Boye Akinwande is a contributing guest writer for CelebrityTypes. In this article, Akinwande explores the hidden merits and significance of Fi in an apologia for a function that has often been short-changed.
By Boye Akinwande
To many, the Introverted Feeling (Fi) function seems to be the hardest to understand because the values and sentiments that lie at the core of an Fi type’s consciousness are not wont to give themselves to outward expression in the same way as Fe or Te.[1] Even Ti will often be found to have greater outward applicability than Fi, since Ti can at least point to the self-authentication of its internal logic.[2] At times, an unpleasant question comes knocking: Does Fi even do anything? What merits and significance can it offer us, apart from the creation of art and subjectivized dream worlds?
In this article, I explore the often overlooked significance of Fi, attempting, as it were, to offer an apologia or defence of a function whose merits have often been devalued or downplayed.
Te/Fi Types and Ti/Fe Types
As I’ve previously covered on the site, Te/Fi types tend to emphasize the differences between individual human beings where Ti/Fe types are more prone to stress their similarities. One consequence of this difference is that Te/Fi types more often operate under the assumption that other people’s interests are not aligned with their own. To Te/Fi types, it is not natural or “the default” that they should be so. Where the Te and Fi types differ is in how they respond to this perceived divergence.
In the case of the Te types, they are perhaps the least prone of all the types to give themselves to fruitless fantasies.[3] Facts must be cognized “as they are” to fit with the Te type’s regimen for ordering the facts – they are not to be analyzed or pondered for hours in the manner of Fi and Ti types. Hence, the Te types are generally less vulnerable than the Fi and Ti types: They seldom have trouble asserting their views directly; to them, the world and its relations are naturally entropic and so it befalls the subject to do whatever is in his power to control it.[4] Anything deemed necessary or regarded as a legitimate want must be pursued without apology and brought to fruition in the most efficient way possible.[5] The failure to do so is experienced as a threat to the existential sense of control that he feels.
Thus the Te type thinks: “People are not like me, so in order to structure my life and get what I want, I need to assert my needs overtly and be firm with them.” Hence they are commonly thought to be among the most abrasive types.
For their part, being the inverse of Te types, Fi types tend to think: “People’s motives may be unaligned, but life is meant to be enjoyed in full and on one’s own terms. Therefore it is best not to interfere with one another.” Hence Fi types may commonly be seen romanticizing the idea of tolerance. They tend to think: “People are not like me, and so I should not impose myself on their inner harmony.” Thus, where Te types are commonly thought to be among the most abrasive of the types, Fi types are commonly thought to be the most effete.
It is therefore my contention that of all the judging functions, Fi generally has the least of a hand in imposing itself upon its environment: Colloquially speaking, where Te issues marching orders, Fi lives and lets live.
We have already covered how Te is more naturally applicable to the external environment than Fi. But what about the Ti and Fe functions? In general, all Fe/Ti types tend to see other human beings as extensions of themselves; as having been cast in the same mold to begin with. Therefore, whatever logic they apply to themselves must also, in the interests of justice and fairness, be applied to others (Kant’s Categorical Imperative comes to mind here). But even further down from there:
- Fe aligns itself with others on the basis of sentiment, and vice versa, to build collective harmony and see mutually beneficial ideas or values universally enacted.[6]
- Ti, even if naturally detached from the world, still orders the psychic contents under its scrutiny according to internally consistent systems on the basis of which a structure may be imposed upon the world.
But none of these modes of operation apply to Fi. Thus we return to our question: Does Fi even do anything? What merits and significance can it offer us, apart from the creation of art and subjectivized dream worlds?
The Hidden Significance of Fi
While Fi, in and of itself, is perhaps not as ego-less as Ti, it follows from what has already been said that (all other things being equal) Fi is perhaps the function that supresses the wishes of others the least. Philosophically, Fi types may more easily become relativists than other types, tending to romanticize our differences, whereas other judging functions may see such pluralism as more of a threat to the premises of their own functioning (colloquially: Te: Security and order; Fe: Harmony and belonging; Ti: Consistency and system).
