We’ve discussed the Hero archetype a great deal on this site. There are, I think, still differences in opinion among the members about this subject. I came across something the other day that helped me understand the two different perspectives a little better.
I was watching the Mythos series, a collection of Joseph Campbell’s talks, on DVD. In the section on Psyche and Symbol, he draws a diagram to describe his understanding of the psychic system. I think this is not news to students of psychology, and I’ve heard Betts describe something similar. I’ve reproduced part of that drawing here for discussion.
You can see the traditionally understood aspects of the Psyche and their relationships here. Interestingly, you can see that one of the main ways for unconscious material to become conscious is via projections onto outside objects (people, animals, environment, etc.). I understand that this is very well understood in the different schools of psychology, and do not think anyone here would disagree with that (and Kafiri would probably applaud loudly!
).
Of course, mythology and dreams also make this material (from both the “personal” and “collective” unconscious) available to consciousness. Campbell describes mythology as the language of the Self speaking to the Ego system. He says that it is the job of the ego system to learn how to read that language (which to me sounds like developing the Logos).
The Personae system is unique to each culture, and is enforced by the “neighbors” (as in, “what will the neighbors think”), institutionalization of morality and social custom, the idea of natural moral laws, and the idea of transcendence. Different cultures emphasize this to different degrees, but in “primitive” or more traditional cultures, the person is
meant to identify with the persona (ie, someone
is the warrior,
is the shaman, etc.).
But then Campbell goes on to describe what he calls two different kinds of mythology, and I think this is where our differing emphasis on the qualities of the hero have come from.
He says the first kind is that of “The Right-Hand Path.” This is the mythology of the village compound (perhaps what we have been calling myths, epics, etc). It is specific to the culture. It helps keep you fixed in the context of your world. It helps you live as expected, live with dignity, respect, etc.
Then he says, “On the other hand, you may flip out!” He calls this the mythology of “The Left-Hand Path.” These stories (eg, fairy tales and the more global, less culture-specific, myths) help you when you have begun to develop a sense of incongruity with the right-hand path. He says that one moves out into a realm of danger, where there are no rules. People on this path may live a life of danger and creativity, but perhaps not a “respected” life, according to the culture. This “left-hand” or “general” mythology is that of the Hero journey (or individuation), that which helps a person fulfill his or her own potentialities.
This distinction may not be news to anyone reading here, and may not completely help our discussion, because there is still room for debate about what the characteristics of that Hero are (eg, conquering vs vegetal/sacrificing, etc.), but it really did help me put it into larger context.
By the way, Campbell makes the point that neither path is better or worse than the other. If the mythology is living and vital, it helps the people that it is speaking to, whichever path they are on. It is not wrong to be on the right-hand path, as long as there is no incongruity. From what I understand, it would result in a participation mystique with one’s society or tribe, which is pleasant and adaptive, as long as the environment is suitable. However, our problem (the Problem of the Modern, as I understand from reading here), is that our environment of modern diverse culture is no longer very amenable to our desire for that tribal participation. Therefore, there are more and more people feeling the incongruity. Additionally, Campbell states that our mythology became fixed (at the time of the Bible), and so has not changed with our understanding of the world (our science). This means it is not vital or helpful anymore.
Actually, I find it interesting when I reflect on the fact that three of the major world religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) developed at relatively the same time in our evolutionary history. I wonder if they were a response to that increasing sense of incongruity? And though, in my humble opinion, these religions have become fixed and maladaptive, if you look at the way Matt has described the Gnostic tradition of Christianity (with the Christ as the example of the sacrificing and devoted Hero that one is meant to identify with, at least in attitude) or the alchemists’ rendering of the resurrected Christ as the Philosopher’s Stone, there may have been some adaptive value to them at the beginning. I mention Christianity alone only because it is the one I have even a tiny bit of understanding about . . . I can’t speak about the others at all. And, of course, there is Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., which I know even less about.
Anyway, I thought this might be helpful in future discussions of the Hero archetype.
