8/13/2019 Draft for Jungian

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/draft-for-jungian 1/9

 

Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung believed that archetypes are models of people, behaviors or

personalities. Jung suggested that the psyche was composed of three components: the ego,

the personal unconscious and the collective unconscious.

According to Jung, the ego represents the conscious mind while the personal unconscious

contains memories, including those that have been suppressed. The collective unconscious is a

unique component in that Jung believed that this part of the psyche served as a form of

psychological inheritance. It contains all of the knowledge and experiences we share as a

species.

THE JUNGIAN APPROACH TO SYMBOLIC INTERPRETATION 

NB: It is important to remember that Carl Jung's thought evolved andchanged over his long life, and also that his preferred method of exploring a

topic was suggestive, metaphoric “amplification” r ather than logicalexposition (see Wehr 49). In this course, we shall adopt and use certain

definitions of core Jungian terms that I feel are best suited for our purpose

(the exploration of archetypal symbolism) without claiming that thesedefinitions provide a complete explanation of Jung's psychological theories.  

SCHEMATIC FREUD-JUNG CONTRAST: Freud's approach to symbolic

interpretation rested primarily on his model of psychic structure, charting a

kind of “outside==>inside” and “conscious==>unconscious” movement which

emphasized the importance of external influences and individual experiences

(especially infantile experiences). Jung developed a different model of psychic

structure which, while not denying the significance of individual experience,

added an inherited collective component whose influence worked from

“inside==>outside” and “unconscious==>conscious.” Hence Jung's approach to

symbolic interpretation was less rigid than Freud's, paid more attention to the

actual symbols and their contexts (since he viewed symbols as the natural

language of the unconscious), and claimed that symbols could point toward

future directions needed by the person rather than solely reflecting problems

created by repression of past experiences.

THE PERSONAL UNCONSCIOUS: similar to Freud's concept of the Id, the

 personal unconscious contains forgotten or repressed materials or experiences

of an individual that were once conscious

Eric Pettifor, “Process of Individuation”: 

The personal unconscious is pretty much self defining and doesn't need to be

perceived as mysterious or supernatural (though it is occult in the truest sense

of the word - 'hidden'). The personal unconscious contains all the stuff thatsimply isn't conscious. It contains stuff that can be made conscious by simple

act of will, stuff that requires some digging, as well as stuff that may never be

recalled to consciousness ever again. It is made up of the things you've

experienced every day of your life. I'm not sure if it is strictly true that nothing

is ever really and truly lost, totally forgotten, but it seems that the psyche is

8/13/2019 Draft for Jungian

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/draft-for-jungian 2/9

very reluctant to let much go in the event that it might come in handy

someday. The psyche is a pack rat, the unconscious full of its stuff.

The personal unconscious is also a dumping ground for things we aren't

comfortable with and which we'd really rather not have in consciousness very

often. Repressed memories are a hot issue at the moment, but even without

total all out suppression of memory, we are adept at not thinking about things

we'd rather not think about.

THE COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS (also termed the ObjectivePsyche): a genetically inherited psychological structure that is common to all

human beings and is not based on personal experience — therefore objective

rather than subjective and transpersonal rather than individual (see Wehr 51);

analogous to the genetically inherited anatomical structure common to all

human beings.

C. G. Jung, “The Concept of the Collective Unconscious”: 

1. Definition: The collective unconscious is part of the psyche which can be

negatively distinguished from a personal unconscious by the fact that it does

not, like the latter, owe its existence to personal experience and consequently

is not a personal acquisition. While the personal unconscious is made up

essentially of contents which have at one time been conscious but which have

disappeared from consciousness through having been forgotten or repressed,the contents of the collective unconscious have never been individually

acquired, but owe their existence exclusively to heredity. Whereas the

personal unconscious consists for the most part of complexes, the content of

the collective unconscious is made up essentially of archetypes.

The concept of the archetype, which is an indispensable correlate of the idea

of the collective unconscious, indicates the existence of definite forms in the

psyche which seem to be present always and everywhere. . . . My thesis, then,

is as follows: In addition to our immediate consciousness, which is of a

thoroughly personal nature and which we believe to be the only empirical

psyche (even if we tack on the personal unconscious as an appendix), there

exists a second psychic system of a collective, universal, and impersonal

nature which is identical in all individuals. This collective unconscious does not

develop individually but is inherited. It consists of pre-existent forms, the

archetypes, which can only become conscious secondarily and which give

definite form to certain psychic contents.

