Campbell and Rumors of Anti-semitism

Who was Joseph Campbell? What is a myth? What does "Follow Your Bliss" mean? If you are new to the work of Joseph Campbell, this forum is a good place to start.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

Locked
porcupine
Associate
Posts: 125
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 5:00 am
Location: Providence

Post by porcupine » Mon Dec 20, 2004 10:40 am

I absolutely do not believe Campbell was an anti-Semite, or that he could be construed as one. It's an ugly and ridiculous accusation to make on such a wonderful person who has obviously inspired so many in a positive way.

However, I do believe there is something to the guilt by association that is refered to by David_Kudler in the previous post here when he says, "The work of many of Campbell's inspirations--Bastian, Jung, Frobenius, Nietzche, even Schopenhauer--was co-opted by the Nazis, through no fault of theirs (aside from Jung, who lived in Switzerland, they were all dead by the time Hitler came along) or Campbell's. But there is a certain guilt by association. I mean, all that talk about swastikas, its gotta MEAN something, right?"

What I would like to add here is something I stumbled on when researching the origin of the Chief Seattle speech, which is well discussed in the post: "Chief Seattle speech fraud".

What I left out there, was that in my investigations I came across the anthropologist Hermann Bauman. Bauman was used by Campbell as a source for many of the maps in The Historical Atlas of World Mythology Way of the Animal Powers. My girlfriend at the time who is a scholar and a second generation survivor German Jew, took note of Bauman. She has a radar for that sort of thing and she looked him up in a German library. Sure enough he was well known as one of the scholars whom Hitler and the Nazi party would use to gather historical/social/anthropological "evidence" regarding the inferiority of the Jews.

Was Campbell aware of this? Who knows. If he was, he didn't think it impacted the man's scholarship since he used him as a source so many times, all in regards to information not related to Jewish culture or anything of the sort. Actually they are some of the more interesting maps I have ever seen in a text and they have to do with patterns of bisexuality in ancient cultures.

So it becomes another guilt by association case and I don't see any connection between Campbell and anti-semitism based on his usage of Bauman's scholarship. However, if people wanted to mislead others into believing he was anti semitic, this is the kind of information that would be used to distort the record.


Bryan<br><br>"My patron saint is fighting with a ghost. He's always off somewhere when I need him most."
Raphael
Associate
Posts: 724
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 12:44 pm
Location: SPACETIME

Post by Raphael » Sat Jan 01, 2005 12:26 am

On 2003-05-27 23:28, Ted wrote:
If I remember correctly, the charge of anti-semitism was also leveled at Jung, for the same reasons. It's all a bunch of BS, of course, hardly worth discussing, simply a matter of non-knowers yakking away.

Alternatively, seems to me, all great minds, even ours, get accused of the most atrocious things. I smell Jealousy, big time!
Was it jealousy?
It was much more than that; I believe these men were all very close to an esoteric truth.
The work of many of Campbell's inspirations--Bastian, Jung, Frobenius, Nietzche, even Schopenhauer--was co-opted by the Nazis, through no fault of theirs (aside from Jung, who lived in Switzerland, they were all dead by the time Hitler came along) or Campbell's. But there is a certain guilt by association. I mean, all that talk about swastikas, its gotta MEAN something, right?
-Kudler


And what may the swastika actually represent?

http://www.jcf.org/new/forum/viewtopic. ... 3&forum=27

namaste

Raphael


ENERGY = GOD ... Share Him is the Message...<br>God can be neither created nor destroyed; he can only be transformed into other forms of God. However there is a penalty for committing sin, for transforming God and it is called Entropy.
Om Shanti
Associate
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:59 am

Post by Om Shanti » Wed Jan 12, 2005 2:13 pm

I just wanted to make post on this thread regarding an experience I had. I am a college teacher and I was at a faculty meeting talking with a fellow professor about Campbell's influence on my work, and thanking this professor for having exposed me to Campbell during my semester as his student. He was very appreciative, but quickly added, "You know Campbell was a VICIOUS anti-semite?" I was absolutely taken aback.

