Overview: This in-depth guide series explores archetypes, their importance in psychology, and how to work with them.
______________
What is an archetype? What is archetypal psychology?
How can we use archetypes to elevate our consciousness, support psychological development, and improve our mental health?
This is a deep topic.
In this first part, we’ll cover what archetypes are and the role they play in our psychology.
Then, in Part 2, we’ll address how to work with archetypes.
Let’s dive in …
Archetypes Meaning
Plato may be the first philosopher to refer to archetypes. He called them Forms.
For Plato, there were two realities: the world we live in and the non-physical realm where the Forms exist.
These Forms, for Plato, are pre-existing ideal templates or blueprints. They include characteristics like roundness, softness, hardness, greenness, blackness, and so on.
Initially, Swiss psychologist Carl Jung called these forms primordial images.
Later, he termed them archetypes (from the Greek for prime imprinter).
Jung saw archetypes are the fundamental units of the human mind.
“Archetypes,” Jung wrote in The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, “are the living system of reactions and aptitudes that determine the individual’s life in invisible ways.”1C.G. Jung, The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, CW, Vol 8, 1970.
Personal Unconscious versus the Collective Unconscious
Where do these elusive, formless patterns reside?
According to depth psychology, the answer is the Unconscious.
But we need to make an important distinction here because different theorists use the term unconscious differently.
For example, what Freud called the unconscious, Jung referred to as the personal unconscious.
Jung differentiated between the personal unconscious and what he called the collective unconscious.
One’s personal unconscious represents an individual’s unique memories and conditioning. It’s like a secret storage place for each individual’s psyche. Everything the mind-brain records—including what isn’t registered by consciousness—is stored here.
Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious
In contrast, the collective unconscious is like a repository of memories, images, and symbols of humanity’s past. It is ubiquitous, universal, and on a psychic level, accessible by all.
From Jung’s The Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious:2C.G. Jung, The Collected Works, Vol 9, I, The Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious, 1969.
The contents of the collective unconscious are archetypes, primordial images that reflect basic patterns that are common to us all, and which have existed universally since the dawn of time.
For Jung, universal images and patterns, called archetypes, exist in an unseen repository or field that connects each of us.
For example, the mother archetype contains the entire human history of the interaction between mother and child.
The mother archetype and the child archetype impart universal qualities to the mother-child relationship.
However, since each mother and child is unique, they also have unique attributes resulting from memories and experiences that reside in their personal unconscious.
Archetypes are Everywhere
Jung describes archetypes as the forms or images that occur all over the Earth.
These primordial images find their way into ancient religions, myths, legends, and fairy tales. We can observe evidence of archetypes in our dreams, fantasies, and behaviors.
Jungian archetypes define much of what we consider our essential life experiences.
Every character in both our personal dreams and collective myths is an archetype.
Archetypes can be observed in the characters of the stories we read, the films we watch, and the plays we attend.
Archetypes are pervasive throughout the arts, media, advertising, and pop culture.
They influence our relationships and interactions with others and ourselves at such a profound level that it’s challenging to articulate.
Examples of common archetypes include:
See also: The Ultimate List of Over 300 Archetypes
Archetypes Aren’t Just Characters
But ultimately, every word or image represents an archetype.
In addition to archetypal characters like the ones illustrated above, Jung identified primordial images in the form of:
- Archetypal motifs like creation myths, apocalypses, and “end time” prophecies.
- Archetypal events like birth, marriage, and death.
As Jung explains in Man and His Symbols:3C.G. Jung, Man and His Symbols, 2011.
The term ‘archetype’ is often misunderstood as meaning certain definite mythological images or motifs, but these are nothing more than conscious representations. Such variable representations cannot be inherited. The archetype is a tendency to form such representations of a motif—representations that can vary a great deal in detail without losing their basic pattern.
Simply put, archetypes are everywhere.
Why the Psychology of Archetypes Is Important
Archetypes are the secret forces behind human behavior.
Because these primordial images reside in the unconscious—the part of our psyche we aren’t aware of—they influence us without our knowledge.
Jung’s protege Marie-Louise von Franz writes in Archetypal Dimensions of the Psyche:
“The archetypes are inherited dispositions, which cause us to react in a typical way to basic human problems, inner or outer.”
From my perspective, this psychic fact is why archetypes are so important for every one of us.
Archetypes influence everything we do, think, and feel. And they are influencing everyone around us in similar ways. They are like semi-autonomous personalities operating within our psyche.
Through various methods, you can get to know the archetypes expressing themselves through you and others. You can learn the patterns that influence most human behavior. (We’ll cover how in Part 2.)
When you can observe an archetypal energy operating within you, at some level, you have differentiated yourself from that archetype.
This differentiation is important because when you can separate yourself from an archetype, it’s less likely to influence your behavior in deleterious ways.
Illustration: The Wise Old Man
Rembrandt’s Philosopher in Meditation
The light of the sun pours through the window.
Sitting in meditation, the Philosopher absorbs the light in its reflection on the floor.
He reflects on the light of consciousness, readying himself to ascend the spiral stairway to enlightenment.
The Philosopher is an archetype, akin to what Jung referred to as the Wise Old Man (who represents the Self).
What Do Archetypes Do?
To better understand archetypes, we need to examine how they influence our life experiences.
Archetypes play three vital roles in our lives. They:
- Influence our behavior
- Trigger emotions
- Provide us with a sense of meaning
Let’s review each of these roles in more detail.
Archetypes Influence Behavior
How do archetypes influence our behavior?
Jung described archetypes as “the forms which the instincts assume.”
In Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious, he explains:4C.G. Jung, The Collected Works, Vol 9, I, The Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious, 1969, 91.
“[There] is good reason for supposing that the archetypes are the unconscious images of the instincts themselves, in other words, that they are patterns of instinctual behaviors.”
Instincts are like biological urges. When we trigger an instinct, it activates a pattern of behavior like running a software program on a computer.
Because these patterns are pre-existing, archetypes are predictable.
For example, no matter what image of the Hero you imagine, certain patterns of behavior and personality traits, such as bravery, valor, persistence, and action, emerge.
So when you think of archetypes, think of set patterns of behavior shared by all of humanity.
Archetypes Trigger Emotions
In Man and His Symbols, Jung explains that archetypes “are the pieces of life itself—images that are integrally connected to the living individual by the bridge of the emotions.”5Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols, 1968.
