By Ryan Smith
Fi is chiefly determined by the internal psychic landscape. It is quite different from Fe, just like Ti is different from Te. But it is very difficult to describe Fi with words, or intellectually, because its nature is so peculiar.
However, even if we cannot describe Fi intellectually, we can become aware of what it looks like and learn to notice it in the world. In fact, Fi is very noticeable once we have become aware of its existence.
Because Fi is concerned with the person’s own subjective dispositions, the true gist of Fi rarely exists on the surface. Since Fi runs deep in the psyche and is not shown directly to the world, Fi is often misunderstood.
Unlike Fe, which is fed off external reality, Fi seems at first glance to devalue many of the outward occurrences of Feeling (such as common courtesies, which the Fe psyche will typically respond to with bliss).
Because Fi is not in the main concerned with these outward expressions of Feeling, Fi will often be seen in the negative, that is to say, in terms of what it doesn’t like. In this way, Fi is often the easiest to see when some deeply-held value of the Fi type is violated. For example, if an artistic designer who is an Fi type works in a creative environment (say, a design studio), and the studio gets a new manager who comes in and dictates that from now on all employees should follow a premade template for designs instead of their own creative disposition, this imposition is likely to provoke vocal opposition from the Fi type. In such a case it will be easy to see the “negative” expression of Fi because on this rare occasion it is directed outwards (in order to defend its inner values which are really the true object of its concern).
If we could look inside the head of the Fi type, we would see that this “negative” or “protesting” aspect of Fi is really just a footnote to the greater totality of what is really going on in the Fi type. However, unless we are Fi types ourselves, that is just what we cannot do. To others, then, many of the positive and heartfelt aspects of Fi can only be inferred indirectly, that is, deduced from the selfless actions, fierce loyalty, and fanatical dedication that are exhibited by Fi types in service of furthering their personal values and sense of intimacy with those who are closest to them.
An “Unusual” Form of Feeling
Without prior knowledge of typology, we would never guess at the first glance that Fi types are “Feeling” types: Unlike their Fe counterparts, Fi types tend to be unmoved by ritualistic forms of politeness, i.e. what can be regarded as commonplace expressions of “feeling” in the sense that these are the preconceived gestures that society has agreed to perceive as polite. However, such formalized expressions of “feeling” tend to leave the Fi type cold, since they are not adapted to the individual and his values, which are the true cognitive pivot points of Fi. Since this form of Feeling is directed inwards, it is concerned with the personal and subjective elements of Feeling and therefore largely indifferent to externally-defined standards of value, appropriateness, and correctness. That is why one of Jung’s associates once quipped that the Fi lover is the man who says to his beloved: “I love you but that is none of your business.”[1]
Since Fi is an introverted judging function, it does not aim to adjust itself to external occurrences or to other people. In our article on Te and Ti we saw that where Te tends to seize upon external data, attempting to adjust itself to it, Ti tends to abstract away from the external givens, seeking instead to base its understanding on some inner idea of its own making. This distinction also holds true for the Feeling functions: Just like Te orients itself by the external data that is outside of the person, so Fe orients itself by what is important to other people (i.e. the Feeling elements of a situation that are ‘external’ to the person’s psyche). And just like Ti seizes upon the internal idea generated by the outer occurrence, so Fi seizes upon the internal sentiment that is generated by contact with the outer occurrence. In this way, Ti clarifies the internal idea at the expense of the external data and Fi purifies the internal sentiment at the expense of external standards.
Natural and without Calculation
As we have said, Fi is difficult to observe or describe. Because of its peculiar nature, most people not trained in typology are quite unaware of its existence, and because Fi is so private and internal, even the people who have become aware of it have mostly only noticed its “negative” aspects, such as its vocal and “childish” objections to some violation of the Fi type’s inner values that takes place in the outer world (such as our example of the creative designer who was outraged at being made to work on the basis of a preconceived template dictated to him by his employers).[2] But as already hinted, this “negative” aspect of Fi is really just a derivative or a footnote. So let us now try to describe Fi in more detail. What is it like as a function?
On the infrequent occasions when the affective state of Fi (not just the “negative,” but the “positive” one as well) is brought to the forefront of expression, it will afford others a rare chance to see what this function is really like: When Fi truly rears its head, it will be seen that it tends to erupt with the spontaneity and force of something primitive and unmediated – something altogether “natural,” as it were. It soon becomes clear how Fi is not a function that has adjusted itself to “civilization” and the noncommittal niceties of “polite society” at all. It is pre-civilized – benevolently and unabashedly natural, and it cannot be otherwise – it is simply in the nature of that function that it is not traversable or negotiable in the same way that Fe, Te, or Ti are.
