Download Jungian Archetypes PDF

TitleJungian Archetypes
File Size101.6 KB
Total Pages8
Table of Contents
                            Jungian archetypes
	Examples and conceptual difficulties
	Actualization and complexes
	Psychoid archetype
	Parallels and developments
		General developments
		Archetypal pedagogy
		Archetypes and psychology
	Jung on the value of the archetype
	Criticism of Jungian understandings
	Further reading
Document Text Contents
Page 1

Jungian archetypes 1

Jungian archetypes
Carl Jung created the archetypes which “are ancient or archaic images that derive from the collective unconscious” [1]

Also known as innate universal psychic dispositions that form the substrate from which the basic symbols or
representations of unconscious experience emerge. These are different from instinct as Jung saw an instinct as “an
unconscious physical impulse toward actions and the archetype as the psychic counterpart” [2] There are many
different archetypes and Jung has stated they are limitless in amount, but to simplify many have broken it down into
a few main ones. These include the persona, the shadow, the anima, the animus, the great mother, the wise old man,
the hero, and the self. [3] . The great mother, wise old man and the hero tend to be considered add on from the basic
as in Jung’s map of the soul everything is covered, but those. The archetypes can be used for a sense of
understanding as well as for a state of treatment[4] [5] [6] [7] "The archetype is a tendency to form such representations
of a motif - representations that can vary a great deal in detail without losing their basic pattern ... They are indeed an
instinctive trend".[8] Thus for example "the archetype of initiation is strongly activated to provide a meaningful
transition ... with a 'rite of passage' from one stage of life to the next": [9] [10] such stages may include being parented,
initiation, courtship, marriage and preparation for death.[11]

Virtually alone among the depth psychologists of the twentieth century, Jung rejected the tabula rasa theory of
human psychological development, believing instead that evolutionary pressures have individual predestinations
manifested in archetypes. For Jung, "the archetype is the introspectively recognizable form of a priori psychic
orderedness".[12] These images must be thought of as lacking in solid content, hence as unconscious. They only
acquire solidity, influence, and eventual consciousness in the encounter with empirical facts."[13]

The archetypes form a dynamic substratum common to all humanity, upon the foundation of which each individual
builds his own experience of life, developing a unique array of psychological characteristics. Thus, while archetypes
themselves may be conceived as a relative few innate nebulous forms, from these may arise innumerable images,
symbols and patterns of behavior. While the emerging images and forms are apprehended consciously, the
archetypes which inform them are elementary structures which are unconscious and impossible to apprehend. Being
unconscious, the existence of archetypes can only be deduced indirectly by examining behavior, images, art, myths,
and religions etc. They are inherited potentials which are actualized when they enter consciousness as images or
manifest in behavior on interaction with the outside world.
The archetype is a crucial Jungian concept. Its significance to analytical psychology has been likened to that of
gravity for Newtonian physics.[14]

The intuition that there was more to the psyche than individual experience possibly began in Jung's childhood. The
very first dream he could remember was that of an underground phallic god. His researches in schizophrenia later
supported his early intuition that universal psychic structures exist which underlie all human experience and
behavior. Jung first referred to these as "primordial images" — a term he borrowed from Jacob Burckhardt. Later in
1917 Jung called them "dominants of the collective unconscious." It was not until 1919 that he first used the term
"archetypes" in an essay titled "Instinct and the Unconscious". A main part of the chronology of Jung's discovery of
the archetypes is found in the Redbook which documented Jung being in touch with the archetypes and collective
unconsciousness which was released much after his death. [15] Throughout ]Jung's life examination into the
archetypes increased, and this was noticeable throughout the changes within his style of writing in his books.