I went home and did some searching online and came to the conclusions that many of you have. Perhaps Campbell had various prejudices in private (very likely considering all people do), perhaps not, but there is nothing about his work or mission that shows a man interested in spreading hate. This charge has gotten out of hand when a college professor who had used Campbell's work in a class would make this damning claim based on these stories of Campbell's alleged bigotry and refer to the man as a "vicious anti-semite". What is our standard for the word “vicious”?

I find these charges profoundly unfortunate.

Mark O.
Working Associate
Posts: 1221
Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2002 4:52 am

Post by Mark O. » Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:00 am

Hi Om Shanti,

I had a similar experience (I think I wrote about it earlier in this thread). I came to the conclusion that even the most educated minds will recycle sound bites they've picked up elsewhere without checking on the veracity of the sentiment.

Mark

p.s. I had a professor condemn Campbell as a (gods forbid) "popularizer". Which in edu-speak may be a notch below anti-Semite.
Bliss 5150
Associate
Posts: 82
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 7:48 pm

Post by Bliss 5150 » Fri Feb 04, 2005 5:46 pm

When people say that to me, I say, "Trust me, unfortunately he wasn't." I then shrug my shoulders and say, "Oh well, I guess nobodies perfect."

Now I am not an anti-semite.

I just like messing with people's heads.

Many people are brave to slander devils which either, never existed, or are already dead and buried.

However, when a devil reveals himself a mere three-feet away from the pulpit...well, you can really be surprised how people quickly change their attitude.

Mark is right, most people repeat soundbites or what rhymes.

"Honesty is the Best Policy."

I think we all know better.

Methinks many people doest protest too much.
FourSwords
Associate
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:37 am

Post by FourSwords » Wed Feb 16, 2005 7:33 am

I think Joe would have appreciated this clip from the Daily Show: "God is a Three-Timing Whore":

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Pw3o5tMXaAE

<IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif">
CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear » Sun Feb 27, 2005 9:20 pm

According to former president Jimmy Carter, there is "no debate" about Israeli policy here in the states. It is, in part, on account of the "free pass" we give to those who are associated with the Old Testament (our BIG religious myth) and the victims of World War II and the holocaust. We have a blind spot on the subjects of Jews and Israel. We are, in a manner of speaking, taken by them.

_________________


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: CarmelaBear on 2006-12-09 13:07 ]</font>
User avatar
Vissi
Associate
Posts: 847
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 3:16 pm
Location: Symbol City, Deep In the Heart of the Sonoran Desert
Contact:

Post by Vissi » Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:06 am



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Vissi on 2006-12-10 13:28 ]</font>
FourSwords
Associate
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 9:37 am

Post by FourSwords » Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:53 am

On 2006-12-04 01:05, Vissi wrote:

OK, who stole Carmela?

The Jews, of course!
CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear » Sun Apr 03, 2005 2:40 pm

IMHO, there are extreme forms of anti-semitism that do not include whatever problems Jews may have with the views expressed by Joseph Campbell. One form is the racism of the neo-Nazis and aryan supremecists and another is the fundamentalist Islamic rejection of everything Jewish and Israeli. Neither of these extremes have a significant following in the U.S. or E.U., though I must admit that the clout of the oil-rich nations like Saudi Arabia can be rather impressive sometimes.

What I don't understand is why it's necessary to nitpick Joe Campbell when there are armed and dangerous foes just waiting in the wings to pounce on anyone with the temerity to suggest that equality and democracy and diversity are not only good things, but absolutely necessary to the smooth-functioning of the world economic, social and political systems.





