Archetypes Are More Than Mythic Figures
Demystifying Jungian Psychology #1
Demystifying Jungian Psychology is a series dedicated to unraveling common misconceptions surrounding Jungian theories. Each installment explores a key concept, clarifying its core meaning and relevance, while shedding light on how these ideas can be applied to inner work.
“[A]rchetypes are not whimsical inventions but autonomous elements of the unconscious psyche which were there before any invention was thought of. They represent the unalterable structure of a psychic world whose “reality” is attested by the determining effects it has upon the conscious mind.”
—C.G. Jung, Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious (CW 9.1)
Misconception: Archetypes are often seen as the common figures and fixed characters from fiction and mythology themselves, such as the Divine Child, the Heroine and the Wise Old Man.
Actual theory: Archetypes are the unknowable psychological structures of the collective unconscious which give rise to these figures. The characters we see from fiction are the products; archetypes are the producers.
Archetypes are often roped into overly simplified, formulaic models for the sake of brevity and accessibility. This need arises because consciousness naturally seeks to categorize and make sense of complex ideas by reducing them to something more digestible. However, archetypes are far more profound and expansive, they are the fundamental, universal structures of the psyche that underlie and shape human experience.
As innate patterns, Jung saw archetypes as inextricably linked to the body. Soma and psyche are not split, but rather, exist on an intertwined continuum that can swing to the somatic end in the form of instinctual actions, felt-sense perceptions and physical processes or to the psychological end in the form of symbols, images and thoughts.
At their core, archetypes are unknowable. We can only perceive, track and recognize them by the effects they have on consciousness. From recurrent mythological themes like the descent to the underworld to water as a common dream symbol of the unconscious to typical behavior patterns when we fall in love — all indicate that there is a deeper bedrock of psychological continuity which ego rests on.
This is an intricate concept, pushing the boundaries of what we can define as real. The nature of the psyche is difficult to track and investigate, its mutability leads to a high degree of variability. So archetypes, holding some level of resonance for the collective, become identified with what is most obvious, the dynamics they produce, rather than their true form.
For example, the archetypal dynamics of the Mother is a framework that explores the creative matrix from which all life springs and eventually returns.
It gathers around concepts such as complexities of nature, feminine mysteries, the relationship between mother and child, fertility and creation, that which devours and destroys, etc.
It informs our relationship to our personal mother, or other figures who have taken on a mothering role in our life.
It reaches into the instinctual end of experience, guiding us on how to give birth or naturally care for a child.
It creates mythological figures like Demeter, Kali, Baba Yaga or the Virgin Mary.
None of these manifestations are the archetype itself. At the heart of this phenomena is not the Mother imago, the myth of the nature goddess or the behavioral pattern of nurturing something to life. It’s the mysterious influence of an inborn predisposition that subtly guides our psychological experience, providing shape and continuity from individual to individual.
Expanding Archetypal Understanding
“The archetypes are in some sense the psychic preconditions of our entire human existence, and we can go neither over nor around them. We can, however, develop them further or refine them. Thus we are not trapped in the sense that no evolution is possible.”
— Marie Louise von Franz, Psyche & Matter
Working with archetypes is an invitation to grapple with the reality of our psychological nature. Each archetypal framing is a web of potentiality that orbits a general set of factors. As von Franz says above, we are not trapped within them, instead, we can re-imagine this as a dynamic landscape with many paths we can choose to follow. The process of evolution begins by consciously turning inwards and asking, “How is the archetype manifesting within me?1”
This opens us up to a creative platform for inner work where stereotypical approaches dissolve.
Rather than focusing purely on the positive and exciting qualities of an archetypal figure, entertain its negative or chthonic aspects as well: If we identify with Peter Pan as a representation of youthful abandon, adventurousness and rebellion we may be blinded to the effects of the puer aeternus, the psychological propensity of the eternal child, who in their shadow aspects never grows up, resists maturation and constantly chases each new possibility without ever committing to any path or achieving genuine growth.
Rather than viewing an archetype as a static mythic label that defines our core sense of self, see them as roots of experience that are constantly shifting: Although we may be drawn to trickster figures like Loki or Hermes, these archetypal manifestations are not ours to claim nor are they the only defining psychological influences present throughout our lives. Instead, the dynamics of the trickster may intensify at a time when ambivalent, mercurial energies are needed to break down rigid structures of belief, then recede once we need to regain stability, ebbing back into the unconscious until a time when we need the trickster again.
Rather than fixating on a one-dimensional manifestation of an archetypal character, explore the full range of expression that the psychological framework constellates: When stuck at an impasse, a heroic urge may be called on to draw out internal resources and face the unknown. If we see this only as a Herculean effort, where we must forcefully wrestle our shadows into submission, we lose access to other generative potentials. Sometimes we may need an Orphic approach, drawing upon poetic sensibilities, or a Thesean one, merging with the feminine psychopomp.
Archetypes are vessels waiting to be filled with the conscious contents of our experience. The shape of the container is something sacred to behold. It is paradoxically numinous and awe-inspiring to interact with and exceedingly mundane. Each of us are a tapestry of archetypal forces which are constantly blending, overlapping, exciting or depressing the psyche.
When we see archetypes as more than mythic figures, we enter into the realm of the primordial instincts. Here, we can search through the pieces of our collective psychic evolutions, we can examine patterns that have informed beliefs of societies far and wide, we can see how these aspects come alive within us and the exciting paths of individuation that offers.
Archetypes challenge us to think more deeply about who we are and the fabric of our reality, allowing us to discover the intermingling of our unique life story against the mysteries of the psychological foundations they sit upon.
Join the conversation
How do you understand archetypes?
What common misconceptions about archetypes have you encountered?
Any questions on the ideas explored here?
Relevant guides for exploring this inquiry further can be found in my posts: The Archetypal Ground and Working with Complexes.
Really great post. It made me think of what Jung said about complexes, that we don't have them, but they have us. I thought this particularly when you wrote 'these archetypal manifestations are not ours to claim', which resonated strongly. I appreciated the way you brought in the somatic connection - this is something I'm only just beginning to get a feel of. But what really struck me was how you talked about the fabric of reality shifting. For me, this has been truly disturbing, like an dizzying shapeshifting that doesn't just happen once, but seems to keep going, like waves or pulses that pull me into new ways of being embodied within a soulful landscape, or the anima mundi. One's cosmology changes.
Beautifully said! I loved your separation of the image from the archetype - images can be archetypal, but they are not the archetype itself. Great clarification! I wonder what you think about the idea of possession by an archetypal energy? Thank you!