Page 2

Jungian archetypes 2

Jung being in touch with his unconscious during his middle age and discovered the archetypes when he became to
see the figures in his dreams and see the figures within his daily life. It wasn't until his later life though when he
became to understand these actually meant and begin to piece them together through archetypes. [16] These times
were covered within the Red Book, [17] and thesymbols that the archetypes represented and their origins in detail
could be found within a Man and His Symbols. In here he stated that the achetypes have always existed and will
always exist and part of the collective unconscious [18] It is sometimes assumed that people are creating new
archetypes, but they are not actually being created but discovered, and the number of archetypes in the world are
limitless. Archetypes are found within dreams, and it is found within life itself. Finding new archetypes is a matter of
searching deep within one's self to discover them. The origins of the archetypal hypothesis date back as far as Plato.
Jung himself compared archetypes to Platonic εἶδος (eidos). Plato's ideas were pure mental forms, that were
imprinted in the soul before it was born into the world. They were collective in the sense that they embodied the
fundamental characteristics of a thing rather than its specific peculiarities. In fact many of Jung's Ideas were
prevalent in Athenian philosophy. The archetype theory can be seen as a psychological equivalent to the
philosophical idea of forms and particulars

Examples and conceptual difficulties
An archetype is a well recognized idea in psychology and many outside of psychology know the term was well, but
many people find the topic or the idea behind the archetypes very confusing . The confusion about the archetypes
can partly be attributed to Jung's own evolving ideas about them in his writings and his interchangeable use of the
term "archetype" and "primordial image"; it may also be attributed to the fact that, given his belief that "archetypal
symbols ... are spontaneous and autonomous products of the unconscious", Jung was always intent "not to weaken
the specific individual and cultural values of archetypes by leveling them out - i.e., by giving them a stereotyped,
intellectually formulated meaning".[19]

Strictly speaking, archetypal figures such as the hero, the goddess and the wise man are not archetypes, but
archetypal images which have crystallized out of the archetypes-as-such: as Jung put it, "definite mythological
images of motifs ... are nothing more than conscious representations; it would be absurd to assume that such variable
representations could be inherited", as opposed to their deeper, instinctual sources - "the 'archaic remnants', which I
call 'archetypes' or 'primordial images'".[20]

Jung described archetypal events: birth, death, separation from parents, initiation, marriage, the union of opposites
etc.; archetypal figures: great mother, father, child, devil, God, wise old man, wise old woman, Apollo, trickster[21] ,
hero - not to mention "Oedipus ... the first archetype Freud discovered"[22] or "number ... an archetype of order";[23]

and archetypal motifs: the Apocalypse, the Deluge, the Creation, etc. Although the number of archetypes is limitless,
there are a few particularly notable, recurring archetypal images, "the chief among them being" (according to Jung)
"the shadow, the Wise Old Man, the child (including the child hero), the mother ... and her counterpart, the maiden,
and lastly the anima in man and the animus in woman".[24] Alternately he would speak of "the emergence of certain
definite archetypes ... the shadow, the animal, the wise old man, the anima, the animus, the mother, the child".[25]

There were five main archetypes that were discussed in Jung's writing, though there are many others. The following
are the five most common archetypes. [26]

Five main archetypes are sometimes enumerated: [27]

• The Self, the regulating center of the psyche and facilitator of individuation - the representative of "that wholeness
which the introspective philosophy of all times and climes has characterized with an inexhaustible variety of
symbols, names and concepts".[28] It represents all that is unique within a human being. Although a person is a
collection of all the archetypes and what they learn from the collective unconscious, the self is what makes that
person an I. The self can not exist without the other archetypes and the other archetypes can not exist without the

Page 3

Jungian archetypes 3

self; Jung makes this very clear. The self is also the part that heavily grows and changes as a person goes
throughout life. [29] The self can be simply summed up as the ideal form a person wishes to be. [30]

• The Shadow, This represents the traits that lie deep within ourselves. The traits that are hidden from day to day
life and are in some cases the opposite of the self is a simple way to state these traits. The shadow is a very
important trait because for one to truly know themselves the must know all, including what lies beneath the
common, the shadow. If one chooses to know the shadow there is a chance they give into its motivation. [31]

• The Anima, Some see the anima is the feminine side or form of a man, but Jung did not fully intend this to be
viewed in this way. The Anima is beyond generalization of society's views and stereotypes. Anima represents
what femininity truly represents it in all it's mysteries. It is what allows a man to be in touch with a woman. [32]

The anima is commonly represented within dreams as a method to communicate with a person. [33] It contains all
of female encounters with men to help the relationship between the to improve better.