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: CarmelaBear on 2006-12-11 12:58 ]</font>
User avatar
bodhibliss
Working Associate
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:00 am

Post by bodhibliss » Fri Apr 15, 2005 4:26 am

On 2006-12-09 13:05, CarmelaBear wrote:
What I don't understand is why it's necessary to nitpick Joe Campbell when there are armed and dangerous foes just waiting in the wings to pounce on anyone with the temerity to suggest that equality and democracy and diversity are not only good things, but absolutely necessary to the smooth-functioning of the world economic, social and political systems.
Great question, Carmela.

I have noticed that those who most often claim Joseph Campbell was an anti-Semite aren't very familiar with Campbell's work, but uncritically latch on to the suggestion as if it is etched in stone. Generally these are not unreasonable or unintelligent people - so i too find myself wondering why the unquestioning acceptance of vague, unfounded rumor (which seems based on an impression held by Brendan Gil, a colleague on the Sarah Lawrence faculty, but not expressed till after Campbell's passing - and completely at odds with the impressions of a host of other colleagues, friends, students, and even critics). Is it a conspiracy - or just some form of schadenfreude (joy taken in the suffering of others)?

In fairness, i don't think these are bad people so much as, like us all, victims of the information glut. Even without the internet, we are inundated with information - so many ideas out there, so much to read, you just can't get to it all.

I can identify: I consider myself widely and well read, but no matter how much i read, how much i learn, that leads me to even more. I might read Kant and Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and Jung, leading in one direction - but what about Heidegger - and if i get through him, there's Husserl and a host of others. I might read Sartre and Camus, but what do i know about Derrida?

And that's just a few related eddies unfolding along one current.

It's hard to manage all that information, so i think we subconsciously look for little tricks to help us sort and categorize it all - and especially helpful are any signs that allow us to ignore branches that might lead us astray.

If Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell are anti-semites, then it's easy to discount their contributions - which provides an unconscious rationale for those already disinclined to devote the time and energy to explore their exhaustive bodies of work. The mostly unconscious logic seems to be "If it's tainted, we don't have to go there, and we can throw out everything they've ever done, and simply ignore their influence ..."

Critics of Campbell and Jung aren't the only people to fall for that lazy line of thinking - we all do it from time to time, a mostly unconscious paring process. For example, i've found myself discounting Ayn Rand's writings and ideas, based on well documented accounts of personal behavior and authoritarian tendencies at odds with her philosophy.

Every time i catch myself doing something like that, i later find i have closed myself off to thoughts and ideas i didn't want to examinine - but which ultimately proved enriching and empowering (even if not quite the way author intended).

I suspect a similar dynamic is in play in the ready projection of anti-semitism onto Campbell. The widely repeated charge of anti-Semitism (never accompanied by any examples) serves as a portal guardian that scares away those not ready to enter these precincts.

Certainly those who do brave the inner sanctum, who actually read Campbell's work, do not seem so ready to accept the accusation - and this includes critics of Campbell who are familiar with his work. Within the context of Campbell's writing, his observations and conclusions, as well as personal remembrances of those who knew him, worked with him, and were taught by him, there just doesn't really seem to be anyplace to hang such an accusation.

Maybe i'm reading the situation wrong myself. This summer i met a Jewish hippie in his mid-forties who adamantly maintains Campbell is anti-semitic. He claimed to have attended a lecture in which Joseph mentioned that he thinks of things in mythic terms, so offered an anecdote about learning how to use his personal computer, experiencing it as having the personality of an Old Testament God, unyielding and unforgiving (if you're caught picking up sticks on Saturday, you're outta' there).

My hippie friend took this as an anti-Semitic remark; i took it as a humorous metaphor for violating a computer's code (or commandments), and not a comment on the Jewish people or contemporary Jewish faith.

That i didn't automatically see this as an intentional jab, a barb aimed at the Jews (i.e., they're the type of people who would believe in a God that's no better than a machine), suggested i'm probably anti-semitic as well.

Maybe he has a point - maybe the fact that i took it as Campbell intended, as a humorous metaphor that bespeaks an understanding of the frustrations of engaging computer world in terms others can more easily envision and relate to, might be a sign i don't understand his world view.

