Freedom and Mythology: Did Joseph Campbell
have Libertarian Tendencies?
by Cyril Morong
YES!
But before establishing support for this
answer, we must ask why this is an
important
question
for
libertarians.
Campbell's scholarship, as exemplified in
perhaps his most famous book, The Hero
With a Thousand Faces, proposed that the
human psyche is the same everywhere in the
world and for every time period because the
myths of all cultures, as stories of heroes,
have similar patterns (here he follows Jungmore about this later). According to Archer
Taylor (1964), his scholarship on the hero's
journey is very similar, yet more detailed,
than others working on the same problem (p.
128). He even saw the entrepreneur as "the
real hero" in capitalist society (see excerpt of
interview at the end of the article). If
Campbell's thinking, which is a result of
studying many cultures, can be shown to
support libertarian philosophy, it would
greatly add to the cause of freedom and
limited government around the world.
Before examining his views in
relation to libertarian philosophy, a few
comments on the nature of myths and
mythology are necessary.
Campbell was not alone in his view
that myths are reflections of the psyche. It is
a standard belief that not only are myths
symbolic representations of our psyches, but
that the role of the hero in myth is universal
and that myths help to instruct individuals in
charting a course for their own lives. This
assertion is based on the work of
psychoanalysis. This is because in myths,
according to Campbell (1968) "symbolic
expression is given to the unconscious
desires, fears, and tensions that underlie the
1
conscious patterns of human behavior" and
that understanding the myth puts us in touch
with "the deep forces that have shaped man's
destiny and must continue to determine both
our private and our public lives" (p. 255-6).
Leeming (1973) shares this view (p. 9) along
with, according to Barnaby and D'Acierno
(1990), a large number of Jungian
interpreters (p. 3). Jung (1951) himself said
"Myths are original revelations of the preconscious psyche, involuntary statements
about unconscious happenings..." (p. 101).
In addition to influencing film
makers like George Lucas and Steven
Spielberg, Campbell was well respected.
The psychologist James Hillman said "No
one in our century, not Freud, not Thomas
Mann, or Lévi-Strauss, has so brought the
mythical sense of the world back into our
everyday consciousness" (Cousineau, 1990,
p. 178). Campbell's model of the hero's
adventure is also quite similar to Leeming's
(1973) and Mircea Eliade's (1990, p. 39).
Segal (1990) shows that Campbell's hero is
Jungian (p. 42) and similar to Erik
Erickson's in that the hero's journey is a
quest for personal identity (p. 34). Jung
(1956) himself said that the hero archetype
represents this need of the human psyche (p.
178). Eliot (1990) reports that, in fact,
Jungian therapists use Campbell's work in
guiding their patients' journey (p. 232).
Even modern Freudians see myths as a
useful tool (Segal, 1990, p. 44).
This is also an era in which
mythology is being used to understand
economics.
Silver (1991) analyzes the
ancient economy through mythology while
Putka (1993) reports that business case
studies are now being written which
compare literary figures, including heroes, to
business managers (p. A1). Even two
business professors at Stanford University,
Catford and Ray (1991), have written a
popular book on mythology partly inspired
by Campbell. So it is not surprising that
Eliade (1990) wrote "The mythic
imagination can hardly be said to have
disappeared; it is still very much with us,
having only adapted its workings to the
material now at hand" (p. 42).
One question that arises in trying to
promote heroism is the question of is the
hero trying to do good work or trying to rise
above and gain control over the rest of
society. Our society has a tendency to think
the latter. This may be due in part to the
decline in reading mythological texts and
other stories about cultural heroes in our
educational system. If we could reverse this
trend, we would no longer have to fear the
hero (Silber, 1989, ch. 3, "Of Mermaids and
Magnificence"). If heroes represent the
elite, I think Campbell would have agreed
with Silber. He said:
"Sport is really an elite experience.
You can't have a game where
everybody wins. But there's an
awful lot of that kind of thinking in
our sociological thinking now
where nobody should be beating
anybody else and let's fix it so he
can't. Then you spend the rest of
your life looking at a movie to see
whether you can see a real elite
performance.
That's where life
really is-in the upper brackets, not
the lower ones" (Cousineau, 1991,
p. 220).
