CHAPTER 3: Archetypes and Symbols

CHAPTER THREE: ARCHETYPES AND COMMUNICATION

“Before the visible universe was formed its mold was cast. This mold was called the Archetype, and this Archetype was in the Supreme Mind long before the process of creation began.… [t]he Supreme Mind…gouged out caverns in primordial space and cast the form of the spheres in the Archetypal mold...The Supreme Being - the Mind - male and female, brought forth the Word; and the Word, suspended between Light and darkness, was delivered of another Mind called the Workman, the Master- Builder, or the Maker of Things”. The Vision - The Divine Poimandres of Hermes (Mercurius) Trismegistus

3.1 INTRODUCTION

The exploration of literature from a selected yet diverse collection of disciplines and cosmologies in the preceding chapter points towards inclusive assumptions concerning the notion of a unitary and an ‘objective’ reality. The scope of such notions ranges from the ancient Egyptian ‘primeval ocean’, Nun, to the collective unconscious in depth psychology, a ‘unified force field’ posited in quantum physics, and the ‘ideosphere’ of memetics, a branch of evolutionary biology. Consequently, the postulation of both universal and archetypal theories is intimately related to notions of a unitary reality apparent in various scientific, philosophical and cosmological accounts along a continuum ranging from the ancient to current views of the psyche and human existence. It is also discernible that reality constructs occupy a quintessential and pivotal position in the pursuit of an integrated worldview and cosmology, and the universality of the symbolic and mythological, specifically the creation myth.

Additionally, the human psyche appears to be extensively described as a three-tiered configuration with an innate, archaic predisposition to strive towards a transpersonal unity and integration (Walsh & Vaughan, 1993; Haeri, 1989). The Self, an archetypal sense of being and inherent self-image or archaic identity, furthermore acts as the archetype of order and meaning, and as the organising principle, which propels the psyche’s striving towards said unity and integration (Haeri, 1989:1, 155; Jung, 1933, 1968a). The probable connection between the Self and a unitary reality is alluded to by Jung (1933, 1965) when he termed the foundation from which the Self emerges the unus Archetypes & communication 106

mundus or collective unconscious. Moreover, the Self-archetype generates symbolic representations, mythico-religious or spiritual images and symbols from its personal unconscious and complexes, which are rooted in and derived from an archaic, collective and unconscious blueprint. Seemingly, images, myths and symbolic representations are the manifestations of the archetypes that are interpreted through self-talk in the conscious modality of the psyche (Jung, 1965).

In order to portray the role of an underlying unitary reality in the representation and interpretation of symbols of the Self and hence intrapsychic communication, a comprehensive understanding of the unifying and innate structures, namely archetypes of the collective unconscious is necessary. Said exploration of the nature and characteristics of archetypes and universal archetypal symbols will facilitate the integration of universal archetypal symbols with current notions of symbols in the semiotic approach to communication studies.

This chapter will accordingly aim to explore the nature of archetypes, archetypal images, myths and symbols and their relation to and application in communication studies. It will specifically explore the implication of deep behavioural drives implied by the notion of innate mental patterns in the collective unconscious and their possible coercive influence on communication patterns and symbols of the Self in intrapsychic communication.

3.2 ARCHETYPES OF THE COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS

The notions of archetypes and the collective unconscious, in which they are rooted, are veiled in multiple interpretations and skepticism due to their apparent numinous and intangible nature, and their experimental “untestability” (Huston, Rosen & Smith, 1999:140). Nonetheless, they have been explored by various theorists from diverse disciplines and subsequently have either been embraced for their intuitive yet daring appeal or rejected as preposterous metaphysical nonsense. The following quotation from Jung’s (1950) Travistock lectures gives a clear indication of his response to such criticism: “Our unconscious mind, like our body, is a storehouse of relics and memories of the past. A study of the structure of the unconscious collective mind would reveal the same discoveries as you make in comparative anatomy. We do not need to think that

Archetypes & communication 107 there is anything mystical about it. But because I speak of a collective unconscious, I have been accused of obscurantism. There is nothing mystical about the collective unconscious” (Jung 1950 in Huber, Edwards, & Heining-Boynton, 2000:272).

Interestingly, 54 years after Jung made this statement, including years of criticism and marginalisation in certain branches of psychology, Stevens (2003:xii) states that the proof of the existence of archetypal structures in the collective unconscious could be based on evolutionary psychiatry and evolutionary psychology. These two new disciplines corroborate and amplify both the collective unconscious and its archetypes since they confirm that human experience and behaviour are complex products of environmental, and mental and hereditary forces. “Archetypes are intermediates between genes and experience; they are the organizing schemata by which the innate becomes personal” (Stevens, 2003:xii).

Constructs which appear similar to Jung’s explanation of archetypes include Chomsky’s (1968) notion of an inborn ‘language acquisition device’; ‘primitives’ or basic phonemic building blocks by which language may be constructed proposed by Marslen- Wilson (1980); and Bierderman’s (1987) postulation of the concept of ‘geons’. ‘Geons’ are types of simple visual primitives from which more complex objects such as symbols can be visually constructed (Huston et al, 1999:139). Additionally, Levi-Strauss (1967) developed the concept of ‘infrastructures’ or processes that give rise to ‘cultural universals’, and Schuster and Carpenter (1986) identified similar symbolic and artistic patterns worldwide (Huston et al, 1999:139).

Despite various supporting views, the existence of innate unifying and deep structures is an ongoing debate amongst theorists and scientists. Jung (1968:24) explains that the mystical nature that scientists and theorists ascribe to the collective unconscious is due to humankind’s estrangement from its natural roots. Consequently, the myths, “gods and symbols” of ancient times have been expelled from current reality constructs. “Heaven has become the cosmic space of the physicists, and the divine empyrean a fair memory of things that once were” (Jung, 1968:24). He asserts that the result of myth and the symbolic being ousted from scientific investigation and spiritual exploration is a growing secret unrest at the root of human experience. Moreover, the exploration of the unconscious and its archetypal images relates to the vital question of humankind’s

Archetypes & communication 108 spiritual being or non-being, and most things spiritual are considered unscientific and metaphysical (Jung, 1968). Consequently, any study of the spiritual, which is contrasted with the dominance of a socially and observable reality, is labeled as meta-physical and viewed with suspicion.

The cynicism regarding the collective unconscious and its archetypes, according to Jung (1950 in Huber et al, 2000:274), is also typical because unconscious processes cannot be observed directly which make their delineation and measurement problematic. “They appear only in their products, and we postulate from the peculiar quality of those products that there must be something behind them from which they originate. We call this dark sphere of the mind the unconscious psyche” (Jung 1950 in Huber et al, 2000:275).

Jung (1950 in Huber et al, 2000:275) furthermore postulates that the contents of the conscious mind of an individual consist of three sources. These sources include the ectopsychic contents of consciousness which are derived from the environment through the data of the senses; the endopsychic sphere consisting of contents derived from memory and processes of judgment; and a third source which is “the dark sphere of the mind”, the unconscious. The endopsychic sphere contains those functions that are not under the control of the will and are the vehicle by which unconscious contents reach the surface of consciousness. According to Jung (1950 in Huber et al, 2000:275), the contents of “the dark sphere of the mind” have a mythological character and universal nature. “It is as if they belong to a pattern not peculiar to any particular mind or person, but rather to a pattern peculiar to mankind in general and therefore they are of a collective nature”.

Hall et al (1998:85) elucidate; “the collective unconscious is the psychic residue of human evolutionary development, a residue that accumulates as a consequence of repeated experiences over many generations”. This psychic residue of collective patterns and traces of an archaic history were called archetypes by Jung (1950 in Huber et al, 2000:274). The products of the unconscious psyche seemingly relate to meanings and interpretations derived from the symbolic representations in, for example, mythological motifs, dreams, fairytales, legends, folklore and archaic formulae. The link between archetypes, images, myths and symbols will be explored comprehensively

Archetypes & communication 109

in later sections of this chapter.

3.3 THE NATURE OF ARCHETYPES DELINEATED

The abstract and rather ineffable nature of an archetype contributes to the difficulty in determining the precise meaning of the construct. Jung (1950 in Huber et al, 2000:274) describes an archetype, derived from ‘arche’ (first) and ‘typos’ (mould or pattern), as a “typos (imprint), a definite grouping of archaic character containing, in form as well as in meaning, mythological motifs”. The use of the term ‘archetype’ seemingly has a historical and epistemological history. Jung (1972:4; 1968:4) explains that it was used as early as 200 AD in the Corpus Hermeticum in ‘The Vision - The Divine Poimandres of Hermes Mercurious Trismegistus’, reportedly written by an ancient Egyptian sage, where God is called the “Archetypal Light” and reference is made to the “Archetypal mold”. Additionally, other ancient texts refer to the “immaterial archetypes”, “the archetypal stone” and “the archetypal reality” (Whiteman, 1986). Jung (1972:9; 1968:4) also describes the term as an “exploratory paraphrase” of the Platonic ‘ideas’. The construct of an archetype hence appears to be archetypal in itself.

Moreover, the term “représentations collectives” used by Lévy-Bruhl (1935 cited in Jung, 1972:4; 1968:5) which denotes the symbolic figures in the primitive view of the world, could be applied to unconscious contents, “since it means practically the same” (Jung, 1972:4). However, Jung (1972:4) states that these “collective representations” are only indirectly related to archetypes since they have already been modified and interpreted consciously. Von Franz (1998:128) explains that the archetypes themselves are the “unconscious dynamisms” behind such conscious collective representations; “they produce them but are not identical to them”. Consequently, they are no longer contents of the unconscious and have been changed into conscious formulae taught according to cultural tradition, generally in the form of esoteric teaching and primitive tribal lore. Esoteric teaching is a typical means of the historical expression for the transmission of collective and archetypal contents originally derived from the unconscious (Jung, 1972:3).

It is evident from the above discussion and an exploration of volumes in his ‘Collected Works’ that Jung (1972:5) identifies various terms and constructs in association with

Archetypes & communication 110

archetypes which need further elucidation. For example, the terms archetype as-such, archetype per se, archetypal ideas and images, mythological images, primordial images, historical formulae (représentations collectives), instincts, and behaviour patterns are all seemingly used by Jung and various authors to explain aspects of both the construct “archetype” and its representation.

3.3.1 ARCHETYPES

An archetype, also referred to as the archetype as-such, archetype per se, dominant or the primordial image, is a hypothetical and ‘non-represented’ model which denotes mental forms and elements (Jung, Von Franz, Henderson, Jacobi & Jaffé, 1978:57). Jung (1972:5) explains it as that “which seems to be aboriginal, innate, and inherited shapes of the human mind”. It appears that he considered the primordial image, archetype as-such, and the archetype per se as the original, pure moulds and blueprints which “form the basis for human thought and are the world treasure-house of mythological motifs” (Jung, 1960:3l0). The terms primordial image, archetype as-such and archetype per se seemingly denote identical universal constructs of innate quintessential patterns that predispose humankind to behave in specific ways.

These aboriginal, innate and inherited shapes or moulds of the human mind or “archaic remnants and primordial images”, could also be called “instinctive trends” or subconscious and universal psychic urges or impulses to interpret images symbolically (Jung, 1960:310). Archetypes as-such hence have no material existence but simultaneously cloak and reveal themselves as images, which are humankind’s mode of perception of primordial ideas (Hyde & McGuinness, 1992:61).

Meyer et al (1997:105) state that although Jung uses instinct and archetype as interchangeable concepts, it appears that instinct refers more to physiologically inherited impulses which determine behaviour without conscious motivation and intrapsychic interpretation; the archetype as-such. Hyde and McGuinness (1992:59) state that where instinct determines spontaneous biological actions, archetypes as-such are innate, unconscious modes of understanding which regulate perception itself. Hence, as the instincts determine actions, archetypes as-such determine modes of understanding and meaning.

Archetypes & communication 111

McDowell (2001:637) also refers to the archetype as-such as an underlying constant that functions to organise the psyche, and serves as an adaptive principle of the psyche that, in turn, could be viewed as a dynamic system. Jung (1972:9) indicates that archetypes are comparable to Plato’s conception of the ‘idea’ as a supra-ordinate and pre-existent prototype to all phenomena. These innate ideas represent inherited “possibilities” of ideas, which through repetition became engraved impulses and expectations (Jung cited in Robertson, 1995:166-167).

Consequently, archetypes, in their quiescent, unexpressed or unmodified state, have no exact determinable content. They are indefinite structures, which can assume distinct forms only in projection or expression. Humans are hence not born as tabula rasa (blank slates), but have aptitudes which are inherited instincts and preformed patterns, the latter being the a priori and formal conditions of apperception. Archetypes as-such, instinctive trends and primordial images are hence regarded as innate psychic predispositions or “intuitions” influencing the person to perceive in a certain way, to experience and form images. The term archetype as-such moreover “designates only those psychic contents which have not yet been submitted to conscious elaboration and are therefore an immediate datum of psychic experience” (Jung, 1972:4).

Stevens (2003:18) provides an evolutionary psychological explanation of the archetype as-such as the inherent neuropsychic system – “the innate releasing mechanism” for patterns of behaviour and experience when stimuli are present in an environment. For example, it is responsible for patterns of behaviour as the “zigzag dance or patterns of experience as falling in love” (Stevens, 2003:18).