• The Animus]] Animus, is similar to the anima except for the fact the the animus allows a female to understand
and communicate with a man. [34] Just like the anima it is commonly represented in dreams of a female to help
them understand themselves and relationships with men [35] It can be known as part of the collective unconscious
connection with all of the encounters of males with females, like the anima, to improve relationship with males
and females.

• The PersonaThe Persona, to Jung is a mere "functional complex ... by no means identical to the
individuality",[15] the way we present to the world - a mask which protects the Ego from negative images, and
which by post-Jungians is sometimes considered an "archetype ... as a dynamic/structural component of the
psyche".[16] Some view this is as the opposite of the shadow which is not entirely true this is just the face that is
put on for the world not our deepest internal secrets and desires, that is the self. [36]

However the precise relationships between images such as, for example, "the fish" and its archetype were not
adequately explained by Jung. Here the image of the fish is not strictly speaking an archetype. However the
"archetype of the fish" points to the ubiquitous existence of an innate "fish archetype" which gives rise to the fish
image. In clarifying the contentious statement that fish archetypes are universal, Anthony Stevens explains that the
archetype-as-such is at once an innate predisposition to form such an image and a preparation to encounter and
respond appropriately to the creature per se. This would explain the existence of snake and spider phobias, for
example, in people living in urban environments where they have never encountered either creature.[37] There are
many examples such as the fish covered in Man and His Symbols and how they tend to relate to people through
measures such as dreams and little life instances. These archetypal figures can also be represented from the main
archetypes such as the anima and the animus or archetypal thoughts such as the resurrection of a savior. figures[38]

For example almost every culture has a savior that has came back from heaven or the dead, or reincarnation being a
main point of the belief. Jesus for example in the Christian texts and Buddhists and Hindu have reincarnation as a
principle part of their religion. These being principle parts of the religion, in which many religions

Actualization and complexes
Archetypes seek actualization within the context of an individual's environment and determine the degree of
individuation. Jung also used the terms "evocation" and "constellation" to explain the process of actualization. Thus
for example, the mother archetype is actualized in the mind of the child by the evoking of innate anticipations of the
maternal archetype when the child is in the proximity of a maternal figure who corresponds closely enough to its
archetypal template. This mother archetype is built into the personal unconscious of the child as a mother complex.
Complexes are functional units of the personal unconscious, in the same way that archetypes are units for the
collective unconscious.

Page 4

Jungian archetypes 4

Psychoid archetype
Jung proposed that the archetype had a dual nature: it exists both in the psyche and in the world at large. He called
this non-psychic aspect of the archetype the "psychoid" archetype. He illustrated this by drawing on the analogy of
the electromagnetic spectrum. The part of the spectrum which is visible to us corresponds to the conscious aspects of
the archetype. The invisible infra-red end of the spectrum corresponds to the unconscious biological aspects of the
archetype that merges with its chemical and physical conditions.[39] He suggested that not only do the archetypal
structures govern the behavior of all living organisms, but that they were contiguous with structures controlling the
behavior of inorganic matter as well. The archetype was not merely a psychic entity, but more fundamentally, a
bridge to matter in general.[40] Jung used the term unus mundus to describe the unitary reality which he believed
underlay all manifest phenomena. He conceived archetypes to be the mediators of the unus mundus, organizing not
only ideas in the psyche, but also the fundamental principles of matter and energy in the physical world.
It was this psychoid aspect of the archetype that so impressed Nobel laureate physicist Wolfgang Pauli. Embracing
Jung's concept, Pauli believed that the archetype provided a link between physical events and the mind of the
scientist who studied them. In doing so he echoed the position adopted by German astronomer Johannes Kepler.
Thus the archetypes which ordered our perceptions and ideas are themselves the product of an objective order which
transcends both the human mind and the external world.[37]

Parallels and developments
Although the term "archetype" did not originate with Jung, its current use has largely been influenced by his
conception of it. The idea of innate psychic structures, at one time a relative novelty in the humanities and sciences
has now been widely adopted.

General developments
Related concepts arguably include the work of Claude Lévi-Strauss, an advocate of structuralism in anthropology,
the concept of "social instincts" proposed by Charles Darwin, the "faculties" of Henri Bergson and the isomorphs of
gestalt psychologist Wolfgang Kohler. In 1965 Noam Chomsky's ideas of human language acquisition being based
on an "innate acquisition device" became known to the world.
Melanie Klein's idea of unconscious phantasy is closely related to Jung's archetype, as both are composed of image
and affect and are a-priori patternings of psyche whose contents are built from experience.

