In literary studies, scholars use the word ‘archetype’ to describe a pattern which is at the highest or broadest level of application. An archetype is a feature of reality which is so ubiquitous in human experience that it requires no explanation.
The reader will note that ‘arch’ occurs in both ‘archetype’ and ‘overarching’ - these are patterns so universal that they encompass both fiction and reality, and are in some sense inescapable. They constitute limits to imagination in fiction, inasmuch as any and every author will obliged, often unconsciously, to include them.
Leland Ryken, James Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman write:
An archetype is an image or pattern that recurs throughout literature and life. More specifically, an archetype falls into one of three categories: it is either an image or symbol (such as the mountaintop or evil city), or a plot motif (such as crime and punishment or the quest), or a character type (such as the trickster or jealous sibling).
Part of the definition of what it means to be human - part of the essence of being human - is shown in archetypes. They are necessarily a part of human life.
Any discourse about humans or about human life may or may not include archetypes, but if that discourse takes the form of a sustained narrative, it will necessarily include archetypes.
Archetypes are a universal language. We know what they mean simply by virtue of being humans in this world. We all the experiences of hunger and thirst, garden and wilderness. Ideas and customs vary widely from one time and place to another, but archetypes are the elemental stuff of life. In the words of literary scholar Northrop Frye (noted archetypal critic), “Some symbols are images of things common to all men, and therefore have a communicable power which is potentially unlimited.” Another literary scholar defines the master images of the imagination as “any of the immemorial patterns of response to the human situation in its permanent aspects.”
Some scholars, notably C.J. Jung, have been prompted by archetypes to posit some form of collective cultural memory. Whether or not one accepts Jung’s hypothesis, it is understandable how the ubiquity of archetypes could tempt him to invent such a conjecture.
Archetypes also explain the power of narrative. A gripping narrative often seizes the reader in ways more powerful than a sharp polemic or brilliantly logical argumentation.
Such elemental images are primal in the sense of being rooted in essential humanity, independent of civilized trappings and complexity.
As something essentially human, archetypes can cross all boundaries: cultural, linguistic, social, racial, religious, etc.
Archetypes are contained in, and shape, the deepest levels of human thought, consciousness, perception, and awareness. Developmentally, they must take up residence in the human mind at a very early age. Humans use them to process sensations into perceptions.
Perhaps the only structures deeper than archetypes would be Kantian notions of space and time. The will have also embedded themselves into the structures of all human languages.
There are also psychological overtones to an exploration of these elemental images of human life. The modern study of archetypes began with psychologists (though archetypes have long since been separated from that source). Part of the psychological dimension is that there is wisdom and strength to be found in being put in touch with bedrock humanity in this way. Carl Jung wrote that archetypes “make up the groundwork of the human psyche. It is only possible to live the fullest life when we are in harmony with these symbols; wisdom is a return to them.”
All authors, knowingly or not, will work with archetypes as they create narratives. Some authors consciously and deliberately use archetypes, and have the opportunity to create narratives which are more effective in moving the emotions and more effective in powerfully imprinting themselves on the mind.
Leland Ryken, James Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman continue:
A further useful thing to know about images and archetypes is that when we begin to categorize them, we find good and bad, desirable and undesirable, ideal and unideal versions of the various categories. Kings can be benevolent or tyrannical, for example. Lions are usually a negative archetype, but the can also symbolize power or rulership in the hands of the good.
Not only in fiction, but in accounts of historical events, archetypes will make themselves felt. The habit of examining a text in terms of its use of archetypes should not be restricted to literary studies. It is equally as valid in history. Because history and fiction are both human experiences, they are both shaped by, and composed of, archetypes.
The universality of archetypes allows the reader to span the chasms of time, space, language, and culture to engage in narrative texts. A narrative which is several millennia old can take hold of the reader’s mind as effectively as if it were written yesterday.
