Seba.Health

Concept · Seba Knowledge Graph

Eros–Psyche Tandem

Eros–Psyche Tandem

Hillman’s claim, developed across The Myth of Analysis (1972) and hillman-archetypal-psychology-brief (1983), that Eros and psyche are not a sequence but a tandem — a mythological pair whose relation is constitutive of both. The Apuleius tale of Eros and Psyche from the Golden Ass is not allegory for individuation; it is the mythic background of any psychological relation whatsoever.

“Archetypal psychology, analogously to Jung’s alchemical psychology of transference, imagines transference against a mythical background — the Eros and Psyche mythologem from Apuleius’s Golden Ass — thereby de-historicizing and de-personalizing the phenomenology of love in therapy as well as in any human passion” (Hillman 1983). The implication is reciprocal: “all erotic phenomena whatsoever, including erotic symptoms, seek psychological consciousness and… all psychic phenomena whatsoever, including neurotic and psychotic symptoms, seek erotic embrace” (Hillman 1983).

Psyche does not come to itself through reason or asceticism. Psyche comes to itself through Eros — through what it loves — and Eros refines itself through psyche’s tasks. Aphrodite in the myth is the third figure: “the archetypally antipsychic component in loving… she would block the transformation of eros by preventing it from connecting with soul” (Hillman, The Myth of Analysis, 1972). The three-figure structure (Aphrodite, Eros, Psyche) names three distinct modes of desire: possessive-maternal, erotic-binding, and soul-receptive.

The doctrine reorients the Jungian inheritance. Where Jung placed Eros against logos as polar principles, Hillman places Eros with Psyche as mythic pair. The polarity gives way to the tandem; the system gives way to the myth. This is the archetypal school’s specific departure.

Relationships

Primary sources