- ELA 10-1. 2.1.2.d. describe the personality traits, motivations, attitudes, values and relationships of characters developed/persons presented in literature and other texts; and identify how the use of archetypes adds to an appreciation of text
- ELA 30-1. 2.1.2.d. analyze the personality traits, roles, relationships, motivations, attitudes and values of characters developed/persons presented in literature and other texts; and explain how the use of archetypes can contribute to the development of other textual elements, such as theme
So, there's definitely pressure, if not obligation, to teach students what archetypes are and how they apparently add to the appreciation of a text or assist in developing theme. On the other hand, "archetypes" are tacked on to an already loaded outcome, only appear for 2/6 of the courses offered for ELA in high school, and appear in only 1 outcome out of about 100 others, which makes it seem less important to teach them. I see their usefulness in helping students identify and detect patterns and structure (thereby constructing their schema ... to get all educational-psychology on you); but in terms of appreciating literature and making stories more useful in their lives, I'm not so sure.
It continues to be problematic that the literature dominating our classrooms (due to financial constraints to purchase new lit, lack of related teaching resources for the new lit, or a desire to stick more closely with the resources authorized and recommended by Alberta Ed) tends to neglect or undermine the representation of non-Western, non-white, non-heterosexual, differently abled, non-gendered, non-Christian people and stories. I get that these stories are part of the tradition of English literature and that, as part of helping students engage in the present culture, they perhaps need to understand certain conventions, norms, beliefs, etc. However, when using these stories in conjunction with a method of analysis that merely focuses on how the story's plot or characters conform to these supposedly universal plots/characters (which is totally possible since archetypes are horribly generic), we end up equating these stories to some universal truth or essential human experience and possibly alienate readers whose identity is strongly tied to something besides the 'norm.' (I feel that the "Criticism" section of Wikipedia regarding the Monomyth does a good job of expressing my sentiments about archetypal criticism. I know, it's Wikipedia, but really, whoever wrote/quoted that stuff got to the heart of the matter well.)
Additionally, as I was taught in my degree, archetypal lit crit really had its day in the '50s and has since been supplanted by structuralism, then post-structuralism. I find that post-structuralist readings of texts--whether they come in the form of scholarly journal articles or YouTube rants--to be much more accurate, meaningful, relevant, and embracing of multicultural perspectives (including the contradictions therein).
Archetypes give students a nice, neat package in which to place their 'knowledge'; they give students the comforting, formulaic approach that they love so much about math and science (or rather, math and science as it tends to be taught). They turn reading into a code-solving exercise, and in doing so, degrade both the creation and experience of text.
Certainly, there are also dangers with post-structuralism: it tends to enable us to undermine and even destroy any sense of meaning, to lead us into a maze of moral relativism, and to focus on parody and satire in favour of deep catharsis and aesthetic experience. However, the fact that we come away from the text after such a reading with more questions than answers is a rich reward: it keeps the conversation alive, promotes an attitude of humble curiosity, raises awareness of ethically relating to the 'Other,' and prevents us from taking ourselves too seriously.
I haven't decided how best to address archetype. Do you have any thoughts or experiences you'd like to share?