When you experience an emotion, it is the emotion of an archetype.
Different archetypal images evoke different emotions. Lovers are passionate, kings are magnanimous, warriors are courageous, and sadists are hateful.
Savvy advertisers use sight, sound, and motion in commercials to trigger specific archetypal patterns in potential customers’ minds.
That is, they are consciously manipulating the public by evoking emotions that lead to specific patterns of behavior.
Archetypes Provide Meaning
Archetypes influence us in two primary ways:
- Outwardly through our behavior in the external world
- Inwardly through the primordial images in our inner world
Every human being has an inner world. It’s the home of our dreams, fantasies, imagination, and emotional life.
This inner world is the source of personal meaning.
Archetypes tap into the emotions of our inner world and give life a sense of personal meaning.
It is for this reason that inner work is so important.
For Jung, the first half of life is meant to be external as we ideally develop our egos in healthy ways.
Our Secret Inner Lives
According to Jung, we are supposed to turn inward in midlife and consciously embrace the archetypal dimension of images and emotions in our inner world.
As Jungian analyst Robert A. Johnson explains:6Robert A. Johnson, Inner Work, 1989, 9.
The inner life that Jung described is the secret life we all lead, by day and night, in constant companionship with our unseen, unconscious, inner selves. When human life is in balance, the conscious mind and the unconscious live in relationship. There is a constant flow of energy and information between the two levels as they meet in the dimension of dream, vision, ritual, and imagination. The disaster that has overtaken the modern world is the complete splitting off of the conscious mind from its roots in the unconscious.
Archetypes Provide An Intricate Map of the Human Mind
Archetypes provide a powerful way to understand ourselves.
We tend to think of the mind as a singular unit. “My mind” assumes a unified sense of self or “I.”
However, a careful examination of one’s mind shows that this view is inaccurate. Instead of being singular, the mind is plural. Each mind contains a pantheon of archetypal characters.
Various forms of therapy seek to integrate these archetypal forces, and they each describe them using a different language.
For Jung, these characters were called archetypes, and the process he used was called active imagination.
In psychosynthesis, psychologist Piero Ferruci calls archetypes subpersonalities. In Internal Family Systems, they are parts. (We’ll discuss all of these integrative therapies in Part 2.)
The MANY Subpersonalities Inside of Us
Psychologist John Rowan defines subpersonality as “a semi-permanent and semi-autonomous region of the personality capable of acting as a person.”7John Rowan, Subpersonalities: The People Inside Us, 1989.
By whatever name, we come to see our minds as a collection of these semi-autonomous personalities, or archetypes.
In Re-Visioning Psychology, neo-Jungian James Hillman explains:8James Hillman, Re-Visioning Psychology, 1997.
We are no longer single beings in the image of a single God, but are always constituted of multiple parts: impish child, hero or heroine, supervising authority, asocial psychopath, and so on.
We’re Not Just the Protagonist of Our Own Stories
Think of a film or TV show you watched recently.
Subconsciously, when we watch a movie, we tend to identify with the protagonist. Our egos identify with the main hero.
But now consider this:
All of the characters in that story—not just the hero or protagonist—are operating in your mind. They are all within us.
For example, imagine watching The Matrix. You’re not just Neo (hero), Morpheus (mentor), or Trinity (anima).
You’re also Cipher who betrays the group, potentially representing the weakling, coward, trickster, or sociopath archetype.
Cypher negotiates with Agent Smith to betray Morpheus and his crew
And All the Men and Women Merely Players …
It becomes easy to see why the ego identifies with certain archetypal characters but not others. Some images elevate, while others deflate.
In reality, Neo, Morpheus, and Trinity are more pure-form archetypal expressions while Cypher demonstrates more common “human” qualities that often reside in one’s shadow.
We begin to see how complex our minds are and the hidden, often opposing forces influencing our behavior.
Shakespeare observed this reality over 400 years ago:9William Shakespeare, As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII.
All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages.
Shakespeare’s words become a visceral experience when one engages in this type of inner exploration.
A Century-Old Bias in Psychology
Why are so many people afraid of these kinds of powerful psychological insights?
Jung was a visionary of his day. Yet a century later, the field of psychology barely gives his work any attention. Why?
Sigmund Freud is the father of psychoanalysis. Freud was 20 years older than Carl Jung. Early in Jung’s career, Freud was a kind of mentor and father figure to him.
Jung thought they should name their emerging field psyche-analysis, that is, an analysis of the human mind, soul, and spirit.
Freud, however, opted for psychoanalysis, the study of psychotic, crazy, or mentally ill people. Unfortunately, this decision helped set the direction of psychology for the next century.
What Did Jung See That Freud Did Not?
To Freud, his patients were mentally ill, while he, as an analyst, was mentally sound.
Jung, with greater humility and direct experience, realized he was in a similar mental condition as many of his patients. Jung saw that all of us were fragmented, divided, and ruled by unconscious forces.
Today, hearing voices in our heads is associated with being “crazy.” This stigma hinders our ability to understand the archetypal forces within us.
The question isn’t whether you have “voices” in your head. The real issue is whether you’re receptive enough to hear them and grounded enough to work with them.
We Are Mostly Unconscious of Archetypal Influences
Emmanuel Donchin, Professor of Cognitive Psychophysiology at the University of South Florida, said:10Quoted in Daniel Goleman, “New View of Mind Gives Unconscious An Expanded Role,” The New York Times, 1984. https://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/07/science/new-view-of-mind-gives-unconscious-an-expanded-role.html
“An enormous portion of cognitive activity [actions, emotions, behavior, and decisions] is non-conscious, figuratively speaking, it could be 99 percent.”
Although we don’t like to admit it, as a whole, human beings are mostly unconscious.
We remain unaware of the hidden motivations of these archetypal forces—what drives our actions, thoughts, behaviors, and decisions.
We are also largely unconscious of the emotions expressing themselves behind the social masks (personas) we wear in the external world.
Most modern methods of behavioral change, from neuro-linguistic programming to cognitive behavioral therapy, have limited long—term results.
Certainly, they can influence change in certain behaviors under certain conditions. But remove those conditions, and they eventually fail us. Why?
These methods fail because they rely on the premise that we can train (or trick) the unconscious. These purely conscious models are not integrative. They are based on the belief that we can condition these primal forces to obey our conscious will.
The Complexity of the Psyche
Generally speaking, we don’t consider the complexity of the human psyche and the persistent nature of these archetypal patterns.
