Re-Visioning Psychology¶
Hillman, J. (1975). Re-Visioning Psychology.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Archetype
- T1 — Universality vs. cultural-specificity tension. Strong claims that archetypes are universal human cognitive structures (Jung in some interpretations, Campbell in some readings) overstate the evidence; many apparent universals turn out on closer analysis to reflect cultural diffusion (the Hero's journey structure migrated along trade routes and through colonialism), documented shared ancestry of specific traditions (Indo-European mythologies share deep structural similarities due to common origin), or confirmation bias in pattern identification (researchers selectively cite examples that fit the archetype while downplaying counterexamples and culturally-specific narrative forms).
This sourceHarper & Row. Post-Jungian critique reframing archetypal psychology and de-literalizing fixed archetypal images; supports the general point that strong archetypal-universality claims are contestable. Does not itself establish the specific empirical claims (trade-route diffusion, Indo-European shared ancestry, confirmation bias) the T1 prose attaches to it.
- T1 — Universality vs. cultural-specificity tension. Strong claims that archetypes are universal human cognitive structures (Jung in some interpretations, Campbell in some readings) overstate the evidence; many apparent universals turn out on closer analysis to reflect cultural diffusion (the Hero's journey structure migrated along trade routes and through colonialism), documented shared ancestry of specific traditions (Indo-European mythologies share deep structural similarities due to common origin), or confirmation bias in pattern identification (researchers selectively cite examples that fit the archetype while downplaying counterexamples and culturally-specific narrative forms).
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. The single citation of this work carries no recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:056000a8813f · see in the full table