The Power of Myth
Remembering Joseph Campbell
(March 26, 1904–October 30, 1987)
John Morgan
Joseph Campbell, the famed teacher of comparative mythology, was born on this day in 1904. For many people, including yours truly, he has served as a “gateway drug” into not only a new way of looking at myths, but into a non-materialistic way of viewing the world. And although as a public figure, Campbell mostly remained apolitical, evidence from his private life indicates that he was at least nominally a “man of the Right.”
Campbell was born into an Irish Catholic family in White Plains, New York. He attended Dartmouth College, and then later, Columbia University, where he studied English and medieval literature. He was not strictly a bookish type, either, being an accomplished athlete, and in fact during his time at Dartmouth he was considered to be among the fastest half-mile runners in the world.
It was during his travels to Europe and Asia during the 1920s and ’30s, as well as a great deal of wide reading while living in a shack in Woodstock, New York, that Campbell developed his interest in world mythology. He also discovered the ideas of C. G. Jung, which were to profoundly influence all of his work. Indeed, he participated in many of the early and historic Eranos conferences in Switzerland alongside not only Jung himself, but such luminaries as Mircea Eliade, Karl Kerényi, and Henry Corbin, among many others. In 1934 Campbell was hired as a professor at Sarah Lawrence College in New York, a position he was to hold until his retirement in 1972, after which he and his wife moved to Honolulu, Hawaii.
Interestingly, in regards to the Second World War, Campbell was a fervent non-interventionist (like his friend, the poet Robinson Jeffers), even in the wake of the Pearl Harbor attack, and in fact gave a public lecture at Sarah Lawrence three days afterwards in which he urged his students not to get caught up in war hysteria and to pursue their educations instead of joining the military. He felt passionately enough about this matter to send a copy of his lecture to the German novelist Thomas Mann, who at the time was working to convince Americans to join the fight against the Third Reich as an exile in California. (Mann sent him a quite angry reply.) And according to Campbell’s biographer, Stephen Larsen, in his journals he comes across as an early Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorist, pointing out that the Roosevelt administration had been trying to goad the Japanese into war for years and discussing the fact that the US Navy had received indications that the Japanese were about to attack in the days prior, but that these warnings were ignored — perhaps deliberately.
While Campbell gave frequent public lectures and published many books, including The Hero with a Thousand Faces in 1949, which was the most thorough overview of his essential ideas, and his four-volume The Masks of God opus, which appeared between 1959 and 1968, in which he attempted to summarize all of the world’s mythologies, he remained relatively obscure outside academic circles until late in his life. His later fame is largely attributable to the endorsements he received from two of his biggest fans. One is Jerry Garcia of the Grateful Dead, who invited Campbell to observe a concert they gave in Berkeley, California in February 1985. (Campbell reported that he was impressed by the event, comparing it to the ancient Dionysian festivals and Russian Easter celebrations.) In November 1986, Campbell and Garcia shared a stage at a conference at UC Berkeley. The other is George Lucas, who frequently cited Campbell’s conception of myth in interviews as being one of his primary inspirations in his writing of the Star Wars films. Indeed, in the 1980s Lucas invited Campbell to come to his Skywalker Ranch to view the entire trilogy (Campbell gave it somewhat guarded praise), and also helped to arrange the most crucial factor in securing Campbell’s late fame: Bill Moyers’ The Power of Myth series.
Moyers, a well-respected figure in broadcasting, filmed a series of interviews with Campbell during the mid-1980s, mostly at Skywalker Ranch, that were edited into six one-hour episodes and broadcast on PBS in 1988, along with an accompanying book of the same name. The series introduces and details Campbell’s ideas in a very accessible and entertaining way. It proved to be very popular, both during its original airing as well as in reruns and on video, and cemented Campbell’s reputation as an influential and respected intellectual in the American popular consciousness. Sales of Campbell’s books began to skyrocket as well. Unfortunately, he himself didn’t live to see any of this, as he had passed away the previous year, but he left behind a large body of work in which he had already presented his fully-articulated worldview.
As is frequently the case with prominent white men who don’t pay the proper lip service to political correctness, it wasn’t until after Campbell’s death that some of his former colleagues and acquaintances began to come forward with accusations of racism and anti-Semitism. This charge first appeared in an article by Brendan Gill in the September 28, 1989 issue of The New York Review of Books entitled “The Faces of Joseph Campbell,” in which he cited purely anecdotal evidence to support his claim that Campbell had been an anti-Semite, including Campbell’s stance on the war as well as the fact that he had praised the Germanic Jung while disdaining the Jewish Freud, and because he had evinced a love of German culture as well as a general dislike of the Abrahamic religions in his work — all of which is undeniably true.