Archetypes may thus be defined as innate and universal patterns of behaviour without content and expressed in, for example images, myths and symbols. One may assume that since communication is a form of behaviour, archetypes will consequently also influence communication patterns.

Jung (1968a:48-49) states that the main sources and hence the proof of the existence of archetypes are dreams, visions and active imagination. They are considered as the most rudimentary forms of an archetype since they are more individual, less understandable,

Archetypes & communication 112 and more naïve than myths and symbol. He (Jung, 1968:48) considers dreams to be spontaneous and involuntary products of the psyche and hence not falsified by any conscious purpose. Usually, an archetype as-such is accompanied by dream symbols that are related to the “représentations collectives, which in the form of mythological motifs have portrayed psychic processes of transformation since the earliest times” (Jung, 1972:5). Once the archetypes as-such are identified as mythological motifs and reflect conscious deliberation, they are referred to as archetypes expressed in myth and symbol. According to Jung (1960:309), an archetype exists for each universal human experience, including birth, death, sun, darkness, power, women, men, sex, water, mother and pain. Active imagination is described as a series or sequence of fantasies produced by deliberate concentration that are rich in archetypal images and associations (Jung, 1968:49).

The archetype is therefore essentially an unconscious content that is altered by being perceived through conscious awareness, and “it takes its colour from the individual consciousness in which it happens to appear (Jung, 1972:5). Moreover, archetypes, “like all numinous contents, are relatively autonomous, and cannot be integrated simply by rational means”. This is evident in Jung’s (1972:5) assertions that the interpretation of an archetype requires an inner dialectical procedure, which “puts into effect the alchemical definition of the meditatio: an inner colloquy with one’s good angel”. The term ‘angel’ in this sense refers to “inner messengers or phenomena, derived from the Greek word angelos, meaning messenger” (Jung cited in Gellert, 1994:29).

The integration of archetypes into the individual psyche occurs not through rational thought alone, but is mediated through intuitive interpretation of symbols and an ‘inner colloquy’ or inner discussion, hence self-talk in intrapsychic communication. The existence of archetypes on the unconscious level is thus universal and collective, but their manifestation or expression and interpretation in consciousness is intrapsychic and symbolic.

It is through the analysis and interpretation of symbols that are evident in, for example, dreams, fantasies, visions, myths and art that the collective unconscious and the archetypes can be analysed and understood (Jung, 1964:83-90; 1972:4). Other forms of expression of archetypes include visions, rituals, neurotic and psychotic symptoms. The

Archetypes & communication 113

image, myth and symbol as manifestations of archetypes will be discussed in detail in subsequent sections of the chapter.

3.3.2 ARCHETYPAL IDEAS

Archetypal ideas supposedly are historical formulas based on archetypes, which have been passed on over long periods. Jung (1972:5) explains that there is a difference between the archetype and the archetypal ideas or historical formula that has evolved based on it. “Especially on the higher levels of esoteric teaching, the archetypes appear in a form that reveals quite unmistakably the critical and evaluating influence of conscious elaboration” (Jung, 1972:3). For example, archetypal ideas of transcendence of the Self are reflected in creation myths and the description of the Christ, Buddha and Osiris (an Egyptian god). “The drama of the archetypal life of Christ describes in symbolic images the events in the conscious life – as well as in the life that transcends consciousness – of a man transformed by his higher destiny” (Jung quoted in Edinger, 1987:15).

Presumably, archetypes that become archetypal ideas and historical formulae are permanent deposits of an experience that has been persistently repeated, for example, in mythical form for many generations. For example, the experience of countless generations of the daily cycle of the rising and setting sun became fixed in the collective unconscious as an archetype of the sun-god, “the powerful, dominating, light-giving, heavenly body that humans deified and worshipped” (Hall et al, 1998:87).

Hall et al (1998:86) moreover assert that archetypal formulae are not necessarily isolated from one another in the collective unconscious since they tend to interpenetrate and “interfuse”. For example, the archetype of the hero and the archetype of the wise old man may blend to produce the conception of the “philosopher king”, a person who is responded to and revered because he is both a hero leader and a wise seer (Hall et al, 1998:86).

Archetypal ideas and historical formulae are closely related to archetypal myths that will be more extensively explored under a subsequent heading.

Archetypes & communication 114

3.3.3 ARCHETYPAL COMPLEXES

The contents of the personal unconscious are feeling-toned complexes and constitute the personal and private side of psychic life, hence the personal unconscious. A complex or also referred to as the living units of the psyche is an organised group or constellation of feelings, thoughts, perceptions, and memories that exist in the personal unconscious. It has a nucleus or central core - an archetype - that acts as a kind of magnet attracting to it or “constellating” various experiences and archetypal images (Jung 1934 cited in Hall et al, 1998:85).

According to Shalit (2002:22), the complex was so important to Jung that he considered calling his approach to the psyche “complex psychology”. The interrelatedness of archetypes and complexes concomitantly illustrate the relationship between the collective and personal unconscious, and also transpersonal and intrapersonal communication. Shalit (2002:8) writes that the complexes give visible and comprehensive shape to underlying blueprints, hence archetypes. It is through the complex that we approach the archetypes; however, it is also through the complex that the unconscious approaches us.

As “possibilities of representation”, the archetypes and complexes manifest only when some level of consciousness comes into play. Hall et al (1998:86) explain that the nucleus of a complex may be an archetype that draws experiences to it. The archetype can then penetrate into consciousness by way of these associated experiences. However, it is important to note that the archetype does not determine and shape the actual experience. According to Shalit (2002:22), to this end individuals need complexes, for they are “the path and the vessel that give human shape and structure to archetypal patterns as they unfold in personal experience”. Complexes hence provide the link between archetype and ego, enabling the transformation of the collective and universal archetypal image into the personal symbol.

3.3.4 ARCHETYPAL IMAGES, MYTHS AND SYMBOLS

Universally, according to Chetwynd, (1993:207) symbols embody the dynamics and functions of all myths, dreams, images and the imagination. He (Chetwynd, 1993:xi)

Archetypes & communication 115

asserts that life, interpreted in terms of dreams, images and myths, constitute the symbolic language of the unconscious and the soul. Consequently, symbols function in determining the meaning of dreams, images and myths and are seemingly the quintessential component of all unconscious data. An exploration of the nature and functions of images, symbols, and myths in the activation of archetypes will ostensibly aid in the understanding of the transcendent symbols of the Self and concomitantly the dynamics of intrapsychic communication.

3.3.4.1 Archetypal images

Archetypal images are reportedly the moulds, vessels or containers that lend temporary shape to the energy and powers that flow through the universe (Chetwynd, 1993:93). Jung (1968a:39) proposed that the soul’s mode of experience is in images – image is thus always of the psyche, specifically of the collective unconscious. Moreover, he (Jung, 1968a:39) states, “the symbolic process is an experience in images of images”. Frutiger (1989:235) is of the opinion that the symbolic element in images is an implied value, “a mediator between recognizable reality and the mystical, invisible realm of religion, philosophy, and magic, extending from the conscious understandable into the field of the unconscious”.

An aspect of innate archetypal images is highlighted by Hillman (1996:11) which he describes as part of his ‘acorn theory’ as the defining image or innate destiny of every individual. “We each embody our own idea, in the language of Plato and Plotinus” (Hillman, 1996:12). Innate images are thus not only visual images as proposed by Jung, according to Hillman (1996:203) they also refer to an innate individual calling, a personal guide and an inner dynamic that gives the feeling of purpose and a destiny.

Evidently, archetypal images are comparable to entopic images found universally in artwork by modern children, contemporary hunter-gatherers, Paleolithic humans, great apes and humans (Aiken cited in Palmer & Palmer, 2002:235). Aiken (cited in Palmer & Palmer, 2002: 234) defines entopic (meaning inner vision) phenomena as emergent visual patterns consisting of grids, dots, spirals, zigzags, circles and curved lines.

Additionally, people who have entered an altered state of consciousness, regardless of

Archetypes & communication 116 whether it was induced by drugs, sleep deprivation or a migraine headache, universally report these particular images. Palmer and Palmer (2002:234) assert that the universality of these entopic images is due to the shared neural architecture of the higher primate brain. They (Palmer & Palmer, 2002:234) claim that these entopic images are evoked by an innate aesthetic releaser response, which is part of the human brain. The higher primate brain is also referred to as the ancestral mind by Jacobs (2003:29) which he describes to be almost identical in nature to the collective unconscious as described by Jung.

The previous assertions relate to Lewis-Williams and Dowson (cited in Palmer & Palmer, 2002:234; Lewis-Williams & Dowson, 1989:61; 2000:61) who report that the shamanic San of the Kalahari Desert recreated similar entopic phenomena or images in their art during periods of self-induced altered states of consciousness in shamanic ceremonies and ritual (refer to Figure 3.1 and 3.2 below). Lewis-Williams (2002:156) furthermore asserts that in San rock images, “The San fused the ‘abstract’ experiences of altered states of mind with the materiality of the world in which they lived”. An important correspondence exists between shamanic San expression of entopic images and Jung’s (1972) assertion that esoteric teaching is a typical means of expression (through visions, rituals and art) and for the transmission of collective and archetypal contents originally derived from the collective unconscious, the domain of altered states of consciousness.

Moreover, these symbolic expressions and entopic phenomena seemingly relate to Jung’s archaic images and historical formulae which appear not only in San art, but also recurrently in various other ancient images and symbolic representations. Van Auken and Little (2000) report on pre-Mayan pertroglyphs (rock carvings) dated 1500 BC found at Piedras Negras in the Western Gulf of Mexico illustrating spiral and circular designs (Figure 3.20 refers). These designs appear to be similar to Lewis-Williams and Dowson’s (1989, 2000) postulations of entopic images.

Additionally, based on this researcher’s examination of the basic Egyptian hieroglyphic alphabet, it appears that most of the entopic images mentioned are present not only in the Egyptian alphabet but also in Egyptian art (Fig. 3.3–3.19 refer). Prominent Egyptologists and anthropologists posit that the sacred Egyptian hieroglyphics are

Archetypes & communication 117 amongst the first recorded complex written language (Goody, 1981; Robinson, 2001; Hagen & Hagen, 1999). The link between art and writing is established by Goody (in Williams, 1981:106) who states that the physical basis of writing is “clearly the same as drawing, engraving and painting, the so-called graphic arts”.

Furthermore, the Schmandt-Beserat (cited in Frutiger, 1989:119) theory posits that the first forms of stylised writing evolved from Middle Eastern clay tokens dating back to the eighth millennium BC. Frutiger (1989:120) argues that this theory provides the answer to the simplification of images, which had become stylised before the first pictograms were drawn. He (Frutiger, 1989:116) refers to Chinese, Mesopotamian and Egyptian pictograms to illustrate the stylisation and development from pictogram to ideogram. According to Frutiger (1989:112), the development of symbolic representation, and the pictorial recording of expressed thought was a two-track development of the spoken sound and descriptive gesture.

Moreover, Frutiger (1989:125) indicates that the Egyptian script culture is viewed as the most important basis of the Western alphabet. Through their myth, image and geometric proportion, Schwaller de Lubicz (1978) believed that the Egyptians were able to encapsulate in their writing and architecture the basic pattern of structure of the natural universe. It is through the rich and exacting array of ancient hieroglyphic writing that consciousness is lifted from subjective, poetic or personal insight to a precise, communicable, universal knowledge-activity upon which a future science of nature could have been founded (Schwaller de Lubicz, 1978). Schwaller de Lubicz, (1978) indicates that Egypt and other cultures that were grounded in the symbolic method used symbols to maintain an active, conscious connection with the impulses and subliminal information received from the ancient and deeper limbic and reptilian centres of the brain, hence archaic information nested in the collective unconscious. This proposition by Schwaller de Lubicz (1978) relates to Frutiger’s (1989:115) fundamental question of whether a pictorial notion is inborn, or the result of experiences entering the consciousness as a memory. Although Frutiger (1989:115) claims that the search for a common origin of sign formation has been mostly in vain, there are nevertheless analogies between elementary signs in picture representation of common objects across various cultures. Hence, the crucial question relates to the existence of inherited ‘archetypes’ with a common innate structure, or merely associations based on personal

Archetypes & communication 118 experiences.

Jacobs (2003:140-141) states that visual imagery is a form of symbolic mental processing that does not depend on the use of language. Visual imagery includes dreams, daydreaming, goals, activities, desires, and wishes in the mind’s eye. This visual imagery is part of the ancestral mind’s (referred to as the collective unconscious by Jung) utilisation of preverbal imagery to convey emotions, feelings, and intuitions. He (Jacobs, 2003:140-141) also indicates that these visual images are comparable to stored information in the ancestral mind as a form of genetic memory. Moreover, Jacobs (2003:141) indicates that preverbal imagery is also the basis for the Jungian archetypes, “the stuff of myths, spiritual visions, and the deeper human realities that seem universal and eternal”.

