Virginia Press Journal 1 - 1/20/2026 - On Campbell and Freudian Concepts of Gender
As I forced my way through Campbell's heavy chunk of text, characteristics of gender essentialism seemed to escape from between the lines like fleas at every opportunity. Universal concepts such as birth and death obviously must contain some mention these biological realities, but gratingly Campbell seems to fixate endlessly on his own cultural conceptions of male and female. Multiple others also expressed this frustration when brought up in discussion, and some even reported it made them unable to finish the assigned reading. Did anyone else struggle so thoroughly with this man?
These understandings, including the repeated references to Freud's musings on psychosexual frustration, oftentimes make the reading absolutely agonizing. I don't blame them! In the section on Woman as the Temptress, to make his point about how Heroes must gather control on the simultaneously beautiful and ugly of the world, Campbell literally describes how woman is to be life giving and man is to be her master. Jesus!!! Abstract concepts of feminine and masculine simply are not concrete or universal. Every culture has their own symbols and attached meanings in regards to gender and despite his global scope of mythology, his utilization of these stories tends to be in service of his own ethnocentric view.
This is not to say that Campbell fails to adequately describe the content and his philosophical musings, but he does fail to address his cultural preconceptions in order to be even slightly sensitive. Maybe in some ways this can be attributed to the time period, as the scientific fact of the day simply was this sexist, but when deeply interpreting the experiences of humanity it is absurd to discount fifty-percent of all human lives lived! This is an interesting snapshot into the way our cultural interpretation of symbols can change so drastically in seventy-five years; what once may have been a perfectly acceptable or even respectful literary device is basically Draconian now. While the archetypal depths Campbell addresses are universal, the symbols he uses to explain them are not, thus the imprecision of storytelling and vicarious experiences.
Comments
Post a Comment