But anti-semiticism has such a high emotional charge to it, conveys such negative, shadow qualities, that all conversation ends there. We couldn't discuss any of the esoteric and metaphysical observations Campbell makes regarding the role of the Chosen People as a collective Hero - ideas that i believe this dude would have immediately grokked - because we were caught up in a literal interpretation of a metaphor.

How do we get beyond that?

I don't know.
_________________


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bodhi_Bliss on 2006-12-11 15:05 ]</font>
Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra » Tue Apr 26, 2005 6:13 pm

On 2006-12-11 14:56, Bodhi_Bliss wrote:


How do we get beyond that?

I don't know.
How about shunning everyone crying 'ANTI'?

If one calles others anti-semite, anti-feminist, anti-christian, anti-gay (homophobic) anti-communist, anti-capitalist, anti-religion, etc. it is pretty obvious that this person does not have the best interest of the group he/she pretends to support in his/her heart.


Clearly, human emotions can get out of hand and we sometimes express words that seem to express more hatred and venom than what is really within. (Moreover, missunderstandings between communicating individuals are pretty frequent too when passion is involved.) Consequently, if we get branded to be a certain type - say antifeminist or anti-christian - we indeed may become that person just to validate our previous stance. And this is precisely HOW anti-semites and other anti whatevers are born. Presto, emnity develops naturally by the person shouting 'ANTI' being validated, and the group it pretended to support gains new enemies.

In reality however it is the gay, semite, christian, religious, communist etc. etc. group that in fact gathers more and more enemies thanks to the self-serving individual attempting to curry favours for him/her self alone. Who is the real ANTI then?

Evinnra
'A fish popped out of the water only to be recaptured again. It is as I, a slave to all yet free of everything.'
http://evinnra-evinnra.blogspot.com
CarmelaBear
Associate
Posts: 4087
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 3:51 pm
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Post by CarmelaBear » Sun May 08, 2005 8:00 am

I often learn by relating my own personal experience to facts at hand. In this instance, I belong to a number of aggrieved groups that are known to take offense at the ideas of their rivals or opponents. Among these are women (especially feminists), Hispanics (or Latinos), and the financially marginal (especially the homeless*).

As a member of one of these groups (or any combination thereof), I sometimes feel terribly powerless and insignificant and dismissed or the object of derision or discrimination or violent hatred. When that happens, I become hypersensitive. Almost any slight can weigh very heavily and aggrevate any tendency to be irritable, angry, impulsive and just plain stupid.

That's why I understand where the Jews are coming from.

I was called "anti-Semitic" by one individual on one occasion, and I must assume that he was not alone. I was deemed to have merited that description by my criticism of the way Israel treats the Palestinians. The epithet didn't sting too badly on account of the fact that I was only repeating the views of my liberal Jewish friends and influences. I figured that since the Jews are the original critics, I'm just joining in on one of the back-and-forth debates that are appropriate in the context of a democratic discussion of public policy.

I've been on both sides of the name-calling. I can be both dreadfully obnoxious and dogmatically self-righteous. The gift of self-awareness has had a chastening and wisening effect on my point of view. As long as the consequences of an unpleasant conversation is more conversation, I'm pretty much okay. It's only when people start getting violent or using the power of the courts to coerce and manhandle their foes that I become a bit more upset.

In addition, when real discrimination occurs, it is sometimes masked very carefully. The victim may sense that something is wrong, but not be able to identify the wrong being committed. They notice that certain words are used and an attitude prevails. It can be insidious and pervasive. Sometimes the people who are the beneficiaries of discrimination don't even know that they are enjoying the fruits of exclusivity. It goes on like that and can be terribly complicated.

That's about when I just feel overwhelmed and let it go. I try to distance myself from the problems I feel I just can't solve (especially if I feel all alone in the struggle). I pick my battles. I get into a place, mentally, where I can breathe freely.