Archetypal pedagogy
Archetypal pedagogy was developed by Clifford Mayes. Mayes' work also aims at promoting what he calls
archetypal reflectivity in teachers; this is a means of encouraging teachers to examine and work with psychodynamic
issues, images, and assumptions as those factors affect their pedagogical practices.

Archetypes and psychology
Archetypal psychology was developed by James Hillman in the second half of the 20th century. Hillman trained at
the Jung Institute and was its Director after graduation. Archetypal psychology is in the Jungian tradition and most
directly related to analytical psychology and psychodynamic theory, yet departs radically. Archetypal psychology
relativizes and deliteralizes the ego and focuses on the psyche, or soul, itself and the archai, the deepest patterns of
psychic functioning, "the fundamental fantasies that animate all life" [41] . Archetypal psychology is a polytheistic
psychology, in that it attempts to recognize the myriad fantasies and myths gods, goddesses, demigods, mortals and
animals—that shape and are shaped by our psychological lives. The ego is but one psychological fantasy within an
assemblage of fantasies. The main influence on the development of archetypal psychology is Carl Jung's analytical
psychology. It is strongly influenced by Classical Greek, Renaissance, and Romantic ideas and thought. Influential

Page 5

Jungian archetypes 5

artists, poets, philosophers, alchemists, and psychologists include: Nietzsche, Henry Corbin, Keats, Shelley,
Petrarch, and Paracelsus. Though all different in their theories and psychologies, they appear to be unified by their
common concern for the psyche—the soul. Many archetypes have been used in treatment of psychological illnesses.
Jung's first research was done with schizophrenics. A current example is teaching young men or boys archetypes
through using picture books to help with the development. [42] In addition nurses treat patients through the use of
archetypes. [43] Archetype therapy offers a wide range of uses if applied correctly, and it is still being expanded in
Jungian schools today. With the list of archetypes being endless the healing possibilities are vast.

Jung on the value of the archetype
It is only possible to live the fullest life when we are in harmony with these symbols; wisdom is a return to them
(CW8:794). To this it can be taken to mean that when a person is able to come to peace with the archetypes the lay
within in them they are able to begin to live a more peaceful life. [For the alchemists] they were seeds of light
broadcast in the chaos…the seed plot of a world to come…One would have to conclude from these alchemical
visions that the archetypes have about them a certain effulgence or quasi-consciousness, and that numinosity entails
luminosity (CW8:388). All the most powerful ideas in history go back to archetypes. This is particularly true of
religious ideas, but the central concepts of science, philosophy, and ethics are no exception to this rule. In their
present form they are variants of archetypal ideas created by consciously applying and adapting these ideas to reality.
For it is the function of consciousness not only to recognize and assimilate the external world through the gateway of
the senses, but to translate into visible reality the world within us (CW8, 342). This could be taken to mean that the
archetypes are what makes us, us. All of the beliefs and myths we have are all just part of the archetypes and that
nothing is new in the universe and everything has already existed and will continue to texist. In his last text, Man and
His Symbols, Jung stressed that "since so many people have chosen to treat archetypes as if they were part of a
mechanical system that can be learned by rote, it is essential to insist that they are not mere names or even
philosophical concepts. They are pieces of life itself - images that are integrally connected to the individual by the
bridge of the emotions".[20] Jung states that they are not individual concepts of the world or individual pieces of the
world we must come to know as separate things, but we must come to know the machine (archetypes) as a whole not
just as individuals. As a result, it was the importance of the experiential encounter with the archetype which Jung
emphasized: "in psychology, where we speak of archetypes like the anima and animus, the wise man, the great
mother, and so on ... if they are mere images whose numinosity you have never experienced, it will be as if you were
talking in a dream, for you will not know what you are talking about ... their names mean very little, whereas the way
they are related to you is all-important".[21] This means that one when first encounters a new archetype they do not
always know what it means or how it will help them in their life, but they must come to learn to accept it and
understand it. In time the answers will reveal themselves.