To the Fi type, interpersonal differences serve as pointers to the realization that, just as a perfect circle can never exist in the sensible world, so human beings can never be completely objective. Hence, since we cannot reach such ideals, nor can we act with certitude concerning the affairs of others and as a consequence we should seriously question the validity of our own viewpoint before we start imposing ourselves on others.
Where Te imposes order on each and every facet of the environment that comes within the reach of the Te type, Fi types tend to see such regimens as inherently favoring some individuals or groups over others.[7] Since Fi types repress their Te into their unconscious, they generally tend to feel that such marshalling is wrong and must be resisted – it is part of their fight against their own inferior Te. The Fi type is therefore in many instances led to root for the underdog and to extend tolerance and forgiveness to misfits and those who violate rules.
Ideally, the Fi type would like to take their own depth of Feeling and transplant that onto other people, but since Fi is directed inward and felt, not thought, there is just no objective way to transfer that depth of meaning onto others. Hence, finding themselves unwilling and unable to impose themselves on others, Fi types are more likely to apply the sociological lessons they would ideally wish to see in others to themselves. In other words, instead of forcing themselves upon the world, Fi types are more prone to turn upon themselves, so to speak. As an alternative, Fi types often resort to parallel means of expression (such as music, fiction writing, or art) where they can avoid imposing themselves on others. And, simultaneously, it is exactly by way of such parallel means of expression that the Fi type might hope to deepen the sentiments and passions of the other in a manner that is akin to their own Feeling.[8]
Fi compared to Fe and Ti
Finally, we end by comparing the merits and predicaments of Fi to those of Fe and Ti.
Fi vs. Fe: Like Fi, Fe can also be quite idealistic, desiring things to be “fair.” However, the repression of Thinking in Fe types tends to create quite a different type of idealism to that of Fi types. Where Fi types are prone to perceive more subjective differences between individuals than may in fact be there (and may tend to perceive these differences as impossible to reconcile on account of their inferior Te), Fe types will typically be the reverse of this. For their part, Fe types tend to see people as fundamentally belonging to the same class or category on account of the Ti/Fe-axis. And being extroverted judgers, it is easier for them to conceive of a way to reconcile social difference and to achieve harmony and cooperation.[9] However, because Fe types repress Ti, they tend to oversimplify the social differences they are seeking to reconcile, oftentimes believing that the solution to complex social problems lies in mere volition and definition – in only speaking of the problem in a way that the Fe type has defined as conducive to its solution.
Fi vs. Ti: Like Fi types, Ti types may also be plagued by the idea that perfect objectivity is unattainable. However, having an Fe/Ti axis, they tend to have an easier time placing their credence in principles whose merit is demonstrated only in the mind and which have no actual counterpart in the real world. Ti types tend to entertain relativism as a preliminary stage of their analysis, mapping out the diverging interests of others only to collapse them into a system of impartial principles that might theoretically solve the dispute. Again the Categorical Imperative of Kant comes to mind: Kant did in fact provide a theoretical blueprint for a universal ethic and the reconciliation of most human disputes. However, the keyword here is ‘theoretical,’ and more than 200 years after Kant’s death, the mechanics of social conflicts are still much the same as they always were. And this is where the Fi type’s natural leniency and tolerance comes to the fore, emphasizing that we are just animated matter, clashing on account of our diverging interests and failing to recognize the trappings of our own subjectivity.
***
Image in the article commissioned from artist Will Rosales.
NOTES
[1] Jung: Psychological Types §638
[2] Myers: Gifts Differing (Davies Black 1995) p. 66
[3] Jung: Psychological Types §585
[4] Myers: Gifts Differing (Davies Black 1995) p. 85
[5] Jung: Psychological Types §586
[6] Jung: Psychological Types §595
[7] Jung: Psychological Types §643
[8] Jung: Psychological Types (Harcourt & Brace 1923) p. 492
[9] Myers: Gifts Differing (Davies Black 1995) p. 92