East of eden
A Masterclass on the human psyche
I recently binged East is Eden on Netflix.
(I’d just come back from a long weekend travelling and needed a sofa day).
OMG, it was sooooo good!
Such a stunning rendition of this classic, with an exceptional cast and script. It also brought to the fore sooo many juicy issues that are right on theme with our current Venus in Scorpio retrograde period.
I couldn’t help but analyse it through the lens of Jungian psychology, alchemy and individuation - beyond the original biblical allegory and into a masterclass on the human psyche!
(Potential spoiler alerts below)
Let’s dive in:
1. Transcending duality
What I loved most was that it blasted open the old dichotomy, false reduction, and character assassination of an individual as either “good” or “bad”.
It brought in the third neutralising force: context.
Namely the developmental and familial context, and how this shapes almost every character.
Through the exploration and subtle presentation of this contextual force (namely unhealed ancestral trauma), we are presented with a kind of alchemical salt…something to break down the seemingly stuck, rigid dichotomy of judgement into a more nuanced understanding.
“Once you label me, you negate me” Kierkegaard
The family constellation and story arc are wide and long enough to show us repeating patterns of unhealed ancestral trauma, as well as the opportunities and spaces for resolution and healing.
2. The patriarchal context
This false division of good vs bad is presented through a patriarchal lens.
In both generations, we can see how the father chooses and prefers the son whom he believes is the most “good” - which he defines as living within the moral parameters of a good life as he and society define it.
The good son then becomes an extension and defence of their own self-concept. Note: not the true self - but the persona - the version of themselves they are psychologically able to handle and accept without breakdown—the one their ego defends.
The “bad” or rejected son, by contrast, is far more illustrative of their unexpressed and rejected shadow self.
But the role of the good son - in both Adam and Aaron’s case - comes with clear limitations: psychological fragility, a sense of entitlement, an unintegrated shadow (that they project), and a tendency to split when faced with anything that challenges their self-concept. Plus an ignorant folly alongside psychological rigidity and naivety.
By contrast, the “bad” son is far more psychologically developed. They are aware of their shadow qualities and how to work with them. They can hold the good and bad aspects within a person (e.g. Cal with Kate) without crumbling. They see the range of these qualities in themselves and others. As a result, they are closer to the wholeness of the truth. Their shadow is both more integrated and expressed, and as a result they have greater capacity for authenticity, love and access to their power.
Across both generations, it is the context- their father’s influence and unhealed generational trauma - that determines their lines of fate. In the first generation, the father’s direct actions interrupt and determine the son’s destiny. In the second, the father’s approval has the same psychological impact and diverts them from authentic development: his distorted opinion carries too much weight in his sons’ psyches.
It is the core wound - rejection and the fear/shame of being bad - that held all sons back from fully owning the true scope of their power and gift, and instead forced them to adopt the label of “good” or “bad” into their identity.
3. The origin of the monstrous
By contrast, the female main character (Cathy, later Kate) charts a course for herself with seeming ruthless and unwavering self-agency - almost sociopathic in its nature.
And yet, when we throw in the context, we could argue that this self-concept is less a shadow side than a survival persona identifying almost completely with the patriarchal monster that shattered her original innocence through (what is alluded to as child rape).
This distortion and disturbance from her innate connection to her “goodness,” or light, serves a purpose. It creates both a vehicle for survival (becoming a predator in a world of predators) and an opportunity for agency.
The poetic power of using Alice in Wonderland to explain how she hides and severs from her light and innocence to survive captures a collective truth for women: having to shrink their light while taking on a false, hypervigilant, and sometimes ruthless persona (albeit not always to this extreme!) to survive.
Once again, we see in Kate’s case that the distortion can be understood only within the context: a course of fate set up by a monstrous patriarchal figure. It does not diminish the ruthlessness of her actions, but it weaves in something else: understanding.
4. Mirror and contrast as our teachers
Prophetic, just like the biblical Samuel, character Sam (unlike the blinkered and psychologically rigid Adam) sees the truth in Cathy from the start. The good and the bad. He can see because he recognises shadow in himself and has integrated it. He has integrated his Anima, unlike Adam, who projects an image of perfection onto her - needing her to be perfect to protect his own self-image—a classic act of psychological co-dependency.
Almost tragically, Sam embodies a contrasting patriarchal figure: a healthy father devoted to his family, rich in spirit, and showing unconditional love to his own children and Adam. I was left wondering…who would Cathy and Adam have been should they have grown up with someone like Sam as their father?
5. The truth always comes out…the force of individuation
As the story unfolds, each person’s individuation forces the truth forward, no matter the context or potential impact:
A final reach for atonement in the face of apostasy (Kate).
An irrevocable splitting expressed physically in his face (Adam).
A glimmer of redemption from the wound of rejection and shame (Cal).
An embodiment of true authenticity (Abra).
An inability to integrate truth leading to destruction on all levels (Aaron).
The external outcomes mirror the inner psyches of all our characters.
6. The role of the alchemist
And we are left with perhaps the most beautiful of all the characters: Lee. Whose embodied devotion, forgiveness, grace, grief and love become the thread of salvation that runs throughout the whole family and their story.
He ultimately teaches us a middle way beyond the judgment of right or wrong. He is measured and reasoned, whilst anchored in his heart. He is no stranger to disappointment or discrimination, yet rather than make him bitter and twisted, these things have fostered in him both humility and dignity.
He is the transcendent change-maker within this tale. He is the alchemist who takes every situation and refines it, turning lead to gold.
So what is the gold that he gives both us - the watcher - and the characters of this tale? :
7. Timshel: “thou mayest” and power of choice
An opening. An activation. That despite our seeming fate, or the sometimes catastrophic weight of our wounding, generational or developmental trauma, family dynamics, tragedy, limitation, discrimination or misfortune, our true path remains open.
For we hold the power in each and every moment to choose our own future. To take what we are given (the lead), break it down, sift and sort for the truth and reach something of greater purity, value and truth - to create our own gold from within.
In the end, we see that this personal agency wins out. Not perhaps to full enlightenment, but definitely towards a progression of consciousness.
In our characters we see Timshel liberate:
Adam (and Cal) - through the choice of forgiveness.
Charles - in his choice to love Cathy, and therefore his own shadow.
Kate/Cathy - as she finally reunites with her inner child and original innocence.
Lee - through the realisation of purpose as he shares his wisdom.
JOURNAL PROMPTS
So, as we revisit the underworld with Scorpio as our guide, here are some shadow enquiry questions for you to explore:
Where do I reduce someone to their faults or only their attributes?
Why does this feel easier? How do I feel if I allowed all of it to be true?
When did I first feel this way?
What was going on (context)?
How does this further explain why this might be challenging?
What aspects of my own power/shadow have I disowned as monstrous rather than sitting with to understand their purpose?
What am I scared this will mean about me?
What qualities (in myself or others) do I tend to judge and struggle to hold together as complex parts of the whole?
Can you interview each quality to understand the positive purpose it might serve in a given context?
