Academic Perspectives on Myth
Because myths are symbols of human experience, they can be analyzed in a variety of ways, depending upon the perspective of the scholar. Years ago, many scholars viewed myths as symbols of the external environment. Those who created myths were thought to have observed nature and interpreted the behavior of human beings in a parallel manner. For example, heroes were considered symbols of the sun. They wielded swords that symbolized the sun’s rays against monsters that symbolized clouds and night, the enemies of the sun. Each hero story was thus a symbol of the conflict between day and night and, by extension, between good and evil.
In the 20th century, the symbolic interpretation of myth, moved from the external environment to the internal environment of the unconscious mind. Sigmund Freud and his followers view myths as the expression of the individual's unconscious wishes, fears, and drives. For example, Otto Rank explains the characteristics of the traditional hero in terms of infantile hostility, childhood fantasies, and rebellion against one's father.
Carl Jung and his followers, among them Carl Kerenyi, Erich Neumann, and, more broadly, Joseph Campbell, view myths as the expression of a universal, collective unconscious. In their theory innate psychological characteristics, common to all human beings, determine how people throughout the world and throughout history experience and respond to the process of living. The contents of the collective unconscious are divided into archetypes - such as the mother, the child, the hero, the trickster, and the giant - but these are simply image frameworks. A particular individual's life experiences determine in what particular shape and form the archetypal images will be expressed Thus, the fact that myths from around the world contain many similar themes reflects the existence of a common collective unconscious. The fact that they differ in their treatment of these themes reflects the influence of each culture's particular physical, social, economic and political environment on the archetypes.
Scholars in this century have interpreted myths in other ways as well. Mircea Eliade, a historian of religions, views myths as the essence of religion, conceived from a genuine religious experience. It is the sacred experience that gives myths their structure and their utility. The ancient world contained a multitude of co-existing religious ideas and forms: different types of monotheism and polytheism (both female-dominated and male-dominated), nature worship, and ancestor worship. Consequently, numerous similarities and connections exist from one culture to another. This is evident from the study of various aspects of the religious experience, such as the nature of divinities, creation myths, sacrifices, rituals, death, and paradise.
The anthropologist Paul Radin views myths from economic perspective. The individual’s actual struggle for survival in the face of economic uncertainty, caused by an insufficient food supply and poor technology, creates fears that life will be unhappy and short. Religious leaders manipulate these fears for their own material benefit, often in concert with the political leaders of the community.
Anthropologist Claude Lėvi-Strauss views myths as abstract constructions rather than narrative tales or symbols of experience. The structure of all human minds is identical and is revealed by the similar ways people solve their problems. Myths are identical products from identical minds, so myths from around the world possess a common structure. They reveal the conflict between opposing forces - such as life and death, or nature and culture. To discover the meaning of a particular myth, one must focus on its underlying structure rather than its narrative content or any symbolic meaning. This structure invariably reveals tensions in social relations or economic problems. The analysis of myths proves that human beings, no matter how primitive their technology, are not mentally inferior. Their myths demonstrate that they possess the intellectual capacity to understand the world in which they live.
Part of the fascination of mythology involves viewing it from a variety of perspectives simultaneously. Each discipline offers a valuable contribution, increasing our appreciation of the whole.
WORLD MYTHOLOGY
An Antology of the Great Myths and Epics
Donna Rosenberg
пи.си. а ви б як міфи розглядали?
який підхід найбільше до вподоби?
In the 20th century, the symbolic interpretation of myth, moved from the external environment to the internal environment of the unconscious mind. Sigmund Freud and his followers view myths as the expression of the individual's unconscious wishes, fears, and drives. For example, Otto Rank explains the characteristics of the traditional hero in terms of infantile hostility, childhood fantasies, and rebellion against one's father.
Carl Jung and his followers, among them Carl Kerenyi, Erich Neumann, and, more broadly, Joseph Campbell, view myths as the expression of a universal, collective unconscious. In their theory innate psychological characteristics, common to all human beings, determine how people throughout the world and throughout history experience and respond to the process of living. The contents of the collective unconscious are divided into archetypes - such as the mother, the child, the hero, the trickster, and the giant - but these are simply image frameworks. A particular individual's life experiences determine in what particular shape and form the archetypal images will be expressed Thus, the fact that myths from around the world contain many similar themes reflects the existence of a common collective unconscious. The fact that they differ in their treatment of these themes reflects the influence of each culture's particular physical, social, economic and political environment on the archetypes.
Scholars in this century have interpreted myths in other ways as well. Mircea Eliade, a historian of religions, views myths as the essence of religion, conceived from a genuine religious experience. It is the sacred experience that gives myths their structure and their utility. The ancient world contained a multitude of co-existing religious ideas and forms: different types of monotheism and polytheism (both female-dominated and male-dominated), nature worship, and ancestor worship. Consequently, numerous similarities and connections exist from one culture to another. This is evident from the study of various aspects of the religious experience, such as the nature of divinities, creation myths, sacrifices, rituals, death, and paradise.
The anthropologist Paul Radin views myths from economic perspective. The individual’s actual struggle for survival in the face of economic uncertainty, caused by an insufficient food supply and poor technology, creates fears that life will be unhappy and short. Religious leaders manipulate these fears for their own material benefit, often in concert with the political leaders of the community.
Anthropologist Claude Lėvi-Strauss views myths as abstract constructions rather than narrative tales or symbols of experience. The structure of all human minds is identical and is revealed by the similar ways people solve their problems. Myths are identical products from identical minds, so myths from around the world possess a common structure. They reveal the conflict between opposing forces - such as life and death, or nature and culture. To discover the meaning of a particular myth, one must focus on its underlying structure rather than its narrative content or any symbolic meaning. This structure invariably reveals tensions in social relations or economic problems. The analysis of myths proves that human beings, no matter how primitive their technology, are not mentally inferior. Their myths demonstrate that they possess the intellectual capacity to understand the world in which they live.
Part of the fascination of mythology involves viewing it from a variety of perspectives simultaneously. Each discipline offers a valuable contribution, increasing our appreciation of the whole.
WORLD MYTHOLOGY
An Antology of the Great Myths and Epics
Donna Rosenberg
пи.си. а ви б як міфи розглядали?
який підхід найбільше до вподоби?