Dialectics of Sign and Symbol and the Utterance of Archetype Theory.

Debates surrounding Jung's archetype theory could be characterized as tacit attempts to contend with the concept's dual function as referring to something known to psychologists (sign) and standing for something that is fundamentally unknowable (symbol). This essay considers implications of the term "archetype," outlines and critiques some of the conundrums of categorization and scientific credibility posed by Jung's formulation of the theory, and prompts locating the archetypal "human quality" of being human in imaginaries of typical patterning of the experiential realm.

Les débats entourant la théorie des archétypes de Jung peuvent être caractérisés comme des tentatives tacites de lutter contre la double fonction du concept, qui fait référence à quelque chose de connu des psychologues (le signe) et qui représente quelque chose de fondamentalement mystérieux (le symbole). Cet essai examine les implications du terme « archétype ¼. Il expose et fait la critique de quelques problématiques de la catégorisation et de la crédibilité scientifique posées par la formulation de la théorie par Jung. L'article incite à localiser la «qualité humaine¼ archétypale de l'être humain dans des imaginaires de modèles typiques du domaine expérientiel.

Los debates en torno a la teoría de los arquetipos de Jung podrían caracterizarse como intentos tácitos de lidiar con la doble función del concepto: referirse a algo conocido por los psicólogos (signo) y representar algo que es fundamentalmente incognoscible (símbolo). Este ensayo examina las implicaciones del término "arquetipo", describe y critica algunos de los enigmas de categorización y credibilidad científica que plantea la formulación de la teoría de Jung, e incita a situar la "cualidad humana" arquetípica del ser humano en los imaginarios de patrones típicos del ámbito experiencial.

The snake in the mandala: dialogical aspects of Jung's 'A study in the process of individuation'.

Jung's study centres on the amplification of pictures painted by a woman patient and posits their sequence as evincing the initial stages of the individuation process. His text performs a dialogue with its audience whereby Jung persuades us of this truth, and also reveals Jung's dialogue with his patient and with his own ideas. The present paper revisits the clinical material first with a focus on the interaction between Jung and his patient. The second part compares the 1940 and 1950 versions of Jung's study with attention to tensions that traverse them, such as Jung's attitude to the animus and his two voices as a practitioner and a theorist.

L'étude de Jung est centrée sur l'amplification d'images peintes par une patiente. Elle propose que leur séquence montre les étapes initiales du processus d'individuation. Son texte fonctionne comme un dialogue avec son public, dans lequel Jung nous persuade de cette vérité. Il révèle aussi le dialogue de Jung avec sa patiente ainsi qu'avec ses propres idées. Cet article revisite le matériel clinique en mettant l'accent sur l'interaction entre Jung et sa patiente. Ensuite, dans la deuxième partie, il s'agit d'une comparaison entre la version de 1940 et celle de 1950 de l'étude, en soulignant les tensions qui la traversent, telle l'attitude de Jung envers l'animus, et ses deux voix, celle du praticien et celle du théoricien.

El estudio de Jung se centra en las amplificaciones de pinturas pintadas por una paciente mujer, y plantea la secuencia como evidencia de los estadíos iniciales del proceso de individuación. Su texto representa un diálogo con su audiencia, en el cual Jung nos persuade con respecto a esta verdad, y también revela el diálogo de Jung con su paciente y con sus propias ideas. El presente trabajo revisita primero el material clínico haciendo foco en la interacción entre Jung y su paciente. La segunda parte compara las versiones de Jung de 1940 y de 1950 sobre el estudio, atendiendo a las tensiones que lo atraviesan, como la actitud de Jung con relación al animus, y sus dos voces como psicoterapeuta y teórico.

What makes a robot 'social'?

Rhetorical moves that construct humanoid robots as social agents disclose tensions at the intersection of science and technology studies (STS) and social robotics. The discourse of robotics often constructs robots that are like us (and therefore unlike dumb artefacts). In the discourse of STS, descriptions of how people assimilate robots into their activities are presented directly or indirectly against the backdrop of actor-network theory, which prompts attributing agency to mundane artefacts. In contradistinction to both social robotics and STS, it is suggested here that to view a capacity to partake in dialogical action (to have a 'voice') is necessary for regarding an artefact as authentically social. The theme is explored partly through a critical reinterpretation of an episode that Morana Alac reported and analysed towards demonstrating her bodies-in-interaction concept. This paper turns to 'body' with particular reference to Gibsonian affordances theory so as to identify the level of analysis at which dialogicality enters social interactions.

Archaic man meets a marvellous automaton: posthumanism, social robots, archetypes.

Posthumanism is associated with critical explorations of how new technologies are rewriting our understanding of what it means to be human and how they might alter human existence itself. Intersections with analytical psychology vary depending on which technologies are held in focus. Social robotics promises to populate everyday settings with entities that have populated the imagination for millennia. A legend of A Marvellous Automaton appears as early as 350 B.C. in a book of Taoist teachings, and is joined by ancient and medieval legends of manmade humanoids coming to life, as well as the familiar robots of modern science fiction. However, while the robotics industry seems to be realizing an archetypal fantasy, the technology creates new social realities that generate distinctive issues of potential relevance for the theory and practice of analytical psychology.

Jung's "Psychology with the Psyche" and the Behavioral Sciences.

The behavioral sciences and Jung's analytical psychology are set apart by virtue of their respective histories, epistemologies, and definitions of subject matter. This brief paper identifies Jung's scientific stance, notes perceptions of Jung and obstacles for bringing his system of thought into the fold of the behavioral sciences. The impact of the "science versus art" debate on Jung's stance is considered with attention to its unfolding in the fin de siècle era.

The science and meaning of the self.

Scientists and practitioners alike invest in theorizing the self in psychology, but prioritize differently theoretical and practical objectives. Theorizing the self differs also when mapped onto the 'science versus art' debate, viewed historically and with reference to the philosophy of science. Jung's model of the psyche is compared and contrasted with social cognitive models of self-concept. Finally, some implications of social constructionism are considered.

Jung's view on myth and post-modern psychology.

Post-modern psychology embodies two core themes, the social mind and the narrative self. Whereas the social-mind thesis seems diametrically opposed to Jung's position regarding human nature, the narrative-self thesis is associated with research and theorizing about personal myth and mythmaking in ways that could make contact with Jung's concerns. Jung's view is examined here with particular attention to McAdams' theory of narrative identity. It is suggested that the ostensible differences between Jung and post-modern psychology might reflect divergent interests, rather than necessarily irreconcilable worldviews.

Between the analytical and the critical: implications for theorizing the self.

This article considers some of the implications of the critical standpoint in 'general' psychology in view of Jungian assumptions about the development of the self. The first part introduces the critical standpoint, which encompasses a spectrum of postmodern psychologies sharing a critique of the discipline's 'mainstream' positivist approach, an interest in human lives as existing in culture and historical time, and sensitivity to the dialogical unfolding of the self. Social constructionism and specifically the theory of positioning, which posits the self as a discursive production, are described. The second part illustrates the contrast between the social constructionist and Jungian viewpoints with two possible interpretations of a four-year-old boy's fantasies. Although these viewpoints are diametrically opposed, the possibility of a conceptual 'middle ground' between them is indicated here with particular reference to Bakhtin's understanding of the dialogical act.