Understanding the Problems with Joseph Campbell's Use of Symbols

By Sean Froyd

While reading Joseph Campbell, something scratched against the grain. I could not place why I found him disquieting, or why I disagreed vehemently with his methods. I could not disagree very much with his conclusions, because they did follow logically from the evidence he provided. So what was wrong?

In reading some criticism of Campbell in Paths to the Power of Myth, and in re-reading some of Campbell’s own work, most notably the Flight of The Wild Gander, I have come to a sort of peace about Joseph Campbell. It is his treatment of symbols that troubles me, and I wrestle with that each time I read Campbell.

From the Flight of the Wild Gander, he explains that the symbol should be a bow, while we ought to be arrows. In order to fly away from the bow of the symbol, according to Campbell, we need to divest it of all meaning so that we can leave like a shot. Using this metaphor, understanding both what Campbell is and how he uses the symbols from world mythology has allowed me to take a more neutral position.

In exploring his usage of symbols, his method of universality needs to be grasped. It is the drive for universality that is the reason for moving beyond the original meaning of the symbol. Understanding the why of his methods is important on the surface, but examples are required in order to see some problems with his treatment of symbols. It is in those examples that what is lost in Campbell’s method is seen.

Campbell the Universalist

The first thing to explore is what Joseph Campbell’s purpose is in how he uses symbols. It is here that Robert Segal, in his essay “Joseph Campbell as the Perennial Philosopher”, sheds light on Campbell’s approach.

Segal says that there are two types of people central to the argument for and against Campbell: the universalists and the particularists. The particularists believe the importance lies in what differentiates each thing from the next. The universalists look for the instances of parity. As Segal says, “Universalists are those who emphasize the similarities among phenomena; particularists those who emphasize the differences” (82).

Throughout Campbell’s work he uses symbols to draw parallels amongst disparate cultures. He looks for instances of analogous symbols, and uses them to further a point that he is making. A small example is when he draws the conclusion of old age looking towards a paradise in Masks of God: Primitive Mythology. He takes Odin’s hall of Valhalla (where warriors fight all day and feast all night) and makes it correspond to the Polynesian warrior paradise (120). He depends on the sameness to make his point, in this case about how the human mind could view goals after death. He uses the symbol of the paradisiacal realm. This is just one instance among hundreds, perhaps thousands, of comparative symbols throughout Campbell’s work.

There are, in the aim of fairness, just as many instances where Campbell points out that myths have different points and ideas in them according to Segal. But as Segal quotes Campbell as saying, “…by casting off the local, historical inflection, one comes to the elementary idea which is the path to one’s own innermost heart” (90). Segal goes on to say “As fully as Joseph Campbell emphasizes, not merely concedes, the differences among myths, he finally dismisses all differences as trivial” (90). Campbell glosses over these differences in order to support his points.

Segal, however, does not just settle on labeling Campbell a Universalist. Segal goes on to point out that Campbell, in addition to being a universalist, is a perennialist. A perennialist is someone who believes that all things are one. A Segal states it, a perennialist thinks that the “essential belief said to be found in all religions and myths is mystical: all things, including humans and god, are said to be one” (85). Campbell does emphasize the mystical in the religions, and does point out that many myths have basis in the human psyche, but I do not necessarily agree with Segal in saying he’s a perennialist.

There are certainly aspects of perennialism in Campbell’s works, especially in Inner Reaches of Outer Space and The Flight of the Wild Gander, but I have not read enough of his other work to be able to support Segal’s point of perennialism. However, Segal’s assignation of universalism to Campbell’s work is something that would be difficult to disagree with, as it is a strain that runs throughout his work. Campbell’s use of symbols stems from his aim to highlight the similarities in myth. This method is one I disagree with and one where problems may occur in the details. Karen King highlights one issue dealing with Christian Gnosticism where Campbell’s method may cause error, and at the very least, confusion for the reader about Gnosticism.

