As the person who brought Jung in here (in a brief review-note of a book) I write in reply. The basic problem re Jungian archetypes has, I think, never been put more clearly than in JAC Brown's book "Freud and the Post-Freudians". The problem lies in attempting to explain the partially known in terms of the wholly unknown. It just wont do! When you look again at the BBC TV Jung film, or at least when I saw it again after some thirty or so years, I was irritated by the total arrogance of the man, his utter certainty in the invisible face of absent evidence, and his willingness to slip, himself, into the role of wise old bluffer-in-chief ...
I was glad to see the 80s Peace Movement soon come to its senses and drop the racist Jung like a hot potato, after mistakenly taking him up as a bit of a mascot. I refuse any longer to be dazzled by erudition, scholarship, brilliance, charisma, the simple sheer luck of longevity and silken white hair: what does the person do with their learning? If anyone hasn't read Masson, please do (I think Masson is sound here, tho I don't take his word as gospel either!).