In the letters that were printed in response, some came to Campbell’s defense while others pressed the attack, including a Sarah Lawrence colleague who claimed that Campbell had reacted to the racial integration of the school with horror. (Although again, no evidence for this was ever produced.) His sympathetic friends indicated that Campbell never tried to hide his conservative sympathies, and pointed out that the fact that Campbell was sympathetic to German and “pagan” cultures while disdaining Judaism and Christianity was hardly evidence that he had been a racist. Nevertheless, these charges have overshadowed Campbell’s work ever since, even if they have had no noticeable impact on the popularity of his work. (I first became aware of the controversy shortly after discovering Campbell, sitting at a restaurant in Ann Arbor, Michigan in 1995, when a passing waiter noticed that I was reading The Hero with a Thousand Faces and felt compelled to ask me, “Reading Joseph Campbell, the ol’ anti-Semite, huh?” I later learned that the waiter was a grad student at the University of Michigan.)
As an aside concerning the issue of Campbell as a man of the Right, something that I only became aware of as the result of a comment that was made on a previous posting of this commemoration is that Campbell had served as a Contributing Editor to Mankind Quarterly, an academic journal devoted to anthropology and the science of race that has been published since 1960. It has counted among its editors numerous names that are no doubt familiar to Counter-Currents readers, including Edward Dutton, Richard Lynn, and Roger Pearson. Mankind Quarterly has never bowed to notions of political correctness, and today is predictably lambasted in the mainstream as a “white supremacist journal” and so on. The fact that Campbell was willing to attach his name to it indicates that not only was he interested in the realities of race, but that he was not intimidated by the possibility of the association being used to smear his reputation.
Regardless of whether the accusations of anti-Semitism against Campbell are true or not, they follow a pattern that is typical for any artist or scholar who refuses to toe the party line. If Campbell had been engaged in “deconstructing” mythology, and showing that the Mahabharata or the Arthurian legends were nothing more than “narratives” expressing patriarchy and sexual repression for example, his personal failings in the eyes of academia would have been ignored. Surely what really bothers academics about Campbell, as well as about scholars with a similar worldview such as Jung, Mircea Eliade, or René Guénon, is that they dared to assert that there is an essential meaning to things, which of course then implies that there may actually be such a thing as values and traditions that are worth preserving.
I first discovered The Power of Myth series on video at my local library in 1995, during a period when I was looking for a new sense of direction and meaning in my life. I was 22, and like most Americans I had been educated in a strictly materialist way of understanding things. For the previous few years I had regarded myself as a Nietzschean, existentialist atheist (in spite of the fact that I only half-understood either Nietzsche or the existentialists). But I soon found this stance to be insufficient as I grew into adulthood and began to better comprehend the complexities of the human condition. It was my discovery of Colin Wilson, who I have written about elsewhere, and Campbell at this time (and through the latter, his own guru, Jung) which persuaded me that there is more to reality and living than what can be known through the five senses. Although I later moved on to other teachers and interests who in some ways surpass them, I will always owe a debt of gratitude to these two figures for “converting” me to something other than a model of a modern major materialist.
The Power of Myth struck me as a revelation, and it caused me to seek out Campbell’s books as well. Like most of us these days, I had always thought of myths as nothing more than quaint stories with some sort of simple moral lesson to be gleaned. Campbell contended that these myths are in fact reflections of a much deeper reality, one that is both metaphysical and which is reflective of deep psychological processes in our unconscious that transcend the individual and are connected to our racial memory. Even more importantly, Campbell first showed me that meaning was in fact anchored in something outside of ourselves, which was certainly very different from what I was being taught in most of my literature classes at the University at the time. I soon began to see everything from a Campbellesque perspective, and I doubt I could have mustered the enthusiasm to finish my degree were it not for the inspiration I derived from him.
The center of Campbell’s worldview is the idea of what he termed the “monomyth.” It posits that underneath all of the world’s mythologies, there is a single structure which they all more or less follow. This structure is timeless, as it is embedded within our consciousness, and can be found in the best modern art and literature — Campbell himself was particularly fond of James Joyce, and in fact the term monomyth itself is derived from Finnegans Wake — as much as in the ancient myths. Campbell believed that this monomyth was the expression of the single metaphysical reality which lies hidden behind the mere appearance of things, and that each culture and era develops its own stories to express this unchanging reality in accordance with “the unforged conscience of their race,” to paraphrase Joyce. In this sense, he shares some commonality with the traditionalists such as Guénon and Julius Evola. I don’t know of any place where the traditionalists have commented on Campbell directly, but surely they would criticize him along the same lines for which they criticized Jung: namely, that he understood myths as merely containing psychological symbols and “archetypes,” and as depictions of psychic processes, rather than as expressions of an objective reality (this is a complaint that a “true believer” in any religion could make against the Jungian conception of myth).
