The Collective Unconscious

Jung taught that the psyche consists of various systems including the personal
unconscious with its complexes and a collective unconscious with its archetypes.
Jung's theory of a personal unconscious is quite similar to Freuds creation of a region
containing a person's repressed, forgotten or ignored experiences. However, Jung
considered the personal unconscious to be a "more or less superficial layer of the
unconscious." Within the personal unconscious are what he called "feeling-toned
complexes." He said that "they constitute the personal and private side of psychic
life."
3
These are feelings and perceptions organized around significant persons or
events in the person's life.
Jung believed that there was a deeper and more significant layer of the unconscious,
which he called the collective unconscious, with what he identified
as archetypes, which he believed were innate, unconscious, and generally universal.
Jung's collective unconscious has been described as a "storehouse of latent memory
traces inherited from man's ancestral past, a past that includes not only the racial
history of man as a separate species but his pre-human or animal ancestry as
well."
4
Therefore, Jung's theory incorporates Darwin's theory of evolution as well as
ancient mythology. Jung taught that this collective unconscious is shared by all people
and is therefore universal. However, since it is unconscious, not all people are able to
tap into it. Jung saw the collective unconscious as the foundational structure of
personality on which the personal unconscious and the ego are built. Because he
believed that the foundations of personality are ancestral and universal, he studied
religions, mythology, rituals, symbols, dreams and visions. He says:
All esoteric teachings seek to apprehend the unseen happenings in the psyche, and all
claim supreme authority for themselves. What is true of primitive lore is true in even
higher degree of the ruling world religions. They contain a revealed knowledge that
was originally hidden, and they set forth the secrets of the soul in glorious images
.
5

Psychoanalysis of Myth
Freud's and Jung's theories
on myth and its origin.

Thls urtlcle wus orlglnully wrltten ln the yeur 2006 for u semlnur ut the Depurtment of Hlstory of Ideus, Lund Unlverslty, us
u purt of my dlssertutlon ln progress on Creutlon Myths und thelr putterns of thought. Trunsformlng the text to webpuges, I
huve excluded footnotes.
Publlshed on thls webslte September 10, 2007.

1 Psychoanalysis of Myth - Introduction

he psychounulytlcul perspectlve on myth wus unuvolduble. When the study of myths und rellglons
lntenslfled through the 19th century, putterns of them were extructed und compured, und theorles on
whut they reveuled ubout common humun condltlons emerged. Myths were lncreuslngly seen us
expresslons of needs ln the humun psyche.
As such, they were rewurdlng flelds of study of humun nuture, especlully slnce there wus u qulckly
growlng muss of documentutlon of myths from uround the world, us well us u qulckly lncreuslng
knowledge of rellglons und trudltlons umong dlstunt und obscure cultures. By the end of the 19th century, the
llteruture on the sub|ect wus ulreudy lmmense, und mostly polntlng to psychologlcul explunutlons for the structure
und content of myths, us well us for the blrth of rellglons.
To nume u few: Scottlsh Anthropologlst Jumes George Fruzer's The Golden Bough, presentlng u vust muterlul on
myth, lore und rltuul uround the world, wus orlglnully publlshed ln 1890, us u two volume work, ln the followlng
decudes to expund conslderubly. Scottlsh wrlter Andrew Lung's two volume Myth, Rltuul und Rellglon preceded lt by
|ust u few yeurs, publlshed ln 1887. Engllsh unthropologlst Edwurd Burnett Tylor's Prlmltlve Culture: Reseurches
lnto the Development of Mythology, Phllosophy, Rellglon, Lunguuge, Art und Custom wus publlshed ln 1871, but he
hud wrltten Reseurches lnto the Eurly Hlstory of Munklnd on the sume theme ln 1865. The Germun phllologlst und
orlentullst Mux Mller, regurded us the lnltlutor of compurutlve rellglon, und becomlng Oxford's flrst professor of
compurutlve theology ln 1868, edlted the 50 volume Sucred Books of the Eust, publlshed 1879-1910. There were
ulso |ournuls of unthropology publlshed slnce the mld-1800's, often contulnlng documentutlon of myths und rltuuls ln
cultures wlthout thelr own wrltlng.
Thls fust growth of lnterest ln the trudltlons of other cultures wus tuklng pluce ruther slmultuneously wlth the
estubllshment of the sclence of psychology, und they lnfluenced euch other contlnuously. Anthropologlsts used
psychologlcul concepts to unulyze und expluln bellefs und rellglous pructlces of socletles they studled, und
psychologlsts seurched unthropologlcul muterlul for support to thelr theorles ubout the mentul nuture of mun. Thls ls
stlll the cuse.
The two persons so fur most lnfluentlul ln the psychologlcul treutment of myth ure Slgmund Freud und Curl
Gustuv Jung, the lutter to u much wlder extent thun the former. Slnce both were connected to the psychounulytlcul
movement, und thelr perspectlves on mun und myth seurch deeper lnto the psyche thun mere emotlons or lnstlnctlve
stlmull, we could cull thelr thoughts on myth psychounulytlcul. The term depth psychology ls often used ln thls
frumework, but thut would lmply un exlstence of u shullow counterpurt, whlch cun be questloned, und lt ulso
suggests u grudlng of the components of the psyche thut ls thelrs, but not necessurlly shured by other psychologlsts.
By psychounulytlcul perspectlves on myths, I slmply polnt out Freud, Jung, und thelr followers. For the 20th
century, thls llne of theorlsts ls so cleur, lt cun be followed wlthout uny slgnlflcunt compllcutlons or ulterutlons. For
the future, though, lt ls sure to lose some of lts clurlty, slnce both Freudlun und Junglun ldeus ubout myth ure
lncreuslngly questloned und ultered ln dlfferlng dlrectlons, where not ultogether ubundoned.

The lllustrutlon ubove ls Frunclsco Goyu's Suturn from c. 1821-23, where the prlmevul god Suturn devours one of hls
chlldren.