2. The Psychological Meaning of the Collective Unconscious: Medical

psychology, growing as it did out of professional practice insists on the

personal nature of the psyche. By this I mean the views of Freud and Adler. It

is a psychology of the person, and its aetiological or causal factors are

regarded almost wholly as personal in nature. Nonetheless, even this

psychology is based on the sexual instinct or on the urge for self-assertion,

8/13/2019 Draft for Jungian

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/draft-for-jungian 3/9

which are by no means merely personal peculiarities. It is forced to do this

because it lays claim to being an explanatory science. Neither of these views

would deny the existence of a priori instincts common to man and animals

alike or that they have a significant influence on personal psychology. Yet

instincts are impersonal, universally distributed, hereditary factors of adynamic or motivating character, which very often fail so completely to reach

consciousness that modern psychotherapy is faced with the task of helping

the patient to become conscious of them. Moreover, the instincts are not

vague and indefinite by nature, but are specifically formed motive forces

which, long before there is any consciousness, and in spite of any degree of

consciousness later on, pursue their inherent goals. Consequently they form

very close analogies to the archetypes, so close, in fact, that there is good

reason for supposing that the archetypes are the unconscious images of the

instincts themselves, in other words, that they are patterns of instinctual

behavior.

The hypothesis of the collective unconscious is, therefore, no more daring

than to assume there are instincts. One admits readily that human activity is

influenced to a high degree by instincts, quite apart from the rational

motivations of the conscious mind. So if the assertion is made that our

imagination, perception, and thinking are likewise influenced by inborn and

universally present formal elements, it seems to me that a normally

functioning intelligence can discover in this idea just as much or just as little

mysticism as in the theory of instincts. Although this reproach of mysticism

has frequently been leveled at my concept, I must emphasize yet again that

the concept of the collective unconscious is neither a speculative nor

philosophical but an empirical matter. The question is simply this: are there or

are there not unconscious, universal forms of this kind? If they exist, then

there is a region of the psyche which one can call the collective unconscious. It

is true that the diagnosis of the collective unconscious is not always an easy

task. It is not sufficient to point out the often obviously archetypal nature of

unconscious products, for there can just as well be derived from acquisition

through language and education. Cryptomnesia should always also be ruled

out, which it is almost impossible to do in certain cases. In spite of all these

difficulties, there remains enough individual instances showing the

autochthonous revival of mythological motifs to put the matter beyond any

reasonable doubt. But if such an unconscious exists at all, psychological

explanation must take account of it and submit certain alleged personal

aetiologies to sharper criticism.

Eric Pettifor, “Process of Individuation”: 

The collective unconscious likewise is pretty much self defining. While you

participate in it, it isn't your exclusive property, we all share in it. It belongs to

the species. When Jung had his official doctor hat on and was defining things

8/13/2019 Draft for Jungian

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/draft-for-jungian 4/9

ex cathedra , the collective unconscious was something passed on genetically.

It was like an edition of a book of which we each had our own copy. However,

in more off the record materials such as letters, Jung seemed to possess a

more spiritual understanding of something which we are all tapped into

somehow, an understanding which would not have sold in medical circles thenand doesn't sell in any academically oriented circles now, though Jung has

become very popular with the general reading public who seem to enjoy very

much those ideas of Jung's which are farthest out on a limb.

In any event, it was a theory which took courage to advance, but Jung felt it

necessary to do so, since he was noticing a strong degree of correspondence

between dreams of patients, both private and institutionalised, and

mythological motifs. In alchemy he found not only parallels in terms of

content, but process as well. What he was seeing he felt to be a psychic fact,and the only acceptable explanation for the persistence of these patterns

down through millenniums was biological inheritance.

ARCHETYPES: innate, non-experiential, emotion-charged tendencies or

 predispositions to symbolize reality in certain ways; the organizing structures

of the collective unconscious (see Wehr 51-52).

