Healing From the Toxic Patriarchy: Grimms’ The Blue Light, part 4
Last installment looked at the humiliation of the feminine principle in toxic patriarchal experience, in reference to the tasks ordered by the soldier to the princess. There’s a less obvious layer to the tasks, though, symbolism common in transformational tales. The princess is ordered to sweep the floor, and megapopular Grimms’ tales Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty also feature cleaning tasks.
Contrary to popular belief, these household tasks are not meant to encourage young women to be subservient housewives, but bear transformational symbolism. The cleaning is symbolic of inner work. The feminine archetype is famous for introspection, as it is the inward-moving archetype: yin is in. When we self inquire, we will find some thoughts, emotions, beliefs, memories etc. that are obscuring our best experience of life- as the soldier is now aware. This cleaning bit is an elaboration on that truth.
Sweeping the house is symbolic shorthand for getting rid of toxic crap from the past that we no longer need, or want; beliefs, habits, resistances, resentments, unhealthy dependencies, etc. So the princess’s sweeping is symbolically tantamount to doing some great counseling sessions, healing meditations, or just plain old fashioned self inquiry. Interestingly, the witch archetype in my culture’s most famous attribute is a broom. In fact cleansing is an important part of healing/wholing in general; emotionally, mentally, physically, and metaphysically.
The soldier orders the princess to pull his boots off, “and then he threw them in her face, and made her pick them up again, and clean and brighten them.” Boots, shoes, are symbolic of the soul, actually, as are feet. By association, they refer to walking our soul “path”, our destiny, our life’s deeper meaning. So the cleaning and shining of the boots is more healing soul-level work.
Though it seems harsh, throwing them into her face has the symbolism of changing the persona. The face is what we present to others, the “front door” that others see, and that must be examined along with our inner experience, if we are to live differently, to “step into” a more “shining” life experience. Specifically, getting some boots thrown contemptuously into your face is humiliating, right? Humiliation seems to be the soldier’s revenge, in fact, because he must have experienced humiliation as a part of his wounding under the king’s authority. Our internalized judge keeps us small by telling us we don’t come up to snuff.
Humiliation, shaming, as a social experience is indeed toxic- and ubiquitous in many societies. It’s enough to make one desire revenge; desire to be the one “on top” who is the perpetrator rather than the target. Social humiliation is one hundred percent reliant on the structure of a top-down ordered society; those we believe we are above, can’t humiliate us. We could care less what they think of us; we’re busy trashing them, in our minds if nothing else. We dismiss them as of no account. Yet we tremble in fear at the thought of meeting someone we believe inhabits a higher social standing than ourselves; the handsome, the buff, the rich, the famous, or otherwise socially powerful: the “king”.
Our job in maintaining the hierarchy is to look down on some (the lower class, some religions, skin colors, lazy people, fat people, etc.), and idolize others (the rich, the beautiful, the famous, etc.). If we play that game with others we are playing it internally, of course; trashing ourselves, and elevating ourselves, usually depending upon socially ordered values and beliefs.
The feminine archetype’s egalitarian mode puts paid to such nonsense. When we are truly humble, social humility has little to no effect upon us; we are not playing that game, and its rules and moves don’t concern us. What I call true humility is not a caving in to someone else’s desires because we believe they have authority over us. It’s not giving the best in ourselves away, projecting desired talent and beauty and power onto “other”.
We give our inner gold away when we believe someone is somehow better than we are; smarter, better looking, more popular, richer, etc. This behavior is so ingrained in my thumbs up, thumbs down, cancel culture society. Used to be those we knew judged us; now, theoretically, the whole internet world does. The stakes are higher.
True humility is not blindly self-sacrificing because you have been conditioned to do so, or have been otherwise coerced. Humility by my definition actually has nothing to do with anyone else but oneself; it’s an inner referencing state of being. Thus, it is an important aspect of self authority.
I can’t get detailed about the difference between the two humilities here, but this princess part of the story is about doing anima work. And though true humility is a lost art in the Euro-western patriarchy, the anima/feminine archetype is actually really, really good at experiencing true humility, because true humility is earth element. It’s embodied, meaning you feel more solidly in your body, more here, and there is a physical feeling to it. For me, anyway. It’s deep acceptance of things as they are, and forgiveness is a part of that. It’s letting go of the illusion of control.
True humility is a grounding experience of soul connectedness that puts paid to the kind of toxic power-over nonsense this story addresses. Perhaps you have experienced such humility. I have never had it in its fullness when in human company, only alone and in quiet, in stillness. I take that back- I have experienced it when holding a baby.
