Mythic Thinking

Before I get tied up in my nightly visual indulgences, having decided to skip the caucuses, I wanted to comment on impartiality. This week, I am sitting on a jury for the first time – enthusiastically, I might add – and the issue of impartiality kept coming up during the jury selection. I am reminded of a comment one of my professors made, which alleged to a degree that the mythologist’s role is that of impartiality in all cases. I agree and I disagree with that assertion. On the one hand, a degree of impartiality towards myth is critical for the comparative approach to work properly. If I hold onto a particular perspective, such as such and such religion is evil or primitive and therefore less worthy than my own, it will slant my interpretation of that particular religion. Any degree of slant takes the mythologist out of the realm of comparison and makes him or her more of a theologian or other specialist in that particular myth.

I can already think of at least one of my cohorts disagreeing, which is perfectly fine. There is no wrong way to approach mythology. I only speak of my perspective.

The other hand requires a degree of partiality for the mythologist to function as a citizen. If I were not partial to such and such candidate, then I would be unable to make a sound, reasonable vote in the election. For the record, I was impartial/undecided until about 2 weeks ago.

I don’t find many people pointing out that Joseph Campbell wasn’t exactly impartial himself. When reading his essays, many of them go back to the same fundamental themes: Hinduism and eastern philosophy, Native American folklore, myth and history, and the perspective that myth is dead in Western culture.

Or maybe, it’s just not being vocalized (both a mythologist’s and Joe’s respective partialities).

Sorry folks, but it’s time for my indulgences. The TV schedule isn’t going to wait for me to work this out.