This refers to an 'archetype of archetypes', a pattern from which archetypes can develop, rather than a specific developed archetype. When a group, whether homogenous or melting pot, targets something that is more powerful than they are, the usual 'virtue' they use is material force, physical strength. A tribal group wants to overpower an elephant? They might use 20 people with weapons to win.

In a melting pot both the targets and the methods used to build or sustain the melting pot are different than what a tribal group might use to kill an elephant, but the 'archetype of the process' is similar.

Melting pots are initially formed through violence, but they are maintained through contrived authority.

A victim group is shown who is 'boss', then force is used to get them to 'follow the logic of authorities' to understand why the conquering group/culture is superior and must be submitted to. It's nonsense of course, 'the logic of the gun', but it is effective as long as older members of the victim society are eliminated much faster than younger ones, for a long enough time.

The initial authority, the ground floor in both the human mind and in tribal society is the family.

In a true tribal society there is no authority figure that would compete with a parent because there would be no reason to do so. If a parent understood some logic, a hunting technique for example, they would translate it to the child, if they didn't they wouldn't.

In a consolidated tribal society, 'Intelligence' is not a virtue subordinate to any group. It isn't subjective or subject to control through other power. It just reflects a path.

In a melting pot the basis of all authority, all 'official' power, is a competition in which the melting pot 'authorities' use clever means to substitute themselves for natural authority, e.g. parents, in the psyche of 'lesser' members of the melting pot.

At a high level i.e., leaders of a melting pot, this is consciously and deliberately done, but at a lower level, the level of enforcers or implementers, it's simply melting potters playing roles. The payoffs, inducements to play and enforce roles, can be vanities like pride, incentives like cash or simple force.

A young person is raised in a melting pot to 'globalize' their kinship. It all looks charming until you examine it. As Jung observed, the result is not a homogenous superior society, rather it is a blob which is less than the sum of its parts.

The studious soldier of the melting pot is encouraged to play the role of elder or parent towards their lesser charges. They are rewarded for pretending that they have some superior agenda, a maturity that they are authorized to use their gang to enforce.

Watching a melting pot sub authority 'guide' its citizens is like watching any captive try to imitate their captors.

When the melting pot starts to decay, the melting pot authorities know what to do. They have been trained thoroughly. They have been taught a role by their 'authority' which they 'know' they only have to follow in order to attain the same level of authority for themselves, as long as they are obedient to the melting pot.

As their society crumbles they go further and further back to the original melting pot premise that contrived authority, or force, is what validates logic. 

Freud, Jung and others wrote extensively on that subject, both as a pathology and a process.

They both were 'authoritative' melting pot medical 'experts' in psychology so a person should first examine their views of the subject.

Freud was famously caught up in an odd paternalistic relationship with Jung, which is described on many websites.

Jung may have been on more solid ground as he describes both the circumstance of studying the natural phenomenon of 'individual development' and watching the melting pot perversion of that process in some of his writings like 'The Psychology of the Transference'.

One interesting derivative of Jung's observations is the difference between natural orders and synthetic, or experimental, orders.

There have been a lot of examples of groups who tried to use blunt force to create utopian order.

He was most familiar with Europe, but the United States is a more perfect example of the disease.

The United States was arranged under the premise that a political entity could 'create' kinships that superseded nature. You could create, for example, an artificial political entity, based on nothing but whim or momentary usefulness, called New Jersey or Michigan or whatever, enforce it as a real entity, and eventually it would become, the experimenters hoped, a real tribal entity.

The utopian peace arising from artificial orders like this invariably causes a decay in their individuals, but as long as the starting point has enough resources, enough tribal food, the fiction can be maintained far longer than in simple utopian experiments that rely only on cloistering sympathizers within a protective bubble.

In the political world, there is a clear developmental path that melting pots take.

The Soviet Union is a widely studied example of a stage that other melting pots like the United States are just entering now. Russia and other Soviet states were reduced to near rubble as their melting pot tried to hijack natural authority from family and tribal order. Ultimately those states were nudged by nature towards a healthier path and now continue to decay towards a more natural order. 

The United States is just entering its 'Soviet' phase. Unfortunately the United States has enough power still, and enough tribal food, that its decay is likely to be epic, far beyond the relatively peaceful decline of the Soviet Union.

The United States has been propped up for centuries by the vast natural resources of the Americas, a political Caligula of the modern world which 'raises' its citizens in narrower and narrower worldviews, which are sold as broader and broader worldviews to its citizens.

~In Progress