Becoming Real

Seeing Through the Eyes of the Velveteen

Rabbit By Marta Koonz
By the time you are Real, most of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes
drop out and you get loose in the joints and very shabby. But these things dont
matter at all, because once you are Real, you cant be ugly, except to people
who dont understand. (Williams, 2005, p. 17)

rom one vantage point, The Velveteen Rabbit appears a tale for children, a

story that brings to mind beloved toys and childhood dreams. But if we shift our
view just a bit, we can see that the words hold truth and meaning for children of
all ages, young and youngat- heart. A further shift and an imagining into these
very words brings us to a place where the Velveteen Rabbit himself is able to
explain the intricacies of Hillmans archetypal psychology. By gently holding both
the childrens storybook and the story of archetypal psychology side by side, we
will consider the four aspects of this psychology, looking at each in turn through
the eyes of the Velveteen Rabbit.
We will begin by imagining into the story itself, engendering the toys and
allowing ourselves to hear their voices and feel their emotions. We will journey
with Rabbit as he experiences both the joys and struggles of life, and begins to
understand the value of these experiences. Finally, we will consider what it
means to immerse ourselves in the experience of soul-making, to be enchanted,
to open ourselves to the multiplicity present in every moment.
My argument is simple: The story of the Velveteen Rabbit, when read from the
imaginal and reflective perspective of soul, not only provides us with an
opportunity to observe a deepening of events into experiences (Hillman, 1975,
p. xvi), but also engages us, the readers, in the very act of soul-making itself. As
we consider Rabbits transformation to Real, we, in turn, become a bit more
Real. Hillman (1972) shared with us that what we hold close in our imaginal
world are not just images and ideas but living bits of soul; when they are spoken,
a bit of soul is carried with them (p. 182). Rabbit has spoken, he has told us his
tale, and as Hillman observed, When we tell our tales, we give away our souls
(p. 182). It is this bit of soul, given to us by the Velveteen Rabbit, that offers us
the opportunity to become Real.

Archetypal Psychology and Soul

Before embarking on a quest to explore what gives archetypal psychology its
distinct flavor, let us attempt to define the psychology itself. In looking to the
Greek roots of the word psychology we find logos and psyche, speech and soul.
The word archetypal offers a multitude of potential meanings, but for the
purposes of this paper, Hillmans (1977) musings seem best suited: He noted
that archetypal rather than pointing at something, points to something, and this
is value. When we look at an image from an archetypal perspective, we
ennoble or empower the image with the widest, richest, and deepest possible
significance (p. 82). Speech, soul, value, image, significance: These words fall
together for me in a way that asks me to consider archetypal psychology as a
way of interacting with the soul that honors its way of speaking, that recognizes
the value and significance held within the images it shares.

We will journey with Rabbit as he

experiences both the joys and struggles

of life, and begins to understand the

value of these experiences
This viewpoint urges me to consider the word soul, and ponder how it is seen
in this psychology that places such importance upon it. Hillman (1975) stated,
By soul I mean, first of all, a perspective rather than a substance, a viewpoint
towards things rather than a thing itself. This perspective is reflective; it
mediates events and makes differences between ourselves and everything that
happens (p. xvi). He continued, By soul I mean the imaginative possibility in
our natures, the experiencing through reflective speculation, dream, image, and
fantasythat mode which recognizes all realities as primarily symbolic or
metaphorical (Hillman, 1975, p. xvii). Depth psychologist Glen Slater noted that
in Hillmans work The driving concern is for apt perspectiveinsight that
satisfies through its very way of seeing, so that the process of being
psychological, referred to by him as soul-making, becomes the focus (as cited in
Hillman, 2005, p. x). I continue to see the multiplicity. Seeing soul as a thing, as
an internal guiding force, provides an easier handle to grasp when first
encountering the word and concept. It is here I begin with others. I am then able
to move beyond, to sink into soul, to explore the connection that unites my being
with all that surrounds mea recognition of the anima mundi that shares my
spark. Holding this allows me to reflect from a new perspective, to reach the
place where soul and soul-making merge as one and experience and reflection
deepen to a way of being.

