An Immodest Proposal: Campbell-totle Part II

So, continuing along this playful line of thought, we can begin to see how Aristotle's theory of knowledge begins to shape our understanding of the Monomyth:

(1) The Monomyth's primary feature of the hero journeying "down-then-up" is an Epic journey. The first part of the hero's journey is tragic in nature (with conflicts, revelations, and potential or actual injury). The second part is comedic in nature. The hero now re-enters the world lower than he began, but with a new knowledge that will allow him to ascend either back to the heights he began, or even higher.

(1a) Here's the difference though. With the Monomyth, the hero must learn some supernatural / metaphysical / philosophical truth at the bottom of his journey (the height of his suffering) that he then brings back to the world. This is the key feature that unites the two parts of the story.

(2) The downward movement of the Monomyth (the tragedy), must excite in the audience wonder -- and this wonder is then answered by the knowledge learned by the hero. It is this new idea that not only unites the story, but also contextualizes (finally) the suffering the hero endured, and reshapes the world as he brings this idea to the world on his upward movement (the comedy).

(2a) For example, in The Odyssey, after his series of sufferings at the hands of nefarious hosts which causes him to yearn for home all the more, he learns in the underworld of Agamemnon's murder at the hands of his wife upon his homecoming. That knowledge puts into context Odysseus' sufferings: home, while yearned for to harbor him from his suffering, may very well be the place he suffers a horrible fate after 20 years of being away at war. The reality of home is different than the fantasy of it while suffering travails. Odysseus takes this new knowledge and applies it to his homecoming, killing the suitors instead of them killing him.

(3) This new knowledge is the driving force of the second part of the Monomyth. The comedy of a lowly man gaining great fortune is directly driven by his new knowledge and application of it to the world he has re-entered.

Next, we'll take a look at some of the problems of the Monomyth that Campbell points out and see how Aristotle would address them.

An Immodest Proposal: Campbell-totle Part I

So, after writing a brief note on the problem with Joseph Campbell which explained why his psychological explanation of the Monomyth doesn't really work, I decided to take a leap and see how the Monomyth might be explained through Aristotle's theory of knowledge. It was just a guess, but let's play it out and see how the Monomyth works under Aristotle's guidance from The Poetics.

Before we begin, a few things to consider about how Aristotle's theory of knowledge operates in The Poetics:

• For Aristotle, knowledge is the cause of pleasure in art (i.e. recognizing an object of to be what it is). We want to know what something is and when we recognize it, we are pleased.
• Art is thus constructed by the artist for the sake of conveying what a thing is to an audience so they will know it: a painting is painted in such a way to convey who or what the subject of the painting is to the audience; tragedies are enacted in such a way to convey the kind of character suffering a kind of downfall. Art is constructed with the audience in mind as the ones knowing the art.
• Exciting wonder in the audience is the goal of tragedy, and is done so primarily by conveying an unexpected (if not paradoxical) outcome to a character's intentions and actions, but also, secondarily, through plausible impossibilities: chance coincidences, supernatural interactions, etc. This makes us wonder about how it all happened. And wonder, as we know, is the desire to understand. Tragedy, in that sense, is constructed by the artist so that we know what is being conveyed to us (and is thus pleasing), but leaves us in wonder (and thus excites in us the desire to understand -- on our own -- what happened).
• For Aristotle, the Epic Poem has two parts: the first part is a tragedy, and second part is a comedy.
• By Comedy, Aristotle means the opposite of tragedy. It is a story where a lowly man is made greater, instead of an admirable man paradoxically made lesser. The object of the comedy, unlike the tragedy, is not to excite wonder in the audience, but to affirm their beliefs by making them feel inspired and hopeful. No paradoxes, no wonder, just feeling good.

Next, with those five points in mind, we'll take a look at Joseph Campbell's description of the monomyth and understand how they apply.

A Quick Note on Joseph Campbell

My recent summaries of art theory led me to write one on the very famous Joseph Campbell. Personally, I'm a fan of his work. Not only did he find a way to describe the concept of the "monomyth" in a substantial way, he also had a huge impact on the story of "Star Wars". Both are very important in the history of storytelling, as well as important to me.

However, after seriously considering what he had to say about the monomyth (instead of considering what he did with my childhood dreams), I have to say that I was a bit taken back by the weakness in his arguments about the monomyth. That's not to say that his concept of the monomyth is weak, but rather his understanding of the causes of the monomyth in human history. You see, it's one thing to say that the monomyth exists (which seems to be true), it's quite another to say why it exists. Professor Campbell places the cause of the monomyth squarely on the human psyche: it's our unconscious minds that generates the Power of Myth. The problem with his argument is his account of why the modern reader is almost completely protected from the Power of Myth. Campbell says that the modern reader is protected from the Power of Myth since the reader interprets myth in scientific ways -- we either read myths as history, anthropology, or pre-science -- and that's no good..

Here's the problem.