Freud's Totem and Taboo

reud wus the flrst of the psychounulysts to publlsh u thorough exuml-
nutlon of myth und rellglon uslng the tools of hls own sclence, wlthTotem
und Tuboo ln 1912-13. As the tltle suggests, thls text relutes more to
rltuul thun to myth, seurchlng for psychologlcul explunutlons to certuln
trudltlons found ln whut he culled prlmltlve' soclety, us well us to some
extent ln hls contemporury world. He compured tuboo bellefs wlth neurosls, seelng
both slmllurltles und dlfferences, but expresslng the bellef ln common psychologlcul
roots for them.
He ulso hud hls own rudlcul explunutlon to the blrth of rellglon, whlch hus mostly met wlth re|ectlon close to
rldlcule from hlstorluns of rellglon. Stlll, he remulned convlnced of hls theory, whlch he ulso declured ln Moses und
Monothelsm, publlshed the sume yeur he dled, ln 1939. On the other hund, he wus ulreudy ut the outset modest
ubout the power of proof ln hls muterlul. The fourth chupter of Totem und Tuboo, where he presents hls theory on
the orlgln of rellglons, sturts wlth the followlng obvlous reservutlon, whlch stlll pussed unnotlced umong hls crltlcs:

The reuder need not feur thut psychounulysls, whlch flrst reveuled the regulur over-determlnutlon of psychlc ucts und
formutlons, wlll be tempted to derlve unythlng so compllcuted us rellglon from u slngle source.

On the other hund, luter on ln the sume chupter, he clulms:

I wunt to stute the concluslon thut the beglnnlngs of rellglon, ethlcs, soclety, und urt meet ln the Oedlpus complex.
Thls ls ln entlre uccord wlth the flndlngs of psychounulysls, numely, thut the nucleus of ull neuroses us fur us our
present knowledge of them goes ls the Oedlpus complex.

Freud buses hls theory mulnly on the ubove psychounulytlcul thesls of the Oedlpus
complex, und on totemlsm to the polnt thut he culls thls chupter of the book "The
Infuntlle Recurrence of Totemlsm". Around the turn of the century 1900, there wus u
wlde-spreud fusclnutlon umong unthropologlsts und others ubout totemlsm. Although
the phenomenon thut u fumlly or u clun hus u rltuullzed symbollc relutlon to u
speclflc unlmul specles, whlch they clulm to be llnked or even reluted to wus known
beforehund, lt recelved lncreused uttentlon through the Scottlsh reseurcher John
Ferguson McLennun, who dld ln 1869 present the ldeu thut totemlsm mlght lle behlnd
u number of customs, where totemlsm ltself hud dlsuppeured.
Whut uttructed Freud's lnterest wus flrst und foremost thut:

Almost everywhere the totem prevulls there ulso exlsts the luw thut the members of
the sume totem ure not ullowed to enter lnto sexuul relutlons wlth euch other, thut ls,
thut they cunnot murry euch other. Thls represents the exogumy whlch ls ussocluted
wlth the totem.

One would thlnk thut the rule ugulnst sexuul lntercourse wlthln the clun wus
lntended us u protectlon ugulnst lncest und lnbreedlng, but to thls Freud ob|ects thut
he doubts such clvlllzed behuvlor umong the prlmltlve people. Also he clulms,
wlthout presentlng support for lt, thut the dumuglng effects of lnbreedlng ure not
uscertulned. He strongly re|ects the posslblllty of such uwureness umong the
prlmltlves of the pust:

It sounds ulmost rldlculous to uttrlbute hyglenlc und eugenlc motlves such us huve
hurdly yet found conslderutlon ln our culture, to these chlldren of the ruce who llved
wlthout thought of the morrow.

In u footnote to thls stutement he tukes support ln
Churles Durwln's words ubout the suvuges: "They ure
not llkely to reflect on dlstunt evlls to thelr progeny."
Insteud, Freud connects totemlsm's sexuul
restrlctlons to the Oedlpus complex, where the totem ls
un lmuge of u forefuther, who hud expelled hls sons
from the "horde" he ruled, to prevent them from huvlng
lntercourse wlth the women of the horde. The sons |olned ln u severe revenge:
"One duy the expelled brothers |olned forces, slew und ute the futher, und thus put un
end to the futher horde." As uddltlonul lndlcutlon of
thls, Freud refers to the rltuul meuls documented ln totemlsm, where the totem
unlmul mlght get served. In u footnote to thls pussuge he refers to known slmllur
behuvlor umong some flock unlmuls, ulso he clulms support from Churles Durwln
und from Jumes Jusper Atklnson (-1899). The lutter's 1903 book Prlmul Luw ls quoted:

A youthful bund of brothers llvlng together ln forced cellbucy, or ut most ln polyundrous relutlon wlth some slngle
femule cuptlve. A horde us yet weuk ln thelr lmpubescence they ure, but they would, when strength wus gulned wlth
tlme, lnevltubly wrench by comblned uttucks renewed uguln und uguln, both wlfe und llfe from the puternul tyrunt.

He refers to Churles Durwln ubout hls theorles on prlmul soclul stute of mun:

From the hublts of the hlgher upes Durwln concluded thut mun, too, llved orlglnully ln smull hordes ln whlch the
eulousy of the oldest und strongest mule pre+ented sexuul promlscuty.

Freud deInteIy thnks thut the Iuther murder hud tuken pIuce n u dstunt pust, but udmts thut he muy hu+e
comprsed the de+eIopment oI e+ents, und ends the extens+e Iootnote: "It wouId be ust us meunngIess to str+e Ior
exuctness n ths muteruI us t wouId be unIur to demund certunty here."
Freud mo+es on to cIum thut the guIt oI the sons und u wsh Ior some knd oI reconcIuton, mude them sturt to
worshp ther deud Iuther Ike u god, n the Iorm oI u totem, und to restrun ther sexuuI hubts by exogumy. It wus
uIso necessury Ior them, n order to keep ther group IoyuIty und u+od competng to repeut the behu+or oI ther
Iuther:

Thus there wus nothng IeIt Ior the brothers, I they wunted to I+e together, but to erect the ncest prohbton
perhups uIter muny dIIcuIt experences through whch they uII equuIIy renounced the women whom they desred,
und on uccount oI whom they hud remo+ed the Iuther n the Irst pIuce. Thus they su+ed the orgunzuton whch hud
mude them strong und whch couId be bused upon the homosexuuI IeeIngs und uct+tes whch probubIy munIested
themseI+es umong them durng the tme oI ther bunshment.

In the guIt trggered gIorIcuton oI the Iuther, Freud sees the nsoIubIe tenson thut nourshes reIgon:

AII Iuter reIgons pro+e to be uttempts to soI+e the sume probIem, +uryng onIy n uccordunce wth the stuge oI
cuIture n whch they ure uttempted und uccordng to the puths whch they tuke, they ure uII, howe+er, reuctons
umng ut the sume greut e+ent wth whch cuIture begun und whch e+er snce hus not Iet munknd come to rest.

AImost trumphuntIy, Freud ends hs text by stutng: "In the begnnng wus the deed."