As a white person, I'm sure I must harbor racist attitudes deep down in my soul. If I were to worry about it too much, I'd be even more neurotic than I already have become from just growing up Catholic and being American (ie, guilty of just about everything). I do my best to avoid situations where I would be perceived as competing with African Americans for anything of value. There are times when I would not want to win the race or merit the prize. Sometimes, I'd rather be dead last.

In a real democracy, the leader is always last. I'm comfortable with that.


[* I have a place to live, but it's not a real home in my mind. It's part of my work, and if I were not working here, I'd be in a local homeless shelter, where I've been stranded on more than one occasion. If I knew how to make money at it, I'd earn my living writing and making artwork. The only "job" I really want is the presidency and I don't want it for me. I want it for others, all others, especially those with no power, like my patient.]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: CarmelaBear on 2006-12-11 18:22 ]</font>
User avatar
nandu
Associate
Posts: 3395
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:45 am
Location: Kerala, the green country
Contact:

Post by nandu » Thu May 19, 2005 9:46 pm

On 2006-12-11 17:56, Evinnra wrote:
How about shunning everyone crying 'ANTI'?
Why Evinnra! You are "Anti - ANTI"? Shame on you!

(Just joking <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"> )

Nandu.
Loka Samastha Sukhino Bhavanthu
User avatar
Vissi
Associate
Posts: 847
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 3:16 pm
Location: Symbol City, Deep In the Heart of the Sonoran Desert
Contact:

Post by Vissi » Tue May 31, 2005 11:33 am

Carmela, bodhi, Evinnra, Everyone,

To those who enjoy a certain linear and aesthetic order, I submit my sincere apologies for having deleted my former comments earlier in the thread leaving a blank frame but I prefer to reply here, after the recent contributions.

Carmela, I appreciate the sentiments of your most recent posts and the edits made to your earlier entries. I would like to address points made in your earliest post and move on to some reflections on Campbell and the rumors of anti-semitism leveled at him, his writings, and his beliefs.

Carmela wrote:
According to former president Jimmy Carter, there is "no debate" about Israeli policy here in the states.
Having read some of former President Carter's thoughts on the subject but not the entirety expressed in his new book, my opinion is that a charge of "no debate" is an egregious overstatement deleterious to what I believe is and always has been his sincere concern for the well-being of the Palestinian people, the legitimacy of the Palestinian state, Palestinian rights to governance and an end to occupation in its territories, as well as his equal concern for the well-being of the Israeli people and the sovereignty of Israel.

In net effect, Carter's characterization of there being "no debate" on the issue diminishes the efforts of every Palestinian envoy, delegation, emigre, or friend who has knocked at the physical and ideal doors of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the halls of Congress with news of atrocities, genocide, and barbaric inhumanities. There has been debate, not only from these sources but others who have personally boycotted Israeli goods and services in protest of its military policies, spoken, written, and acted for justice and for peace. For me, there is a speciousness in faulting the protesters simply because they failed to persuade or resolve the issue; informed dissent should not derive merit or validity solely from its successes. If Mr. Carter would add his voice to the historic chorus, as I believe he may well have always striven to do, perhaps he might more wisely join in without marginalizing the efforts of those who've been singing and shouting for decades despite his failure to clearly hear their refrain.

Carmela also wrote:
It is, in part, on account of the "free pass" we give to those who are associated with the Old Testament (our BIG religious myth) and the victims of World War II and the holocaust. We have a blind spot on the subjects of Jews and Israel. We are, in a manner of speaking, taken by them.
Carmela, you are a sophisticated political observer, a brilliant mind, and a gifted author. Knowing only some of your personal courage and great humanity, I'm saddened by the generalizations I find in your statements quoted above which I feel misrepresent the consciences and conscious actions of many Americans and mistakenly link everyone who is or has been Jewish or practices/ed Judaism with supporting Israeli security, war, and military policies propagating stereotypes that fuel what bodhibliss describes as "the charge" between those who are anti-semitic and those seeking to end this particular prejudice.