Additionally, Wilson (cited in Jacobs, 2003:141), a Harvard evolutionary biologist, argues that preferences for certain patterns or colours, for example, have been conveyed genetically. He (Wilson, 2003) refers to them as “memes” or fundamental human images that have been held in common throughout our evolutionary development and that are a form of “species knowledge”, passed from generation to generation. (Compare with Section 2.8, ‘Memetics’ in Chapter Two).

Dawkins’s and Wilson’s claims of memes as genetically conveyed memories correspond closely to a very controversial and contested assertion by Hamer (cited in Kluger, 2004:50), a molecular biologist, of having discovered a “God gene”. Kluger (2004:51) reports that Hamer arrived at his conclusions while conducting a survey on more than 1,000 men and women who took a standardised, 240-question personality test called the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI). Among the traits the TCI measures is one known as self-transcendence, which consists of three other traits: self- forgetfulness or the ability to get entirely lost in an experience; transpersonal identification, or a feeling of connectedness to a larger universe; and mysticism, or openness to things not literally provable. Hamer (cited in Kluger, 2004:52) then isolated a positive correlation between the VMAT2 gene and the scores on the self- transcendence test. He (Hamer cited in Kluger, 2004:52) consequently claimed to have found the genetic root of spirituality.

Archetypes & communication 119

Zohar and Marshall (2000:95) make a similar claim and describe a connection between spiritual intelligence and an area in the temporal lobes of the brain, which they refer to as the “God Spot”. This “spot”, ostensibly, relates to the altered states of consciousness and visions of entopic images as elucidated by Aiken (cited in Palmer & Palmer, 2002: 234) and Lewis-Williams (2002:156). Reportedly, this spot, when stimulated, produces visions similar to those reported by individuals who had near death experiences (Zohar & Marshall, 2000:95).

Seemingly, images similar in design to entopic phenomena occur and recur in all forms of representations regardless of whether their source is humankind’s mind or computer generated illustrations of atomic behaviour in quantum physics. This researcher finds that computer generated illustrations of the behaviour of subatomic particles in quantum physics as well as the images of fractals and strange attractors, as constructs of chaos theory, are outwardly similar patterns to those depicted by ancient civilizations in forms of art and earliest forms of writing (figures 3.3-3.23 refer).

This is seemingly corroborated by Van Eenwyk (1997:116) who equates archetypes with strange attractors, which Mandelbrot (cited in Van Eenwyk, 1997:58) considers to be fractal, and also alludes to a similarity in geometric designs of entopic images, fractals, attractors and holograms. “Like equations that are graphed on a computer screen [fractals], the activity of the psyche also leaves its traces. From cave drawings to religious images to folk tales and myths, we humans have been moved to represent graphically what we believe to be the essence of the world we inhabit” (Van Eenwyk, 1997:116). The correspondence between attractors, consciousness and innate hidden determinants of behaviour, referred to as attractor research, is also used by indicated by Hawkins (2002).

The observation of innate and inherited shapes (entopic images) during an altered state of consciousness (the collective unconscious) which is subsequently recreated and represented in symbolic form may thus mark the existence of archetypal moulds and rudimentary patterns of meaning. Through repeated experiences these shapes and images became archaic and historical formulae (Jung) and collective representations (Lévy-Bruhl) expressed not only in art, but also in earliest forms of writing as in, for example San and Egyptian hieroglyphs and petroglyphs. These assumptions, including

Archetypes & communication 120 possible explanations for the relationship between archetypes, holograms, strange attractors and fractals and the systems and chaos theories from which these constructs derive, will be explored in the final contributory chapter of the study.

Fig. 3.1 Fig. 3.2 San rock art depicting Examples of entopic images a rain animal, and showing the zigzag – an entopic image

Fig. 3.3 Entopic images evident in ancient Egyptian art, including zigzags, circles, stars, and spirals

Fig. 3.4 Fig. 3.5 Fig. 3.6 Fig. 3.7 Fig. 3.8 Fig. 3.9

Fig. 3.10 Fig. 3.11 Fig. 3.12 Fig. 3.13 Fig. 3.14 Fig. 3.15 Fig. 3.16 Fig. 3.17

Fig. 3.18 Fig. 3.19 Figures 3.4 – 3.19

Archetypes & communication 121

Entopic images evident in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, including zigzags, grids, circles, stars, and spirals

Fig. 3.20 Pre-Mayan pertroglyphs (rock carvings) dated 1500 BC found at Piedras Negras in the Western Gulf of Mexico illustrating spiral and circular designs

Fig. 3.21 Fig. 3.22 The Mandelbrot Set The Mandelbrot Set Mandelbrot’s fractals Mandelbrot’s fractals

Fig. 3.23 The Lorenz attractor

3.3.4.2 Archetypal myths

Jung (1963:118) stated, “Comparative religion and mythology are rich mines of archetypes” Spiegelman (1989:iv) follows Jung by stating that it is through myth,

Archetypes & communication 122 cultural stories and religion that the workings and passions (archetypes and complexes) of the soul are revealed. However, in order to grasp the significance of these stories of the soul and “echoes from a distant past” (Hawkins, 2004) an approach or key is needed to unlock their meaning. Spiegelman (1989:v) says, “the way is the symbol, as depth psychology has shown us, and the mode is interpretation. We retranslate these stories so as to speak into the language of metaphors and symbols”.

It is apparent from the previously mentioned that closely related to the symbol and the symbolic are the myth and the mythical which appear to embody sequences or series of symbolic representations describing so-called imaginary events or fantasy. Myth may hence be described as patterns representing archetypal expressions of the psyche. For example, “Myths depict the typical sequences, the archetypal patterns, in the drama of the psyche (or soul)” (Chetwynd, 1993:vii). Mythical patterns are moreover likened to the natural working of biology and cosmology by (Houston, 1993:111). “We are patterned in a field of resonance where everything and everyone is implicated in everything and everyone else” (Houston, 1993:111).

Myth was, according to Cooper (1995:iv), for the early anthropologists, untrue, a figment of the imagination, and that which was dreamed up by elementary, and uncultured minds. However, this century has seen a full appreciation and interest in its value. Consequently, it is now recognised as a serious expression of both some sacred truth and aspects of the mundane. Schorer (quoted in Cooper, 1995:iv) says, “myths are the instruments by which we continually struggle to make our experiences intelligible to ourselves”. Furthermore, Feinstein and Knipper (1989:2) maintain that myths are not falsehoods or legends, they are the models by which human beings code and organise their perceptions, feelings, thoughts and actions. A myth may thus be defined as an image or pattern of symbols that gives meaning to the facts of ordinary life and sacred principles. Without such representations, experience is chaotic, fragmentary and merely phenomenal. Consequently, myths unify experience in a way that is satisfactory to the whole culture and to the whole personality (Schorer quoted in Cooper, 1995:iv; Ions, 1997:6).

Myth is expressed through series of symbols and “readily merge into one another, making patterns of bewildering complexity”. Accordingly, Eliade (cited in Cooper,

Archetypes & communication 123

1995:v) argues that current language confuses myth with fable, whereas, traditional societies see myth as the only valid revelation of reality, dealing with the sacred. In contrast, Rundle Clark (1978:218) considers symbols to be acting as focal points for emotions or imaginative speculations described in myths. Rundle Clark’s (1978) association of myth with the imagination corresponds with Hillman’s imaginal capacities of the soul stated in Chapter Two.

Cooper (1995:v) explains that many myths are universal and are fundamental responses to the environment, existential situations, and personal social and cultural longings. “They have been handed down by word of mouth, in rituals, festivals, religious drama and in literature, becoming a creative force, perpetuating the powers of which they are an expression” (Cooper, 1995:v). Examples of universal and hence archetypal myths are the Creation and Deluge myths, which seem to be narrated in most cultures (Todeschi, 2000b).

In accord with and expanding on these statements, Roberts, Roberts and Katz (1997:9) are intrigued by the similarities expressed by diverse cultures in mythical expression. “Cultures as separated as the Norse and Chinese or the Greek and Japanese, for example, share a surprising number of mythological parallels” (Roberts et al, 1997:9). They (Roberts et al, 1997:9) furthermore note that the myths of the world seem to come from a few common sources, and a study of these myths suggests, “In a very real way, that humankind comprises a demonstrably unified family”.

A surprising simile between myth and the symbolic explanation of quantum theory is suggested by Finkelstein (cited in Zukav, 1991:277) who states that the true language of physics is ‘mythos’. It alludes to experience yet does not replace it or moulds perception. This is because both ordinary languages used to communicate daily experience and mathematics follows a certain set of rules, or classical logic that are not sufficient to explain the contemporary ineffable nature of quantum phenomena. Moreover, according to Finkelstein (cited in Zukav, 1991:277), experience is not bound by these rules because it follows a more permissive set of rules which fall within the ambit of quantum logic. “Quantum logic is not only more exciting than classical logic, it is more real. It is based not upon the way that we think of things, but upon the way that we experience them” (Zukav, 1991:277). The implication is that language and

Archetypes & communication 124

classical logic do not correspond to certain aspects of experience. Finkelstein’s assertion is also an indication that where the Enlightenment marked the move from mythos to logos, the new sciences herald a return to mythos when confronted with the ineffable.

3.3.4.3 Archetypal symbols

Symbols have been created and used in every conceivable aspect of human experience. Todeschi (1995:1) asserts, “The world of myth and symbolism has always been an extremely powerful vehicle for human understanding”. The essence of Jung’s theory of archetypal symbolism is found in this quotation: “…a symbol is the best possible expression for an unconscious content whose nature can only be guessed, because it is still unknown” (Jung, 1968a:6n). This statement relates to the fact that symbols are representations of the psyche, which contain knowledge that is not directly known to all individuals and may mark-out their destiny, the highest evolution of his or her psyche (Hillman, 1996).

Fordham (1966:19) points out that Jung uses the word ‘symbol’ in a definite way, making a distinction between ‘symbol’ and ‘sign’: a sign is a substitute for, or representation of the real thing, while a symbol carries a wider meaning and expresses a psychic fact which cannot be formulated more exactly.

According to Wehr (1987:55), symbols portray universal human experiences. Symbolic images are hence discernable personal and cultural signs that are embedded in unconscious archetypal forms and structures or blueprints situated in the impersonal, collective unconscious.

To discern and comprehend the meaning of the symbol, an intrapsychic analysis (an inner colloquy) is required, and in so doing, the archetypal root of the symbol is exposed. Jacobi (quoted in Singer, 2000:183) states; “…the deeper the analysis penetrates the more clearly the effects of archetypes appear; the symbol becomes increasingly dominant, for it encloses the archetype, a nucleus of meaning…” Hence, as the mind explores the symbol, it is lead to ideas that lie beyond the grasp of reason. It has a wider and unconscious aspect that is never precisely defined (Jung et al, 1964:4).

Archetypes & communication 125

An archetypal symbol therefore connotes meaning in addition to the conventional, obvious and cognitive, and represents something vague, unknown or even hidden from conscious awareness. Jacobi (quoted in Singer, 2000:184) provides an example which elucidates the emergence of the universal meaning of an archetype: “A dream symbol of a real mother gives a detailed image of her limited diurnal role but gradually the meaning becomes wider and deeper until the image is transformed into a symbol of Woman in all her variations as contrasexual partner; then rising up from a still deeper strata, the image discloses mythological features, becomes a fairy or a dragon; in the deepest stratum, the storehouse of collective, universal human experience, it takes on the form of a cave, the underworld, the ocean, and finally it swells into the one-half of creation, chaos, the darkness that receives and conceives”. The apparent link between nature, anthropomorphism and archetypes is indicated in Jung’s (in Sabini, 2002:14) explanation that nature encompasses all the archetypes.

According to Hall et al (1998:92), a symbol in Jungian psychology has two major functions: 1) it symbolises or represents an attempt to satisfy an instinctive impulse that has been frustrated; and 2) it is an embodiment of archetypal material. Archetypal material or experience takes either visual or muscular form; the former could be called the archetypal image, the latter instinct. Both are parts of the archetype itself, which cannot be other than inferred from the archetypal image and the instinctual behaviour.

The two sides or aspects of a symbol, one retrospective and instinctive and the other prospective and guided by the ultimate goals of humankind and hence every individual, are two sides of the same coin. A symbol may be analysed from either side; the retrospective type of analysis exposes the instinctive basis of a symbol, whereas the prospective type reveals the yearnings of humankind for completion, rebirth, harmony and purification. The former is a causal, reductive type of analysis; the latter is a teleological, finalistic type of analysis. Both are necessary for a complete elucidation of the symbol (Hall et al, 1998:108). According to Hall et al (1998:108), Jung believed that the prospective character of a symbol has been neglected in favour of the view that a symbol is solely a product of frustrated impulses and society.

Hall (1957:xx) indicates that symbolism is an ingenious and ideal method of preserving transcendental knowledge which is both revealed and concealed in symbols. The secrets

Archetypes & communication 126 of transcendental knowledge are veiled and “engraved upon the face of mountains and concealed within the measurements of colossal images, each of which was a geometric marvel”. According to Hall (1957:xx), knowledge of chemistry and mathematics are hidden within mythologies, or “in the spans and arches of temples which time has not entirely obliterated”. These lost inner mysteries of life, arts and sciences; and concealed wisdom of antiquity will remain hidden until this humanity has once again learned to read the universal language – symbols (Hall, 1957:xx).

