Archetypes and the ‘Impoverished Environment’ Argument: A Response to Goodwyn (2020)

Goodwyn's (2020) paper ‘Archetypes and the “Impoverished Genome” argument: updates from evolutionary genetics’ continues the ongoing discussion forged in this Journal to do with the bio-genetic, socio-cultural and environmental underpinnings to archetypal experience. Goodwyn's central focus considers the way in which the genome and environment both contribute causally to the development of the collective unconscious across the lifespan, arguing that others in the debate have minimized the genome's contribution. This paper contrasts the research evidence Goodwyn outlines with contemporary gene-environment coaction research within the psychological domain, concluding that the issue may be more one of emphasis by showing that both genome and environment are important in the activation of archetypal imagery. This highlights that ‘pre-formationism’ (as some kind of automatic archetypal read-out mechanism) and the idea of ‘autochthonous revival’ of archetypes are suspect concepts, and this needs to be taken into account in clinical work. Furthermore, the central issue as to which is causally more significant in generating archetypal imagery, the genome or the environment, will be examined. Illustrative examples of the importance of environmental input in activating archetypal imagery are presented from Jung's own life experience, alongside a contemporary case, as well as with an historical case of Jung's.