I know, Carmela, that you are superbly educated so in citing the obvious, I do so for the benefit of my own conscience and for others who may not have memories as long as yours and mine. The victims of World War II were every person alive at the time whether they were killed, injured, or maimed, whether they killed, injured, or maimed, whether they served in the military or were civilians --- no one was unaffected by the war. Humanity was the victim of the war. It is estimated that 62 million human beings were killed in World War II. Of that number, five million (a conservative estimate) were murdered in the Holocaust. Those killed in the Holocaust were not all Jewish. Poles, Serbs, Slavs, homosexuals, Christians and Christian clergy, communists, political dissidents, authors, artists, intellectuals, and others deemed equally "undesirable" were put to death. Stereotypes serve to dehumanize, to make one thing of unique individuals. Whether the stereotype is positive or negative, the beautiful humanness of those so branded is never acknowledged nor served.

Carmela later wrote:
IMHO, there are extreme forms of anti-semitism that do not include whatever problems Jews may have with the views expressed by Joseph Campbell. One form is the racism of the neo-Nazis and aryan supremecists and another is the fundamentalist Islamic rejection of everything Jewish and Israeli. Neither of these extremes have a significant following in the U.S. or E.U., though I must admit that the clout of the oil-rich nations like Saudi Arabia can be rather impressive sometimes.
I wish I could agree with your assessments but they do not square with my personal experience. Extreme anti-semitism (using your definition) is much more prevalent than you allow and is not limited to the groups or locales you mention. Many people speak openly of "Jewish conspiracies" controlling the world's wealth and financial markets, manipulating governments, and dominating the press and entertainment medias as if these were facts and as if universal understandings of their truth is subscribed to by all. It is not a long journey from harboring such misinformed consignments of blame to being the gunman/woman, who having lost a job or a relationship or a house, enters a synagogue or community center and murders the first "conspirator" s/he encounters, as has happened in the U.S. in very recent memory. People kill and people die while group divides remain immortal, never stand trial, and can never be imprisoned. Murders are the the fruits of stereotypes and the full harvest of fear, ignorance, prejudice, and hatred --- things you have written so eloquently of in your most recent post.

Carmela also wrote:
What I don't understand is why it's necessary to nitpick Joe Campbell when there are armed and dangerous foes just waiting in the wings to pounce on anyone with the temerity to suggest that equality and democracy and diversity are not only good things, but absolutely necessary to the smooth-functioning of the world economic, social and political systems.
As bodhibliss as already written, many of the rumors of Campbell's anti-semitism seem to have sprouted from Brendan Gill's writings on Campbell, both his opinion piece and later responses to Campbell's defenders. For anyone familiar with Campbell's work, Gill's charges seem founded on unfamiliarity with his subject, the history of the person he critiques, or the concepts underlying the sentiments he faults. At the times of Gill's writings, Campbell's personal journals and letters which might easily have refuted the charges were unavailable. For anyone interested in a sample of Gill's viewpoint, The New York Review of Books offers, free of charge, Gill's replies to various defenders and detractors, published on 9 November, 1989, here:Joseph Campbell: An Exchange.