C. G. Jung, “Concerning the Archetypes with Special Reference to the Anima

Concept” (Carl Jung: Anthology):

They are the archetypes, which direct all fantasy activity into its appointed

paths and in this way produce, in the fantasy-images of children's dreams as

well as in the delusions of schizophrenia, astonishing mythological parallels

such as can also be found, though in lesser degree, in the dreams of normal

persons and neurotics. It is not, therefore, a question of inherited ideas but of

inherited possibilities of ideas.

C. G. Jung, “A Psychological Approach to the Dogma of the Trinity” (Carl

Jung: Anthology):

I have often been asked where the archetype comes from and whether it is

acquired or not. This question cannot be answered directly. 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. They exist preconsciously, and

presumably they form the structural dominants of the psyche in general. They

may be compared to the invisible presence of the crystal lattice in a saturated

solution. As a priori conditioning factors they represent a special,psychological instance of the biological "pattern of behaviour," which gives all

living organisms their specific qualities. Just as the manifestations of this

biological ground plan may change in the course of development, so also can

those of the archetype. Empirically considered, however, the archetype did

8/13/2019 Draft for Jungian

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/draft-for-jungian 5/9

not ever come into existence as a phenomenon of organic life, but entered

into the picture with life itself.

ARCHETYPAL IMAGES: Archetypes are always unconscious; they cannot

 be directly known or experienced in themselves, but can only be hypothesized

through their effects, their manifestations in images and symbols. Though Jung

was not always clear about the distinction between archetypes (which are

universal and unconscious) and archetypal images (which are at least partially

conscious and personally and culturally conditioned), in the later part of his life

he did explain that these were different things:

C. G. Jung, “On the Nature of the Psyche” (Carl Jung: Anthology):

We must constantly bear in mind that what we mean by "archetype" is in itself

irrepresentable, but has effects which make visualizations of it possible,namely, the archetypal images and ideas. We meet with a similar situation in

physics: there the smallest particles are themselves irrepresentable but have

effects from the nature of which we can build up a model. The archetypal

image, the motif or mythologem, is a construction of this kind.

C. G. Jung, “Approaching the Unconscious,”  Man and His Symbols, ed. C.G.

Jung and Marie_Louise von Franz (New York: Dell, 1964):

Just as the biologist needs the science of comparative anatomy, however, the

psychologist cannot do without a “comparative anatomy of the psyche.” In

practice, to put it differently, the psychologist must not only have a sufficient

experience of dreams and other products of unconscious activity, but also of

mythology in its widest sense. . . . My views about the “archaic remnants,”

which I call “archetypes” or “primordial images,” have been constantly

criticized by people who lack a sufficient knowledge of the psychology of

dreams and of mythology. The term “archetype” is often misunderstood as

meaning certain definite mythological images or motifs. But these are nothing

more than conscious representations; it would be absurd to assume that suchvariable representations could be inherited. 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. . . . . My critics have

incorrectly assumed that I am dealing with “inherited representations,” and

on that ground they have dismissed the idea of the archetype as mere

superstition. . . . [Archetypes] are, indeed, an instinctive trend , as marked as

the impulse of birds to build nests, or ants to form organized colonies. ( 57-58)

Polly Young-Eisendrath, “Myth and Body: Pandora's Legacy in a Post-ModernWorld”: 

Carl Jung often used the idea of archetype in a way that now seems

antiquated -- to mean something like a Kantian category or a Platonic idea, a

sort of organizing form for our mental life. In his later work, after about 1944,

8/13/2019 Draft for Jungian

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/draft-for-jungian 6/9

he revised his thinking. He defined archetype to mean a universal inclination

(predisposition) to form an image in a highly charged emotional state. The

image would have the same form, recognizable the world over, as for example

the image of a Great Mother. Jung began to link emotion with his idea of

archetype in a new way. His final definition of archetype was an innatereleasing mechanism. . . . Universal emotions are connected with universal

images that recur everywhere: great and terrible parents, dragons/monsters,

magicians, madonnas, whores, heroes and demons/devils. These are the

archetypal images that Jung initially thought arose from a substrate outside

human experience. We can now say that they arise quite directly from human

experience. They are universal because they occur in every human being in

our emotional hard-wiring, our perceptions of a particular world, and our

biological life cycle and what it demands of us.

