<p>All this verbage, without a single answer. The archetypes are the forms with which we populate our psyches. They are only outlines. The context is filled in individually, and therefore differs individually. To use your example of "father." We can all agree upon the existence of "fatherness," the condition of being a father. Thus, the archetype "Father" arises. Yet, since we've all had different experiences of who and what that father is, and what he (to speak genetically) looks like, and how he acts, including those who have had an absent father, we fill in the archetype with that personal data. In brief, archetype equals form and is universal, context is personal and is unique.</p>

<p>That's as concise as I can make it. I hope this solves your dilemma. For depth, go to Jung's Collected Works, etc. </p>

<p>PS, to Community: I am not interested in debating this definition, and even less interested in debating whether it should exist. Oh, come now!</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-09T05:16:06.213Z
Alas, User 21254 is me, and thus, I must lay claim to the above answer. I thought I had logged in, but hadn't. Mea culpa.
Dr. Ken Saichek
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-09T05:18:51.487Z
I don't think we have a way to reassign posts.  I recommend logging in as user21254, deleting your own answer, and then recreating it as the correct user.
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-09T13:25:53.900Z
Welcome, and thank you for your answer! Funny you complain about verbiage, yet add even more verbiage. :) Comments are temporary, and this discussion will be removed or be moved to the Meta site if it carries on and needs further discussion. However, posts are permanent, thus referring to such discussions/comments in this answer is in essence more problematic than in comments. I therefore suggest you edit out the "All this verbage ..." and "PS" part, and just focus on the question (post).
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-09T04:24:35.860Z
2019-01-09T05:16:25.097Z
2019-01-09T05:16:25.097Z
user21254
<p>The editors of Jung's Collected Works point us in the direction of Jolande Jacobi's book <em>Complex/Symbol/Archetype</em> for a Jung's definitions of this term.  (See the footnote in the &quot;Definitions&quot; chapter of of <em>Psychological Types</em>.) There is a good summary of Jocobi's discussion in the <a href="https://appliedjung.com/complex-archetype-symbol" rel="nofollow noreferrer">AppliedJung.com website</a>.</p>
<p>To answer the question: Archetypes are essentially, Freudian instincts. Jung's position is that <em>something,</em> some energy directed in some pattern &quot;ran&quot; the human being before the development of a sharpened consciousness. E.g. something told him how to get food, how to reproduce, run from tigers, etc.</p>
<p>Jung's spin on instincts is that they do have specific forms. Some of this view he did adopt from Freud, who also wrote about the &quot;Father complex and mother complex. Cassandra complex.&quot; But for Jung,
a) instincts did not come from an unorganized &quot;Id.&quot; But rather a highly structured unconscious matrix.
b) There are many more archetypes than Freud identified, because Jung looked back into the history of mythology and religion and found them. He also found them in his active patients.</p>
<p>Archetypes are like the crystals that form when for instance, you make rock candy from sugar (or any type of natural crystal such as a diamond):How does the liquid sugar &quot;know&quot; that it's going to form into the same specific pattern every time?  The liquid sugar somehow fills out a pre-existing &quot;form&quot;.</p>
<p>So it is with psychic energy of all kinds: it &quot;flows&quot; into specific patterns, patterns which are conditioned somehow by mankind's million year history.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-27T00:43:54.197Z
Link-only answers are discouraged on StackExchange - please include relevant information from the referenced source(s) to demonstrate how they answer the question.
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-26T23:55:32.913Z
2023-02-24T23:39:22.067Z
2023-02-24T23:39:22.067Z
Charlesdwm
<p>I am reading "Psychology by Sandra E. Hockenbury, 7th ed.". The question asked <a href="https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/1116/what-form-might-jungian-archetypes-take-in-the-brain/1179#1179">What form might Jungian archetypes take in the brain?</a> takes a deeper look at jungian archetypes but I am not able to understand the definition of the archetypes. The book defines the term as follow:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Contained in the collective unconscious are the archetypes, the mental images of universal human instincts, themes, and preoccupations. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>I understood the term collective unconscious as the deepest part of psyche shared by all humans which contain our collective evolutionary history. The book goes on and give examples as:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Common archetypal themes that are expressed in virtually every culture are the hero, the powerful father, the nurturing mother, the witch, the wise old man, the innocent child, and death and rebirth. Two important archetypes that Jung (1951) described are the
