Lamarckism

The Seba library treats Lamarckism in 9 passages, across 3 authors (including Hogenson, George, Papadopoulos, Renos K., McGilchrist, Iain).

In the library 9 passages

This paper considers the claim that C. G. Jung used a Lamarckian model of evolution to underwrite his theory of archetypes. This claim is challenged on the basis of Jung’s familiarity with and use of the writings of James Mark Baldwin and Conway Lloyd Morgan, both of whom were noted and forceful opponents of neo-Lamarckian theory

Hogenson’s central argument is that the charge of Lamarckism in Jung can be rebutted by appeal to Jung’s documented engagement with Baldwin and Morgan, committed neo-Darwinians who provided an alternative evolutionary grounding for psychological theory.

Hogenson, George, The Baldwin Effect: A Neglected Influence on C. G. Jungs Evolutionary Thinking, 2001thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

the collective unconscious is a respectable scientific hypothesis, and one does not have to adopt a Lamarckian view of evolution to accept it

Stevens’s position — that the collective unconscious is logically separable from Lamarckism — is cited as defensible but insufficient, since it leaves unresolved the historical question of what Jung himself believed about evolution and phylogeny.

Hogenson, George, The Baldwin Effect: A Neglected Influence on C. G. Jungs Evolutionary Thinking, 2001thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Weismann, Baldwin, Morgan, and others became known as the neo- or ultra-Darwinians. For them, the notion of the inheritance of acquired characteristics was anathema

Hogenson situates Baldwin and Morgan as principled anti-Lamarckians, establishing the intellectual lineage that would, on his account, have shaped Jung’s actual — rather than imputed — evolutionary commitments.

Hogenson, George, The Baldwin Effect: A Neglected Influence on C. G. Jungs Evolutionary Thinking, 2001thesis

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Lamarckism of 76

The Handbook of Jungian Psychology attributes Lamarckism explicitly to Freud as a documented feature of his theoretical system, distinguishing it from Jung’s more ambiguous evolutionary position.

Papadopoulos, Renos K., The Handbook of Jungian Psychology: Theory, Practice and Applications, 2006supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory has, of course, become an issue of central concern in contemporary psychology and psychiatry, thereby making the interpretation of Jung’s relationship to evolutionary theory of far more central concern than it was in Jung’s time.

Hogenson contextualises the Lamarckism debate within the broader contemporary relevance of evolutionary psychology, arguing that resolving Jung’s actual evolutionary commitments now carries urgent theoretical stakes.

Hogenson, George, The Baldwin Effect: A Neglected Influence on C. G. Jungs Evolutionary Thinking, 2001supporting

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

they are, in a sense, the deposits of all our ancestral experience, but they are not the experiences themselves

Jung’s own formulation — that archetypes are ancestral deposits but not transmitted experiences per se — represents an implicit attempt to distinguish his position from straightforwardly Lamarckian inheritance, though the passage does not name Lamarckism explicitly.

Papadopoulos, Renos K., The Handbook of Jungian Psychology: Theory, Practice and Applications, 2006aside

Dig deeper with Sebastian →

Cultural developments can be transmitted through genetic mechanisms. Just as the structure and functioning of the brain has influenced the evolution of culture, the evolution of culture has had its influence on the brain

McGilchrist gestures toward epigenetic and gene-expression mechanisms as providing a post-Lamarckian account of how cultural and experiential influences may be transmitted biologically, without endorsing classical inheritance of acquired characteristics.

McGilchrist, Iain, The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World, 2009aside

Dig deeper with Sebastian →