The timeliness and timelessness of the 'archaic': analytical psychology, 'primordial' thought, synchronicity.

Summary

Jung's 1930 lecture 'Archaic Man' bridges his early and later analytical psychology. Unlike Lévy-Bruhl, Jung rejected calling the 'primitive' viewpoint 'mysticism,' grounding his anti-mystical stance in a dialectical relationship between Self and World where subject and object are more interrelated than modern epistemology assumes. This foreshadows his later concept of synchronicity, which apprehends the world through meaning. The article examines the archaic-modern opposition in Jung's work and surveys the 'primordial' in other texts to foster debate.

Study at a glance

Abstract

In 1930 Jung gave a lecture entitled 'Archaic Man' to the Lesezirkel in Hottingen. Following recent work on this text by two commentators, this article uses their interpretations as a springboard for a complementary reading, which emphasizes the fundamental significance of this paper as bridging the earlier and later stages in the development of analytical psychology, and examines closely the opposition between 'archaic'-'modern' in Jung's paper; indeed, in his work as a whole. In contrast to Lévy-Bruhl, Jung rejects the label of 'mysticism' as applied to the 'primitive' point of view, and his anti-mystical stance can be explained in terms of his dialectical conception of the relationship between Self and World. On this account, the subject and the object--the psyche and the external world--are more closely (inter)related than conventional (modern) epistemology and ontology generally believe. This conception of the relation between the subjective and the objective foreshadows his later, and controversial, concept of synchronicity, which is, Jung insists, a way of apprehending the world in terms of its meaning. Concluding with a survey of the status of the 'primordial' in some other texts by Jung, this article aims to foster further debate on one of Jung's most complex and fascinating texts.