In all probability, according to various authors, symbols, and specifically universal symbols, through their nature or appearance, reflect or represent something profound (Bruce-Mitford, 2000:8). Particularly universal symbols of the Self are viewed as means of communicating profound insights to the individual. For example, Shelley (quoted in Prata, 1997:xi) states, “The universal symbol has been the reciprocity of truth about the reality of the Self. The true meaning of the symbol is communicated at a level deeper than that of the intellect”.

Van Eenwyk (1997:83) explains that symbols may be viewed as star-gates that give access to other universes. Well-known proponents of this view are Tillich, Heidegger, Merton and Ricoeur (cited in Van Eenwyk, 1997:43) who maintain that symbols transcend categories; and point to those areas of life that are difficult to define and explain. Moreover, they function as agents of change and allow contact with essential dimensions of our being. According to Tillich (quoted in Van Eenwyk, 1997:84), “real metaphors are not translatable”.

Van Eenwyk (1997:84) also explains that symbols are essentially interfaces mediating between the conscious mind and the unconscious by participating in both. “Generated by the psyche to serve its own needs, symbols facilitate communication among its various dimensions”. Thus, the symbol is a material representation of immaterial qualities and functions. It is an objectification of things subjective in the human mind and subliminal in nature, awakening individuals to a perception of the world which may make them aware of a knowledge contained in their soul (Schwaller de Lubicz, 1978).

Bruce-Mitford (2000:98-119) provides a list and categorisation of symbols which is indicative of the vast expanse of human experiential representation that is included in

Archetypes & communication 127 the explorations by various authors.

Archetypes & communication 128

Certain of the categories that relate to the symbols of the Self will be explored in more detail in a subsequent section of the chapter. It includes the following: Ý Picture writing: Clay tokens, ideograms, pictograms, and hieroglyphs; Ý Numbers; specifically the numbers three, four, seven and nine are seen as symbolic of sacred and transcendent knowledge; Ý Shapes and patterns; geometric and sacred shapes such as the Yantra or mandala representing the circle; Ý Colour; Ý Alchemical symbols; Ý Masonic symbols; Ý Divinatory or mantic symbols including, for example, the I Ching, tarot cards, and rune stones; Ý Astrological symbols; Ý Heraldic emblems, for example, the Coat of Arms; Ý International signs and symbols, for example, the red cross; and Ý Symbolic gestures, for example nonverbal and physical cues.

Todeschi (2000b:21) proposes in his categorisation that there are essentially only three different types of symbols. The first type is that of archetypes, which have meaning for individuals across time and cultures. Archetypes encapsulate symbols or prototypes of human behaviour and experience. Mythic tales and legends also illustrate archetypes independent of the narration’s historical validity. Examples include the Creation Myth, which is at the root of all civilizations and societies, as well as the Flood Myth, which is told in a variety of ways in more than two hundred different cultures. Todeschi (2000b:29) states that whether or not the story of a Great Flood has any basis in fact, it is so widespread a myth that it has an archetypal meaning at a subconscious level. “Simply stated, the meaning is one of transformation and change. As an archetype, the Great Flood Myth symbolizes the pattern of being overwhelmed by personal transformation and change, yet somehow becoming a better person because of it” (Todeschi, 2000b:29).

Another popular mythic archetype proposed by Todeschi (2000b:30) is the legend of the Soul’s Journey. “The Soul’s Journey archetype is exemplified by Dorothy’s experience in The Wizard of Oz, Christian’s journey in Pilgrim‘s Progress, Pinocchio’s challenges

Archetypes & communication 129

in The Adventures of Pinocchio, Bilbo’s adventures in The Hobbit, and The Parable of the Prodigal Son in the book of Luke (Luke 15:11-24)”. The basic theme is that the individual went off on a journey of self-discovery, and eventually returns to the same place it started but with an expanded level of awareness. Todeschi (2000b:30) moreover posits that whenever a story, a legend, a myth, or a film encapsulates an archetype of human behaviour, it has the potential to resonate to an enormous audience.

Secondly, there are cultural symbols, which are appropriate for a given nation or society. Cultural symbols exist because groups of individuals have often given meaning to specific images and symbols based upon their history and experience, which has been passed down to people sharing a similar culture and background (Todeschi, 2000b:21).

Finally, there are symbols that are personal and specific to an individual where the underlying meaning of a specific symbol is closely associated with whatever the dreamer equates with that particular image. The interpretation of these symbols is primarily dependent upon whatever the individual associates with that image or his or her personal experience with it. When these associations differ from the thoughts and feelings of others, the personal association generally takes precedence (Todeschi, 2000b:21).

3.3.5 ARCHETYPES AND SYNCHRONICITY

Jung (1950, 1985) proposed and developed a principle that was neither causal nor teleological, the ‘principle of synchronicity’. To Jung (1985) synchronicity is a meaningful coincidence in time, and a psychic factor, which is independent of time and space. This principle applies to events that occur together in time but are not caused by one another, for example, when a thought corresponds with an objective and external event. Jung (1985:26) believed that many of these experiences could not be explained as chance coincidences: instead, they suggest that there is another kind of order in the universe in addition to that described by causality. He (Jung, 1985:27) asserts, “It cannot be a question of cause and effect, but a falling together in time, a kind of simultaneity”. Synchronicity is evident when one is thinking of a person and the person appears or one dreams about the illness or death of a friend or relative and later hears that the event took place at the exact time of the dream (Hall et al, 1998:102).

Archetypes & communication 130

Jung (1985:29-30; cited in Hall et al, 1998:102) states that synchronistic phenomena are attributed to the nature of archetypes. An archetype is said to be psychoid in character: that is, it is both psychological and physical. Consequently, an archetype can bring into consciousness a mental image of a physical event even though there is no direct perception of the physical event. An archetype does not cause both events: rather it possesses a quality that permits synchronicity to occur. Synchronicity will be explored in detail in Chapter Four.

3.4 COMMUNICATION THEORY AND THE COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS

The following section will explore to what extent the constructs and concepts explored in the previous section have been incorporated into communication theory. Specifically, this will allow the subsequent incorporation of unearthed constructs into the existing frame and body of knowledge in communication studies. The exploration will focus on those theories related to the Self and intrapsychic communication and commence from selected and relevant theories, such as the most contemporary theories of symbolic interactionsm and social constructivism.

The social construction of reality, with Berger and Luckmann (1967) as the major proponents, is seemingly inherently related to symbolic interactionism. Both genres have been engendered from the discipline of sociology, hence the emphasis on meanings and understanding derived from communication with others. Where symbolic interactionism focuses on how an individual develops an identity through communication with others, social constructivism focuses on how an individual needs society to create or construct reality and concurrently uses the creation as an objective sounding board (Littlejohn, 1996:179-180).

Social constructivism is concerned with an inquiry into the construction of reality. Berger and Luckmann (1967:15) state: “We contend that the sociology of knowledge is concerned with the analysis of the social construction of reality”. They (Berger & Luckmann, 1967:16) add that the sociology of knowledge constitutes the sociological focus of existential determination of thought. The intellectual antecedents of the sociology of knowledge developed from three streams of thought in nineteenth century

Archetypes & communication 131

Germany, i. e. the Marxian, the Nietzschean and the historicist models. The root proposition of the sociology of knowledge is said to be derived from Marxian thought: “Man’s consciousness is determined by his social being”. Specific agglomerations of ‘reality’ and ‘knowledge’ hence pertain to specific social contexts, societies or cultures (Berger & Luckmann, 1967:15). This notion is reflected and crystallised in an awareness of the social foundations of values in modern Western thought (Berger & Luckmann, 1967:17).

It is evident from the assumptions and opinions in the previous paragraphs that symbols and the symbolic interpretations of reality occupy a central position in communication theory. The most noted argument is that of the social nature of symbols in which both notions of self and reality are embedded. Conversely, minimal reference is made to the intrapsychic processes in the construction of meaning.

The construction of the self is hence attributed to symbols in communication theory. However, this construction of the self occurs only within a social context. Griffen (1994:116) states that the interactionists view the self as a function of language and symbols used within a social context, creates the self. This ‘self-portrait’, ‘self-picture’ or mental image of the self is termed ‘the looking-glass self’ and develops solely through role-taking or symbolic interaction with significant others (Griffen, 1994:115; Littlejohn, 1996:162).

Mead’s (1934) humanistic symbolic interactionism emphasises the social dimension of symbols and states that meaning is a product of social life using significant symbols in a society that is a cluster of cooperative behaviours by a group of societal members (Fisher, 1978:165-170; Littlejohn, 1996:161; Neuliep, 1996:47). “Society, then, consists of a network of social interactions in which participants assign meaning to their own and other’s reactions by the use of symbols” (Littlejohn, 1996:162).

Fisher (1978:168) adds that the Meadian concept of the ‘I’ and ‘me’ should not be confused with the Freudian structural tripartite division of the id, ego, and superego. Rather, the Meadian I-me duality should be viewed as a social process of self-indication where the construction of reality within the self represents a microcosm of the construction of a social reality in interaction. This construction of reality in

Archetypes & communication 132

interactionism requires the internal social process of self-indication and interpretation. However, Fisher (1978:168) is of the opinion that Mead’s concept of the self represents a reflexive process. Interactionism does not view the individual as a unique and integrated entity with internalised cognitions and beliefs, but as a social being. Fisher (1978:168) hence posits that this social human being does not exist merely in a stimulus field, but acts creatively and reflexively.

Littlejohn (1996:162) states that the distinguishing feature of the interactionist view of meaning is conscious interpretation. Conscious interpretation differentiates non- symbolic interaction (a reflex) from symbolic interaction where significant symbols are utilised. In using these significant symbols and role taking or ‘behaving as others behave’, a person develops a self-concept.

Neuliep (1996:47) is of the opinion that symbolic interactionists believe that an understanding of human behaviour requires the study of covert behaviour. This understanding of the internal functioning is not a process of introspection (Griffen, 1994:115), but rather the self must go outside the self to do the interpreting. “The individual can assume the interpretative process (called standpoints) of others in order to define the self” (Fisher, 1978:171). Note the difference in interpretation between Fisher (1978:167) and Griffen (1994:115).

3.4.1 COMMUNICATION THEORY AND ARCHETYPAL SYMBOLS

O’Sullivan, Hartley, Saunders, Montgomery & Fiske (1994:15) state that the problem with the application of the concept of archetype in communication, cultural studies and semiotics is that it is too general and varied to allow close definition and scientific scrutiny. They (O’Sullivan et al, 1994:249) also ascribe the lack of acceptance of Jung’s collective unconscious archetypal structures and synchronicity to speculative psychodynamics and metaphysics.

However, they assert that Jung’s search for underlying patterns within symbolic worlds and the identification of large-scale paradigms for cultural imagery complements a science of signs, hence semiotics or semiology (O’Sullivan et al, 1994:15). Consequently, O’Sullivan et al (1994:15) say, “It is therefore somewhat ironic that so

Archetypes & communication 133 little reference is made to Saussure or semiology in Jung’s writing - or that later structuralist and semiotic theorists have not recognized Jung’s interpretations”. However, they (O’Sullivan et al, 1994:15) maintain that a (Jungian) project, which examines signifier /signified relations in so many cultures and eras, may be viewed with suspicion. The same sentiment is expressed by Rupprecht (1997) who says, “Issues of genre, period, and language were ignored or subjected to gross generalization as Jung searched for universals in disparate texts”. It is this researcher’s estimation that clearly no in-depth study of Jung’ assertions and postulations were made and that their criticism is based on secondary assumptions. This is evident in the fact that despite their concerns, they (O’Sullivan et al, 1994:15) indicate that the analysis of ‘clustered’ images in semiotics has been aided by the archetype concept. Moreover, such an analysis “emphasizes a world of symbolism that goes way beyond the popular imagery of television screens or newspaper advertisements, and that extends to dream worlds and memories” (O’Sullivan et al, 1994:15).

Paradoxically, they (O’Sullivan et al, 1994:249) view Jung’s postulations and constructs with skepticism whilst concurrently favourably appraising Freud’s and Lacan’s psychoanalytical theoretical perspective concerning internal psychic structures as important. The importance is attributed to the fact that the “communication system arising out of such a psychic matrix is of especial importance for the analysis of intrapersonal communication, motivation, socialization and development” (O’Sullivan et al, 1994:249).

Contrary to the assertions by O’Sullivan et al (1994:15) regarding archetypal images, Littlejohn (2002:72) comments, “Visual images do not quite fit the semiotic norm of representation. Surely, images can be understood as representing things, but they are not arbitrary or separate from what is represented. Images resonate with deep levels of actual experience in a way that arbitrary signs do not”. Hence, visual signs and images, which are pivotal and increasingly important to Western culture due to the new media technology, create special problems with regard the current semiotic assumptions that signs are separate from their referents. Visual codes are more open in their potential meanings; consequently, their interpretation is more subjective and more related to the internal perceptual and cognitive processes of the viewer than to conventional restricted representations (Littlejohn, 2002:72).

