Author Topic: Critique of Archetypal Psychology  (Read 9343 times)

Matswin

  • Known Members
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Gender: Male
    • Articles on depth psychology and more...
Critique of Archetypal Psychology
« on: October 06, 2012, 07:50:31 AM »
Archetypal Psychology is the fast food variant of Jungian psychology. It is superficial and lacks nourishing value. The following dream from my early twenties exemplifies what I mean.

I dreamt that I attended some form of New Age congregation in the middle of the night. Together with other people I entered a flying saucer that threw us about in the air in violent movements. During this experience I became conscious for a while. When I went home from the celebration I felt unmoved by the experience and slightly disappointed. I went through the dark wood, and passed a little bridge over a brook. My trouser leg touched a lonely little flower, a Chickweed Wintergreen (which is a little flower that grows in northern Europe, Trientalis europaea L., "Skogsstjärna" — forest star). It was Linnaeus's favourite flower. On being touched, the forest star immediately unfolded its petals, something that made a strong impression on me.



This formally insignificant forest star felt much more meaningful than the grand spiritual congregation with flying saucers, etc. Although I have never been a fantast who believes in extra-terrestrials, etc., I think the message was that collective spirituality has played out its role, and I should search after the lonely forest star. Perhaps Hillman plays a role in a person's spiritual development, during a budding phase of spirituality, but at a point in time one must depart. It is a pagan and polytheistic spirituality in the sense that it represents a sophomoric form of spirit, which corresponds to a stage in spiritual growth. The passing to an higher spiritual level does not signify a collective realization of spiritual truth. I argue that it's the reverse, it is finding the little forest star that has been forgotten in the dark wood, waiting to be touched. The forest star signifies a personal form of spirituality, conducive to individuation. The spiritual mystery is a "little mystery", which is underestimated and easily overlooked. This notion is central to medieval alchemy and mysticism. In this way it differs from the general spirit of religion.

The valuable stone is the insignificant thing that can be found outside the doorstep. If this realization had taken root in psychology, then it would have benefited patient health greatly. It is that important. Since psychotherapy makes up for the decline in the religious formula of mental healing, it is necessary that it makes use of its particular strength, which is lacking in religion, namely the personal spiritual path. Hillman and Archetypal Psychology endorses the obverse form of spirituality, rooted in grandiose and airy-fairy ideas. It represents a regressive solution, which Hillman readily admits:

"[When] the monotheism of consciousness is no longer able to deny the existence of fragmentary autonomous systems and no longer able to deal with our actual psychic state, then there arises the fantasy of returning to Greek polytheism" (Hillman, Re-Visioning Psychology, p.27).

But to return to an outdated religious standpoint is not a lasting solution. From the perspective of Jungian psychology, the only proper way is the personal spiritual path, on lines of the inward-looking mystic. However, what complicates the issue is that many people in the Western world, and a majority of people in the world, have no propensity to walk the individual path. Therefore religion is essential to them. Individuation is not a choice for the majority of humanity, because they must belong to a group and remain part of a collective personality. Factors of indigenous psychic economy invalidate the notion of individuation, which is problematic from a Jungian perspective. Individuation, which is a central theme in Jungian psychology, is only an alternative to a portion of the population. Regardless, a regress to the antique frame of mind, on lines of Hillman, spells disaster, as demonstrated by the Flower Power experiment. Arguably, Jungian psychology has a romantic bias, which is quite detrimental. But this is exactly what Hillman capitalizes on and magnifies to monstrous proportions. The effect is that the romantic perspective becomes the basis of his psychology.

"The calling from the eternal world demands that this world here be turned upside down, to restore its nearness to the moon; lunacy, love, poetics" (Hillman, The Soul's Code, p.282).

Hillman draws on the romantic philosophers of the 19th century, such as J. G. Fichte (1762–1814). According to Paul Roubiczek (1898-1972), 19th century Romanticism is responsible for the madness that fell upon the modern world, in terms of totalitarian ideologies and unrestrained materialism (here). When Hillman champions a return to the polytheism of ancient antiquity, he seems to have no insight into historical facts. People in that era had lost faith in the traditional form of religion. Christianity walked into a religious vacuum. It had no real competitors. The Romans tried to promote a cult of the emperor, but it didn't work. Centuries earlier the Eleusinian mysteries were forced to recruit proselytes from whores and vagabonds, because people had lost interest in the mysteries. They were as interested in them as we moderners are of the Freemason mysteries.

