A Response to my post "Swing Heil" on Dissent and Civil Disobedience

After I posted about resistance in Nazi Germany last month ["Swing Heil" - Even Dancing Can Be an Act of Courage] I received an email from a long-time acquaintance.  She said that she did not think I was really writing about resistance to Hitler, that I was actually encouraging resistance to a current regime.  [If the shoe fits.]  She went on to issue a gentile chastisement, saying that I needed to remember what St. Paul says about obeying governing authorities.  

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. (Romans 13:1-15)

Taken in isolation, Paul does seem to be calling for unquestioned obedience to governing authorities regardless of what those authorities do.  

These verses have been used by authorities, both religious and secular, to demand unquestioned loyalty and obedience from the first century right up to the present day.  Nazi-aligned pastors [Nazis again! Swing Heil!] used Paul to justify unquestioned obedience to Hitler.  American segregationists used Romans to oppose civil disobedience during the civil rights movement.  Some religious leaders used Romans to support the U.S. government's invasion of Iraq.  And currently some evangelicals in multiple countries are identifying certain candidates for office and officeholders as chosen by God to govern and are using Romans to deter protest, dissent, and civil disobedience.

Models of Civil Disobedience

Whether or not we are familiar with their stories, Paul would have known of the many examples of civil disobedience by Israel’s ancient heroes.

• In Exodus, the Hebrew midwives disobeyed pharaoh's order to kill all the newborn Hebrew boys.
• In Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were sent into a fiery furnace for refusing to obey King Nebuchadnezzar.  
• In Esther, Esther risked death by violating the law by approaching the king without an invitation in order to save the Jewish people.
• In 1 Kings, Obadiah, a majordomo in charge of King Ahab's palace, hid a hundred prophets in caves to protect them from Queen Jezebel who wanted to kill them. 

And the list goes on. 

Furthermore, although the earliest canonical Gospel had not yet been written in Paul’s lifetime, certainly stories about Jesus’s life circulated among believers.  Paul would have known of Jesus’s acts of civil disobedience: healing on the sabbath; eating with tax collectors, foreigners, and sinners; talking with women in public without their husbands being present; chasing the merchants and moneychangers from the temple.   Ultimately, Jesus was executed for his acts of civil disobedience. 

Would Paul have rejected all acts of resistance and civil disobedience in the face of these models of civil disobedience?  Seems unlikely. 

The Rebellious Paul

It also seems unlikely that someone whose friends had to sneak him out of Damascus by lowering him over the city wall hidden in a basket (Acts 9:23-25) because he defied the religious authorities would then turn around and insist on unquestioned obedience to those authorities.  Of course, Paul’s thinking could have evolved over the two decades between his escape from Damascus and his letter to Rome’s Christian community.  But 14 years after his escape from Damascus Paul was still getting into trouble for defying the authorities and for advocating “customs that are not lawful” (Acts 16:16–40).  And ultimately, Paul was executed in Rome for resisting the governing authorities.  

So, if Paul believed in an absolute duty of the governed to obey the governing authorities, his own behavior was not consistent with that belief.  A case of “do as I say, not as I do”?  Seems unlikely.

Unquestioned Obedience?

Unquestioned obedience to governing authorities does not gel with what we know about Paul and his own behavior - and as Detective Martin Arbogast says in Alfred Hitchcock’s 1960 film Psycho, “if it doesn’t gel, it isn’t aspic.” 

"Swing Heil" - Even Dancing Can Be an Act of Courage

Have you seen the film Swing Kids?  Not the 2018 film set in Geoje POW camp during the Korean War in 1951.  I mean the 1993 film set in Hamburg, Germany in 1939.  Far from a box office success, Swing Kids grossed only $5.6 million in the United States and Canada—having cost twice that much to make.  The film received generally unfavorable reviews.  Swing Kids made Roger Ebert’s 2005 list of his all-time lowest rated films (Ebert's Most Hated).  So, you probably have not seen it.  But maybe you should.  Just do not expect great cinema

When Hitler and his people rose to power, they did what authoritarian regimes always do:  they moved to control the intellectual and cultural life of the nation.  They banned books.  They suppressed academic freedom.  They controlled print and broadcast media.  They took over museums and cultural institutions and dictated what were and were not legitimate forms of artistic expression.  They banned and purged “degenerate” art—art considered “un-German” and detrimental to true and traditional German sensibilities and values—including painting, sculpture, architecture, theater.  And music. 