I won’t spend any more time describing it, and in fact it’s not possible to describe, as is the case for many feelings. If you’ve experienced healthy humility, you know what I am talking about. It’s a quiet appreciation for life, a relaxing into what is, a rooting. The boots imply this humble grounding, too; the princess handles them, polishes them, adding some of the feminine earth energy of true humility, of a more horizontal perspective, to the way in which the soldier/king treads his path.
So the mannikin returns the princess at cock crow. When she wakes up, she tells her father she had a strange dream:
“I was carried through the streets with the rapidity of lightning,” said she, “and was taken into a soldier’s room, and I had to wait upon him like a servant…”
She enumerates her tasks in the soldier’s home. And she adds an interesting note: that she had to “do all kinds of mental work.” Now, that’s an interesting clue for the interpreters, isn’t it? So, the sweeping is meant to refer to thinking, for one thing; thinking about one’s life, about other people’s perspectives, thinking about what to change, what to get rid of.
Perhaps the story advises thinking about the matter of conditioning, and how we get caught up in serving others faithfully (the adjective used in the story’s first sentence), with our heart, even though they don’t care a bit about our welfare when it comes down to it. They didn’t actually value us; they valued what we could do for them, valued our production. We might as well have been a machine.
Which is a thing. I mean, technically the problem here is not the objectification (or robotizing- notice the princess acts like a robot) of the soldier, king or princess; it’s the unhealthy giving away of our self respect and self compassion and faith to those with whom we are in an exchange contract (see cartoon below). A human to human exchange is ordered in such a manner that relationship issues such as faith are not required at all. Trust, in many cases, not faith. Faith is trust times a million, an innocent, whole hearted approach that goes all out, casting reason to the wind; my definitions, obviously.
Exchange is essentially I give you something, you give me something, Bye-bye. Or maybe So long, sucker. Anything else is added value, and folks the world around come up with endless expressions and contexts in which exchanges occur, often blending in some gifting. Think about the marriage contract, and its many permutations. Marriage is basically an exchange contract in my society, a mutual back scratch. Basically. There are other levels of course, and gifting is also important- especially to the ladies. Thankfully we don’t exchange actual people any more, as in dowry contracts. Not my mainstream society, anyway. They say it causes problems, like murder.
Anyway, the problem here is not the king’s behavior; exchange contracts are very useful. It would be challenging if not dysfunctional to bring a faithful heart to all the transactions the average American commits. The problem presented is the casting of heart-pearls before objectifying swine; the clash of two modes of operation. Heart is always about giving, about gifting, and basic gifting has no expectations of returns. And yes, the feminine is more prone to such casting of pearls due to a lack of objectification skills; not good at robotizing. The feminine (again: the word ‘feminine’ does NOT MEAN WOMEN) is not into judgment, the objectifying skill required to assess whether or not the recipient of our faith and service has the ability or desire to appreciate us, aside from whatever advantages we generate for them. The feminine isn’t designed to see the swine behind the “face” or facade; it’s designed to see the beauty, the intrinsic value in all things.
When the princess tells her father about the night of servanthood and contempt, we see that the anima is in communication with the inner king persona, the internalized tyrant; perfect. The king says that it might not be a dream, it might be true. He tells her she ought to fill her pocket with peas, make a hole in it, and then if she is carried away again, the peas will make a trail and the soldier’s whereabouts will be discovered. That night the mannikin fetches the princess again, but is aware of the pea plot. He scatters peas everywhere, throughout the town.
Next morning the King sent his people out to seek the track, but it was all in vain, for in every street poor children were sitting, picking up peas, and saying, “It must have rained peas last night.”
This scene which follows the second of three nights is meant to solidify our understanding that humility is being shifted in the psyche from the hierarchical sort, to the divine feminine true humility, as I call it. Peas themselves symbolize humility; they are the poor man’s meat. In many times and places, the laboring lower class in Euro-Western cultures could not afford to eat meat, at least not very often. The scene also includes the idea of abundance; of riches given and received. Remember the inner treasures the witch had hidden, and which the soldier is currently using?
And, even more specifically, it models the archetypally feminine economic model of gifting. Gift economy is obviously based on donating, hand outs, presents; on nothing required of anyone, really, though humans seem quick to make social requirements. That’s part of how we create a society. Gift economy is based on rules like, if you have enough to share, then do so with those who don’t. Or share your surplus with everyone, doesn’t matter. If someone doesn’t need it, they can pass it on.
