Jungian archetypes and the discourse of history

Abstract

This paper argues that Jung's notion of archetypes can be useful to the theory and practice of history, particularly cultural and intellectual history. It claims that a coherent model of depth psychology is needed to explain how collective states such as identity and memory are internalized by individuals and that Freud's theories, by placing so much emphasis on childhood and the Oedipus complex, do not fill that need. Jung's approach, by focusing on developmental changes that take place during adulthood, is more easily testable in terms of evidence that historians normally use. The distinctiveness of Jung's notion of archetypes and its limitations are presented by comparing his ideas to those of Freud, Levi-Strauss, Chomsky, and Lakoff. Jung sometimes speaks of a fixed repertoire of archetypal figures that reside in the collective unconscious; this notion cannot be sustained. At other times he speaks of archetypes as a more plastic set of dispositions whose specific manifestations are shaped by culture and situation. This is in accord with recent trends in evolutionary psychology. The key contribution of archetypes is to emphasize the importance of unifying, emotionally powerful images in discourse that serve to counteract the disintegrating tendencies of modern thought and society. The final section presents several ways in which Jung's ideas might be applied to the practice of history: by pointing out recurrent archetypal images in a discourse, and by re-examining the relationship between religious and secular thought with an eye to incorporating perspectives from non-western cultures.