Book Elaborations: Te and Television

I definitely see what you’re saying, Erifrail. I think what you point out about Te-lead women anchors taking on the Executive subtype makes sense. Being the face of a news organization, they would likely be expected to carry a widely acceptable persona; something people could relate to that’s inoffensive. This is a great example of how the rest of psychology - in this case as it’s influenced by culture - effects the expression of the functions. It may be, though, that the apparently personable demeanor of these women anchors is only a persona which is held for the sake of logistical efficacy. I can’t be sure, since I don’t know what any of their behavior is like outside of their performance on television, but it’s a distinct possibility that how they come across on TV has little to do with the actual level of integration they have with Fi.

While practice of a social persona could lead one to a greater awareness of their ethical function, I think that personal experiences which prompt the use of Fi – such as suffering which leads to empathy, or a relationship which requires attention to the emotions of another – are what would lead to significant integration of it with Te. While social pressure can influence one to build an exterior persona, and even prompt internal introspection and growth in some cases, it seems to me that a true impetus to develop always comes from within. Considering the marked independent nature of Fi in its affinities and ethics, I think this may be especially so for someone with the Te-Fi pairing as the lead of their psyche.

Unfortunately, my exposure to Te-lead women has been limited, however I do have two aunts who are TeSi that seem to portray an example of what I’m talking about. Even though they’re the same type, they couldn’t be more opposite; one of them is very nurturing and emotionally/ethically keen (so much so that I used to think she was Fe-lead), while the other is quite utilitarian and materialistic in her approach to life. They have very different backgrounds, which could certainly account for the difference in their development. The one who is nurturing had a turbulent past in which she faced abuse from her parent and several partners. She eventually chose to overcome her pain through therapy, and became very in-touch with her inner self and grew in empathy for others. She very strongly identifies herself as a woman, a mother and a creative who produces works that heal and nourish the soul – be they plants grown in her garden, foods cooked for her family, or ritual medicine woman songs. My other aunt, on the contrary, had a fairly healthy upbringing and never faced any striking misfortune. She became a CEO at Apple and worked there for 30 years managing nearly 100 people at times. Her approach toward life, including interaction with others, is very utilitarian and aims toward logistical efficiency. I’ve always known her to prioritize the timely execution of events and the material appearance and organization of things above anyone’s emotions. While she still expresses her femininity, it is in quite an external and material way; she always wears stylish, feminine clothes, expensive makeup and jewelry. She would appeal to others socially by having a nice house and entertaining them with expensive parties. But she has never been personable, and often seems oblivious to the emotions of others. I think she is an example of a Te-lead woman who has been in a socially-relevant place of authority who, rather than integrating her Fi, learned to lean on her Te in order to get things done.

I’ve seen other examples of how the integration of Fi (or lack thereof) in Te-lead women seems to be more of a matter of personal psychology than of social pressure. It’s curious that you mention Rosie O’Donnell as an example of a Te-lead woman who doesn’t adhere to the cultural expectations for femininity. She happens to be someone who is very vocal about her homosexuality; she has described herself as being a lesbian who takes the masculine role in her relationships. There’s an interesting dialogue here in which she mentions several times how socially difficult it’s been for her to be gay, but despite the social pressure, she has still persisted in being true to herself. She is a noteworthy example of an Fi user who has shaped her persona and life around her own ethics. There may be a correlation between her direct expression of Te and her identification with masculinity, but this goes deeper into how the functions might relate to the rest of human psychology.

Beyond being an expression of a singular culture, the notions of masculine and feminine seem to be a universal part of humanity at their roots. Even in the remnants we find of ancient cultures, and in the worldviews of modern native tribes, the idea of ‘woman’ includes the aspects of nurturing, emotional understanding and receptivity. Contrasted to this, the concept of masculinity includes rationality, logistical capability and power. When it comes down to it, those things which are expressed in cultures also exist within the individual as very real parts of their psychological makeup. A woman who heavily uses Te is strongly expressing proactive logos, something that represents ‘masculinity’ to the human heart. And so such a woman may well be considered to be masculine by her culture, and may even experience herself as being masculine. It may be that women like Mrs. O’Donnell reinforce a one-sided expression of their dominant function through their identification with what is universally thought of as ‘masculine’. As we see in her case, however, this sort of portrayal in persona doesn’t exclude ethical development; she obviously is aware of her own, independent ethical code.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ayoungspirit - I do hope you get the chance to finish your post, I'm quite interested in the demographics you've observed in news anchors ^^