Personifying, or Imagining Things

The first element of archetypal psychology we shall explore is that of
personifying, or imagining things. Hillman (1975) defined personifying as the
spontaneous experiencing, envisioning and speaking of the configurations of
existence as psychic presences (p. 12). He saw it as a way of being in the world
and experiencing the world as a psychological field, where persons are given with
events, so that events are experiences that touch us, move us, appeal to us
(Hillman, 1975, p. 13). A sign of this imagining is the use of capital letters, for
words with capital letters are charged with affect, they jump out of their
sentences and become images (Hillman, 1975, p. 14). Personifying is what
makes the story of the Velveteen Rabbit so meaningful: Rabbit and Skin Horse
are not mere toys tossed upon the nursery floor, waiting to be picked up and
given life. They have their own essence that does rely on another, that has no
need for human contact to be brought into existence. We can see the spirit of
this imagining into on multiple levels when we consider becoming Real.
First, there is the word itself: Real. Just as in Jungian psychology there is a
difference between the small s self and the capitol S Self, we see Real
distinguished, set apart by its grown up first letter. Hillman (1975) shared the
Greek and Roman tradition of personifying such psychic powers as Fame,
Insolence, Night, Ugliness, Timing, Hope, to name but a few, a practice that
recognized personifying as a necessary mode of understanding the world and
being in it (p. 13). This act of ensouling paid homage to these powers,
recognizing them as spirits that, if ignored, could manifest themselves in very
tangible ways. Such is the case with Real, for in neglecting this powerful entity,
we open ourselves up to its disappointment.
Just what is Real? We find its roots in nursery magic, strange and wonderful,
and only understood by those playthings that are old and wise and experienced
like the Skin Horse (Williams, 2005, p. 11). The Skin Horse tells us that Real
isnt how you are made, its a thing that happens to you. When a child loves you
for a long, long time, not just to play with you, but REALLY loves you, then you
become Real (Williams, 2005, p. 11). We sense the connection here with Eros,
with Love itself. We feel the story of Eros and Psyche, linking heart and soul,
loving and soul-making. Indeed, Hillman (1975) stated that personifying offers
another avenue of loving, of imagining things in a personal form so that we can

find access to them with our hearts (Hillman, p. 14). He further mused, Perhaps
the loving comes first. Perhaps only through love is it possible to recognize the
person of the soul (Hillman, 1975, p. 44). Thus the love of the Boy and the soul
of the Rabbit unite, Eros and Psyche joined, imagined into being.

Pathologizing, or Falling Apart

The journey of becoming Real begins with the falling apart that is the hallmark of
pathologizing. Hillman (1975) defined pathologizing as the psyches
autonomous ability to create illness, morbidity, disorder, abnormality, and
suffering in any aspect of its behavior and to experience and imagine life through
this deformed and afflicted perspective (p. 57). By the time you are real, most
of your hair has been loved off, and your eyes drop out and you get loose in the
joints and very shabby (Williams, 2005, p. 17); you suffer, you discover
shortcomings, you experience loss. Falling apart is not for the faint of heart, for it
is not an easy journey.
It doesnt happen all at once, said the Skin Horse, Rabbits wise old guide.
You become. It takes a long time. Thats why it doesnt happen often to people
who break easily, or have sharp edges, or who have to be carefully kept
(Williams, 2005, p. 16). Hillman (1975) pointed out that there is necessity in the
travails of becoming, noting that the soul can exist without its therapists but not
without its afflictions (p. 71). All learning involves an element of challenge, the
learning of our authentic self most of all.
It is the struggle that adds the richness. Yes, the idea of growing shabby and
losing your eyes and whiskers is rather sad, and we might find ourselves wishing
that we could become real without these uncomfortable things happening
Williams, 2005, p. 19). But these uncomfortable things are precisely what are
needed, for they are the ingredients necessary to spur the meaningful reflection
that leads to soul-making. Rabbit himself found it uncomfortable, for the boy
hugged him very tight, and sometimes he rolled over on him, and sometimes he
pushed him so far under the pillow that the he could scarcely breathe (Williams,
2005, p. 22).

All learning involves an element of

challenge, the learning of our authentic self
most of all
Hillman (1975) reminded us that the dimension of soul is depth (not breadth or
height) and the dimension of our soul travel is downward (p. xvii), thus we see
how the pushing under plays a vital role, how events that leave us wet through
with the dew and quite earthy from diving into the burrows (Williams, 2005, p.
27) provide us with the grist needed to turn the wheel. We are able to bear our
beautiful velveteen fur getting shabbier and shabbier, and our tails becoming
unsewn, and all the pink rubbed off our noses, (Williams, 2005, p. 25), for this is
an undoing, and the undoing always becomes an opening. The result is a
different perspective, one that deepens before it explains (Slater, as cited in
Hillman, 2005, p. ix). Becoming unsewn, illness, getting shabbier, suffering
these are the opening that lead to a new way of seeing, a way that digs down
into our being before meaning is made.

