A problem with archetypal-symbolic thinking

Between seeing Yankee Athonite's recent post responding to a criticism of Jonathan Pageau, and then a twitter thread Pageau approvingly reposted comparing Beatrix Potter's use of animals and Richard Scarry's[^1], I thought it might be a good time to try briefly to put into words *one* of the general problems I have with Christian use of what we might call the archetypal-symbolic approach to philosophical and cultural analysis.

I'll start by saying that I think there are many good things to be found in the works of thinkers like Pageau and Peterson, even if I disagree with them both on some fundamental issues. I'll also admit that some my general aversion may be due to the jealousy that Yankee Athonite thinks may lie behind critical reactions. I'll also say that there are several other important criticisms that I think could be made of both thinkers (and the company they keep). Here I'll just focus on the general issue of an over-emphasis on looking for archetypal symbols in life and literature/culture.

Perhaps the most obvious problem is a similarity to (and in many cases a slippery slope into) conspiracy theories. A main problem with conspiracy theories is that, given a general underdetermination of theory by data, almost any fact can be made to fit consistently into many many possible theories. This is why, once someone is in the grip of a moderately explanatory conspiracy theory, it is almost impossible to reason them out of it, even if better explanations are available. In the same way, I worry that once a "symbolic thinker" has come up with a handful of different archetypes, it becomes relatively easy to analyze almost anything by reference to that handful of archetypes, which can also blind the thinker to other possibilities and actually reduce their vision of the truth. And once one gets in the habit of interpreting everything through a handful of relatively easy to grasp categories, I think there is a real temptation to a general conspiratorial way of thinking.[^2]

An absolutely wonderful icon carving of St. Margaret of Antioch by Jonathan Pageau. But is it best to think of this in terms of order vs chaos?

But the more fundamental problem, from my perspective, is this. Even if certain archetypes were universal, and we were to see these universal archetypes as giving us important information about getting on in the world, that would only show at best that certain ways of being might be essential for “success” in the world as it is. But for all that, they might not indicate anything about the world as it is meant to be, as we are meant to try to make it.

If we focus on the idea of hierarchy, for example, which is so important to both Pageau and Peterson, universal archetypes might show that certain hierarchies are built into the *fallen* world. But such hierarchies may very well be demonic. Haven’t nearly all “stable” civilizations required for their functioning a class of slaves or untouchables at the bottom of the hierarchy? And doesn’t St. Paul say that at the top of all worldly hierarchies are the archons, our primary enemies?

I should be clear here that I am not denying that reality is deeply symbolic and even hierarchical. What I am denying is that the best way to find out about reality as a Christian ought to understand it, is to look at *actually existing culture* for guidance. My biggest worry about these thinkers is that they take (supposed) universal wisdom and hierarchy as the gospel, rather than using the gospel to judge and if need be condemn such hierarchy and wisdom as mere “wisdom of this age and of the rulers of this age” (1 Cor 2). This, in my view, is why they’re too often led to support right wing movements or figures like Peterson, whose worldviews are often in many points a complete subversion of the Christianity.

This is connected to the idea that Christianity is intrinsically apocalyptic. As Solovyov says, the fundamental teaching of Christ is of a coming kingdom, a kingdom not of this world, in which much that this world deems wisdom is actually foolishness. As St. Paul says, "the present form of this world is passing away."[^3] While of course we must get along in the world in some sense, the fundamental goal of the Christian is not worldly success (much less, as Peterson would have it, getting (closer) to the top of an inescapable biological "dominance hierarchy"), but living in the light of, and thus, helping to bring about, the coming Kingdom. In the words of the Catholic Bishop Daniel Flores, "Christianity cannot speak of the virtues as goods of a well-ordered human life without completely recasting them as preparatory for and participation in the eschatological horizon."

If this is true, then looking even to the "universal wisdom" of the actually existing world is inherently dangerous. Those who know me or this substack know I am not someone to reject the wisdom of non-Christian sources, and I'm even happy to acknowledge a "perennial wisdom" in world religion and philosophy. And without specifics, I know that it is unfair to consider any of this anything like an actual criticism of Jonathan Pageau, who is a fellow Orthodox Christian. So don't consider it that. Rather, consider it a cautionary note for a trap that seems to me lurking for those attracted to his general approach, and which it seems to me at least some of those he associates with fall into.

[1] The general crux was that Scarry represents a decline in civilization, insofar as, while both authors anthropomorphize animals, Scarry fails to appropriately capture the archetypal features of 'foxness' or 'pigness' in his foxes or pigs. I am a fan of both Beatrix Potter and Richard Scarry. Since they are completely different genres of works, it seems odd to me to compare them in the way done. As will be clear, it also isn't apparent, even on the terms of the critique, whether from a Christian perspective Scarry's depiction isn't (in some ways) preferable.

[2] I generally hate to name names, but Jonathan Pageau's brother, Matthieu, who has written a generally well-received book about "cosmic symbolism" in Genesis, has also posted about some of the most bizarre conspiracy theories I've seen.

[3] Thanks to my friend Nick Freiling for making this connection to apocalypticism. And also for the quote that follows in this paragraph.