The Price of Functioning: Being a Mask and Living the Archetype

A useful example to introduce the difference between mask and archetype in the Bodymind system is people-pleasing in intimate relationships.

When a person, in order to avoid conflict, constantly adapts to the other’s expectations and sets aside their own needs, they wear a mask: a constructed face that guarantees apparent harmony but, over time, costs dearly—both to psychophysical health and to the quality of the relationship.

The mask represents adaptation to an external image that often contradicts inner truth. It can serve as a momentary defense; but if it becomes a fixed identity, it suffocates vitality.

The archetype, by contrast, is the conscious activation of a symbolic pattern of the true Self: not a disguise to please others, but an inner resource that organizes behavior, emotions, and choices in a coherent way.

In this sense, living in archetypes allows one to give shape and meaning to experience, while using the mask in a limited and conscious way becomes a protective strategy without falling into identification.

This is where “the price of functioning in the mask” versus “realizing one’s own archetypes” plays out.

The Mask: Adaptation and False Self

Donald Winnicott described the False Self as a defensive construction arising from early adaptation to parental expectations. The child develops behaviors that secure acceptance and social survival—at the price of sacrificing spontaneous expression.

Neurobiologically, this corresponds to processes of social regulation mediated by the amygdala and prefrontal cortical networks: one learns to suppress genuine impulses in order to activate safer, less conflict-prone schemas.

When such adaptation becomes a chronic habit, the body enters a state of repeated stress and accumulates allostatic load—the biological “wear and tear” produced by continuous activation of neuroendocrine stress systems, with altered cortisol trajectories and autonomic mediators. This key concept in contemporary stress biology explains how prolonged masking can translate into somatic and psychological vulnerability.12

In social and cognitive science, the mask can also be viewed as a strategy of impression management—the ongoing adjustment of the expressed identity to group norms. The price is dissonance between experienced-lived and presented self, along with increased monitoring effort.

This is where the idea of consumption or redirection of self-regulatory resources comes in: maintaining a mask requires inhibitory control, selective attention, and metacognitive monitoring—all “expensive” prefrontal functions.

The classical resource model of self-control has been partly questioned; more recent work speaks of dynamic shifts in motivation and attention after exertion that transiently reduce the capacity for subsequent self-regulation.

This clarifies the point: mask fatigue is not simply a “tank running empty,” but a re-balancing of cognitive and emotional priorities that is paid for in increased reactivity and impulsivity.34

In Bodymind terms, this dynamic shows up bodily: patterns of hypertonus, shallower breathing, and movement schemas that are more economical but less spontaneous.

Psychophysiological literature links such states to less flexible autonomic regulation; technically, this is associated with reduced heart-rate variability and diminished integration among cognitive, affective, and autonomic networks—as described by the neurovisceral integration model.56

The Archetype: Activation of the True Self

C. G. Jung understood archetypes as universal matrices of psychic experience. When they are not passively “suffered,” but recognized and consciously activated, the archetype becomes an existential strategy.

It is not social imitation but a symbolic choice: for example, embodying the Warrior archetype not to please, but to draw deliberately on courage and discipline in a real situation. This reading remains theoretical on the Jungian plane, yet can be rendered in contemporary terms as the use of deep narrative schemas to organize motivation and conduct.7

The scientifically interesting difference is that here there is no falsification of the self, but integration. Research in cognition and neuroscience shows that identity is not a fixed “essence,” but a dynamic narrative system integrating bodily signals, memories, and projects.

In this view, activating an archetype means using a narrative “format” that aligns perceptions, emotions, and choices with one’s sense of personal continuity.

Such coherence pays off in regulation: greater agency, better stress management, and—physiologically—more flexible autonomic profiles. Antonio Damasio describes this level as the autobiographical self, in which narrative integrates embodied patterns over time.89

This is where cognitive reframing (cognitive reappraisal) comes in: the intentional redefinition of an event’s meaning to modulate its emotional impact. This strategy is well documented: reframing a failure as a learning step, or a challenge as an opportunity, shifts emotion patterns, attention, and behavior.

In embodied Bodymind terms, archetypal activation functions like an embodied reappraisal: the symbol guides posture, tone, and breath in alignment with the chosen meaning, producing observable effects on the physiological response.1011

Crucial Difference: Deception versus Symbolization

To show the other side of the coin, consider a highly competitive business meeting. Here the mask is functional: a leader must meet stakeholder expectations, displaying confidence and diplomacy even if something else is felt inside.

