The similiarities and differences between the study of myth in the main stream and Jung
Author: Christopher Chayban
Robert Segal says that “all theorists of myth, not just Jung, are interested in the similarities.” (Jung on mythology pg.12). Segal’s criteria, is centered around what he thinks are the three main questions. What is the subject matter, origin and function of the myth? (Jung on mythology pg.3). I would like to add one more, what is the definition myth? According to Karl Kerenyi,“The Greek word mythologia contains the sense not only of “stories” (mythoi, but also of “telling” (legein): a form of narration…that it awoke the awareness that the story personally concerned the narrator and the audience.” (The gods of the Greeks pg.4). Touching upon the unconscious of individuals is by definition a function of myth.
Having discussed the similarities, let’s shift focus to the differences. Segal says that most theories only answer one, perhaps two of the three main questions but Jung banks home on all three. (Jung on mythology pg.3). Where the mainstream selects the conscious as its starting point in the external world, Jung comes from the standpoint of the unconscious, internal world, where the archetypes and the archetypal images of the collective unconscious rule. Where myth is an allegory for the mainstream and serves to explain the external world, Jung says myth is a product of mind, projected or only expressed by the objects of the outer world. (Jung on mythology pg.24). The great mother archetype is constellated within by the outer personal mother. (Walker pg.10).
But the main difference is, the mainstream sees myth as stories that we’ve outgrown. Whereas, Jung sees myths as where the individual continues to grow. Like a dream, where the unconscious compensates one-sidedness in an individual, the myth is compensation for the current culture. (Walker pg.19). The primitive for whom, myth is a vital function, is just as one-sided as the modern who is “proud of his rationality.” (Walker pg.22-23). The former, one-sidedly unconscious, the latter one-sidedly conscious. (Jung on mythology pg.30-31). Myth is not just talked about (as it is for the mainstream), for Jung, myth is something experienceable and allows entree into the unconscious. (Jung on mythology pg.17)
Even in emphasizing the similarities between theorists of myth, Jung managed to be different. Segal says that at the bottom of it, mythologists are interested in the similarities more than differences but, “Jung, however, goes further. He repeatedly declares myths to be not merely similar but outright identical-an identity that he attributes to their identical origin:” (Jung on mythology pg.12).
The collective unconscious is a mirror but very rarely does anyone look into it. For some, it might be fear of seeing who you really are, for others it may be that the sameness that we are reduced to as a basic and common human archetypal pattern in the collective unconscious, impinges on their perceived ego uniqueness, “Nobody is like me.” The personal myth could be the key to bringing both the individual and the collective together. I apologize for not being able to find this quote but either Jung or Edinger said that Christ and Buddha were symbols of the Jungian “Self” because they were both unique individuals who lived their myth, but also represented something collective in the form of a religion which still strikes people in the heart of the collective unconscious today. Through the agency of myth It appears to be possible to be a unique individual without having to fear who you are or feel your uniqueness reduced because it will (hopefully) resonate with you on a deep enough level that the myth takes ascendency, while the fears fade away.
How important is the individual and the myth he or she is projecting? The ancients didn’t have a concept of the unconscious like we do now but it doesn’t mean that they weren’t close, “The conclusion that the myth-makers thought in much the same way as we still think in dreams is almost self-evident.” (Jung on mythology pg.21-22). It seems to be our jobs today as leaners and educators to translate the unconscious as the myth makers attempted to do.
Everyone has a story, and enough individuals with a common story perhaps produce the cultural myth. Nevertheless, what becomes important is how that story is told. A quote from Kerenyi, “The original story-tellers of Greek mythology justified their variations simply with the act of narration, each in his own fashion, of the story. In mythology, to tell is to justify. The words: “it was told”, which the reader of this book will so often encounter, are not intended to compensate for the fact that the tones of the original story-teller, and often, alas, the original narrative itself, are now extinct. They are intended to concentrate the reader’s attention on the only thing that matters-namely, what was told.” (The gods of the Greeks pg.9).
The important thing is “what was told.” What are we telling or being told today? What are we justifying? Is the mainstream media our myth makers of today? If so, does that mean what is resonate with all the negative press that gets put out there for us to consume because it touches upon something deep in the unconscious?
As inflated as this may be, it seems to me, that the opportunity for responsibility can fall on us if we wish to seize it, to be a compensation for the untrained myth makers in the media or anyone else, by seriously educating and training ourselves on the topic of myth and finding our own meaning in the peace and silence of the psyche, rather than in the intensity of the mythic stories being put out there in the form negative external events that involve guns or presidents.
The main difference between the mainstream approaches to the study of mythology and Jung’s study of mythology come about from the dichotomy of “inner and outer” which differ directionally and are psychically opposing viewpoints. The mainstream approaches tend to explain myths in terms of external phenomena. That the ancient people of antiquity derived these stories primarily from their environment, as a way to explain how the world works. For example, the Demeter and Persephone myth as a way to explain the seasonal changes. Persephone’s abduction into the underworld and Demeter’s refusal to let the crops grow until she was granted the opportunity to see her daughter again, would be seen as a way to explain the reason we have the season of Winter and why crops decay and die away. Upon Persephone’s return from the underworld back to her mother would serve to explain how Spring happens and why the plants begin to flower. Jung would ask well, why not just say exactly what happens like science does? Why doesn’t this process occur in dreams exactly the way it appears in waking life? What is the need to anthropomorphize? The reason for this is, Jung thought that the psyche provided its own meaning with myth, in order to integrate the ineffable unconscious reality into consciousness. Into the “whole man,” composed of inner and outer realities. Because Jung thought that the unconscious psyche produced myths, it somewhat refuted the idea that mythic stories were similar because of their spread through cultural diffusion. Instead, Jung would argue that the psyche produces myth’s irrespective and independently of locality of the environment. Jung differs in his claim from the mainstream in that myths are similar due to the psychic structures in the individual, which is likely the common inherited brain structure of the human being.
Lastly, unlike the mainstream, whose focus remains external and on scientific classifications, Jung’s focus is internal, on healing the crisis of meaning that myth provides therapeutically. It is the job of the Depth Psychologist to translate this mythic language of the unconscious into the language of the conscious. (Jung on mythology pg.17). The myth is not only collective and a product of culture, passed down from lineage to lineage. On the contrary, myth is personal, “A myth is not merely a myth in its own right. It is a myth for someone.” (Jung on mythology pg.13). To end, myth speaks to the psyche and “expresses life more precisely than does science.” (Jung on mythology pg.29)
Resources:
Jung, C. G. (1998). Jung on mythology: key readings selected and introduced by Robert A. Segal. 1998: Routledge.
Kerényi, K. (2010). The gods of the Greeks. London: Thames and Hudson.
Walker, S. F. (2002). Jung and the Jungians on myth. London: Routledge.
Leave a Reply