Around the birth of Christ, people were quite dreary and gloomy, as if they had lost all faith in life. They wrote horrible things on the gravestones, to the effect that their lives had been completely meaningless. The Romans compensated this dreariness with superficial cultic practices, imperialistic expansionism, careerism, money and riches, opulence and orgies. Of course, this was bound to have catastrophic consequences. In Satyricon, Federico Fellini depicts an age which is forlorn of hope, ravaged by debauchery. It is lacking in spiritual direction, as if waiting for a Redeemer to emerge. We wouldn't wish a coming again of this epoch. At Dinner Key Auditorium in Coconut Grove in March 1969, Jim Morrison, singer in The Doors, exhorted concertgoers to have sex with each other, which many of them proceeded with. It takes only a few years, after the return of the romantic puer aeternus, in the form of Flower Power, until it transforms into the same kind of debauchery, coupled with dreariness, which possessed the people in the beginning of our era. Hillman attempts a regressive solution. It is a blind alley in spiritual and psychological theory. It has already been tried out and it doesn't work. Please don't fall for this chimera.

Mats Winther

Further reading:

Winther, M. (1999). 'Critique of Archetypal Psychology' (here).

Starcrosser

  • Known Members
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Critique of Archetypal Psychology
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2012, 03:02:03 PM »
I find Hillman's second quote enlightening in the sense that it is true that we do need to return to the irrational qualities of our existence, if we are to deal with the cold tyrannies which take place every day, in every state, while people pass each other on the sidewalks and in the malls.  It is also true that these irrationalities lend themselves to a particular set of dangers, which indeed, the so-called "rational human beings" do their best to stem off.  On a personal level, I find that simple approaches help me maintain myself -- heart, bravery, unadulterated being.  I have often found that complicated people always find a way to underestimate simple things.  It is as if they would like the solution to be unattainable, so that they can attain it.
 

Starcrosser

  • Known Members
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Critique of Archetypal Psychology
« Reply #2 on: October 06, 2012, 03:31:06 PM »
I would like to add that a great many people fear becoming simple, at heart, because of the very great sacrifice involved.

Keri

  • Dream Work Vessel
  • *
  • Posts: 407
  • Gender: Female
  • Sedna
Re: Critique of Archetypal Psychology
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2012, 03:01:56 AM »
Dear Mats,

Thanks for sharing your dream and thoughts with us.  I share some of your sense that the “New Age” or return to polytheistic or tribal mentality is not very helpful in these times.  To my mind, it is not because that form of spirituality is somehow more primitive or of lesser value, but rather because it is no longer well-suited for the current environment.  I think that during the (very long) time our brains evolved within a tribal setting, this form of spirituality was quite functional.  So much so that I think it is rather “hard-wired.”  We’re born to have somewhat of a drive toward that, so maybe that is why these fads keep coming along and why they are so appealing to so many people.  Matt, I think, has written extensively about why that form of religion or spirituality is no longer as useful to the Modern.

I thought your dream was really lovely, and I can see why it has stayed with you and made such a strong impression on you.  One of the things that struck me was that the forest star flower is of nature (as contrasted with the “airy fairy” flying saucer) , and thus of matter, and that it was the favorite flower of the great Linnaeus (who I presume was a naturalist, or observer of nature, in addition to being a namer and categorizer).  According to Matt’s interpretation of the Rosarium Philosophorum sequence (The Rosarium Philosophorum and the Second Opus), it is the crowning of Mary (as Matter) that represents the re-infusing of spirit into matter.  This second opus, if I am representing Matt correctly, is the goal of the whole work of alchemy.  The solitary spiritual (at times transcendent) path of the individuant is only half of the story.  The second part requires returning to the world and becoming part of it.  And this is through true relationship with others, which requires empathy (which I think one can learn through the inner work initially).  And I think this is where meaning and faith and loss of that “dreariness” is found.

