Arhetipi un mūsdienu cilvēks

Abstract

In his article “The Modern Human Being and the Archetypes”, Vents Sīlis discusses the question of human nature in relation to the concept of the archetype, which occupies a central place in the analytical psychology of Carl Gustav Jung. Jung’s answer to the question “What is man?” includes an explanation of the intrapsychic structure, relationships between people at the private and social levels, and the path of personal self-development, i.e., the process of individuation. The human psyche is seen by Jung as a complex system charged with libidinal energy, where there is a constant interaction between different pairs of opposing elements: conscious and unconscious, rational and irrational, masculine and feminine, etc. Nevertheless, according to the principle of equivalence introduced by Jung, the libido that has been taken away from one aspect of personality usually reappears somewhere else. The principle of enantiodromia, on the other hand, means that any one of the elements will in time turn into its opposite, e.g., passionate love may eventually turn into deep hatred. The principle of opposites is found in all elements of Jung’s theory. Jung’s anthropology is based on a fundamental distinction between two main levels of the psyche: the conscious and the unconscious, each of which divides into two further levels, the personal and the collective. The life of the psyche is one of equilibrium, i.e., the relationship between the conscious and the unconscious can be described as mutually compensatory: if a conscious idea or tendency becomes too dominant, the unconscious tends to compensate with an unconscious tendency. Thus, the unconscious compensates for the one-sidedness of the conscious by emphasising those aspects of the whole psyche that the conscious has neglected – in essence it is a mechanism similar to homeostasis. Jung’s theory of archetypes is critically examined. The author asks whether the notion of innate, universal structures of the psyche are still valid. Jung himself speaks of archetypes as empirical (experientially verified) facts, but this understanding fails the current understanding of scientific psychology. Vents Sīlis points out that one might reasonably doubt whether archetypes, as forms of perception and organisation of empirical experience, are really independent of physical and social environment. The findings of modern cognitive science are applicable to Jung’s theory of archetypes through the concept of emergence: archetypes are fundamental patterns, initially unfilled with content, which are revealed in interaction with empirical experience, which fills them with actual content. Since the Self is the fullest expression of individuality, the psyche’s movement towards its Self as the archetype of inner core and orderliness is the ultimate goal of psychological development. Countless studies by modern anthropologists show that even in the most basic human traits and behaviours (e.g., child-rearing) there are not only similarities but also radical differences between different cultures, so it is not possible to speak only of universal traits. This argument must certainly be considered, emphasises Sīlis, when modernising Jung’s theory.

Vents Sīlis rakstā “Arhetipi un mūsdienu cilvēks” aplūko cilvēka dabas jau­tā­jumu saistībā ar arhetipa jēdzienu, kas K. G. Junga analītiskajā psiholoģijā ieņem vienu no centrālajām vietām. Junga atbilde uz jautājumu “Kas ir cilvēks?” ietver skaidrojumu par intrapsihisko struktūru, cilvēku savstarpējām attiecībām privātā un sociālā līmenī, kā arī cilvēka paštapšanas ceļu – individuācijas procesu. Junga antropoloģija balstās uz fundamentāla nošķīruma starp diviem galvenajiem psihes līmeņiem: apziņu un bezapziņu, kas katra sadalās vēl divos līmeņos – personiskajā un kolektīvajā. Psihes dzīve norisinās saskaņā ar līdzsvara principu – bez­apziņa kompensē apziņas vienpusību, uzsverot tos psihes veseluma aspektus, kurus apziņa ir atstājusi novārtā – šis mehānisms darbojas līdzīgi homeostāzei. Neskaitāmi mūsdienu antropologu pētījumi liecina, ka pat visvienkāršāka­jās cilvēka pamatīpašībās un uzvedībā (piemēram, bērnu audzināšanā) starp dažādām kultūrām pastāv ne tikai līdzības, bet arī radikālas atšķirības, tāpēc šeit nav iespējams runāt tikai par universālām iezīmēm. Šis arguments noteikti ir jāņem vērā, uzsver V. Sīlis, modernizējot Junga teoriju.