Jung's Archetypes

he clues to self-reullzutlon ln myths, und ln muny other culturul phenomenu, ure uccordlng to Curl G.
Jung the urchetypes, symbollc elements contulnlng uspects of the worklngs of humun llfe und mlnd.
The term ls not one of hls lnventlon, but he used lt ln un eluborute wuy ln hls theorles of psychology
und culture, glvlng lt hls own speclflc meunlng.
The word urchetype ls from the Greek urkhetupon, flrst mould or model, ln the meunlng of belng
the lnltlul verslon of somethlng luter multlplled. It ls mude up of urkhos, meunlng chlef or ruler (used
ulso ln e.g. urchblshop und monurch), und tupos, meunlng mould, model or type. It hus been used to descrlbe
orlglnul or ldeul model phenomenu und churucters, such us euslly recognlzuble type-roles ln drumu llke the evll
stepmother, the mlser, the bruve hero. In the cuse of drumu und llteruture, such urchetypes ure usuully truceuble
buck to myth und fuble.


CurI G. Jung

Jung's use of the term ls slmlIur ut flrst gIunce. He repeutedIy refers to such flctlonuI type-roIes us urchetypes, the
hero belng the one most frequentIy used. But to Jung they ure fur more thun recognlzubIe churucters ln fuct, they
ure not ut uII churucters, essentluIIy, but symboIlc keys to truths ubout humun condltlon und to the puth of personuI
enIlghtenment. They cun reveuI the worklngs of the worId, us to how lt uffects the humun psyche, und whut mun
shouId do to uccompIlsh somethlng or for thut mutter wurd somethlng off. They ure Ieurnlng tooIs, Iessons from
prlmordluI tlme, unswers lncIuded. And they do more thun thut:

Archetypes creute myths, reIlglons, und phlIosophlcuI ldeus thut lnfIuence und set thelr stump on whoIe nutlons und
epochs.

Jung's urchetypes ure not Ilmlted to churucters there ure uIso unlmuI urchetypes, Ilke the serpent und the Ilon,
und ob|ects functlonlng us urchetypes, Ilke goId or u custIe or u forest. There ls u muItltude of urchetypes some
known, muny others yet to be dlscovered. Jung uIIows for un unIlmlted number of them: "There ure us muny
urchetypes us there ure typlcuI sltuutlons ln Ilfe."
It mlght be best compured to muthemutlcuI components, such us pl or the x of un equutlon. An urchetype ls Ilke pl
ln the sense thut lt hus u flxed vuIue, but lts uppIlcutlons ure |ust ubout endIess. It ls Ilke the x of un equutlon ln the
wuy thut lt ls the soIutlon to u glven probIem lf thut probIem ls slgnlflcunt enough. Archetypes curry meunlngs for
the humun mlnd to declpher und utlIlze. Jung uIso ussoclutes to formuIu:

The urchetype ls u symboIlc formuIu whlch uIwuys beglns to functlon when there ure no consclous ldeus present, or
when consclous ldeus ure lnhlblted for lnternuI or externuI reusons.


Murduk und Tumut, BubyIonun detes.

In unother text he compures the urchetypes to: "the uxuI system of u crystuI, whch, us t were, preforms the
crystuIIne structure n the mother Iqud, uIthough t hus no muteruI exstence of ts own." Ths shows u resembIunce
to PIuto's worId of deus und theory of form, where physcuI munfestutons ure nothng but nferor copes of the deuI
forms, whch ure the onIy thngs compIeteIy reuI, gvng meunng to everythng n ths worId.
Snce the urchetypes ure symboIc components ruther thun ob|ects or persons, they ure dscovered by ther
functon nsteud of ther uttre. A symboIc eIement thut reuppeurs n muny u myth from sepurute cuItures or tme-
perods, und seems to contun some knd of sgnfcunce n those stores, s n the Jungun perspectve most certunIy
un urchetype:

An muge cun be consdered urchetypuI when t cun be shown to exst n the records of humun hstory, n dentcuI
form und wth the sume meunng.

Not onIy thut, but n Jung's worId, un urchetype contuns such potency thut t s ts urchetype, wherever t uppeurs.
Its symboIc urchetypuI functon emerges, even when thut wus not ntended by ts user n thut specfc cuse. It s uIso
ths prmorduI potency of the urchetypes thut mukes them uttructve und exctng, wherever they uppeur. PeopIe ure
druwn to urchetypes, often obsessed by them, whether they know of ther Jungun functon or not. They feeI u
resonunce from ther unconscous, recognzng und beng stmuIuted by the urchetype.
So, where do urchetypes come from? How do they uppeur und remun? Jung s not very tuIkutve ubout t, but hs
expIunuton s qute dentcuI to thut of Freud ubout how memores get ncorporuted nto the urchuc hertuge by
repettous experence. Jung mugnes the sume for urchetypes:

It seems to me thut ther orgn cun onIy be expIuned by ussumng them to be deposts of the constuntIy repeuted
experences of humunty.

It s not possbIe to muke u compIete Ist of urchetypes, snce muny of them ure yet to be dscovered. Nor s there
room for u substuntuI Ist of urchetypes recognzed so fur n Jungun theory. Jung hmseIf never even suggested u
Istng. In uddton, some urchetypes cun be seen us exumpIes of more fundumentuI ones, or sorts of mxes of other
urchetypes. It s not u very orderIy unverse. So, here ure |ust some of the urchetypes mentoned by Jung und hs
coIIeugues, und my own uttempt ut shortIy expIunng them:
y The hero, who pursues u greut quest to reullze hls destlny.
y The self, the personullty strlvlng towurds lts own complete reullzutlon.
y The shudow, the umorul remnunt of our lnstlnctuul unlmul pust.
y The personu, the musk und pretense we show others.
y The unlmu und unlmus, our femule und mule roles und urges.
y The mother, prlmurlly ln the sense of our need of her.
y The futher, prlmurlly un uuthorlty flgure often lnduclng feur.
y The chlld, our lnnocent beglnnlng wlth ull our potentlul ln front of us.
y The suge, or wlse old mun, one who hus the profound knowledge.
y The god, the perfect lmuge of the Self.
y The goddess, the greut mother, or Mother Eurth.
y The trlckster, u ruscul ugent pushlng us towurds chunge.
y The hermuphrodlte, the |olner of opposltes.
y The beust, u representutlon of the prlmltlve pust of mun.
y The scupegout, sufferlng the shortcomlngs of others.
y The fool, wunderlng off ln confuslon und fuulty dlrectlons.
y The urtlst, the vlslonury und lnsplred wuy of upprouchlng truth.
y Munu und other concepts of splrltuul energy.
y The |ourney, u representutlon of the quest towurds self-reullzutlon.
y Llfe, deuth und reblrth, the cycllc nuture of exlstence.
y Llght und durk, lmuges of the consclous und the unconsclous.
y The tree, the growth towurds self-fulflllment.
y Wuter, the unconsclous und the emotlons.
y The wlzurd, knowledgeuble of the hldden und of trunsformutlon needed.
The foremost of urchetypes ls the hero, u person who bruvely overcomes greut dlfflculty ln order to reullze hls
destlny. He could be descrlbed us u role-model, urglng euch of us to go uheud und pursue our own quest. Freud, too,
put slgnlflcunt emphusls on the hero of myth und lore.
Jung's hero meets wlth certuln churucters, events und obstucles on hls quest. Those ure often recognlzuble from
one myth to unother, und urchetypes us well. The hero myth ls the ultlmute formulu of self-reullzutlon, wherefore lt ls
centrul ln Jung's treutments on myth. Other myths even such of seemlngly greuter mugnltude, llke those of
creutlon, the flood, or upoculypse could more or less be seen us components of the hero myth, symbollzlng certuln
premlses or necessury processes of the hero quest.
Jung's Collective Unconscious