  anima and the animus—the representations of feminine and masculine qualities.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Let's take one example "powerful father" it says that it is the mental image of human instinct. But at the same time he mentions "collective unconscious" but not everyone share the same image of father. I know that he proposed this example around 80 years before but still not all the humans have the same instinct or do we? What I am missing?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-07T19:52:13.510Z
This is a well-asked question.  However, my preference is to close this question as off-topic as it is about pseudoscience.  In the early history of modern psychology, there was a lot of reference to pseudoscientific constructs such as archetypes, but these are generally outdated.  [I have further argued](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2249/7001) that the content of therapeutic schools not based on science (eg, art therapy, religious therapy, and psychoanalysis) is off topic here.  I will let the community decide.
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-07T19:58:57.360Z
I am also aware of the criticism of pseudoscientific theories. But I don't understand them. In order to criticize them one has to understand what each term mean.
Delsilon
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-07T20:07:57.977Z
@Delision As I mentioned, pseudoscientific constructs are a significant part of the history of psychology, so I would certainly expect them to be included in textbooks.  However, this question is phrased more like: "Given that archetypes are a valid construct, how do I interpret their meaning in this context?" which is not valid imo.  As I mentioned in my meta post, if you would like to rephrase this question as: "Why are Jungian archetypes considered outdated or pseudoscience?" then the question can be considered as on-topic.
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-07T20:16:00.880Z
I am not assuming any valid construct. The people who had criticized it may have done due to the logical flaw of the theory but I am having difficulty in semantic part of the theory. When I first looked at the statement, I didn't get anything.
Delsilon
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-07T22:11:11.477Z
In contrast to Arnon, I agree with Delsilon here. This question is basically asking to help understand how archetypes were supposed to be interpreted. This also opens up the possibility of answers that highlight it as an invalid construct, potentially reflecting some of the concerns in regards to unclarity raised in this very question. But, this is a much debated topic on this site, thus do not be discouraged. We'll let the community decide, and we welcome you to participate in the discussion on Meta.
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-08T10:50:11.430Z
As a defender of Freudian and Neo-Freudian discussion I also [argued my point in the same meta question as @ArnonWeinberg](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2248) and agree with Delsilon and Steven that blocking discussion removes the possibility of scientific debate on whether it is pseudoscience or not.  The question is about Jungian **psychology** and therefore should be open to question here.
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-08T19:01:19.133Z
Sounds good all.  I have in fact voted up this question, as it is well asked, regardless of being on-topic.  However, just to add that this site is not a good forum for debate, scientific or otherwise.
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-01-09T00:33:40.643Z
@ArnonWeinberg - I understand what you are saying about debate and my use of the word was not great, but the possibility of having 2 or more answers can be enough to **form** a debate when combined.  You only have to look at our answers in the meta question we linked :-)
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-25T05:04:18.340Z
Ultimately, this question did not attract any science-based answers, so I am closing it after all.
Arnon Weinberg
<psychoanalysis><jung>
Basic Question on Jungian Archetypes
Delsilon
# Basic Question on Jungian Archetypes

