Joseph Campbell

[Sunstone]

What did Joseph Campbell think was the ultimate origin of myths?

 

[michel]

What did Joseph Campbell think was the ultimate origin of myths?

I have to admit to not having heard of Joseph Campbell until you put this topic up, Sunstone.

He does seem to have been quite a character though; it seems as if the initial interest was sparked by the rituals of the Irish Catholic Church. Aged only seven, he became interested in Native Amarican lore; he spent a lot of time reading up anything that he coul;d find - including anthropological reports on Indian exhibits from the museum of Natural History.

It seems as if, at the age of twenty, he then became fascinated by the traditions of India; he completed his M.A in medieval literature, the subject for which he took being symbolism in the Grail ledgends. He then seems to have become entranched in the religious science Church, where he began to delve into literature for correlations between myth and literature and art from early history. He also became interested in the way psychologists relied on myths to explain their interpretations of traits.

He then returned to Columbia University where he wanted to combine his beliefs in Grail myths with psychology and art . He was literally told that his approach and the conclusions he would draw from his studies were not what was considered 'P.C'; he therefore gave up his studies, and wrote books - some of them concentrating on Jung's and Freud's interpretations.

He continued to study, and write - and at the age of eighty four published 'A Historical Atlas of Mythology', which seemed to center on Shaman beliefs as the core. He continued study, writing, and even became involved in television, Joseph Campbell and the power of Myths. Just before his death, he had begun reading the Bagavad Gita.

A few books of his were published posthumously, but perhaps the greatest impact he made was on the assertion of his that myths and rituals were the basis for psychological interpretation and cultural background including his Catholic religion.
'

 

[DeepShadow]

Campbell was advocate of the Jungian point of view that all myths have a common psychological origin (as opposed to a common geographic origin). According to Jung, as we pass down stories they are refined with each retelling to adapt them to the personal experiences of the teller and the audience. Over generations, a story will thus become more timeless, as it emphasizes our most common experiences as a human family.

Jung postulated the existence of a "universal subconscious" that contained archetypes based upon universal experiences and castoff genetic predispositions. Freud was mortified that Jung was trying to mix his "perfect science" with mysticism, and disowned his favored son.

DS, who is only just figuring out how much he's going to love this area.

 

[Sunstone]

How do Campbell and Jung differ in their respective views of the origin of myths, or do they differ?

 

[DeepShadow]

Well, Campbell and Jung aren't exactly the same, but I haven't found any flat-out contradictions yet. Campbell expanded upon Jung's theory of the universal subconscious and discovered the Hero Cycle, but he remained aloof from some of Jung's other psychological concepts, such as acausal relationships. I think Campbell just had a narrower focus, and in that area he went far beyond what Jung originally suggested. As for whether Jung would have agreed with him, I have no idea.

 

[tfp(-*-)]

I've been reading some Joseph Campbell lately, and this is how I understand it.

Joseph Campbell believed that myths were symbols that functioned as keys, unlocking the power(s) within the subconscious, that the conscious mind cannot grasp. This power is force behind the universe, which also exists within all things.

The kind of people who are the myth makers are those who have experienced these powers first hand, usually through some kind of psychological trauma at an early age. This is the experience of a Shaman. If the sufferer is strong enough to survive the trauma (described as a kind of death and rebirth), they are then able to communicate their experiences through various forms of mythologically potent ritual and art.

The problem, as Campbell saw it, was when the symbol is understood to be the power itself, rather than a sign pointing towards the power. When this happens, the myth is merely understood on a cognitive level, and no longer functions on a sub-conscious level.

Joseph Campbell's ideas are very much in accord with Hindu and Buddhist thought.

 

[PureX]

How do Campbell and Jung differ in their respective views of the origin of myths, or do they differ?

Campbell believed in "God", I don't think that Jung did. Campbell saw mythology as man's way of conceptualizing and expressing to each other their universal experience of the divine. I suspect that Jung was more focussed on the collective subconscious. I think that for Jung, "God" was a word that people used to refer to this collective subconscious.

I could be wrong about this, though. I'm not that familiar with Jung's perspective.

I have always appreciated Joseph Campbell, though, since I read his book "Hero With A Thousand Faces" years ago in college.

 

[Smoke]

Funny you should bring up Joseph Campbell; yesterday I started re-reading Transformations of Myth Through Time. This is the first time I've read anything of his in years, but as far as I recall DeepShadow's right on the money. Campbell thought one of the distinguishing characteristics of humans (including extinct species) was susceptibility to the "divinely superfluous" and the search for meaning.

 

[michel]

There's a good comparisson between the two here;- http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=766

excerpts:-

A second aspect of Campbell’s romantic appeal is his esteem for primitives. He maintains that moderns can barely equal let alone surpass them. Rationalists view primitives as intellectually inferior to moderns: where primitives invent myth, which is a childish as well as false explanation of the world, moderns create science, which is a mature as well as true explanation of the world. Campbell views primitives as wiser than moderns: primitives know intuitively the meaning of myth that moderns need depth psychology to extricate. In fact, primitives know the meaning that moderns have altogether forgotten and need Freudian and especially Jungian psychology to recollect. Campbell thus claims only to be rediscovering, not discovering, the real meaning of myth -- a meaning known fully to our forebears. Jung himself, not to mention Freud, never goes this far.

A final weakness is that Campbell wrongly pits myth against religion. He assumes that in the West, though somehow not in the East, religion inevitably literalizes and historicizes myth. He sees the typical church father not as Augustine but as Jimmy Swaggart. Actually, mainstream and not just heretical Christianity and Judaism have traditionally interpreted the Bible symbolically as well as literally. Conversely, some of the most fervent antinomians have been literalists. Campbell’s equation of institutionalization with degeneration and of individualism with purity is adolescent. Max Weber noted long ago that the institutionalization of any movement is not only inevitable but also necessary: the alternative is extinction.


Here, too, the difference between Campbell and Jung is acute. Jung is wary of the psychological risks of spontaneous religiosity, praises quintessentially institutionalized Catholicism for its psychological efficacy, nearly equates mainline Protestantism with modern atheism, nevertheless bemoans the decline of Christianity generally, and turns anxiously to analytical psychology as a modern substitute. Campbell, by contrast, far closer to Nietzsche than to Jung, castigates traditional Christianity generally as institutionalized and therefore psychologically impotent, damns his own boyhood Catholicism most of all, revels in the anticipated demise of all Christianity, and sees no need for a substitute for it. Jung suggests that psychology at once replaces religion and interprets its extant myths. Campbell argues that psychology merely restores the interpretations of myths directly imbibed by earliest humanity but haplessly missed ever since by its "churched" successors.

 

[Willamena]

He assumes that in the West, though somehow not in the East, religion inevitably literalizes and historicizes myth.

Um... to the author, not quite so. The videos of Transformation of Myth Through Time demonstrate that he understood how myth is regarded in Christianity. While it is true that the East has maintained a largely symbolic understanding of the gods, where the West largely considers god to be actually real, there is still a valid mythology to Christianity.

Actually, mainstream and not just heretical Christianity and Judaism have traditionally interpreted the Bible symbolically as well as literally... Campbell’s equation of institutionalization with degeneration and of individualism with purity is adolescent.

...when not regarded in context.

Max Weber noted long ago that the institutionalization of any movement is not only inevitable but also necessary: the alternative is extinction.
Here,too, the difference between Campbell and Jung is acute. Jung is wary of the psychological risks of spontaneous religiosity, praises quintessentially institutionalized Catholicism for its psychological efficacy, nearly equates mainline Protestantism with modern atheism, nevertheless bemoans the decline of Christianity generally, and turns anxiously to analytical psychology as a modern substitute. Campbell, by contrast, far closer to Nietzsche than to Jung, castigates traditional Christianity generally as institutionalized and therefore psychologically impotent, damns his own boyhood Catholicism most of all, revels in the anticipated demise of all Christianity, and sees no need for a substitute for it. Jung suggests that psychology at once replaces religion and interprets its extant myths. Campbell argues that psychology merely restores the interpretations of myths directly imbibed by earliest humanity but haplessly missed ever since by its "churched" successors.

Just so... except that Campbell did find a substitute for institutionalized Christianity in the meaning of the myths.

I wonder if the author is aware that Jung was an astrologer, and that his persuit of mythology originated from that perspective? His development of archetypes stemmed directly from an understanding of the religious symbolism of astrology. His psychology did not replace any religion, so much as expand on an archaic generalized concept of it, one that Campbell built upon. There is no indication I have found, though, that Campbell was an astrologer.

 

[tfp(-*-)]

Actually, mainstream and not just heretical Christianity and Judaism have traditionally interpreted the Bible symbolically as well as literally

The most elevated mythic symbol in the Bible would be God himself, according to Campbell. It's not so much a denial of symbolism on his part, rather that the Biblical symbols/myths are pointing to symbols falsely understood as literal truths, rather than pointing to the ultimate mystery itself.

 

[gnostic]

I have not read any of Campbell's books, because I have always been interested in reading the translation of primary sources on myths, not a person's analysis or comments.

I am quite sure his perspective on mythology is invaluable for our understanding on the subject, but I was far more interest in the tales, not the psycholanalysis, since such thing would spoil what I am trying to learn.

 

[Willamena]

I have not read any of Campbell's books, because I have always been interested in reading the translation of primary sources on myths, not a person's analysis or comments.

I am quite sure his perspective on mythology is invaluable for our understanding on the subject, but I was far more interest in the tales, not the psycholanalysis, since such thing would spoil what I am trying to learn.

But then, according to some ways of thinking, you are not learning the myths at all, because what they mean is what they are. The literal reading, while providing entertaining-enough stories, misses the point.

 

[gnostic]

Critical analysis of mythology have there places, so someone like Campbell, Jung, Robert Graves and J.G. Frazer are important.

I have had Frazer's large book, The Golden Bough. The topics he touched was all every interesting, but the way he jumped one myth to another, oft leaves me more than just a little bewildered because of their varieties. Too much analysis would make mythology to lose their lustre.

Not everyone is interested in so much indepth psychoanalysis in a book, unless you are studying psychology.

Take history, for example. I loved classical and medieval history, but I am not that interested in studying in the classroom. If I need to study or do research, then I would prefer to pick and choose which ones I'd wish to study. Perhaps, it was just the teacher, but I quickly lost interest in what was taught in class. I learned far more on my own then in the classroom environment.

Not everyone is interested in Jungian and Campbell's analysis.