The Power of Myth
Campbell, Joseph, and Bill Moyers. 1991. The Power of Myth. Anchor.
Rating:
8
Summary:
I bought this book a while back on the recommendations of several friends. I wasn’t sure what to expect, but was, for the most part, pleasantly surprised.
The book is based upon a series of interviews Bill Moyers, who worked for PBS, conducted with Joseph Campbell, a professor and expert on myth. The interviews aired in the 1980s and were extremely well-received. Moyers then put the interviews together into this book. The book still follows the format of the interviews, with Moyers asking questions and making comments and Campbell answering the questions and expounding on what Moyers has to say.
The primary aim of the book is to illustrate, of course, ‘the power of myth’. This comes across early as Moyers summarizes the goal of myths, “So we tell stories to try to come to terms with the world, to harmonize our lives with reality?” (p. 2). Campbell extends this train of thought by adding the following, “People say that what we’re all seeking is a meaning for life. I don’t think that’s what we’re really seeking. I think that what we’re seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonances within our own innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive. That’s what it’s all finally about, and that’s what these clues help us to find within ourselves” (pp. 4-5). In other words, Campbell believes the real goal in life is to arrive at some sense of “bliss” (more on this below) or enlightenment that involves coming to a true understanding of what life is all about. Myths, according to Campbell, are fictitious stories that can help humans achieve that bliss. The bulk of the book explores how myths relate to helping people find “bliss.”
In the process of exploring how myth can help lead people to bliss, Campbell and Moyers cover some fascinating ground. I’ll touch on more of the topics they cover below, but I’ll mention one here as an example of the types of themes they cover. Many myths involve a quest to find one’s father (e.g., Oedipus and Christ). Campbell explains the meaning behind the father quest, “Now, the finding of the father has to do with finding your own character and destiny. There’s a notion that the character is inherited from the father, and the body and very often the mind from the mother. But it’s your character that is the mystery, and your character is your destiny. So it is the discovery of your destiny that is symbolized by the father quest” (p. 209). As this example illustrates, myths from around the world tend to have similar themes and, once compared and contrasted, the themes become apparent, as in the case of the father quest. This book covers a lot of examples of themes that pop up over and over again in myths from different cultures. Campbell argues that the similarity in themes in the myths reveals a common human nature.
Finally, it is worth noting that Campbell, while not forthright about his personal religiosity, is a classic theist. He obviously believes in some form of higher power, but believes that higher power is wholly unknowable, though it is, in a sense, represented through the attainment of bliss. Campbell most clearly reveals his personal position on religiosity with the following hilarious anecdote:
“A couple of years ago, I had a very amusing experience. I was in the New York Athletic Club swimming pool, where I was introduced to a priest who was a professor at one of our Catholic universities. So after I had had my swim, I came and sat in a lounging chair in what we call the “horizontal athlete” position, and the priest, who was beside me, asked, “Now, Mr. Campbell, are you a priest?”
“I answered, “No, Father.”
“He asked, “Are you a Catholic?”
“I answered, “I was, Father.”
“Then he asked—and I think it interesting that he phrased the question in this way—”Do you believe in a personal god?” “No, Father,” I said.
“And he replied, “Well, I suppose there is no way to prove by logic the existence of a personal god.”
“”If there were, Father,” said I, “what then would be the value of faith?”
“”Well, Mr. Campbell,” said the priest quickly, “it’s nice to have met you.” And he was off. I felt I had executed a jujitsu throw” (pp. 265-266).
Review:
While the book makes a number of really good points, it also missed a few that I feel are worth mentioning. For instance, Campbell decries the loss of importance of myth in modern society, “MOYERS: What happens when a society no longer embraces a powerful mythology? CAMPBELL: What we’ve got on our hands. If you want to find out what it means to have a society without any rituals, read the New York Times. MOYERS: And you’d find? CAMPBELL: The news of the day, including destructive and violent acts by young people who don’t know how to behave in a civilized society” (pp. 8-9). While myth may help in achieving what Campbell labels ‘bliss’, I think it is fairly safe to say there were no halcyon days when humanity lived in peace and prosperity and everyone was self-fulfilled. By claiming that there is some bygone era when myths were more important and hoping to return to it, Campbell is missing one of the very points he is trying to make – part of the goal of humanity is to understand our nature. But human nature is violent. We are animals that compete for survival. Myths, if anything, should help us realize that and our ability to control our violent tendencies. Longing for non-existent halcyon days doesn’t do anyone any good. Can myths help control violence and the decay of morals in society today? Who knows? But to think they did so in the past is to take a very skewed view of human history.