David Justin Ross made a similar argument
on the need for heroes in literature and how
they teach values in his article "Boy's Fiction
and the Dumbing of America" from the
April 1993 issue of Liberty.
2
Given the importance of mythology
and Campbell's contributions to the study of
it, how do they relate to libertarianism? It
may surprise many to learn that Joseph
Campbell told Bill Moyers "The state is a
machine" in "The Message of the Myth," the
second televised segment of the popular
PBS series The Power of Myth. This
condemns the state in Campbell's view
because the machine can crush our
humanity, a serious problem the entire
world, including the United States, faces
today. But this rejection of mechanized
government is just one of several ways in
which his ideas can be seen as supporting
libertarian philosophy. The first is his
support of individualism. The second is his
support of the ideas of the founding fathers
and limited government.
The third is
Campbell's surprisingly similarity to some
ideas of the economist Milton Friedman, a
proponent of laissez-faire capitalism. The
fourth is an anti-Marxist sentiment. The
fifth is the above mentioned view of the
state as a machine. Each of these will be
discussed in more detail below. Campbell's
view of the mechanized state is discussed
last.
To begin with the first category,
individualism, Campbell (1988) said, while
discussing the story of the Holy Grail, that
"[E]ach of us is a completely unique creature
and that if, we are ever to give any gift to the
world, it will have to come out of our own
experience, not someone else's." That is, not
the experience of some government
bureaucrat that is imposed on us. It is hard
to have your own experience if you are
controlled by the state (p. 151). This great
Western Truth (p. 151) is opposed to the
Orient where "the individual is cookiemolded" (p. 151). He underscored this
with:
"The best part (emphasis added) of
the western tradition has included a
recognition of and respect for the
individual as a living entity. The
function of the society is to
cultivate the individual. It is not
the function of the individual to
support society" (p. 192)"
Furthermore, the troubadour courage to love
that grew in the middle ages against the
opposition to the church became the basis of
individualism and validated individual
experience as opposed to tradition (p. 187)
The second category is Campbell's
support and approval of the Founding
Fathers and their belief in limited
government and individual reason. This is
indicated in a number of ways. The first is
that Campbell (1988) agrees that all men are
capable of reason, thus knowing God:
"That is the fundamental principle
of
democracy.
Because
everybody's mind is capable of true
knowledge, you don't have to have
a special authority, or a special
revelation telling you that this is the
way things should be" (p. 25)
Although democracy is not necessarily
synonymous with libertarianism,
to
Campbell, it meant the rejection of anyone
being granted "special authority." This is
certainly an ideal of libertarians, that no one
has a monopoly on truth. The second is that
Campbell felt we moved away from reason
and the ideals of limited government found
in the Declaration of Independence when we
"rejoined the British conquest of the planet"
(p. 28) in World War I. According to him
America fell from the ideal, moral high
ground of the pyramid (symbolized by the
eye at the top of one on the back of the
dollar bill) by breaking Washington's pledge
in his farewell address to stay out of
European affairs. The third is that in
general, Campbell was very taken by the
symbolism of the Founding Fathers. He felt
that they had a great understanding of
mythology, using this knowledge to create a
new nation based on individual liberty and
limited government (p. 25).
3
In the third category of his support
for libertarian thinking, some of Campbell's
views (or at least instincts) are similar to
three ideas of Milton Friedman's. The first
is that they both condemn "the man of
system." Campbell states this clearly while
speaking of the character Darth Vader from
the Star Wars movie trilogy. He is critical
of him being an "executive of a system" who
has no humanity (see p. 10 for more details).
Friedman (1978) writes about this. The man
of system is a government planner, a
bureaucrat who wishes to impose his own
ideals on society (p. 18). In what way is
Campbell similar? Although earlier it was
noted that Campbell (1988) contrasted the
West's individualism with the conformity of
the East, he does mention what he thinks is a
good Oriental idea: "You don't force your
mission down people's throats" (p. 63).
Also, "Instead of clearing his own heart, the
zealot tries to clear the world" (Campbell,
1968, p. 16) Both Campbell and Friedman
fear the planner who will force his system on
the rest of us. Campbell's (1988) views on
this are best expressed in his comments on
Darth Vader, the evil dark lord of the Star
Wars movie trilogy.