Hence, when a strong eruption of Fi is brought to the forefront of psychic expression, the inner state of the Fi type is relayed to the outer world with an innocence and purity that immediately remove all doubt that this type of affect could ever be premeditated or planned in the slightest.[3] Observing such an “Fi surge,” even the psychologically illiterate will be able to infer that there is no calculation and no conscious deliberation involved in such episodes on the part of the Fi type. It will frequently even be obvious that not even the Fi type himself was expecting such an eruption of emotional affect.
Once we take this “pre-civilized” nature of Fi into account, we see that the outpourings of Fi may just as well be “positive” manifestations of rapture and ecstasy as they may be “negative” manifestations of protest or offense. The common denominator of an Fi surge is not positivity or negativity, but an eruption of pure and unmediated affectivity that orientates itself on the basis of internal sentiments, and which is therefore bound to seem naive and one-sided (perhaps even childish), but also unusually sincere to the outer world.
Fi in Its Normal State
However, these eruptions are episodic – they are the exception, not the rule, and hence far from the everyday state of the Fi type. In fact, when not engaged in such surges or eruptions, Fi types will usually appear more muted and may even come across as strange and enigmatic to the outside observer. In such cases, the best way to describe them is that they may appear distant, in some cases even cold and uncaring, but nevertheless they give away their Feeling preference by not exhibiting the seclusion, detachment, and vacuity that so often goes with the demeanor of a Ti type. Instead, the impassivity of Fi types tends to find expression as a sense of gentle amusement and mild wonder at the world, as if inwardly smiling a slight smile at the wealth of nuances that their cognition recognizes in outer occurrences, but all the while knowing that their cognition, on account of its inferior Te, is not fit to engage with them all. So in their natural, inwards-feeling state, far from being childish or contrarian for the sake of it, Fi types often appear as if they are meeting the world with a tolerant, non-possessive and perhaps even slightly anemic attitude instead.
This attitude, however, is merely a mask; a practical facade and really not what defines Fi as a function. In fact, there is a straightforward reason for the aforementioned and oft-observed external passivity of Fi types: Just like Ti is not attuned to the external data that is the lifeblood of a Te type, so Fi is not attuned to the external sentiments that are the lifeblood of an Fe type.[4] Both Ti and Fi abstract (or “look away”) from those nuances in outer occurrences that are not conducive to the inner idea (Ti) or the internal sentiment (Fi) that the Ti or Fi type is unconsciously elucidating in his psyche. Hence both Ti and Fi types may appear impassive or “laid back” to others, as if nothing was going on within them. But internally they are hard at work, elaborating on some sentiment or system with the aid of their unconscious.
To put it simply, the primary objective of the Fi function is to evaluate psychic material in a way that will allow identity-defining inner values as well as eternal and poetic images to be felt with the utmost vivacity, purity, and passion. Unbeknownst to the Fi type himself, much of the outer world – ordinary and unpoetic as it is – is therefore ignored or subordinated in consciousness so that only those aspects of reality that pertain to these inner images are perceived in full and with the greatest possible purity. In other words, since Fi is not in the main concerned with outward phenomena or occurrences, this means that Fi will often have an easy time glossing over external objects and occurrences that would otherwise limit the inner intensity of Fi. In this way, Fi is quite content with having no other aims besides itself.
To illustrate, let us return to the example of a creative designer whose manager dictates to him that from now on he must use a standardized template in all of his designs. In probing his reaction, we will find that the Fi type is not in the main concerned with addressing the reasons why the new template was introduced. For example, headquarters may have calculated that if all of the firm’s designers were to use a single template, the firm’s employees would be able to get more work done and the company would therefore save money in the long run. In such cases, it is not the natural mode of Fi to cognitively engage with such Te-style rationales. As we have said, Fi is often quite content with having no other aims besides itself and so it is far more likely to evaluate the whole ordeal on its own terms: Since what is valued by the Fi type in this example is the creative freedom of individual designers such as himself, the Fi type is bound not to see the introduction of the pre-made template as a rational cost-cutting measure, backed by good business sense, but rather as a heinous infringement on the values of individuality and creativity. In such situations, considerations such as “necessary vs. unnecessary” and ”rational vs. irrational” are not likely to weigh as heavily on the psyche of the Fi type as the conflict between individual values and institutions that seek to curb and infringe upon those values. And since the Fi type experiences those values through inner personal sentiment, the soothing gestures of others are less likely to appease them than is the case with most other types (save perhaps the Ni type).
