There aren't enough Monomyths to go around

So I just finished two books. Joseph Campbell’s the Hero With a Thousand Faces and the Myth of the American Superhero by John Shelton Lawrence and Robert Jewett (leave a comment or two in their blog, they're looking a little lonely over there). The former book has been much better circulated and even has several Wikipedia articles devoted to it while the latter, being published in 2002, has not made as much of an impact yet. I had to special-order the book, and it was $27.
So, as a service to you, I’m going to share a summary as well as my criticism of the book.

The authors describe how American pop culture has taken the classical monomyth (described by Campbell as a tale of initiation) and reshaped it into a redemptive monomyth that goes as follows:
1.) Harmonious community (city on a hill)
2.) Threatened by external evil
3.) Normal institutions fail to contend with this threat
4.) Selfless superhero emerges
. a.) Renounces temptations
. b.) Carries out redemptive task
. c.) Aided by fate
5.) Decisive victory restores paradise
6.) Superhero recedes into obscurity.
(p 6)They add further details such as the tendencies towards the hero acting outside of the law, being reluctant to use an ultimate power, and the depiction of complex social problems into black-and-white judgments. What is most significant, however, is that this myth arose in a fully democratic society yet the heroes act contrary to democratic institutions and the rule of law:“Given its elitism, irrationalism, zealous stereotyping, and appetite for total solutions instead of compromise, it is difficult to find any democratic emphasis in the myth, except perhaps in its convention of the ordinary person who develops extraordinary powers” (p 338).
Audiences don’t notice it, though, because it’s ingrained into our subconscious so that it “persuasively disarms both the intellect and the emotional stance of peacefulness” (p97). Those who would normally disapprove of anti-democratic depictions are blinded by its effects. As an example, the authors cite Jimmy Carter (a man who championed peaceful solutions) in his praise of John Wayne as “a symbol of many of the qualities that made America great” despite the Duke’s perpetual emphasis on using a gun to solve problems.So what are the causes?
Mythic selectivity – an artifact defines the factual realities in a given situation. So bad guys have poor aim and a group of 15 ninjas will attack you one at a time.
Mythic massage – assurance that the gap between myth and reality can be bridged.
Invitations to emulate – effective even without being overt.
Basically, people like the monomythic stories because they depict situations in which there is redemption from life’s “endless series of difficulties” and “the requirements of order and justice in tension with individual needs and desires… nostalgia combines with a yearning for easy solutions to bring off the massage” (p 117).Because of invitations to emulate, the monomyth ceases to be just a form of entertainment. An audience member is exposed to a work of fantasy that helps to shape their sense of what is real and desirable so that they take actions consistent with that inspired vision (p 10).

Thus, depictions of violence solving problems is bad because it invites audiences to partake in violence to solve their problems; domestic “Heidi-redeemers,” or those who save the community through miracles and manipulation invite audience members to emulate their feats in real life only to find “… that targets of redemption are not as easy to change as one might expect… cheerful Heidis do not generally succeed in reconciling alienated oldsters to church and community” (p83); and those waiting for a Christ-like redemptive hero (or the calling to become one) to arise have “no patience for working with institutions or working on social justice as a way of improving the world” (p 332).That seems fair enough, being hopeful makes you neglect the world around you. However, the authors further elaborate on the unrealistic aspects of the monomyth:“The myth teaches those seeking to emulate superheroes not to place their cards on the table, not to admit their own emotional needs, and hence always to assume the attitude of the injured servant when thwarted. When the stance of the innocent savior proves futile, explosions of indignation are imminent. Frustrating reality can turn domestic manipulators into male and female bitches. Massaged by the myth to believe that they require no growth or adjustment to adversity, would-be superheroes and –heroines have a disconcerting tendency to withdraw from sustained encounters with reality” (p84).
I know what you’re thinking. Prove it! We could all think of examples of the four claims, but they would be anecdotal at best and false projection in all likelihood. The point stands, though, that attempts at answering the call of the superhero is more likely to end in failure. Sound reasonable.


Disney 
After detailing the motivations behind non-sexual cartoons, they claim that the Lion King is one of many examples of Disney-fascism because it demonstrates that “the most powerful, provided they show a little compassion, shall rule the rest; and the ruled shall be happiest when they festively celebrate their oppressors.” Because the animals are anthropomorphic, the explanation of the Circle of Life is really a “model for human interaction that sanctifies domination and violence.” (p196)

Now, I can see how projecting human qualities on animals can easily conjure up notions of Social Darwinism, but eliminating the primal nature of… well, nature makes it into some sort of utopianized kemono cartoon. Furthermore, I hate it when people throw pejoratives like “fascist” out there (I’ll get into this in just a moment, but I’m pretty sure that the authors have misconceptions about fascism even when demonstrating knowledge about actual historical fascism).
So after going into great detail about the antidemocratic nature of the Disney enterprise, the authors then account how they visited disney.com and looked for any sort of appeal or promotion of democratic ideals by searching for the word “democracy” and implying that the meager results are reminiscent of Disney’s lack of celebrating democracy. But since (according to page 350) there’s a correlation between democracy and “social capital”—“mutual support, cooperation, trust, and institutional effectiveness”— they could have searched for those sorts of things, and done a more thorough examination than just a keyword search.