"Darth Vader has not developed his
own humanity. He's a robot. He's a
bureaucrat living not in terms of
himself but in terms of an imposed
system. This is the threat that we
all face today. Is the system going
to flatten you out and deny you
your humanity, or are you going to
be able to make use of the system
so that you are not compulsively
serving it? It doesn't help to try to
change it to accord with your
system of thought. The momentum
of history behind it is too great for
anything really significant to evolve
from that kind of action" (p. 144)
This point will be addressed again in the
section on the state as a machine.
The
second way in which Campbell and
Friedman are similar is their view on the
ultimate end or goal of life. Friedman (1962)
objected to the old adage that "the end
justifies the means." He felt it was better to
state that "the ultimate end is the use of
proper means" (p. 22). The appropriate
means are "free discussion and voluntary cooperation" (p. 22). This is similar to not
only Campbell's (1988) emphasis on
democracy and individualism but also to one
of his favorite quotes from Karlfried Graf
Dürckheim: "The real end is the journey" (p.
230). That is, it is being able to go on your
own journey that counts, not the destination.
For both of them, life is living by the right
process. For Campbell this is taking your
own individual journey. This is not in
conflict, and probably consistent with,
Friedman's ideal of free discussion and
voluntary cooperation.
The third way in which Friedman
and Campbell are similar may be more
instinctual, not always expressed-that is, a
shared sense of ultimate reality. One of
Friedman's (1984) books is called The
Tyranny of the Status Quo. The title gives
us an idea of his sensitivity to an issue
deeper than just the left-right debate. Of the
bureaucratic establishment's reaction to the
Reagan administration's attempt to reduce
taxes and regulations in its first few months
in office Friedman says "The tyranny of the
status quo asserted itself. Every special
interest group that was threatened proceeded
to mount a campaign to prevent its particular
governmental
sinecure
from
being
eliminated" (p. 2). These feelings and
actions show up in the following passage of
Campbell (1968):
"... the mythological hero is the
champion not of things become but
of things becoming; the dragon to
be slain by him is precisely the
monster of the status quo:
Holdfast, the keeper of the past.
From obscurity the hero emerges,
but the enemy is great and
conspicuous in the seat of power;
he is enemy, dragon, tyrant,
4
because he turns to his
advantage the authority of
position.
He is Holdfast
because he keeps the past
because he keeps" (p. 337).
own
his
not
but
Both Friedman and Campbell see the status
quo as a monster that acts a tyrant over
creative people.
The fourth category of Campbell's
support for libertarianism, his anti-Marxist
sentiment, is seen where he discusses Don
Quixote. In Campbell (1988) Quixote had
"saved the adventure for himself by
inventing a magician who had just
transformed the giants he had gone forth to
encounter into windmills" (p. 130). Heroes
used to live in a more spiritually alive world.
Quixote used his imagination to make it
more alive. Why is our world today not
spiritually alive? Because the world
"... has become to such an extent a
sheerly mechanistic (emphasis
added) world, as interpreted
through our physical sciences,
Marxist
sociology,
and
behavioristic psychology, that we're
nothing but a predictable pattern of
wires responding to stimuli. This
nineteenth century interpretation
has squeezed the freedom of the
human will out of life" (p. 130-1).
Although not a new critique, it is a
devastating condemnation of Marxist
thinking from an individualistic perspective.
When the state is a machine, the world is
mechanistic, people are predictable, and
central planning of economies is justified.
Campbell opposes this,
exalting the
freedom of the human will over these
machine views of man.
Campbell (1988) prefers, as in the
Hindu idea of karma, that "you have no one
to blame but yourself" (p. 161) for your
problems. He also implies that Marx was
wrong when he "tells us to blame the upper
class of our society" (p. 161). Again,
Campbell rejects Marxism and favors
individualism.
The
fifth
category
involves
Campbell's view of the state as a machine.
To him, this makes the state a monster, an
instrument that imposes its will or system
on individuals, crushing our humanity and
creative spirit. Since the state is a machine,
it is a kind of technology. The message
Campbell (1988) saw from the movie Star
Wars is an old but powerful one:
"technology is not going to save us" (p.
xiv).