Two vital dictums and psychological insights bear constant repetition:
- What we resist in the unconscious only grows stronger.
- What we leave incomplete, we’re doomed to repeat.
Time combined with inner observation illuminates that ignoring or denying our unconscious content doesn’t serve us.
Illustration: Earth Mother / Goddess
Galadriel from The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings
Galadriel, also called Lady of Light and Lady of the Golden Wood, is a character in J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings.
This character, played by Cate Blanchett in the films, represents the archetypes of the Earth Mother, Mother Nature, and Goddess and is the feminine expression of the Self.
This archetype is powerful, dark, wise, and intuitive, able to peer into the hearts of men.
She is not separate from nature and the earth; she is part of it. In fact, she is one with the flow of all life.
How Archetypes Dominate Our Behavior
Let’s say you’re addicted to eating junk food.
You manage okay during the day, but the impulse to consume salty and sweet snacks is triggered when you arrive home in the evening.
We assume this is a battle of will: the base desires of our animal brain against our “better nature” or cerebral cortex.
But we generally don’t appreciate why this impulse gets triggered.
When you understand what archetypes represent, you can train yourself to listen to these voices.
If you do, you may learn why these impulses occur in the first place.
A voice, for example, might say you’re pathetic, worthless, a loser. It might suggest you have no reason to live—to “just give up.”
(Remember, it’s just a voice.)
The Archetypal Voices of the Unconscious
Now, for the most part, we don’t hear these voices for two reasons:
First, we don’t know how to listen to them. That is, we haven’t learned to place our attention on this type of psychic content.
Second, they are often unpleasant, and they make us feel bad, leading our minds to repress these voices.
So, instead of feeling depressed, we seek to distract and elevate ourselves, that is, to feel good. We instantly crave a dopamine kick. In this case, the impulse to consume salty snacks gets triggered.
As such, it can be argued that behavioral neuroscientists are studying effects—not causes.
Only when we can hear the voice of these archetypes and learn to navigate around them, can we get to the problem’s source.
In this example, the part that might feel like a pathetic loser may have past trauma that needs to be brought to consciousness. Or, there may be regret for some past decision that hasn’t been processed yet.
Archetypes and the Battle of Will
Everyone battles with impulse control in one form or another. Addictive behavior is an area of tension for virtually everyone.
We invest loads of energy trying to exert willpower, restricting ourselves, or feeling ashamed of our weaknesses.
Many of us work to establish good habits, improve ourselves, and “do better.”
But ultimately, what undermines our conscious intention to be a “better person” is often the archetypal forces within us.
We can save time, energy, and unnecessary anguish by addressing many of these issues at their source.
Archetypal Psychology: A Doorway to Knowing Yourself
Archetypal psychology is a powerful way of getting to know your psyche. It’s also a means of understanding the motivations of others.
The more you can identify the archetypes operating in others, the easier it becomes to see the patterns of behavior within yourself.
Conversely, the more you can witness these behavioral patterns in yourself, the more understanding (and less judgment) you’ll have for others.
The ancient Greeks were the last civilization to appreciate the power of archetypes, which they called Gods and Goddesses.
Psychologists Hal and Ira Stone, authors of Embracing Our Selves, explain:11Hal Stone and Sidra Stone, Embracing Our Selves: The Voice Dialogue Manual, 1998.
In ancient Greece there was an understanding that one was required to worship all the Gods and Goddesses. You might have your favorites, but none of the remaining deities could be ignored. The God or Goddess whom you ignored became the one who turned against you and destroyed you. So it was with the Trojan war. So it is with consciousness work. The energy pattern that we disown turns against us.
Embracing the Inner World
Arguably, our need to understand and work with archetypes is greater now than at any point in human history. Why?
In past generations, humanity had rich mythologies and rituals designed to maintain psychic order.
The ancient rituals of the past—those which modern people often perceive to be “archaic”—maintained a certain level of balance with archetypal forces within the collective unconscious.
However, since the beginning of the so-called Age of Enlightenment (the 1700s), we have been breaking down these mythological structures. Now, it’s becoming “every man for himself.”
Many scholars, from Joseph Campbell to neo-Jungian Robert Moore, speak about the need to establish rituals that organize and evoke archetypes in constructive ways.12Campbell, The Inner Reaches of Outer Space: Metaphor As Myth and As Religion, 1986.,13Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette, King Warrior Magician Lover, 1991.
Jung’s Individuation Stages
Archetypes is a topic that can sound purely theoretical. Hopefully, the explanations above have changed that view.
Jung arrived at his insights about the archetypes and the collective unconscious because he was trying to heal his patients AND himself.
As such, he focused his attention on what he considered the archetypes of development:
Jungian psychology focuses on these powerful archetypes, which Jung argues are essential for healthy psychological development.
Learn more about Jung’s individuation process here.
How to Work With Archetypes in Psychology
Now that we have a solid foundation of what archetypes are, we can address the next obvious question:
How do we work with archetypes?
That is, how can we bring these unconscious forces to consciousness?
Can we integrate these archetypal forces to help us move toward wholeness?
To answer these questions, we need to explore Jung’s active imagination process, which is the focus of Part 2.
Read Part 2: A Practical Guide to Active Imagination
See you there!
Further Reading on the Psychology of Archetypes
The Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious by C.G. Jung
Archetypal Dimensions of the Psyche by Marie-Louise von Franz
King Warrior Magician Lover by Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette
Subpersonalities by John Rowan
Archetypes Revisited by Anthony Stevens
Read Next
A Beginner’s Guide to 15 Classic Jungian Archetypes
Find Your Inner Gold by Recollecting Your Projection
Hi Scott,
Is there a way to ‘activate’ a particular archetype in our psyche? Do we indeed already do that in some unconscious way? Could we do it consciously?
Thanks
Hi Nesreen,
Our starting point as adults is that we are consumed by a complete cast of characters. Essentially, most of us are more archetypes than humans.
The entire goal of the individuation process is to establish structure and organization in the psyche so that we become more human (and less archetypal), more spontaneous and less contrived.
Can you “activate” a particular archetype? Yes, you can evoke or call them forth in your imagination. You can wear symbols that are associated with a particular archetype. Films and music can evoke archetypes as well.
You can wear clothes that trigger archetypes too. Under Armour, for example, can activate the warrior archetype in some people.
