Shadow of Vanity
For the Shadow of Vanity belonging to the 12th Gene Key, I am going to try to tackle this shadow in a different format than I usually use. I am going to explore this shadow through the Gift of the 12th Gene Key, Discrimination. I typically only take in the shadow, use the Gift and Siddhi (“enlightened”) as a part of the tips for working with the shadow. Yet when I started truly contemplating this Gene Key and how to best approach it in a realistic perspective, it actually made more sense to approach it from the 12th Gift: Discrimination.
Discrimination, n. (Google Oxford Languages)
1. The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability.
2. Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
Now as you read the definition of Discrimination, you can see that there are two main definitions. The first one is the shadow side of discrimination, which is rooted in fear and supremacy culture. The second is understanding a difference, which sounds a lot like discernment. Difference is not a bad thing. Difference can just is a way to look at each person’s individual humanity.
So now let’s loop in the Shadow of Vanity.
Vanity, n. Excessive pride in or admiration of one’s own appearance or achievement. (Google Oxford Languages)
The Repressive Nature of the Shadow of Vanity is Elitist. From Gene Keys by Richard Rudd: “These characters may agree with you outwardly, but inwardly feel very differently from what they say. Often, they refrain from making any comment at all, preferring to remain detached.” Elitist also sounds to me like the weaponization of silence. “They can take pride in being different or in being beyond any creed or system.” Spiritual bypassing falls under this as well as Rudd states “this is the domain of the spiritually evolved – those few who have done a lot of work on themselves.”
The Reactive Nature of the Shadow of Vanity is Malicious. Malice is rooted in that first definition of Discrimination noted above. The intent is to cause harm, it “stems from anger, which in turn stems from fear.” They know how to use their voice. They know how to sound like they are the victim, when, in fact, they are the perpetrator. More importantly, they know how to use their voice to have power over people.
When I read the Gift of Discrimination and thought about it from the perspective of the Shadow of Vanity, it made me think of a Reel I saw from @ckyourprivilege. In the Reel, which is about the propensity for people to use the phrase of “not all men” or “not all white people” and the way these statements perpetuate harm. The analogy given in the video goes something like this:
The caveat to this is that you don’t know which shark is which.
I love this analogy and think it’s a great representation of why we need often say things like “all men until no men.” Meaning we need to do what we need to do to feel safe around sharks and since we don’t know which sharks are dangerous, we end up feeling suspicious of all sharks. I have every right to feel suspicious of all sharks because I don’t know which ones want to eat me. What that looks like from my perspective is that I set boundaries, keep my space, and use discernment. Afterall, boundaries are for me. They are not for the other person. They are meant to dictate my own behavior and not to dictate or control another’s behavior. When appropriate, I gather information to determine where each shark is different and discriminate from there. In this case, I mean the second definition of discrimination: Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
I naively thought that’s how other people viewed this analogy, too. Over the past couple months, especially, we’ve seen the extremes of what happens when we operate from the shadow side of discrimination; when we operate from the Shadow of Vanity. There was a quiet part that is now being said out loud by people that essentially says: Because I don’t know which shark wants to eat me, kill all of the sharks. Then, while killing all of the sharks, we may find out which sharks were actually ready to eat me. Well, since we can’t let that slide, we kill the family and friends of the hungry shark because they’re culpable by association. And if we happen to kill unhungry sharks, that’s their fault for being a shark to begin with. The same with their family and friends because their existence is a threat as well.
Now replace the word sharks with a group of people that you don’t like or feel safe around be that a political party, an ethnic group, a group of people of the same religion, any cultural group, any groups people who have dogmatic beliefs, people of a certain profession, etc. So, no, I can’t get behind the killing of all the sharks “because you don’t know which one is hungry.” That’s the “easy” way out. It means you can get away with only looking at life as a binary. It means you don’t need to consider anyone else’s feelings. It means you don’t want to do the hard work of discernment. Boundaries are hard. Discernment is hard. Sometimes the easy way out isn’t the right way.