Luke Skywalker uses the Force
(which, according to Campbell, symbolizes
the human heart and intuition) instead of a
computer to destroy the empire's dreaded
death star, a machine that can itself destroy
entire planets.
Earlier it was seen how Campbell
viewed Darth Vader.
He was an
undeveloped human individual, a bureaucrat
living in terms of an imposed system.
Campbell further explains how this is
significant with:
"The fact that the evil power is not
identified with any specific nation
on this earth means you've got an
abstract power which represents a
principle, not a specific historic
nation. The story has to do with an
operation of principles, not this
nation against that. The monster
masks that are put on people in Star
Wars represent the real monster
force in the modern world" (p.
144).
The significance of this passage is clear
when linked with an earlier passage:
"Man should not be in the service
of society, society should be in
service of man. When man is in the
service of society, you have a
monster state, and that's what is
threatening the world today" (p. 8).
So Campbell was concerned about the
"monster state" in our modern world. Darth
5
Vader served the monster state as a
bureaucrat and as a result hid his human face
behind a monster mask. This implies that a
state that demands service from individuals
not only turns them into monsters but is
monstrous itself, although it is not clear how
far Campbell would have gone in making
this claim. This is why libertarians, as did
Campbell, think that the state should do
whatever it can to promote individuality and
individual rights. The mechanistic, Marxist
view Campbell spoke of in relation to Don
Quixote is perhaps what has brought on this
monster state.
If human beings were
"nothing but a predictable pattern of wires"
then socialism and economic planning might
make sense. But obviously it does not since
socialism has failed. But here too, Campbell
(1988) provides a useful interpretation. It is
in relation to the Holy Grail:
"The theme of the Grail romance is
that the land, the country, the whole
territory of concern has been laid to
waste. It is called a waste land.
And what is the nature of the
wasteland? It is a land where
everyone is living an inauthentic
life, doing as other people do,
doing as you're told, with no
courage for you own life. That is
the wasteland. And that is what T.
S. Eliot meant in his poem The
Waste Land.
"In a wasteland the surface
does not represent the actuality of
what it is supposed to be
representing, and people are living
inauthentic lives. 'I've never done a
thing I wanted to in all my life. I've
done as I was told.' You know" (p.
196).
Bill Moyers then asked the question "And
the Grail becomes?" Campbell answered
with "The Grail becomes the-what can we
call it-that which is attained and realized by
people who have lived their own lives. The
Grail represents the fulfillment of the
highest spiritual potentialities of the human
consciousness" (p 196-7). Unless you have
a minimal state, individuals are not really
living their own lives.
Furthermore,
Campbell says that "there are some societies
that shouldn't exist" (p. 198). The societies
that try to crush the individual spirit
eventually "crack up" (p. 198).
This
explains the conditions in Eastern Europe
today. The socialist systems blocked a recirculation of spiritual energy by preventing
people from walking their own paths. Any
system that prevents energy flow from
outside the status quo will collapse due to
entropy. This is explained in what Campbell
(1968) called the monomyth in (following
James Joyce):
"The standard path of the
mythological adventure of the hero
is a magnification of the formula
represented in the rites of passage:
separation-initiation-return: which
might be named the nuclear unit of
the monomyth. A hero ventures
forth from the world of common
day into a region of supernatural
wonder: fabulous forces are there
encountered and a decisive victory
is won: the hero comes back from
this mysterious adventure with the
power to bestow boons on his
fellow man"(p. 30).
And humanity comes not from the machine
but from the heart.
[As the unmasking of Darth Vader scene
from the movie The Return of the Jedi is
shown, Campbell continues:]
Campbell: The father (Darth Vader) had
been playing one of these machine roles, a
state role; he was the uniform, you know?
And the removal of that mask-there was an
undeveloped man there. He was kind of a
worm by being the executive of a system.
One is not developing one's humanity. I
think George Lucas did a beautiful thing
there.
Moyers: The idea of machine is the idea
that we want the world to be made in our
image and what we think the world ought to
be.
[Campbell seemed to agree or at least
offered no dissent to this statement of
Moyers.]
