Jung's archetypal myths and psychological meaning

Myths, along with fairytales and folklore, are part of society's struggle throughout the years to conceive the inconceivable. As great stories, they have been the subject of attention to such extend that it altered the basis on which they formed. Nevertheless, criticism and deconstruction have not faulted the domain to such lengths that it did not survive, because, after all, who would have been able to fill the gap that the disappearance of such stories would have created?

Unlike what ethnologists claim, that myth is merely the representative form of a ritual act, an image that reduces myth to simply a series of incorporated practices, Jung related the formulation of myths to human psyche. He explained that within our psyche lays both an individual unconsciousness and a collective one and that it is within human nature to express externally that which is part of man's inner world. What seems to explain best how myths are created is that, in Jung's understanding, we are all creating myths, whether we do it consciously or not. Indeed, we can identify with such a vision which claims that even literature emerges from within the channels of the subconsciousness' self, the same place from where the mythical charge develops the mental pattern to project spiritual creation.

Jung understood myths as the expression of archetypes, that is to say that, for him, the notion of archetypes was to be depicted by observing carefully and constantly that it is often that myths and stories within universal literature appear thematically similar in given places and given times. These archetype images are nothing but space, a tendency for a priori representation, until they are recognised otherwise. They are instinctively manifested by the psyche because the archetype is directly inaccessible to the conscious mind, thus transcendental. and, if we think of what myths generally explore, in matter of themes, we can affirm that there is a tendency in human nature to reach and identify itself with what surpasses the knowledge of the intellect. In this respect, Jung used myth as a resource to find meaning within various subjects of culture, psychology, and meaning of life overall.

Why do we agree with Jung's making of myths? Let us take a look at what modern mythology is and how it is expressed today. In modern society, myth is identified with something of the past, something historical taught in schools and read in books. However, one needs to acknowledge that communication has enabled people to receive information in various ways: television, cinema, video games, comic books, books. These are the elements that demonstrate the presence of archetypes within modern mythology. One ancient Greek hero is one Spiderman, or Batman, one moral leader is Frodo, the hobbit. Thus, ancient archetypes resemble modern ones, making Jung's theory viable.

In Greek mythology, a hero was not just the personage who fought monsters, but a hero that was able to fight his own ego and come to terms with his nature, his goal in life. In this respect, Oedipus was thought of as a noble hero who was subjected to making mistakes because of a faulty judgement. By disregarding the divine will and giving in to an inner compulsion, Oedipus fulfills the destiny he had fiercely tried to avoid. He murders his father, although not knowing who he really is, he marries his mother also without having any knowledge of her identity. In Spiderman's case, the faulty judgement is when he does not stop the robber who eventually murders Spiderman's uncle, thus indirectly making him a part of his uncle's death. However, much like in Oedipus' case, we sympathize with Spiderman and understand that it is not his natural character that lead to the killing, but a simple mistake.