Not surprisingly, the fascist regime banned music of any genre by Jewish composers.  But Hitler and his fellow white supremacists had special animosity for “degenerate” American jazz with its mixture of African-American and Jewish elements.  By 1935, all Entartete Musik (degenerate music) was banned from German radio.

Swingjugend:  "Swing Heil" was used by
Swing Kids to mock the Nazi Party

Swing Kids tells the story of the Swingjugend, a countercultural and non-violent resistance movement
centered primarily in Hamburg and composed of 14- to 21-year-old Germans who admired all things American and British.  They imitated American and British fashion.  Swing-boys let their hair grow long like American youth of the time, wore variations of the popular American zoot suit and British tweeds, wore homburg hats, and carried umbrellas regardless of the weather.  Swing-girls wore short dresses, curled their hair and left it hanging instead of applying braids or German-style rolls, wore make-up, and painted their nails.  And the Swingjugend rebelled against the enforced conformity by dancing to the swing jazz of Duke Ellington, Artie Shaw, Benny Goodman, Count Basie, and Glenn Miller.    

A Gathering of Swingjugends:  Rather than overt opposition to the Nazi regime and German fascist politics, the Swing Kids engaged in an embodied resistance 

The Swingjugend rebelled against the fascist takeover of German culture with its imposed uniformity and militarism exemplified by the Hitlerjugend.  They rebelled with fashion, with music, and with dancing.  With jazz and swing. 

They experienced a massive restriction of their personal freedom. They rebelled against all this with jazz and swing, which stood for a love of life, self-determination, non-conformism, freedom, independence, liberalism, and internationalism. ... The Gestapo, police, and other governmental organizations proceeded with special cruelty against the swing movement there.  Many 'swing boys' and 'swing girls' had to endure discriminating interrogations, torture, and detention by the Gestapo.  This led many a swing fan to commit suicide.  [Swing Kids Behind Barbed Wire].

In a crackdowns in 1941 over 300 of Hamburg's Swingjund were arrested.  The lucky ones were forced to cut their hair and live under close monitoring.  Between 40 and 70 of the perceived ringleaders of Hamburg's Swingjungend were deported to Jugendschutzlager, concentration camps specifically for 16- to 22-year-olds.  

Resistance to authoritarianism can take many forms, but resistance always comes with a cost.  Even dancing can be an act of courage.        

Pilgrims and Puritans

Pilgrims and Puritans:  A Theocracy in Colonial New England

In 1797, U.S. President John Adams signed the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary.  Better known as the Treaty of Tripoli the agreement between the United States and Tripoli (now Libya) was intended to secure commercial shipping rights and to protect American ships in the Mediterranean Sea from Barbary pirates.  But today the treaty is remembered for its Article 11:  The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...

The purpose of Article 11 was to assure North African Muslims that the United States was a secular state and that its intentions were not the same as that of earlier Christian nations that took part in the Crusades.  But Article 11 quickly raised dissenting voices.  For instance, Adams's Secretary of War, James McHenry, wrote to the Secretary of the Treasury, Oliver Wolcott, Jr. (1800): 

The Senate … ought never to have ratified the treaty alluded to, with the declaration that “the government of the United States, is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” What else is it founded on? This act always appeared to me like trampling upon the cross.

This contemporary-sounding argument over the founding nature of the United States began with the ink barely dry on the U.S. Constitution’s amendment prohibiting Congress from passing any legislation “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

The notions of secular government and freedom of religion were novel in the 18^th century—and not generally accepted by either the European nations or the British colonies in North America.  National identity, patriotic loyalty, and unity were thought to be achieved and maintained only through conformity of thought and behavior as defined by the ruler.  The idea that individuals have a right to their own thoughts and beliefs was subversive, treasonous, and a threat to national security.  