Hi Scott. Someone asked me what is a practical way To understand their drive, motivation, their reason for doing things. Archetypes (voice dialogue?) seems to offer a key. What other things are necessary to create as accessible a picture as possible in answering this question in your opinion ?
Hi Mark,
Archetypes are certainly a major component.
It’s also important to understand needs:
https://scottjeffrey.com/basic-human-needs/
Values:
https://scottjeffrey.com/spiral-dynamics/
Among other variables…
Hello. I am new here and love it already. I have been wanting something just like this for 2 years, thank you. I was thrown by the under armor statement, but when I just sat with it a couple of possible mechanisms at work opened my mind.
Thinking symbolistically has been a challenging big step my brain seems to wander into the Autism Spectrum a little. It is still not my first thought…. Progress not perfection.
I feel that you are saying that the very name of a product called “Armor”, as if I am putting on the armor as a part of the the heroes journey involving battle and War is that accurate? So putting that on is on some level a ritual precipitating going into battle?
I lived almost my entire previous life Stuck inside the Warrior, so tapping into this source comes too easily and much of any progress that I have learned is to shake off that mode. To get out of an archetype in which I get stuck. I would like on be able to interact with these achetypes, all of them rather that being imbalanced all the time because I get stuck in a small defensive selection of archetypes.
What you said about symbols and getting in touch with perhaps neglected, repressed or under utilized parts of my psyche.
Is there anything else that might help me better understand what this statement implied?
Again thank you for this.
Hi Tim,
My point about Under Armour is that all commercial brands play to and hit on specific archetypes. That is, in many cases, the marketers and branders in these companies know the archetypes they are trying to trigger within individuals to get them to associate their brand with a specific set of feelings, attitudes, thoughts, and behaviors. Both Under Armour and Nike try to play to the warrior archetype.
But ultimately, the key isn’t to identify with any particular archetypes. The value in archetypes is to observe the patterns of behaviors that are running your life (as a short hand).
So more important than the archetypes themselves is the principle of the Center. That is, it’s useful to cultivate the Inner Observer that can neutrally observe these archetypal patterns without identifying with any of them.
You can also use paper (or chalkboard which allows editing rather than having to shred a pile of scrap paper) – I have been using my Linkedin posts. You are therefore objectifying your link to the archetype (as an external object), rather than holding in your head. You can also script, edit, reduce, enhance, link as tokens and affirmations…
Guided meditation to visit an archetype, feel its connection to you and ask the creator of all to release link, chains, chords, attachments and thank this archetype for its service, “I am now free to be me”
Is it possible to get this as a pdf?
Yes, the PDF version is available above.
Hello!
It’s a pity but link for Guide on the Psychology of Archetypes – not available, like & other pdf links
The PDF is available above. In the same place as the other guides.
You are a Godsend!
Thank you so much ?
You’re welcome, Lorna.
Hi Scott,
What is your definition as an archetypal hero?
of a**
Hi Nora,
See this guide:
https://scottjeffrey.com/hero-archetype/
Dear Scott, I appreciate your guidance and your interest in paving a way to the unconscious. Said that I am sure you are aware of a confusion of terms in your comments and responders between archetypal energy (invisible) and archetypal figures. Jung is very clear on the difference. What Nasreen wants to call fourth is a figure of imagination, an image, yes archetypal but not the archetype.
Archetypal figures are expressions of archetypal energy. Forms can represent archetypes, but they are not archetypes themselves.
I feel like we are all robots living our lives under all these archetypes who live inside our heads…will the real me please stand up..will you really know the real you???
I understand how you feel, Kathleen.
The key is to learn how to find your Center. It’s like returning home to yourself.
https://scottjeffrey.com/center-yourself/
Kathleen:
I’d like to take a stab at your question. I believe “getting to know the real you” is a lifelong process, not a place we arrive at. Having died once, I have a unique experience in floating past self and “feeling/sensing” the gestalt of my being.
So, I believe we have moments of numinous clarity; a clarity that aligns the electromagnetic essence of being human (remembers our heart has electrical impulse) in complete coherence and when that happens, we have an ah-ha moment. Or (really cool to think about) visa versa – when we experience an ah-ha moment we could measure our HRV (heart rate variability) and show near perfect “coherence.” I should note this is cutting edge research coming out of HeartMath in California.
So, can we ever really know ourselves? Yes – in moments of clarity; when we realize a vital piece of “the puzzle of mind” as I refer to it – and viola – inspiration is born and you immediately feel elated. Here’s the cool thing – creating art can do that quicker for us! So, inspiration, creating artwork, meditating, journaling, singing, playing an instrument, reading an inspiring book – all of these can make those numinous moments of self-awareness happen more often. Oh! add to the list feeling gratitude and helping someone else out. (Research is now confirming that when we give – we get. You cannot separate these two.) As the adage goes, “it is in giving that we receive.”
Hope this is food for thought – an opening or a portal for thought.
Namaste,
janet
💗
In your experience, does it feel different to be in the presence of or interacting with someone whose Self has assumed the leadership position in the psyche, vs. those who are largely unconsciously identified with various conflicted parts/archetypes?
I arrived at this article after reading the guide on energy vampires. Both topics are very interesting to me. I imagine that being in the presence of a Self-managed person will feel differently depending on where one is at in their own path to self-actualization; but what comes to mind is that someone might be more likely to feel calm and peaceful around someone whose Self is in the leadership role. However I bet it could also be possible to feel “calm, peaceful” and otherwise “good” if someone (e.g. a healer or therapist) has actually transferred energy to a client (probably while also taking some as well) due to unconsciously acting out of an archetype like e.g. Savior. I imagine that the latter sort of dynamic could actually hinder a client’s progress or otherwise cause harm.
It’s fun to talk and think about this stuff!
P.S. I apologize if this comment has been duplicated–I tried to submit it while using a different browser and I don’t think it worked.
The more adept you are at observing the unconscious of another, the more you noticed how most people are shifting from one part/archetype to another rather often. You also begin to observe which archetypes are possessing various individuals.
I’m not certain if someone is switching parts if they can feel the presence of someone in their Center. As you alluded to, someone can feel calm in front of an individual possessed by the Guru or Savior archetype (assuming they have an active Spiritual Student or Devotee archetype operating in them).
But the more you abide in your Center, the more you can observe when someone else is “holding their energy” inside of them too.