Campbell put this in a slightly
different way when he also discussed the
movie Star Wars:
Too much government control will create a
wasteland.
This is all seen much more clearly in
an exchange between Campbell and Moyers
from the second televised segment of The
Power of Myth called "The Message of the
Myth."
Moyers: Do you see some of the new
metaphors emerging in the modern medium
for the old universal truths that you've talked
about, the old story?
Campbell: Well, I think that the Star Wars
is a valid mythological perspective for the
problem of is the machine-and the state is a
machine (emphasis added)-is the machine
going to crush humanity or serve humanity?
6
"Here the man (George Lucas)
understands metaphor. What I saw
was things that had been in my
books but rendered in terms of the
modern problem, which is man and
machine. Is the machine going to
be the servant of human life? Or is
it going to be master and dictate?
And the machine includes the
totalitarian state, whether it is
Fascist or Communist it's still the
same state. And it includes things
happening in this country too
(emphasis added); the bureaucrat,
the machine-man."
What a wonderful power
the machine gives you-but is it
going to dominate you? That's the
problem of Goethe's Faust. It's in
the last two acts of Faust, Part
Two.
His pact is with
Mephistopheles, the man who can
furnish you the means to do
anything you want.
He's the
machine manufacturer. He can
manufacture the bombs, but can he
give you what the human spirit
wants and needs? He can't.
This statement of what the
need and want is must come from
you, not from the machine, and not
from the government that is
teaching you (emphasis added) or
not even from the clergy. It has to
come from one's own inside, and
the minute you let that drop and
take what the dictation of the time
is instead of your own eternity, you
have capitulated to the devil. And
you're in hell.
That's what I think George
Lucas brought forward. I admire
what
he's
done
immensely,
immensely.
That young man
opened a vista and knew how to
follow it and it was totally fresh. It
seems to me that he carried that
thing through very, very well
(Cousineau, 1990, p. 181-2).
do not become richer; the rich become
poorer. But the idea of giving away yourself
is consistent with what Campbell (1988)
said:
"The influence of a vital person
vitalizes, there's no doubt about it.
The world without spirit is a
wasteland. People have the notion
of saving the world by shifting
things around, changing the rules,
and who's on top and so forth. No,
no! Any world is a valid one if it's
alive. The thing to do is to bring
life to it, and the only way to do
that is to find in your own case
where the life is and become alive
yourself" (p. 149).
Later, when asked if the state should
redistribute income for a more equal
distribution, Campbell further criticizes an
excessive role for the state with:
"In an equitable distribution system
you never level people up, you
always level down.
And
civilization comes from what's on
top. And it's one thing to be
equitable and give everything away;
it's another thing to be equitable
and give away yourself. Then you
really can't help anybody, can you?
That's a little bit like the ego-self
problem.
In actual economic
situations this is complicated by the
specifics of the situation, and I can't
talk about that" (Cousineau, 1990,
p. 225).
Although he wisely avoids claiming any
expertise in economics, his views support
the notion that too much taking from the rich
and giving to the poor by the government
hurts incentives, which in the long run hurts
everyone since total output falls. The poor
7
On often hears libertarians say "Utopia is not
an alternative." I think that is what Campbell
is saying here. The idea that an individual
can revitalize society is found in the
economic historian John Hughes's book The
Vital Few: The Entrepreneur and American
Economic Progress.
He argued that
individual entrepreneurs played a vital role
in the development of the American
Economy.
Finally, my own research, in a paper
titled "The Creative-Destroyers:
Are
Entrepreneurs Mythological Heroes?" I find
that the entrepreneur is a hero, verifying
Campbell's assertion mentioned at the
beginning of the paper (which he never tried
to verify). I used Campbell (1968) for the
comparison. The more entrepreneurship that
is allowed, the more creativity and authentic
lives there will be. Laissez-faire capitalism
(i.e., a minimal role for the state) seems to
allow for the greatest degree of
entrepreneurship. In Briggs and Maher
(1989), Campbell says:
"There's a kind of regular
morphology
and
inevitable
sequence of experiences if you start
out to follow your adventure. I
don't care whether it's in
economics, in art, or just in play.