Unconscious psychological powers aren't deterred by conscious efforts. For example. the Jungian Archetype of "The Wise Old Man" exists in our unconscious minds. When we consciously attempt to understand "wise old man", we do it through science and experience. Geritarics, health sciences, philosophy, Thanksgiving meals, and general interaction are a part of that attempt. In no way, according to Jung, do these experiences and conscious efforts change the impact of the Jungian Archetype "The Wise Old Man" in our psyche. Thus, Campbell's theory that the modern reader is protected by "modern" readings (historical, anthropological, pre-science) from the unconscious power of myth, is pretty much impossible. For Jung, these Archetypes are immutable. Their power is a constant, which contradicts Campbell's assertion.

With all of that said, this should not challenge the theory of the monomyth itself. Even though Campbell's causal theory of it is problematic, the concept of the monomyth is still good. It just needs a different explanation. Since the unconscious mind is a problematic explanation, perhaps we should turn to Aristotle's theory of knowledge and understanding as a different way of explaing the monomyth. Instead of looking at the cause "below the surface" (so to speak), perhaps we should look at it "above the surface" -- as a thing of the conscious, deliberative mind subject to spacetime, understanding, revelation, surprise, and emotion.

More later.

Katharsis in Aristotle's Poetics

Just a brief note on the troublesome term "katharsis" in Aristotle's Poetics. I've come across hundreds of pages (God knows there's more than that) of essays by professors, students, and translators alike who do their best (even if in fits of brief madness) to explain what the heck Aristotle meant by the term "katharsis" in his Poetics.

Why does it matter? Because understanding what the term means gives us greater insight into what art does to us and why we love it so much. The fact that the term is hard to translate is frustrating since the term can mean so many different things and thus confuses our understanding all the more: we know that once we figure out the term our insight will greatly increase, but the more we try to figure it out, the further away we come to understanding it.

Here's the troublesome passage:

Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation (katharsis) of these emotions.

There are many reasons why translating the term "katharsis" is so problematic:

(a) The term "katharsis" is not a technical term for Aristotle
(b) It only appears once in the Poetics, which makes it hard to translate and compare to other usages in the same text
(c) Its single appearance is as part of a definition of tragedy, but only as an addendum to it
(d) In the literature of Ancient Greece, the term can be used in a wide number of ways including medically and metaphorically


Based on all of these factors, the term "katharsis" could be translated to mean something like a psychological change, or a physiological reaction, or even an emotional outpouring, or even perhaps something as basic as a "release" from the emotions experienced. Nobody really knows how to translate "katharsis" in the Poetics. There's not enough usage of it in the central text, not enough of it in Aristotle's body of complete works, and the Ancient Greeks in general used it loosely and in a wide number of different ways. All of this amounts to sheer agony for translators and interpreters alike since we want to know so badly what art is doing to us.

In reading through the Poetics, we do discover, though, that the feelings of pity for the tragic character and the fear for ourselves excite in us the desire to understand why the tragedy happened. After all, the tragic character did exactly as we might do in the same circumstances, and something totally unexpected occurred. Which leads us to want to understand why it happened the way it did. Thus, if we want to interpret "katharsis" in a disciplined and strict way, we understand that the emotions of pity and fear excite in the audience the desire to understand why the tragedy happens, which in turn, purges (katharsis) those emotions -- in the sense of replacing them. In a sense, the ignited emotions burn themselves out and we're left with the smoke of wonder.

However, this self-contained explanation of "katharsis" isn't exactly satisfying. We know what it feels like to experience that pity and fear, and know there's more to art than a mechanical response-process towards wonder. There is, however, another way of looking at the concept of "katharsis" that is compatible with the strict interpretation which also provides more color to it.

The emotions of both pity for the tragic character and fear for ourselves have the same cause: we identify with the tragic character and know we would do the same thing in the same circumstances. Here's where our richer understanding of "katharsis" starts: We also know that we are not that character. Oedipus is Oedipus, not me. Same for Antigone and all the other tragic characters. They exist separately from us and have suffered instead of us. Thus, the "kartharsis" we experience from tragedy is the "katharsis" of witnessing someone else suffer for our shared crime: our emotions are caused (at first) by identity with the tragic character, but we also know that that character is the one who suffers and not us, even though we, too, are guilty. The character's suffering on stage is what differentiates us from him. It is Oedipus who bears the pains of our (shared) mistake. After all, the real cause of his blood crime is (frighteningly) in all of us, but, he is the one who suffers for it in our stead. It is the tragic character who suffers and is punished for the mistakes and sins of us all. He is our sacrificial-goat. Our fear for ourselves is released as we see the tragic character pay for our crimes, and we are relieved it's not us suffering. And thus we wonder why it happened. Not in the sense of how did the plot unfold, but in a more philosophical way. "Why" with a capital "W". It is this sense of release and relief that gives "katharsis" a richer meaning for us.

Tragedy provides the Ancient Greeks with other sacrifices -- humane ones for our very human mistakes. This may also explain the etymology of the word "tragedy" which comes from the Greek "tragoida", meaning "goat-song" and the reason why tragedies were performed as a part of religious festivals in the ancient world. In fact, Ancient Greek drama developed out of religous ceremonies. This could also explain why we don't watch tragedies anymore in the modern world. With religion disrobed of power and all of the gods dead, why offer up anyone for sacrifice? Why witness Oedipus' suffering at all? It's far easier to simply put him in the asylum.

