Archetype
March 27, 2008 by Earthpages.ca
Archetype A term used by the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung to indicate the psychological contents of a proposed collective unconscious.
For Jung the archetypes are inherited patterns encoded in the brain, universally shared by mankind.
Not unlike the gods and goddesses of ancient times, archetypes apparently have a psychic life of their own.
In fact, Jung often likens the archetypes to ancient deities, saying that the word “archetype” is a scientific-sounding update for a very old idea.
When the conscious ego encounters the archetype, the individual is said to experience a sense of the numinous.
According to Jung, this encounter may be psychologically constructive or destructive, healing or disorienting. The effect of the numinous on consciousness depends on the psychological stability and maturity of the individual, as well as the character and intensity of the numinosity encountered.
The experience of the numinous is often mediated by a meaningful visual symbol (e.g. a mandala) or ecstatic activity (e.g. chanting, music-listening or dancing).
For Jung, the self is also an archetype–one of wholeness.
Visible manifestations of the archetypes appear as archetypal images. Jung distinguishes these recognizable images from the archetype proper, which Jung says can never be fully known.
This distinction between the unknowable archetype and its recognizable image is sometimes overlooked in casual commentaries about Jung. » Hero, Mandala, Otto (Rudolf), Psychoid, Trickster
Image Source:
-
“Kohenet Archetype Wheel” by Carly & Art at http://www.flickr.com/photos/wiredwitch/365378131/, Creative Commons Share Alike License
Add to this, report errors, suggest edits or voice your opinion by posting a comment
Are the proper archetypes not fully known because they are transcendent? For instance, how is the archetype of the “wise old man,” “trickster,” etc. transcendent?
Jung’s definition is so complicated (and variable over time) that I’d probably do best to refer you directly to some of his own writing.
This link is to a Jung lexicon by a Jungian analyst. It’s an excellent, well-balanced compilation of Jung’s work. Just scroll down a bit until you see the definitions for ‘archetype’ and ‘archetypal image’:
http://www.psychceu.com/Jung/sharplexicon.html
I found a chapter from a book that helps explain it if you’re interested. It turns out he had the same problem as me.
http://www.matthewstelzner.com/Essay_RT_Planets.aspx
I’ll just post the paragraph
I believe there was a further reason that the later Jung invoked the Kantian framework so often when he discussed archetypes. If I can try to sum up a complex situation briefly, it would seem that Jung unwittingly conflated the issue of archetypal multivalence with the issue of whether archetypes could be directly knowable. On the one hand, Jung recognized and often stressed the fact that archetypes are always observed and experienced in a diverse multiplicity of possible concrete embodiments, so that the full essence and meaning of the archetype must be regarded as fundamentally transcending its many particular manifestations. On the other hand, however, he often conflated this crucial insight with the quite separate epistemological issue of whether archetypes can be directly experienced and known as principles that transcend the human psyche, or whether they can only be indirectly inferred by observing the configurations of psychological phenomena which are structured by archetypes that are ultimately “unknowable” in themselves (noumena). In his understandable attempt to preserve the multivalent indeterminacy of archetypes, transcending every particular embodiment, Jung called upon a Kantian framework of phenomenon and noumenon which seemed to entail the unknowability of the archetypes in themselves, their humanly unreachable essence beyond every diverse manifestation.
Thanks for the link and interesting comments. I purposely left out the history of the term “archetype” in this entry because it’s so varied. Here are two links to that effect that you might find interesting:
http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=archetype
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07630a.htm
Also, here’s my attempt to grapple with Jung’s notion of the archetype, some 15 years ago. This paper doesn’t really represent my current thinking but it might be helpful in some way:
http://ca.geocities.com/earthpages5@rogers.com/jung_eas.htm
My own feeling today is that Jung’s use of the term archetype (and archetypal image) on the whole might be a bit reductive. But one has to be careful when speaking about Jung because he’s more of a holistic than a linear thinker. If one were to say, for instance, that he sometimes seems to uncritically equate the orthodox Christian idea of the Holy Spirit with Hindu ideas about grace, one could find an instance in his Collected Works where he doesn’t.
He’s very complicated and I think self-consciously writing to thrive in given situations, political contexts, etc. Not to say that he’s a mere opportunist. I believe he was sincere in his quest. But he was quite shrewd as well.
Yes, thanks for the links and comments.