There's the sense of the potential
that opens out before you." (p. 25).
In Cousineau (1990), Campbell describes
the profit in following your own adventure:
"If you follow your bliss, doors will open up
for you where they would not have opened
up before. They will also open up for you
where they would not have opened up for
anyone else" (p. 214). This is ultimately the
best life for an individual, no matter what
the career path or time period.
Before closing, religion, a topic closely
related to mythology, and an important one
for libertarians, must be discussed.
Campbell saw the two as closely related.
This need not cause problems for
libertarians, who, according to the 1988 poll
conducted by Liberty, tend to be less
religious than the rest of society. It was
mentioned at the beginning of the paper that
Campbell was a follower of Jung, who gave
him (Campbell) "the best clues he's got"
(Briggs and Maher, 1989, p. 123). Campbell
(1986) agreed with Jung's view of religion,
that its purpose was to keep you from God
or a real spiritual experience (p. 121). If
libertarians are less religious than others,
perhaps this allows them a better chance for
a real spiritual experience because they
follow their own individual paths. In fact, as
stated earlier, Jung said that the hero
archetype represented this need of the
psyche (which he called individuation).
That is, you discover yourself by going on
your own adventure. Jung (1964) too, was
critical of the state. He saw our belief in the
welfare state as childish (p. 85). According
to Fordham (1964) he even thought that
Western man's penchant for objective reality
8
tended to rob the psyche of its value which
leads to "the deification of such abstractions
like the State" (p. 74). Szasz (1988), who
gives Jung a mixed but generally favorable
review, saw him (Jung), as being less
authoritarian than others in his profession
and a proponent of individualism who tried
to help others "find their own faiths as befits
intelligent adults in the twentieth century"
(p. 163).
Campbell wrote very little on his
preferences for the role of government
outside what has been interpreted here.
Segal (1990) says that he was politically
conservative (p. 21). Perhaps this was true
for the role of government in the economy.
But given his strong support for
individualism, his views would be the
essence of libertarianism. He would not
likely have approved much regulation of
personal behavior. Of course, he seems to
have never come out and said that he
himself was a libertarian. It would be
foolish to make him into something after his
death. His views on the machine-like state
and individualism could be interpreted as
supporting the need for a welfare state that
helps individuals against monopolistic
capitalists. He was occasionally critical of
business and money making. But he never
said or wrote anything that indicated he
supported socialism or the welfare state. His
work and ideas do seem to support the
values of individualism and limited
government (see excerpt of interview at the
end of the article). These, along with his
antipathy for imposed systems, tyrannical
status quos and Marxist thinking seem to
accord with libertarian thinking.
Tape #1901: "Call of the Hero" with Joseph Campbell interviewed by Michael Toms
New Dimensions Foundation audio tape from a live interview on San Francisco's radio station
KQED
The following exchange was part of a discussion the question of: What is creativity?
Toms: In a sense it's the going for, the jumping over the edge and moving into the adventure that
really catalyzes the creativity, isn't it?
Campbell: I would say so, you don't have creativity otherwise.
Toms: Otherwise there's no fire, you're just following somebody else's rules.
Campbell: Well, my wife is a dancer. She has had dance companies for many, many years. I
don't know whether I should talk about this. But when the young people are really adventuring,
it's amazing what guts they have and what meager lives they can be living, and yet the richness of
the action in the studio. Then, you are going to have a concert season. They all have to join a
union. And as soon as they join a union, there character changes. (emphasis added, but
Campbell changed the tone of his voice) There are rules of how many hours a day you can
rehearse. There are certain rules of how many weeks of rehearsal you can have. They bring this
down like a sledge hammer on the whole thing. There are two mentalities. There's the mentality
of security, of money. And there's the mentality of open risk.
Toms: In other societies we can look and see that there are those that honor elders. In our
society it seems much like the elders are part of the main stream and there is a continual kind of
wanting to turn away from what the elders have to say, the way it is, the way to do it. The union
example is a typical one, where the authority, institution, namely the union comes in and says this
is the way it's done. And then one has to fall into line or one has to find something else to do.
Campbell: That's right.
Toms: And it's like treating this dichotomy between elders and the sons and daughters of the
elders. How do you see that in relationship to other cultures?