The Shadow of Vanity says my safety/fear/trauma trumps everyone else’s safety/fear/trauma. My safety/fear/trauma will not discriminate between threats and non-threats; from one human being to another. My safety/fear/trauma determines some people should not be viewed as human beings at all. My safety/fear/trauma, however valid, overrules the validity of anyone else’s trauma, including (but not limited to), my own involvement in perpetuating the other’s trauma.
“Vanity only stops being vanity when you realize that to love yourself is to actually love everyone else… Vanity is afraid that if you come from your heart you will lose your power.” It goes on to say: “Vanity does however have an arch-enemy - which is love. Vanity keeps you from truly loving another because it keeps you isolated. You may be beautiful, intelligent, and virtuous, but still with vanity, you will remain defended against others. The more evolved your consciousness becomes, the subtler and therefore more powerful your vanity becomes. Vanity is a shield that, along with it’s programming partner the 11th Shadow of Obscurity, hides the truth from you. For the kind of people who are drawn to reading this material, vanity is one your great challenges.”
As the quote above states, it is closely related to the Shadow of Obscurity. The Shadow of Obscurity is a confirmation bias in what you see, while the Shadow of Vanity is a confirmation bias in what you hear; hence the statement above that they “hide the truth from you.” In it’s most basic form, “the 12th shadow is the love of your own uniqueness.” Through this version of love, judgement lies. When you hold yourself in this highest regard through your beauty, intelligence or virtuosity, you also turn your nose down on those who do not look, think, or act like you. On an individual basis this resembles the myth of Narcissus. On a collective level, it looks like genocide, oppression, occupation, and bigotry towards groups of people.
It is through this judgement that we may also start to develop awareness around where we fall prey to Vanity. As I’ve stated in other posts, the intent is to never look at these shadows through lens of the binary: good or bad or evil, right or wrong. These are judgements. These are opinions. These are thoughts and emotions. They are not facts. This Shadow is quite possibly the most challenging to step beyond because it forces you to look at all the ways you make exceptions for your judgements. When we think of judgements, we should consider that judgements are an extension of our identity as a comparison to another’s perceived identity. I am good, therefore they are bad or evil. I am right, therefore they are wrong. That said, behaviors may be harmful, but Shadow of Vanity says behaviors are not who someone is. Behaviors are what someone does.
Debbie Ford, American self-help author, noted in her book Dark Side of the Light Chasers that we are all capable of being and doing horrific things. All it takes is a series of circumstances in our lives and these aspects/people we like to label as bad or evil could very well have been us. When people interviewed serial killers, they found individuals who all experienced developmental trauma in their childhoods and were subjected to intense shaming events that shaped who they are. Ford is not trying to excuse the behavior; she is pointing out that under certain circumstances, we could have easily become different people. The challenge is in looking at people that we seek to condemn and remember that somewhere in there is a person. It’s not excusing their behavior; it’s remembering their humanity. The task in shadow work is to ask yourself these questions. “Challenge the person you think you are in order to unveil the person you are capable of becoming", says Ford.
“ This is the vexation. This is the rub. My enemy is a person, and it is a difficult thing (if not an impossible one) for me to make an enemy - to desire and to pray for the destruction - of an actual person, and not simply my idea of them. I am the divine experiencing itself (and so is my enemy). The Universe delights in my existence (as it delights in the existence of my enemy). My dignity & humanity are innate, inalienable (just like the innate & inalienable dignity & humanity of my enemy). My path is illuminated by the fire of righteousness (the very fire that warms the house and heart of my enemy). I am a person; I pray for the safety of all persons. I am a person; I will not pray for the destruction of any person.” - @InquisitiveHuman - James-Olivia Chu Hillman
How to work with this shadow:
I’ve brought up the work of @InquisitiveHuman (James-Olivia Chu Hillman) on Instagram before and this work lines up nice with working with this shadow. Look them up, give them a follow, or take a look at how you may work with them. Here are some questions/statements that you should consider challenging yourself with:
Where do I use my most self-righteous judgements to feel better than others, rather than letting my judgements point me back to the places I can root into my own responsibility for living my values and commitment?