Sincerely,
Keri
O gather up the brokenness
And bring it to me now . . .

Behold the gates of mercy
In arbitrary space
And none of us deserving
The cruelty or the grace

O solitude of longing
Where love has been confined
Come healing of the body
Come healing of the mind
  - Leonard Cohen, "Come Healing"

Let me be in the service of my Magic, and let my Magic be Good Medicine.  -- Dominique Christina

Keri

  • Dream Work Vessel
  • *
  • Posts: 407
  • Gender: Female
  • Sedna
Re: Critique of Archetypal Psychology
« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2012, 03:03:06 AM »
And to Starcrosser/Ryan,

Welcome!   I’ve enjoyed reading your comments.  I’m interested in knowing what you mean by becoming simple at heart.

Keri
O gather up the brokenness
And bring it to me now . . .

Behold the gates of mercy
In arbitrary space
And none of us deserving
The cruelty or the grace

O solitude of longing
Where love has been confined
Come healing of the body
Come healing of the mind
  - Leonard Cohen, "Come Healing"

Let me be in the service of my Magic, and let my Magic be Good Medicine.  -- Dominique Christina

Matswin

  • Known Members
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Gender: Male
    • Articles on depth psychology and more...
Re: Critique of Archetypal Psychology
« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2012, 06:13:00 AM »
Thanks for the comments. As I pointed out, it is a complication of Jungian psychology that it centers around individuation, which is realizable only to a portion of the population. The rest has no other choice than to live in collective identification, as in black Africa. Hillman tries to meet this demand by a polytheistic throwback. However, polytheism builds on the identification of deities with the powers of nature. For instance, the regularity of the tides depends on the benevolence of Poseidon and the falling in love depends on the divine intervention of Eros. Today, we believe that the moon's gravity and hormonal releases in the brain are responsible for these natural powers, respectively. So there is no way that there can be a polytheistic reawakening in the Western world, today.

Jungian psychology has a romantic bias, which is quite detrimental. This is exactly what Hillman capitalizes on and magnifies
to monstrous proportions. The effect is that the romantic perspective becomes the basis of his psychology. I think this romantic inclination is evident in the curious topicality of The Red Book, and the superstitious quality of synchronicity. Synchronicity can, in a sense, be viewed as an intervention by a deity in that a certain archetype is said to be active at the time of the synchronistic event. Thus, an archetypal power underlies the event, which is not far from the polytheistic conception. Arguably, it is an inherent fallacy of Jungian psychology, in itself, which has allowed the regress that has occurred in the post-Jungians. I don't know what to do with this synchronistic notion and the New Age quality of Jungian psychology. Perhaps it is high time that the Jungians came to terms with these difficulties.

Mats Winther

Starcrosser

  • Known Members
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Critique of Archetypal Psychology
« Reply #6 on: November 30, 2012, 04:37:45 PM »
And to Starcrosser/Ryan,

Welcome!   I’ve enjoyed reading your comments.  I’m interested in knowing what you mean by becoming simple at heart.

Keri

Hrmm, well, I suppose I meant that when sitting around campfire eating a can of beans that tastes good that we acknowledge it truthfully in all of our sincerity.   ;)  I'm not trying to be "Zen-like," with this comment.  Zen always seems to exclude the opposite sex.

Starcrosser

  • Known Members
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Critique of Archetypal Psychology
« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2012, 04:48:39 PM »
In the end, nothing works but our own understanding of life, Mats.  There are elements in it, for sure.  I am male, I have a feminine partner and antagonist inside.  I am merely human, beyond any choice of my own; rather than some personal entity.  Sure, I have personal qualities, too.  Beyond that, I think a great deal of the most important things that we learn are our lessons and our lessons alone - because we alone are the only ones that can solve them.

Starcrosser

  • Known Members
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Critique of Archetypal Psychology
« Reply #8 on: November 30, 2012, 05:07:27 PM »
I, also, think Hillman didn't have the faintest clue when he made some of those comments.  Like many after Jung, he seemed to think he knew too much.  A quality that Jung had himself.  Don't we all?