One of the earlier essays written during my training at the C. G. Jung Institute in Zürich in 2008. The text represents an early attempt to think about the relationship between archetype, instinct, biology and consciousness from the perspective of my understanding of analytical psychology at the time.
Introduction
There is the archetype as such, instinct and archetypal image. The archetypal image is something perceivable; it can be emotion, thought, sound or any kind of image, even an intuitive hunch — anything, as long as it is made of conscious material and at the same time expresses an unconscious fact.
The archetype as such is a much wider idea. It points toward the collective unconscious, which stems from our biological background, brain structure and the chemical reactions taking place in the body and brain. The archetype as such is embedded in the matter we are made of.
If we look at things from an evolutionary standpoint, as dead matter becomes alive it begins to show instinctual behaviour. As images begin to be perceived by the individual, consciousness slowly develops. In short, the archetype as such is related to matter itself, instinct is related to life in general, and image to consciousness.
In this paper I will try to reason through these ideas.
Archetype as Such
Archetype and Physics
The archetype has no content; it determines form. If we look at the solar system, every planet differs in size, shape and mass, yet every one of them circles around the sun according to the same laws of gravity. Gravity also determines the form of planets, pressure and temperature within them, and many other things. We cannot perceive gravity directly, only the effects it produces.
The same could be said about elemental forces in physics in general. They themselves are not directly perceivable, but their effects are. In some sense, this resembles the way archetypes manifest themselves in psychology.
The elemental forces of physics govern matter and the universe itself. Since we are also made of matter, one may ask whether something of these fundamental laws is reflected in the structure of the psyche.
Archetype and Chemistry
A small amoeba can live both in salt water and in fresh water. If we move it from salt water into fresh water, it swells in order to compensate for osmotic pressure. We can repeat a similar experiment with a porous balloon filled with saline solution and placed into fresh water. Living and non-living matter follow the same laws.
Millions of similar reactions take place continuously in the body and brain. Modern pharmacology is based on the assumption that many of these reactions can be reproduced and studied in laboratories.
The reactions taking place in the body are also related to psychic states. Certain psychiatric drugs influence depressive thoughts and emotions. Do psychic processes have their chemical equivalents within the body? If so, then psychic life is not entirely separate from the laws of chemistry. Chemical laws also give form to psychic processes.
Could the unperceivable archetype have some relation to these laws of chemistry?
Archetype as Such and Instinct
Archetype and Biology
Complex physical and chemical systems react to outside influences by changing structure or position. If force is applied to a stone, it moves. If oxygen is added to fire, it burns more strongly.
There are organisms so simple that scientists sometimes have difficulty determining whether they should primarily be understood as living organisms or as highly complex chemical compounds. Their behaviour is determined by chemical laws just as much as by biological ones. Where is the border that divides chemical reactions from the physiological reactions of living organisms?
Inherited reaction to stimuli is instinct. In simple organisms these reactions are primarily physiological, while in more developed organisms we can observe increasingly differentiated behaviour. Psychologically speaking, instinct could be described as a reaction to stimuli that still remains largely within the body and outside conscious comprehension, although consciousness may become aware of it.
If archetype is the force that shapes the reactions of living organisms to stimuli, then instinct may be understood as the first observable product of its activity.
Instinct and Image
Blind Instinct and Learning
When plankton becomes abundant within a marine ecosystem, certain fish multiply rapidly and consume it until the food source disappears, after which many of them die from hunger. Or a hungry caveman, chasing a deer, fails to notice the hole before him and falls into it.
If a wolf sees food and rushes toward it, but falls into a hunter’s trap and gets hurt, the next time it encounters a similar trap it may stop itself. Something has been learned. The same can happen to the caveman. The next time he follows a deer he may stop himself before the hole because he remembers the previous experience and the pain connected with it.
At that moment he perceives an image of pain without directly experiencing it again. The image confronts the blind instinct driving him forward. Blind instinct stands opposite to the image he perceives, yet instinct and image may arise from the same root. That root we call the archetype as such.
Consciousness and Evolution
An image has to be made of something already perceived and experienced. It is composed of elements of past experience that can be connected with the present situation.
The perception of images is closely related to survival. One could suppose that image formation developed gradually through natural selection. Individuals capable of imagining consequences may have had greater chances of survival and adaptation, and therefore passed these capacities on to their descendants.
Remembering images makes it possible to connect present situations with previously experienced ones, and this may be one of the foundations of consciousness itself. Image formation arises from the same roots as instinct, but on a different level of development. In this sense, image compensates for the one-sidedness of instinct.
The mythologies of the world could be understood as symbolic images of repeatedly experienced human situations. Their purpose is not only explanatory, but also adaptive: they prepare the individual for experiences that have not yet been personally lived through.
Archetype, Complex, Symbol and Adaptation
Adaptation is the process through which we cope both with the outer world and with our own inner reality. The ego is perhaps the most sophisticated instrument of adaptation.