Psychologizing, or Seeing Through

It is in the psychologizing that we begin to see the glimmers that make sense of
a life that has left us, like the Skin Horse, with a brown coat that is bald in
patches and showed the seams underneath, and with most of the hairs in our
tails having been pulled out to string bead necklaces (Williams, 2005, p. 10).
Hillman described his seeing through as having two interconnected parts: action
and idea. On the one hand, psychologizing. . . is an action. The souls first
habitual activity is reflection. . . and reflection by means of ideas is an activity;

idea-forming and idea-using are actions (1975, pp. 116-117). But more than
action alone, psychologizing also has a need for ideas, for action always enacts
an idea; psychological ideas do not oppose action; rather they enhance it by
making behavior of any kind a significant embodiment of soul (Hillman, 1975, p.
117). Thus we see that action and idea have a senex/puer relationshipthe
senex being the archetypal sage, philosopher or old man, while the puer is the
eternal youth. Much like the senex, an idea consolidates, grounds, and
disciplines, while action, puer-like in nature, flashes with insight and thrives on
fantasy and creativity (Slater, as cited in Hillman, 2005, p. xi). Psychologizing,
with its dance of reflection, with its focus on ideas, acts as guide in our-soulmaking.
The reflective speculation that lives within psychologizing urges us to look
through the lens of What? instead of the philosophical Why? Or the practical
How? It is this shift that makes all the difference, for it is psychologizings what
dissolving first into Which? . . . and then ultimately into Who (Hillman, 1975,
p. 139) that leads us downward into soul. When all our whiskers are loved off,
and the pink lining to our ears turns grey, and our brown spots fade (Williams,
2005, p. 50) we serve Psyche by asking, What is hidden within this loss? or
Which part of me is experiencing this as hurtful? Or Who in me worries that my
whiskers are no more? (Hillman, 1975, p. 139).
It is this style of questioning that implies that everything everywhere is a matter
for the psyche, matters to itis significant, offers a spark, releases or feeds soul
(Hillman, 1975, p. 138). When we are led to ask, Who in me feels very
insignificant and commonplace (Williams, 2005, p. 9), we probe the gash that
life has slashed within us, a move that invites Psyche to enter. It is this invitation,
humbly offered, that allows our open wounds to begin to scar over with the
skin of reflective engagement (Slater, as cited in Hillman, 2005, p. xvii). We gain
a new perspective: we see differently. By seeing differently, we do differently
(Hillman, 1975, p. 122). We are different, we become Real.
This new perspective, this ability to find meaning in loss and suffering, in
challenge and difference, is not always easy to come by. The question, How do
you help the person be with their affliction, to hold it differently? (G. Slater,
personal communication, Nov. 16, 2013), might best be answered by turning to
myth. Myths talk to psyche in its own language; they speak emotionally,
dramatically, sensuously, fantastically (Hillman, 1975, p. 154). This common
language may well help us lean into the suffering and find the meaning that
lies within.
Does it hurt? asked the Rabbit. Yes, often times it does, but, as the Skin Horse
reminded us, When you are Real you dont mind being hurt (Williams, 2005, p.
15). When we are able to see through the struggle, to imagine into the suffering,
we dont mind the pain. Myth speaks a language that invites us to engage in
reflective speculation (Hillman, 1975, p. xvi). Myths do not tell us how. They
simply give the invisible background which starts us imagining, questioning,
going deeper (Hillman, 1975, p. 158). They bring us to a place of possibilities,
they nudge us to explore and honor our personal story.

Dehumanizing, or Soul-Making
Hillman (1975) stated that There is no place without Gods and no activity that
does not enact them. Every fantasy, every experience has its archetypal reason.
There is nothing that does not belong to one God or another (p. 169). It is this
perspective that marks soul-making as its own, a perspective that points to the
significance and meaning in that which Psyche offers. Dehumanizing is a godssaturated way of interacting with the soul (Koonz, 2013, n.p.), an approach that
starts and stays with the souls native polycentricity, that keeps in mind the
governance of the Gods (Hillman, 1975, p. 167). In taking this polytheistic
approach, we enter a style of consciousness where psychology and religion are

