Tag: Folklore

Content Notes: Discussions of Anti-Semitism, Colonisation, Racism and Sexism

In the previous essay, we covered the broad strokes of how The Hero’s Journey rose to fame, alongside its lionised author, Joseph Campbell. Today, we will focus on how anthropologists, folklorists, and the groups he takes from, view the infamous man himself. And how he contorts academia and marginalised beliefs, to fuel his own fantasy.

A Minefield of Malapropisms

I want to initiate this dissection of The Hero Journey, with a more technical and nitpicky aspect to Campbell’s errors. Partially to ease us in to his more bigoted beliefs, and partially to indicate how he can’t even get the innocuous parts correct. Alan Dundes, as part of a larger talk on the crisis of folklore studies, commented on how Campbell led to a swelling of amateurs with no background in relevant academia trying to understand mythology^.[1]

Now, I am not the most diehard fan of this talk, as his understanding of feminist theory is remedial at best. But I believe one of his points helps underpin just how little research Campbell did. Throughout The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Campbell calls all the stories he uses myths. Every. Single. One. Even I, a person with an amateurish knowledge on folk tales, picked up on this. See, there is a difference between folklore, myths, legends and fairy tales.

Dundes, who quite literally wrote the 1965 book on folklore, defines it as any form of shared story, knowledge or proverb, specific to a group of people.^[2] He is deliberately vague in this definition, both because he uses folklore as an umbrella term for things like legends and myths. And because folk can mean: ethnic groups, racialised groups, groups of occupation, neighbourhoods and more. Think of how tales can spread of a cursed building within a particular company, or a street is haunted with a ghostly woman. It would be inaccurate to attribute these to individual countries, as they are significantly more localised.

Within this context, a myth is type of folklore that is typically adopted by a extensive section of the folk, as a fundamental story. ^[2] They do not have to believe in the 100% veracity of the tale. Instead the myth can become foundational to the folk’s customs and create a metaphorical understanding of the world around them. This can include creation myths, like people being made from clay by Viracocha. Or national myths, such as Rome originating from two boys raised by wolves.

A legend tends to possess a more temporal and geographical anchor.^[2] Foundational myths especially, have a tendency to be more loose with their connection to material reality. However, if you are cursed to be British, when I mention Lady Godiva, you likely think of Medieval Coventry. Like myths, legends are not always necessarily believed as factual. Though they can still become deeply associated with smaller areas or subsets of people, including how they view their own identity. For example, Lady Godiva began the time honoured British tradition of public streaking as protest.

Finally (at least for our purposes), there are fairy tales or fables. A fairy tale is distinct from legends and myths, more in the fundamental method of transmission. The latter are usually oral, passed down through generations and disseminated by word of mouth.^[2] A fairy tale is often written down and can be traced to a sole author, although many are iterated upon or shift in meaning as they pass into different cultures.^[3]

The point of this digression is to demonstrate the complexity involved in the study of folklore. As well, these definitions, whilst seemingly pretty wide spread are not universal. Different academics will express slight or major disagreements. And, quite like psychology, there is a mountain of essays and counter essays detailing a rich pinpointing of specific meaning and language with these terms. My definitions are admittedly simplistic, but Campbell’s are even more so.

He compresses all of these forms of folklore and more into myth, simply because it has the most grandiose sound to it.^[4] When we think of myths, we think of Greeks and Romans, of scandalous stories and brilliant battles. They are the most mysterious and captivating, at least to people like Campbell. But, in doing so he compresses the intracies of these stories and is forced to twist their narratives.

In a way, his aggrandisement of these tales could be seen as noble. If you were squinting and the sun was in your eyes as a fork got stuck in one of your eyeballs. If that isn’t happening, then you’ll presumably see Campbell’s bolstering as rather fetishistic. Though to be fair, Campbell did a lot worse than the simple flattening and overselling of cultural touchstones.

A Skeleton Made Up Of Racist Bones

I am not going to beat around the bush here. Campbell was a racist. Unequivocally so. Both in his work and his personal life. We will start with the latter as it is moderately more blatant. In an excellent review by Roger Echo-Hawk, a well-regarded Pawnee historian, he outlines many of Campbell’s links to eugenics and white supremacy.^[5] An great quote to start us off is Campbell’s view on Indo-Aryans:

“the most productive, as well as philosophically mature, constellation of peoples in the history of civilization had been associated with this prodigious ethnic diffusion…” ^[5]

The Indo-Aryans are an ethnic group within Central and South Asia. They were utilised by pre-cursors of Nazis, Nazis themselves and organizations inspired by them. It’s where the idea of Aryans in these contexts originates from. Although I want to stress, none of this is the fault of Indo-Aryans themselves. Crowds of Western European scientists, philosophers and historians, projected their ideals of civilisation onto these people, using them as background for the true superiority of the white race. Therefore, Campbell reflecting such ideas is certainly damning. And it gets worse.

