So I had mixed feelings about Campbell’s supposition
of the Monomyth. I am always a little wary of texts that start with Freud (and
or Jung) but this is probably the first time I that their theories have been applied
in a way that even resembled sense. For the most part Campbell’s argument seems
to follow logical steps from his base and that follow the evidence he points
out. Unless I have read this wrong, he asserts that the Monomyth is essentially,
and this is an over-simplification, a result (and vital part) of basic human psychology.
I can argue the foundation but the better part of structure built on top of it
appears sturdy enough. The very end of his argument, however, seems to have something
really out of joint.
The last section in the
chapter we read is on The World Navel.
He discusses the point where the good material from the subconscious come
(through the hero) into the waking world; “the hero as the incarnation of God
is himself the navel of the world, the umbilical point through which the energies
of eternity break into time” (41). So far I follow. This is what the hero must
be if he is bringing that knowledge back. Campbell’s following statement does
not seem to fit; “the World Navel, then, is ubiquitous. And sense it is the
source of all existence, it yields the world’s plentitude of good and evil”
(44), and further “Virtue is but the pedagogical prelude to the culminating insight,
which goes beyond all pairs of opposites” (44). He follows these statements with
the tale of Edshu and his multi-colored hat. Maybe this fits with the argument
of insight that came before, but the hero of the Monomyth cannot possibly be as
ambiguous as Campbell seems to be saying. Is not the hero saving people from their
miss-development that leads to tyranny? So that at least has to actually be
evil.
I just finished watching
Star Wars and one of the things that stood out to me this time round was just
how stark the division between the two sides are. Even Han, as the rough kind
of hero, does in fact have to pick whether to side with the Rebels or leave with
his reward, which is really an indirect way to side with the Empire. Luke even
says that he hates the Empire, a comment that Obi-Wan seems to have no quam
with. What’s more, Obi-Wan guides Luke to completely obliterate the Death Star.
From what Campbell seems to be saying, the hero should come to something of a
higher understanding from which he sees all sides, because none is actually
evil. Perhaps I am completely missing what Campbell is saying but best I can
tell that never plays out in any Monomyth I am familiar with. The Dark Side always
remains so.
Oh and I thought this too. I see some similarities…
Helm's Deep
(http://staticmass.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/towers_5.jpg)
The Falcon
(http://www.coronasquadron.com/wallpics/s-flcn-str.JPG)
Firstly, Jung is the best.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I do think that "The Dark Side" is inherently misunderstood, but not because of anything relating to the Monomyth.
From what I have experience of Star Wars, "The Dark Side" is pretty much just code for "emotions", in many ways drawing the Jedi/Sith division to parallels with the not-quite Confucian ideas of Li and Qi.
Li is present in all things, much like the Force, and is the stuff of universal goodness. Because everything that exists has the same Li, everything is connected through Li.
Qi is the stuff that makes everything the thing that it is. So you have the same Li as a rock, but the rock has rock Qi and you have human Qi.
Unfortunately for you, your Qi is what clouds up your Li keeps you from being perfectly good. Emotions are a part of your Qi. Therefore, emotions are bad.
So, yes, the Sith went about doing what they're doing in all the wrong ways, but really "The Dark Side" is just "Yo dawg, we have space magic AND this hasn't turned us into robits" and the Jedi are all "Does not compute. Emotions equal dangerous."