Comments on the 2018 IAAP Conference on Archetype Theory: defending a non‐reductive biological approach

Abstract

During the course of the 2018 IAAP conference, a criticism of Jung's idea of the archetype as inherited predisposition was raised that involved examining a number of dreams and visions and assessing them through developments in genetics and neuroscience. From this comparison it was argued that archetypes cannot be inherited and could more reasonably be argued to derive from early experiences. In this essay, the author responds by showing how this conclusion is flawed due to being based on reductive errors. An alternative, non-reductive but inherited and biological position on the archetype is defended.

Seeking reason and rebirth: Jungian archetypes, scientism, and a question about transhumanism

“…More recently, attempts to make archetypes theory credible insist on its compatibility with modern evolutionary theory, neuroscience, cognitive science, and more (Maloney, 2003). Not everyone agrees, and debates persist within the Jungian community (e.g., Hogenson, 2001; 2019; Goodwyn, 2019; Merchant, 2019). Critics too draw upon the sciences, firstly to show that neuroscience and genetics do not support attributing archetypes to hardwired biological entities and secondly to show that conceptualising archetypes as emergent properties of dynamic systems accords with science (e.g., McDowell, 2001).…”

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).…”

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

“…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). Since I will not be able to comment on every aspect of Goodwyn's paper, I will restrict myself to those parts I believe to be critically central to the ongoing debate.…”