Archetypes & communication 134

Notwithstanding the above-mentioned statements by Littlejohn (2002) that visual images do not perfectly fit the semiotic mould, and the assertions by O’Sullivan et al (1994) and Rupprecht (1997), it is necessary to explore certain theoretical assumptions of the semiotic approach and analyses that possibly allude to innate structures. This will allow the juxtaposition of constructs posited by the semiotic approach and those extrapolated on a unitary reality and archetypal symbols by the exploration in this study. The German philosopher, Kant’s (cited in Fourie, 2001a:328) assertion that no raw material is attainable from the Umwelt (reality) other than through humankind’s mind (gemüt), highlights the possible relationship between semiotics and an inner reality and symbols since the interpretation and meaning of experiences are mediated through a “soup of signs” (Sebeok cited in Fourie, 2001a:328). Subsequently, the study will hone- in on the junction or interface between deep innate mental and psychic structures and the interpretation of archetypal symbols.

3.4.1.1 Semiotics

The two dominant models of contemporary semiotics emerged from the theories of the linguist de Saussure (1857-1913), shortened to Saussure, and the philosopher Peirce (1931-1958) (Du Plooy, 2001:9; Littlejohn, 2002:58). The term, ‘semiology’ (from the Greek semeîon, ‘sign’) refers to the Saussurean tradition, whilst ‘semiotics’ sometimes refers to the Peircean tradition, however, nowadays the term ‘semiotics’ is more likely to be used as an umbrella term to embrace both traditions (Chandler, 2001a).

According to Chandler (2001a), semiotics is not widely institutionalised as an academic discipline, and is a field of study involving many different theoretical stances and methodological tools. One of the broadest definitions is that of Eco (quoted in Chandler, 2001a), who states, “semiotics is concerned with everything that can be taken as a sign”, whereas Fourie (1995:2) defines it as “the science of signs, codes and meaning”. Deacon, Pickering, Golding and Murdock (1999:135) assert that semiotics as a tradition has merged with a number of forms in the methodological range of cultural studies and critical approaches.

Semiotics involves the study of what is referred to as ‘signs’ or arbitrary associations

Archetypes & communication 135

between signs and their references as used in everyday speech, and anything which ‘stands for’ something else and may take the form of words, images, sounds, gestures and objects, and is generally referred to as text (Chandler, 2001a; Deacon et al, 1999:137). Moreover, Chandler (2001a) states that contemporary semioticians study signs not in isolation but as part of semiotic ‘sign systems’, such as a medium or genre. “They study how meanings are made: as such, being concerned not only with communication but also with the construction and maintenance of reality” (Chandler, 2001a). The implication is that current semiotic analysis is focused on the construction of socially derived meanings found primarily in forms of the mass media (Deacon et al, 1999:135). Fourie (1995:2) incorporates semiotics into a more general semiotic theory of communication that designates it as the study of the processes by which meaning is created, transferred and circulated, and includes three principle areas of study: signs, sign systems and codes. This process of creating meaning is also referred to as signification. Additionally, Fourie (1995:3) indicates that semiotics aims to provide the concepts and instruments in the analysis and description of the various ways in which meaning is created.

Littlejohn (2002:63) explains that there is a reciprocal influence between the study of the structural tradition of language and semiotics. Accordingly, it is difficult to disentangle European semiotics from its structuralist origin. The following section is an exploration of the major contributors to, developments and key points in semiotics.

3.4.1.2 Structuralism

Fourie (2001a:329) indicates that structuralism was one of the main and most dominant paradigms in the social and human sciences for the most part of this century. O’Sullivan et al (1994:225) define structuralism as “an intellectual enterprise characterized by attention to the systems, relations and forms - the structures – that make meaning possible in any cultural activity or artifact”. Major structuralists include Saussure, Lévi- Strauss (1908-1990), a cultural anthropologist (who saw his subject as a branch of semiotics), and Lacan (1901-1981), a psychoanalyst (Chandler, 2001a).

Fourie (2001a:329) groups the purpose of structural analysis of archetypes and the collective unconscious with anthropology and hence separates it from psychoanalysis,

Archetypes & communication 136 which is said to uncover the underlying structure of behaviour. He (Fourie, 2001a:330) explains that according to structuralism the surface structures of, for example, myths, the human psyche and society are based on a deep structure. Moreover, according to structural philosophy, reality and thought, amongst others, are no more than the result of the collective unconscious or deep structure of society (Fourie, 2001a:330).

Linguistic structuralism is an analytical method that has been employed by many semioticians and is based on Saussure's linguistic model. Kellner and Durham (2001:13), however, attribute the development of structuralism to Lévi-Strauss (1908- 1990) who articulated the basic structures of culture and society. Structuralists seek to describe the overall organisation of sign systems as ‘languages’ with underlying universal rules and structures (Fourie, 2001a:329). For example, Lévi-Strauss related these rules and structures to myth, “mythemes”, kinship rules and totemism; Lacan related them to the Freud’s explanation of the unconscious, and Barthes equated them with the ‘grammar’ of narrative (Chandler 2001a; Cavallaro, 2001:23; Mattelart & Mattelart, 1998:70). Structuralist semioticians hence engage in a search for ‘deep structures’ underlying the ‘surface features’ of signs and phenomena. i Saussure (1857-1913)

According to Chandler (2001a), Saussure was influenced by the pragmatic philosophers of the 19th century, including Wittgenstein and James. Saussure (quoted in Chandler, 2001a) defined ‘semiology’ as ‘a science which studies the role of signs as part of social life’. He (Saussure cited in Littlejohn, 2002:63) explained that signs, including language, are arbitrary and that there is generally no physical connection between a word and its referent. Signs and the use of language are therefore conventions governed by rules, which implies that language, as a structure, and reality are separate.

Saussure (cited in Littlejohn, 2002:63) asserted that reality and an individual’s knowledge of that reality and the world at large are determined by language. Unlike other semioticians, Saussure (cited in Littlejohn, 2002:63) stated that signs constitute rather than designate objects and thus have no referential function. Littlejohn (2002:63) is of the opinion that “in this regard, Saussure’s work set the stage for much twentieth-century thought not only in structural linguistics but also

Archetypes & communication 137

interactionist theory”.

Saussure (cited in Littlejohn, 2002:64; Chandler, 2001a; Deacon et al, 1999:136) distinguished between formal language (langue) and the use of language in communication or speech (parole). He (Saussure cited in Littlejohn, 2002:64) referred to language (langue) as a synchrony (it changes little over time) and a formal structural system that can be analysed (linguistically) separately from its everyday usage in speech (parole). Speech (parole) is referred to as diachrony since it changes constantly from situation to situation. “Taken as a whole, speech [parole] is many- sided and heterogeneous; straddling several areas simultaneously ... we cannot put it into any category of human facts, for we cannot discover its unity. Language [langue], on the contrary, is a self-contained whole and a principle of classification” (Saussure quoted in Littlejohn, 2002:64). According to Littlejohn (2002:64), the distinction that Saussure made between language and speech, and that between synchrony and diachrony, have been sharply criticised by theorists from other traditions.

Additionally, Saussure (cited in Cavallaro, 2001:17; Fourie, 2001a:334; Deacon et al, 1999:136-137) stated that a sign is made of three parts: a signifier - the sound-image or the physical quality of a sign; the referent or object which the signifier represents; and the signified – the meaning attached to the signifier by the recipient. ii Peirce (1931-1958)

Peirce described the basic notion of a sign and semiosis (the process of signification and meaning production) as a relationship among a sign, an object and a meaning where the sign represents the object, or referent, in the mind of an interpreter (Littlejohn, 2002:59). He identified the three components of a sign as being a denotatum or representatum (what the sign represents), an object (the literal meaning of the denotatum) and the representation or association of an object by a sign as the interpretant (Fourie, 1995:38). All three elements are required in an irreducible triad in order for signs to operate (Littlejohn, 2002:59). According to Littlejohn (2002:59), many semiotic theorists have elaborated and expanded on this basic idea, and that further studies of semiotics have since been undertaken by, for example, Morris and Sebeok (1991), Eco (1982) and Barthes (1972, 1977; 1999).

Archetypes & communication 138

In terms of the above mentioned triadic relationship, meaning thus depends on the image or thought of the person in relation to the sign and the object being signified. This relationship between meaning and images alluded to by Peirce could possibly imply a junction or link between Jung’s postulation on inherent archetypal structures and meaning. In accord with this observation Semetsky (2002) states that archetypal images are semiotic by virtue of their being carriers of information.

Peirce (cited in Cavalarro, 2001:18) identified three types of signs: The icon; a sign based on the resemblance between signifier and signified (a portrait); the index, a sign in which the signifier and signified are causally related (e.g. smoke means fire); and the sign proper or the sign in which the relationship between the signified and signifier is arbitrary. The sign proper is also referred to as the arbitrary sign. An additional type of signs described by Fourie (2001a:335) is the symbolic sign where there is no outward correspondence or correlation between the sign and its referent, for example, a cross symbolising Christianity.

Additionally, Peirce proposed that a concept such as a ‘sign’ makes humankind more aware of beliefs and consequently behaviour and thought (Fourie, 2001a:332). A three-level approach to the comprehension of the world is also suggested by Pierce which includes ‘Firstness’, a concept of what is without reference to anything else; ‘Secondness’ or the conception of what exists in terms of another or a Second; and ‘Thirdness’ is the conception of the generally valid. Thirdness is the conception arrived at by relating what is being brought about by a Second to a Third (Fourie, 2001a:333).

According to Semetsky (2002), the affective influence of archetypes is compatible with Peirce’s triadic semiotics, and enables signs to function at the level of Firstness, that is outside one’s individual cognition, yet inside the collective unconscious posited by Jung.

The ‘Thirdness’ of mediation during analysis and interpretation of symbols contributes to signs becoming present to an individual’s conscious awareness as objects of action and reaction, that is, ‘Secondness’. The explication of the implicit

Archetypes & communication 139

meanings, in accord with Peirce’s pragmatic maxim, has profound implications for the individual not only contributing to healing the psyche but also by virtue of enabling the individual to reflect on her/himself when, for example, a person is situated within conflicting experiences (Semetsky, 2002).

Further similarities between Jung and Peirce as identified by Semetsky (2002) include Jung’s rejection of dualistic logic since Jung stated “psyche and matter are two different aspects of one and the same thing" (Jung quoted in Semetsky, 2002). Semetsky (2002) asserts, “As if anticipating the post-Cartesian philosophies, Jung did not draw a line of great divide between the products of imagination and those of intellect: all thinking aims to the creation of meanings”.

The purpose of Jungian analysis in individuation, according to (Semetsky, 2002), is a process of integration of conscious and unconscious symbolic aspects of the self for the “achievement of a greater personality”. Integration, as the production of meanings, leads to potential change in habitual ways of thinking, feeling and behaving as eventual effects of archetypal imagery embedded in the collective unconscious. Thus Jungian analytical psychology, both theoretically and practically, may be considered a pragmatic method in accord with Peirce’s maxim (Semetsky, 2002). iii Lévi-Strauss (1908-1990)

Fourie (1995:160) indicates that Lévi-Strauss, a cultural anthropologist, is regarded as one of the pioneers in the field of structural analysis and contributed to the study of semiotics by drawing attention to the notions of ‘binary oppositions’ in media texts and the role of myth in human comprehension of reality, a notion that Barthes elaborated on. Binary opposition is described as the meaning of something that depends on its opposite, for example ‘good’ and the meaning of ‘good’ depend on ‘evil’ and the meaning of ‘evil’ (Fourie, 1995:160). Additionally, Lévi-Strauss proposed the notion of myth as a narrative without foundation, which is handed down from generation to generation, implying that although the content of myth may differ between generations, the structure and intended meaning remain the same (Fourie, 1995:161).

Archetypes & communication 140

According to Guerin et al (1992), to Lévi-Strauss, the structures of the human mind were common to all people and thus underscored the universality of myth. Myth consequently is a universal narrative that transcends cultural or temporal barriers and “speaks to all people, in the process tapping deep reservoirs of feeling and experience and often invested with divine origins”. Guerin et al (1992) indicate that in his study of the Oedipus myth, Lévi-Strauss described ‘mythemes’ or units of myth based in binary oppositions, whose structural patterns invest the myth with meaning. Fourie (1995:161) asserts that Lévi-Strauss’s analysis of myth and binary oppositions was intended to illustrate that a ‘universal logic’ underlies human thought. These descriptions of the nature of myths seemingly relate to Jung’s theories of archetypal myths and the collective unconscious.

Lévi-Strauss also referred to bricolage, the process of creating something not as a matter of calculated choice and use of whatever materials are technically best- adapted to a clearly predetermined purpose, but rather involving a ‘dialogue with the materials and means of execution’. In such a dialogue, the materials, which are ready-at-hand, may ‘suggest’ an adaptive course of action, and the initial aim may be modified. Consequently, such acts of creation are not purely instrumental: “the bricoleur speaks not only with things... but also through the medium of things [hence] the use of the medium can be expressive” (Lévi-Strauss quoted in Chandler, 2001a).

