Last Name:​ recacted 1

Jungian Archetypes Seminar

Part I: Your Own Questions

Write at least one question based on the readings that you would like to discuss in class. As we progress through the
year, we will transition to having seminars based entirely on your questions, so start practicing now! My questions
should be places to jump off from, not the end of your discussion.
Why did Jung use such controversial sources, such as his own dreams, to back up his theory?

Part II: Your Seminar Goal

Write your goal for the seminar.
My goal for this seminar is to see if I am the only one that thinks that Jung’s theories were more pseudoscience than
fact-based research, and if anyone feels differently, to see why.

Part III: Pre-established Questions

Answer the questions on your own - you may do this in complete sentences or in bullet points. Bring in evidence from
the text, your own experience, or outside sources. Number your answers to correspond to the questions.
During the seminar, take notes in a​ DIFFERENT font color​.

Subjects Your Answers ​AND​ Notes from Discussion

1. Watch ​this video on Jungian archetypes​. As you
watch, take notes on what seems important. How
does the concept of archetypes provide us with
templates for interpreting our experience?
2. Jung’s methodology consisted largely of
introspection and self-analysis, often through
dream interpretation, of himself and his patients.
How does this fit with the scientific method? In
what ways does his research succeed or fail by
modern standards?
3. Based on the previous question, why might these
theories have been discontinued in a clinical
setting?
4. The theories of Jung are rarely used by practicing
psychologists, but remnants still appear in today’s
society, as Zappia’s article mentions. Based on
your understanding of Jungian archetypes, why
do these ideas hold so much fascination for
people? Why have we, as a society, been so
reluctant to give up on these ideas?
5. While archetypal criticism is very common,
Jungian psychology has been largely discontinued
in clinical practice - just as Freudian analysis is
(decreasingly) prevalent in literature, but is rarely
1. Jung believed that newborns have a “pre-formed
structure which influences how we experience the
world”. Jung noticed that many stories from
various modern and historic cultures shared
themes, and that those themes were also found in
the dreams of those with schizophrenia. He
thought that the mind contains themes common to
all humans, which he called archetypes. Jung
believed in a “collective unconscious” that is
shared by all humans. His student, Erich
Neumann, believed that the mind “possesses
psychic organs which structure it”. He thought
that if these were the archetypes, and if the mind
was not healthy, they could not function properly.
Archetypes appear differently for all people. Jung
also believed in an archetype called “The Self,”
which was very important. Jung thought that the
source of the archetypes was evolution, or threat
they could be a separate entity. ​He does point out
valid trends, but the way he interpretes them is
kinda iffy. There was lazy explanation on why
humanity is the way it is. An idea is not
psychically transferred. Many different religions
have an old wise man, a mentor, which is a
connection because it is comforting. All humans
all started off in the same place. The simpler you
get, the more accurate they become. More about
how things make you feel than what they are. He