Another problem with Campbell’s philosophy, which is not derived from the myths he details, is his avocation of bliss for everyone, “Just sheer life cannot be said to have a purpose, because look at all the different purposes it has all over the place. But each incarnation, you might say, has a potentiality, and the mission of life is to live that potentiality. How do you do it? My answer is, “Follow your bliss.” There’s something inside you that knows when you’re in the center, that knows when you’re on the beam or off the beam. And if you get off the beam to earn money, you’ve lost your life. And if you stay in the center and don’t get any money, you still have your bliss” (pp. 284-285). Campbell is never perfectly clear in what he means by bliss nor in how to achieve it (remember, he doesn’t get this idea from the myths), but he also confuses self-given purposes in life with ‘The Purpose in Life’. By saying life doesn’t have a purpose, Campbell is missing the very essence of what it means to be alive. The universal purpose for all living things is to create more life. Every human (and plant, and animal, and microorganism) has that same purpose. By claiming there are additional purposes, he is adding meaning to life on top of the existing meaning. There is certainly nothing wrong with finding additional meaning in life, but to deny the actual purpose in life is to lack an understanding of what life is. What’s more, by advocating that everyone follow their bliss, Campbell is failing to recognize the limitations of society (meaning, people living together). In a society where labor is divided, not everyone is going to be able to follow their bliss. We can’t all be pianists or painters or doctors. Someone has to take out the trash. At least, someone has to given the current state of technological development. Unless Campbell stipulates that a person’s bliss can have nothing to do with their primary means of subsistence, he is advocating the impossible. In short, Campbell’s understanding of life and his avocation of bliss don’t really belong in a book about myth as they are derived from his personal philosophy and don’t really have a lot of merit as expounded in this volume.
The problems with bliss and the longing for non-existent halcyon days are my two biggest criticisms of the book. With those out of the way, let me turn to some of the things Campbell details brilliantly. First, religion in general. While Campbell believes religion can facilitate the teaching of meaning in myths and even the attainment of bliss, he doesn’t think very highly of the extant religions today. Campbell emphasizes the point that religions take myth, which is not real in fact but real only in meaning, and turn these things into literalities, “Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck to its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble… A metaphor is an image that suggests something else… The reference of the metaphor in religious traditions is to something transcendent that is not literally any thing. If you think that the metaphor is itself the reference, it would be like going to a restaurant, asking for the menu, seeing beefsteak written there and starting to eat the menu” (p. 67). Campbell makes this point with numerous aspects of religions. For instance, with the eucharist of Catholicism, Campbell points out that there is deep meaning in the blood and body of Christ, but scoffs at the idea that they literally transubstantiate into the body and blood of Christ. Likewise, he scoffs at the idea that Yahweh/Jehovah, the god of the Old Testament, is a literal being. Instead he details how Yahweh embodies the principles of the nomadic herders (read: Jews) who used him to justify their conquests of agricultural societies. In short, there is no god; god is a metaphor for the power that drives the universe and life and embodies the cultures of dominant groups.
Campbell makes two other really good points about religion in general. First, he notes that it is much easier to see the utility of myth by, “Read[ing] other people’s myths, not those of your own religion, because you tend to interpret your own religion in terms of facts—but if you read the other ones, you begin to get the message” (p. 5). By first looking at the myths of other religions (e.g., Greek and Roman mythology) you can begin to see the themes that run through your own mythology. Second, he points out a significant problem with the Judeo-Christian tradition as regards sin, “Ramakrishna once said that if all you think of are your sins, then you are a sinner. And when I read that, I thought of my boyhood, going to confession on Saturdays, meditating on all the little sins that I had committed during the week. Now I think one should go and say, “Bless me, Father, for I have been great, these are the good things I have done this week.” Identify your notion of yourself with the positive, rather than with the negative… But the idea of sin puts you in a servile condition throughout your life” (p. 66). I generally emphasize in my discussions with religious people the fact that sins are social constructs designed as wicked tools of manipulation that empower religions and not their adherents, Campbell’s thought here adds to that by illustrating how religions that emphasize sin focus on the negative rather than the positive works that people do. This is an excellent point.
