JUNGIAN.DIRECTORY
The inherited part of the PSYCHE; structuring patterns
of psychological performance linked to INSTINCT; a hypothetical
entity irrepresentable in itself and evident only through its manifestations.
lung’s theory of the archetypes developed in three stages. In 1912
he wrote of primordial images which he recognised in the unconscious
life of his patients as well as by way of his own self-analysis.
These images were similar to motifs repeated everywhere and
throughout history but their main features were their numinosity,
unconsciousness and autonomy (see NUMINOSUM). As conceived by
lung, the collective UNCONSCIOUS promotes such images. By 1917, he
was writing of non-personal dominants or nodal points in the psyche
which attract energy and influence a person’s functioning. It was in
1919 that he first made use of the term archetype and he did so to
avoid any suggestion that it was the content and not the unconscious
and irrepresentable outline or pattern that was fundamental. References
are made to the archetype per se to be clearly distinguished
from an archetypal IMAGE realisable (or realised) by man.
The archetype is a psychosomatic concept, linking body and
psyche, instinct and image. This was important for lung since he did
not regard psychology and imagery as correlates or reflections of
biological drives. His assertion that images evoke the aim of the
instincts implies that they deserve equal place.
Archetypes are recognisable in outer behaviours, especially those
that cluster around the basic and universal experiences of life such
as birth, marriage, motherhood, death and separation. They also
adhere to the structure of the human psyche itself and are observable
in relation to inner or psychic life, revealing themselves by way of
such inner figures as ANIMA, SHADOW, PERSONA and so forth. Theoretically,
there could be any number of archetypes.
Archetypal patterns wait to be realised in the personality, are
capable of infinite variation, are dependent upon individual expression
and exercise a fascination reinforced by traditional or cultural
expectation; and, so, carry a strong, potentially overpowering charge
of energy which it is difficult to resist (someone’s ability to do so
being dependent upon his stage of development and state of CONSCIOUSNESS).
Archetypes arouse AFFECT, blind one to realities and
take possession of WILL. To live archetypally is to live without limitations
(INFLATION). To give archetypal expression to something,
however, may be to interact consciously with the COLLECTIVE, his–
toric image in such a way as to allow opportunities for the play of
intrinsic polarities: past and present, personal and collective, typical
and unique (see OPPOSITES).
All psychic imagery partakes of the archetypal to some extent.
That is why dreams and many other psychic phenomena have numinosity.
Archetypal behaviours are most evident at times of crisis,
when the EGO is most vulnerable. Archetypal qualities are found in
SYMBOLS and this accounts in part for their fascination, utility and
recurrence. GODS are METAPHORS of archetypal behaviours and
MYTHS are archetypal ENACTMENTS. The archetypes can neither be
fully integrated nor lived out in human form. Analysis involves a
growing awareness of the archetypal dimensions of a person’s life.
lung’s concept of the archetype is in the tradition of Platonic Ideas
which are present in the minds of the gods and serve as the models
of all entities in the human realm. Kant’s a priori categories of
perception and Schopenhauer’s prototypes are also antecedents.
In 1934 lung wrote:
The ground principles, the archetypoi, of the unconscious are indescribable
because of their wealth of reference, although in themselves
recognisable. The discriminating intellect naturally keeps on
trying to establish their singleness of meaning and thus misses the
essential point; for what we can above all establish as the one
thing consistent with their nature is their manifold meaning, their
almost limitless wealth of reference, which makes any unilateral
formulation impossible (CW 9i, para. 80).
Ellenberger (1970) identified the archetype as one of the three main
conceptual differences between lung and Freud in defining the content
and behaviour of the unconscious. Following lung, Neumann
(1954) saw the archetypes recurring in each generation but also acquiring
a history of forms based upon a widening of human consciousness.
Hillman, founder of the school of Archetypal Psychology,
cites the concept of archetype as the most fundamental in lung’s
work, referring to these deepest premises of psychic functioning as
delineating how we perceive and relate to the’world (1975). Williams
argued that, since the archetypal structure remains skeletal without
personal experience to flesh it out, the distinction between personal
and collective dimensions of experience or categories of the unconscious
might be somewhat academic,.(1963a).
Notions of innate psychological structure exist in present-day
psychoanalysis, notably in the Kleinian school: Isaacs (unconscious
fantasy), Bion (preconception), and Money-Kyrle (d. MoneyKyrle,
1978). lung’s theory of the archetypes may also be compared to
structuralist thought (Samuels, 1985a).