used in clinical settings. What are the arguments
for using psychological theories for literary
analysis? What are the arguments for using these
particular psychological theories for literary
analysis?
6. All literature involves a certain degree of
intertextuality​, or the relationship between literary
texts. You can phrase it as, “There is nothing new
under the sun,” or describe it as the development
and interaction of ideas. How does the concept of
intertextuality​ align with literary analysis through
Jungian archetypes?
Last Name:​ recacted 2
was just redefining instincts, he was just picking
up on human nature and adding culture to it.
2. Jung’s methodology could perhaps be considered
the opposite of the scientific method: all of his
data was collected by untestable means, and could
not be replicated. Using his own experiences and
dreams as scientific proof could also be seen as a
breach of ethics, and it was certainly biased
information. As Susie Zappia said in her article
“Weaknesses of Carl Jung’s Theory,” “Some
critics point out that he rarely, if ever, made
predictions and that this freed him from being
proved wrong. He arrived at his conclusions
through a combination of his work as a
psychiatrist and his own reflection. His theory
was shaped by his own dreams, thoughts and
introspection in addition to that of his patients.
For many critics, Jung's own thoughts and
observations aren't adequate scientific observation
for the basis of a major theory of human
personality.” (Paragraph four.) ​It’s just the first
step of the scientific method. It is a lot of trial and
error, but he’s really testing it on himself. He may
have believed that he was special. Humans
always want to answer questions that there is no
possible answer to. He wanted to expand
knowledge. Kinda of like the story of Persephone.
The point of the scientific method is to verify
your research or prove it wrong, but none of it
was replicable. Kind of like a 3rd-grade science
fair project. The basis of science is objective
research, and this whole subject is an opinion.
3. Jung’s theories might have been discontinued in a
clinical setting because they were untestable and
highly biased. The scientific method couldn’t be
properly applied to them, as there was no baseline
of hard facts and statistics. ​At the time, there
wasn’t the evidence to counter it, but now their is.
4. I think that we are reluctant to give up on his
ideas for the same reasons that people believe
their character traits follow their zodiac sign and
religiously check their horoscopes. People wish to
find some fantastical connection between
themselves and the universe as a whole,
something to prove that we have more meaning
and significance than our tiny little lives. ​People
are fascinated with the idea that something in
their life has more meaning to it. An interesting
thing to discover and ponder. It is almost
self-validation. Jung thought he was special, and
 Last Name:​ recacted 3

he wanted to feel validated. Adds a simplicity to

things: rather than learning about learning about
what is going on inside your head. More
philosophical than scientific. The brain is so
complex, and we know so much about it, people
just get really excited. Humans just don’t want to
give on this idea that there is a connection
between us. There are also a lot of similarities
between religions.
5. “Archetypal criticism argues that archetypes
determine the form and function of literary works,
that a text's meaning is shaped by cultural and
psychological myths.” (Micheal Delahoyde,
“Archetypal Criticism,” paragraph one.)
Psychological theories might be used for literary
analysis because they hold a basis in fact,
changing how we perceive stories and themes. In
the case of Jungian Archetypes, we can find the
repetition of symbols across many stories, as the
theory states, but this is probably more of a result
of cultural influence than of any sort of
“collective psyche”. Literature uses these theories
to influence how we interpret their meaning,
which in turn gives us the tools to analyze what
recognizable messages we can find in what we
read. ​Psychology and literary analysis go hand in
hand because people analyze things differently
based off the experiences they’ve had. Figurative
language and symbolism is based on the
connotation of the symbol.
6. Jungian archetypes align with intertextuality in
the idea that nothing exists in a vacuum, or
separate from other things. Just as intertextuality
says that texts are connected in similar messages
and themes, Jung thought that human minds were
connected with these same stories. ​The guy that
created the hero’s journey based it off archetypes.
They are all about origins. We are all influenced
by common culture and things we’ve seen.

Part IV: Sources

As an Honors student, you are expected to go beyond what I give you and work to extend your depth of knowledge on
your own. To that end, you are responsible for finding AT LEAST ONE source besides the ones I gave you to use in
your discussion. You may use a citation generator like easybib if you wish to do so.

Ex. Author’s Last name, First name. “Title of the Article or Individual Page.” ​Title of the website​, Name of the

publisher, Date of publication, URL.

 Last Name:​ recacted 4

“Jungian Archetypes.” Journal Psyche, Journal Psyche, journalpsyche.org/tag/jungian-archetypes/.

Part V: Reflection
What did you do well before and during this seminar? What did you not do so well? What would make your next
seminar better? Did anything surprise you, resonate with you, or strike you as important? What’s your takeaway?
Write your response in full sentences. ​Before the seminar, I read and annotated all of my articles, and answered all my
questions using textual evidence. I didn’t take as good of notes as I would have liked. Something that could make my
next seminar better is doing more outside research and using that textual evidence. My takeaway is that archetypes are
pretty much considered to be pseudoscience, and should not be taken as fact.