|
Heroes
Jan 26, 2016 17:30:15 GMT
Post by friartook on Jan 26, 2016 17:30:15 GMT
I've been curious to read some Joseph Campbell for a long time. His ideas of the Monomyth and the Hero with a Thousand Faces intrigued me when I heard them described and/or mentioned. I've had The Heroes Journey on hold at my local library for a long time now (somebody is taking there sweet dang time), so I searched Audible for something I could listen to while working. I found this: Joseph Campbell and the Power of MythI'm 25 minutes into the 6 hour recording. I am convinced that if you haven't studied Campbell, your education as a DM/GM/Storyteller is incomplete.
|
|
|
Post by dm_mainprize on Jan 26, 2016 18:00:00 GMT
I completely agree, Hero with a Thousand Faces and the Power of Myth have been on my list of too read asap for far to long. Many of his ideas were taken directly by George Lucas for the original Star Wars Trilogy which in my opinion is part of the reason why that trilogy resonates so well with people all over the globe. It is a story we know, its in our dna and our heritage dating back to the earliest story teller. So yes I second this notion 100% Here is a youtube playlist with some clips that we could also watch if someone doesn't have time for the full thing. Youtube
|
|
|
Heroes
Feb 14, 2016 21:29:22 GMT
Post by janewalksfar on Feb 14, 2016 21:29:22 GMT
Campbell is great....a bit essentialist, but illuminating nonetheless.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Feb 19, 2016 22:43:42 GMT
Campbell is great....a bit essentialist, but illuminating nonetheless. Took me a while to get back to this, but can you explain the term "essentialist"?
|
|
|
Heroes
Feb 21, 2016 18:40:09 GMT
Post by janewalksfar on Feb 21, 2016 18:40:09 GMT
Sure. It's a term I've run into most as a critique in academia. Basically, it's when someone makes sweeping generalizations that erase or minimize difference. So while Campbell's idea of the monomyth is interesting because it can help humanize other cultures by focusing on common traits, it can also be problematic because there's a tendency to focus on the characteristics that most easily lend themselves to dominant western narratives.
Campbell was mad-popular in the 70s for example because in a lot of circles essentialism was seen as useful for coalition building and treating people/cultures fairly (ie: feminists focused women as one category who shared common [essential] traits, psychiatrists were encouraged not to focus on categories like race/gender/class because all people are the same.)
There was a push-back in the mid-80s when patients were like, "Actually, being African American is fundamental to understanding who I am and my psychological state" and intersectional feminists began to argue that the experience of a bisexual working class woman is very different from the experience of a heterosexual upper class woman or a teenage girl in India. Similarly, in anthropology and religious studies (where Campbell was influential) folks started to notice important details tended to get minimized in favor of fitting into the bigger, shared picture. And that can be a problem because those pieces that don't fit open up space for questions, new perspectives, etc....different ways of seeing, telling stories that may not align with the monomyth.
By the same token, the argument goes, we need to be mindful of monomyths (mega-narratives, homoglossia) because they tend to align the values of dominant cultures by flattening out the differences/uniqueness of minority groups, less powerful voices, etc. Critics of essentialism tend to celebrate meta-narratives (heteroglossia, etc.)--the idea that having/reading/learning many "little" stories or experiences reveals more than lumping them together into one "big" story.
Hope that clarifies.
|
|
|
Post by friartook on Feb 21, 2016 21:27:17 GMT
Very much so, thank you!
This seems to tie into a lot of discussions I've had lately regarding racism/sexism. The idea that only the "dominant" racial group can participate in active racism because racism is a systemic issue, not an individual issue (I may be expressing this poorly, it's a new idea to me, and I am not an academic or scholar of these issues by any means). Also ties into "I don't see race" as being an outdated and overly simplistic viewpoint.
My one quibble here is the idea that Campbell focuses on "western narratives". He spends a heck of a lot of time talking about Buddhism and eastern ideals, even going so far as to put them on a pedestal at times.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Heroes
Feb 22, 2016 0:27:26 GMT
Post by janewalksfar on Feb 22, 2016 0:27:26 GMT
Very much so, thank you! This seems to tie into a lot of discussions I've had lately regarding racism/sexism. The idea that only the "dominant" racial group can participate in active racism because racism is a systemic issue, not an individual issue (I may be expressing this poorly, it's a new idea to me, and I am not an academic or scholar of these issues by any means). Also ties into "I don't see race" as being an outdated and overly simplistic viewpoint. My one quibble here is the idea that Campbell focuses on "western narratives". He spends a heck of a lot of time talking about Buddhism and eastern ideals, even going so far as to put them on a pedestal at times. Thanks! No problem! I jokingly identify myself as a Social Justice Paladin at times, so I enjoy these conversations. ;-)
As far as the east goes, I'm not too familiar with Campbell's work as a whole, mostly just the original "Hero With a Thousand Faces" --which, if I understand it correctly has been revised and expanded a couple times. And my encounter with the book was def. in a Western history context as a lit. course focused on epic poetry (ie: Greek, Roman, European), so it was in that context that I ran across the essentialist debate.
|
|