As the ego develops, it forms attitudes that have proven useful in the past. Over time, however, consciousness may become identified with these attitudes and gain a certain rigidity, while life itself continually changes and demands further development.
If outer or inner circumstances require an attitude that consciousness does not yet possess, compensation from the unconscious occurs. The archetype then attempts to force itself into consciousness through images, emotions or actions. If archetype expresses itself through action we speak of instinct, but in order to become conscious it must also appear in symbolic form.
To become perceivable, the archetype borrows material from consciousness and shapes it into symbol. Symbol could therefore be understood as an unconscious fact expressed through conscious images.
When consciousness encounters a symbol, several things may happen:
- The new content is understood and integrated into consciousness. A new attitude develops and adaptation succeeds.
- The archetype lacks sufficient material to express itself adequately.
- The unconscious content is too incompatible with the already existing attitude of the ego, and repression occurs.
In the latter two cases the unknown factor necessary for adaptation remains unconscious and forms a complex. In one case the complex has never become conscious; in the other, consciousness has actively rejected it.
Thus ego consciousness develops out of the collective unconscious, while the personal unconscious develops partly through the activity and limitations of ego consciousness itself.
Archetype and Healing
The archetype governs not only the development of consciousness, but also the movement toward healing and transformation. If development becomes impossible because consciousness cannot abandon an already established attitude, neurosis sets in. A complex is formed that remains disconnected from conscious life.
How can such a situation be approached? Consciousness itself participates in the formation of neurosis, yet transformation also requires consciousness. At the same time, consciousness can develop only through confrontation with something greater than itself — through encounter with archetypal reality.
In that sense, archetype is also what heals.
By reconnecting with something common to humanity as a whole, the individual may become able to endure suffering and discover meaning within it. This reminds me of the story Jung mentions regarding the healing of snake bites in ancient Egypt. The wounded person was told the myth of Isis and Osiris, and through identification with the symbolic drama — with the archetypal level of experience — healing could occur.
Archetype in Everyday Life
Normal psychological development assumes that at certain points in life our existing attitude becomes insufficient. We either develop further or become neurotic. The development of ego itself is archetypal in nature, and most individuals are confronted with similar developmental situations throughout life.
There are certain situations almost all of us must go through. These events could be called archetypal because they demand transformation of consciousness. Examples include beginning school, first experiences of love, entering work life, marriage, creative activity, illness, loss and death.
Such moments are archetypal because the existing ego attitude is no longer sufficient and unconscious compensation becomes activated. During these periods people often have significant dreams, symbolic experiences and sometimes even synchronistic events.
Archetype and the Unknown
Whenever the human mind confronts the unknown — whether within psyche or nature — it attempts to give form to what cannot yet be fully understood. Archetypal processes organise conscious material into symbolic patterns capable of expressing something previously unknown.
This may partly explain why similar mythological motifs appear repeatedly across cultures, dreams, religions and even scientific theories. Human beings throughout history encountered similar existential problems and required similar psychological adaptations. Archetypal patterns therefore produced similar symbolic images.
An example could be the symbolic problem of three and four. Variations of this motif appear in Christianity, alchemy, Jung’s psychological typology and even modern attempts within physics to understand unified structures underlying nature. What all these examples share is the effort of the human mind to approach and symbolically organise the unknown.
Conclusion
The collective unconscious itself cannot be perceived directly by the ego. We perceive only its effects.
These effects range from instinctual behaviour in living organisms to symbolic images in dreams, myths, religion, creativity and psychological development. They can also be observed in recurring patterns of human culture and in the symbolic structures through which humanity attempts to understand nature and existence.
Based on such phenomena, psychology postulates the existence of something we call the collective unconscious. It shapes consciousness and the symbolic images consciousness perceives — archetypal images or symbols. It also underlies inherited patterns of reaction that we call instincts.
In statistical physics, systems composed of many particles are studied through the laws governing individual particles. In a somewhat analogous sense, one could imagine the archetype as such as related to the fundamental laws underlying matter, life and psyche.
If this is so, can we say that psyche is an epiphenomenon of matter? By saying this, my Christian background still rebels. Yet how much do we really know about matter itself? God may be hidden in it just as much as He may be hidden in our souls.
Bibliography
• C.G. Jung, Mysterium Coniunctionis, Princeton University Press, 1963
• C.G. Jung, Psychology and Alchemy, Princeton University Press, 1968
• C.G. Jung, Psychology and Religion, Princeton University Press, 1958
• C.G. Jung, Symbols of Transformation, Princeton University Press, 1956
• C.G. Jung, The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, Princeton University Press, 1968
• C.G. Jung, Psychological Types, Princeton University Press, 1971
• C.G. Jung, The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, Princeton University Press, 1969
• C.G. Jung, The Symbolic Life, Princeton University Press, 1976
• Edward F. Edinger, The Mysterium Lectures, Inner City Books, Toronto, 1995