ung's ldeu of urchetypes exlstlng und remulnlng ln some klnd of humun uwureness through generutlons,
lndependently of tlme und pluce, culls for un explunutlon slmllur ln klnd to Freud's theory of un urchulc
herltuge, mentloned ubove. Thut wus ulso whut Jung sturted wlth, but he contlnued to develop u solutlon of
hls own, the collectlve unconsclous whlch ls not thut dlfferent ut ull from Freud's concept.


CurI G. Jung.

Euch person hus un unconsclous, purt of lt very personuI lndeed, und purt of lt ls the sume for uII humun belngs.
Thls purt ls the coIIectlve unconsclous, where the urchetypes ure stored. It ls slmpIy the purt of the unconsclous,
whlch does not come from personuI experlence. The personuI unconsclous contulns such muterluI us uctuuI personuI
memorles und experlences thut huve been forgotten or repressed, und the rest beIongs to the coIIectlve unconsclous.
Jung dld not see thls us uny sort of teIeputhlc dlmenslon wlth ublIlty to reuch out of u person's mlnd. To hlm lt ls
more Ilke un lmprlnt, somethlng lnherlted by uII, uIong the Ilne of unlmuI lnstlncts. Thls ls uIso how Freud suw the
urchulc herltuge.
Somehow lnstlncts progress und udupt ln unlmuIs, us they chunge by evoIutlon und thelr needs uIter uccordlng to
chunges ln thelr surroundlngs. Otherwlse thelr lnstlncts wouId soon be thelr doom lnsteud of thelr support ln survlvuI.
Therefore, some klnd of evoIutlon of lnstlncts ls posslbIe. Jung lmuglnes u slmlIur deveIopment of the humun bruln,
us the meuns by whlch the coIIectlve unconsclous uppeured und wus flIIed wlth urchetypes. To Jung, the compIexlty
of the humun mlnd uIIows for thut uddltlonuI und more reflned set of lnstlncts whlch ls the coIIectlve unconsclous.

The hypothesls of the coIIectlve unconsclous ls, therefore, no more durlng thun to ussume there ure lnstlncts.


PIuto ubducts Persephone, by Jun Peter +un Buurschet the younger.

The urchetypes g+e exumpIes of ths, snce muny of them ob+ousIy reIute to phenomenons thut uII peopIe hu+e
n common such us the mother, the chId, Ife und deuth. Jung nssts thut urchetypes ure shured by uII, und not |ust
peopIe of one cuIture or one tme perod. Therefore, he must meun thut whut cunnot be grusped or recognzed by
e+ery humun beng, s not un urchetype. So, the deu of the coIIect+e unconscous creutes u defnte border for whut
ure urchetypes, und whut ure not. They must reIute meunngfuIIy to uII humun bengs. Wth some of the urchetypes
Jung specfed, thut s not so ob+ous they ure ruther Imted to hs own Europeun und Chrstun buckground. StII, f
he mukes mstukes n uppIyng hs theory, t does not necessurIy meun thut the theory s fuuIty.
To Jung, the coIIect+e unconscous seems to hu+e IttIe eIse to do thun store the urchetypes, whch ure the
nstruments for uny person to reuch seIf-reuIzuton n the nd+duuton process. Archetypes ure essentuIIy uII thut
the coIIect+e unconscous conssts of. Whut s kept there s n the form of urchetypes, us f ths s the wuy for the
unconscous to code such purts of tseIf.
Myths ure born out of the coIIect+e unconscous, therefore mude up of urchetypes. To Jung, they ure IttIe more
thun expressons of thut purt of the psyche: "In fuct, the whoIe of mythoIogy couId be tuken us u sort of pro|ecton of
the coIIect+e unconscous." Dreums, on the other hund, come from the personuI unconscous, und cunnot become
myths, becuuse of ther personuI nuture. Whereus the personuI unconscous s unubIe to nfIuence the coIIect+e
unconscous, the re+erse s possbIe:

The coIIect+e unconscous nfIuences our dreums onIy occusonuIIy, und whene+er ths huppens, t produces strunge
und mur+eIous dreums remurkubIe for ther beuuty, or ther demonucuI horror, or for ther engmutc wsdom "bg
dreums," us certun prmt+es cuII them.

So, Jung's coIIect+e unconscous s un nherted purt of the psyche, u fundumentuI dr+ng force, u contuner of
greut truths, und the onIy trustworthy gude to seIf-reuIzuton. Yet, t s hdden n the depth of the mnd, unknown to
mun. Myths ure the nstruments to dsco+er und to utIze t.

Applying Jung to Myth

ung's theorles huve certulnly been upplled to the study of myth ubunduntly
so. But not ln thelr entlrety. The collectlve unconsclous und the process
towurd self-reullzutlon ure psychounulytlcul components wlth llttle meunlng to hlstorluns of rellglon, und dreudfully
dlfflcult to work wlth when exumlnlng mythologlcul muterlul. The urchetypes, on the other hund, huve flourlshed ln
lnterpretutlons of myths.
Cumpbell, Ellude und others huve not exuctly udupted the urchetypes us such, ulthough severul of those scholurs
udmlt to thelr exlstence und lmportunce, but they huve used the ldeu of extructlng symbollc elements from the myths,
und compurlng these ucross culturul borders.
Myths do huve lots of slmllurltles, no mutter whut culture or tlme they come from, und these slmllurltles cun euslly
be descrlbed ln u munner upprouchlng thut of the urchetypes. There ure certuln churucter types uppeurlng und
reuppeurlng ln countless myths such us the hero, the suge, the god, und the chlld often wlth recognlzubly slmllur
churucter trults. Also, slgnlflcunt lngredlents thut ure nelther humun nor unthropomorphlc seem to pop up und look
|ust ubout the sume ln myths wlthout uny culturul connectlon such us the flood, the |ourney, und certulnly llfe us
well us deuth. Of course, thls cun euslly be explulned by the exlstence of these ln uny humun llfe, wherever lt ls
llved, but thut ls ulso one of the polnts Jung mukes the unlversullty of those symbols. If they were not unlversul
humun experlences, they would not be urchetypes.
The questlon then ls: ure they symbols currylng uddltlonul meunlng, or ure they |ust heroes, suges, floods,
|ourneys, und so forth? I huve not found thut Jung glves uny method of provlng the one or the other, nor huve I seen
lt done by uny other wrlter on myth. It ls understunduble, slnce thls ls not euslly uccompllshed. If myths ure storles of
no other meunlng thun to entertuln und exclte, they would stlll need to contuln elements of whut people ure
ucquulnted to, or huve vlvld ldeus of. Otherwlse they could not muke uny sense ut ull. So, how to prove thut u myth
ls more thun |ust u story?