In the eyes of others, it may therefore seem as if the Fi type is rude or uncaring at times, since Fi types do not usually respond with depth wholeheartedly to those conventional overtures of “feeling” and good manners that are commonly expected (at least by Fe users) to elicit a reciprocal response in society. But from the standpoint perspective of Fi, the point is rather that, being cognitively attuned to a pre-civilized internal sentiment and eternal Feeling images, more commonplace “feeling” expressions such as “nice to meet you” or “great seeing you again” are likely to pale in comparison, seeming woefully inadequate and unable to do justice to the deep-running river of passion and sincerity they are carrying inside.
Unlike Te or Ti, which, in the final instance, tend to produce judgments that can stand mechanically apart from the person who uttered them, Fi will often seem especially genuine or sincere because it is inseparably fused with, and rooted in, a person’s deeper nature. The dictum that “every philosophy is a kind of confession of its author; an involuntary and unconscious memoir” applies far more to the Fi type than it does to any other type.[5] Whereas Fe affectivity often has the common, the mutual, and the shared as its arena, Fi tends to well up from a person’s inner temperament and to have nothing but itself as its aim. Hence, for better or for worse, it often cannot help but be sincere.
As we have already said, Fi is not a function that has adapted very much to civilization. It has its own purity, and often refuses to let itself be compromised. Since it seeks the realization of the inner Feeling image, it does not usually seek to adjust itself to objects or people in the outer world. It holds in its mind’s eye an eternal sentiment-infused image which has no equivalent existence in the actual world and which will never have such an existence. In this way, the instigations of Fi upon the psyche of the Fi type may actually be said to be a kind of vision. Not the descriptive vision of Ne and Ni types, which seeks to apprehend possibilities and outcomes, but a normative vision: A conception of how things could be if everyone were able to follow those same ideals and injunctions that flow from Fi and to lay it upon themselves never to betray those values.
But of course, unlike the more mechanical designs of Ti types, who can endeavor to put their ethical vision into the form of hard and unalterable rules, the prescriptions of Fi types tend to be much more multilayered and fluid, since they are frequently dependent upon things which cannot be set down in stone, such as the feeling-tone of an action or agent, or the character and relative status of the parties in a feud. In this way, Fi can really be much more nuanced in its appraisal of ethical dilemmas, since here the conflict is felt, where there it was thought. But on the other hand, since its rules cannot be fixed and its judgments cannot be codified to the same degree as Ti, Fi perennially runs the risk of succumbing to relativism and having its benevolent feeling-receptivity transformed into an ad hoc morality. We see, then, that more than setting out to write the great “rule book of morality,” seeking to fetter things in a system of legal deductions, Fi is more attuned to a beautiful romantic dream of something that never was – a light brighter than any light that ever shone or will be able to shine as long as men believe themselves to be bound only by intransigent verbalized laws.[6]
Fi Purity vs. Ti Clarity
Fi explores the eternal, underlying values; it brings the values into increased purity (whereas Ti is responsible for their increased clarity). Because Fi is a Feeling function, it would be easy to assume that Fi only explores values and sentiments, but in reality, the Fi type may just as well feel into intellectual matters or ideas. For example, the ideas of human freedom, individuality, and tolerance may all be explored in a form where they are just as much values as they are ideas. The same holds true for notions such as freedom, justice, and equality – these concepts too may just as easily be processed as values as they may be processed as ideas. In this way, there is no difference between the psychic material delved into by Ti and Fi, and hence Fi need not in any way stand back from Ti in its capacity to elaborate on such notions within the person’s own cognition (though as we have seen, Ti types often have the advantage of being able to give their machinations more definite expressions, such as legalistic rules and hard-edged definitions).
When Fi slides downwards in consciousness, as in EFPs (where it is auxiliary) or in ITJs (where it is tertiary), there is sometimes a close association between Feeling and the personal ego. On that basis it may be inviting to identify Fi with personal immaturity and egotism (as many have unfairly done). But when Fi is truly differentiated and attains higher levels of development in the psyche, this connection does not seem to bear out: In well-developed Fi types, the values and feeling-images processed by their Feeling tend to become superior to the personal ego with its mundane strivings and self-absorption. The personal ego becomes subordinated, an attendant and humble servant of the values and ideas championed by differentiated Fi, and such Fi types can therefore be some of the most selfless and self-sacrificing people around: Just as our creative designer did not give thought to conventional notions of “justified vs. unjustified” or the “employer’s prerogative vs. employee’s prerogative” in dictating the use of a preconceived template, but simply fought for his values, so highly differentiated Fi types can selflessly give their all in the service of their ideals, thinking nothing of personal gains and acting entirely as an agent of those eternal feeling-images that they have felt, and which the rest of us can only palely refer to as their “personal values.”