Consequently, each of the British colonies in North America attempted to enforce strict religious observance through both colonial governments and local town rules.  Most of the colonies had established churches with the salaries of ministers of those established churches paid through taxation.  The colonies also had some sort of religious test requirement for officeholders.  Strict limits were place on members of other churches, including prohibitions on their public religious services and at times even prohibiting them from even entering the colony.  Virginia, for instance, banned the public celebration of the Catholic Mass until Catholic soldiers from France arrived to fight in the American Revolution.  Nowhere in the colonies were state and church more enmeshed than in New England, the land of the Pilgrims and the Puritans—and their spiritual heirs, the Congregationalists—who envisioned building a Protestant Christian theocracy in the New World. 

As usual, my plan for this series is to take the long view on the history of the relationship between government and religion.  Starting with some ancient history, we will work our way up to the questions of who were the Pilgrims and Puritans, what was the basis for their vision of a North American Protestant Christian theocracy, and what did they do about it when they got to New England?  And then we grapple with the novel thinking some of America’s founders like of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison that turned a rebellion into a revolution—and thwarted the Pilgrim and Puritan ambitions for a Calvinist theocracy. 

A Betrayal of Populism? The Revenge of Power

Two years ago, I presented a series of lectures on populism.  Since then, I have regularly received emails from attendees saying that the series significantly helped them understand what has been and is going on in American politics.  Many of those currently in office around the United States ran for election on a populist agenda, promising to restore American greatness and prosperity while portraying themselves as the champions of "the forgotten man" and of "traditional American values.”  Not being a populist myself, I have been wondering if genuine populists are feeling betrayed. 

Populism is Not an “-ism”

Because it ends with “-ism,” [populism] is often mistaken for an ideology, a counterpart to socialism and liberalism in competition for a coherent governing philosophy. It is no such thing.  (The Revenge of Power: How Autocrats Are Reinventing Politics for the 21st Century, Moisés Naím)

Populism has no consistent overarching, persistent political philosophy—and is more accurately conceived as distinct populist movements.  Populist movements are essentially reactive.  When political, economic, and social power are seen as favoring the left on the political spectrum, populist movements emerge that tend to the right; when political, economic, and social power are seen as tending to the right, populist movements emerge that tend to the left. 

Rather than thinking of populist movements as an ideology, populist movements are best understood as a strategy for realigning power.

The Power Pie

Regardless of where populist movements fall on the left-right political spectrum, they share the perception that power is a limited resource.  When I make my exceptionally delicious made-from-scratch banana cream pie, the bigger the piece that you take, the less pie there is for me.  In the populist worldview, the same is true of power.  You can only increase your power—whether political, economic, or social—by taking power away from me.  We are, therefore, in a competition for power. 

In the populist worldview there are three groups in society competing for power.

The People

The first group of competitors for power is the People.  The People are the true and deserving members of society.  They are seen as essentially good, moral, noble, and hardworking.  The People embody what the populists believe to be the genuine values of society, and the People are deserving of the benefits provided by society.   

But the People feel exploited, ill-used, and victimized.  Their share of political, economic, and social power is diminished as other groups in society increase their power.   Populist movements, therefore, originate in and are shaped by grievances, anger, and resentment and are focused on reclaiming power for the People.

Not-the-People 

The second group of competitors for power is Not-the-People.  Not-the-People are interlopers.  They are viewed as essentially bad, immoral, ignoble, lazy, and even criminal.  Therefore, Not-the-People are not deserving of the benefits provided by society.  Not-the-People are believed to be destructive of the genuine values of society. In the populist worldview. 

Not-the People, however, are gaining power—and can only gain power by taking it away from the People.  In the populist worldview, therefore, the People need to reclaim power from Not-the-People   and prevent them from achieving power in the future—and perhaps even physically remove Not-the-People from society. 

The Elite

The Elite is the third group competing for power.  The Elite make up the “ruling class” in the broadest sense and possess the lion’s share of political, economic, and social power.  The Elite are elected and appointed government officials as well as those whose wealth or fame gains them access to power. 

The People experience the Elite as corrupt and greedy, controlling the government and the economy, all the while enacting policies that benefit themselves and perpetuate their power.  The Elite have no interest in meeting the needs of the People and are the source of all ills that the People are suffering.  The People therefore need to “drain the swamp” and reclaim the power that the Elite have appropriated and abused by replacing them with members of the People who will act in the best interests of the People.

A Betrayal of the Movement?