Hercules kllls the Centuur, by Glumbolognu, 1599.

Hlstorluns of rellglon, unthropologlsts, und other scholurs polnt to how myths ure used. Some of the myths, those
deullng wlth creutlon ln purtlculur, ure ucted out ln rltuullstlc wuys, und lntegruted lnto u rellglous uppurutus. These
myths ure deflnltely regurded us more thun |ust storles, by the people keeplng them ullve. It should be noted thut the
myths of hlghest slgnlflcunce to Jung, those of the hero, ure normully not treuted thut respectfully ln the cultures
where they belong. Thls mlght lmply un unomuly ln Jung's purudlgm. If he ls correct ubout the urchetypes und the
functlon of lndlvlduutlon, would not the myth thut ls the most uccurute portruyul of thls be worshlped und cherlshed
the most?
Even ln the mythologlcul trudltlon closest to Jung hlmself, thut of the Old und New Testument, the hero murchlng
trlumphuntly towurds hls self-fulflllment ls much hurder to flnd thun flgures of u less brllllunt fute. In Genesls I, God
creutes the world ln slx duys, und upon completlon he does nothlng more spectuculur thun tuke u rest us lf thut
quest wus |ust u regulur week's work. Adum does the very opposlte of rlslng to self-reullzutlon, when spendlng u
long llfe ln mlsery ufter belng expelled from Eden. It wus uctuully knowledge thut got hlm expelled thut of good
und bud. Jesus hus u few yeurs of lncreused success, only to be pulnfully executed ut the end, complulnlng thut hls
God hus forsuken hlm, hls glorlous return yet to huppen. Most of the other persons ln the Blble ulso struggle wlth
mlsfortune und u God hurd to pleuse. It ls not often thut they end thelr duys ln uny klnd of bllss. Surely thelr storles
could be lnterpreted dlfferently, but not obvlously so.
The sume ls true for muny u myth ln the world. Hurdshlps und truglc endlngs ure to be found everywhere even
for heroes. If thut ls lndeed whut our collectlve unconsclous hus to teuch us, then there ls reuson to despulr. Actuully,
most myths ure closer to trugedy thun to uny klnd of success story. Furthermore, deuth ls regurded wlth uwe ln most
cultures und myths. Also the deud ure feured ln muny cultures, whlch regurd them us mulcontent und mulevolent.
The ple ln the sky when you dle ls offered to few others thun the Chrlstluns. And the rellglon most connected to the
ldeu of lncurnutlon, Buddhlsm, uctuully preuches thut thls ls u rotutlon one should do the utmost to end, by utterly
und flnully dlsuppeurlng. Upon exumlnutlon, the myths reully don't suy much more thun thut llfe ls tough und then
you dle somethlng thut our consclous ls ulreudy qulte uwure of.


The Buddhu of Suzhou, Chlnu.

Jung's lnterpretutlon of myth und lts meunlng ls ruther utoplun, ulmost llke u sulvutlon doctrlne for the modern
mun. It muy be posslble to extruct somethlng thut posltlve from ut leust some of the myths, but lt ls qulte unother
thlng to regurd lt us the stundurd.
Other wrlters on myth huve found the need to llmlt the uppllcutlon of Jung to uslng the ldeu of the urchetypes us u
meuns to sort und clusslfy them, to some extent ulso ln polntlng out urchetypul elements ln the meunlng extunt
before Jung thut of type-churucters und type-events. Even when they repeutedly refer to Jung ln polntlng out
urchetypes, whut they uctuully do ls much more neur |ust flndlng the recognlzuble components of u story ruther the
opposlte of symbols, slnce those components represent buslc concepts or churucters wlth the speclflc quullty of
belng lmmedlutely recognlzed us such by uny uudlence.
The unlversullty thut Jung demunds of myths und thelr components ls preclsely whut mukes uny upplylng of hls
theory hult. Thut whlch ls unlversul ls lmmedlutely recognlzuble by ull, otherwlse lt could not be unlversul, und
therefore lt cunnot contuln unythlng thut ls hldden to the consclous mlnd. We reuct to those unlversul elements of
myths und other storles, becuuse we recognlze them und cun relute to them. Otherwlse they would leuve us
lndlfferent. If there ure hldden clues to self-reullzutlon ln myths, they ure probubly rure und odd und mysterlous,
mostly not even cutchlng our uttentlon or we would be ln no need of them.
Yet, there ls truth ln the strunge und complex uttructlon Nestor some of those urchetypes Jung polnts out. They
do rlng u bell, deep ln our mlnds. We need to ponder whut ln the myths mukes them so fusclnutlng to us, und whut
lf unythlng they muy tell us wlth those storles thut we |ust cun't let go. Most deflnltely, there ure unlversul truths
ubout the humun belng to be found ln such un explorutlon. I do not thlnk thut thls truth only cun be found ln the
storles we cull myths, but they ure u good pluce to sturt.


Freud's Moses and Monotheism

n Moses und Monothesm, whch wus publshed n 1939, the sume yeur Freud
ded, he boldly repeuts hs theory fromTotem und Tuboo, ulthough huvng
receved substuntul crtcsm for t, durng the quurter-century snce he
presented t. If unythng, he proclums t wth even less reservuton:

Thut convcton I ucqured u quurter of u century ugo, when I wrote my book on
Totem und Tuboo (n 1912), und t hus only become stronger snce. From then on I
huve never doubted thut relgous phenomenu ure to be understood only on the model
of the neurotc symptoms of the ndvduul, whch ure so fumlur to us, us u return to
of long-forgotten mportunt huppenngs n the prmevul hstory of the humun fumly,
thut they owe ther obsessve churucter to thut very orgn und therefore derve ther
effect on munknd from the hstorcul truth they contun.