Campbell had associates actively involved in the eugenics movement, that is, the belief in scientific breeding to create a superior people. One such example was Carlton Coon, a chairman of the International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics.^[5] On top of that he was a prestigious anthropologist, who published a book called The Origin of Races. Which, as you can imagine, was a runaway hit amongst racists. So much so, Coon was lambasted at the time and literally sued newspapers who quoted his supporters racist beliefs.

And Campbell, cited this man in his book, The Masks of God.^[5] Never making any mention of the very well-known scandal about Coon’s book and racist viewpoints. This would not be the lone horrific figure Campbell quoted.

To justify his totally apolitical, rational view of mythic heroes, he recounts writings from Ezra Pound and T.S Eliot.^[6] The former was a literal Italian Fascist in the 1930s and the latter was a divine right royalist. Eliot also was a part of the New Criticism movement, which believed that all literature should be critiqued without extraneous context. Wonder why that sounds familiar.

If that is not enough, later in his life, Campbell was invited to join Mankind Quarterly by Roger Pearson. Pearson was a lifelong proponent of Nordic racial supremacy, a term I hope I don’t need to elucidate the problems with. As well, Mankind Quarterly published work quoted in The Bell Curve, the most infamously racist academic book from the 20th century. And Campbell accepted the invitation to be a part of Mankind Quarterly.

Even defenders of Campbell showed how awful the man really was. In a comment that feels like it was ripped out of a Ben Shapiro rant, an associate of his wrote that Campbell admired:

“intellectuals who saw Western Civilisation as threatened by the rot of decadence.”^[5]

Adding onto this Campbell apparently thought that:

“the left-wing, liberal, Jewish, Communist point of view was part of the degeneration.”^[5]

Speaking of anti-semitism, Campbell seemed to revel in his hatred for the Jewish people and faith. A remarkable feat considering that Sarah Lawrence College, where he taught, had a strong Jewish faculty.^[6][7] Robert Segal recounts how Campbell publicly expressed his pernicious hatred of Judaism. In one instance of raving at a Jewish student, he stated that the God of the Hebrew Bible was completely evil and he had moved out of the Bronx in New York to get away from Jewish people.^[7]

I’d like to say, as Robert Ellwood and other biographers frequently try to, that Campbell’s work was not mired by his horrific views. Actually thats a lie. The more I learn about Campbell, the more a twisted relief manifests whenever I get to vent about his writing. Because despite how prolific his prose is, it is so clearly poisonous as to have a toxic cloud in the shape of a skull appear whenever you turn a page. So hold your breath as we turn a new leaf.

The Flesh That Hates Everyone Else

Continuing with his trend into Anti-Semitism, Segal notes how Campbell is unusually uncharitable towards Jewish beliefs and folklore compared to other religions within his work.^[7] Although he delivers criticisms for Christianity, Campbell often belabours the values of Gnosticism. Or at least his version of it. Gnosticism was an esoteric form of early Christianity which preached secret knowledge that could only be understood through ritualistic initiation.^[6] It is, essentially, the more mystical and metaphorical rebrand of God.

Within Gnostic belief, an ancient minor god called the Demiurge messed up reality and trapped our divine essence in a poorly designed meat bag.^[6] Only though the rituals of Gnosticism could one transcend the body and become divine. Campbell was enamoured with this. Probably because he, like many Catholics, rebelled against the stuffiness of the traditional church. But Christianity isn’t the sole religion to retain esoteric varieties.

As Segal points out, there is an extensive tradition of mystical interpretations for Judaism, through scholars like Gershom Scholem or Raphael Patai.^[7] Campbell even nominally mentions the idea of mysticism in Judaism, but never seems to quote from the figureheads of such views. Instead, he usually shrouds it under his personal universal views and frankly, spurns it for the sake of aggrandising other cultures. In one telling quote Ellwood frames this as:

“Judaism is said to be chauvinistic, fossilized, nationalistic, sexist, patriarchal, and anti-mystical. Even primal peoples, such as Campbell’s beloved Native Americans, are said to “possess a broader vision than Jews.”” ^[6]

But do not let this fool you into thinking Campbell treats indigenous peoples’ religious beliefs any better. Throughout his book, he uses tales from the Yolngu and Arrente people of Australia. Glenda Hambly, a documentary filmmaker and white Australian academic specialising in indigenous folklore, counters many of Campbell’s retellings.^[8]

This can be as grandiose as Campbell’s enforcing of linearity into the narratives of the Yolngu and Arrente, who believe in a more cyclical version of time.^[8] Where past, present and future merge into one. Their tales often revolve around these cycles, how people were born from the earth itself and must always return to the earth. They also emphasise repetitions, cycles of things happening again and again. Both of these are non-existent Campbell’s romantisisation.

