Talk:Cassandra (metaphor)

Environmentalist Alan AtKisson

Which Alan Atkisson is it you mention in this article? What's his education? If it's the swedish SIDA Alan Atkisson, his education level and what education is hard to find on his linkedin. What's his credentials, other than the ability to write books like any nutcase can do. Thank you in advance. 78.82.156.86 (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Template for Article

(maybe something like) Cassandra was a figure from Greek mythology whose prophetic insights into the future were disbelieved by her contemporaries, but which nevertheless came true. This Greek myth has been taken up in modern times and employed as a metaphor for individuals who experience physical and emotional suffering as a result of distressing personal circumstances, and who are disbelieved when they attempt to share the cause of their suffering with others.

The Greek Cassandra myth:

The Cassandra metaphor in psychology:

• Laurie Layton Schapira on 'hysteria'
• Jean Shinoda-Bolen on the 'Cassandra woman'
• Melanie Klein on Guilt? (apparently she uses the Cassandra metaphor in her 1963 'Envy and Gratitude' though I have not read it).

The Cassandra metaphor in popular culture:

• Movies
• In the environment movement
• In the corporate world/stock-market

--Zeraeph (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good effort so far, Zeraeph. The present format organizes the various uses of the metaphor in a way that previous formats and titles couldn't achieve. Looks like the cinematic examples under 'In popular culture' could be expand upon with descriptions of how the Cassandra theme is utilized, and other examples might added (for example those examples from the environment movement, from the corporate world, and I believe there may even be an example by a band/song employs the Cassandra metaphor). I'll try and have a tinker in the days ahead, thats if you don't get to it first. Goddessculture (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

suggestions

The following might best be merged to provide a lead.

The Cassandra syndrome

The Cassandra Syndrome is a term applied to those whose predictions of doom are initially dismissed, but later turn out to be correct. This denotes a psychological tendency among people to deny and disbelieve such predictions. The person making the prediction is caught in the dilemma of knowing what will happen but not being able to convince others.

The Cassandra complex (or syndrome) is a metaphorical term applied to individuals who experience physical and emotional suffering as a result of distressing personal circumstances, and who are disbelieved when they attempt to share the cause of their suffering with others.

The use of Cassandra syndrome, and Cassandra complex, still sounds a bit confusing here when stated separately in this opening. So maybe -as a suggestion- it would help to remove the 'Syndrome' heading and instead use this material to make a lead paragraph. Eg:

"The Cassandra metaphor (variously labelled the Cassandra 'syndrome', 'complex', 'phenomenon', or 'dilemma'), is a term applied to those whose predictions of doom are initially dismissed, but later turn out to be correct. This denotes a psychological tendency among people to deny and disbelieve such predictions. The person making the prediction is caught in the dilemma of knowing what will happen but not being able to convince others. A second sense in which the metaphor is applied (see In Psychology below) is to individuals who experience physical and emotional suffering as a result of distressing personal circumstances, and who are disbelieved when they attempt to share the cause of their suffering with others. Thirdly, the figure of Cassandra has also been invoked to describe those who take the role of antagonist toward widespread or institutional ignorance of the future consequences of current actions."

Goddessculture (talk) 12:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This lead could then be profitably followed by The Cassandra Myth, providing a condensed paragraph or two describing the Cassandra myth (using the article's current description of the myth but removing the short definition of 'complex' as is not really necessary). Eg:

"The name Cassandra is derived from Greek myth. Cassandra was a daughter of Priam, the King of Troy. Struck by her beauty, Apollo provided her with the gift of prophecy, but when Cassandra refused Apollo's romantic advances, he placed a curse ensuring that none would believe her warnings. Cassandra was left with the knowledge of future events, but could neither alter these events nor convince others of the validity of her predictions. Cassandra correctly predicted that Paris's journey to kidnap Helen would end in doom for Troy. In Vergil's Aeneid, Cassandra warns specifically that the Greek gift of a giant wooden horse was soon to carry tragedy within the walls of Troy, a prophesy in which "All heard, and none believed".

Goddessculture (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion is to remove the 'History' section (as each use of the metaphor has a different history) and instead begin the 'In Psychology' section there. I also think it it is justified to separate Laurie Layton Schapira's use of the concept from Jean Shinoda-Bolen's, because even though both women are using the metaphor in a similar war, their works are independent. At present the intermingling of these two women's work could face a charge of synthesizing. So maybe they can be disentangled (?) and formatted:

• Laurie Layton Schapira on 'hysteria'
• Jean Shinoda-Bolen on the 'Cassandra woman'

At this point Melanie Klien's use of the Cassandra will have to wait until it is assessed (prob a month or two, unless someone else can provide her use of it).

