Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung on Myths and Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious: Unnoticed Similarity

Vadym Menzhulin
{"title":"Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung on Myths and Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious: Unnoticed Similarity","authors":"Vadym Menzhulin","doi":"10.18523/2617-1678.2021.8.25-37","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis and Carl Gustav Jung’s analytical psychology are different in many ways and some of their differences are extremely crucial. It is widely believed that one of the most obvious examples of this intellectual confrontation is the difference between Freud’s and Jung’s views on mythology. Proponents of this view believe that Jung was much more interested in mythological issues and his theory of myth became much deeper and more developed than Freud’s one. In particular, it is believed that Freud focused exclusively on the individual’s psyche, while Jung allegedly reached the true origins of mythmaking in the collective unconscious, which is the sediment of the vast historical experience of mankind. The article shows that such statements do not reflect the real situation but just the point of view, which Jung began to spread after his break-up with Freud. In fact, the founder of psychoanalysis had a steady and deep interest in mythology. The manifestation of this interest was the formation of “psycho-analytics” of myth – a specific area of research, which in the early years of the psychoanalytic movement was joined by several first psychoanalysts, including Franz Riklin, Karl Abraham, Otto Rank, Ernest Jones, and Jung himself. It is essential that both Freud and Jung, before and after the break-up in 1913, have been and remain the supporters of the consideration of a man and culture through the prism of certain biological concepts of that time. Those are the principle of inheritance of acquired properties (Lamarckism) and the idea that ontogenesis recapitulates phylogeny (“biogenetic law”). Based on Lamarckian-biogenetic assumptions, both Freud and Jung saw the origins of mythology in the collective historical experience of mankind. The article demonstrates that the image of Oedipus and the associated motives of incest and parricide play almost the same role in Freud’s (and Freudian) model of mythmaking as the archetypes of the collective unconscious in Jung’s (and Jungian) concept of myth.","PeriodicalId":34696,"journal":{"name":"Naukovi zapiski NaUKMA Filosofiia ta religiieznavstvo","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Naukovi zapiski NaUKMA Filosofiia ta religiieznavstvo","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-1678.2021.8.25-37","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis and Carl Gustav Jung’s analytical psychology are different in many ways and some of their differences are extremely crucial. It is widely believed that one of the most obvious examples of this intellectual confrontation is the difference between Freud’s and Jung’s views on mythology. Proponents of this view believe that Jung was much more interested in mythological issues and his theory of myth became much deeper and more developed than Freud’s one. In particular, it is believed that Freud focused exclusively on the individual’s psyche, while Jung allegedly reached the true origins of mythmaking in the collective unconscious, which is the sediment of the vast historical experience of mankind. The article shows that such statements do not reflect the real situation but just the point of view, which Jung began to spread after his break-up with Freud. In fact, the founder of psychoanalysis had a steady and deep interest in mythology. The manifestation of this interest was the formation of “psycho-analytics” of myth – a specific area of research, which in the early years of the psychoanalytic movement was joined by several first psychoanalysts, including Franz Riklin, Karl Abraham, Otto Rank, Ernest Jones, and Jung himself. It is essential that both Freud and Jung, before and after the break-up in 1913, have been and remain the supporters of the consideration of a man and culture through the prism of certain biological concepts of that time. Those are the principle of inheritance of acquired properties (Lamarckism) and the idea that ontogenesis recapitulates phylogeny (“biogenetic law”). Based on Lamarckian-biogenetic assumptions, both Freud and Jung saw the origins of mythology in the collective historical experience of mankind. The article demonstrates that the image of Oedipus and the associated motives of incest and parricide play almost the same role in Freud’s (and Freudian) model of mythmaking as the archetypes of the collective unconscious in Jung’s (and Jungian) concept of myth.
西格蒙德·弗洛伊德和卡尔·荣格论集体无意识的神话和原型:未被注意到的相似性
西格蒙德·弗洛伊德的精神分析和卡尔·古斯塔夫·荣格的分析心理学在很多方面是不同的,其中一些差异是极其重要的。人们普遍认为,这种智力对抗的最明显的例子之一是弗洛伊德和荣格对神话的看法的差异。这种观点的支持者认为,荣格对神话问题更感兴趣,他的神话理论比弗洛伊德的更深入、更发达。特别是,人们认为弗洛伊德只关注个人的心理,而荣格据称在集体无意识中达到了神话创造的真正起源,这是人类巨大历史经验的沉淀。这篇文章表明,这种说法并不能反映真实的情况,而只是荣格与弗洛伊德分手后开始传播的观点。事实上,这位精神分析学的创始人对神话有着持久而深厚的兴趣。这种兴趣的表现形式是神话的“精神分析”的形成——这是一个特定的研究领域,在精神分析运动的早期,包括弗朗茨·里克林、卡尔·亚伯拉罕、奥托·兰克、欧内斯特·琼斯和荣格本人在内的几位第一批精神分析学家加入了这个研究领域。重要的是,弗洛伊德和荣格在1913年分手之前和之后,一直是并且仍然是通过当时某些生物学概念的棱镜来考虑人和文化的支持者。那就是获得性的遗传原理(拉马克主义)和个体发生重述系统发育的观点(“生物遗传法则”)。基于拉马克的生物遗传学假设,弗洛伊德和荣格都认为神话起源于人类的集体历史经验。这篇文章表明,俄狄浦斯的形象以及与之相关的乱伦和弑父动机在弗洛伊德的神话创造模型中扮演的角色,与荣格的神话概念中的集体无意识原型几乎是一样的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信