Thanks Scott. I’m glad to be aware of this now and I’ve been inspired to start a practice that will result in being in my Center and help me notice more when I’m not. Though I had some contact with Jung’s work before, this time I heard it at a deeper level. I also really like the IFS model. I’m starting to observe the archetypes working through myself and others and hopefully this will build momentum over time. Thank you for making these articles available for free.
Sure thing, Samantha. The more awareness and attention you bring to this material, the more it will open up for you.
In the beginning, we all tend to have natural skepticism and various ego defense mechanisms that keep us from clearly and openly observing without judgment. The more you practice holding to your center and access your Observer Mind, the more evident it all becomes.
Hi Scott, you mention people being possessed by different archetypes. I reached out to my shadow last night with stream of consciousness writing (probably not from my center) and was quite suddenly ‘possessed’ by someone that felt completely foreign and more than a little evil. I engaged in some dialogue and the feeling eventually faded. This was my shadow, yes? Not a foreign invader that I stumbled upon? I do beleive in possessing spirits so I want to clarify. Thanks for your posts. Rebekka
Hi Rebekka,
In the lexicon of Carl Jung and the Jungians, these “foreign invaders” are all archetypes that exist within the collective unconscious. That is, they all operate semi-autonomously within one’s psyche.
In contrast, in the language of Taoism, these archetypes are often referred to as “ghosts and spirits.”
Thanks Scott. In your Shadow article you describe being confronted with the shadow aspects of a teacher whose shadow you may not have seen if you weren’t helping him with his biography, I think.
Following the above conversation with Samantha, my question is whether, in your opinion, it is advisable to engage with a teacher who seems to have a large amount of disowned shadow or split in their psyche, or if they should be steered clear of regardless of how great their healing modality is. For example, a woman who claims to be a channel for Mary Magdalene and another who claims to be a chosen human representative for Gaia have both engaged me in bizarre passive-aggressive behaviors indicative of severe covert narcissism, but the healing work they do and teach works. But, I find it hard to believe that any benevolent consciousness would choose such a broken host to be channelled through. What is going on? Thank you.
Rebekka,
I’ve been around this type of material for decades. In my opinion, there’s no valid “channeling” work that should be followed/trusted. I know this opinion will upset some readers, but so it goes. Channeling is a topic that’s popular in the New Age, but it’s all dangerous programming; it’s a distraction from valid spiritual work, psychological work, and truth.
Sure, there are plenty of “channeled work” that have nuggets of truth in them. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t attract followers. But they are all guided by falsehoods and deceptions that get unearthed over time.
From an archetypal perspective, behind the “ascended masters” and other channeled entities is always the Trickster.
Wow, that’s fascinating. Whether or not these ‘guides’ I’ve met this year claim to channel something else, they do seem to have a trickster / manipulator operating in the background (in spite of, or maybe because of, how elevated they may appear). What a lesson in groundedness and coherence. Thanks for sharing your experience.
Yes, those in the “new age community” — many of whom don’t realize they are a part of it — are highly naive and “innocent.” These “channeled entities” seem to prey on this naiveté. As a result, “spiritual cults” tend to form around these figures.
I am so glad I came across your website:). I have been paying attention to dreams for a while now, and have started to draw them. I’m going to keep reading and keep growing :)
Terrific, Patricia. That’s a wonderful and enriching practice.
Hello! I’ve read your article about the archetypes. I would like to know what are the differences between archetypes and stereotypes? How does it related? I am so sorry for the sudden questions. But I badly want to know more about archetypes and stereotypes. I really do enjoy reading your articles!
Thank you so much in advance.
Have a nice day.
Hi Channie,
Stereotypes are socially conditioned labels for specific categories of people.
Archetypes are deeply-rooted patterns of behaviors that transcend social and cultural conditioning.
That said, a stereotype like a “jock” is likely linked to specific archetypal behaviors — as well as images (appearance). So stereotypes and archetypes are related.
Stereotypes are more at the observable surface. Archetypes are deeply entrenched in our psyches.
Thanks for writing all of this. I started working on this a couple of years ago without consciously realizing this was what I was doing. I have recently identified an extremely adversarial archetype within my personal suite who I am trying to get to know better. As one might imagine, this archetype does not make it easy. I appreciate your layout of example questions and approaches.
When it comes to an archetype who exists purely to be adversarial (and loves it!) do you have any advice as to how to reach a mutually beneficial arrangement? He is not particularly keen on being “healed” or “properly socialized” because for him it is the same as being wholly eradicated. This tendency used to be predominant within my day-to-day life, and as I pursued healing it somewhat diminished until (as far as I am aware) only he is left of it, and he mostly makes himself known in the form of frankly repulsive intrusive thoughts, an issue I did not have until recently.
It is my personal belief that he is making some form of grand last stand, here, but as a primal aspect of the human (and my) psyche I would rather seek some form of, again, mutually beneficial arrangement rather than attempt to eradicate the archetype entirely. Which approach would you say is more likely to result in a functional, thriving, and cohesive existence? Thank you :)
So my response to your question, Theo, is going to be out of alignment with schools like IFS and the Jungians.
Years ago, I would have said that every part can be integrated to form a “happy internal family” or a mutually beneficial arrangement, as you said.
But with closer observation and experience, I think this is overly idealistic and not grounded in reality. As such, this belief can add internal tension and therefore unneeded suffering.
The reality is that there are parts within our psyche that won’t be integrated. Instead, they just need to be contained.
The ancient Taoists understood this. Instead of trying to reconcile with each individual part (which they often referred to as rowdy guests and sometimes “monsters”), they focused on restoring the Original Spirit by accessing the Center. This Original Spirit is akin to the Higher Self depending on how you define it.
The Original Spirit then establishes order. It can watch the rowdy guests without needing to come to any agreements — simply by inner observation.
So you may notice specific times or triggers when the archetypal entity in question becomes active. You’ll likely find that it’s when you’re already out of sorts — that is, you’re out of your Center. Hold to your Center for long enough, and this impulse will likely reside.
Excellent, thank you so much for taking the time to respond. This is completely in alignment with my feelings on the matter and works very well as encouragement I need to continue shifting my behavior away from indulging things which make me uneasy and will probably come back to bite later if given a chance to.