In the involuntary pea largesse the king is somehow, within the psyche, connecting with that which he had deemed beneath him, in a positive and generous way. Now it is no longer the toxic patriarchal “he only receives wages who renders me service”, within our protagonist’s psyche. Everyone, especially the innocent and powerless (children) are being fed, though they rendered the king no service. Children in particular often represent the human soul, so this is happening on a soul level. In fact, the children don’t even know how it happened. And that’s the core philosophy of gifting; that it’s all a gift, from Mother Earth, or the Divine, or what have you. What goes around comes around, and all that groovy circular stuff. Clinging and ownership claims are a drag.
The king or authority aspect within the soldier is shifting, through what he’s learning about the abuse of the anima. The internalized selfish king has now moved toward a less hierarchical mode, and automatically, egalitarian generosity pours forth. Obviously the princess can’t have that many peas in her pocket; it’s symbolic. The whole story is, that’s why I am doing this.
“We must think of something else,” said the king; “keep your shoes on when you go to bed, and before you come back from the place where you are taken, hide one of them there; I will soon contrive to find it.”
More thinking, right? And more reference to shoes as clues to who we really are, for the place where the soldier resides is of course a big clue to who he is, now, after leaving the king’s dysfunctional service. What changes has the soldier implemented in his life experience?
The mannikin hears the king, though, and informs the soldier, advising him again that he is at risk for his life if the king finds him. The soldier persists, though. It’s true that in our breaking away from mainstream conditioning we will encounter fear. One reason we went along with the conditioning was that we feared for our safety; authorities from parent to government claimed to know what was right, what was safe.
Social conditioning bears thought, though, when we discover that it’s not always working for us; when we discover that following the rules can’t always dispel our fear. We are just afraid of breaking the rules now. When we implement actual inner and outer changes, break away from the old patterns, fear will arise. But fear was always there anyway; we had just hoped that the hierarchical structures, the boundaries, the spells of social conditioning would keep us safe.
The princess hides her shoe under the bed and “the King had the entire town searched for his daughter’s shoe.” This is interesting in the light of shoe= humble soul (sole), right? “The whole town” does indeed refer to the social milieu, to social conditioning. So, soul, the deep humility of the feminine, is being searched for by the conditioned/ego-based aspect! Yay! The psychic aspect comprised of the soldier, king, and princess is moving away from the power-over mode of operation, towards healthy compassion and self authority. Note this shoe-search bit is a part of Cinderella.
The shoe is found at the soldier’s and he’s thrown in prison.
In his flight he had forgotten the most valuable things he had, the blue light and the gold, and had only one ducat in his pocket. And now, loaded with chains, he was standing at the window of his dungeon, when he chanced to see one of his comrades passing by. The soldier tapped at the pane of glass, and when this man came up, said to him, “Be so kind as to fetch me the small bundle I have left lying in the inn, and I will give you a ducat for doing it.”
Back in possession of his light, the soldier summons the mannikin, who tells him to make sure he keeps his light with him and all will be well. The soldier is condemned to death next day, and he asks the king if he may smoke a last pipe.
“You may smoke three,” answered the King, “but do not imagine that I will spare your life.”
There’s our magic/sacred number 3 again. The soldier smokes, the little black man appears
..and said, “What does my lord command?” “Strike down to earth that false judge there, and his constable, and spare not the King who has treated me so ill.” Then the mannikin fell on them like lightning, darting this way and that way, and whoever was so much as touched by his cudgel fell to earth, and did not venture to stir again.”
Three judgmental characters, right?
I guess all those hierarchically ordered authorities are being brought “down to earth”, hey? Interesting that the little soul figure, who is black as yin, induces humility by its mere touch.
The King pleads for his life; he begs to “merely be allowed to live at all”. This judgmental aspect is useful, like I said, but needs balancing. The soldier might need it if he’s shopping for shoes on the internet, right? The king “gave him his kingdom for his own, and the Princess to wife.” That puts paid to that toxic mode of operation!
Marrying the princess means, in archetypal terms, an integration or union between masculine and feminine aspects of experience, as in objective and subjective experience; subjective in the sense of being contextual, for one thing. Owning or ruling the kingdom means self-authority; the soldier is now the ruler of his life in some area where he previously acted the servant, looking to outside influences to determine his experience, his actions and beliefs. Now he is thinking for himself and acting according to his own heart-centered values, in some area of his life. He is taking self responsibility.
There is a use to masculine hierarchy; it does exist in Gaia’s systems. But it is not meant to be used to benefit only one person or one group of people. That’s out of balance, and suffering will be the result. With an eye to the feminine true humility, humans at the top in some manner best use their power to benefit the whole. That’s the Wise King or Queen. These stories teach that human experience is determined by the kingdoms and queendoms that reside within us all; as within, so without.
And that’s a wrap! Thanks for reading!
