Jung on the importance of archetypes.

[John Ferric]

Whether he understands them or not, man must remain conscious of the world of archetypes, because in it he is still a part of Nature and is connected to his own roots. A view of the world or a social order that cuts him off from the primordial images of life not only is no culture at all but, in an increasing degree is a prison or a stable. If the primordial images remain conscious in one form or another, the energy that belongs to them can flow freely into man...I am far from wishing to belittle the divine gift of reason, man's highest faculty. But in the role of absolute tyrant, it has no meaning-- no more than light would have in a world where its counterpart, darkness, is absent...the rational is counterbalanced by the irrational, and what is planned and purposed by what is. (C. G. Jung, Symbols of transformation. , p. 23)

[John Ferric]

Epigenesis is a biological concept meaning the development of an organism under the joint influence of heredity and environment. Jung is clear that archetypes are part of our genetic makeup.

“. . .While the personal unconscious is made up essentially of contents which have at one time been conscious but have disappeared from consciousness through having been forgotten or repressed, the contents of the collective unconscious have never been in consciousness, and therefore 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.”

I do wonder about one item in this quotation;

“. . .have never been individually acquired, but owe their existence exclusively to heredity.”

, because given our current knowledge of genetics, anything we acquire via “heredity,” is individually acquired. But this post is more about archetypal dynamics. Anthony Stevens, in “Archetype Revisited,” explains the basic nature of archetypal dynamics:

“The findings of the two new disciplines, evolutionary psychology and evolutionary psychiatry, in no way contradict or supercede Jung’s original insights into the nature and influence of the archetypes which make up the human collective unconscious: on the contrary, they corroborate and amplify them. They confirm that human experience and human behavior are the complex product of environmental and hereditary forces. The environment activates the archetype which mediates the experience and the behavior. Archetypes are intermediate between genes and experience: they are the organizing schemata by which the innate becomes personal. As James Hillman (1975) put it, the essential quality of Jung’s whole approach is that it is ‘archetypal’: the archetype is ‘the ontologically fundamental of Jung’s concepts’.”

Stevens then introduces his readers to the science of ethology which is the study of behavior patterns in organisms living in their natural environment. But the purpose of this post is to simply lay the basis for the interaction between the archetype and the environment. We humans are “pattern” recognizing beings, archetypes are the method by which patterns are recognized.

[John Ferric]

One issue that must be considered is that the term "archetype" is noun. However, archetypes are dynamic processes; Jung writes, "...The archetype is a force. . . ." Verbs are needed here to provide a sense of the dynamic nature of archetypes.

[John Ferric]

A critical explanation from Jung regarding archetypes. Many get the process turned around.

“Again and again I encounter the mistaken notion that an archetype is determined in regard to its content, in other words that it is a kind of unconscious idea (if such an expression be admissible). It is necessary to point out once more that archetypes are not determined as regards their content, but only regards their form and then only to a very limited degree. A primordial image is determined as to its content only when it has become conscious and therefore filled out with material of conscious experience. Its form, however, as I have explained elsewhere, might be compared to the axial system of a crystal, which, as it were, preforms the crystalline structure in the mother liquid, although it has no material existence of its own. This first appears according to the specific way in which the ions and molecules aggregate. The archetype in itself is empty and purely formal, nothing but a facultas praeformandi, a possibility of representation which is given a priori. The representations themselves are not inherited, only the forms, and in that respect they correspond In every way to the instincts, which are also determined in form only. The existence of the instincts can no more be proved that the existence of the archetypes, so long as they do not manifest themselves concretely. With regard to the definiteness of the form, our comparison with the crystal is illuminating inasmuch as the axial system determines only the stereometric structure but not the concrete form of the individual crystal. This may be either large or small, and it may vary endlessly by reason of the different size of its planes or by the growing together of two crystals. The only thing that remains constant is the axial system, or rather, the invariable geometric proportions underlying it. The same is true of the archetype. In principle, it can be named and has an invariable nucleus of meaning - but always in principle, never as regards it concrete manifestation. In the same way, the specific appearance of the mother-image at any given time cannot be deduced from the mother archetype alone, but depends on innumerable other factors.” "Psychological Aspects of the Mother Archetype" (1939). In CW 9, Part I: The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious. P. 179

[Destrudowoman]

It seems to me that while archetypes are a product of the collective unconscious, meaning that these images are universal and powerful among large numbers of humans, the interpretation of the archetype with regard to character, influence, description, etc., is distinctly individual. While we may agree on a general personification (The Wise Old Woman, the Shadow, the Wizard, etc) the details come from the individual's own complexes, biases, and perspectives on the aspects of life over which the archetype has influence. The discussions of archetypes that I've read/heard don't address the topic in this way, but I think it accounts for the differences in religious and cultural mythos between groups of people, as well as the unique personal qualities of one's own archetypal forms. My Shadow may serve the same function as someone else's, but is quite unique in personality. Is there current work on the expression of the archetypes as being unique to the individual? Is this generally assumed, or am I making it up?

[John Ferric]

I think you are correct Destrudowoman. Let me start with a quote from Jung that provides a clue to how our mind works:

There are, moreover, unconscious aspects of our perception of reality. The first is the fact that even when our senses react to real phenomena, sights, and sounds, they are somehow translated from the realm of reality into that of the mind. Within the mind they become psychic events, whose ultimate nature is unknowable (for the psyche cannot know its own psychical substance). Thus every experience contains an indefinite number of unknown factors, not to speak of the fact that every concrete object is always unknown in certain respects, because we cannot know the ultimate nature of matter itself.

The underlined portion is the critical one, and "translated" is the key term. And this fits right in with what you write

archetypes are a product of the collective unconscious.

And the key word here is "product." It seems to me that the collective unconscious does not "contain" archetypes, rather, as you write it "produces" them. My speculation is that the collective unconscious is a universal human biological process that recognizes patterns. When the collective unconscious detects a pattern it "produces" an image. This is the "translation" that Jung writes about in the quote above. And, further, as you write it is the cultural environment we are born into that "names" the archetypal image.

[John Ferric]

Is there current work on the expression of the archetypes as being unique to the individual? Is this generally assumed, or am I making it up?

I don't think you are making it up Destrudowoman. But at the same time I am not aware of any current work in the area. Be interesting to keep my eyes open for any new data though. But consider this; thinking in terms of projection here, why do I project my anima, for instance, on certain women but not others? It seems those women must have unique(mostly unconscious) aspects that mirror my anima.

[John Ferric]

. . . There is no lunacy people under the domination of an archetype will not fall prey to. . . .

There are as many archetypes as there are typical situations in life. Endless repetition has engraved these experiences into our psychic constitution, not only in the form of images filled with content, but at first only as forms without content, representing merely the possibility of a certain type of perception and action. When a situation occurs which corresponds to a given archetype, that archetype becomes activated and a compulsiveness appears, which, like an instinctual drive, gains its way against all reason and will, or else produces a conflict of pathological dimensions, that is to say, a neurosis.

C. G. Jung, The Concept of the Collective Unconscious.

[John Ferric]

Some basic information on archetypes can be found on Wikipedia. Here is a general descriptions from Wikipedia:

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.

Read the entire entry at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jungian_archetypes

What DNA is to our biological processes, archetypes are to our psychic processes. Our human development is dependent on our archetypes being actualized. It the timing and the environmental conditions at the archetypal actualization that determine our unique, individual human nature.