Criticism of Jungian understandings
Lacan, in his "return to Freud", took issue with that aspect of "the thought of Jung, where the relation between the
psychical world of the subject and reality are embodied under the term archetype".[44] He argued that "Jungianism -
in so far as it makes of the primitive modes of articulating the world something that survives, the kernel, he says, of
the psyche itself - is necessarily accompanied by a repudiation of the term libido".[45] Freud himself however had
been well prepared to accept the existence of "a primitive kind of mental activity ... [on] the single analogy - and it is
an excellent one - of the far-reaching instinctive knowledge of animals";[46] and it was indeed on the basis of "what
Freud called 'archaic remnants' - mental forms whose presence cannot be explained by anything in the individual's
own life ... inherited shapes of the human mind"[20] that Jung had explicitly built his theory of archetypes. His
specific and contrasting claim was that they were "not in any sense lifeless or meaningless 'remnants'. They still
function, and they are especially valuable ... just because of their 'historical' nature".[47]

Page 6

Jungian archetypes 6

More general criticism of the concept of archetypes can perhaps be placed in two broad categories. There are those
who deny any possibility of inherited ideas as unscientific - a point met (at least to some degree) by Jung when he
insisted that it was instead the inherited propensity to generate representations that made the archetypes "the
unconscious organizers of our ideas"[48] (see above).
But those who could accept such inherited propensities still found "a basic ambiguity in Jung's various descriptions
of the collective unconscious. Sometimes he seems to regard the predisposition to experience certain images as
understandable in terms of some genetic model ... about the way human beings experience the world. But he is also
at pains to emphasize the numinous quality of these experience and there can be no doubt that he was attracted to the
idea that the archetypes afford evidence of communion with some divine or world mind".[49] Jung's last statements
on that subject remained however firmly agnostic. "Many people would agree with me if I stated flatly that such
ideas are probably illusions ... [but] the denial is as impossible to 'prove' as the assertion".[50]

A more technical objection derives from therapeutic practice, with the possibility arising that "an explanation of the
archetypal situation ... may lead to inflation, if it is not linked to specific and personal emotional experiences".[51]

Some would go further, arguing that because "in Jungian theory, the psychologist's task is to lead others to see the
timeless archetypal reality behind their personal psychological experiences ... using abstract, archetypal forces to
explain human psychology", the result must inevitably be "a psychology which downplays the significance of human
relationships".[52] The patient is thus brought to realise that "what I did then, what I felt then, is only the reflection of
that great archetypal dream, or epic story ... free of the individual pain of it", but at the price of individuality and
human relationship, sacrificed for an unwillingness to "leave the safety of myth".[53]

[1] Fiest J, Friest G, (2009) Theories of Personality, New York New York; McGraw-Hill
[2] ^ Fiest J, Friest G, (2009) Theories of Personality, New York New York; McGraw-Hill
[3] 1. ^ Fiest J, Friest G, (2009) Theories of Personality, New York New York; McGraw-Hill
[4] 1. ^ Fiest J, Friest G, (2009) Theories of Personality, New York New York; McGraw-Hill
[5] Jung, C. G. (1964). Man and His Symbols. Del Publishing a division of Random House Inc.
[6] Jung’s Map of the Soul an Introduction. Peru Illinois: Carus Publishing Company
[7] Aion Researches into the phenomenology of the self Princeton New Jersey: Princeton University Press
[8] C. G. Jung, "Approaching the Unconscious" in C. G. Jung ed., Man and his Symbols (London 1978) p. 58
[9] Rancour, P. (2008). Using archetypes and transitions theory to help patients move from active treatment to survivorship. Clinical Journal of

Oncology Nursing, 12(6), 935-940. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
[10] Joseph Henderson, "Ancient Myths and Modern Man", in Jung ed., Symbols p. 123
[11] Stevens, Anthony in "The Archetypes" (Chapter 3). Papadopoulos, Renos ed. (2006). The Handbook of Jungian Psychology.
[12] C. G. Jung, Synchronicity (London 1985) p. 140
[13] Jung 1928:Par. 300
[14] Stevens, Anthony in "The Archetypes" (Chapter 3.) Ed. Papadopoulos, Renos. The Handbook of Jungian Psychology (2006).
[15] Shamdasani, S., & Beebe, J. (2010). Jung Becomes Jung: A Dialogue on Liber Novus (The Red Book). Psychological Perspectives, 53(4),