This did start to surge up when I started doing more work on grounding myself and accessing a higher perspective full time, so I would wager this archetype is rebelling against a new order which it finds troublesome and threatening, so, in other words, is in its own way probably a good sign to keep getting my situation together. Appreciate the feedback :)
I realized there is some contradiction in how I said I want things to be mutually beneficial, and also not encourage this archetype, so to clarify: I am of two minds regarding a utilitarian perspective (don’t throw out what can be useful) and a healing perspective (if it’s rotten, probably don’t eat it). Sometimes it’s tough to tell the difference between the two, but in this case I think you’re correct that this isn’t worth the time and the response did shine a light on a deeper issue with mistrust I was neglecting in favor of a utilitarian take. Just seems worth clarifying, lol.
Sure thing, Theo.
The important thing to keep in mind is that there are forces within the psyche that aren’t always personal or related to our origin stories. They simply exist. And so trying to “work with them” can prove futile.
Thank you, I’m gonna take this down for future reference. Seems like it will come in handy. Appreciate all the work and info ?
Hello Scott, I must thank you for sharing the/your knowledge. I found your approach to the psyche very helpful and easy to understand. Not many people have the gift to pass on information the way you do. Thank you again. I wonder if you have anything writing regarding Anima-Animus integration? How to establish an open communication with those part of ourself. I will appreciate your thoughts.
Best Regards
Sergio
Hi Sergio,
Thank you for the feedback.
I have avoided addressing Anima/Animus integration for numerous reasons. The main reason is that I don’t entirely agree with Jung’s assertions or conclusions on the topic.
Jung thought he found confirmation to his theories on Anima/Animus when he was given a copy of an ancient Taoist text titled, “The Secret to the Golden Flower” translated by Richard Wilhem. As Thomas Cleary points out in his later translation (which is far superior), it was clear that Wilhem did not have an extensive background in either Buddism or Taoism and Wilhem’s translations were poor and confused. Jung drew parallels from this translation that was simply not there.
If anything, I would say that the Anima in a man represents an idealized version of his mother (from the first 10 years of the boy’s life). Vice versa for a woman. (In this way, Freud was closer to the mark with his Oedipal/Electra complex explanation.)
Getting to know this idealized projection involves understanding the overall psychology, attitudes, behaviors, feelings, and life experiences of the parent of the opposite sex during your childhood — and then recollecting all of your projections about this parent. This process can certainly be useful in the context of an adult relationship because we generally live within our projections. But this process isn’t likely essential for returning to the Self (contrary to Jung’s assertions).
Also, I’m not sure that it’s wise to personify this projection and try to communicate it. This may give more “life” to something that probably shouldn’t be there in the first place.
In a world where it’s rare for a man to truly be masculine and a woman to truly be feminine, this topic of Anima/Animus can easily become more confused. (And there are strong social, cultural, and environmental reasons for all of this gender confusion.)
When the Taoist spoke of terms like the “Mysterious Female” they were either referring to specific locations within the body (when speaking in terms of energetics) or qualities of “Yin” like receptivity and openness (when speaking in terms of consciousness). It wasn’t about masculine/feminine as we generally conceive these terms.
I think I need help. I’m a female and am stuck with 3 male archetypes: hero, magician and joker. They are ruining my life. I’m miserable.
The shadow archetypes run the majority of people’s lives. In fact, to a great extent, they run society as a whole.
Most likely, if you read about other archetypal patterns common within the female psyche, you’ll likely find that they are influencing your behavior as well.
The Magician is a symbolic representation of cognition. So it’s not that you would be “stuck” with the Magician archetype. The shadow poles of cognition are the Detached Manipulator and the Denying Innocent One (using Robert Moore’s model). And these shadow archetypes influence/hijack EVERYBODY.
This is where shadow work comes in — getting to know ourselves, confronting our shadow, seeing through our self-deceptions, owning our lies, grounding ourselves (removing delusions), etc. It’s an ongoing process that we must ultimately do on our own when we’re ready.
These articles and the links between them are so incredibly clear and helpful. Many thanks Scott!
You’re welcome, Nick. Thanks for the feedback.
I have been guided by my inner intuitive self, sinchronicity, very valuable dreams and the belief that It is Life that guides and lives us when we live in the awareness.
Jung is the man of the XXI century.
Brother , how can we call the archetype that’s mysterious somehow but loyal and simple
Xen, I suppose you can call it whatever you want, but if you’re going to try to classify an archetype by a few random qualities, it’s completely subjective and not necessarily meaningful (except perhaps for your own inner work).
Scott,
I was trained in object relations, Jung, then short term psychodynamic therapy. I LOVE this article. I will use this in department of corrections therapy, as you have provided an easy to follow roadmap. Thank you!
That’s great to hear, Brian. Thank you for your feedback!
I have so many questions, I don’t know where to start.
How do you think this ties into the earth and the living things around us, such as water, dirt, plants, sunlight, etc.? I’ve been on a journey of my inner self since having dissociative seizures. I’ve never been so sad and removed from myself, but I’m slowly finding my way back. I’m convinced that there’s some connection with the natural energy of our environments, possibly magnetic and/or electric? I have finally started paying attention to my dreams and have even had meaningful conversations with deceased family members. Staying connected to the raw elements and finding appreciation in colors especially feels natural and therapeutic. Can anyone elaborate? Facts or opinions are both appreciated!
Scot, how does an individual achieve self discovery according to Jung?
Gideon, the two primary methods Jung used with his patients were dream analysis and active imagination.
I know this article isn’t new, but it is excellent. I appreciate the clarity. As a psychologist with one of my Ph.D.’s in Jungian Studies, I can appreciate it on so many levels.
Thank you for the feedback, Constance. I appreciate it.
Hi Scott,
It’s Matteo here.
I read the book that you suggested “Inner work” of Robert Johnson and I am trying to keep up with dream analysis. The problem is that I cannot keep up with the interpretation and rituals of every single dream: I dream every night and it takes at least a week to do a proper interpretation of a dream. Given this situation I sometimes feel like I am responding to my unconscious belatedly (e.g. after one month from the night of the dream).
On the other side, I am a little bit cautious with active imagination since the author in his book suggests to see a therapist while doing it.
Any suggestion on this point?
Right now, I am skipping some dreams, and drilling down on other dreams which contains same themes, symbols, environment. etc
Hi Matteo,
There’s really too much to go into here in a comment. I address this type of thing in detail in my Shadow Training program. Active imagination and dreamwork are two of what I call “Deep Methods.” They have a use and are valuable, but they should be used with discernment and in conjunction with other methods.