I haven't got time to work on the entry at present as is pandemonium here. But will try in the days ahead. Goddessculture (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah no, I just basically blended the two articles and whipped out the daftest duplications. It needs LOADS of work.

Your idea for a lead is interesting and reads well but I think it is WP:OR unless you have some citations for it? I'll tell you why. This is such an obscure concept that I do not think there is any such clear generic definition, and though, anecdotally, I am sure people DO have a marked psychological tendency to resist the unpleasant, I don't think it has, as yet, been distinguished as specifically connected to the term "Cassandra". In fact, it is not even established that the term should be applied to the prophet or the "target audience" or both...and the lead must cover ALL generically or it won't make sense.

I am not even sure that the term is only applied where warnings later "turn out" to be correct? It surely applies equally in situations where the truth NEVER comes out? See what I mean about there being no clear generic definition? It might be best to lead with the widest possible definition, follow with the mythological origins of the term, and then go on into the various more SPECIFIC applications throughout the article?

It might also be safer, in the lead to apply the term to "situation" rather than "folk"? Which would cover all? I woner, does it make the point as simply as this?

"The Cassandra metaphor (variously labelled the Cassandra 'syndrome', 'complex', 'phenomenon', or 'dilemma'), is a term applied to a situation where valid warnings or concerns are dismissed.

The name Cassandra is derived from Greek myth. Cassandra was a daughter of Priam, the King of Troy. Struck by her beauty, Apollo provided her with the gift of prophecy, but when Cassandra refused Apollo's romantic advances, he placed a curse ensuring that none would believe her warnings. Cassandra was left with the knowledge of future events, but could neither alter these events nor convince others of the validity of her predictions. Cassandra correctly predicted that Paris's journey to kidnap Helen would end in doom for Troy. In Vergil's Aeneid, Cassandra warns specifically that the Greek gift of a giant wooden horse was soon to carry tragedy within the walls of Troy, a prophesy in which "All heard, and none believed"

I am going to just "pop it in" I think...simply because, what is there now is far worse, and it is just a minimal statement that can be added to, rather than anything that might have to be cited or removed. Maybe we see how we feel about it and add to it whenever seems a good idea to do so? And if it ever gets too big for a lead we can shift the mythology down. --Zeraeph (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Just had a quick read, what you say sounds valid, and the very short lead sounds probably a safe way to go. I think the following material should be included somewhere as it is a well worded couple of sentences that represent the majority of uses:

"The Cassandra metaphor (variously labelled the Cassandra 'syndrome', 'complex', 'phenomenon', or 'dilemma'), is a term applied to those whose predictions of doom are initially dismissed, but later turn out to be correct. This denotes a psychological tendency among people to deny and disbelieve such predictions. The person making the prediction is caught in the dilemma of knowing what will happen but not being able to convince others. A second sense in which the metaphor is applied (see In Psychology below) is to individuals who experience physical and emotional suffering as a result of distressing personal circumstances, and who are disbelieved when they attempt to share the cause of their suffering with others. Thirdly, the figure of Cassandra has also been invoked to describe those who take the role of antagonist toward widespread or institutional ignorance of the future consequences of current actions."

Now I've really got to run, prob won't be checking in for a while Goddessculture (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. Lead looks good now, with the short description followed by the myth. Well done. Goddessculture (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, if the article goes as it should, all those three perspectives will be explained during the course of it? It is well worded and interesting as it stands, but way too far into WP:OR (which is the biggest No-No of all barring WP:PORN :o) ). It's also very subjectively worded which is not good here (But may well be elsewhere?). --Zeraeph (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Apollonic Archetype needs clear definition

At the moment I thing the brief summary and myth leads well enough, EXCEPT that it conveys the impression that the "Apollonic Archetype" is "a lover spurned" which, I have a FEELING is not actually the case? So I think a quick, single para on how that should actually be defined is called for? It occurs to me that ONE day that might spin off into a new article too? --Zeraeph (talk) 13:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In the beginning of her book Layton-Schapira describes it as any personal tendencies or cultural forces that are "dedicated to , yet bound by, order, reason, truth and clarity that disavows itself of anything dark and irrational." [p.10] On p.83 she adds further adjectives for the Apollonic archetype "objectivity, perspective, logic... withdrawn and schizoid."