410-436. doi:10.1080/00332925.2010.524110
[16] Theories of Personality Fiest Jes, Fiest Gregory
[17] 2 Shamdasani, S., & Beebe, J. (2010). Jung Becomes Jung: A Dialogue on Liber Novus (The Red Book). Psychological Perspectives, 53(4),

410-436. doi:10.1080/00332925.2010.524110
[18] Man and His Symbols Jung Carl
[19] M.-L. von Franz, "Science and the unconscious", in Jung ed., Symbols p. 386 and p. 377
[20] Jung, "Approaching the Unconscious" in Jung ed., Symbols p. 57
[21] den Uijl, S. (2010). The Trickster “Archetype” in the Shahnama. Iranian Studies, 43(1), 71-90. doi:10.1080/00210860903451220
[22] Richard I. Evans, Jung on Elementary Psychology (London 1979) p. 52
[23] Jung, Synchronicity p. 58
[24] Jung, quoted in J. Jacobi, Complex, Archetype, Symbol (London 1959) p. 114
[25] C. G. Jung, Two Essays on Analytical Psychology (London 1953) p. 108
[26] Jung's Map of the Soul, Stein Muray.
[27] Jung's Map of the Soul, Stein Muray.
[28] C. G. Jung, Alchemical Studies (London 1978) p. 180-1
[29] Jung's Map of the Soul, Stein Muray.

Page 7

Jungian archetypes 7

[30] Aion Researches into the phenomenology of the self, Jung Carl
[31] Theories of Personality, Fiest Jess, and Feist Gregory.
[32] Jung's Map of the Soul, Stein Muray.
[33] Man and His symbols. Jung. Carl.
[34] Jung's Map of the Soul, Stein Muray.
[35] Man and His symbols. Jung. Carl.
[36] Theories of Personality, Fiest Jess, and Feist Gregory.
[37] Stevens, Anthony in "The archetypes" (Chapter 3.) Ed. Papadopoulos, Renos. The Handbook of Jungian Psychology (2006)
[38] Man and His symbols. Jung. Carl.
[39] Jung, C.G. (1947/1954) par. 420 Collected Works.
[40] Jung, C.G. (1947/1954) par. 420 Collected Works
[41] Moore, in Hillman, 1991
[42] Zambo, D. (2007). Using Picture Books to Provide Archetypes to Young Boys: Extending the Ideas of William Brozo. Reading Teacher,

61(2), 124. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.t.
[43] Rancour, P. (2008). Using archetypes and transitions theory to help patients move from active treatment to survivorship. Clinical Journal of

Oncology Nursing, 12(6), 935-940. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
[44] Jacques Lacan, The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis (London 1994) p. 152-3
[45] Lacan, Four p. 153
[46] Sigmund Freud, Case Histories II (London 1991) p. 364
[47] Jung, "Approaching the Unconscious" in Jung ed., Symbols p. 32
[48] C. G. Jung, Aion (London 1959) p. 179
[49] David Cook, "Jung", in Richard Gregory ed., The Oxford Companion to the Mind (Oxford 1987) p. 405
[50] Jung, "Approaching the Unconscious" in Jung ed., Symbols p. 76
[51] Mario Jacoby, The Analytic Encounter (Canada 1984) p. 83
[52] Naomi R. Goldbenberg, Resurrecting the Body (New York 1993) pp. 72, 130, and 98
[53] Doris Lessing, The Golden Notebook (Herts 1973) p. 457-8

Further reading
• Stevens, Anthony (2006), "Chapter 3", in Papadopoulos, Renos, The Handbook of Jungian Psychology
• Jung, C. G. (1917, 1928), Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, Collected Works, 7 (2 ed.), London: Routledge

(published 1966)
• Jung, C. G. (1934–1954), The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious, Collected Works, 9 (2 ed.), Princeton,

NJ: Bollingen (published 1981), ISBN 0-691-01833-2

Similer Documents