Do opposites attract, as the cliché suggests? Obviously, they do. We readily see evidence of this in our own lives, as well as the lives of others-- friends, acquaintances, even strangers. But what do we mean when we make this statement or observation? Upon what sorts of things do we base this conclusion? Usually, ostensible behaviors or interests. We say, "he likes to go out, she likes to stay in." "She is a summer person, he is a winter person." But these are, at best, superficial reflections that provide little insight into the psychological dynamics intrinsic to the phenomenon of opposites attracting. In this essay, I am going to discuss the idea of antipodal attraction in terms of concepts and principles proposed by Chris Saade, the founder and director of The Institute for Life-Leadership & Coaching (ILC).   

            A key element of Saade's teaching centers on the notion of archetypes. Clearly a great deal of work has been done in this area. Saade draws from the fundamental work of Jung, as well as the writings of Carol Pearson, Robert Moore, and other contemporaries. Before we go any further, though, What are archetypes? Simply put, in terms of the human makeup, they are instinctive manners of operating in the world, particular and distinct psychological and behavioral modes of being. Saade borrows from Carol Pearson's list of archetypes and has also suggested, as the result of his own observations and extensive work with others, the importance of additional archetypes. Listed below are forty-six archetypes--twelve taken from Carol Pearson's seminal Awakening the Heroes Within and an additional thirty-four suggested by Saade--along with a brief description of values and actions that can be readily associated with each one. Opposite characteristics have been added to help clarify the essence of each archetype. 

            Inspired directly by Jung, Saade teaches that within each individual psyche, there are predominant or leading archetypes. I invite you to spend some time looking over the list and determine three archetypes that you most recognize as being highly predominant in your makeup. Try to approach this determination as intuitively as possible. Keep in mind, too, that no archetype is "better" than another; it is not preferable to have this or that archetype rather than some other one. Each archetype, Saade would suggest, is inherently a reservoir of both power and limitation. So, which of the values do you most hold as sacred? Which of the actions do you see as being most prevalent in your life? Which of the archetypes are "leading" for you?  

             The next key element to understanding what Saade has to offer us is to consider his usage of Jung's notion that while each person will have a set of archetypes which are predominant, he or she will also have a set of archetypes which are least predominant, or exiled. These are those archetypes which show up the least in a person's life, those modes of operating that are least present. To which of the values are you least attached? Which set of actions do you see yourself incorporating the least into your day-to-day life? I invite you to reflect on the list again and determine three archetypes which are "exiled" for you, archetypes which are the least present in your life. 

            To recapitulate: Which archetypes are predominant or leading in your makeup? Which archetypes are least prominent or exiled for you? It is worth noting that many archetypes may be moderately present in a person's makeup; at this time, however, we are interested in determining only those that are leading and exiled.  

            I invite you to reflect on your relationship history. Have each of your partners usually had as leading archetypes at least three archetypes which, for you, are exiled? And have your partners' exiled archetypes usually included at least three archetypes which, for you, are leading? This particular set of dynamics--the antipodal aspects of a partnership--can be referred to as the antipodal zone of the relationship. Also, within every relationship there will be some archetypes that are leading or exiled in both partners, as well as some archetypes that are moderately present in each partner. This set of dynamics can be referred to as the non-antipodal zone of the relationship. Every relationship, it should be remembered, will have its own antipodal and non-antipodal zones.       

            Now we begin to have a deeper and more applicable comprehension of the notion that opposites attract. It is not in the scope of this essay to address in length the psycho-chemical causes of antipodal attraction, but it is worth noting Saade's suggestion (clearly derived from Jung's postulations) that people innately crave completion. According to Saade (influenced by Jung), there is an inherent craving for wholeness, and this instinctive craving leads us to enter into relationships with partners who hold the "other" energies, the opposite(s).  

            We are now equipped with a deeper explanation for the phenomenon of opposites attracting and, though cursorily, have considered  one of many possible reasons for this universal occurrence. But now we must consider Saade's observations regarding the inherent problems accompanying a relationship based on antipodal dynamics. 