Turning from religion in general to The Bible in particular, Campbell’s deconstruction of myths continues. For instance, on pages 51-52, Campbell illustrates that the creation myths of The Bible (Genesis 1 & 2) have striking similarities to religions around the world. Some religious groups (Mormons) have claimed that the similarities are because the non-Christian religions have been influenced by Christianity. But Campbell’s analysis illustrates that they often pre-date or developed independently from the myths of Christianity. As some critics of intelligent design have proposed, go ahead and teach creation myths in schools, just make sure you teach all of them and teach them in history, not in science; it may help indoctrinated students realize they do not have a monopoly on myth. Another example where Campbell draws similarities between Christianity and other religious traditions involves the virgin birth, “The virgin birth comes into Christianity by way of the Greek tradition. When you read the four gospels, for example, the only one in which the virgin birth appears is the Gospel According to Luke, and Luke was a Greek. MOYERS: And in the Greek tradition there were images, legends, myths of virgin births? CAMPBELL: Oh, yes—Leda and the swan, Persephone and the serpent, and this one and that one and the other one. The virgin birth is represented throughout. MOYERS: This was not a new idea, then, in Bethlehem” (p. 215). Clearly there is a great deal of post hoc myth that has been added to the stories told of Jesus. I think the jury is still out as to whether there was a man named Jesus/Joshua who lived around 1-33 C.E., but the evidence is overwhelming that he was deified and mythologized post mortem. For additional examples of analysis of myths and themes in The Bible, see the quotes from pages 64 and 130-131.
One final theme discussed by Moyers and Campbell involves relationships and the lessons myth can teach about them. While a whole chapter is devoted to this discussion, I only found a few insights really noteworthy. Much of what is said in that chapter seemed to be more the opinions of two educated men rather than the insights of true experts, but these two notions were interesting. Campbell points out that a healthy way to manage relationships is to recognize that sacrifices are not to the other person, but to the relationship itself, “Now when I have to make a sacrifice, I’m not sacrificing to her, I’m sacrificing to the relationship. Resentment against the other one is wrongly placed. Life is in the relationship, that’s where your life now is. That’s what a marriage is—whereas, in a love affair, you have two lives in a more or less successful relationship to each other for a certain length of time, as long as it seems agreeable” (p. 251). Approaching relationships from this perspective removes any sense of competition or any personal vendettas that might develop from ill-feelings. If you recognize that you are changing your beliefs or behaviors for the relationship, which you want, and not because the other person is demanding it, you don’t blame the other person. In short, you take responsibility for your own shortcomings that are hindering the development of the relationship rather than blaming them on your partner. I liked this idea. Another idea I have held for a long time but had never before found expressed elsewhere involves the trade off between pain and love, “MOYERS: So joy and pain are in love. CAMPBELL: Yes. Love is the burning point of life, and since all life is sorrowful, so is love. The stronger the love, the more the pain. MOYERS: But love bears all things. CAMPBELL: Love itself is a pain, you might say—the pain of being truly alive” (p. 257). My thought was that with greater love comes greater pain. If you avoid relationships to avoid pain, you are also avoiding the the feeling of true caring that comes in deep, powerful relationships. You can’t avoid pain, because pain is part of the coin that makes up relationships. One side is caring and love, the other is pain. Inevitably you will experience both. That’s just how life works.
Overall, I found the book enlightening on a number of fronts, though it isn’t without its problems. It is certainly an informative book that anyone with an interest in classics, mythology, history, or religion will enjoy reading. I recommend the book, though I can see that it won’t have universal appeal.
