Theoretical foundations of analytical psychology: recent developments and controversies

Abstract

This article gives an introductory overview of the papers in this volume originally given at the Joint Conference of the IAAP and the University of Basel, Basel, October 18-20, 2018. The aim of the conference was to bring core concepts of analytical psychology together with theorizing and research from academic sciences, at the very place where Jung started his academic career, the University of Basel. The conference focussed on three fields: the relationship of consciousness and the unconscious and the theory of complexes; the theory of archetypes; and the status of analytical psychotherapy in contemporary psychotherapy research. The aim of the conference was to further the development of theory in analytical psychology in relation to results and insights in contiguous areas of knowledge. In the first area, contributors pointed to the solid evidence especially from the neurosciences for the psychodynamic conceptualizations of the unconscious, and also for the concept of complexes. In contrast to this, the concept of archetypes is controversial, with a majority of contributors questioning Jung's biological conceptualizations of archetypes, and speaking instead for reformulations from the perspective of cultural theory, dynamic systems theory and other approaches. In the field of psychotherapy research, contributors pointed to the profound need for conducting more empirical studies on the outcome of Jungian psychotherapy, but also for a thorough reconsideration of standard research designs in the field.This volume presents a collection of papers originally given at the Joint Conference of the IAAP and the University of Basel, Basel, October 18-20 2018. The IAAP has recently started to conduct conferences together with universities, to bring together analytical psychology with contemporary academic scholarship. Carl Gustav Jung began his academic career at the University of Basel and later, in the 1940s, received a professorship in psychology from the University of Basel, which he apparently was very happy 1 Mark Solms recently published a theoretical paper summarizing the scientific status of psychoanalysis, referring to recent findings in the neurosciences and other disciplines. The paper contains the major positions he presented in Basel and is available online (open access): https:// www.therapyroute.com/article/the-scientific-standing-of-psychoanalysis-by-m-solms 659 Christian Roesler to accept. Thus, the University of Basel seemed to be a good place to focus on

Archetypes and clinical application: how the genome responds to experience

“…Several theorists such as Anthony Stevens (2003) and John Haule (2011) have claimed that modern evolutionary neurogenetics and biology can refine and defend a collective unconscious and archetypes. This conclusion has been recently called into question, however: ‘though there is no agreement on how archetypes can actually be defined, it can be stated that there is agreement on what archetypes are definitely not: they are not genetically imprinted and transmitted solely via biological pathways’ (Roesler 2019, p. 663).…”

The significance of dynamic mind-body cultivation of Li—based on archetypal mind-body mutual shaping development theory

“…Jung’s archetypal theory is of strong purposive significance and hermeneutic characteristics, but as Knox said that the scientific and the hermeneutic do not need to be seen as contradictory, but instead the meaning-making process can itself become the object of scientific study (Knox, 2003). The current consensus in post-Jungians is that archetype is neither genetically imprinted nor inherited by biological means alone, but the result of the interaction of genetics and environment (Colman, 2015; Knox, 2003; 2010; Merchant, 2010; 2019; Roseler, 2012; 2019). Knox summarizes four models repeatedly emerged in the debate about the nature of archetypes, as biological entities, organizing mental frameworks of an abstract nature, core meanings containing representational content and metaphysical entities (Knox, 2003).…”

“…Archetype is the most elemental and even the core concept in analytical psychology (Mills, 2018;Roseler, 2019;Stein, 1998). Mills (2018) systematically summarized the concept of archetype and proposed that Jung referred to archetype as dozens of various concepts, such as inborn ideas, forms, instincts, affective organizations, fantasies, emotions and behavior patterns.…”

Archetypes and the ‘impoverished environment’ argument: a response to Goodwyn (2020)

“…Goodwyn's (2020) paper continues the ongoing discussion which has been forged in the Journal from as far back as Pietikainen (1998), to do with the biological, socio‐cultural and environmental underpinnings to archetypal experience. Further debate on these issues recently occurred at the Joint IAAP/Basel University Conference from which other papers followed in this journal (Goodwyn 2019; Hogenson 2019; Merchant 2019; Roesler 2019). Since I will not be able to comment on every aspect of Goodwyn's paper, I will restrict myself to those parts I believe to be critically central to the ongoing debate.…”