His most pernicious example is the Arrente passage of manhood, which Campbell cites as a circumcision ritual.^[4] He narrowly focuses on the act itself and the boys learning the oral history of the Arrente. Now, for the sake of respect, Hambly omits the details of the actual ritual. This is due to it being a closed practice and the fact people like Campbell keep bastardising their religious beliefs. However, as reported by Hambly, the ritual is significantly more complex containing multiple parts before and after the circumcising.^[8]

Most importantly, to me at least, is how Campbell uses this story to emphasise the boys self-generating knowledge. The individualised actualisation of their own wisdom. But, obviously, they do not do that. The Arrente focus on how act of passing down knowledge is critical.^[8] The communal aspect of teaching a rising generation and respecting the wisdom of those who came before you. Furthermore, the other stages of the ritual are just as important as the circumcision itself, yet in Campbell’s retelling, you’d think the Arrente only care about that.

And it isn’t just indigenous beliefs Campbell manages to misunderstand.

The Mind That Forgets Itself

Mary Lefkowitz is a prestigious scholar of Ancient Greek and Roman literature. As well, she was involved in an academic controversy between herself and African history scholars. This involved complaints of Afrocentrism and Eurocentrism within historical analysis about Ancient Greece, which I cannot get into with any more detail because it would require an essay to unpack properly. One I may eventually write. But for now, I felt it was worthwhile to at least mention her marred reputation.

In a 1990 essay, Lefkowitz points out how Campbell flattens Greek mythology. Campbell composes the story of Telemarketer Telemachus in the Odyssey, as a rite of passage, an ascension into manhood.^[9] However, Lefkowitz attests that the moral was likely more fundamental, that good sons always honour their fathers. In a way, Campbell persistently tries to make the unfamiliar, familiar.

Furthermore, he uses Artemis (or Diana in later Roman revisions) as an example of his Universal Goddess.^[4] The archetype for all goddesses in all mythology who can be either a nurturing lover or, conversely, a tempting trickster. Ignoring the net he is casting, that is so wide it could encompass Venus, he weaves us the tale of Actaeon.

A mortal man was out hunting deer with his domesticated wolves. Whereupon, by chance, he finds the goddess Artemis bathing in a secluded brook. He takes this “opportunity” to look upon the naked goddess. Artemis rebukes him, cursing him to become a deer, which causes him to be ripped to shreds by his own hunting wolves. Campbell’s version frames the goddess as a tempting trickster.

To start with, the story has a variety of versions, including one in which the Actaeon figure is turned to stone and another where the peeping Tom is transformed into a Thomasina. Furthermore, composing the tale through the lens of Acateon means that the tale is interpreted as a godly test designed for the hunter.

As Lefkowitz points out, this framing has less basis in Greek or Roman mythology.^[9] Contemporary people were unlikely to see this as a test, instead viewing it as an example of the gods’ mean-spirited nature. Or even just as an example of why you shouldn’t be a voyeur. Astonishingly, the Greeks could be prudish.

Many people of the time understood the gods as aloof and uncaring in the matters of humans.^[9] A stark contrast to Campbell’s revising, which places human heroes as the most important figures in the god’s lives. In a way, I believe Campbell’s opinion of gods mirrors his self-image. Which is never made any clear than this damning statement by Segal:

“As relentlessly dismissive of Judaism as Campbell ordinarily is, he dismisses it in the name of Judaism itself. Judaism, like every other Western religion, has misunderstood itself, indeed has perverted itself. Judaism can, however, be saved, once Judaism the religion is replaced by Judaism the mythology. Since Jews themselves have perennially been inculcated in Judaism as a religion, they can hardly save Judaism. Only Campbell can. He alone grasps at the true mythic nature of Judaism. He thus becomes the savior of Judaism. He saves it from itself. He saves Judaism not by forging myths for it but by revealing the myths it harbours.” ^[7]

Even when he is praising a culture or folklore, Campbell can’t help but position himself as the arbiter. As the prism which can unlock all the shades of storytelling. As the saviour God, guiding the next generation of heroes with his comparative mythology. A naked narcissism in the most classical version of the term.