            What oftentimes happens when opposites attract? At first, there is a period of apparent impunity, bliss, a time during which one experiences the overwhelming sensation of completeness. The partner, holding for us the opposite energies, bestows upon us the sensation of being whole. Also, our opposite energies are received joyfully and without reservation by the partner. We are in love. We experience, as a result of the partner's involvement in our life, things we have never experienced before. We are truly in Eden. 

            Eventually, however, what often transpires between the partners is a conflictive polarization. Over time, each person becomes entrenched in a seemingly mandated role. Each person becomes the keeper of respective energies. I depend on you, for example, to "be the wanderer" or "be the rebel." You depend on me to "be the wounded or the hunter." We are each thrust, as the result of an unspoken agreement--a silent contract--into a set and intractable role.  

            Ultimately both people become frustrated with the roles they are "required" to maintain. What was initially fresh, stimulating, and aphrodisiacal (the opposite make-up of the other) becomes predictable. Role expectations result in each person experiencing the sensation of being oppressed. Irritation develops; resentment builds. These dynamics offer some explanation for the high divorce rate in America, as well as the number of relationships that regress, after a duration of a few years, into a homeostatic asexuality. It is impossible for this type of relationship to thrive. Either the relationship terminates or a profound and deeply damaging mutual repression of feeling reaches chronicity. Also, it makes sense that this type of relationship would often result in sexual breakdown. How can there be thriving sexual energy in a relationship in which each person ends up feeling that the other is somehow his or her oppressor?  

            To recapitulate, each person has leading and exiled archetypes. Furthermore, a person will be attracted to those archetypes which are exiled for him or her. While opposites attracting is a powerful and ultimately inevitable function of nature, it also presents potential problems, in that an antipodal relationship can frequently lead to role designation and the feeling, for both partners involved, that it is their job or responsibility to function unfailingly within rigidly defined parameters. 

            Are people destined to passionately come together and subsequently be driven apart by the very thing that attracted them? Not necessarily. The answer, Saade tells us, can be found in the process of intentional inversion (applied so as to facilitate a moment of impact). 

            For the sake of further simplicity, here (below) is a condensed version of the above table, in which we focus on one value from each leading archetype, one deleted leading action, and one substitutive action from each exiled archetype:

            This particular inversion involves holding the values of independence, simplicity, and exploration, but manifesting them, or making them real, through the (in this case) unfamiliar actions of "amending what is," "speaking about your wounds," and “keeping your ‘eyes on the prize’” (rather than “going against the crowd,” “getting back to basics,” and “going with the flow”).  

            Now, what can intentional inversion/the moment of impact model do for a relationship? It will give each person, first, the opportunity to have breakthroughs in his or her own life, to be present to experiences otherwise unavailable. A thriving individual life is, of course, an essential ingredient to a successful relationship. In addition, the critical moment of intentional inversion, if applied in the context of the relationship, will break the role-oriented structure of the relationship. It will reduce the habitual. It will minimize the rigidity so often endemic to an antipodal relationship and, in so doing, will infuse the relationship with freshness and unpredictability. Each partner will be relinquishing attachment to a set model and, as a result, interacting with the other from a place of vulnerability. In essence, inversion/a facilitated moment of impact will breathe new life into the relationship and offer each person the opportunity to negotiate with the other from a place of freedom. Each partner will experience increased stimulation and inspiration, and the presence of each partner to the relationship will exponentially increase. In addition, sexual energies will be reawakened and/or augmented.  

            Let's take an example: Joe and Becky have been married for three years. They both share several exiled and leading archetypes, as well as some archetypes that are moderately present in both their makeups. However, the antipodal zone of their relationship is defined as follows: Joe has the wounded, rebel, and orphan as leading archetypes while Becky has a leading warrior, hunter, and ruler. In addition, warrior, hunter, and ruler are exiled for Joe while wounded, rebel, and orphan are exiled for Becky. These particular leading and exiled archetypes, again, define Becky and Joe's particular antipodal zone. There are areas in Joe and Becky's marriage that continue to be satisfying for both of them; however, the above mentioned antipodal dynamics, and the customary accompanying patterns of predictability/reactivity, put huge strains on each partner as well as the relationship, consistently precipitating breakdowns. Becky and Joe are entrenched in a vicious cycle we can refer to as antipodal disintegration. How can the process of intentional inversion help Joe and Becky to have a breakthrough? 