Current American politics has a great deal in common with populist movements, but there is something about current political action that belies a claim to be furthering a genuine populist agenda.

The goal of populist movement is for The People to reclaim power and restore The People to greatness and prosperity.  This goal is achieved in part by taking power away from Not-the-People and eliminating the influence that Not-the-People have had on society.  Efforts are clearly being made to achieve this objective of the populist agenda.

In the populist worldview the goal of reclaiming power and prosperity for the People also requires removing from power the Elite who are responsible for all the ills that plague the People and replacing the Elite with leaders who will act in the best interests of the People.  It seems that this second objective may be where the People might feel betrayed.  Those who campaigned on a populist agenda and prevailed in the election are purging the old Elite; however, they are replacing the old Elite with a new Elite of the extremely wealthy and the famous.  This new Elite appears to be focused primarily on increasing and consolidating their own political, economic, and social power and are taking action to protect and advance their own interests rather than those of the People.  

Are the People feeling betrayed?  If not, perhaps the impact of this power grab hasn't trickled down yet.

What I’m Reading: "American Midnight"

Nobel Prize winning author Sinclair Lewis (1885-1951) is best known for his novels Main Street (1920), Babbitt (1922), Arrowsmith (1925), Elmer Gantry (1927), Dodsworth (1929)—and It Can't Happen Here (1935). 

Sinclair Lewis with his wife,
Dorothy Thompson (1893-1961).  

Thompson was known as the

"First Lady of American Journalism"

 and in 1939 was recognized by Time 

as equal in influence to Eleanor Roosvelt.  

In 1934 following her depiction

of Adolf Hitler in her book I Saw Hitler

she became the first American journalist

expelled from Nazi Germany.  

In a Harper's Magazine article in

December 1934 she described Hitler:  

"He is formless, almost faceless, a man 

whose countenance is a caricature, a man

whose framework seems cartilaginous,

without bones.  He is inconsequent

and voluble, ill poised and insecure.  

He is the very prototype of the little man."

In It Can’t Happen Here, a crass, bombastic, and narcissistic conman named Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip defeats incumbent President Franklin Roosevelt for the Democratic presidential nomination and defeats the Republican candidate through a populist campaign, promising to restore American greatness and prosperity while portraying himself as the champion of "the forgotten man" and of "traditional American values.”  Windrip outlaws dissent, incarcerates political enemies, and encourages vigilante and militia groups to act on his behalf.  Windrip's administration curtails minority and women's rights.  He eliminates individual states by subdividing the country into administrative sectors managed by prominent, wealthy businessmen or leaders of vigilante groups.

Writing in 1935, Lewis was obviously aware of the rise of the fascist dictatorships in Europe—and of the growing popularity of fascism and the Nazi Party in the United States at the time.  An affinity for autocracy among Americans, however, did not suddenly appear out of nowhere in the 1930s.  Adam Hochschild’s American Midnight: The Great War, a Violent Peace, and Democracy's Forgotten Crisis chronicles the darkness that descended upon American democracy during World War I and the years immediately after.

At President Woodrow Wilson’s request, the U.S, Congress declared war on Germany on 6 April 1917.  Hochschild contends that the Wilson administration and the Congress believed that the war needed to be fought not only abroad but domestically, resulting in a blatant disregard for the rule of law and democratic norms and flagrant violations of the U.S. Constitution. 

• Legislation allowed the government to censor the publication of “objectional content” in the cause of national security.  Reporting on the war and the 1918–1920 flu pandemic was strictly controlled.  Hundreds of newspapers, periodical and newsletters were driven out of business for being too pacifist, pro-German, pro-Socialist, pro-immigrant, pro-Jewish, or pro-Black.  Book banning increased dramatically.      
• An intelligence gathering network was created to spy on American citizens while vigilante and militia groups were given quasi-official status with the power to round up anyone suspected of disloyalty.  These groups conducted raids and used violence with impunity.  Attacks on those not considered American enough—Jews, Blacks, immigrants, labor unions, and others—were commonplace.   
• Thousands of U.S. citizens were arrested (and often abused and tortured in prison) for voicing “objectional opinions”—some for speaking in public, some for speaking only in their own homes; some for expressing their religious beliefs (think Quaker pacifists); some for simply speaking in their native German without their accusers actually knowing what they were saying.    
• Legislation was introduced to end birthright citizenship—along with legislation to deport ALL immigrants, even those who had become U.S. citizens.   State and local legislation prohibited speaking in any language other than “American” at any meeting, public or private, and banned teaching any modern foreign language in public schools.
• The economic gains that women had made by filling the void created by sending 2 million men to Europe were reversed as the government promoted a return “traditional gender roles” and encouraged employers to push women out of the workforce.