Video Games
Naturally, video games are another form of mythic socialization, allowing overt identification and control of the hero. However, the authors assert that the Will Wright simulation games are the best-known democratic titles because they “never let the player forget the complexities of the real world and the severe difficulty of finding a heroic solution that everyone will applaud” (p223). Let’s look at some prime examples of democracy on your computerSimCity - zone, destroy buildings, eliminate funding for the police, approve of plans to allow gambling in the city, raise taxes, and control the forces of nature to create disasters. All without consulting anyone, running elections, or involving subordinates.
SimEarth – like SimCity but with just the controlling nature part. You’re God.
The Sims - build relationships, provide for your family, talk with little pictures, and decorate.
SimTower – build and manage a tower. Add stories even as people are living there. Name someone “Clark Kent” and giggle when you get the message that “Clark Kent is not in the building right now.”
Of course, no one can tell you what the end sequence to this game is, or that they got the highest score. There is no score, there is no end sequence and the point is just to fool around. So I guess democracy is pointless. This is especially so with the Sims. I’m surprised the authors didn’t add Mario Paint to the list.


“Fascist Faith in the Star Wars Universe.”
That’s the name of the chapter about Star Wars. The point they want to make is that the indigenous American tradition of violent redemption that surfaces in Star Wars runs parallel to European philosophies like Fascism.

However, the treatment of fascism by the authors is vague. How would you characterize fascist ideology? How does this sound?:
* Nationalism
*Corporatism
*Anti-
. *Socialism
. *Laissez-faire capitalism
. *Communism
. *Trade unions

That’s how I’d characterize fascist ideology. While the leaders may have had undercurrents of totalitarianism and warmongering, the undercurrent in its formation and promulgation was fear that the Great Depression would strengthen Communist movements. Fascism was an alternative to Communism that addressed some Marxist concerns while at the same time saving capitalism (and private ownership) through regulation. However, according to Lawrence and Jewett, these are some fundamental aspects of fascism:

*A natural aristocracy of Martial heroes
*Spiritual in nature (and churches fail to identify the threat)
*Existing in a Republic that has been corrupted by its foes (Betrayal theory),
*Redemption through war
*Individuals find identity in fighting for the people/state.

And since Star Wars has these in common with fascism, as well as the final scene in Episode IV that purposefully draws imagery from the Nazi propaganda film Triumph des Willens, Star Wars and fascism are “spiritual cousins.”

I get that Star Wars and Star Trek and lots of other popular shows and movies follow this archetype (Lucas had Star Wars deliberately follow the classical archetype as well) and I understand how the invitatiosn to emulate the monomyth as well as a cultural preoccupation with salvation can encourage a “spectator democracy” where the people choose to not get involved in a civic system that depends on them to do so. But calling it fascism, reminding us of fascism, implying fascist themes… that’s intellectually dishonest. There are more rational and honest ways of evaluating a myth’s attributes and it isn’t necessary to scare the audience with Nazis to get them concerned. In addition, the authors had previously detailed the deleterious connection between the American monomyth and such figures as Ted Kaczynski, Timothy McVeigh, and Bernard Goetz.

Disaster films, Oliver North, and superpresidents.
After this, though, the authors redeemed themselves by describing how disaster films draw on “Tertullian ecstasy” where the righteous feel that they can enjoy watching sinners suffer. In movies like Jaws and Earthquake, Nature is a retributive force.
“Unlike sexual ecstasy, which is potentially communal and creative, at its best involving love and mutual respect, Tertullian ecstasy can be achieved privately. It demands no creative effort, only that someone suffer for the pleasure of others. Tertullian ecstasy works towards its climactic visceral gratification by a kind of inverted foreplay. Whereas sexual love begins with attraction, the preparation for retributive ecstasy requires revulsion triggered by negative stereotypes… de-identification of interest, an inversion of mutual respect and attraction, blocks any sympathetic response that the audience might have when the wicked suffer their punishment.” (p325)

But, before you feel bad about enjoying movies like Deep Impact and Volcano, keep in mind that these movies allow the innocent to escape and only the wicked to be punished, just like how it happens in real life.

The authors also point out an interesting and emerging trend to have presidents forego their political roles to become the superhero. In Air Force One President Harrison Ford kills terrorists with his bare hands and in Independence Day President Bill Pullman foregoes his strategic role as commander-in-chief to fly in a tactical missile raid. The authors speculate that this, along with images of presidents as corrupt and/or incompetent could be a cause of the decline of young voters.

Aliens in the skies, terrorists under the sheets

The most interesting part of the later chapters of the book was the account of Oliver North’s testimony in the Iran-Contra affair. Even though he admitted to lying and shredding documents in his part to sell arms to terrorists and use the money to fund an insurgency against a democratically elected government in Nicaragua, he was immensely popular because he characterized his efforts as a patriotic attempt to save lives, fight bureaucracy, and prevent communism from spreading. If you’ve forgotten by now, he got away with it all.
So, in conclusion, go see the movie Chicken Run. Apparently it’s the only salvation movie where the archetype is violated because the chickens realize that “freedom will be possible only through their cooperation and assigned responsibilities” (p14).