Towards an Archetypal Systems Psychodynamic Theory

Abstract

This dissertation develops archetypal systems psychodynamics as a theoretical extension of systems psychodynamics, integrating Jungian analytical psychology, post-Jungian archetypal psychology, and mythological studies to deepen accounts of unconscious group life in organizations. The problem addressed is that classical systems psychodynamics offers diagnostic lenses for task, role, authority, boundaries, and social defenses, yet often underspecifies the symbolic, imaginal, and mythic processes through which collective meaning is organized, narrated, and authorized. Conversely, applied Jungian and archetypal approaches in organizational contexts frequently privilege the individual as the primary unit of analysis or reduce archetypal language to typology, limiting their exploratory and explanatory power at the level of groups and institutions.

Methodologically, the study employs hermeneutics and alchemical hermeneutics to conduct reinterpretations of canonical and contemporary case material, supported by theoretical synthesis across systems psychodynamics, depth psychology, and mythological scholarship. Through this double-reading strategy, the dissertation specifies an ontological map of individual and collective psychic strata, clarifies how archetypal processes can be traced through patterned action, cultural complexes, and affect-laden symbol formation, and conceptualizes culture as a “mythic membrane” that regulates the symbolic acceptability of meaning within organizational life. It distinguishes generative symbol formation and mythopoesis as key functions of transformation and reframes containment as a layered dynamic process that enables developmental movement rather than enactment.

The dissertation concludes by articulating a cohesive framework and practice implications for organizational consultants and education practitioners, including symbolic, mythopoetic and systemic literacy, and the design of containing conditions adequate to unconscious material. It further argues that this depth stance requires supervisory containment, including a reflexive third-space practice (supra-vision), to discipline interpretation and sustain ethical practice when working with archetypal and mythic contents. It also identifies limitations regarding empirical validation and scope conditions and proposes future research lines in empirical organizational action research, cross-cultural comparative studies, practitioner training and supervision, and a reflexive application of the framework to the historical rupture between Freud and Jung and the patterned responses that have shaped their respective intellectual descendants.