Phenotypic plasticity and archetype: a response to common objections to the biological theory of archetype and instinct

Response to GoodwynI am glad and grateful that the editors of this journal are giving me the opportunity to respond to Goodwyn's nuanced article. I would also like to thank Erik Goodwyn for his praise of my publications. In recent years, Goodwyn (2020) has presented in a number of publications a differentiated view of the biological transmission of mental traits based on the latest findings from genetics, referring in particular to the mechanism of geneenvironment-coaction. In this context, he criticizes my argument that the reference to instincts and genetic transmission does not make a constructive contribution to clarifying the debate about archetypes.I would like to make it clear at this point that I do not contradict Goodwyn's argument, insofar as he describes mechanisms in which genes interact specifically with input from the environment or experience during development and thus achieve certain developmental goals, such as walking upright. However, what I have repeatedly questioned and continue to question is the claim that such biological mechanisms can explain the emergence of what is called archetypes in analytical psychology.The central point is that this reasoning by Goodwyn, as well as by other authors who argue biologically (e.g. Anthony Stevens 2003), fails to clarify the most important point in the debate: the definition of archetype. It is striking that Goodwyn assumes that it is clear what is meant by the term archetype. This is by no means the case; on the contrary, I have made it clear in my recent publications that one has to speak of a definitional chaos regarding the archetype concept in analytical psychology.First, to clarify which publications Goodwyn's criticism refers to: I published a book in 2016 entitled The Archetype Concept of C.G. Jung in German; this

Section: Problems In Archetype Theory Caused By a Biological Viewpointsupporting

confidence: 61%

Response to Erik Goodwyn's paper ‘Phenotypic plasticity and archetype: a response to common objections to the biological theory of archetype and instinct’

Roesler¹

2022

“…They will embody and symbolize all the intense emotions that go along with these species-universal situations and they will defy easy verbalization. Because they use mostly innate mappings, their source is the human body itself, which naturally originates from the genome (see Goodwyn, 2023). Hence archetypes should be considered as transmitted biologically.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Human Body is the Collective Unconscious: Archetypal Images as Innate Embodied Metaphors

Goodwyn

2024

Self Cite

For a significant part of its history, archetype theory has been undermined by criticisms containing unexamined Cartesian assumptions. Such assumptions treat all cognition as disembodied, consisting of mere manipulation of abstract, inherently meaningless signs mimicked from verbal instruction or cultural learning. Since the 1980s, due to the results of many independent disciplines, however, this view is being replaced with one of embodied cognition. This shift has important consequences for archetype theory, allowing us to provide a non‐reductive biological anchor that explains many characteristics of the archetypal image.

“…The preference may well have to do with the analyst’s typology and possibly attachment style. Eric Goodwyn (2023) makes the point that while secure attachment is seen as the goal, insecure attachment – 33 to 50% of all humans – has a purpose and cannot just be seen as a deficient version of secure attachment. Analysts differ in their psychologies and online work may be more suited to one group than to the other.…”

Section: The Subjective Factormentioning

confidence: 99%

Opportunities of online analysis¹

Niesser¹

2022

The question of whether tele-analysis is an acceptable way of conducting analysis has been discussed since it has become available. Merchant (2016) and others concluded that 'the essentials of a genuine analytic process are not necessarily precluded' (p. 1). In this paper, the author goes a step further and examines potential advantages of tele-analysis. There may be benefits for patients with a history of physical or sexual abuse who value the distance. The potential for a 'safe place' for work with erotic transference is also examined. In a further section the author is interested in allowing the analyst the freedom to practise in an authentic way, congruent with their personality. Also explored is the concept of the interactive field including the technological medium, which is subject to synchronistic events. Finally, the author gives examples of a deep connection between patient and analyst which came about despite the physical distance.