Archetypes and the ‘Impoverished Genome’ argument: updates from evolutionary genetics

Abstract

Throughout his career, Jung felt the psyche had ‘ancestral layers’ that contained elements of an individual’s species history, and clinical experience has shown that this idea can be an aid to psychological healing and emotional well‐being. Thus, some later thinkers have attempted to link such theoretical constructs to the genome, as Jung had little knowledge of genetics in his day. But in the early 2000s, genome studies suggested that the genome might contain too little content to be capable of encoding symbolic information. This opinion gave rise to an oft‐repeated ‘impoverished genome’ argument, i.e. that the genome could not provide a significant contribution to the collective unconscious, prompting theorists to propose other sources for it, or to argue that it doesn’t exist. Today, however, developments in evolutionary neurogenetics calls the impoverished genome argument into question for a number of independent reasons. These developments re‐open the idea that the genome may be worth reconsidering as the biological substrate for the collective unconscious.

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

“…Similarly, Hogenson (Stevens et al 2003) makes a parallel point in that ‘The crucial question in a discussion of biology and psyche is not whether the two domains are linked, but how they are linked’ (p. 368). And Goodwyn's (2020) paper is aiding in the fuller description of that linkage, aspects of which I see as aligning with the gene‐environment coaction research I overviewed in my response to Goodwyn's (2010) previous paper (see Merchant 2010).…”

“…Substantial parts of what Goodwyn (2020) purports seem to align with this gene‐environment coaction perspective. For instance, he says, ‘all current neurogenetic research recognizes that development is contributed to by combinations of gene and environment’ (ibid., p. 918).…”

“…Whilst the lac operon is an illustrative example from foundational genetics rather than archetypal psychology, I believe the coaction aspect to be the critical thing on which to focus as being the most appropriate way to bring together biological underpinnings with psychological experience that is deemed archetypal. However, such a gene‐environment coaction aspect of genetic research gains minimal attention in Goodwyn's (2020) paper, no doubt because his focus is more on the genetic background rather than any environmental foreground, for he notes that ‘[previous] theorists recognized that both genome and environment contribute to development. Where they differed was in the relative emphasis on the genome’ (ibid., p. 913), and it is the latter which he endeavours to elaborate.…”

“…Goodwyn's (2020) paper continues the ongoing discussion which has been forged in the Journal from as far back as Pietikainen (1998), to do with the biological, socio‐cultural and environmental underpinnings to archetypal experience. Further debate on these issues recently occurred at the Joint IAAP/Basel University Conference from which other papers followed in this journal (Goodwyn 2019; Hogenson 2019; Merchant 2019; Roesler 2019).…”

“…In overviewing past approaches, the crucial question Goodwyn poses in his paper is, ‘ Just how do genome and environment combine to causally contribute to the development of the collective unconscious (meaning the unconscious contents that are universal by virtue of our species inheritance) and its archetypes, if at all? ’ (Goodwyn 2020, p. 914). To address this question, Goodwyn outlines current research from evolutionary genetics and thereby focuses on three main areas in relation to the differences between what he calls, ‘genome‐light’ and ‘genome‐heavy’ approaches to the genetic background of the collective unconscious.…”