I want to comment on the "Thinking Mythologically" panel this afternoon in part because no one else from our class attended that panel. It introduces an extraordinary concept into our pedagogy. However, it may come as a surprise to most of you that I have some reservations.
The concept of thinking mythologically is based on the writings of Joseph Campbell, an influential thoerist who described the idea of a "monomyth" in his famous book, The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Essentially, this monomyth describes the hero's journey in archetypal terms: the call to journey; dragon-battle (a confrontation of deeply held fear), crucifixion, night journey, belly of the whale, etc. (all forms of katabasis for those who know their Aristotle); Apotheosis, theft of Elixer (Elixer here means a boon from the gods), etc.; trials leading to the return of Elixer. The thesis presented here is that the archetypal structure gives students a way to understand their place in the world through experiences (personal and literary) of the hero's journey.
One of the more provocative positions advanced here was the idea that we need to colapse the idea of separation between church and state in order to allow students to conceptualize a moral and spiritual design for their lives. While I agree in principle, I find this problematic. The tired concept that literature is a set of structures that can be accessed through the skillful deployment of a set of critical tools is not valid. We rarely read to go fishing for symbols. We do read to better understand our place in the world as ethical and just beings; to question, modify, and eventually solidify these understandings by testing them against the greatest minds of all the ages. That requires students to be aware of their core values, their ultimatate narratives, in order to question them. That may require a discussion about spiritual values.
Now this obviously becomes problematic because of dogmatic conventions that may conflict with those held by other individuals. While these are essential parts of a student's experience, and therefore worthy of validation, questions of advocacy can be complicated. In my discussion above, students have the right and the ability to conceptualize their ultimate narratives in a language of their own. As teachers, I belive it is one of our primary duties to make students understand the importance of respect and sensitivity when engaging in any kind of discourse. Theoretically, then, students would be able to hold a system of values while still respecting the rights of another student to define values in a totally different discourse. I hope his makes sense so far.
The problem with this approach, as I see it, is that we are forcing a discourse for students to use to describe their ultimate narratives. This is a prescribed discourse, and assumes that the outcome of the narrative is predetermined. Instead of inventing a language to describe their experiences, that language is imposed on them. And this is also where the issues of advocacy enter our discussion. The archetypes and language Campbell uses to describe the monomyth are generally Mesopotamian, Hebraic, and Greek, all percieved through the lens of a Christian. This approach, while it describes an all-encompassing system, is Eurocentric. In his landmark, four volume Faces of God, Campbell shows a progression from Primitive Mythology through Oriental, Occidental, and finally, a predominantly European Creative Mythology. So not only are we giving our students a prescriptive language for describing their experiences, but we are also not showing equal respect to cultural and intellecual differences arising from those experiences.
Cliff's notes version: I guess what I'm saying is that there is much in this idea's roots to be admired, but the systematic nature of this approach is volatile and, I believe, subversive to the cause of furthering a just social consciousness.
Recent Comments