Campbell: This comes to the conflict of the art, the creative art and economic security. I don't
think I have seen it in other cultures. The artist doesn't have to buck against quite the odds that
he has to buck against today.
Toms: The artist is honored in other cultures.
Campbell: He is honored and quickly honored. But you might hit it off, something that really
strikes the need and requirements of the day. Then you've given your gift early. But basically it
is a real risk. I think that is so in any adventure, even in business, the man who has the idea of a
new kind of gift (this is exactly what George Gilder says in chapter three, "The Returns of
9
Giving" in his book Wealth and Poverty) to society and he is willing to risk it. Then the workers
come in and claim they are the ones that did it. Then he (the entrepreneur) can't afford to
perform his performance. It's a grotesque conflict, I think between the security and the creativity
ideas. The entrepreneur is a creator, he's running a risk.
Toms: Maybe in American capitalistic society the entrepreneur is the creative hero in some
sense.
Campbell: Oh, I think he is, I mean the real one. Most people go into economic activities not for
risk but for security. You see what I mean. And the elder psychology tends to take over.
This discussion ended and after a short break a new topic was discussed.
10
REFERENCES
Barnaby, Karin and Pellegrino D'Acierno, eds. (1990).C. G. Jung and the Humanities,
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Briggs, Dennie and John M. Maher (1989). An Open Life: Joseph Campbell
Conversation with Michael Toms. New York: Harper and Row.
Campbell, Joseph (1968). The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Princeton:
Press.
in
Princeton University
Campbell, Joseph (1986). The Inner Reaches of Outer Space. New York: Harper and Row.
Campbell, Joseph (1988). The Power of Myth. New York: Doubleday.
Catford, Lorna and Michael Ray (1991). The Path of the Everyday Hero. Los Angeles: Tarcher.
Cousineau, Phil (1990). The Hero's Journey: Joseph Campbell on His Life
San Francisco: Harper.
Eliade, Mircea (1990). Myths and mythical thought. In A. Eliot The
Heroes, Gods, Tricksters, and Others. New York: Penguin/Meridian.
and
Universal
Work.
Myths:
Eliot, Alexander (1990). The Universal Myths: Heroes, Gods, Tricksters, and
York: Penguin/Meridian.
Others.
New
Fordham, Frieda (1964). An Introduction to Jung's Psychology. Baltimore:
Books Ltd.
Penguin
Friedman, Milton (1962). Capitalism & Freedom. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Friedman, Milton (1978). Adam Smith's Relevance for 1976. In F. Glahe Adam Smith and the
Wealth of Nations. Boulder: Colorado Associated University Press.
Friedman, Milton and Rose Friedman (1984). Tyranny of the Status Quo. San Diego: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Gilder, George (1981). Wealth and Poverty. New York: Bantom Books.
Hughes, Jonathan (1986). The Vital Few: The Entrepreneur and American
Progress. New York: Oxford University Press.
Economic
Jung, Carl G. and C. Kerényi (1951). Introduction to a Science of Mythology:
The Myth of
the Divine Child and the Mysteries of Eleusis. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Jung, Carl G., ed. (1964). Man and His Symbols. Garden City, New York:
Company Inc.
11
Doubleday &
Leeming, David A. (1973). Mythology: The Voyage of the Hero.
Company.
Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott
Morong, Cyril (1992). The Creative-Destroyers: Are Entrepreneurs
Mythological Heroes?
Paper presented at the Western Economic Association Annual Conference, July 1992.
Putka, Gary 1993. Heroes of Business, Tragic or Not, Get Classical
Treatment:
School
Compares Executives to Agamemnon and Jesus,
Other Persons of Renown. The Wall Street
Journal. 91(46): A1 and
A9.
Segal, Robert A. (1990). Joseph Campbell: An Introduction New York: Penguin.
Silber, John (1989). Straight Shooting: What is Wrong with America and How to Fix It. New
York: Harper and Row.
Szasz, Thomas (1988). The Myth of Psychotherapy. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press
Taylor, Archer (1964). "The Biographical Pattern in Traditional Narrative."
Folklore Institute. I:114-129.
12
Journal of the