The Shadow side of RWS

I've been reading William Irwin Thompson's book _Coming Into Being: Artifacts and Texts in the Evolution of Consciousness_. In it he says, "There is a shadow side to all leaders that gets unconsciously picked up and acted out by their followers."

He uses Rudolf Steiner as an example here. "The cultural reaction of the intense leader-led romantic movements of spiritual renewal created the shock waves that gave us Wagner and Hitler. The cult of the Germanic artist went form Goethe to Wagner to Hitler, the artist manqué. there is a lesson to be learned in the phenomenology of revitalization movements and in the religious effort to institutionalize the ineffable . . . [that eventually] degrades the movement and turns it into its opposite. One goes from complex multidimensional Steiner to humorless cult . . .")

So, I was wondering - What is the shadow side to Waite/Smith that gets unconsciously picked up and acted out by all the RWS-copycats?

Mary

Teheuti said:

So, I was wondering - What is the shadow side to Waite/Smith that gets unconsciously picked up and acted out by all the RWS-copycats?

Mary

Click to expand...

That's a great subject Mary.

I don't collect copycats, and the only one I ever used was the Aquarian Tarot, decades ago (you probably suspected that , but I do have a response from the general repository of opinionatedness I seem to be able to access.

I think Waite's "shadow side" is *sentimentalism*.

His tarot, as rich and esoterically complex as it is, tends to bring out the fluffy bunny in the collective conscious. It's as if this tarot were the flagship for New Age-ism.

This isn't a criticism of him or Colman. Neither could know how their work would affect the world. They never dreamed of being opportunists. His work is rarely studied or appreciated, and hers is continually reinterpreted, as if the originals weren't good enough.

And in the interpretation of Colman's art, both Waite and wisdom are always lacking (I mentioned I don't know much about copycats, didn't I?).

So I think the shadow side of the RWS is sentimentalism, meaning that copycats and other followers water-down the message until everything looks like a bright sunny day.

Ross G Caldwell said:

So I think the shadow side of the RWS is sentimentalism, meaning that copycats and other followers water-down the message until everything looks like a bright sunny day.

Click to expand...

Personally I think the RWS deck tends toward the "bright, sunny day" anyway, but you have a very good point about the sentimentalism. I agree that Waite's actual intent is too often ignored, although perhaps that is better than being slavishly regarded as sacrosanct and not to be tampered with.

It's interesting that perception of the shadow is probably best done by someone who is not too involved with RWS-style decks. You can be more objective and not so caught up in the details and individual deck exceptions but can offer a generalized overview.

Thanks for responding. Does anyone else have a different view?

Mary

The RWS deck is so deep and many layered. Perhaps the shadow side is shallow triviality.

Interesting quote, Mary. I feel compelled to add, I have often noticed that the case of Hitler is the founding example for many a psychological theory of a certain period. I immediately think of Erich Fromm's "Escape from Freedom" but I know I have come across many many others. Everyone wanted to come to grips with why Hitler happened, and so they pondered the question, forumulated a theory and wrote a book. This case sounds a bit like a one of these theorems developed as a direct result of trying to understand the problem of Hitler. I wonder how well the theory plays out in other examples.

Well Mary, broadly speaking I think the shadow side is Stereotyping. I am not talking about archetypes- but for instance- look at all the clones of the Queen of Swords- They seem to have a violent shade to them- and not just because a sword is held. The page of Cups= effiminate. On the other hand union is fostered as stereotypical man and woman.
The other thought I have is about ghoulishness- but I have not formulated the debate properly in my own head yet. Something about the fluffiness is reacted to by overly dark and pessimistic in a sequence of cards......
~Rosanne

I feel that the main shadow side would be that there was no 'official' written material regarding the deck. Not the kind that's in the Key to the Tarot, but something along the lines of say, The Book of Thoth, where Crowley (the creator of the deck himself) described each and every aspect of the cards, as well as, the artwork and the correspondences involved. Waite, probably due to the oaths of secrecy didn't have anything substantial written officially for the deck, and hence led to numerous misinterpretations or as Ross mentioned, *sentimentalism*, regarding this deck.

Hello

If there is a shadow side it's of our own creation, our own interpretation on how the cards effects us based on what we know and all the things that have shaped our lives. Which, if that's our goal, is wrong.

If the clone RWS artists evolve and follow their own path, instead of someone else's, then its a good thing.
If it leads others to the RWS or a higher path. Then its a good thing.
If the clone artist remains a clone and does not evolve. That's bad. But its not our concern either. The responsibility lies with the individual.

...imho

sweet_intuition said:

I feel that the main shadow side would be that there was no 'official' written material regarding the deck.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call exactly call that the shadow side of Waite. And, how is it the shadow that is picked up by his followers? Rather it is something that you feel was left out. Personally, I find that PKT has a lot more in it than most people give it credit for - only it has to be read closely and preferably in conjunction with Waite's others works. The same could be said for Crowley - only Crowley's writing is far more compelling.