Although the context of Lévi-Strauss's point was a discussion of ‘mythical thought’, Chandler (2001a) argues that bricolage may be involved in the use of any medium and for any purpose. The act of writing, for instance, may be shaped not only by the writer’s conscious purposes but also by features of the media involved - such as the kind of language and writing tools used - as well as by the social and psychological processes of mediation involved. However, not every writer acts or feels like a bricoleur. Individuals differ strikingly in their responses to the notion of media transformation. They range from those who insist that they are in total control of the media, which they ‘use’, to those who experience a profound sense of being shaped by the media, which ‘use’ them.

Archetypes & communication 141 iv Morris (1901-1979)

Where Peirce described the basic notion of a sign, Morris’ most enduring contribution, according to Littlejohn (2002:60), is the division of the field into three branches. These include semantics; the study of how signs relate to things; syntactics, the study of how signs relate to other signs; and pragmatics the actual use of codes in everyday life, including the effects of signs on human behaviour and how people mould signs and meanings in their actual interaction.

Morris (cited in Littlejohn, 2002:60) proposed that the act of interpretation of a sign consists of three stages, perception (awareness of the sign), manipulation (interpretation and choice of response), and consummation (actual response). Signs perform different functions during the three stages, for example, during the perception stage signs designate and refer to some object or condition. In the manipulation stage signs tend to prescribe, advise or tell what actions need to be performed. Finally, in the consummation stage signs allow appraisal and evaluation (Littlejohn, 2002:60).

Moreover, Morris (cited in Littlejohn, 2002:60).describes the interdependence between the sign and the individual by stating that perception is often associated with detachment, when the situation is viewed objectively. During the manipulation stage, the signs appear to dominate and assume some authority which leads to the consummation stage when there is often a feeling of dependence and reliance on the sign as a way of structuring a response.

Littlejohn (2002:61) parallels this incremental development towards signification and meaning with the system theory: a system influences and is influenced by other systems and is said to be dependent on and subsequently dominant over that other system. A state of detachment exists when a system is more or less autonomous. “Detachment, then, corresponds to perception and the designative mode of signification. Dominance corresponds to the manipulation and prescriptive factors, and dependence corresponds to consummation and appraisive values” (Littlejohn, 2002:61).

Archetypes & communication 142 v Barthes (1915-1980)

Semiotics, according to Chandler (2001a), became a major approach to cultural studies in the late 1960s. This is partly as a result of the work of Barthes (1964 quoted in Chandler, 2001a) who declared that “semiology aims to take in any system of signs, whatever their substance and limits”. These systems include images, gestures, musical sounds, objects, and the complex associations of all of these, which form the content of ritual, convention or public entertainment.

Cavallaro (2001:59) too indicates that the expansion of the concept of text and textuality may be attributed to Barthes who described everything from billboards to statues as text. Barthes postulated the concepts of connotation and denotation, and applied Saussure’s concepts of the signifier and signified to semiotic analysis specifically relating to forms of mass communication (Mattelart & Mattelart, 1998:69). According to Fourie (1995:162), Barthes concluded that the meaning of a signifier is both open and layered in terms of first, second and third orders of meaning. The first order of meaning is the denotative, the second the connotative and the third the ideological. Additionally, he outlined a semiotic theory of “contemporary myths” found in forms of mass communication, which he defined as ‘connotated languages’ and hence as second order meaning (Mattelart & Mattelart, 1998:70; Fourie, 1995:162).

Barthes stated that these myths serve an ideological function to naturalize culture and to maintain the status quo (Chandler, 2001a; Kellner & Durham, 2001:13; Deacon et al, 1999:131-138; Fourie, 1995:162). This means making “dominant cultural and historical values, attitudes and beliefs seem entirely 'natural’, 'normal’, self-evident, timeless, obvious 'common-sense' - and thus objective and 'true’ reflections of 'the way things are” (Chandler, 2001a). Mattelart and Mattelart (1998:70) explain that Barthes described the use of myth “appears to make use of ordinary language in order to make secondary parasitic values natural”. Consequently, for Barthes, myth is a socially constructed ‘truth’ with an underlying ideological meaning that societies create for their own survival (Fourie, 1995:162). Barthes (cited in Fourie, 1995:163) asserted that the universality of the life cycles of people from all cultures or the “universality of being” is a myth which conceals the cultural and social diversity of

Archetypes & communication 143

humankind. It is because of this second-order and mythical meaning of text highlighted by Barthes that Fourie (1995:163-164) asserts that the social scientist should attempt to uncover the hidden social and conventional meanings of text (the myths of meaning) which are mainly communicated through stereotypes. Stereotypes are defined as a scheme or prejudice which allows the positive or negative generalisation and simplification conceptions of reality (Fourie, 1995:164).

Pieterse (cited in Fourie, 1995:165) indicates that the view of stereotypes as reflecting universal truths as the social and cultural equivalents of Jungian archetypes as ancient mental primordial images seated in the collective unconscious is faulty. This is primarily because stereotypes are primarily used to portray and emphasize negative divergent characteristics, whereas archetypes reflect and portray both negative and positive universal characteristics. Moreover, stereotypes are fluid, variable and comprehensible social constructions, whereas archetypes are innate, universal and unconscious patterns of comprehension. vi Langer

A theory of language and symbolism of specific importance and related to the scope of this study is that of Langer “who considers symbolism to be the central concern of philosophy, a topic that underlies all human knowing and understanding” (Littlejohn, 2002:62). According to Langer (cited in Littlejohn, 2002:62), human feeling is affected by conception, symbols, and language. The term sign is a stimulus that signals the presence of a signified object, and a symbol, a more complex construct, is a vehicle for the conception of objects in their absence. Additionally, the use of symbols as “instruments of thought”, and symbol making are basic human needs. “Symbol-making is a continuous process tantamount to eating and sleeping. Much human behaviour can be explained in terms of meeting the symbolic need” (Langer quoted in Littlejohn, 2002:62).

Langer (quoted in Littlejohn, 2002:62) views meaning as the complex relation among the symbol, the object, and the person. “If there is not at least one thing meant and one mind for which it is meant, then there is not a complete meaning”. Consequently, meaning could be interpreted from two dimensions, logical and rational interpretations between the symbol and referent, and a psychological sense

Archetypes & communication 144

of meaning referring to the relation between the symbol and the person.

To Langer (cited in Littlejohn, 2002:62), a symbol communicates a concept, a general idea, pattern or form that denotes a shared meaning among communicators. However, each communicator has a private image or meaning, referred to as a conception that completes the details of the common picture. Meaning therefore consists of the individual’s private conception and the common concept shared with others. These assumptions made by Langer appear to relate to Jung’s interpretations that archetypal symbols should be interpreted as rooted in feeling-toned personal complexes and universal, collective archetypes.

Langer (cited in Littlejohn, 2002:62) furthermore expanded upon the terms signification, denotation, and connotation. Signification is the awareness of the presence of a sign; denotation is the relation of the symbol to its object, and hence the concept of an object and connotation of a symbol is the direct relationship between the symbol and the conception, which includes personal feelings and associations attached to a symbol.

Langer (cited in Littlejohn, 2002:62) additionally noted that humans have a tendency to abstract which involves a process of forming a general idea from a variety of concrete experiences. During the process of abstraction, details in the conception of objects, events, or situations are generalised and filtered out, consequently the more abstract the symbol, the sketchier the conception. Langer (cited in Littlejohn, 2002:62) describes her conceptions about language as discursive symbolism and her ideas about symbols such as worship, art, and music as non-discursive or presentational symbols through which forms some of the most important emotional human experiences are best communicated. Jung’s archetypes ostensibly relate to conceptions of presentational symbols as identified by Langer. vii Chomsky

A theory of generative grammar that may possibly have a bearing on this study is that which Chomsky posited. Littlejohn (2002:66) is of the opinion that although Chomsky’s generative grammar now has several positions within it, the tradition as a whole is built on a cluster of essential ideas. This cluster of ideas involve three

Archetypes & communication 145

essential ideas: 1) Generative grammar rests on the assumption that sentence generation is central to sentence structure and that the form of a sentence cannot be separated from the process by which it is generated; 2) The objective of generative grammar is to isolate a set of rules that explains how any sentence could be generated; and 3) The essential feature is a transformation process which generative grammar seeks to explain.

Of direct relevance to this study is Chomsky’s (1968) postulation that principles of language and mind are universal. Moreover, he was seeking, through an analytical and rational approach, inherent mechanisms of mind since he believed that knowledge arises from a projection of innate categories onto the world of actual experience (Littlejohn, 2002:63). Chomsky (cited in Palmer & Palmer, 2002:89) posited that the acquisition of the deep structures of language is not only the result of learning, but also rooted in an innate biological basis. This assumption made by Chomsky has a direct bearing on Jung’s postulation of innate structures used for apperception, hence archetypes. Chomsky (1968) asserts that language follows an evolutionary development from simpler systems of communication inherent to the structure of the mind. Expressly, human language is associated with a specific type of mental organisation and, according to Chomsky (1968) “the structure of language can truly serve as a ‘mirror of the mind’ in both its particular and universal aspects”. Consequently, where Chomsky asserted that language reflects the mind, Jung postulated that symbols and myths reflect unconscious patterns (archetypes). viii Lacan (1901-1981)

Lacan’s psychoanalytical theories endeavoured to review Freud through the lens of structural linguistics and show how “subjectivities” are constituted in discourse (Moores, 2000:10). According to Lacan (quoted in Chandler, 2001a), the opposition of “self/other or subject/object” is psychologically fundamental and “the unconscious is structured like a language”. Hence, in Lacanian terms, the unconscious is the site of both meaningful representation and signification (Barker & Galasiński, 2001:30). Moreover, “the mind imposes some degree of constancy on the dynamic flux of experience by defining 'the Self' in relation to 'the Other'”. It is important to note that the concept of the “Other” was also used by Hegel (1770-1831 cited in Cavallaro, 2001:120) to argue that human consciousness is incapable of perceiving itself

Archetypes & communication 146 without recognition by others.

The development of language is described by Lacan (cited in Chandler, 2001a) as the infant moving from a “Real” to an “Imaginary” realm. For Lacan, there is a primal private psychic realm of the “Real” where the child understands itself as a series of disconnected atomised parts (Chandler, 2001a). Initially, in the primal realm of ‘the Real’, where there is no absence, loss or lack, the infant has no centre of identity and experiences no clear boundaries between itself and the external world. The child then emerges from the Real at the age of between six to eighteen months and enters “the Imaginary in which the Self is constructed” before the acquisition of speech (Lacan quoted in Chandler, 2001a). The Imaginary is a realm of visual images where an individual builds an identity and a sense of Self. This occurs during “a mirror phase” where the Self is reflected in the Other (Schirato & Yell, 2000:90). The Other is hence the Self and the Self, paradoxically, is always defined in terms of the Other. Self and Other are inextricably connected (Cavallaro, 2001:122).

Lacan proposes that, as the child gains mastery within the pre-existing ‘Symbolic order’ (the public domain of verbal language), language (which can be mentally manipulated) helps to foster the individual's sense of a conscious Self, residing in an ‘internal world’, which is distinct from ‘the world outside’. However, a degree of individuality and autonomy is surrendered to the constraints of linguistic conventions, and the Self becomes a more fluid and ambiguous relational signifier rather than a relatively fixed entity. Subjectivity is hence dynamically constructed through discourse (Chandler, 2001a).

Post-structuralist theorists such as Derrida also favoured the recurring themes of absence/presence, posited by Freud and reviewed by Lacan (Lucy, 2001). It can stand for anything lost or the fear of loss, and for the pleasure or hope of its recovery. It is thus symbolic of the loss of, amongst other things, the imagined oneness of being in the Imaginary and the desire and hope of regaining unity without the mediation of language. Childhood or primal experience, according to Chandler (2001a) is portrayed by Romantics as virtually ‘unmediated’. However, all but the most naive epistemology suggests that individual experiences of the world is unavoidably mediated. This is so since “without the separation of Self from Other

Archetypes & communication 147

there would be no 'me’ who could hark back to a myth of oneness” (Chandler, 2001a). Moreover, according to Lucy (2001), Lacan and Derrida tend to echo the poet Shelley (1815) in a vision of primal experience as a mystical sense of oneness, of being within a universal continuum. Barker and Galasińsk (2001:31) echo these assertions and refer to Lacan’s description of the Self and the unconscious as the “metaphorical interior”.

Chandler (2001a) states that signs and codes are generated by myths and in turn serve to maintain them. Popular usage of the term ‘myth’ suggests that it refers to beliefs which are demonstrably false. However, in the semiotic use of the term, myths can be seen as extended metaphors, which help humankind to make sense of experiences within a culture (Chandler, 2001a). ix Nonverbal signs

Littlejohn (2002:67) states that the signs used in communication are not limited to the linguistic and that much of the nuance of meaning is communicated nonverbally. However, the study of nonverbal communication in semiotics represents a maze-like experience. Harrison (cited in Littlejohn, 2002:67) states that activities ranging from inner, but inexpressible feelings to the rhetoric of topless dancers have been associated with nonverbal communication. Hence, there is little agreement on what constitutes nonverbal communication. Structural approaches to nonverbal coding identify several properties, including the feature, according to Burgoon (cited in Littlejohn, 2002:67), that certain nonverbal codes seem to elicit universal meaning. These codes specifically relate to emotional displays, which may be biologically determined.

