The controversy around the concept of archetypes

Abstract

The paper reviews the course of the controversy surrounding Jung's theory of archetypes beginning in the mid 1990s and continuing to the present. Much of this controversy was concerned with the debate between the essentialism of the evolutionary position of Anthony Stevens as found in his 1983 book Archetypes: A Natural History of the Self, and the emergence model of the archetypes proposed in various publications by Hogenson, Knox and Merchant, among others. The paper then moves on to a consideration of more recent developments in theory, particularly as derived from an examination of the philosopher Gilles Deleuze, who introduces Bergson's somnambulistic unconscious into the discussion of Jung's theories. It is suggested that this largely unexamined influence on Jung may provide answers to some of the unanswered questions surrounding his theorizing. The paper concludes by suggesting that the notion of the somnambulistic unconscious may resemble Atmanspacher's argument for a dual-aspect monism interpretation of Jung.As the announcement for this conference notes, even after more than 20 years of discussion in journals and books regarding the theory of archetypes, 'no fully satisfying theoretical conceptualization is at hand'. The fact that this is the case makes the question of archetypes among the most pressing issues facing analytical psychology. Indeed, in the absence of a satisfying theoretical conception of archetypes, analytical psychology runs the risk of losing other critical elements of the system as a whole (Hogenson, 2009).The contemporary debate regarding archetypes arguably began with an exchange between Hogenson, Stevens, Hester Solomon, and the Finnish historian of science

A preliminary sketch of a Jungian socioanalysis – an emerging theory combining analytical psychology, complexity theories, sociological theories, socio‐ and psycho‐analysis, group analysis and affect theories1

“…This point of departure is analogous to so‐called dual‐aspect monism , which recently has been brought forward in discussion of the mind‐matter relationship in analytical psychology (e.g. Atmanspacher 2012; Hogenson 2019) and of the mind‐body relationship in neuro‐psychoanalysis (Solms 2019). In sociology, the dual aspects of the body as a part of self and part of the world at the same time, has been proposed (Rosa 2019).…”

Seeking reason and rebirth: Jungian archetypes, scientism, and a question about transhumanism

“…More recently, attempts to make archetypes theory credible insist on its compatibility with modern evolutionary theory, neuroscience, cognitive science, and more (Maloney, 2003). Not everyone agrees, and debates persist within the Jungian community (e.g., Hogenson, 2001; 2019; Goodwyn, 2019; Merchant, 2019). Critics too draw upon the sciences, firstly to show that neuroscience and genetics do not support attributing archetypes to hardwired biological entities and secondly to show that conceptualising archetypes as emergent properties of dynamic systems accords with science (e.g., McDowell, 2001).…”

Dialectics of Sign and Symbol and the Utterance of Archetype Theory

“…Maloney (2003) argued that archetype theory is compatible with modern evolutionary theory, neuroscience, cognitive science, and more. Not all Jungians agree (e.g., Goodwyn, 2019;Hogenson, 2019;Merchant, 2019). Sceptics too invoke the sciences, directly or indirectly, to contend that neuroscience and genetics do not support attributing archetypes to brain structures whereas conceptualizing archetypes as emergent properties of dynamic systems accords with the philosophy of science (e.g., Knox, 2003;McDowell, 2001).…”