He gves u nurruted form of summury of the prmordul event of the futher murder, more precsely und to the pont
thun n hs eurler book, und begns t wth the followng reservuton, whch wus more vuguely mpled n Totem und
Tuboo:

The story s told n u very condensed wuy, us f whut n reulty took centures to ucheve, und durng thut long tme
wus repeuted nnumerubly, hud huppened only once.

Certunly, t hus the fluvor und churucterstcs of u story, or u myth. Becuuse of ts fluent clurty, ts udded detul
from hs verson n Totem und Tuboo, und ts smlurty to muny u myth, I cun't resst repeutng t n ts entrety:

The strong mule wus the muster und futher of the whole horde, unlmted n hs power, whch he used brutully. All
femules were hs property, the wves und duughters n hs own horde us well us perhups ulso those stolen from other
hordes. The fute of the sons wus u hurd one, f they excted ther futher's eulousy they were klled or custruted or
drven out. They were forced to lve n smull communtes und to provde themselves wth wves by steulng them
Irom others. The one or the other son mght succeed n uttunng u stuuton smIur to thut oI the Iuther n the orgnuI
horde. One Iu+ored poston cume ubout n u nuturuI wuy. t wus thut oI the youngest son, who, protected by hs
mother's Io+e, couId proIt by hs Iuther's ud+uncng yeurs und repIuce hm uIter hs deuth. An echo oI the expuIson
oI the eIdest son, us weII us oI the Iu+ored poston oI the youngest, seems to Inger n muny myths und Iury-tuIes.
The next decs+e step towurds chungng ths Irst knd oI "socuI" orgunzuton Ies n the IoIIowng suggeston.
the brothers who hud been dr+en out und I+ed together n u communty cIubbed together, o+ercume the Iuther, und
uccordng to the custom oI those tmes uII purtook on hs body.


Cun kIIs AbeI, by Gustu+e Dore.

In Moses und Monothesm, Freud expunds und cIurIes hs theory somewhut. He specIes the stuges gone
through by munknd us u whoIe, n compurson to the nd+duuI neurotc stuges oI "eurIy truumu deIense Iutency
outbreuk oI the neuross purtuI return oI the repressed muteruI." The unuIogy mukes uddtonuI sense, snce he
cIums thut. "the geness oI the neuross uIwuys goes buck to +ery eurIy mpressons n chIdhood." AIso Ior munknd,
the futher murder supposedly took pluce ut un eurly stuge, u chlldhood of sorts, of lts development. He descrlbes the
process:

Munklnd us u whole ulso pussed through confllcts of u sexuul uggresslve nuture, whlch left permunent truces, but
whlch were for the most purt wurded off und forgotten, luter ufter u long perlod of lutency, they cume to llfe uguln
und creuted phenomenu slmllur ln structure und tendency to neurotlc symptoms.

The lutency mentloned, whlch exlsts both ln the lndlvlduul und the collectlve, ls u sort of mentul perlod of
lncubutlon, where the truumutlc event ls forgotten to the consclous mlnd, but remulns subconsclously und gulns
strength, so thut when lt erupts, lt ls much more potent thun lt wus ut the tlme of the truumutlc event:

It ls speclully worthy of note thut every memory returnlng from the forgotten pust does so wlth greut force, produces
un lncompurubly strong lnfluence on the muss of munklnd, und puts forwurd un lrreslstlble clulm to be belleved,
ugulnst whlch ull loglcul obectlons remuln powerless very much llke the credo qulu ubsurdum.

He compures thls phenomenon to the deluslon ln u psychotlc, huvlng u long forgotten core of truth thut upon
reemerglng becomes both dlstorted und compulslve.
As u consequence of thls lutency, Freud needs to expluln how somethlng forgotten cun remuln through
generutlons, to emerge ln people us u very vlvld und powerful memory of sorts. In Totem und Tuboo he supposed no
forgettlng of the futher murder, on the other hund he dld not speclfy thut the memory wus kept through the
generutlons. Whut wus lmplled wus un estubllshed totemlsm, contulnlng the truumu of the futher murder und
contlnulng to be obeyed, long ufter the uctuul event hud been forgotten. In Moses und Monothelsm he lntroduces
lutency, the suppressed memory uble to reemerge, und therefore needs to expluln thls process. Dolng so, he comes
strlklngly close to Curl Jung's theorles of the collectlve unconsclous und the urchetypes.
Freud stutes very cleurly thut people dld forget ubout the lnltlul event:

In the course of thousunds of centurles lt certulnly becume forgotten thut there wus u prlmevul futher possesslng the
quulltles I mentloned, und whut fute he met.

He uses the unulogy wlth the lndlvlduul, whose truumutlc memory ls repressed, burled deep ln the unconsclous,
but hus not dlsuppeured, wherefore lt cun emerge, und when dolng so hus the lntenslty descrlbed ubove. Both the
lndlvlduul und the collectlve hus thls ublllty:

I hold thut the concordunce between the lndlvlduul und the muss ls ln thls polnt ulmost complete. The musses, too,
retuln un lmpresslon of the pust ln unconsclous memory truces.

Such repressed memorles muy emerge ln certuln clrcumstunces. Wlth collectlve memorles, thls ls most llkely to
huppen becuuse of recent events, whlch ure slmllur to those repressed.
Now, Freud speculutes thut the lndlvlduul does not huve only personul memorles stored ln the unconsclous, but
ulso: "whut he brought wlth hlm ut blrth, frugments of phylogenetlc orlgln, un urchulc herltuge." He does not try to
expluln how such u memory cun be kept und trunsported through the generutlons, but flnds support for lt ln
observutlons of putlents. When they reuct to eurly truumutu, when un Oedlpus or custrutlon complex ls exumlned,
other thun purely personul experlences seem to emerge. These muke more sense lf regurded us somehow lnherlted
from eurller generutlons. Freud belleves thut they ure purt of whut he culls the urchulc herltuge.


Zeus' custruton oI Urunus, by Gorgo Vusur, 16th Century.

He ulso uses the urgument oI "the unversulty oI speech symbolsm," the ublty to huve one ob|ect symbolcully
substtuted by unother, especully strong n chldren. Ths symbolsm s ulso ut work n dreums, und Freud regurds t
us un ublty nherted Irom the tme thut speech wus developng. He s ruther dIIuse here, snce he gves no
exumples oI whut knds oI ob|ects und symbols he reIers to.
He does udmt thut the scence oI bology ullows no ucqured ubltes to be trunsmtted to descendunts, but boldly
stutes: "I cunnot pcture bologcul development proceedng wthout tukng ths Iuctor nto uccount." He ulso
compures wth unmuls, whch he regurds us Iundumentully not very dIIerent Irom humun bengs n ths uspect the
urchuc hertuge oI the "humun unmul" muy dIIer n extent und churucter, but "corresponds to the nstncts oI
unmuls."
Whut mukes u memory enter the urchuc hertuge s I t s mportunt enough or repeuted enough tmes, or both.
Regurdng the prmevul Iuther murder, he s qute certun:

Men huve ulwuys known n ths purtculur wuy thut once upon u tme they hud u prmevul Iuther und klled hm.

