Archetypes as symbolic forms

Petteri Pietikäinen

Journal of Analytical Psychology · 1998 · 56 citations · 7 references

Concepts

TL;DR

Jung’s theory of biologically inherited archetypes is examined through Ernst Cassirer’s philosophy of symbolic forms, positioning archetypes as active, non‑discursive constituents that could enrich hermeneutical and cultural studies. The author argues that archetypes should be reinterpreted as culturally determined, functionary symbolic forms that organize non‑cognitive aspects of human life, thereby discarding the genetic inheritance discourse. The study employs Cassirer’s framework to reconceptualize archetypes as culturally determined functionary forms structuring non‑cognitive mental aspects. This reinterpretation makes archetypes accessible to historical and cultural analysis, enriching hermeneutical inquiry into the symbolism of mental phenomena.

Abstract

In Jung's psychology, archetypes are biologically inherited supra‐individual predispositions of the collective unconscious, and in this paper this controversial theory of archetypes is evaluated in the context of Ernst Cassirer's philosophy of symbolic forms. The main thesis of the author is that with the help of the Cassirerian approach, archetypes can be understood as culturally determined functionary forms organizing and structuring certain aspects of man's cultural activity, namely those predominantly non‐cognitive (for example, emotional, numinous, pathological) mental aspects of human life, which remain more or less unarticulated due to their non‐discursive nature. The revision the author is proposing revolves around the notion that the archetypal theory can be removed from the rather unfruitful discourse on the genetic inheritance of archetypes. When archetypes are seen as symbolic forms, Jung's theory is in a position to make a potentially valuable contribution to hermeneutical and cultural studies, as archetypes function in this new context as active constituents of human experiences, which give these experiences a non‐discursive, symbolic form. Thereby, archetypes can become accessible to historical and cultural analyses, and hermeneutical inquiry into the manifold symbolism of mental (including unconscious) phenomena can be enriched.

References

7