What is a just and loving way forward when someone has been harmed and someone has done harm?
Where do I perpetuate my own suffering by attending solely to that which I claim to oppose and neglecting that which I wish to see thrive? (Am I loving, in action, what I claim to love?)
Where do I point my righteous finger at the burning world and overlook where I perpetuate war in my home, my family, my friendships & community, my work, my organizations, my politics?
The injustice of disregard cannot [be] remedied by retaliating with greater disregard. Whose grief can I witness right now with a bit more care? (Perhaps it’s my own.) Whose pain can I regard right now with greater compassion? (Perhaps it’s my own.) Whose humanity can I regard a bit more fiercely right now? (Perhaps it’s my own.) In whose punishment and dehumanization will I refuse to participate in this or any moment? (Perhaps it’s my own.) Whose life will I regard with the reverence a life merits? Whose death will I regard with the reverence a death commands? (Everything is not about me.)
Some more questions:
Where do you seek to judge something/someone as good, bad, or evil?
Where do you seek to place that judgement without first looking at what may have brought that on to begin with? What is that person’s/group of people’s background or history?
What are the intersections of their identities? What systems of oppression impact them? In what ways do I uphold the systems of oppression that impact the people I’m judging?
Consider the places that you use your fear, anger, and righteousness as power over others. Consider the places that you use your fear, anger, and righteous to punish others. One more Inquisitive Human quote: “Punishment: The relational fuckery of attempting to force, control, coerce, or manipulate someone - including myself - into compliance by making it painful, unpleasant, or impossible to exist as who they authentically are. (See also: Abuse).”
Am I willing to challenge my beliefs? Where did I get angry or defensive when I read any of the above post? Am I willing to get curious about my reactions?
These two quotes for you two consider do not just apply to romantic love, but all love. They apply for all levels of relationality between human beings.
“Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it.” - Rumi
“…part of becoming more loving is recognizing when & why you’ve tolerated less than loving behavior.” - @ddamascenaa
What barriers to love do you have? In what ways may I go about dismantling these barriers?
When and why have you tolerated less than loving behavior?
Sometimes we are not given a choice with the unloving behavior of others. It wasn’t your fault. What is something loving you wish you would have heard as a child or in any other moment when you were on the receiving end of unloving behavior?
If you have not been interested in anti-racism work before, then it might be time to get into it. If you’ve already been into it, then maybe it’s time to dig deeper. Layla F. Saad’s book Me and White Supremacy and Myisha T. Hill’s book Healing Your Way Forward are good places to start. Follow them on social media and learn. Blair Imani, Amanda Seales, and Resmaa Menakem are other people to follow and learn from. It’s never too late to challenge your beliefs.
Develop greater self-awareness. Consider my Owning My Sh*t course.
Consider your boundaries and what your skill level is. Remember: boundaries are for you. There are boundaries worksheets included in my Honor Your No Course workbook. Otherwise, read Set Boundaries, Find Peace: A Guide to Reclaiming Yourself by Nedra Glover Tewwab (affiliate link-Bookshop.org). There’s also a workbook (affiliate link - Bookshop.org) to accompany her book.
Not sure how to work with this? Check out this Blog Post here to see how to work with the Shadows. Also, feel free to check out my courses Honoring Your No and Owning My Sh*t here to help work on that self-awareness piece.
Disclaimer: What I find unhelpful with the Gene Keys text is that it is more spiritual than realistic, especially when these states are resulting in mental illness. Maybe all mental illness has a root in shadow, but that isn’t for me to say and it is super invalidating for people who experience these states. So as you read through this, or any of these shadows, know that your own experience is valid regardless of impersonal spiritual texts. This goes for Gene Keys, Human Design, and any other spiritual text even from world religions. If these texts invalidate a person’s humanity, then it’s the text that is the problem and not the person. Always use personal discernment. More of my two-cents on spiritual and religious dogma, modalities, and texts here.