(2000). Journal of Analytical Psychology, 45:561-564 Comment on ‘Why it is difficult to see the anima as a helpful object’ I would like to address the issues the author raises in the sequence she takes them, beginning with her general comments about archetypes. The author's comments and criticisms are valid in the sense that there is evidence for what she says. Jung makes understanding his concept of archetypes extremely difficult because he uses several different languages to refer to them. If we step outside the frame of logical analysis, however, and ask the question Simon Stein posed, which was: does this word archetype do a job? (Stein 1973), then I think we can focus on why archetype theory is of value. I would argue that the job it does is twofold: a) it provides a reliable way of describing the universality of certain experiences and why they are fascinating and powerful, and b) it demonstrates at an explanatory level the consequences of separating the universal from the personal. By this I mean that patients who come for analysis are in need of integrating the personal and the collective. T [This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.] |