It can’t happen here?  It has happened here during what Hochschild calls “democracy's forgotten crisis.”  In 1930, Sinclair Lewis became the first writer from the United States to win the Nobel Prize in Literature.  In his acceptance speech, Lewis lamented that “… in America most of us—not readers alone, but even writers—are still afraid of any literature which is not a glorification of everything American …”   We erase history by not teaching it, by not writing about it, by not reading about it.  By forgetting it.

Redefining American Democracy? Machiavelli Revisited

For me, one of the pleasures of a beach vacation is spending the day under an umbrella catching up on my reading.  On a recent (and all too short) trip to Hawaii, I caught up on a disparate set of historical figures:  

• Henry V (1386 – 1422), King of England
• James Cook (1728 – 1779), British explorer, cartographer, and naval officer
• Niccolò Machiavelli (1469 – 1527), Florentine diplomat, author, philosopher, and historian

Yes, I know.  Not exactly what most people would consider beach reading.  To each his own!

There was an unexpected common thread running these three books:  the authors all countered popular notions about their characters.  In Henry V: The Astonishing Triumph of England's Greatest Warrior King Dan Jones frequently comments on the difference between the real-life Henry and Shakespeare’s ruthless and somewhat amoral “amiable monster” (a term used to describe Shakespear’s Henry by William Hazlitt in Characters of Shakespear's Plays in 1817).   In The Wide, Wide Sea: Imperial Ambition, First Contact and the Fateful Final Voyage of Captain James Cook Hampton Sides claims that Cook’s behavior on his third voyage—his fits of rage, harsh punishments of his crew, and murderous destruction of native Hawaiian communities—was not at all characteristic of his behavior of his two earlier voyages and may have indicated some form of mental decline, impairment, or illness.  Most thought-provoking for me, however, was Machiavelli: The Art of Teaching People What to Fear by French historian Patrick Boucheron.

Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, published in 1532 (five years after Machiavelli’s death) and written in the form of a how-to manual for would be rulers, shocked readers by arguing that immoral acts were completely justifiable.  The book’s dedication to the despotic Lorenzo il Magnifico de' Medici (in the form of a letter to Lorenzo’s grandson) has reinforced the idea that the work’s intended audience was would-be despots.  Boucheron, however, opines that Machiavelli was not really all that Machiavellian, that the dedication is actually an example of Machiavelli’s well-known sarcasm.  Machiavelli was certainly no fan of the Medicis.  In 1512 the Medicis overthrew the Florentine republic (much beloved by Machiavelli), established themselves as dictators, imprisoned and tortured Machiavelli, and then exiled him.  Machiavelli began writing The Prince in 1513.

Boucheron contends that reading The Prince as a tutorial for would-be dictators does not square with Machiavelli’s experience or his other political writings.  Instead, Machiavelli’s intended reader was not the governing but the governed—with the purpose of teaching the governed what they had to fear from despotic rulers.  We shouldn’t be surprised that at the heart of what Machiavelli thought the governed had most to fear from Machiavellian leaders was their drive to attain and maintain power.

Machiavelli warns that Machiavellian leaders define justice in terms of attaining and maintaining power:  decisions, judgements, appointments, rulings, legislation are all considered good and just as long as they are directed at preserving and defending the leader’s power.  Machiavellian leaders, therefore, ca use immoral and unscrupulous means—act “against charity, against humanity, and against religion”, even against their own promises—in order to prop up their power and still be considered just.  In the words of contemporary philosopher Christopher Philips, justice becomes a “virtueless virtue” (Six Questions of Socrates: A Modern-Day Journey of Discovery through World Philosophy, 2011)

Back in early January of 2017 as the United States prepared for the inauguration of its 45th president and when I still left a news channel play on the TV as background while I went about my business—I no longer do that; it’s bad for my blood pressure—I heard Senator Lindsey Graham say to a reporter, “Don’t you agree that the foundation of American democracy is the political party?”   I don’t suppose it was the reporter’s place to say, “No, I don’t agree” but neither did any of the commentators or analysts say so.  