I'm sure there's tons more about it in her book but I just don't have time to go through it now. Hopefully that will make it a bit clearer. Goddessculture (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you got a subjective word bite that sums up your interpretation of what she says to help us get a simple handle on the concept - sounds a bit "Vulcan" to me? PS: Is there such a thing as "Apollonic Woman" and if so, who do I contact about membership? --Zeraeph (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

'Archetype' in this context refers to a limited personality type which exemplifies a particular set of definable perceptions and behaviors. In each case the preceding adjective accompanying "archetype" is what describes the particular personality type in question, eg. 'mother archetype', 'Peter-Pan archetype', 'father archetype', 'Apollonic archetype'. Even though the adjectival image may be gender specific (mother, Peter-Pan) such archetypes are still equally applicable to males or females, young or old, eg. the 'mother archetype' refers to a capacity to nurture and can be applied equally to men or women. Likewise, even though the god Apollo is a male deity, his detached intellectual personality is something which can have prominence in either a male or a female's personality if that is the dominant presenting archetype.

Goddessculture (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I know what an "Archetype" is silly...*rolling eyes* AND that is is not gender specific (though that is a tone that needs watching in the article just BECAUSE of the gender specifics implied in Layton Shapira's work). What I meant was, how would you summarise your subjective impression of her specific description of the Apollonic Archetype? ("Apolloniac Woman" was a JOKE...I do Vulcan think, and PERSONALLY prefer it :o) ) This isn't to use in article but to get a clear handle on the concept. --Zeraeph (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the Apollonic archetype could be equally rephrased as 'Vulcan/Spock' archetype, although that is not suitable for this entry as none of the authors employ it.

I'm not sure how her description could be worded. Perhaps using her adjectives we could say something like: ".... the Apollonic archetype, which refers to a personality pattern dedicated to, yet bound by order, reason, objectivity, perspective, logic and clarity, and which disavows itself of anything irrational in favour of detached intellectual elucidation. [ref. her book]" Or maybe those last few words make it a bit wordy. Is that getting there? Goddessculture (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Vulcan/Spock will do, I just wanted to be clear that I was reading it right...love your wording...flattery will get you everywhere ( ;o) ), but I suspect we had better either tone it down or quote her?

What worries me is that there is such a gender bias in (sorry, I had name wrong) Shinoda-Bolen, (which OF COURSE doesn't exist in reality) that's going to be tricky to tackle? Can't FIB about it, but...--Zeraeph (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean about the gender rigidity, which is often creeps into these commentaries and which takes the gender of the archetype way too literally. Fortunately Shinoda-Bolen makes clear in her book that these archetypes, even though seeming gendered, actually can apply to males and females equally. I can find her quoting that if it helps. Goddessculture (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

From Gods in Everyman by Shinoda-Bolen: "When I speak about gods in Everyman, I discover that women often find that a particular god [archetype] exists in them as well, just as I found that when I spoke about goddesses men could identify a part of themselves with a specific goddess. Gods and goddesses represent different qualities in the human psyche. The pantheon of Greek deities together, male and female, exist as archetypes in us all... There are gods and goddesses in everyperson." [p.x-xi]

Although Layton-Schapira does not mention the cross-gender application of the Apollonic archetype (she applies it only to males in her examples), I can only assume she holds the same standard 'jungian' position as Shinoda-Bolen does- that the archetype can apply to both sexes. Goddessculture (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

CORRECTION: Sorry, I just remembered, Layton-Shapira does discuss at length the Apollonic archetype as it plays itself out in women's psyche. That is a definate..... I just remembered. This means that we can definitely include LS as having the same view as Shinoda-Bolen lays out above.... which as I mentioned is a standard Jungian belief anyway. At the same token LS doesn't anywhare mention the "Cassandra" theme as operating for some males... suggesting she is still genderizing things somewhat. Goddessculture (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that I need to get OUT there and start "Vulcanizing" guys for all I am worth to level the balance. *chuckles* Can we lay out the standard Jungian Apollonic archetype to define Layton-Shapira's contention I wonder? Just to convey a balanced concept?