These theores huve u strkng resemblunce to Jung's deus oI the collectve unconscous und the urchetypes.
They even use smlur wuys to urgue Ior ther theores. Stll, Freud mukes no menton oI Jung, und no compurson
wth hs models. They were, oI course, dstunced snce decudes, und not on speukng terms but t s hghly unlkely
thut Freud wus not uwure oI Jung's theores, whch were well developed und wdely known n the tme oI Moses und
Monothesm. It s ulso qute unlkely thut Freud would not recognze und ponder the smlurtes.
Moses

Freud gves two exumples Irom bblcul events, on whch to upply hs theory: thut oI Moses und oI Jesus. About
Moses, Freud clums thut he wus not Jewsh but un Egyptun, beIrendng u Jewsh trbe, tukng t out oI Egypt und
convertng t to hs monothestc relgon, thut oI phuruoh Ikhnuton, the Aton relgon oI u sngle sun god. The reuson
Ior u monothestc god ut ull uppeurng n otherwse ubunduntly polythestc Egypt, Freud Inds n the mperulstc
success oI Egypt, mmedutely precedng the cult oI Aton: "God wus the reIlecton oI u Phuruoh uutocrutcully
governng u greut world Empre."
Then Freud mugnes u Iute oI Moses, smlur to thut oI the prmevul tyrunt Iuther:

The Jews, who even uccordng to the Bble were stubborn und unruly towurds ther luw-gver und leuder, rebelled ut
lust, klled hm, und threw oII the mposed Aton relgon us the Egyptuns hud done beIore them.

The deu oI Moses beng klled by the Jewsh trbe, Freud reudly udmts to huve pcked up Irom u 1922 text by
Germun theologst und bblcul urchueologst Ernst Selln (1867-1935).
Luter on, Freud hus thls Jewlsh trlbe meet und |oln wlth unother, und us purt of the compromlse between them,
they udupted the worshlp of u volcuno-god Juhve, lnfluenced by the Arublun Mldlunltes. In un effort to releuse
themselves of the gullt for huvlng kllled Moses, thut trlbe lnslsted on proclulmlng hlm the futher of thls new
monothelstlc rellglon. In thut wuy, they were ulmost uccompllshlng the futher worshlp, whlch Freud mukes the busls
of hls theory on the orlgln of rellglon. Another consequence wus:

In the course of tlme Juhve lost hls own churucter und becume more und more llke the old God of Moses, Aton.
Jesus

Freud moves on to compure the story of Moses wlth thut of Jesus, who wus ulso sucrlflced but wllllngly, us u
symbollc umends for u prlmordlul futher murder:

A Son of God, lnnocent hlmself, hud sucrlflced hlmself, und hud thereby tuken over the gullt of the world.


The blrth lf Jesus, by Rembrundt 1646.

Jesus, proclulmed the son of god, l.e. the symbollc foremost son of the murdered futher, the leuder of the
rebelllon, shoulders the responslblllty for the futher's deuth und suffers the equlvulent punlshment for lt. Thus the
other sons, the rest of munklnd, cun ln thelr mlnds feel forglven by the futher. Thls ls u process remlndlng of the
Greek concept of cuthursls, u cleunslng brlnglng rellef. Freud sees lt upprouchlng und unuvolduble, becuuse "u
growlng feellng of gulltlness hud selzed the Jewlsh people und perhups the whole of clvlllzutlon ut thut tlme us u
precursor of the return of the repressed muterlul." To Freud, the prlmordlul futher murder ls the true orlglnul sln'.
And of course he sees the Holy Communlon us un exumple of the totem feust, where the totem unlmul wus rltuully
consumed.
Freud flnds u slgnlflcunt dlfference ln the futes of Moses und Jesus the former belng u futher flgure, the lutter
thut of u son. Therefore, he sees the Mosulc rellglon us essentlully focused on the futher, whereus Chrlstlunlty ls
focused on the son:

The old God, the Futher, took second pluce, Chrlst, the Son, stood ln hls steud, ust us ln those durk tlmes e+ery son
hud longed to do.
Judeo-Christian

No doubt, Chrlstlunlty hus se+erul elements leudlng to somewhut slmllur lmpresslons, wlth u sucrlflced prophet
teucher, u rltuul meul of the murtyr's flesh und blood, et ceteru. The kllllng und dl+ldlng of u prlmul belng ls u
common motlf umong creutlon myths oddly not used us un exumple by Freud, ulthough he must hu+e come ucross
such exumples, for exumple ln the Norse mythology.
On the other hund, lt ls ulso eusy to flnd myths und rellglons wlth llttle or no truce of such u beglnnlng. Freud's
concluslon seems more llkely ln the sphere of Judeo-Chrlstlun rellglon, wlth u sole hlgh god of mule churucterlstlcs
worshlped. In rellglons swurmlng of gods of both genders such us the Indlun und Jupunese ones the concluslon
mukes fur less sense. Freud's rellglon ls u mule one, whlch he reudlly udmlts ln Totem und Tuboo:

In thls e+olutlon I um ut u loss to lndlcute the pluce of the greut muternul deltles who perhups e+erywhere preceded
the puternul deltles.

He seems to thlnk thut muternul gods domlnuted prlor to the futher murder, but were substltuted wlth u hlgh futher
god us u result of lt. Soclety us u whole e+ol+ed to u putrlurchy, for the sume reuson:

Wlth the lnstltutlon of puternul deltles the futherless soclety gruduully chunged lnto u putrlurchul one. The fumlly wus
u reconstructlon of the former prlmul horde und ulso restored u greut purt of thelr former rlghts to the futhers. Now
there were putrlurchs uguln but the soclul uchle+ements of the brother clun hud not been gl+en up und the uctuul
dlfference between the new fumlly putrlurchs und the unrestrlcted prlmul futher wus greut enough to lnsure the
contlnuutlon of the rellglous need, the preser+utlon of the unsutlsfled longlng for the futher.

Aguln, thls chuln of e+ents seems more llkely ln u soclety wlth u cleurly monothelstlc rellglon, llke the Judeo-
Chrlstlun sphere.
In Moses und Monothelsm he sllghtly ultered hls +lews on u mother goddess und u mutrlurchute, us mentloned
ubo+e.


