_10_5281_zenodo_18745336 |
| institution | Zenodo |
| language | |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| publisher | Zenodo |
| record_format | zenodo |
| spellingShingle | Neopatriarchy: Neocolonialism of Women's Minds and Their Exquisite Powdering with Domostroy Archetypes in the Era of Jung, Blackjack, and Other Temptations Panasiuk, Mariia <p><span>In an era when globalization masks its colonial appetites under personal growth and self-knowledge, neopatriarchy presents itself as an exquisite form of neocolonialism, penetrating the most intimate spheres of female consciousness, where Carl Gustav Jung's archetypes, extracted from the collective unconscious and generously seasoned with domostroy moral teachings, serve as a tool for powdering patriarchal norms, transforming female autonomy into a convenient dependence on male "inspiration," and psychoanalysis, from Freud to Lacan, becomes an apparatus of power, as described by Michel Foucault in "The History of Sexuality" (1976), where discourses about the psyche and gender produce subordinate subjects, colonizing bodies and minds through normalizing practices. Under the pretext of Jungian archetypes, as in the video by Alexey Arestovich and Taïs Krymova "Archetypes of Power: Artemis and Athena" (2026), where Artemis and Athena are proclaimed models of "strong women," but only to ultimately encourage the transition to "light" Aphrodite, women are invited to "transformation," which in reality boils down to an elegant return to the kitchen, into the bosom of financial and emotional dependence, where their strength is measured by the ability to "inspire" men, too weak to coexist with feminists, and where the Lacanian "phallus" as a signifier dominates, making a woman "non-existent" outside male desire, as criticized in feminist dialogues with Lacan in the work of K.S. Daniel "Dialogues between Feminists and Jacques Lacan on Female Hysteria and Femininity" (2009). This narrative, where Jung's archetypes, once conceived as universal patterns of the psyche in "Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious" (1959), are perverted into a hypnotic tool of neopatriarchal control, represents a philosophical diversion, where the collective unconscious is colonized by gender stereotypes, and female identity — through the prism of male desire, veiled under therapy, and where Foucault sees in such discourses a mechanism of biopower, normalizing female subjectivity as dependent and eroticized. Feminist criticism of Jung, as in the work of Naomi Goldenberg "A Feminist Critique of Jung" (1976), emphasizes that his archetypes, imbued with patriarchal assumptions, only strengthen gender stereotypes, making "femininity" synonymous with passivity and emotionality, while "masculinity" is associated with activity and rationality, thereby colonizing the female mind with the idea that true strength — in renouncing independence for the sake of the male gaze, and Lacanian theory, with its formulas of sexuation, enhances this phallocentrism, as discussed in the Reddit "The Woman does not exist: Lacan's formulas of sexuation vs. Neo-Jungian Phallogocentrism" (2023).</span></p> |
| title | Neopatriarchy: Neocolonialism of Women's Minds and Their Exquisite Powdering with Domostroy Archetypes in the Era of Jung, Blackjack, and Other Temptations |
| url | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18745336 |