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-01-07)

I am reading "Psychology by Sandra E. Hockenbury, 7th ed.". The question asked [What form might Jungian archetypes take in the brain?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/1116/what-form-might-jungian-archetypes-take-in-the-brain/1179#1179) takes a deeper look at jungian archetypes but I am not able to understand the definition of the archetypes. The book defines the term as follow:

> Contained in the collective unconscious are the archetypes, the mental images of universal human instincts, themes, and preoccupations.

I understood the term collective unconscious as the deepest part of psyche shared by all humans which contain our collective evolutionary history. The book goes on and give examples as:

> Common archetypal themes that are expressed in virtually every culture are the hero, the powerful father, the nurturing mother, the witch, the wise old man, the innocent child, and death and rebirth. Two important archetypes that Jung (1951) described are the
> anima and the animus—the representations of feminine and masculine qualities.

Let's take one example "powerful father" it says that it is the mental image of human instinct. But at the same time he mentions "collective unconscious" but not everyone share the same image of father. I know that he proposed this example around 80 years before but still not all the humans have the same instinct or do we? What I am missing?

**Tags:** psychoanalysis, jung

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This is a well-asked question.  However, my preference is to close this question as off-topic as it is about pseudoscience.  In the early history of modern psychology, there was a lot of reference to pseudoscientific constructs such as archetypes, but these are generally outdated.  [I have further argued](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2249/7001) that the content of therapeutic schools not based on science (eg, art therapy, religious therapy, and psychoanalysis) is off topic here.  I will let the community decide.  
> **username_0**: I am also aware of the criticism of pseudoscientific theories. But I don't understand them. In order to criticize them one has to understand what each term mean.  
> **username_1**: @Delision As I mentioned, pseudoscientific constructs are a significant part of the history of psychology, so I would certainly expect them to be included in textbooks.  However, this question is phrased more like: "Given that archetypes are a valid construct, how do I interpret their meaning in this context?" which is not valid imo.  As I mentioned in my meta post, if you would like to rephrase this question as: "Why are Jungian archetypes considered outdated or pseudoscience?" then the question can be considered as on-topic.  
> **username_0**: I am not assuming any valid construct. The people who had criticized it may have done due to the logical flaw of the theory but I am having difficulty in semantic part of the theory. When I first looked at the statement, I didn't get anything.  
> **username_2**: In contrast to Arnon, I agree with username_0 here. This question is basically asking to help understand how archetypes were supposed to be interpreted. This also opens up the possibility of answers that highlight it as an invalid construct, potentially reflecting some of the concerns in regards to unclarity raised in this very question. But, this is a much debated topic on this site, thus do not be discouraged. We'll let the community decide, and we welcome you to participate in the discussion on Meta.  
> **username_3**: As a defender of Freudian and Neo-Freudian discussion I also [argued my point in the same meta question as @ArnonWeinberg](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/a/2248) and agree with username_0 and Steven that blocking discussion removes the possibility of scientific debate on whether it is pseudoscience or not.  The question is about Jungian **psychology** and therefore should be open to question here.  
> **username_1**: Sounds good all.  I have in fact voted up this question, as it is well asked, regardless of being on-topic.  However, just to add that this site is not a good forum for debate, scientific or otherwise.  
> **username_3**: @ArnonWeinberg - I understand what you are saying about debate and my use of the word was not great, but the possibility of having 2 or more answers can be enough to **form** a debate when combined.  You only have to look at our answers in the meta question we linked :-)  
> **username_1**: Ultimately, this question did not attract any science-based answers, so I am closing it after all.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2019-01-09. Score: 1

All this verbage, without a single answer. The archetypes are the forms with which we populate our psyches. They are only outlines. The context is filled in individually, and therefore differs individually. To use your example of "father." We can all agree upon the existence of "fatherness," the condition of being a father. Thus, the archetype "Father" arises. Yet, since we've all had different experiences of who and what that father is, and what he (to speak genetically) looks like, and how he acts, including those who have had an absent father, we fill in the archetype with that personal data. In brief, archetype equals form and is universal, context is personal and is unique.

That's as concise as I can make it. I hope this solves your dilemma. For depth, go to Jung's Collected Works, etc.

PS, to Community: I am not interested in debating this definition, and even less interested in debating whether it should exist. Oh, come now!

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: Alas, User 21254 is me, and thus, I must lay claim to the above answer. I thought I had logged in, but hadn't. Mea culpa.  
> **username_1**: I don't think we have a way to reassign posts.  I recommend logging in as username_4, deleting your own answer, and then recreating it as the correct user.  
> **username_2**: Welcome, and thank you for your answer! Funny you complain about verbiage, yet add even more verbiage. :) Comments are temporary, and this discussion will be removed or be moved to the Meta site if it carries on and needs further discussion. However, posts are permanent, thus referring to such discussions/comments in this answer is in essence more problematic than in comments. I therefore suggest you edit out the "All this verbage ..." and "PS" part, and just focus on the question (post).  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2020-08-26. Score: -1

The editors of Jung's Collected Works point us in the direction of Jolande Jacobi's book *Complex/Symbol/Archetype* for a Jung's definitions of this term. (See the footnote in the "Definitions" chapter of of *Psychological Types*.) There is a good summary of Jocobi's discussion in the [AppliedJung.com website](https://appliedjung.com/complex-archetype-symbol).

To answer the question: Archetypes are essentially, Freudian instincts. Jung's position is that *something,* some energy directed in some pattern "ran" the human being before the development of a sharpened consciousness. E.g. something told him how to get food, how to reproduce, run from tigers, etc.

Jung's spin on instincts is that they do have specific forms. Some of this view he did adopt from Freud, who also wrote about the "Father complex and mother complex. Cassandra complex." But for Jung,
a) instincts did not come from an unorganized "Id." But rather a highly structured unconscious matrix.
b) There are many more archetypes than Freud identified, because Jung looked back into the history of mythology and religion and found them. He also found them in his active patients.

Archetypes are like the crystals that form when for instance, you make rock candy from sugar (or any type of natural crystal such as a diamond):How does the liquid sugar "know" that it's going to form into the same specific pattern every time? The liquid sugar somehow fills out a pre-existing "form".

So it is with psychic energy of all kinds: it "flows" into specific patterns, patterns which are conditioned somehow by mankind's million year history.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Link-only answers are discouraged on StackExchange - please include relevant information from the referenced source(s) to demonstrate how they answer the question.  

---