Fi Culture vs. Fe Civilization
Earlier in this article, we mentioned that the affectivity of Fi is primarily directed inwards: That Fi is more concerned with the personal and subjective aspects of Feeling and that the Fi lover may therefore (humorously speaking) be characterized as saying to his beloved: “I love you but that is none of your business.”
From the Fe point of view, it may therefore seem as if the Fi lover does not really love the other person, the way an Fe type does, but rather loves his own internal image of what the other person is like. This divergence is an age-old conflict that may be spoken of in terms of the cultural spirit and the civilizing spirit. Without the “civilizing spirit” of Fe, and the excellent Feeling connection that Fe engenders between people, it would be impossible for us to establish a practically functioning civilization. It is therefore easy to laud the merits of Fe and perhaps even to single it out as the “correct” way of approaching matters of Feeling.
But without the “cultural genius” of Fi, the uncompromising purity and the wholly own-experienced passions of Fi types, our civilization would be a soulless place where every cultural artifact was shaped according to compromise and fed off the collectivity of generally accepted standards. A civilization that consisted of all Fe and no Fi would have lost its connection to the personal quality of Feeling that the Fi types so impeccably embody. Such a culture might satisfy aesthetic expectations, but it would not speak to the heart: It would please, but not transform. Appeal, but not engross. In sum, it would lack artistic daring, since it would be devoid of internal Feeling judgments.
With regard to the conflict between the cultural (Fi) and the civilizational (Fe), nothing is easier than for people to fall in love with their own preference for one or the other and to deem the other “wrong.”[7] But obviously, we need both civilization and culture: Without Fe, we cannot create a functioning civilization that canonizes and reveres its artists, and where ordinary people flock to museums and theaters. And without Fi, we cannot create a culture that bears the marks of that artistic uniqueness and individuality. We invariably need them both.
***
Jung in Plain Language, Part 2: Fi © Ryan Smith and CelebrityTypes International 2015.
Image in the article commissioned from artist Georgios Magkakis.
[1] Quoting Rilke, and actually describing the Te type in von Franz’ delineation of that mindset. Yet as we explain, Te and Fi imply each other. And incidentally, von Franz asserts Rilke to be an Fi type.
[2] Of course, most people have benefitted immensely from the contributions of Fi types, even if they have not learned to spot Fi as a psychological entity in life. However, since most people are not privy to the Fi type’s internal processes, or the creative mindset that gives shape to the Fi type’s contributions, others are more likely to only have taken stock of the most external and outspoken elements of Fi, i.e. the opposition to the things that the Fi type doesn’t like, as described above.
[3] A noteworthy exception is that Fi types with Histrionic elements (like all types with Histrionic elements) often show false or pretentious affect. Perhaps surprisingly, FP types seem to be overrepresented among Histrionics, but this conflation need not be so strange after all: Being structurally attuned to navigate by unmediated value judgments, the FP types will also, all other things being equal, have an easier time dramatizing their behavior in the way that Histrionics are wont to do.
[4] While Jung believed that Fe types live for shared expressions of “feeling,” not everyone agrees that external sentiments are really the cognitive pivot point of Fe types. See Strachan’s Commentary on Briggs’ Definition of Fe for an alternative perspective on this matter.
[5] Paraphrase from Nietzsche: Beyond Good and Evil §6
[6] Paraphrase from Joan Evans’ ‘Taste and Temperament’ (J. Cape 1939).
[7] In Ancient Greece, the cultural genius was found in Homer while the civilizing genius could be seen in Plato. In precisely this coupling we find the fruitful cross-fertilization of Fi and Fe, as shown by how Plato approvingly incorporates quotations from Homer and other poets in his dialogues. Opposite to the harmonious fusing found in Plato, Xenophanes fell for the temptation to privilege his own preference for the civilizing genius over the cultural one when he censured the latter as follows: “Homer and Hesiod have attributed to the gods all things that are shameful and a reproach among mankind: theft, adultery, and mutual deception.” (Fragment DK21 B11)