Joseph Campbell--"The Hero With A Thousand Faces"

A decent read. I think Campbell overstates the case for thinking that the multitude of myths of all societies follow a certain pattern--a notion he calls the "monomyth." This seems to belie an unjustified zeal for systematization. Campbell, throughout the book, constructed an outline of this basic monomyth that he took to be exemplified by all the hero myths of the world. However, in arguing for these similarities, he would often point out myths which seemed to fit his monomyth construction, but would ignore others which do not fit this pattern. I tend to be skeptical of claims to show that all or most of one kind of thing exemplify a certain pattern or are all versions of the same thing somehow, and my skeptical attitude is strengthened through Campbell's book. Certainly the more modest claim that there are startling similarities in many mythological and religious systems throughout the world would have been interesting enough, as well as having the added virtue of being true. However, for many scholars, some similarity just isn't enough. "The data simply must fit my unified theory!" comes the quixotic cry of systematic mythologists, philosophers, historians, and scientists in the modern era (though it seems that scholars are getting a little better at this since Campbell's time--there's not quite as much passion for systematizing everything...except perhaps in physics). A similar claim I've heard recently comes from Karen Armstrong, who, in her book "The Great Transformation" argues that the "axial age" philosophical systems and religions all bear certain similarities which show that they spring from the same point in human development. Karl Jaspers, of course, was probably also overreaching in trying to piece together the "axial age" in the first place.

On the positive side, near the end of the book Campbell discusses the modern age and its rejection of the mythological. This seems correct to me. 'Myth' in contemporary speech often comes to stand for something like 'falsity'. However, I do think that Campbell is wrong in claiming that we have rejected mythology, even though we surely have rejected what we mythology. The mythological mind is live and well--we continue to project our notions of the operation of the universe onto it, without evidence and without experience. In fact, we probably never could have the requisite experience and evidence to justify our beliefs and mythological constructions concerning the world we live in and the universe, given the nature of reason itself, and various well worn and seemingly intractable problems in philosophy (skepticism, the mind-body problem, etc.). When I say we have not given up myth today, however, I do not mean "religion" by myth. Scientific myth inserts itself into the role of the mythological standard bearer as easily as does religion, and our various scientific myths seem to be working toward outpacing our still extant religious myths. Whether it will eventually be successful in this, I'm sure no one can say. Whether it ought to be so successful--no one can answer this either.

Check it out. 3/5 stars.