Are archetypes transmitted or emergent? A response to Christian Roesler

Abstract

In this paper the author argues that Jung's concept of archetype should not be reduced to an univocal definition. Jung himself proposed many definitions of this concept, some of them being partially or totally contradictory to others. A univocal and logical way of thinking can lead us to refute and reject part of those definitions, but a complex way of thinking, as proposed by Edgar Morin or Roy Bhaskar for example, can allow us to consider that those apparent contradictions in Jung's definitions of archetype reflect the complexity of the psychic reality. The main argument of the author is that Jung was missing the epistemological concept of emergence (which appeared in science at the time of his death) and that he tried to express it with the epistemological concepts of his time.

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

“…We understand that, here, we can rescue Jung's idea of triggering archetypes throughout life. Martin-Vallas (2013) proposes that working with the various definitions of archetype, as proposed by Jung throughout his work, is a way of dealing with the complexity of psychic reality. In a critique of Roesler's (2012) article, he ends by presenting his definition of archetype: 'I propose that the archetype is an emergent structure, a product of the encounter between culture and instinct, or in other words, a higher level of complexity ' (2013, p. 283).…”

“…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).…”