Ekman and Friesen’s (cited in Littlejohn, 2002:69) research and model on kinesics categorises nonverbal activity in three ways: by origin, by coding, and by usage. Origin is the source of a nonverbal act which indicates that nonverbal behaviour may be innate (built into the nervous system), species-constant (universal behaviour required for survival), or variant across cultures, groups, and individuals. For example, “one could speculate that eyebrow raising as a sign of surprise is innate, that marking territory is species-constant, and that shaking the head back and forth to indicate no is culture-specific” (Ekman & Friesen quoted in Littlejohn, 2002:69).

Archetypes & communication 148

Coding is the relationship of the act to its meaning. An act may be arbitrary (with no meaning inherent in the sign itself), iconic (resembling the thing being signified), and intrinsic (coded cues contain their meaning within them and are themselves part of what is being signified). For example, laughter is an example of intrinsic coding since it is an emotion, but it is also part of the expressing of the emotion itself (Littlejohn, 2002:69). According to Ekman and Friesen (cited in Littlejohn, 2002:69), all nonverbal behaviour is one of five types, depending on origin, coding, and usage. These include the emblem, illustrator, adaptor, regulator, and affect display.

3.4.1.3 Post-structuralism

According to Chandler (2001a), contemporary social semiotics has moved beyond the structuralism concern with the internal relations of parts within a self-contained system, seeking to explore the use of signs in specific social situations.

Post-structuralism is a radical offshoot of structuralism that questions the certainty of meaning portrayed in the media because of the symbolic nature of signs in language. The French post-structuralist Derrida (cited in Chandler, 2001a; Cavallaro, 2001:25) argues that recovering meaning from a text is impossible, because interpretation of a text never points to the real world but only to more language. The purpose of post- structuralism is to expose the meaninglessness of a text through the method of deconstruction (Cavallaro, 2001:25). Any meaning imparted to the reader by the author using signs in the text is all a clever manipulation and the meaning derived is illusory. The ambiguity of language will ultimately be found at the heart of any literary work (Cavallaro, 2001:26).

3.4.1.4 Methodology of semiotics

Chandler (2001a) states that semiotics seeks to analyse media texts as structured wholes and investigate latent and hence connotative meanings. Where content analysis focuses on explicit content and suggests that this represents a single, fixed meaning, semiotic studies focus on a system of rules governing the ‘discourse’ involved in media texts, stressing the role of semiotic context in shaping meaning. The structuralist semiotician is hence concerned with the relation of elements to each other, whereas the social Archetypes & communication 149

semiotician would emphasize the importance of the significance that readers attach to the signs within a text.

Currently semiotics involves no widely agreed upon theoretical assumptions, models or empirical methodologies and tends to be largely theoretical with many of its theorists seeking to establish its scope and general principles Chandler (2001a). As for methodologies, according to Chandler (2001a), Saussure's theories constituted a starting point for the development of various structuralist methodologies for analysing texts, social practices and cultural phenomena. “However, such methods are not universally accepted: socially oriented theorists have criticized their exclusive focus on structure, and no alternative methodologies have yet been widely adopted” (Chandler, 2001a).

i Semiotic textual analysis

A semiotic textual analysis involves an attempt to determine and deconstruct the ways in which signs and codes operate within particular popular texts or genres (Chandler, 2001a). The goal of semiotic textual analysis is hence to reveal how certain values, attitudes and beliefs are supported whilst others are suppressed within a selected text (Du Plooy in Fourie, 2001b:5). ii Syntagmatic and paradigmatic/genre analysis

Fourie (1995:58) defines a paradigm in semiotics as “a model consisting of small signs (or different signs) of the same kind (same sign system)” and a syntagm as “the formulated message”, hence the text. For example, words are paradigms and sentences are syntagms. Syntagmatic analysis studies the ‘surface structure’ of a text that can be applied not only to verbal texts but also to audio-visual ones. In film and television, for example, a syntagmatic analysis would involve an analysis of how each frame, shot, scene or sequence relates to the others which represents the standard levels of analysis in film theory (Chandler, 2001a). Syntagmatic and paradigmatic analysis also involve the identification of the articulation of meaning involving three levels ranging from first to third level of articulation related to the choices and selection of expression of signs out of a paradigm (Fourie, 1995:58).

According to Chandler (2001a), a paradigmatic or genre analysis involves a consideration of the positive or negative connotations of each signifier revealed by Archetypes & communication 150

one signifier rather than another. Furthermore, the existence of ‘underlying’ thematic paradigms, for example, binary oppositions such as public/private and Self/Other are exposed. Paradigmatic analysis hence seeks to identify the various paradigms or pre-existing sets of signifiers that underlie the manifest content of texts. According to Du Plooy (in Fourie, 2001b:60), genre analysis in mass communication allows the identification of, for example, how media serve to maintain the status quo. Chandler (2001a) points out that the slanting line linking and separating the two terms in such pairings, for example public/private, is sometimes referred to by semioticians as 'the bar', a term employed by Lacan.

Chandler (2001a) also states that structuralists emphasise the importance of relations of paradigmatic opposition. The primary analytical method employed by many semioticians involves the identification of binary or polar semantic oppositions (e.g. us/them, public/private) in texts or signifying practices. Such a quest is based on a form of ‘dualism’, which seems to be deeply rooted in the development of human categorisation. Chandler (2001a) comments “For more than two thousand years oppositional patterns were based on these elements and were widely accepted as the fundamental structure underlying surface reality”. Jung also assumes this binary opposition in his description of, for example, the ego/shadow, and anima/animus (soul). iii Archetypal semiotic textual analysis

Archetypal semiotic textual analysis also referred to as archetypal analysis or criticism is an application of the psychological principles of Jung in the semiotic tradition. The first systematic application of Jung's ideas to literature was made in 1934 by Bodkin in Archetypal Patterns in Poetry, who established the priority of interest in the archetypal over the mythological. Bodkin (quoted in Rupprecht, 1997) states “An attempt is here made to bring psychological analysis and reflection to bear upon the imaginative experience communicated by great poetry, and to examine those forms or patterns in which the universal forces of our nature there find objectification”.

Subsequent to Bodkin, various archetypal analyses have been conducted. The validity of this type of analysis is reflected in, for example an Iranian psychiatrist,

Archetypes & communication 151

Javanbakht’s (2003) statements that the popularity and powerful attraction of movies such as ‘Star Wars’ and ‘Lord of the Rings’ relate to archetypes. In addition to the systematic analysis of books and films (social artefacts), it may also be applied to the central themes of advertisements. Jonkheid [sa] indicates that advertising messages invoke archetypes to link products with underlying messages. “Archetypal symbolism can therefore be identified in many international brands’ advertising and promotional material” (Jonkheid, [sa]). iv Mythological semiotic textual analysis

A major influence on mythological semiotic textual analysis also referred to as mythological analysis or myth criticism is the work of Jung by way of his theory of archetypes (Guerin et al, 1992). According to Guerin et al (1992), Jung’s theories have expanded the horizons of literary interpretation for those critics concerned to use the tools of the mythological approach. Reeves (1997) indicates that essentially, myths, as a means by which archetypes and ritual patterns are manifested and articulated in literature, form the basis of mythological analysis. Moreover, since the distinction between archetype and myth has often been blurred, Jung's theories have been used by myth critics and archetypal critics alike (Reeves, 1997). Reeves (1997) moreover suggests that although Piaget and others have expressed skepticism about the universality of Jung's archetypes, “the archetypal vocabulary is now widespread in the discourse of those who might be called myth critics”.

The mythological approach to literature seeks to identify archetypal and universal patterns that inform certain literary works and that elicit dramatic and universal human reactions. Moreover, “the myth critic wishes to discover how certain works of literature, usually those that have become, or promise to become classics” are reflecting archetypal patterns (Guerin et al, 1992). The myth critic is interested in “prehistory and the biographies of the gods” and probes for the ‘inner spirit’ that gives literary work vitality and its enduring appeal. Moreover, myth criticism approaches literary work holistically and hence as elements manifesting from the depths of humankind’s collective psyche. Guerin et al (1992) assert that in addition to appearing as images and motifs, archetypes may be found in more complex combinations reflected as genres or types of literature.

Archetypes & communication 152

A pioneer in using mythological analysis is Frye (quoted in Guerin et al, 1992) who identifies myth with literature, asserting that myth is a “structural organizing principle of literary form”, and that an archetype is essentially an “element of one’s literary experience”. Frye [sa] indicates that myths or “myhtoi” initially perform a social ideological function and, when this function disappears, they, “being left with their literary structure, become purely literary”. Frye [sa] bases his assertions on the societies where the narrative of the myth initially played the role of inculcating social customs, behaviour and instructions, but as society develops, it becomes more pluralistic and these narrative are replaced with different types of code systems (Frye, [sa]). Guerin et al (1992) assert that Frye’s contributions lead directly to the mythological approach to literary analysis. Reeves (1997) indicates that Frye and myth critics are attracted to Jung’s theories “because of the richness of imagery and narrative elements (what Jung and his collaborator Carl Kerényi came to call ‘mythologems’)” .

Reeves (1997) indicates that Frye identified the ‘quest-myth’ in its various forms as the central myth (mono-myth) of literature and postulated four ‘mythoi’ or ‘generic narratives’ reflected in literature including; spring: comedy; summer: romance; autumn: tragedy; and winter: irony and satire. He also postulated the “total mythopoeic structure of concern” that extends beyond literature to religion, philosophy, political theory, and history, which suggests how myth criticism may ultimately connect with a larger theory of culture (Reeves, 1997).

3.4.2 SYMBOLS AND COMMUNICATION STUDIES

Generally, in communication studies, symbols are very broadly defined as “something used for or regarded as representing something else” (Tubbs & Moss, 2000:8). They are also described as pivotal in the process of creating “the sharing of experience”, a superior and uniquely human ability (Tubbs & Moss, 2000:8). Despite their obvious importance in human communication, symbols are mentioned twice in an entire communication studies book of 530 pages by Tubbs and Moss (2002), and once by Gamble and Gamble (1999). Moreover, they are not mentioned even once either by Steinberg (2002) or DeVito (1991) in introductory reference material for communication studies students. A definition or description of an image or a myth did

Archetypes & communication 153 not feature in any of the communication studies sources consulted.

Littlejohn (2002:147) mentions symbols in reference to Mead’s theory of symbolic interactionism, Burke’s theory of symbolic identification, and the symbolic convergence theory. However, no exacting and discipline specific definition of a symbol is provided. Ostensibly, the more mechanistic terms of signal, sign and message in describing interpersonal communication processes are favoured over that of the symbol. Littlejohn (2002:57) defines a sign as designating something other than itself that is very similar to the definition of a symbol provided by Tubbs and Moss (2000:8). Furthermore, Littlejohn (2002:57) explains that the basic idea of a sign are generally studied in semiotics.

According to Littlejohn (2002:57), many communication theorists and laypersons believe that signs, as components of messages, are the basis of thought, language and nonverbal behaviour. Additionally, symbols are viewed as representational signs which convey abstract, arbitrary and ambiguous meanings (Tubbs & Moss, 2000:8, 65; Gamble & Gamble, 1999:103). Hence, the symbols are not related to what they represent.

Green and Green (1971:39) indicate that symbols seem to be the elements of communication between the different levels of being both within an individual and between individuals, hence in transpersonal, intrapersonal and interpersonal communication. The inquiry into the role and functions of symbols, symbolic representation and meaning in communication theory is primarily found in theories relating to topical (theories describing the underlying structure of different types of communication) and critical/humanistic (rhetorical, aesthetic, critical, historical, interpretative, and philosophical) theories of communication (Fourie, 2001a; Neuliep, 1996:45).

The exploration of symbols and symbolism, according to Biedermann (1994:preface), usually reveals one of two very different attitudes toward them. To some the subject is antiquated and outdated, and to others it is the key to understanding the realm of the incomprehensible and indescribable. However, symbols and metaphors extend into the realm of everyday language and figures of speech. Moreover, they permeate images

Archetypes & communication 154

from the world of advertising, political slogans and emblems, the parables of our religions, the icons and writing of foreign and prehistoric cultures, legal customs and artworks, poetry and historical figures; wherever a ‘signifier’ communicates anything beyond its own superficial exterior. The wedding ring, the cross and the national flag, for example, are linked to complex ideas and traditions (Biedermann, 1994:preface).

3.4.2.1 A semiotic delineation

According to Chandler (2001a), Peirce defined a symbol as “a sign which refers to the object that it denotes by virtue of a law, usually an association of general ideas, which operates to cause the symbol to be interpreted as referring to that object”. Moreover, he posed that all words, sentences, books and other conventional signs are symbols. Since a symbol refers to a referent, the object or idea represented; they have representational meaning (Chandler, 2001a). In addition to Peirce’s suggestion of the representational relationship between sign and object, Langer (quoted in Chandler, 2001a) defined a symbol as, “not proxy for their objects but vehicles for the conception of objects... In talking about things we have conceptions of them, not the things themselves; and it is the conceptions, not the things, that symbols directly mean”.

