There is marked confusion around the definition of the term archetype, with highly problematic and contradictory conceptualizations that are perpetuated to this day. As a solution to this problem, the author maintains that the Jungian conceptualization of the theory of archetypes does not constitute a coherent and unified theory, but rather encompasses four different theories that must be clearly separated:
- A theory of biologically or genetically inherited mental abilities.
- An anthropological theory about human universals (expressed, for example, in mythology, religious ideas, social practices, among others).
- A transcendental theory that draws on philosophical traditions (such as those of Kant or Plato) and seeks to place archetypes in a transpersonal sphere.
- A theory about a universal process of psychological transformation that occurs both in everyday life and in psychotherapy; This last idea is of capital importance for Jung’s psychotherapeutic approach.
This last aspect could well be called the central theory of analytical psychology, and a substantial part of Jung’s work is dedicated to mapping this process, which explains his studies on alchemy, religion and mythology, among other subjects.
In light of the state of the art in biology, human genetics, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, and paleoanthropology, it can be argued that most of Jung’s assertions regarding the universality of certain human patterns or religious ideas are unsupported. Likewise, a rigorous analysis demonstrates that racist notions —articulated from a colonialist thought according to which the mentality of the so-called «primitive» nations is inferior to that of the so-called «civilized»— ones are deeply rooted in Jungian thought.
Based on these detailed analyses, it is proposed to abandon the biological and anthropological arguments contemplated in the classical theory of archetypes, as it is demonstrated that they have been widely refuted or, at least, lack empirical support in their respective disciplines. Instead, the author postulates that analytical psychology should limit its concept of archetype to the last of the theoretical components indicated: the notion of a universal process of psychological transformation that serves as a conceptual framework for psychotherapy. To do this, further research is required on the morphology and effective contents of said transformation process. To this end, some empirical findings are presented that support this model.