With increasing use of the term, we meet frequent references to
such phenomena as ‘a necessary shift in the paternal archetype’ or
‘the shifting archetype of femininity’. The word was included in the
Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought in 1977. The biologist Sheldrake
finds relevance between Jung’s formulation and his theory of
‘morphogenetic fields’ (1981).
C. G. Jung: “The concept of the archetype… is derived from the repeated observation that, for instance, the myths and fairy tales of world literature contain definite motifs which crop up everywhere. We meet these same motifs in the fantasies, dreams, deleria, and delusions of individuals living to-day. These typical images and associations are what I call archetypal ideas. The more vivid they are, the more they will be coloured by particularly strong feeling-tones… They impress, influence, and fascinate us. They have their origin in the archetype, which in itself is an irrepresentable, unconscious, pre-existent form that seems to be part of the inherited structure of the psyche and can therefore manifest itself spontaneously anywhere, at any time. Because of its instinctual nature, the archetype underlies the feeling-tones complexes and shares their autonomy.” (Civilisation in Transition, Collected Works, Vol. 10, par. 847.)
“It seems to me probably that the real nature of the archetype as such is not capable of being made conscious, that it is transcendent, on which account I call it psychoid” (The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, Collected Works, Vol. 8, p. 213.)
Association – The linking of ideas, perceptions, etc. according to similarity, coexistence, opposition, and causal dependence. Free association in Freudian dream interpretation: spontaneous ideas occurring to the dreamer, which need not necessarily refer to the dream situation. Directed or controlled association in Jungian dream interpretation: spontaneous ideas which proceed from a given dream situation and constantly relate to it.
Primordial, structural elements of the human psyche. (See also archetypal image and instinct.)
Archetypes are systems of readiness for action, and at the same time images and emotions. They are inherited with the brain structure-indeed they are its psychic aspect. They represent, on the one hand, a very strong instinctive conservatism, while on the other hand they are the most effective means conceivable of instinctive adaptation. They are thus, essentially, the chthonic portion of the psyche . . . that portion through which the psyche is attached to nature.[“Mind and Earth,” CW 10, par. 53.]It is not . . . a question of inherited ideas but of inherited possibilities of ideas. Nor are they individual acquisitions but, in the main, common to all, as can be seen from [their] universal occurrence.[“Concerning the Archetypes and the Anima Concept,” CW 9i, par. 136.]
Archetypes are irrepresentable in themselves but their effects are discernible in archetypal images and motifs.
Archetypes . . . present themselves as ideas and images, like everything else that becomes a content of consciousness.[On the Nature of the Psyche,” CW 8, par. 435.]Archetypes are, by definition, factors and motifs that arrange the psychic elements into certain images, characterized as archetypal, but in such a way that they can be recognized only from the effects they produce.[“A Psychological Approach to the Trinity,” CW 11, par. 222, note 2.]
Jung also described archetypes as “instinctual images,” the forms which the instincts assume. He illustrated this using the simile of the spectrum.
The dynamism of instinct is lodged as it were in the infra-red part of the spectrum, whereas the instinctual image lies in the ultra-violet part. . . . The realization and assimilation of instinct never take place at the red end, i.e., by absorption into the instinctual sphere, but only through integration of the image which signifies and at the same time evokes the instinct, although in a form quite different from the one we meet on the biological level.[“On the Nature of the Psyche,” CW 8, par. 414.]
Psychologically . . . the archetype as an image of instinct is a spiritual goal toward which the whole nature of man strives; it is the sea to which all rivers wend their way, the prize which the hero wrests from the fight with the dragon.[Ibid., par. 415.]
Archetypes manifest both on a personal level, through complexes, and collectively, as characteristics of whole cultures. Jung believed it was the task of each age to understand anew their content and their effects.
We can never legitimately cut loose from our archetypal foundations unless we are prepared to pay the price of a neurosis, any more than we can rid ourselves of our body and its organs without committing suicide. If we cannot deny the archetypes or otherwise neutralize them, we are confronted, at every new stage in the differentiation of consciousness to which civilization attains, with the task of finding a new interpretation appropriate to this stage, in order to connect the life of the past that still exists in us with the life of the present, which threatens to slip away from it.[“The Psychology of the Child Archetype,” CW 9i, par. 267.]