            We need to remember Saade's suggestion that our values are the things that are core to who we are (the things that give our life direction), not our actions. Hence, values cannot be forsaken, nor can their intrinsic importance be in any way minimized. Our actions, however, are, again, forms and therefore substitutive. To return to our example, Becky (with leading warrior, hunter, and ruler) is going to be committed to the values of courage, resilience, sturdiness, protectiveness, focus, persistence, tenacity, pursuit, structure, responsibility, and order. These are the things (values) that define or set the direction of Becky's life. Joe (with leading wounded, rebel, and orphan) is going to hold as sacrosanct (and have his life-direction defined accordingly) the values of brokenness, vulnerability, struggle, independence, individuality, freedom, security, belonging, and caution. These values, respectively, are, again, what make Joe and Becky who they are. The breakdowns in their relationship occur as a result of the rigidity of the actions used to further these respective values. Becky is accustomed to furthering or manifesting her values by setting boundaries, challenging, going through obstacles, "closing the deal," "keeping her eyes on the prize," tracking, organizing, delegating, and categorizing while Joe typically concretizes his values by speaking about wounds, acknowledging pain, displaying wounds, saying no, resisting the status quo, trying to be different, asking for help, withdrawing if the situation gets overwhelming, and saying "I can't." There is a compulsivity and predictability to Becky and Joe's respective actions. Becky and Joe, as a couple, have grown tired of the predictability of the other's behavior. It is as if they each "know what the other is going to do before he or she even does it." 

            The fascinating thing about this particular type of intentional inversion (couple inversion used to counter antipodal dynamics) is that both Becky and Joe, should they choose to bring inverted actions into their lives, will be embracing the leading actions of the other. However, they will be executing these actions in order to further their own leading values. In addition, these actions, being in each case associated with an exiled archetype and therefore non-habitual, will be respectively unfamiliar and characterized by erotic vulnerability. Quite simply, this moment of inversion will have an aphrodisiacal affect. Both Becky and Joe will experience a heightened sense of receptivity to the other; in addition, the typical defensiveness with which they customarily approach the other will be defused. Both Becky and Joe will experience an emancipation from their "assigned" roles. They will be less guarded and more open to the position of the other. Any and all processes of negotiation and/or dialogue will result in increased fruitfulness. They will find themselves interacting with each other from a place of freedom, rather than obligation; the relationship will be transformed from a static arrangement to something vitally organic, something fed by the conscious commitment of each partner as well as the universal life-force (Eros) itself. 

            Becky and Joe's joint inversion can be expressed as follows: 

Becky's Leading Values MANIFESTED THROUGH her Exiled Actions (typically Joe's Leading Actions) + Joe's Leading Values MANIFESTED THROUGH his Exiled Actions (typically Becky's Leading Actions) = for the relationship: INFUSION OF VULNERABILITY, FRESHNESS, REDUCTION OF PREDICTABILITY/HABITUALNESS = BREAKTHROUGH 

       It is important for a couple to be aware of their antipodal and, to a lesser degree, non-antipodal zones. If you are currently involved in a relationship, and both you and your partner are interested in the ideas discussed in this piece, the two of you might set aside some time to determine your respective leading and exiled archetypes, and, in turn, define the antipodal zone of your relationship.  You could then discuss the applicability of inversion to your unique situation.  

            Do opposites attract? Of course they do. However, as is evidenced by the high divorce rate, as well as the number of relationships that become sexually eviscerated, the phenomenon of opposites attracting is inherently problematic. Many relationships founded on antipodal dynamics become stunted and sterile, ultimately ending or, worse, persisting in a climate of mutual repression and denial. The ground on which the relationship first bloomed becomes the ground on which it wilts. But Saade offers us an alternative, one that we cannot afford to overlook.