not defined against each other so that they may more easily become each other
(Hillman, 1975, p. 168).
Again we see a senex/puer relationship, with the tradition, stasis, structure, and
authority of religion interfacing with the immediacy, wandering, invention, and
idealism (Slater, as cited in Hillman, 2005, p. xi) of psychology, of depth
psychology, of psyche. Hillman noted that while religion approaches Gods with
ritual, prayer, sacrifice, worship, creed, in archetypal psychology the Gods are
imagined. They are approached through psychological methods of personifying,
pathologizing, and psychologizing (Hillman, 1975, p. 170).
Archetypal psychology is a psychology that honors the imaginal speech of the
soul (Hillman, 1975, p. 119), that pays heed to its images, and thus gives
credence to the multiple Gods within. When we imagine theres a God in every
wound, we hold the wound differently (G. Slater, personal communication, Nov.
16, 2013). Dehumanizing demands we do just that; it requires that we imagine
the potentiality of Gods, the multiple voices within the single experience.
Another vantage point that may be taken in our exploration of soul-making is
that of enchantment, which Slater (personal communication, Nov. 16, 2013)
put forth as another form of dehumanizing. Moore (1996) writes that
enchantment is a spell that comes over us, an aura of fantasy and emotion that
can settle on the heart and either disturb it or send it into rapture and reverie.
(p. ix)
We can image that the various possibilities that emerge to sway the heart may
have been sparked by one god or another, by some haunting quality in the
world or by a spirit or voice speaking from deep within a thing, or place, or
person (p. ix). Enchantment bids us to take up an imaginal perspective, to
consider possibilities not grounded in the literal. It is often colored by at least
soft hues of absurdity, which is only a sign of its saving distance form excessive
rationality (Moore, 1996, p. xi). Enchantment, or soul-making, plumbs the
mysterious depths of the heart of imagination where we find value, love, and
union with the world around us (Moore, 1996, p. x). It encourages us to become
Real.
As the story of the Velveteen Rabbit nears its end, Rabbit finds himself cast out of
the nursery, alone and seemingly destined for the burn pile. He wondered, Of
what use was it to be loved and lose ones beauty and become Real if it all ended
like this? As he reflected, as he struggled to see through his anguish, a tear, a
real tear, trickled down his little shabby velvet nose and fell to the ground
(Williams, 2005, p. 66). This tear, this aura of emotion that settled in his heart
(Moore, 1996, p. ix), opened his experience to the imaginal realm. Hillman (1975)
shared that emotion is a gift that comes by surprise, a mythic statement; It
announces a movement in soul (Hillman, 1975, p. 177). It is this gift, this
movement in soul, that enriches Rabbits myth, for where the tear had fallen a
flower grew out of the ground, a mysterious flower, not at all like any that grew in
the garden. . . and presently the blossom opened, and out of it there stepped a
fairy (Williams, 2005, p. 67).
What goddess might have sprung forth at this enchanted moment? Perhaps
Athena, goddess of wisdom and purity, come to save one so pure at heart? Or
maybe we find Artemis, lady of the wild, here to rescue this creature so sacred to
her? Or is it potentially Psyche herself, come to the aid of this being who has
gone through so much in her name? Whatever goddess or spirit it is present in
the flower recognizes the value and love to be found within Rabbits heart, and is
here to take him away with her and turns him into Real. . . Real not just to the
Boy. . . but to every one (Williams, 2005, p. 70-71). This is the experience of
soulmaking.

Becoming Real

And so our story comes to an end, this myth we have shared now rests. We have
heard from Rabbit, pondered his words and imagined into his struggles. We have
set his joys and challenges side by side with the major aspects of archetypal
psychology, using them to bring clarity to the speech of the soul set forth within.
I, for one, have become a bit more Real in the process, have immersed myself in
the soul-making that this reflective experience offers. I now give to you a bit of
my soul, offered through these pages, to hold close in your imaginal world, joined
with the bit of soul already given by the Velveteen Rabbit. May they settle in your
heart as you become a bit more Real.

References
Hillman, J. (1972). The myth of analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
Press.
Hillman, J. (1975). Re-visioning psychology. New York, NY: Harper.
Hillman, J. (1977). An inquiry into image. Spring, 1977, 62-88.
Hillman, J. (2005). Introduction. In G. Slater (Ed.), Senex and puer (pp. iv-xxvii).
Putnam, CT: Spring Publications.
Koonz, M. (2013, October 28). God of Betweens. Message posted to Pacifica
Graduate Institute Course DJA 730 DesireToLearn site.
Moore, T. (1996). The Re-enchantment of everyday life. New York, NY:
HarperCollins.
Williams, M. (2005). The velveteen rabbit. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health
Communications.
Marta Koonz is a professional coach and facilitator, focusing on career coaching
from a depth psychological perspective and Jungian typology. She has an M.A.
from Pacifica Graduate Institute (Depth Psychology, with a focus in Jungian &
Archetypal Studies). She specializes in designing and facilitating engaging
learning opportunities for groups.