The Family Myth: Its Deconstruction and Replacement with a Balanced Humanized Narrative

According to Carl Jung the mythopoeic activities of the collective unconscious contribute to the trajectory of personal individuation (Segal 1998). The ‘family myth’ represents an imaginal narrative that emphasizes the importance of the family's founders, its collective values, and its position with respect to ‘outsiders’. Sigmund Freud identified the importance of the Oedipal myth as the basis of nuclear family dynamics (Rudnytsky 1992); however, the ‘myth of the family’ represents in reality a ‘family of myths’, each emphasizing different elements of potential interpersonal dynamics. But whereas some myths foster the child's optimal separation from parental influence and promote the process of individuation, others tend to hinder development.

One potentially deleterious form of the family myth tends to serve the narcissistic wishes of parents in their bid to maintain influence over the child by fostering the archetypal features of their role. The children who are the targets of the myth are thwarted in their psychological development by virtue of the fact that they are denied the opportunity to humanize their archetypal projections onto their parent(s). The result is a persistence of childlike attitude with respect to people and situations that they encounter outside the nuclear family. The persistent constellation of the child archetype is evidenced by features of the puer aeternus, with deficits in the ability to work, form stable adult relationships, and create a separate nuclear family. The significance of this type of family myth in the inappropriate preservation of puerile attitudes is examined and the desire of the offending parent(s) to promote their own immortality is explored. The contribution of the myth to the transference and transference resistance is explicated and suggestions are offered with respect to how to approach this critical issue in analysis.