Page 176 - Šolsko polje, XXVIII, 2017, no. 3-4: Education and the American Dream, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 176
šolsko polje, letnik xxviii, številka 3–4
type cannot be attributed solely to personalities (hero, villain, mentor,
wizard, shapeshifter, etc.), but also to typical life situations (divorce, mar-
riage, love triangles, etc.). For the purpose of this discussion it will be suf-
ficient to say, that: (i) an archetype always carries a positive and negative
aspect and is thus paradoxical in its nature; (ii) archetypes are part of the
synthetic process, defined as a process of individuation (ibid.); (iii) an ar-
chetype is defined as an innate universal prototype of behaviour or pat-
tern of thought.
Despite the conceptual difficulties, it is possible to discern an arche-
typal structure in the American Dream. The attempt to find parallels be-
tween a particular archetype – that is, of the hero – and the main char-
acters in the American Dream narratives can serve as a modest case study
that could eventually be extended to the empirical domain by using mod-
ern computational methods (see Implications and Discussion).
As already mentioned, the double (binary) aspect of an archetype
has been widely discussed in analytical psychology; this binary opposi-
tion is commonly known to be present in symbols, archetypes and, broad-
ly speaking, myths. From the perspective of a myth, an American Dream
is no exemption and it is worth noting that between the opposites, the
symbol always emerges. For example: [Victory] as the most frequent and
important narrative function is naturally related to dramatis personae cat-
egory, which, in the case of the American Dream, is represented by the
character of a Hero.31 Looking from the perspective of archetypes and
their intrinsic binary nature, the American dream represents two ‘parts’
of the same symbolic entity, where two distinct but mutually depend-
ent oppositions can be identified: (i) the desire to achieve a certain goal;
and (ii) the struggle (typically narrativised as an antagonistic and difficult
path) that leads towards the satisfaction of that desire, known as the real-
ization of the goal. In the context of psychoanalytic theory, this principle
represents the mechanism of delayed gratification, which, to some extent,
corresponds to the Freudian Pleasure and Reality Principle, and the struc-
tural model of the psyche, where the role of the Ego plays an important
part in terms of balancing between the uncoordinated instinctual tenden-
cies of the Id and morality-driven choices of the Superego (Freud, 2010).
However, in the context of an archetype theory, the numinous Hero char-
acter always acts between binary oppositions, such as obstacles vs. goals.
As Jung points out, the hero archetype has existed since the time of im-
memorial (Jung, 1988: p. 73). Jung writes: “The universal hero myth, for
example, always refers to a powerful man or god-man who vanquishes evil
31 As part of the syntax it seems natural to conclude that Victory and Hero are causally con-
nected.
174
type cannot be attributed solely to personalities (hero, villain, mentor,
wizard, shapeshifter, etc.), but also to typical life situations (divorce, mar-
riage, love triangles, etc.). For the purpose of this discussion it will be suf-
ficient to say, that: (i) an archetype always carries a positive and negative
aspect and is thus paradoxical in its nature; (ii) archetypes are part of the
synthetic process, defined as a process of individuation (ibid.); (iii) an ar-
chetype is defined as an innate universal prototype of behaviour or pat-
tern of thought.
Despite the conceptual difficulties, it is possible to discern an arche-
typal structure in the American Dream. The attempt to find parallels be-
tween a particular archetype – that is, of the hero – and the main char-
acters in the American Dream narratives can serve as a modest case study
that could eventually be extended to the empirical domain by using mod-
ern computational methods (see Implications and Discussion).
As already mentioned, the double (binary) aspect of an archetype
has been widely discussed in analytical psychology; this binary opposi-
tion is commonly known to be present in symbols, archetypes and, broad-
ly speaking, myths. From the perspective of a myth, an American Dream
is no exemption and it is worth noting that between the opposites, the
symbol always emerges. For example: [Victory] as the most frequent and
important narrative function is naturally related to dramatis personae cat-
egory, which, in the case of the American Dream, is represented by the
character of a Hero.31 Looking from the perspective of archetypes and
their intrinsic binary nature, the American dream represents two ‘parts’
of the same symbolic entity, where two distinct but mutually depend-
ent oppositions can be identified: (i) the desire to achieve a certain goal;
and (ii) the struggle (typically narrativised as an antagonistic and difficult
path) that leads towards the satisfaction of that desire, known as the real-
ization of the goal. In the context of psychoanalytic theory, this principle
represents the mechanism of delayed gratification, which, to some extent,
corresponds to the Freudian Pleasure and Reality Principle, and the struc-
tural model of the psyche, where the role of the Ego plays an important
part in terms of balancing between the uncoordinated instinctual tenden-
cies of the Id and morality-driven choices of the Superego (Freud, 2010).
However, in the context of an archetype theory, the numinous Hero char-
acter always acts between binary oppositions, such as obstacles vs. goals.
As Jung points out, the hero archetype has existed since the time of im-
memorial (Jung, 1988: p. 73). Jung writes: “The universal hero myth, for
example, always refers to a powerful man or god-man who vanquishes evil
31 As part of the syntax it seems natural to conclude that Victory and Hero are causally con-
nected.
174