Surely a large part of the success of The Power of Myth, as it certainly was in my case, was because Campbell comes across in his recorded interviews and lectures as an extremely likable man with a gift for communicating complex ideas and stories in simple language. He was also a masterful storyteller. He was the very embodiment of your favorite teacher, who (hopefully) turned you on to the wonders of the world of ideas and filled you with the fiery passion to learn more about a particular subject. Like the very best teachers, what you learned from him only marked the starting point in a long odyssey that ended up leading you to other ideas and other destinations in life.
There are certainly many criticisms one can make of Campbell’s conception of things. In addition to the traditionalist objections already mentioned, some scholars have said that not just Campbell’s, but all efforts in the fields of comparative mythology and comparative religion, are flawed in that they emphasize the commonalities between all of the world’s traditions at the expense of the particularities which distinguish them, thus presenting a false universalism. There may be some truth in this, but at the same time it seems to me to be symptomatic of the general postmodern disregard for anything which asserts that there is an essential meaning to things, preferring to study each subject in isolation rather than as part of a whole. After all, how can a three-thousand-year-old story from ancient Greece teach a present-day American anything more than a Toni Morrison novel can? In fact, those old stories may actually be detrimental, given that they depict a way of life that reinforces old social orders rather than emphasizing the need for racial equality or the fluidity of gender.
At his post-war trial on the charge of promoting Fascism, Evola said about his beliefs, “My principles are only those that, before the French Revolution, every well-born person considered sane and normal.” I suspect that Campbell believed something similar, even if he never couched it in language that was quite so incendiary. When we look at the ancient stories, whether they are European, Indian, Chinese, Native American, or whatever, there is certainly a common outlook there which directly challenges the norms and values which we have come to accept as normal in the modern world.
And this, perhaps, is Campbell’s ultimate value from our point of view. There are certainly greater scholars of myth and religion to read. But especially for newcomers, he can open up the world of primordial, timeless, pre- and anti-modern wisdom that still lurks deep within our souls and continues to shape our lives, whether we are consciously aware of it are not. We are all part of a story that began long before we were born and which will continue long after we die. Campbell brings this story, and our place in it, to light like few others can. And this, in the end, is what the “true Right” is really about.
The%20Power%20of%20Myth%0ARemembering%20Joseph%20Campbell%20%0A%28March%2026%2C%201904%E2%80%93October%2030%2C%201987%29%0A
Share
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate at least $10/month or $120/year.
- Donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Everyone else will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days. Naturally, we do not grant permission to other websites to repost paywall content before 30 days have passed.
- Paywall member comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Paywall members have the option of editing their comments.
- Paywall members get an Badge badge on their comments.
- Paywall members can “like” comments.
- Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, please visit our redesigned Paywall page.
Related
-
Remembering Lawrence R. Brown
-
Remembering Arthur Jensen
-
Remembering H. P. Lovecraft (August 20, 1890–March 15, 1937)
-
Remembering Philip Larkin
-
Remembering Frederick Charles Ferdinand Weiss (July 31, 1885–March 1, 1968): Smith, Griffith, Yockey, & Hang On and Pray
-
The Cartos, Imperium, and The Truth Seeker — Remembering Willis Carto: July 17, 1926–October 26, 2015
-
Remembering Carl Schmitt (July 11, 1888–April 7, 1985)
-
Remembering Jean Raspail: July 5, 1925–June 13, 2020
12 comments
I worked with a Jungian group for years and one of their shared historical traumas was having invited Campbell and then, when the Jews in the group complained, un-inviting him.
Begun, as usual, by a group of Anglos, it eventually came to be dominated by non-Anglo women, Jews, gays and non-Whites. It now makes “confronting unconscious bias” part of its calling card.
Complete surrender of supposedly conscious individuals to what Jung called The Collective, in the form of wokeism. Jung himself was no liberal but was a race realist. A fine 2012 study of his sociopolitical ideas described him as an “avant-garde conservative.”