Though having not known Campbell myself, from his writings, recorded teachings, and interviews, I find little to corroborate most of Gill's charges. In A Fire in The Mind: The Life of Joseph Campbell, Stephen and Robin Larsen, using Campbell's personal and public writings, present evidence clearly contradicting the anti-semitism rumors. One example is the text, Permanent Human Values, that Campbell prepared for an address to students at Sarah Lawrence in 1940:
...In the second place, we are in danger of neglecting the apparently useless work of the disinterested scientist and historian. Yet if there is one jewel in the crown of Western Civilization which deserves to take a place beside the finest jewels of Asia, it is the jewel cut by these extraordinary men. Their images of the cosmos and of the course of earthly history are as majestic as the Oriental theories of involution and evolution. But, these images are by no means the exclusive creation, or even property, of democracies. Many of the indispensable works which you must read, if you are to participate in the study of these images, have not been translated into democratic tongues. Let me say, therefore, that any serious student of history or science who permits the passions of this hour to turn her away from German is a fool. Whatever may be the language for hemisphere defense, German, French and English are the languages of scholarship and science. German, French, Spanish, Dutch, Italian, Scandinavian, English, Irish, Polish, Russian, Swiss, Christian, Pagan, Atheist, and Jewish have been the workers in these spheres. Chauvinism has no place here. The work is international and human. Consequently, whenever there is a resurgence of the nationalisms and animalisms of war, scientist and scholar have to cork themselves tightly in. They are not anti-social parasites and slackers when they do this. It is with them that Western Culture, as opposed to Western Empire, will survive.
Campbell's list of scientists and scholars seems curious for an anti-semite. Perhaps critics would attribute the mention of Judaism to the large number of Jewish students at Sarah Lawrence who could be expected to attend Campbell's talk but this reasoning, too strikes at the heart of the anti-semitism charge. Would Campbell, if he held such views, make such a polite concession?

At the request of a friend, Campbell sent the text of his address to his literary hero, Thomas Mann, whom he had met in New York following Mann's exit from Germany after the banning of his works, and the two corresponded about it with Mann finding fault in Campbell's advice to young people. Campbell responded to the criticism with courtesy appropriate to his regard for the author. In his own journal, Campbell maintained a solid belief in the egalitarianism he felt:
To degrade the transcendentals by describing them as empirically present among this people but not among that, is so to distort the human understanding that instead of helping it one actually hinders it, in its efforts to recognize, exhibit, and experience these eternals.


Personally, I have no doubt that Campbell honestly felt the equality of all peoples he professed. This, too is an unusual trait for someone portrayed as deeply prejudiced; it would be a natural assumption to expect someone thus afflicted to readily accept Mann's sense of division and attribution of some values to one group over another.

The Larsens' biography paints a portrait of Campbell's personal growth that is not always flattering viewed through the lens of current sensibilities but which certainly seems true. Campbell struggled with the possibility of registering for the draft after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor but did register, deciding if called, he would serve in the military. A later journal entry seems to speak volumes about Campbell's examination of his own character.
Politics, of course, has always been my inferior function [in the Jungian sense of a "shadow area"]: therefore I do not know how to understand or evaluate the emergence onto the political plane of the values which on the spiritual (if there be finally any difference between the two planes) I have experienced and to the best of my powers understood.
I think the answer to give to those who claim Campbell was anti-semitic is to reply, "Campbell believed, wrote, and taught it is important for every human being, with no exceptions, to understand she or he belongs, first and foremost, to the community of humanity. Ethnic, racial, religious, gender, political, or national claims come second."

For those who judge my perspective overly sensitive, awash in political correctness, or inextricably bound to idealistic, naive, or romantic sensibilities, I am sincerely unapologetic. It's my experience that the public weal is only as rich as those who will apply pressure to extrapolate, out to infinity if necessary, the highest potential of humans in the interest of balancing the opposite polarity of the lowest common denominator. It has only been within my lifetime in the U.S. that schools have been desegregated, minorities have been accorded the promise (and perhaps someday the reality) of equal opportunities, and violent acts of prejudice can be labeled "hate crimes." Hatred and prejudice cannot be legislated away but insistence on certain standards of public behavior and responsibility makes indulging in such actions more difficult and less socially tolerated. Sensitivity is not a crutch or defect nor is the love of specificity, fairness, and clarity a flaw directly correlating to a need to control or evidence of humorlessness. Bemoan my existence if you like but I'm here (until the moderators ask me to leave) and I'm human (no more or less than anyone else).

Dixie

_________________
We walk through ourselves,meeting robbers,ghosts,giants, old men,young men,wives,widows,brothers-in-love.But always meeting ourselves. J. Joyce

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Vissi on 2006-12-12 03:12 ]</font>
Locked