Archetypal Criticism: Theories and Approaches

Although archetypal criticism has been used in literary-artistic research for nearly one hundred years, still, as it should be, there is no proper understanding of it, whether in theory or methods, and many studies that have been conducted using this approach, have flaws that require a careful approach to the theories and approaches of archetypal criticism to correct them. Repeated results, misunderstanding of theories, unmethodical and lack of knowledge of archetypal criticism methods, being on the sidelines of mythic criticism, imposing theories on texts and findings, and incorrect and inconsistent results on archetypal criticism, are the most important problems of studies and articles written based on this approach. In the present descriptive-analytical study, firstly the concept of archetype and criticism of archetype is taken into consideration and an effort was made to resolve its ambiguities, and then its various formats and approaches based on different theories have been specified. In addition, related concepts such as Jungian and post-Jungian studies of archetypes have been discussed. The archetypal evolution, the archetypal close-reading, and the rhetorical criticism of archetypes are the approaches that can be used to conduct studies on the criticism of archetypes. Moreover, stereotypical characters, mythological characters, archetypal motifs and situations, collective rituals, public symbols and images, cultural or psychological syndromes, and psychological complexes are forms in which undiscovered archetypes can be explored or literary-artistic texts can be criticized based on them. Keywords: Analytical Psychology, Post-Jungian, Archetype, Jung. IntroductionAlthough numerous studies have dealt with archetypal criticism and examined Jungian archetypes in various works, there is still no clear understanding of this approach. In most of the conducted research, only one of the methods of archetypal criticism is utilized and we can say there is no acceptable understanding of the different methods of archetypal criticism. In many articles written in the field of archetypal criticism, the authors are not even familiar with the most basic concepts of archetypal criticism and have analyzed the works according to the author's intention, though archetypal criticism is one of the text-oriented approaches. Another point that has caused archetypes to be misunderstood is the deep connection existing between archetypes and myths, and myths with epics. That is why most archetypal research is dedicated to epic literature and some think that archetypes and myths are only limited to epic literature and have no place in other literary genres. In addition, the ambiguities in Jung's own words and the difficulty of his writings are also other factors that have caused ambiguity or misunderstanding in the recognition of archetypes. Materials and MethodsIn this descriptive-analytical study, first, the what and why of archetypal criticism have been discussed. Then, its different approaches in facing the texts have been identified to prepare the ground for further studies that either directly deal with archetypal criticism or use it in their analyses. Research FindingsArchetypal Criticism Archetypal criticism is an approach in literary criticism that is usually placed next to mythical criticism, and in many works, it is referred to as the mythological-archetypal approach. In Jung's view, analyzing the personality of an artist based on hir works is similar to analyzing the personality of a judge, police officer, politician, etc. His job has no result but to go astray because artists play an impersonal role in their own position and the artist is also an impersonal process. Archetypal criticism is one of the text-oriented approaches in which the author's intention has no place, and in which the effort is made to study conventions and literary genres in order to place the poems into the body of poetry as a whole.Understanding that archetypal criticism is one of the text-oriented approaches in literary criticism is the first step in this approach. After that, it should be determined how the archetypal literary critic can criticize the literary-artistic texts and by which methods the artist can criticize and analyze the texts. In archetypal criticism, three approaches can be identified based on which critics can criticize and analyze the texts or the archetypes themselves:Evolution of ArchetypesIn this approach, through the Darwinian concept of evolution and the evolutionary theory the author tries to show the course of transformation and evolution of archetypes. This approach can be seen as a higher level of archetypal criticism, in which theoretical explanations about a discovered archetype or an unexplained archetype are discussed. This is the method used by Carl Jung or others such as Erich Newman, James Hillman, Ann Ulanov, Marie Louise von Franz, Carol Pearson, and Joseph Campbell. In this method, it is necessary to investigate the transformations of an archetype based on its sources, that is, myths, ancient literary-artistic works, and cultural anthropology. In the ‘evolution of archetypes’ approach, one should first pay attention to the prototypes and traces of an archetype in mythology and determine its background. Then, it should be investigated in epic texts, lyrical stories, folk traditions, and oral traditions, and its metamorphoses should be clearly displayed in these texts and its transformation in contemporary literary-artistic texts should be specified. Archetypes usually appear in the form of stereotypical characters, mythological characters, archetypal roles and situations, collective rituals, public symbols and images, syndromes, and complexes.Close reading of the literary-artistic text based on an archetypeIn this approach, which can be considered the middle level of archetypal criticism, how a literary-artistic work is formed in an archetypal situation is discussed and its organic unity is emphasized based on an archetypal situation; for example, a poem, story, film, or image is analyzed based on a single archetype and its components are interpreted in relation to that archetype.Examining Archetypes in a Text In this approach, which is the lowest level of archetypal criticism, several well-known archetypes are examined in the entirety of a literary-artistic work, and the manifestations of those archetypes are shown in that work. For instance, archetypes in a certain poetry book or a certain poet's collection of poems are identified. In this approach, which is closely related to rhetorical criticism, an archetype is considered a literary figure and image just like a metaphor. In addition, a combination of these three approaches can be used in archetypal criticism and the works can be analyzed through them.Post-Jungian StudiesThe prefix ‘post’ in post-Jungian, like other terms that use the prefix, implies several issues: 1) transition from Jung's theories and rejection of some of them, 2) continuation and completion of some of his theories, 3) pluralism in methods and theories, and 4) an obstacle to any ultimate principle in theories emphasizing infinity and uncertainty. Samuels argues that “Jung's attitudes toward women, blacks [and people of color], so-called 'primitive' cultures and so forth are now outmoded and unacceptable. Jung converted prejudice into theory and translated his perception of what was current into something supposed to be eternally valid. Here, too, it has turned out to be the work of the post-Jungians that have discovered these mistakes and contradictions and corrected Jung’s faulty or amateur methods. In other words, post-Jungian means the correction of Jung's work and also a critical distance from it” (2008, p. 2-3). In fact, archetypal criticism is regarded as Jungian when in addition to Jung's theories, the theories and approaches of other post-Jungian thinkers are also employed. As Hillman states, Jung should be viewed as one of the sources and not the only existing theory and method in regard to archetypal criticism.Discussion of Results and ConclusionArchetypal criticism is based on archetypal psychology, which has an interdisciplinary nature, and its teachings and concepts, in addition to psychology, are derived from literature, mythology, theology, anthropology, and public culture. This approach of literary criticism is placed in many textbooks next to mythological criticism and is usually referred to as the mythological-archetypal approach, although it can be used independently in the criticism and analysis of literary-artistic texts. Archetypal criticism is one of the text-based approaches of literary criticism, which can be used in three ways as follows to criticize and analyze texts or archetypes themselves: 1) the evolution of archetypes, 2) in-depth reading of literary-artistic text based on an archetype, and 3) examination of archetypes in a text. Moreover, familiarity with archetypes and criticism of archetypes is very important in comparative literature research because the unfamiliarity with them can cause the literary work to be at the mercy of other literary works’ influences without adequate documented reasons and in this way prevent the formation of necessary research in the field of comparative literature. It can be said that the meaning of post-Jungian criticism is the criticism of the archetypes based on the theories of Jungian and post-Jungian researchers, and the use of terms such as ‘post-Jungian reading and post-Jungian criticism’ and the like do not change it. Indubitably, archetypal criticism is regarded as Jungian when in addition to Jung's theories, the theories and approaches of other post-Jungian thinkers are also used. According to Hillman, we consider Jung as one of the sources and not the merely existing theory and method.