Interchange

, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 373–402

Punishment and Forgiveness: A Phenomenological Analysis of Archetypal Leadership Patterns and the Implications for Educational Practice

Authors

    • Segal Graduate School of BusinessSimon Fraser University
  • Yaroslav Senyshyn
    • Faculty of EducationSimon Fraser University
Article

DOI: 10.1007/s10780-009-9101-8

Cite this article as:
Abramson, N.R. & Senyshyn, Y. Interchange (2009) 40: 373. doi:10.1007/s10780-009-9101-8

Abstract

Archetypal psychology suggests the possibility of a punishment archetype representing the unconscious preferences of human beings as a species about what constitutes appropriate ways for leaders (students, teachers and educational leaders) to correct followers who do harm to others. Mythological analysis compared God’s process of punishment, in the Abraham myth, with the theories of Scheler (1973), Kierkegaard (1987) and modern management theory about punishment. While modern theory focused on a contingent tit-for-tat relationship between doing harm and reprisal for it, God used punishment and forgiveness to reestablish effective moral relationships between the harm-doer and the harmed persons. God always forgave harm done to himself, and generally punished harm done to others but then forgave unilaterally, without waiting for Abraham to improve. If students and educators are unconsciously predisposed to expect that punishment is a long term educational activity intended to allow the harm-doer to atone, repent and re-establish effective working relationships with harmed persons, then the focus of modern punishment theory on intimidation will be ineffective and generate unconscious resistance.

Keywords

Punishment forgiveness archetype repentance leadership unconscious Abraham Jung Scheler Kierkegaard redemption

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009