HOW TO RECOGNIZE ARCHETYPAL IMAGES: 

1.  they carry a high emotional charge (positive, negative, or both

simultaneously); they have a powerful, compelling effect

2.  for an individual, they frequently recur in situations when the rational,

conscious mind is not in full control (e.g., recurring dreams and

fantasies, obsessive behavior patterns which have no fully rational

explanation)

3. 

this recurrence occurs also in many different eras and cultures (e.g.,commonly used symbols in literature, art and life; recurring types of

dreams; mythic patterns, etc.)

Archetypes constitute a theory to explain the constant recurrence, persistence,

and emotional power of certain ways of symbolizing reality. Their

manifestations (“archetypal images”) are always personally and culturally

conditioned. In given individuals and cultures, some archetypes are activated

and others dormant; we say that their “triggers” are based on personal and

cultural experience, though the archetypes are universal. A study of archetypal

symbolism in myth provides us with maps, not dictionaries.

 NB: The Carl Jung: Anthology of Works web site appears to be currently off-

line.

 February, 1999

 Barbara F. McManus

 Proceed to  Individuation 

 Back to Topics, Assignments, Notes 

Pangasinan State UniversityBayambang Campus

Bayambang, Pangasinan

Carlo Sheen A. Escaño Mrs. Mary Ann J. Bullagay

8/13/2019 Draft for Jungian

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/draft-for-jungian 7/9

BSE III- major Literary Criticism

TOPIC: The Jungian Approach

CARL JUNG

Carl Gustav Jung was a Swiss

 psychiatrist and founder of the school

of analytical psychology. He proposedand developed the concepts of the

extroverted and introverted personality,

archetypes, and the collective

unconscious. The issues that he dealtwith arose from his personal

experiences. For many years Jung felt

as if he had two separate personalities. One introverted and other extroverted. Thisinterplay resulted in his study of integration and wholeness. His work has been influentialnot only in psychology, but in religion and literature as well. He was born on July 26,

1875 in Kesswil, Switzerland and died 1961 in Kusnacht, on Lake Zurich.

THE 2 LITERARY CRITICISMS: JUNGIAN APPROACH INVOLVED

  Psychological Criticism: This approach reflects the effect that modern psychology has had upon both literature and literary criticism. Fundamental

figures in psychological criticism include Sigmund Freud, whose “psychoanalytictheories changed our notions of human behavior by exploring new orcontroversial areas like wish-fulfillment, sexuality, the unconscious, and

repression”  as well as expanding our understanding of how “language and

symbols operate by demonstrating their ability to reflect unconscious fears or

desires”; and Carl Jung, whose theories about the unconscious are also a keyfoundation of  Mythological Criticism. Psychological criticism has a number of

approaches, but in general, it usually employs one (or more) of three approaches:

1.  An investigation of “the creative process of the artist: what is the nature ofliterary genius and how does it relate to normal mental functions?” 

2.  The psychological study of a particular artist, usually noting how an

author’s biographical circumstances affect or influence their motivationsand/or behavior.3.  The analysis of fictional characters using the language and methods of

 psychology.

  Mythological Criticism: This approach emphasizes “the recurrent universal

 patterns underlying most literary works.” Combining the insights from

anthropology, psychology, history, and comparative religion, mythologicalcriticism “explores the artist’s common humanity by tracing how the individual

imagination uses myths and symbols common to different cultures and epochs.” 

CARL JUNG APPROACH/ARCHETYPAL APPROACH

Jung believed that symbol creation was a key in understanding human nature.Symbol, as defined by Jung, is the best possible expression for something essentiallyunknown. He wanted to investigate the similarity of symbols that are located in different

religious, mythological, and magical systems which occur in many cultures and time

8/13/2019 Draft for Jungian

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/draft-for-jungian 8/9

 periods. To account for these similar symbols occurring across different cultures and time

 periods he suggested the existence of two layers of the unconscious psyche. The first of

the two layers was the personal unconscious. It contains what the individual has acquiredin his or her life, but has been forgotten or repressed. The second layer is the collective

unconscious which contains the memory traces common to all humankind. These

experiences form archetypes.These are innate predispositions to experience and symbolize certain situations ina distinct way. There are many archetypes such as having parents, finding a mate, having

children, and confronting death. Very complex archetypes are found in all mythological

and religious systems. Near the end of his life Jung added that the deepest layers of theunconscious function independently of the laws of space, time and causality. This is what

gives rise to paranormal phenomena. The introvert and the extrovert are the main

components of personality according to Jung. The introvert is quiet, withdrawn and

interested in ideas rather than people. While the extrovert is outgoing and sociallyoriented. For Jung a person that had a healthy personality can realize these opposite

tendencies within himself/herself and can express each. Dreams serve to compensate for

any neglected parts of the personality.