A historical note: To observe how fully analysed people might be empirically studied, Jung organized The Analytical Psychology Club. One of its founding rules was that no more than 10% of the membership could be Jewish.
I was really into Jung 20 or so years ago. I wasn’t where I am now as far as the race thing but it makes sense he would be a race realist.
I really wonder for both him and camblell if they both were not just men of their times. Both of them opened the door for liberalism . If all myth is from one source then forget about the differences in the races. They may have been grossed out by non whites but their principles are part of the path to multiculturalism.
Good article. I wasn’t aware that Campbell was a man of the Right. That makes me want to read my unread copy of a Hero with a Thousand Faces. It’s been on my list for years now. It looks like the Masks of God has not been reprinted in a long time. Have you read it? If so, is it worth reading such a tome? And does it convey Rightist themes more explicitly than Hero?
I read them years ago just like the author during my budding spirituality. It was a place to start. They were easy to read and enjoyable. But wouldn’t recommend them unless your are fascinated by thw topic
Good article. Regarding Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories—and I am by no means an expert on this—but I do have a unique perspective, a pair of sunglasses perhaps—I was doing the teaching company course on the pacific theatre and it came to mind that there was a conspiracy not only to allow the Japanese attack, but also that US would be hobbled in the pacific theatre. Several other warning signs were ignored before Pearl Harbor. A Japanese scout submarine was captured and there was primitive radar which detected the approach of the Japanese fleet. Both events were reported to command and disregarded. After Pearl Harbor the Japanese struck the Philippines. The attacks were meant to be simultaneous but the japs were delayed by weather. The US planes had a contingency to attack Taiwan, jap controlled at the time. MacArthur, who was in command of the Philippines, went into his room and would not answer the door for several hours after Pearl Harbor attack! Finally the japs arrived and destroyed the American planes lined up on the runway, “like a turkey shoot”, they say. MacArthur’s behavior is considered one of the great mysteries of ww2, with the leading theory that he was in a state of absolute shock. Doubtful in my opinion. What if MacArthur was dragging his heels to let the Japanese attack happen?
Now what if all these commanders had allowed the Japanese attack with foreknowledge and allowed the planes and fleet to be destroyed, with the intention of allowing Japanese victory in the pacific? Pearl Harbor would have been much worse except for three factors of Japanese incompetence: 1) they forgot about the international date line so attacked on Sunday when everyone was at church, saving our skilled personnel 2)the didn’t destroy the fuel magazine, and 3) nor the dry dock.
It seems to me there was not only a desire to allow the Japanese attack to start a war, but also to hobble the US forces in the pacific as much as possible. Why else allow the Japanese the element of surprise in so many ways? There was resistance to the US war effort in the pacific in Washington because the slogan was “Germany first.” We know why. What if also the ruling cast in Washington had a spiritual desire to see the US humiliated by a nonwhite race? That’s my “Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory advance.”
“Campbell comes across in his recorded interviews and lectures as an extremely likable man with a gift for communicating complex ideas and stories in simple language.”
My curiosity is piqued. Is there a shorter introduction than the six-hour PBS series?
I have only read one book by Professor Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces. I remembered that there were a lot of examples from African mythology and African folklore (while there were only two or three examples from Türkic mythology).
This begs the question, why is it that today’s pop culture, especially movies and television series, the creators do not use African legends, myths and fairy tales, which should be and justifiably can be played by black actors, but instead they create completely incorrect and really stupid ones from a historical point of view and mythology black images of white characters, both real and fictional. Why not make films, TV series and cartoons based on African fairy tales, but instead create a black Queen Charlotte, a black Queen Anne Boleyn, a black Thor, and a black Mermaid.
The Prog project of inclusion is, on the surface, supposed to be about benefiting Blacks, etc but at bottom it is about damaging Whites. That is why blackwashing so many White characters is their preferred mode. Spite requires it.
Exactly so. That’s why they don’t care that black on black murder rates went through the roof during the summer of Floyd. They don’t actually care about blacks.
But I find the mythologies of non European peoples so childish and boring as to be not worth mentioning. I don’t want to see them. For me, it’s mainly about Greek and Norse, and then perhaps some Celtic and Finnish is allowed.
It’s seems kind of odd, but go into a library or bookstore, and you will NOT see any poetry books written by Jews..! Why is this, so?
Louise Gluck( Nobel laureate last year), Leonard Cohen, Kunitz, Adrienne riche, all seen at barnes and noble right now!
What I should have if said is that, they don’t write poetry on spirituality, nor nature! It’s base, carnal writing…
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment