a postcolonialist / post-structuralist view on Campbell
We were asked to discuss the assumptions that Moyers and Campbell are making about the nature of biblical language in The Living Conversation that we're watching in class. I'm not really sure what I want to say about it at this time, so I'd rather focus on my problem with Joseph Campbell, which we touched on briefly one of the first few days in class.
Campbell claims that there are certain mythological narratives that are common to every culture at every time, the hero journey myth at the center of most of them. He does a convincing job; I read A Hero with a Thousand Faces and, for the most part, enjoyed it. But I kind of enjoyed it as a romantic journey into the past, like reading Lord of the Rings. Campbell claims that all these archetypes are imbedded in everyone's subconscious, in a Jungian sort of way.
However, I see this as a dangerous view, for two reasons: One, I see the subconscious as formed by culture, not by some inherent "human-ness" or something. But, more importantly, I think this is dangerous coming from a white heterosexual male embedded in dominant culture. Campbell is so quick to point out similarities in all these cultures, when I see it as the differences that matter more. A "this is how we're the same" viewpoint serves to mask the experiences of those who have suffered oppression, invasion, or colonialism. It is like certain politicians saying that every American has the same experiences, so the African-American in an inner city or the single mother working two jobs or the queer boy in rural America all have the same chance and the same values.
This viewpoint justifies reading just certain texts because "all texts are the same," when, in fact, they're not. If all stories cover the same myths, then we might as well just read the "good stuff" written by white men (which is, largely, what we still do). However, this disenfranchises the majority of the world (who is brown or woman).
Granted, I am not claiming that there is nothing common to all people. We all have hopes, dreams, fears, sorrows, and joys. However, to say that all these emotions for everyone fall under certain mythological stories, is, in my opinion, a form of colonialism. If we can't control your politics (which we're doing anyway), we'll control your history, your mythology, and your experiences.
Campbell claims that there are certain mythological narratives that are common to every culture at every time, the hero journey myth at the center of most of them. He does a convincing job; I read A Hero with a Thousand Faces and, for the most part, enjoyed it. But I kind of enjoyed it as a romantic journey into the past, like reading Lord of the Rings. Campbell claims that all these archetypes are imbedded in everyone's subconscious, in a Jungian sort of way.
However, I see this as a dangerous view, for two reasons: One, I see the subconscious as formed by culture, not by some inherent "human-ness" or something. But, more importantly, I think this is dangerous coming from a white heterosexual male embedded in dominant culture. Campbell is so quick to point out similarities in all these cultures, when I see it as the differences that matter more. A "this is how we're the same" viewpoint serves to mask the experiences of those who have suffered oppression, invasion, or colonialism. It is like certain politicians saying that every American has the same experiences, so the African-American in an inner city or the single mother working two jobs or the queer boy in rural America all have the same chance and the same values.
This viewpoint justifies reading just certain texts because "all texts are the same," when, in fact, they're not. If all stories cover the same myths, then we might as well just read the "good stuff" written by white men (which is, largely, what we still do). However, this disenfranchises the majority of the world (who is brown or woman).
Granted, I am not claiming that there is nothing common to all people. We all have hopes, dreams, fears, sorrows, and joys. However, to say that all these emotions for everyone fall under certain mythological stories, is, in my opinion, a form of colonialism. If we can't control your politics (which we're doing anyway), we'll control your history, your mythology, and your experiences.
posted by Michael Faris @ 8:40 AM
1 Comments:
At 8:29 AM,
Deacon Chris said…
Again, Michael, I'll say what I said in an earlier post. Good. You can argue. That's fine. I'm hearing you. But can you represent the other position, too, and many others? In fact, why not just take a break from argument and try simply summarizing as best you can what you hear other people saying, in your own words. Try to represent Campbell's views, in your own words, as clearly and sympathetically as you can--not taking a position one way or the other. Just hear him, first.
Then, state your own views--but not just as argument, or as argument at all. Just state them, and describe where they're coming from.
I guess I want to record here--both as a personal limitation (just admitting to that) and as an invitation, even an urging--my impatience with this sort of theoretical potshotting. Too easy. Nothing at stake. Already been there, done that.
And first repeating back, in your own words, what someone else has said indicates that you've understood it--has both a heuristic and a testing function, right? That's what writing-across-the-curriculum is all about, right?
Be both/and, why not, rather than either/or?
Post a Comment
<< Home