CHARACTERISTICS

  emphasizes repetitive patterns in man’s life

  revealed in literature

  some of which are embodied in myths

  draws heavily on the non-literary field

  focuses on man’s historical and prehistoric past

THE HEROIC JOURNEY CYCLE

•  Call: Our hero is an everyday person exposed to an opportunity to leave their

world and explore other worlds. The adventure may be introduced by a Herald. Ifthe hero accepts the call right away they might be provided with supernatural

 powers that will help them fight.

•  Allies: These are the people that surround the hero and help prepare him and/ or

support him on his journey.

•  Preparation: Our hero prepares for the journey bringing along the tools that he/she

feels will aid him/her during his/her journey.•  Threshold: This is the gate to the unknown world. Often depicted by darkness,

strangeness and danger. The hero must fight the threshold guardians and win in

order to cross the threshold.

  Trials: This is the action adventure section of the story. The hero faces all

kinds of tests and trials. The hero is aided by supernatural help, amulets, powers and allies.

  Saving Experience: The hero survives the most intense adventure of the story,finds his/her life free from the dangers of the journey, and obtains the treasure.Sometimes the treasure is a damsel in distress, a ring that holds powers or

other objects that the ordinary world needs.

  Transformation: After the struggle against physical or symbolic death, thehero must rise from the situation stronger and wiser.

  The Return: The hero must return to his ordinary world to see that his world ismade better. In some cases the hero will continue to live in his ordinary world

and also return to his hero’s world as well. 

  Sharing the Gift: The gift received or the lessons learned from the journey areshared with others to give them insight that the hero learned, reflecting thenew wisdom of the hero.

The Archetypal Hero: The Archetypal Hero goes on a physical or emotional journey. While on that journey, he or she overcomes obstacles. Once he reaches the end

8/13/2019 Draft for Jungian

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/draft-for-jungian 9/9

of the journey, he or she will change. The change can be physical or emotional. The

struggle or quest symbolizes the merging or balancing of the ego and self.

THE ARCHETYPES:

Trickster: The trickster is often a hero who uses cunning, manipulation and deceit to

reach his goal.Shadow: This archetype exhibits characteristics that are considered uncivilized. He orshe is often antagonistic and attempts to hinder the hero in his journey.

Anima: This archetype is dominated by the feminine characteristics of the anima,

and consequently represses the masculine characteristics of the Animus.

Animus:  This archetype is dominated by the masculine characteristics of the Animus,

and consequently represses the feminine characteristics of the Anima.

Wise Old Man: The Wise Old Man is concerned with meanings and ideas rather than

the actions and personalities of others,. He is a scholar, teacher, sage and philosopher.

Seductress: The Seductress, is usually represented as a female who is beautiful,

sensuous, manipulative and destructive.

Mother: This archetype is nurturing, life giving, creative and loving. She is known asthe Great Mother and also as Mother Earth.

Child: The child is vulnerable, innocent and needs protection from the mother

archetype.

REFERENCES:

  http://www.dramatica.com/theory/theory_book/dtb_ch_4.html

  www.tenafly.k12.nj.us/~eschwartz/ArchetypePPT.ppt

  Literature in Critical Perspectives, edited by Walter K. Gordon

  www.coe.unt.edu/northstar/2004/Demos/Using_Movies.ppt

  www.tenafly.k12.nj.us/~eschwartz/ArchetypePPT.ppt

  Myth and the movies: discovering the mythic structure of 50 unforgettable

films, by Stuart Voytilla

  Storybuilder User's Manual

  http://www.cnr.edu/home/bmcmanus/persona.html

 http://pandc.ca/?cat=carl_jung&page=major_archetypes_and_individuation