Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T08:30:15.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Archetypes, Stereotypes and Humanity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

Extract

The work of C. G. Jung, in particular his theory of female and male archetypes, has had a marked influence on the way women and men see themselves in modem society. This influence has been particularly noticeable among some feminist writers, especially those with religious interests. How much reliance should be placed on this theory of Jung’s is debatable in the light of modern philosophical and anthropological thought. There are, of course, serious difficulties in any discussion of archetypes. As Jung himself said, “The archetypal representations (images and ideas) — Should not be confused with the archetypes as such. . . Every archetype, when represented to the mind is already conscious and therefore differs to an indeterminate extent from that which caused the representation.” In view of the changes that have been taking place in human consciousness in recent years and the fact that there is the possibility that these changes may lead to changes in human understanding, it may be helpful to examine Jung’s writing on the Syzygy. Anima and Animus, in relation to present day philosophical and anthropological thinking.

A dictionary defines an archetype as “the original pattern from which copies are made — a prototype”; a stereotype is “something copied or constantly repeated without change”. It is in relation to the differences between these two concepts that Jung’s theory of male and female archetypal representations will be considered, for Jung claims that in his theory he has uncovered the original pattern of the female and male psyches i.e. archetypes.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Jung, Carl Gustav, On the Nature of the Psyche, RKP, London, 1982, p 122Google Scholar.

2 Heidegger, Martin, Being and Time, SCM, London, 1962, pp 191 ‐ 192Google Scholar.

3 Ibid. p 194.

4 Hans‐Georg, Gadamer, Philosophical Hermeneutics, UCP, London, 1977, p 62Google Scholar.

5 Ibid. p 9.

6 Jung, Carl Gustav, in Psyche and Symbol, ed. de Laszlo, V. S., Doubleday Anchc Books, New York, 1958, p xviGoogle Scholar.

7 Jung, Carl Gustav, Aion, the Phenomenology of the Self, RKP, London 1959, p 151Google Scholar.

8 Claude, Levi‐Strauss, The Raw and the Cooked, J. Cape, London, 1970, p 56Google Scholar.

9 Jung, Carl Gustav, Psyche and Symbol, op. cit. p 32.

10 Ibid. p 11.

11 Ibid, p 20.

12 Jung, Emma, Animus and Anima, Analytical Psychology Club of New York, 1972, (ed), p 20Google Scholar.

13 Ibid.

14 Jung, Carl Gustav, Psyche and Symbol, op. cit. p 32.

15 Ibid. p xvi.

16 Linge, D. E. in Gadamer, H‐G, op. cit. p xlviii.

17 Jung, Carl Gustav, Psyche and Symbol, op. cit. p xxi.

18 Eichenbaum, L. & X Outside In – Inside Out, Penguin, London, 1982, p 98fGoogle Scholar.

19 Jung, Carl Gustav, On the Nature of the Psyche, RKP, London, 1982, p 124Google Scholar.

20 Harris, Marvin, Cannibals and Kings, London, 1978, pp 4043Google Scholar.

21 Mirsky, Jonathan, Sunday Observer, 12 December, 1982.

22 Harris, Marvin, op. cit. p 60.

23 Ibid. p 57.

24 Ibid. p 66.

25 Ibid.

26 Greer, Germaine, The Female Eunuch, Granada, London, 1971, p 20Google Scholar.

27 Ibid. p 17.

28 Ibid. p 20.

29 Randall, Vicky, Women and Politics, Macmillan, London, 1982, p 195CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Gadamer, H‐G, op. cit. pp 50‐51.

31 Ibid. p 52.

32 Randall, Vicky, op. cit. p 196.

33 Gal. 5: 1.

34 Ruether, Rosemary R. To Change the World, SCM, London, 1981, p 55Google Scholar.

35 John, 10:10.