Archetypes and the ‘impoverished environment’ argument: a response to Goodwyn (2020)

Abstract

Goodwyn's (2020) paper ‘Archetypes and the “Impoverished Genome” argument: updates from evolutionary genetics’ continues the ongoing discussion forged in this Journal to do with the bio‐genetic, socio‐cultural and environmental underpinnings to archetypal experience. Goodwyn's central focus considers the way in which the genome and environment both contribute causally to the development of the collective unconscious across the lifespan, arguing that others in the debate have minimized the genome's contribution. This paper contrasts the research evidence Goodwyn outlines with contemporary gene‐environment coaction research within the psychological domain, concluding that the issue may be more one of emphasis by showing that both genome and environment are important in the activation of archetypal imagery. This highlights that ‘pre‐formationism’ (as some kind of automatic archetypal read‐out mechanism) and the idea of ‘autochthonous revival’ of archetypes are suspect concepts, and this needs to be taken into account in clinical work. Furthermore, the central issue as to which is causally more significant in generating archetypal imagery, the genome or the environment, will be examined. Illustrative examples of the importance of environmental input in activating archetypal imagery are presented from Jung's own life experience, alongside a contemporary case, as well as with an historical case of Jung's.

Phenotypic plasticity and archetype: a response to common objections to the biological theory of archetype and instinct

“…Ultimately, presence at birth, absence of learning, and absence of environmental influence as criteria for innateness fail, and are rarely used by specialists anymore (Simpson 2005). Prominent Jungian theorists such as Merchant (2021) and Colman (2021) strive to avoid such dichotomies, but slippage into this kind of thought sometimes happens anyway, as we will see in the case of Roesler's monographs (2022aRoesler's monographs ( , 2022b later.…”

Archetypes and clinical application: how the genome responds to experience

“…Since newborns only display primitive orientational biases and reflexes, it means the genome provides very little influence on development and so archetypes and the collective unconscious, if anything at all, are not inherited as Jung imagined, but are repeats of early experience (e.g. Merchant 2009, see, however Merchant 2021 for an updated discussion). All three of these assertions are flawed. The reason they may have persisted is because the discussion has lacked the needed conceptual precision to truly reflect how gene and environment interact beyond a simple dichotomy of learned vs. innate.…”

“…Rather, the genome is continuously very active throughout life in its attempts to promote adaptation, however imperfectly, by matching sensory experience with the expected sensory input. In many cases, gene‐environment co‐action (see Merchant 2021) proceeds more in the manner of a sculptor – i.e the genome acts like an artist with a particular form in mind, searching the environment for the right materials to create that form. If all the expected environmental materials are available, the sculpture is crafted in the typical way – i.e body sense develops normally.…”

Archetype and epigenetics – approximations: contributions of epigenetics to the clinical practice of analytical psychology

“…Authors such as Jean Knox (2003, 2004, 2010), George Hogenson (2005, 2009, 2010), Erik Goodwyn (2010, 2019, 2020), Christian Roesler (2012), François Martin‐Vallas (2013) and John Merchant (2006, 2009, 2010, 2016, 2019, 2021), among others, have brought new contributions to this discussion, favouring an expansion of the concept. Moreover, Warren Colman (2018), in a provocative article, states that we need the concept of archetype to account for the spiritual and numinous aspects of our humanity and that ‘it is not archetype theory that makes me a Jungian, but rather the things that archetype theory intends to be about’ (Colman 2018, p. 343).…”