Joseph Campbell's Theory of Art

CAMPBELL

Art Theory

The human psyche is both the material from which myths are created and the object to which those myths are applied. In this sense, mythology is a human endeavor that transcends cultures (the monomyth), and the hero's journey in myth is purely symbolic with psychological significance. This symbolic journey of the hero is one of separation from the common world, triumph over and initiation into supernatural wonders, and a return to the (renewed) common world. The myth thus imparts a psychological triumph to the audience that expands our consciousness by uniting the contradictions in life (life/death, male/female, earth/heaven, mortal/divine, etc.) in order to show the audience a way to transcend those painful contradictions (e.g. the revelation of eternal life) and both see and live in the world in a new light.

Means

By constructing a symbolic journey relevant to the audience's psyche and contradictions in life in order to open them to a greater unity that transcends the pain of those contradictions and allows us to see the world in a new way.

Characters

The hero can be anyone or anything and symbolizes us in the journey. During the journey, however, the hero must come to know the divine unity and impart it to others.

History

The history of myth is as vast and timeless as the history of our humanity and human psyche. However, with the advent of modernity and the expansion of the sciences, the myth has come under great pressure. Also, the decision to read myths as biographies, histories, or pre-science mutilates the power of myths and makes them irrelevant. The new and final sphere of mythology is Man himself. The duty of modern mythmakers (creative heroes) is to create new myths about Man (e.g. Star Wars) so that Mankind can expand its consciousness and see the world in a new light.

Nietzsche's Theory of Tragedy

NIETZSCHE

Art Theory

By imitating the equally opposing natural forces of the irrational (e.g. music, fate, madness, suffering, foreign lands) and the rational (e.g. visual form, intention, thought, ethical actions, the state) which constantly struggle yet never overcome each other, the audience is able to fully experience their (shared) human condition of those irrational and rational forces in their lives and supplement the sense of (their) being.

Objective with the Audience

For them to fully experience their human condition in such a way as to transform their understanding of their place in the world.

Means

By imitating the equally opposing and equally powerful forces of the irrational (Dionysian) and rational (Apollonian) elements in our lives and anchoring the irrational elements with rational players.

Characters

Doesn't really say except that those characters are subject to (and part of) those forces. The tragic hero is, in a sense, a veil for the irrational emotions excited in the audience. The characters anchor the audience's irrational feelings so that they may be purged and transformed instead of overwhelmed by them.

Historical Development

Prior to tragedy, the Apollonian powers dominated Art: static, idealized, sculptures and friezes were the object of artistic production. Aeschylus and Sophocles were the greatest tragedians, as they were the best at balancing the irrational and rational in their efforts. Euripides and Socrates, however, marked the downfall of tragedy as their efforts returned art to a dominant, rational form. In essence, the history of art is the history of the artist and his or her ability to imitate and mediate the irrational and rational forces of nature and provide a metaphysical supplement to the audience for their lives.

Aristotle and Lovecraft

ARISTOTLE

Art Theory

Tragedy conveys a story where a fortunate and admirable character either potentially or actually injures a loved one by mistake and suffers a great misfortune due to it. Since the injury and misfortune happen necessarily, yet unknowingly by the main character, the audience feels pity for the character and fear for themselves due to all that has happened. Those emotions in the audience are purged by their desire to understand why it all happened, and, in the end, are left wondering about the story.

Objective with the Audience

To excite wonder in the audience.

Means

By describing plausible and necessary events where the main character (either potentially or actually) suffers misfortune by mistakenly harming a loved one.

Characters

Fortunate and admirable characters who, while not necessarily paragons of virtue, are in no way scoundrels either.

Historical Development

Poets accidentally (by luck) discovered the principles of tragedy by telling stories of the famous, tragic families of Ancient Greece

LOVECRAFT

Art Theory

Cosmic horror conveys a story of unknown powers of cosmic proportions coming into contact with our known world. The audience feels a suspension or defeat of the fixed laws of nature which are the only safeguards against the assaults of chaos and daemons of unplumbed space.

Objective with the Audience

To excite in the reader a profound sense of dread.

Means

By describing a cosmic power beyond our understanding defeating our understanding of nature and threatening us.

Characters

Doesn't directly state. In theory, Lovecraft seems to like the Gothic / Byronic antihero. In practice he seems to prefer Men of Science who have devolved to unreliable, possibly insane, narrators because of their cosmic experience. Characters like Herbert West seem to embody both (the Byronic Man of Science).

Historical Development

Has always existed and always will due to mankind's innate fear of the unknown and the infinite mystery of the cosmos. Also, because of the superstitions we continue to transmit through our traditions and history. The maturation of modern psychology has aided the writers ability to more effectively excite the sense of dread in the reader.

MARLOW OGN Pre-Order

MARLOW is FINALLY available for pre-order. (It ships Feb 28 2012). Feel free to pre-order on Amazon, BN, or just wait a couple weeks and pre-order from your favorite comic book shop (or my store on the right.. soon).

http://www.amazon.com/Marlow-Aaron-Thomas-Nelson/dp/1897548303/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322612290&sr=8-1