Graham should know better. 

The foundations of American democracy are: (1) Jeffersonian principles of social and economic equality, freedom, and human rights; and (2) Madisonian principles of the separation of powers, checks and balances, and limited government aimed at preventing tyranny by any single faction or branch of government.  A commitment to these principles keeps American democracy on a journey to more perfectly embody those principles, shapes the most basic understanding of the common good, and clarifies what is at the heart of becoming a more just society.  

The essence of every political party, on the other hand, is attaining and maintaining power.  With his rhetorical question, Graham redefined the essence of American democracy as a ongoing power struggle—as perpetual conflict and competition between power-seeking individuals and among power-seeking factions as they vie for control, influence, and dominance at the expense of the common good—and justice degenerates into a “virtueless virtue" that serves only the interest of those in power.

Fairy Tale Damsels in Distress

[Registration for Enchantments is now available at California State University - East Bay's Osher Lifelong Learning website.  Click HERE.]

In my last post (Enchantments and Villains) about my upcoming online lecture series on fairy tales (Planning Ahead: "Now for Something Completely Different"), I wrote that one of the concerns that people have about reading fairy tales to children is that the stories are often too scary and gruesome for young children.  

The struggle between the hero/heroine and the villain—between good and evil—is often at the center of the fairy tale. The hero/heroine and the villain are at odds with each other. They each want a different outcome, producing conflict and competition which drives the action in the story.  What would fairy tales be without their villains? 

According to some psychological theories, the telling and hearing of stories can support emotional health and have therapeutic benefits - and perhaps engaging the dark side of fairy tales is actually good for children—and for adults.

Another issue of concern is the recurring theme of the damsel in distress within fairy tales. The term 'damsel' refers to a young woman of high social standing who is often depicted as beautiful and popular. These damsels find themselves in various forms of danger, such as being kidnapped, imprisoned, cursed, or otherwise oppressed, and require the aid of one or more male heroes to save them. The portrayal of these women as weak, helpless, and passive victims awaiting a male rescuer has been a staple in Western storytelling, with the nature of their adversaries evolving over time to reflect societal fears and tastes, ranging from witches to aliens. Iconic characters like the unconscious Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, who depend on a prince's love to free them from a witch's curse, continue to promote outdated and condescending views of women. Similarly, even the diligent Cinderella is depicted as needing a prince to liberate her from her abusive household.

Food for Thought

Princess Belle-Etoile rescuing Prince Cheri
by English artist and book illustrator
Walter Crane (1845-1915) 

There are fairy tales that tell a different story.  In "Hansel and Gretel," Gretel slays the witch and rescues Hansel. In "Beauty and the Beast," Belle frees the prince from his curse. In the lesser-known "Princess Belle-Etoile," the princess dons her armor and saves the prince. Rapunzel herself concocts the escape plan from the tower, actively participating in her liberation. Although her role involves the stereotypical woman's activity of knitting, she proactively avoids waiting for the prince to devise a plan. Moreover, in the often-overlooked conclusion of the tale, Rapunzel, as a single mother fending for herself and her child in the wilderness, rescues the prince.

More Food for Thought

There are other ways of relating to fairy tales than a literal reading.  Both Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung considered fairy tales to be symbolic communications from - and to - the unconscious mind akin to dreams.  They held that the telling and hearing of fairy tales is an active experience, involving a powerful dynamic.  The narration of and reflection on the stories promote the resolution of internal, unconscious, and often self-defeating conflicts.

Freud and Jung had contrasting views on the symbolic significance of characters in dreams and fairy tales. Freud posited that while a character in our dreams or fairy tales does represent the self, other characters symbolize other people—typically mothers, fathers, siblings—who are the source of our internal and unconscious conflicts. Jung, conversely, believed that every character embodies different facets of the self. Both the feeble, defenseless victim and the potent, ingenious savior are representations of "me," irrespective of the character's gender.  Of course, then so is the villain.

[My related post:  Enchantments and Villains]