A reappraisal of classical archetype theory and its implications for theory and practice

Abstract

This paper begins with an overview of contemporary approaches to archetype theory and notes the radical nature of certain deductions. Some argue that there is no 'archetype-as-such' as a pre-existing entity at the core of a complex driving its formation whilst the findings of current neuroscience are calling into question one very thing on which the classical theory is built--innatism. Knox's argument for image schemas raises the question as to the extent to which archetypes can be conceived in any preformationist sense. The question is then posed--to what extent can Jung's classical theory of archetypes be read in light of these current models? The case examples Jung uses to evidence the existence of archetypes, his explications of synchronicity and his own Philemon experience are then reappraised. The conclusion is drawn that it is difficult to evidence the existence of autonomous archetypes unrelated to personal affective experience. Not only would this be expected by emergent/developmental models of archetype but it can explain many of Jung's disjunctive statements about archetype constellation; the difficulties in separating personal and collective psychic content and Jung's apparent Lamarckianism. The implications of these models for theory, clinical practice and analyst training are then offered for discussion.

The image schema and innate archetypes: theoretical and clinical implications

“…I was subsequently able to present a paper on this at the 50 th Anniversary Conference of the Journal at Oxford in 2005 which was subsequently published (Merchant ). This new view of archetypes also prompted other contributions to the debates in the Journal which Knox's model fomented (Merchant, , ) and ultimately led to my book, Shamans and Analysts: New Insights on the Wounded Healer , published in .…”

“…I have previously reviewed this debate (Merchant , ), but the essential points seemed to begin with Pietikäinen (, ), who argued that archetypes were ‘symbolic forms’ and not biologically based. Later, Roesler () took a similar view and specified culture and socialization as central to archetype experience.…”

Symbol/Meaning Paired-Associate Recall: An “Archetypal Memory” Advantage?

“…Among one of the most well formulated approaches is a model which theorizes that what Jung might have meant with the archetype is similar to the contemporary cognitive semanticists’ notion of image schemas [3,4,5,16,17,18], that is, a structure of sensorimotor experience that captures a “dynamic, recurring pattern of organism-environment interactions” ([19], p. 136), that can be—“recruited for abstract conceptualization and reasoning” ([19], p. 141). Image schemas are thought to be “preverbal and mostly nonconscious” ([19], p. 144).…”

“…While there are still proponents of the idea that archetypes are transmitted genetically (see for further information the review by Roesler [1]), many consider discussions of nature versus nurture to be obsolete and stress the interactionist nature of human development [1,4,9,17,25,31] or point out psychological factors in evolution in the argumentation against a purely genetically transmitted innateness [32]. The innate aspect of the archetype can also be looked at as predisposition to a genetic condition which needs certain environmental cues to find expression in the sense of epigenetics as described by Roesler [1,9] and Rosen [31,33].…”

Meaningful Mutations: Reflections on the Synchronicity of Evolution

“…Other scholars who have made connections between the concept of the archetype and more recent scientific ideas and concepts areamongst others- Walters (1994), McDowell (2001), Knox (2002), MacLennan (2006), Merchant (2009), Haule (2010b), and Goodwyn (2010).…”