Reality is Ether

Campbell is neither the first nor the only person to create grand sweeping generalisations of culture. In fact, in a bitingly mocking manner, Dundes mentions how Campbell’s belief of universal truth in folklore is a thought often expressed by first year folkloric students.^[1] Less provocatively, Barre Toelken mentions how Campbell’s issue is one that faces many psychology adjacent people who delve into folklore. They tend to regard it as having one canonical variant and therefore posit their theories as the canonical interpretation.^[10]

A personal pet peeve of mine, is how Campbell achieves this with the Vodyanoy or Water Grandfather. A figure in Slavic mythology, the Vodyanoy is a recurring fairy-tale character. A bald toad-like man, that destroys waterwheels, interferes with fishermen’s catches and even takes women who drown themselves as wives. There are many variations of him, some imagine a Vodyanoy king, others tie him to Russian Rusalkas. But Campbell only mentions that he is a water spirit who drowns women to compel them into marriage.^[4]

This, to Campbell, is a prime example of the Crossing of the Threshold. Where the woman is Crossing from the Threshold of the living to the dead and the Vodyanoy is the gatekeeper. We will only glance at the sexism that Campbell’s version of female heroism involves death and marriage, as this also attributes a canonicity and linearity that isn’t present in the actual folklore.

Like many folkloric figures, the Vodyanoy is fluid. They shift depending on if the region relies on water mills or fishing. If they are by the sea or only have lakes and rivers. If there is a history of drowned women or if the history is of dead men at sea. That, to me, is the beauty of folklore. It is ever changing, and those transformations mark the differences in the cultures spreading the story. It can speak to the priorities of a folk, their aesthetic choices, their worries and their situation captured within a certain time. But to admit that would be to confess to the heterogeneity of life itself.

Florence Sandler and Darrel Reeck, hit the nail on the head when they call Campbell, and other like him, comparative esotericists.^[11] Put differently, they are interested in cultures in order to seek wisdom, using symbols within tales to direct their thought. Though this must be detached from the folk it came from, lest it be tainted by the spectre of subjectivity.

This is never made clearer than in Campbell’s disdain for how the Vedic hero Indra’s tale was changed.^[11] Originally, Indra’s slaying of Vritra was lauded, but when later Hindu stories framed Vrita as a Brahmin, Indra’s act was corrupted and cruel. The tale evolved, much to the remorse of Campbell. For if anything evolves or changes, it means a universal constant cannot exist. Objectivity is dead.

Although of course, Campbell is anything but objective. As Sandler and Reeck state, his hero is absolutely American.^[11] The hero must be a rugged individualist and sacrifice anything he can to save his community alone. All in the hopes of being rewarded. His disdain for Hinduism and other Asian belief systems, was mired not only by racism, but by anti-communism. As a fear of “The East” became more incoherent in the minds of westerners.

Campbell’s brand of generalisability is one of convenience. He does so with a sweeping brush to paint himself as good and others as evil, as virtue or vice, as white or black. The only way that can be done, is to present history, folklore and culture as providing a particular canonical lens, a fundamental truth which only he can divine.

In a way, he never really renounced his Catholicism. He just rebranded to a different type of canon he could control.

A Canonical Interpretation

I have recently finished reading Babel by R.F Kuang. I swear this is relevant. Babel is about many things, but the primary interest for us is how Kuang unpacks translation. A great deal of the book tackles if there is a right way to translate, if it is an art or a science, and how much of translation in Britain leaves out the native speakers of the language.^[13]

There is a discussion between the characters about if texts should secede to the language they are translated into. Should a Mandarin text retain its differences, its figures of speech and metaphors? Or should the metaphors be translated into roughly equivalent English phrases, even if it displaces some of the implicit or explicit meaning? Your mileage will likely vary depending on the text, the purpose of translation and more.

But it is with this fluxing framework, that I came across an Instagram reel. I know, the height of academic sources. But Jake Grefenstette of the International Poetry Forum was making a point about Emily Wilson’s translation of The Illiad.^[14] In specific, how she translates a passage pertaining to Achilles mourning of Patroclus. She translates it as:

“I love him like my head, my life, myself.”^[15]

Grefenstette says that to specify “my head”, instead of removing it, was a deliberate and unique translational choice.^[14] It preserves a moment of poetic strangeness where we, the English speaking audience, are forced to consider an alternative form of understanding love. Presented in a manner not wholly familiar to us, using a phrase we would never use. Yet echoing a sentiment we can grasp, if we only reach for it.