Particulars and problems in Campbell

In King’s essay “Social Factors and Mythic Knowing: Joseph Campbell and Christian Gnosis”, she speaks about Campbell’s methods of universalism, and how it ignores the particular social ramifications of myths he may be using. While this critique was informative, it was more her thoughts on how Campbell misused the Christian Gnostic tradition that interested me.

King claims that there may be some confusion about Christian Gnosticism in the way that Campbell quotes and uses examples from it. Her problem comes from Campbell’s view of universalism, in the way he takes the parallels from different traditions and highlights the similar symbols. In Campbell’s own words from “The Message of Myth” video about a belief about god being in and of the individual “Blasphemy in the normal way of thinking in Christianity, but it’s the very essence of Gnosticism, and of the Thomas gospel” (00:33). In doing this, the details of the tradition are lost, and an incorrect view of the beliefs of Gnostics is being spread. In King’s words, “this confusion is amplified by his treatment of Gnosticism as a unified, coherent phenomenon. In fact, the modern label “Gnosticism” houses a wide variety of distinct mythologies” (178). As Segal said, and King claims, the examples Campbell chooses support the similarities of the tradition to others, but in doing so, overlooks the differences inherent among the specific mythology that are important to the origin and context of the symbols.

The contexts of the symbols are unimportant to Campbell’s points, according to King. As she says, “Instead, the bits and pieces of Gnostic myths he cites serve only as illustrations for his own preconceived views” (79). A harsh criticism and a telling one if Campbell does the same with other traditions. Can King’s view of Campbell’s picking and choosing to support his points be shown elsewhere?

I will bring up the example of Odin, the Scandinavian and Germanic head of the gods, the Allfather. Bringing this up will not only support the critique that King leveled of Campbell only choosing the symbols that support his views, but will show the critical error in leaving out the original meaning ascribed to the symbol. It is especially damaging when that original meaning contradicts the point that Campbell is trying to make.

Odin Allfather and Joseph Campbell

Campbell brings in the example of Odin several times in his books, and the books that I’ll be concentrating on for this critique are the Masks of God series, in addition to Inner Reaches of Outer Space, and The Flight of the Wild Gander. Campbell uses Odin to support his points in each of these books, but does he take the symbol of Odin out of the mythological context to support points where it may not apply? This exploration is not only to understand that, but to understand if King’s points can be applied to Campbell as a whole, and not just to his usage of the Christian Gnostics.

Campbell’s usage of Odin (also spelled Othin, this being dependent on translation, though Campbell appears to use it indiscriminately) is often combined with Wotan (or Wodan, both names for the Germanic god of death and battle), and can be seen in his works as all of them. All these names Campbell combines to mean the same thing: the Viking/Germanic high god which can be equated to Mercury in the Greco/Roman pantheon.

Campbell uses Odin to support points in these books several times. He uses Odin twice in Inner Reaches of Outer Space. The first to support his claim of a universal mathematical number, backed by the example of Odin’s warrior hall of Valhalla(9), and the second to exemplify Odin’s sacrificing “himself to Himself” and the appearance of the eagle in the sacrificial tree(Yggdrasil, the central world tree)(75). Campbell uses the second example to show the parallel of birds to support the fact that they’re a symbol of the spirit and spiritual flight. Neither of which have much to do with the cultural context and meaning of whom or what Odin represented.

In the Masks of God, Campbell mentions Odin in Creative Mythology, Occidental Mythology, and in Primitive Mythology. In Creative Mythology, Odin is brought up to support the common strain of self-sacrifice in order to gain knowledge (111). Occidental Mythology has perhaps the most references to Odin, bringing up the sacrifice on the tree (482,488) and the service the god played to mead and poetry (489), and another reference to the number of doors in Valhalla (485). This reference to Valhalla is brought up again in Primitive Mythology, as was pointed out earlier.