I hate gender stereotyping...and it is really a shame to have to introduce these concepts here in terms of it...are there even "see alsos" that bend the genders on this even under other names? Can we find some? --Zeraeph (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the standard Apollonic archetype is extensively defined in Shinoda-Bolen's book (which work is widely accepted as a standard series of Jungian archetype definitions), which I'll take an extract from later and post here. There may be a see-also somewhere too. I'll have a look when I come home from work tonight and paste anything I find here. Goddessculture (talk) 23:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

From Gods in Everyman by Shinoda-Bolen:

Apollo The Archetype

"As an archetype, Apollo personifies the aspect of the personality that wants clear definitions, is drawn to master a skill, values order and harmony, and prefers to look at the surface rather than at what underlies appearances. The Apollo archetype favors thinking over feeling, distance over closeness, objective assessment over subjective intuition." [p.135]

S-Bolen spends about 30 pages elaborating this archetype, but the above is from her opening. Can't find any direct mention of the "Apollo woman" but as in the quote I provided further above she sees this and all archetypes as belonging to men and women both. Goddessculture (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Cassandra as delusional

The online Wisegeek entry provides a variant of the Cassandra metaphor which emphasizes delusion: "In psychology, the Cassandra Syndrome... refers to people with a mistaken belief that they can foretell the future, as part of the psychosis. It is usually a part of schizophrenia or extreme mania, and is related to delusions of grandeur."

I notice too a reference to Gaston Bachelard having defined the "Cassandra Complex" as "the childish belief that all things can be known in advance, by one's parents for instance." (This mention was in Kaplan, A., Feminism and Film p.296 (2000)). I am assuming a more detailed mention is provided in one of Bachelard's own works.

The point of these descriptions is that the insights or predictions of modern-day Cassandras are accurately characterized as delusional. This might deserve a small heading of its own at the end of the article, if anyone is prepared to read up about it or provide the detail. As for me, I've done what I can for the entry and turn it over to others. Goddessculture (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Title

It is best to avoid tacking adjectives such as "complex" "dilemma" "phenomenon" to the title as these may apply to idiosyncratic usages or contexts. The philosopher Gaston Bachelard, for instance, uses the adjective "complex" to refer to childishness, while Laurie Layton-Shapira uses the adjective "complex" to refer to hysteria. Others use the adjective "phenomenon" to refer strictly to the experience of family members of those with an autism spectrum disorder. "Syndrome" and "dilemma" are also adjectives pertaining to idiosyncratic use of the Cassandra metaphor.

What this means is that as soon as we place just one of these idiosyncratic adjectives in the title we have then disqualified other labels with different adjectives. EG. If we create the title as "Cassandra Complex" we immediately disqualify "Cassandra Syndrome" or "Cassandra phenomenon" which point to very different ideas than those pointed to by Bachelard or Laurie-Layton-Shapira's 'Cassandra complex'.

The reference to Bachelard's use of the term does not mean he was the first and only one to use it, ie. I placed that reference in the article simply as an early modern example. There are examples of "Cassandra" being applied as metaphor all the way back to ancient Greek times when the myth was first written.

The way around this problem is to simply use the title "Cassandra", to which can be added the bracketed disambiguation term- (metaphor). This keeps it neutral and avoids idiosyncratic bias.

Please discuss this issue here before making any alterations as this issue originally took a while to be resolved. If you have a better title in mind then suggest it here with your reasoning in order to gain consensus. Goddessculture (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusing

This I find unclear:

"Cassandra's need to point out moral infringements and subsequent social consequences is driven by what Klein calls 'the destructive influences of the cruel super-ego' which is represented in the Greek myth by the god Apollo, Cassandra's overlord and persecutor."

Is the "destruct influences of the cruel super-ego" the mechanism in Cassandra's psyche that makes her issue predictions to others or is she responding to the destructive influences as personified by Apollo? I can't tell from this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SemblaceII (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think its the first one; the mechanism in Cassandra's psyche that makes her issue predictions to others. 121.222.22.104 (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I was/am confused by this as well. It really should be rewritten by someone who understands. Billybass (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Precognition in media ... broadly?

The Dead Zone is largely about the protagonist wrestling with how to act on his precognition. Does that apply here? What of precognition in other media? LoneStarNot (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

William Connor wrote as "Cassandra" in the Daily Mirror

William Connor famously wrote as "Cassandra" for the Daily Mirror newspaper in The UK - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connor

broken link under See als0

Sorry, I don't have time to figure out how to fix it, so just putting it here to keep track. Maybe must delete the link entirely?

• Cassandra – Modern usage