To crib from Babel, this would be akin to prioritising the native understanding of the language. To translate on its own terms and preserve it’s meaning, even if this is unfamiliar to the target audience. And Campbell would hate this.

Campbell’s translation goals is to make the unfamiliar familiar. To digest the intricacies of Native Americans, Chinese, Indians, Indigenous Australians, Africans, Southern Americans, Jewish people and more, into tales familiar to 1950s White American men. He was lauded time and again, even by authors critical of him, for his ability to utilise so many tales.^[6][9][11] But utilise is too kind a word. Co-opt, steal, warp, manipulate are all better. But only one word truly fits.

Colonise.

The Loop of Colonisation

In Babel, a major thesis point of the book is how the British colonised language.^[13] How the country used, and uses, the act of translation to further imperialism. To manipulate native people. To canonise certain versions and translations of a language. To provide an example from Babel, our Chinese protaganist is forced to stop speaking Cantonese in favour of Mandarin. Since it is more useful to British imperial efforts to speak the language of the courts than of the common people.

What Campbell did was perpetuate the tradition of imperialism. It becomes increasingly more rare (but not completely gone) for countries to commit imperialism through miltary invasion. Empires have been nominally dismantled and countries like the United States, Britain and many more, require a way to exert control on others. And one of the numerous ways to achieve this, is to rewrite culture.

To take the stories, the beliefs, the words of people they dehumanise and imprint their own viewpoint onto it. To make the imperialist belief system solely legitimate. The English words become the authoritative version. I’d liken it to butchery, but that requires some finesse. This is like cutting fat off of a steak with your fingers. It’s filthy, lazy and requires no substantial thought. The skill comes in the spinning of idleness as enlightenment. In the gift of the gab that devours and regurgitates all for the next generation.

Campbell’s efforts were hardly unique. His method is one that has been, and continues to, be wielded by many figures across the political spectrum. It’s tempting to try and be universalist as a form of kindness. To consider everyone as exactly the same. But doing so wipes out important differences. It leaves the most marginalised, those still crushed by colonisation, unable to speak about how their differences are being erased. Their beliefs. Their viewpoints. Their stories.

Joseph Campbell didn’t merely write a silly little universalist plot structure, devoid of cultural context. He stole from various cultures all around the world to prove his idea is the most legitimate. The only real one, the guiding light towards spiritual salvation for the white man. Whilst he liked removing context, I will keep including context in his work. Because his words are still used, his mindset is still terribly real. And unless we consider the context, the culture, the viewpoints of those unfamiliar to us. We will end up like him.

Thank you so much for reading. Please let me know your thoughts, and I will be back next time to analyse how Campbell uses psychoanalysis, as well as the broader issues with using psychoanalysis in media. Until next time.

References

1. Dundes, A. (2005). Folkloristics in the twenty-First century (AFS invited Presidential Plenary Address, 2004). The Journal of American Folklore, 118(470), 385-408.
2. Dundes, A. (1965). The study of folklore in literature and culture: Identification and interpretation. The Journal of American Folklore, 78(308), 136-142.
3. Jorgensen, J. (2022). Fairy Tales 101: An Accessible Introduction to Fairy Tales. Dr Jeana Jorgensen LLC.
4. Campbell, J. (1949). The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Pantheon Books.
5. Echo-Hawk, R. (2016). Joseph Campbell and Race. Retrieved From: WordPress
6. Ellwood, R. (1999). The politics of myth: A study of CG Jung, Mircea Eliade, and Joseph Campbell. Suny Press.
7. Segal, R. A. (1992). Joseph Campbell on Jews and Judaism. Religion, 22(2), 151-170.
8. Hambly, G. (2021). The not so universal hero’s journey. Journal of Screenwriting, 12(2), 135-150.
9. Lefkowitz, M. R. (1990). Mythology: the myth of Joseph Campbell. The American Scholar, 59(3), 429-434.
10. Toelken, B. (1996). Dynamics Of Folklore: Revised and Expanded Edition. University Press of Colorado.
11. Sandler, F., & Reeck, D. (1981). The masks of Joseph Campbell. Religion, 11(1), 1-20.
12. Campbell, J. (1976). The masks of God : Oriental mythology. Penguin Books.
13. Kuang, R. F. (2023). Babel. Edizioni Mondadori.
14. International Poetry Forum. (21^st March, 2025). Happy World Poetry Day from the International Poetry Forum. Instagram. Retrieved From: Instagram
15. Homer. (2023). The Iliad (E. Wilson, Trans.). W. W. Norton & Company.