Not all dreams are worth reflecting on, in my opinion. In fact, I would argue that most of them are not. In the beginning, you record all of your dreams so that you develop the skill of dream recall.
Jung used active imagination in conjunction with dreamwork with his analysands. Basically, it was a way of reengaging with the dream material in the waking state.
If you want a more structured form of active imagination, check out IFS (Internal Family Systems). See the book Self-Therapy by Early.
Dreams and your imagination help you move inward and become more conscious of psychic (unconscious) material. But inner observation is essential for this process — especially if you’re doing this by yourself. So developing this inner observation and internal neutrality (centering skills) is important.
Hey Scott.
Thanks for your answer. I read the book Self-therapy.
IFS is indeed a very solid framework.
Recently I have listened to some interviews of his creator, Richard Schwartz, according to whom the Ego is our “protectors” parts (i.e the “managers”) with which we identify. Another thesis is that there are no “bad parts”.
The first statement seems reasonable to me. The role of the Ego is indeed to manage our life and survive, but its ways of operating can be very often ineffective or even counterproductive.
Do you think that the Shadow is made of parts as well? So the parts of us (exiles and protectors) of which we are not aware?
If yes, do you agree with the second thesis that there are no “bad parts”?
Reading some of your other guides seems to me that in the shadow there is a lot of evil stuff, and that there are indeed “bad parts” of which we have to become aware.
To summarize, how much do you see eye to eye with the non pathologizing prospective of the IFS when it comes to the destructive tendencies of the Shadow?
Thanks in advance for your answer.
Matteo.
Hey Matteo,
The value I see in a framework like IFS is that it provides a structured approach to certain aspects related to the psyche. Active imagination, as Jung conceived of it, was rather nebulous and unstructured. So a system like IFS can be useful for someone navigating their psyche on their own or with a therapist.
That said, the same structured approach that IFS provides also presents a significant limitation as one is forced into perceiving their psyche through the lens crafted by Schwartz and IFS. While IFS is a useful framework for addressing certain behavioral issues, I have no reason to believe, it will not help you fully get to know or integrate your shadow.
“Do you think that the Shadow is made of parts as well? So the parts of us (exiles and protectors) of which we are not aware?”
Yes. “Parts” are synonymous with “archetypes.” The parts of ourselves that we are unaware of represent aspects or tendencies within our shadow.
“If yes, do you agree with the second thesis that there are no “bad parts”?”
So this gets into the limitations of the IFS model. If someone wants to believe that there are no fundamentally destructive aspects of the psyche, well, I suppose they are welcome to believe that. But the psyche is “bipolar” in nature — it is built on opposites (light and dark). And it’s not difficult to observe these opposites with neutral observation.
“To summarize, how much do you see eye to eye with the non pathologizing prospective of the IFS when it comes to the destructive tendencies of the Shadow?”
Personally, I think it’s naive to assume that all parts are trying to protect you and have just gone astray. This concept might be useful in addressing impulse control issues (which is largely what Schwartz was focused on in his practice). But this assumption doesn’t track with the world we live in and the true darkness within the unconscious. To think otherwise, one would need to perceive reality within the “convention” (illusionary world) and not have any kind of working knowledge of how this place really works (i.e. material from the other website).
How can I find out what archetype best describes me? Is there a questionnaire to start with?
This is the wrong question to be asking. It assumes you can/should treat archetypes like a personality profile. You should not.
While there are “archetype assessments” out there, I don’t recommend any such assessments as they all misunderstand the nature of archetypes. They are a gross oversimplification of what archetypes represent.
This is wonderful. Thank you for this clear and concise exploration. I deeply appreciate your recognition of the numerous ways that we have attempted to package the concept of our multiplicity. We never know which language will speak to us, which portal we will be called to walk through. 🙏🏽
Side note: not sure if it’s a typo but the founder of IFS is Richard, not Robert, Schwartz.
Thank you for the feedback, Laura. And for pointing out the typo. It’s been corrected.
What are the rituals used in shadow work to act our or expression the shadow
I do not understand what you’re asking here. And why are you assuming there are rituals?
Hi Scott,
Thank you for this article!
My question is with reference to the paragraphs
…..
“When you can observe an archetypal energy operating within you, at some level, you have differentiated yourself from that archetype.
This differentiation is important because when you can separate yourself from an archetype, it’s less likely to influence your behavior in deleterious ways.”
…..
1.Would it reasonable to say that “our need to know ourselves can lead to deeper connection to the influence of an archetype”? What I mean is in understanding how say the “Magician” operates, I might find many personality traits in me that match the archetype, leading me to conclude that “I can relate to the magician”, and on leaving it there can become deeply entrenched in “archetypal magician behavior”?
2. If I catch the behavior and realize its light/dark aspects …is that a part of process of integration?
3. Let’s say I say integrate to some extent by catching the my unconscious behavior expressing through an archetype, does that shift my consciousness in anyway?
4. Through integration what leverage do I gain over unconscious archetypal behavior that can affect who I become and my being state for future situations that might arise? Is this in anyway related to an inner awakening/awareness building process?
Thank you, I realize these questions would demand your time. Looking for some clarity based on this article.
Hi Roopa,
1. For the most part, yes.
2. Yes, but the main aspect of integration is accepting and becoming okay with these various attributes. In the absence of integration, there tends to be swings to extremes (Jung’s “onesidedness”).
3. Bringing consciousness to archetypal expressions that were previously unconscious is how you build consciousness (in a Jungian sense, at least).
4. With greater consciousness, you have a deeper range of choices. You are no longer running on autopilot. Yes, this is related to “inner awakening” and building awareness.
Thank you for validating my experiences working through these archetypes. I somehow feel my own personal creativity seems to be better engaged the more I become aware of archetypal patterns. It’s as I have more control over my life, the more I can catch myself operating from the “predictable patterns” and reconsidering my option through conscious thought. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Scott , I am not sure if archetypal behavior is helpful/healthy or not.
Isn’t predictive behavior arising from archetypal behavior as if overtaken by “a host entity”?
Wouldn’t that take away from one’s personal autonomy to make creative choices based on context and awareness?
I seem to be confused about whether or not archetypal expression is a productive and effective human way of behaving/operating.
Wouldn’t it seem logical to say that the less archetypal the more conscious?
Thank you!
“Isn’t predictive behavior arising from archetypal behavior as if overtaken by “a host entity”?
Yes, but in this case, it would mean being overtaken by a “guest” or “ghost” as the host is the Self.