Perhaps you mean that Waite left more room for people to make of the deck what they would - including the sentimental (as you note). I find the flexibility of the deck - Waite's attempt to integrate many sets of meanings and therefore not to stick rigidly to one viewpoint, along with the overlayer of Pixie's intuition in the art, to be the strength of the deck.

The idea of the shadow coming out through the followers, according to Thompson, has more to do with things like Jesus preaching love, only to have Christianity spawn tremendous violence in his name through things like the Inquisition and the Crusades, etc. Or, Case's BOTA, where despite his many wives, jazz musicianship and strong sense of humor, the organization itself became very stern & rigid, terminating personal friendships within the order and not allowing anyone (for many long years) to reproduce any BOTA card images.

Perhaps Waite & Smith didn't have enough of an impact on others to create this kind of overreaction - but the deck itself did. Certainly it errs on the side of "niceness" and so carried well into the New Age arena.

To me the deck has fostered a kind of feel-better advice orientation - like with the 5 of Cups where, rather than truly acknowledging the grief, most readers focus on how it's "now time to pick of the standing cups and move on." Or, with the 9 of Swords where readers immediately deflect the issue with: "It's not all bad. Time will heal all pain." Or, "look at the pretty bedspread."

Mary

Rosanne said:

Well Mary, broadly speaking I think the shadow side is Stereotyping.

Click to expand...

That's really worth taking further - although simply by definition a clone or copycat would be a kind of stereotype. I hope you continue with this thought.

Look at all the clones of the Queen of Swords- They seem to have a violent shade to them- and not just because a sword is held.

Click to expand...

If people had just stuck with the earlier Etteilla meanings would they have pictured her more nicely? There is a long tradition for the Queen of Swords being the bad girl of the deck. The RWS deck actually ameliorates many earlier meanings for swords - where, for instance, the Ace of Swords was a card of death. I think this ameliorating trend has continued. Yes, there is a tendency to depict the Queen of Swords as more evil than the other queens - but this was there prior to the RWS deck.

the fluffiness is reacted to by overly dark and pessimistic in a sequence of cards......

Click to expand...

Am not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that most copycats take the fluffiest of RWS cards and turn them into something dark and pessimistic? While some RWS-style decks are dark, this certainly hasn't become an overall tendency - and may have more to do with individual artists.

Teheuti said:

That's really worth taking further - although simply by definition a clone or copycat would be a kind of stereotype. I hope you continue with this thought.

Click to expand...

Firstly, I must say I am a collector of decks as well as a reader and by far the most of my collection is RWS based. I am guilty of stereotyping. I think publishers are more guilty than me by the way
Stereotypes are ideas held about members of particular groups and are based solely on that group. The ideas are simplifications, exaggerations, generalisations- all negative or positive- right or wrong in this case (RWS) shaped by the pictures seen and the words written about RWS.
Topics that are important to you are unlikely to be heavily stereotyped, whereas unfamiliar topics will be heavily stereotyped. If you are uninterested in Tarot of Marseilles or Thoth, it is very likely that you have a bunch of stereotypes about those particular decks. However, an avid Thoth'er or TdM'er knows so much about the topic that few stereotypes remain- except when they view RWS maybe.
Because of the popularity of RWS for nigh on 100 years, publishers for commercial reasons will go for the tried and true- so more of the same happens. Somehow this view of RWS has narrowed the range of esoteric view to my mind, while increasing the amount of decks that follow that seen as 'proscribed' format. I seldom get surprised by a new RWS- other than that is more slick or that it is more themed. When I am surprised, say with Fantastic Menagerie, I immediately question whether it is RWS at its soul. What kind of generalisation is that? I love my Osho Zen but ask myself if it is Tarot? Thats a simplification. RWS is Christian and the Thoth is sexual- now thats an exaggeration.
Stereotyping is an inescapable habit of the human mind. You are constantly making stereotypes without even knowing it. The mind simply cannot store every detail about everything that passes through it, so it tries to simplify things by sorting them into groups that are consistent with information that already resides in your memory.
I am sure the creators of RWS, did not anticipate the divisions that their collaboration would cause. I feel the (factually unknown) brow beating of Pamela by Arthur- the use of her ideas and her painting for his own gain- another stereotypical thought about Victorian life of the brow beaten woman without power.
Here's an example- without looking at it, try to imagine the 6 Swords from your favourite RWS based deck. What is the boat made of? where are the Swords placed? are the symbols implied or actual? Are there any words printed on the front? What colour are the clothes? Chances are you cannot remember every detail of your card even though you look at it several times a day/month/year. This is because your mind knows how to deal with 6 Swords so it stereotypes it and forgets about all the inconsequential details. So you assume that it is a journey over water. Sometimes it seems to me that this is the shadow of RWS and the unforseen consequences of it- it has become a cliche, and one way of dealing with that is to produce something after the pattern but more shocking or more themed to make a point of difference, and still get published. ~Rosanne