Chandler (2001a) points out that the Saussurean terms signifier and signified are most often used in semiotics, whereas Peirce’s distinctions between the ‘sign’ and the ‘object’, are most commonly employed within a broadly Saussurean framework. There are three potential referential modes of the signified within the Saussurean model which Chandler (2001a) defines and explains as follows: Ý Symbol/symbolic: a mode in which the signifier does not resemble the signified and its meaning is fundamentally arbitrary or purely conventional. The relationship between the signifier and signified must be learnt. These include language in general, numbers, Morse code, traffic lights, and national flags; Ý Icon/iconic: a mode in which the signifier is perceived as resembling or imitating the signified. The signifier has recognisable traits, which resemble the signified. Examples include a portrait, a cartoon, a scale-model, metaphors, and imitative gestures; and

Archetypes & communication 155

Ý Index/indexical: a mode in which the signifier-signified relationship is not arbitrary, but observably physically or causally connected. Examples include 'natural signs' such as smoke, footprints, echoes, 'signals', and pointers.

These three forms are viewed as decreasing in order of conventionality. Symbolic signs such as languages are highly conventional; iconic signs always involve some degree of conventionality; and indexical signs “direct the attention to their objects by blind compulsion”. Consequently, the more conventional, the more learning is required to understand their meaning (Chandler, 2001a).

Chandler (2001a) posits three key historical shifts in representational paradigms in relation to Peirce's differential framing of the referential status of signs and hence symb ols: Ý An indexical phase - the signifier and the referent are regarded as directly connected; Ý An iconic phase - the signifier is not regarded as part of the referent but as depicting it transparently; and Ý A symbolic phase - the signifier is regarded as arbitrary and as referring only to other signs. Langer posits that an obvious example of arbitrary symbolism and hence the symbolic phase, is mathematics. “Mathematics does not need to refer to an external world at all: its signifieds are indisputably concepts and mathematics is a system of relations” (Langer quoted in Chandler, 2001a).

Peirce posited that iconicity is the original default mode of signification, declaring the icon to be “an original sign”, defining it as “the most primitive, simple and original of the categories”. He (Peirce quoted in Chandler, 2001a) adds, “In all primitive writing, such as the Egyptian hieroglyphics, there are icons of a non-logical kind, the ideographs”, and he speculates that “in the earliest form of speech there probably was a large element of ‘mimicry’’”. Peirce (quoted in Chandler, 2001a) explains that, “over time, linguistic signs developed a more symbolic and conventional character. Symbols come into being by development out of other signs, particularly from icons”.

Historical evidence, according to Chandler (2001a), does point towards a trend of linguistic signs to evolve from indexical and iconic forms towards symbolic forms.

Archetypes & communication 156

Danesi (quoted in Chandler, 2001a) notes that “archaeological research suggests... that the origins of alphabetical writing lie in symbols previously made out of elemental shapes that were used as image-making objects - much like the molds that figurine and coin-makers use today. Only later did they take on more abstract qualities”.

Chandler (2001a) notes that some of the letters in the Greek and Latin alphabets derive from iconic signs in Egyptian and Mediterranean pictographs, ideographs and hieroglyphs. These early scripts used iconic signs resembling the objects and actions to which they referred either directly or metaphorically. Hence, according to Gelb (cited in Chandler, 2001a), over time, picture writing became more symbolic and less iconic. Danesi (quoted in Chandler, 2001a) asserts that the basic number of symbols in Ancient Egypt were limited and that most hieroglyphs were iconic. However, Rundle Clark (1978:218) proposes that Egyptian hieroglyphs were primarily symbolic and very similar to those of other cultures. Similar cultural symbols include, for example, the Tree of Life and the Phoenix Bird, whereas the scarab, Divine Eye (wedjat) and Djed column are peculiar to Egypt (Rundle Clark, 1978:219).

According to Peirce’s classification, icons apparently are very similar to Jung’s explanation of archetypal images. However, archetypal images and symbols do not have a direct representational relevance and signification to the signifiers.

Related concepts of representational and deferred meanings of symbols that relate to semiotics are those of denotation and connotation, or the primary and secondary meanings associated with symbols. Denotation is described as the definitional, literal, obvious or commonsense meaning of a sign or symbol (Chandler, 2001a; Deacon et al, 1999:138). The term ‘connotation’ is used to refer to the socio-cultural and personal ideological and emotional associations of the sign. These are typically related to the interpreter's class, age, gender, and ethnicity. Signs are ‘polysemic’ or more open to interpretation in terms of their connotations. “Denotation is sometimes regarded as a digital code and connotation as an analogue code” (Wilden cited in Chandler, 2001a).

Barthes referred to connotation is a second-order signification which uses the denotative sign (signifier and signified) as its signifier and attaches to it an additional signified. In this framework, the connotative meaning of a sign is derived from the signifier of a

Archetypes & communication 157

denotative sign, and consequently, denotation leads to a chain of connotations. This suggests that denotation is an underlying and primary meaning - a notion which many authors have challenged (Chandler, 2001a).

Myths or associations with classical fables about the exploits of gods and heroes are related to the concept of connotations. For Barthes, myths were only reflecting the dominant ideologies of the time which has been described as a third order of signification (Chandler, 2001a).

3.5 COMMENTS

The current trend in social semiotics is to question the eventual symbolic relation between the image of an object and the inseparable arbitrary verbal label attached to it. “Even an image is not what it represents - the presence of an image marks the absence of its referent” (Chandler, 2001a). Specifically, poststructuralists have rejected the stable and predictable relationship embedded in the traditional semiotic model. Lacan argued that there could be no anchoring of definite signifiers to specific signifieds and Derrida referred to the “freeplay” of signifiers: they are not fixed to their signifieds, but point beyond themselves to other signifiers in an “indefinite referral of signifier to signified” (Chandler, 2001a). Derrida refers to the “deconstruction” of Western semiotic systems, denying that there were any ultimate determinable meanings, and coined the term ‘différance’ to allude to the way in which meaning is endlessly deferred. Moreover, Derrida proposes that there is no “transcendent signified”, hence there is nothing, including an ultimate reality, outside the text (Chandler, 2001a).

Lovell (quoted in Chandler, 2001a) explains that, “For materialist Marxists and realists, postmodernist idealism is intolerable: 'signs cannot be permitted to swallow up their referents in a never-ending chain of signification, in which one sign always points on to another, and the circle is never broken by the intrusion of that to which the sign refers”. According to Galtung and Ruge (cited in Chandler, 2001a), any event is a social construction, hence constructed events have no objective existence. Consequently, the notion of reality found in, for example, the Romantic mythology as degenerative of a primal state of ‘unmediatedness’ is not plausible in current socio-cultural semiotic analysis.

Archetypes & communication 158

Baudrillard (cited in Chandler, 2001a) interprets most representations as a means of concealing the absence of reality that he calls ‘simulacra’ (or copies without originals). He (Baudrillard cited in Chandler, 2001a) sees a degenerative evolution as modes of representation in which signs are increasingly empty of meaning. These would be the successive phases of the image: Ý It is the reflection of a basic reality; Ý It masks and perverts a basic reality; Ý It masks the absence of a basic reality; and Ý It bears no relation to any reality whatever: it is its own pure simulacrum.

Evidently, in considering the previous statements, the romantic and idealistic ‘mythology’ of individual creativity has been undermined and downplayed by various strands in semiotics. This is mirrored in Chandler’s (2001a) assertion that the postmodernist notion of fragmented and shifting identities may provide a useful corrective to the myth of the unified self (Chandler, 2001a). Additionally, the structuralists emphasise the primacy of the semiotic system and of individuals as produced by language. Social semiotics emphasises the role of the interpreters of a text, as well as the post-structuralist semiotic notion of intertextuality. As a consequence, individuals are viewed as subjects of a sign system rather than being simply instrumental users who are fully in control of them (Chandler, 2001a). Lewis (quoted in Chandler, 2001a) notes that “we are part of a prearranged semiological world. From the cradle to the grave, we are encouraged by the shape of our environment to engage with the world of signifiers in particular ways”.

In view of the above statements, concepts of the self and symbols are merely social constructs with no inherent signification pointing to a deeper or transcendent reality. Derrida (cited in Chandler, 2001a) argues that dominant ideological discourse relies on the metaphysical illusion of a transcendental signified - an ultimate referent at the heart of an independent signifying system which is portrayed as 'absolute and irreducible', stable, timeless and transparent. Moreover, all other signifieds within such a signifying system are subordinate to this dominant and privileged central signified which is the final meaning to which they point. Derrida’s (cited in Chandler, 2001a) main argument is that there can be no transcendental signified since it is subject to historical change.

Archetypes & communication 159

For example, “Neo-Platonism focused on 'the Monad’, Christianity focused on God, Romanticism focused on consciousness and so on" (Derrida quoted in Chandler, 2001a). Consequently, according to Derrida’s view, there can be no ultimate and transcendent reality, and the individual is enmeshed in a paradoxical, illusionary and ever-changing social reality only. It is important to note that despite Derrida’s valid remarks of historical change in terms of the actual signified, it is obvious from his example that the pattern and theme of reference in terms of signification remain universally transcendental. For example, the Monad, God or consciousness are all ‘higher’ aspects of the Self, which in terms of a Jungian explanation, relate to an archetypal pattern.

Although post-modern semiotics denounces any transcendent reality and meaning, Lévi- Strauss argued that there is a universal mental structure based on certain fundamental binary oppositions. This structure is transformed into universal structural patterns in human culture through universal linguistics categories. Moreover, Lévi-Strauss’s, Barthes’s and Chomsky’s postulations appear to be very similar to Jung’s assertions of the collective unconscious and archetypes acting as moulds of universal symbols. However, these universal structural patterns as posited by the aforementioned theorists relate to language and culture, both social constructions, and do not suggest the individual and universal, hence transcendent, interpretation of symbols and myths.

It is exactly at this juncture that Jung’s concept of archetypal symbols could be used to expand the semiotic model of symbols and meaning. Ensuing from constructs explored in the previous paragraphs it is evident that semiotics provides the structural framework for comprehending meaning of socially and culturally constructed symbols, hence an external and socio-cultural reality. Social semiotics, however, fails to provide a comprehensive transcendental and universal ‘inner’ view and framework of symbols as representations of an innate archetypal pattern of the Self. Consequently, this study will follow a viewpoint regarding the meaning construction of symbols from the foundation of an internal and universal reality. Thus, the point of departure for the rest of the study will be founded in an exploration and re-interpretation of symbols from Jungian and transpersonal perspectives.

Archetypes & communication 160

3.6 SUMMARY

An exploration of the symbolic representations of the intrinsic collective and unconscious strata of the human mind is crucial in the epistemological and ontological discernment of meaning, and subsequently the processes of intrapsychic communication. This is assumed since the products of the unconscious psyche outwardly relate to meanings and interpretations derived from symbolic representations in, for example dreams, fantasies, visions, myths, archaic formulae, common symbols, images, motifs and themes portraying universal human experiences. Possibly, symbols reflect unconscious content that represent aspects or levels of the Self-archetype.

Additionally, the unscrambling and interpretation of universal and archetypal images, myths and symbols, which are represented in personal and cultural discernible signs, require an intrapsychic analysis or an inner colloquy or discussion. In so doing, the symbol leads to intuitive and feeling-toned ideas and meanings that lie beyond reason in the collective unconscious. A symbol, which may range from personally constructed thought forms and complexes to archetypes, hence serves to expand consciousness and transcendence of the individual.

Moreover, a selection of disciplines and divergent vantage points within these disciplines seem to converge in the notions of innate mental structures and dynamics represented in archetypal images, myths and symbols. Although named in another way by each theoretical advocate, specific streams of thought and arguments can be identified. Based on these extrapolations certain inherent assumptions will form the imminent causeway and scope of this study.

In this study, it will be argued that archetypes, as universal and rudimentary intrinsic patterns of the human mind, are fundamental to the unfolding of understanding of images, myths and symbols. Archetypes are manifested in and find expression in, for example images, myths and symbols, and through their repeated symbolic expression, possibly through a process of self-similarity inherent in the nature of archetypes, become archetypal ideas and historical formula recurring in human experience. This is evident in universal entopic images generated in the collective unconscious and their recreation in works of art and earliest forms of writing. The connection between entopic

Archetypes & communication 161 images and archetypes is reflected in the following sentence taken from this chapter: These mental forms and elements, mythological motifs or “archaic remnants and primordial images”, could also be called “instinctive trends” or subconscious and universal psychic urges or impulses to interpret images symbolically.

Although innate structures are alluded to in the semiotic approach, semiotic analysis is generally aimed at exemplifying the connection between symbol and the social construction of meaning and not a transpersonal and unitary reality. This is reflected in the following sentence taken from the chapter: “There is no “transcendent signified”, hence there is nothing, including an ultimate reality, outside the text”. The slant in this study is more towards intrapsychic processing. This includes the role of archetypal images, myths and symbols in the process of individuation and the transcendent function as posited by Jung. For example, the human psyche seems to represent a complex system and the integration of image, myth and symbol appears to represent the process of individuation and the transcendent function that will be explored in the next chapter.

Archetypes & communication 162