Valhalla is the next step for warriors, but the beginning of seeing how Campbell’s universalism weakens his point when he does not take the context for the symbol. It is in this societal context that the original meaning of the symbol can be found. In understanding not only this misconception of Valhalla, but of Odin’s role in the mythology, H.R. Ellis Davidson is an enormous help, especially his book Gods and Myths of the Viking Age.

Campbell likens Valhalla to the Polynesian warrior paradise. There is a large difference here. Valhalla was not a paradise for every warrior, only for Odin’s chosen. Not only that, but it is populated with warriors that Odin himself had betrayed. As Davidson points out, “those who joined Odin in Valhalla were princely warriors, kings, and distinguished leaders and heroes who followed the god in life and pledged him their loyal service in return for his help”(48). Davidson describes how Odin could turn on his chosen to bring them to Valhalla, most notably in the example of Harald Wartooth, whom the god protected and raised up, only for Odin to cast him from his chariot and kill him personally. The original context of Valhalla, once understood, hardly provides the parallel to the warrior-paradise of the Polynesians.

There is also Campbell’s interpretation of Odin hanging on the tree as a sacrifice to himself. I will also point out that in almost all of the quotes to deal with this concept(excepting the one in Primitive Mythology on 121) there is a capitalization of the second “Himself”, portraying I would assume a higher authority. Campbell likens Odin to Christ or Buddha who sacrificed the self to a better understanding and knowledge. Contextually, however, this comparison is an error. First, none of the sources capitalize the “Himself”, to do so lends an importance that originally is not there. Secondly, Odin in his mythological context rarely raises himself to Christ’s or Buddha’s level of compassion. Understanding the symbol in the original context and where they come from, especially in these examples, weakens the point that Campbell is trying to make.

Understanding the problems that can be encountered by ignoring the mythological context of a symbol points out weaknesses in Campbell’s arguments. A universalist would say that the differences are unimportant compared to the similarities as Segal pointed out, but even in these examples it shows that there is a flaw in using these things for highlighting similarities when the differences are so great. So why does Campbell do it?

Campbell’s Symbol and Meaning

Campbell views a Symbol as an object which directs energy. He believes that when the symbol is given some form of meaning (i.e. contextually, mythological), that it serves for the person to engage with that energy. Campbell then argues that when the meaning is taken away from the symbol, then the energy is redirected. As he says in Flight of the Wild Gander:
A symbol-and here I want to propose a definition-is an energy-evoking and –directing agent. When given a meaning, either corporeal or spiritual, it serves for the engagement of the energy itself- this may be compared to the notching of the arrow to the bowstring and drawing of the bow. When, however, all meaning is withdrawn, the symbol serves for disengagement, and the energy is dismissed-to its own end, which cannot be defined in terms of the parts of the bow. (178)

His analogy of the bow and arrow is fitting here, the bow being the symbol while we are the arrow. When the meaning (or energy) is taken away from the bow, we as arrows use it to depart to wherever the energy will take us…that location being indefinable in terms of the symbol, or the bow.

Using this metaphor of bow and arrow, one can follow through Campbell’s methods and usage of symbols in places where they would not normally fit mythologically. How is this possible? Campbell ascribes no meaning to the symbol, so it can become part of a bow to allow us as arrows to fly away from the symbols which are empty.

Look at Campbell’s use of Gnostic texts…is it important to point out that the symbols are not part of a unified Gnostic belief system, is it important to understand the meaning that the Gnostics ascribed to their symbols? No. Now that the symbol, in Campbell’s usage, is taken out of contextual meaning, it allows us to spring from it along the lines of Campbell’s energy path. Campbell doesn’t allow us to follow where the energy may take us, but guides us along to other examples, other symbols sans meanings, in a rush to whatever point he is trying to make. That point can be anything from how humans turn to paradisiacal thoughts at the end of their lives to the importance of being in the world, rather than just observing it.