This is a “healthy” use of the mask, because it allows one to act within a context where the authentic archetype cannot immediately emerge. Nevertheless, this protection has a cost: stress, distance from the real self, and the risk of rigidity.

Therefore, while it is natural and sometimes necessary to wear the mask, life in the long run is better rooted in the archetype of the authentic self, in order to maintain energy, coherence, and more genuine relationships.

The mask works like an externally imposed code: “If you are not like this, you will not be accepted.” The archetype works like a symbolic code: “If you evoke this pattern, you can give shape and meaning to a facet of your being.” In the first case, the self is constricted; in the second, it is expanded.

From an evolutionary-psychological perspective, the mask arises from fear of exclusion and rejection, while the archetype is rooted in the search for shared meaning.

Bodily speaking, the mask stiffens, the archetype vitalizes: a body in a mask tends toward tonic defense and breath holding; a body in an archetype organizes itself into movement patterns that are more efficient and congruent with the goal.

In self psychology, this appears as self-discrepancies between lived identity and ideal or normative identities, with affective costs; the consciously used archetype reduces this gap by integrating meanings into one’s own life narrative.12

Brief evidence-critical note

“Allostatic load” is an established yet heterogeneously measured construct; there is no single gold-standard biomarker set.

The debate around “ego depletion” shows that resource explanations can be complemented or replaced by process models (motivation/attention); replication findings are mixed. HRV findings within the neurovisceral-integration framework are predominantly correlational; causality is suggested only in more recent intervention studies.

Jungian archetypes are culturally and theoretically significant but are considered in experimental psychology to be difficult to falsify—their use here is deliberately metaphorical-heuristic.

---

Sources

1. McEwen, B. S. (1998). Stress, adaptation, and disease: Allostasis and allostatic load. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 840, 33–44. (Europe PMC) ↩

2. Department of Veterans’ Affairs (Australien) (2012/2025). Allostatic Load: A Review of the Literature. Canberra: DVA. ↩

3. Inzlicht, M. & Schmeichel, B. J. (2012). What is ego depletion? Toward a mechanistic revision of the resource model of self-control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(6), 450–455. (Übersichtsartikel/Prozessmodell). (PubMed) ↩

4. Inzlicht, M., Berkman, E. & Elkins-Brown, N. (2014/2015). The neuroscience of “ego depletion”: how the brain can help us understand why self-control seems limited. In: Social Neuroscience (Routledge). (Preprint/Manuskript verfügbar). (sanlab.uoregon.edu, Michael Inzlicht, Michael Inzlicht) ↩

5. Thayer, J. F. & Lane, R. D. (2000). A model of neurovisceral integration in emotion regulation and dysregulation. Journal of Affective Disorders, 61(3), 201–216. (ScienceDirect) ↩

6. Thayer, J. F. et al. (2012). A meta-analysis of heart rate variability and neuroimaging studies: implications for heart rate variability as a marker of stress and health. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(2), 747–756. (Offener Überblicksartikel/Preprints verfügbar). (PubMed, ScienceDirect) ↩

7. Jung, C. G. (1968/2010). The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (CW 9,1). Princeton University Press. (Digitalisierte Auszüge/Archivexemplare verfügbar). (Internet Archive, jungiancenter.org) ↩

8. Damasio, A. (2010). Self Comes to Mind: Constructing the Conscious Brain. Pantheon. (Bibliographische Nachweise / frei zugängliche Archivseiten). (Internet Archive, USC Dornsife) ↩

9. McAdams, D. P. (2001). The Psychology of Life Stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2), 100–122. (Narratives Selbst als Identitätsformat). (self-definingmemories.com) ↩

10. Ochsner, K. N. & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(5), 242–249. (Übersicht zu Reappraisal). (Semantic Scholar) ↩

11. Buhle, J. T. et al. (2014). Cognitive Reappraisal of Emotion: A Meta-Analysis of Human Neuroimaging Studies. Cerebral Cortex, 24(11), 2981–2990. (Open-Access-PDF verfügbar). (canlab.yale.edu) ↩

12. Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-Discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319–340. (Klassische Theorie zu Selbst-Diskrepanzen). (persweb.wabash.edu) ↩