“Wouldn’t that take away from one’s personal autonomy to make creative choices based on context and awareness?”
Correct.
“Wouldn’t it seem logical to say that the less archetypal the more conscious?”
Yes. As neo-Jungian Robert Moore used to say, it’s easy to be an archetype; far more difficult to be a human.
Thank you for your reply Scott. I think I have a layered view of how I perceive a human being in existence that seems to maybe vary in configuration.
The way I perceive the inner world is an ego(self), a Higher Self(Soul). I look at inner work as a kind of bridge to get from ego to Higher. Within this perception, there maybe little to no active presence of the Higher Self in a person’s life without navigating a path of inner development. The actions the ego doing as in purification being a vital aspect of bridging that gap.
The “host” in my question was the ego (self) who in ignorance does not know what might be taking control and therefore under an archetypal influence.
This seems to be slightly different from when you say “Yes, but in this case, it would mean being overtaken by a “guest” or “ghost” as the host is the Self.”
Did you mean self or Self (Higher) in your reply? I’m not sure what you mean clearly.
Thank you.
“This seems to be slightly different from when you say “Yes, but in this case, it would mean being overtaken by a “guest” or “ghost” as the host is the Self.”
Did you mean self or Self (Higher) in your reply? I’m not sure what you mean clearly.”
See the Taoist analogy provided here: https://scottjeffrey.com/center-yourself/
(Under “The Spiritual Center”)
On considering the article, my own questions and your responses I feel there is grey area for me regarding the concept of archetypes and where they fit into human existence.
If I consider them purely as patterns of behavior that are predictable then I don’t think there is any way of not acting from them. Predictable behavior is simply a part of life, as in actions that are done in response to specific stimuli.
Unpredictable behavior that requires consideration that isn’t automatic is when I become more aware in many areas (self, relationally, contextually and situationally). It’s really not so much as in unpredictable (as in careless), but rather coming from more discerning space (not predictable).
How this then fits into the ego/Self/Spirit layered seems to be coming into the picture from a more Spiritual perspective for me, wherein the ego in its lack reaching to become “more/Higher” has to work on itself. The more this process of inner work (viewed within a psycho-spiritual context) is done, the more predictable behavior (that i am viewing as archetypal/autopilot) seems to reduce. At least that is how I am interpreting it.
So, when I’m faced with the word archetype I am considering them as personifications (grouped behaviors) that are then assigned a name for ease of identification and relatability, with light/dark aspects. In the way described by Robert-Moore.
In this view, to me the ego in lack can be a collection of archetypes whose darker influence reduces with inner work (because I am catching it). This is where I am bringing consciousness in, as the ego becoming more conscious and therefore capable of discerning behavior.
I realize all this is how I am making sense of the importance of inner work for myself, so if I may very sound and be all over the place.
It’s just a matter of how I have come to terms with why inner work as involving my psychology and my spirituality. It appears to be helping me grow and become/be stable as a person (more human, less archetypal).
If you have any clarifications for me, please feel to let me know. It might be just that I’m following my own process that is resulting in my confusions.
Thank you so much for your time in answering my questions.
I apologize for my continuous stream of messages, Scott. I do realize they take from your time.
I just wanted to tell you that a lot of this grey area for me seems to stem from a growth sequence that individuation demands.
I am a fairly socially anxious individual and while I have made major strides in many areas of my life, the social scope still remains within what I can term of “fear-based, anxiety-based”.
It could very well be that it’s something I need to work to be able to see and sense with greater clarity. I appreciate your help in moving this conversation in a way that points to that.
It’s just more inner work for me. So, please don’t feel in anyway that my questions need to be addressed.
This dialogue in its has been very useful.
Thank you again, very much.
Roopa, social anxiety is usually a consequence of unrecognized trauma from childhood. Bringing this trauma to consciousness is one of the most important aspects of inner work. However, after resolving this social anxiety, it doesn’t mean that you’ll want to spend more time around other people. You can eliminate the anxious tension, but the disposition of the individual doesn’t necessarily change.
To your other stream of consciousness above, there’s a lot that can be commented on. (For example, the role of spontaneity in positive mental health.)
This is the type of stuff that’s addressed in my programs (Shadow Training and Centering MasterWork). Breaking this material down in detail here wouldn’t be appropriate for this public forum/comment area as it would require an entire presentation.
I don’t think I want to become social from a traditional view of “friendly” either. That requires a lot of maintaining which I don’t see myself doing. However, I do feel that there are things I would like to do with my time and as a social being, which I find very difficult because of an anxious disposition from within. I will look into it from the angle of unaddressed trauma and see how that goes. I really appreciate all your guidance and support. Thank you very much, Scott.
You’re welcome, Roopa. Trauma is the dominant theme of inner work. The entire reason the shadow exists — the reason we are so divorced from ourselves and split into thousands of pieces — is because of unaddressed trauma. Without trauma, arguably, inner work would not be necessary.
Hi Scott
What’s the difference between an archetype and a complex, and how do they relate?
Thanks for this great material – very clear and useful.
Hi Paul,
As a shorthand, a complex is somewhat personal while an archetype is universal, but it’s not that simple.
A complex is like a cluster of emotions that relate to the individual’s life experiences (memories). But at the core of this cluster are various archetypes.
Said another way, the archetypes gather around our life experiences to form complexes.
So from a psychoanalytic perspective (mainly Jungian), archetypes and complexes go hand-in-hand.
Thanks for the response. So… you’re born with archetypes, but you’re not born with complexes? Also, a complex is usually experienced as negative? Also #2: a complex can be thought of as an unconscious issue?
“So… you’re born with archetypes, but you’re not born with complexes?”
Jungians, I believe, would say yes. For example, see the work of psychiatrist Antony Stevens (“Archetypes” and “Two-Million Year Old Self”). However, whether archetypes are in-born or whether they “enter” the individual through their early interactions with the archetypal world, is to me, debatable.
“Also, a complex is usually experienced as negative?”
Generally speaking, yes. Generally, a complex is something that stalls natural development.
“Also #2: a complex can be thought of as an unconscious issue?”
For the most part, yes. Via analysis or inner work, one is bringing this unconscious material to consciousness. That’s really the primary aim of depth psychology.
👍
Thank you! I especially found the part about differentiating yourself from certain archetypes very liberating. I will work with this idea, and hopefully it will bring the right medicine for me.
Sure thing, Lara.