Now we can understand why Campbell did not ascribe the cultural meaning to these symbols like Odin and the Gnostic beliefs: they are meant to be without meaning. By taking away that meaning which lends itself to differences, Campbell highlights the similarities. This is in step with Segal’s view of Campbell as a Universalist. To requote Campbell via Segal, “…by casting off the local, historical inflection, one comes to the elementary idea which is the path to one’s own innermost heart” (90). What can the inflection be, if not the contextual meaning?

My Views on Campbell

My first reaction to Campbell, which incidentally I had never been introduced before, was one of disbelief. My thoughts ranged from that is an incorrect usage of a myth (or in the terms of this paper, symbol) to mild outrage at his comments about Christianity. I didn’t quite know how to take what he was doing.

However, taking into account the metaphor of the bow and arrow, I can now understand why and how he was using symbols. I am still mildly shocked and disapproving, but at least he makes sense to me now. The symbols he uses are already devoid of meaning for him, so it allows him to use them out of mythological context. As a student of myth Campbell’s view has made me wary. I fully agree with King when she says of Campbell’s work, “One can learn much about Joseph Campbell in reading his books, but very little about Gnosticism” (79). After reading Campbell, one could replace ‘Gnosticism’ in King’s statement with any particular mythology.

Here is where Campbell has informed me the most for my study of myth. I may not be a particularist in that I mean to emphasize the differences, nor am I a universalist to only emphasize the similarities. Rather, I want to study myths and symbols in their context. Not only will this tell us about the myths and symbols themselves, but doing so will inform us about how we ourselves may look at symbols and myths of our specific context, and help us move with an energy outward. While I may disagree with Campbell’s methods, I do agree with the fact that the energy of myth is powerful.

Campbell says this about mythology in Masks of God: Occidental Mythology:
Clearly, mythology is no toy for children. Nor is it a matter of archaic, merely scholarly concern, of no moment to modern men of action. For its symbols(whether in the tangible form of images or in the abstract form of ideas) touch and release the deepest centers of motivation, moving literate and illiterate alike, moving mobs, moving civilizations.(12)

It is this quote from Campbell that I will stay and dwell on for my mythological studies. I disagree with Campbell’s view of the symbol to be meaningless, because to make it meaningless is to rob its significance to the people who created and used the symbol originally, as well as rob any possible feelings that mythologists may have outside of energy direction for said symbol.

Understanding that, I want to close with a small adjustment to Campbell’s analogy of the bow and arrow, which is especially relevant for further mythological studies. The symbol is still the bow, and we are the arrow. The meaning is the energy. But we keep the meaning in the symbol, and with that meaning we launch ourselves away. Just as how much kinetic energy is in the bow transfers to how far the arrow will fly, how much meaning is in our symbols will affect how far we fly.

Works Cited

Campbell, Joseph. The Flight of the Wild Gander: Explorations in the Mythological Dimension. New York: Viking, 1969.

---. The Inner Reaches of Outer Space: Metaphor as Myth and as Religion. Novato, California: New World Library, 2002.

---. The Masks of God: Creative Mythology. New York: Viking, 1968.

---. The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology. New York: Viking, 1964.

---. The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology. New York: Viking, 1969.

Davidson, H.R. Ellis. Gods and Myths of the Viking Age. New York: Bell, 1981.

King, Karen. “Social Factors in Mythic Knowing: Joseph Campbell and Christian Gnosis”. Paths to the Power of Myth: Joseph Campbell and the Study of Religion. Ed. by Daniel C. Noel. New York: Crossroad. 1990. 68-80.

"The Message of the Myth." Episode 2. The Power of Myth. 6 videocassettes. Interviews with Joseph Campbell by Bill Moyers. PBS. Mystic Fire Video and Parabola Magazine, 1988.

Segal, Robert. “Joseph Campbell the Perennial Philosopher: An Analysis of His
Universalism”. Paths to the Power of Myth: Joseph Campbell and the Study of
Religion. Ed. by Daniel C. Noel. New York: Crossroad. 1990. 81-96.

Posted by john at March 10, 2006 02:15 PM