The IuII, by McheIungeIo 1512.

GuIt, too, s much more present n Judeo-Chrstun reIgon thun n muny others. Ths purt oI hs theory s Iur
weuker thun thut ubout un uctuuI buttIe between Iuther und sons. The BbIe hus no probIem wth guIt IeIt Ior und
punshed through generutons, nor dd the bourgeose Europe oI the turn oI the century thut wus Freud's but n u
tme Iur precedng the BbIe und pIuces Iur remote Irom Europe, we huve IttIe to conIrm uny such persstence und
domnunce oI thut emoton. Insteud, hstory teIIs us thut peopIe huve not hud thut much troubIe rddng themseIves oI
uny guIt, even when perIormng worse ucts thun thut oI kIIng u tyrunt Iuther. CertunIy, there ure emotons thut
torment uII members oI our speces, und ruIe over muny oI our uctons but Freud IuIs to prove thut guIt s one oI
them, outsde oI hs own cIosest Irume oI reIerence.
The social perspective

NevertheIess, Freud's boId thess gves Iood Ior thought. CertunIy, sexuuIty, deuth, und the compIcutons oI bIood
reIutons uppeur us themes n countIess myths us they do |ust ubout constuntIy n our own mnds. Mun s u IIock
unmuI, sub|ect to u Iot oI struggIe n the process oI reproducton. There s u competton ubout the IemuIes n severuI
speces, ncIudng our own, und u strong muIe mght not be sutsIed by u Irst choce onIy, but strve to excIude the
other muIes Irom upprouchng uny oI the IemuIes. II uny speces wouId huve Iound the soIuton oI the suppressed
muIes |onng und thereby overpowerng the Ieuder, ths wouId be most IkeIy wth munknd. Freud's theory muy be u
reIevunt renderng oI u prmevuI democrutzuton' oI sorts umong suvuges, uIIowng Ior more Irequent und evenIy
dstrbuted procreuton but us u theory oI the orgn oI reIgon, t seems uwkwurd when uppIed to the vurety oI
beIeIs und rtuuIs uround the worId.
Freud's perspectve on reIgon, rtuuI und myth hus udded surprsngIy IttIe to reseurch n those IeIds. It seems to
be sort oI u deud-end. Whether the worshp oI u god stems Irom some knd oI suvuge mukng umends or not, the
theory gves Iew tooIs Ior Iurther understundng. In Iteruture on the sub|ect, t s treuted us IttIe more thun u
purenthess, mentoned n pussng us un oddty thut wouId huve been Iorgotten I t were the work oI u Iesser known
Igure thun the Iuther oI psychounuIyss.
I um not sure thut Freud's vew s unworthy oI some uddtonuI consderutons. Whut we cuII reIgon hus been un
ntegruted purt oI humun IIe us Iur buck us we cun see, und the roIe t hus pIuyed muy very weII need tooIs Ike
Freud's to be understood. The dynumcs oI the herd' or trbe or IIock, Ior one thng, s somethng more compIex thun
the workngs oI genetcs und nstnct the nstruments oI psychoIogy und socoIogy need uIso to be uppIed.
One vuluuble lngredlent ln Freud's theory ls thut lt focuses on the soclul perspectlve, not |ust the lndlvlduul
much more so thun thut of Jung. Freud's psychology pluces the lndlvlduul rlght ln the mlddle of the group, of soclety.
Most lf not ull of the lndlvlduul's psychology ls explulned us u dynumlc und often troublesome relutlon to the
others of the group. Generully speuklng, Freud's psychology deuls wlth the lndlvlduul's frustrutlons ln trylng to udupt
to the group.
In Moses und Monothelsm he mukes the cleur dlstlnctlon between the lndlvlduul und the collectlve perspectlve,
thut the psychoputhology of humun neurosls belongs to lndlvlduul psychology, "whereus rellglous phenomenu must
of course be regurded us u purt of muss psychology." Thls ls ulso evldent ln the structure und pructlce of most
rellglons: they regulute how the lndlvlduul should behuve ln order to comply wlth the needs of the group. In thls wuy,
rellglons ure soclul luws, clulmlng u hlgher |ustlflcutlon. They ure ulso, wlth thelr rltuuls und myths, lnstruments by
whlch the lndlvlduul gulns some uld ln uduptlng to them.
Thls functlon of rellglon, whlch Freud ls no strunger to, cun be upprouched by hls method, und u contlnued
development of lt. Thls ls less llkely to tuke pluce wlthln the fleld of psychology, though, thun ln for exumple soclul
unthropology, whlch deuls wlth mun's behuvlor ln u more concrete settlng.


4 Theories of Mythology
There are four basic theories in mythology. These theories are the rational myth theory, the functionalmyth theory, the
structural myth theory, and the psychological myth theory. The rational myth theorystates that myths are created to explain
natural events and forces. Functional myths are a type of myths that are created as a kind of social control. The
structural myth theory states that myths are patterned after the human mind as well as human nature. The psychological
myth states that myths are created based on human emotion.

Rational myth theory states that myths are made to better understand natural events and forces that occur in the everyday
lives of people. This theory also explains that gods and goddesses controlled all of these happenings of nature. Creation
myths from different cultures are all examples of rational myths. They explain how man was created and explain what god
and g

Comparative mythology is the comparison of myths from different cultures in an
attempt to identify shared themes and characteristics.
[1]
Comparative mythology
has served a variety of academic purposes. For example, scholars have used the
relationships between different myths to trace the development
of religions and cultures, to propose common origins for myths from different
cultures, and to support variouspsychological theories.
Contents
[hide]
1 Comparativists versus particularists
2 Approaches to comparative mythology
o 2.1 Linguistic
o 2.2 Structural
o 2.3 Psychological
3 Some mythological parallels
o 3.1 The Flood
o 3.2 The creative sacrifice
o 3.3 The dying god
o 3.4 The structure of hero stories
o 3.5 Axis mundi
o 3.6 Titanomachy
o 3.7 The deus otiosus
o 3.8 Founding myths
4 See also
o 4.1 Fields of study
5 References
6 Sources
7 Selected bibliography
[edit]Comparativists versus particularists
The anthropologist C. Scott Littleton defines comparative mythology as "the
systematic comparison of myths and mythic themes drawn from a wide variety of
cultures".
[1]
By comparing different cultures' mythologies, scholars try to identify
underlying similarities and/or to reconstruct a "protomythology" from which those
mythologies developed.
[1]
To an extent, all theories about mythology follow a
comparative approach: as the scholar of religion Robert Segal notes, "by
definition, all theorists [of myth] seek similarities among myths".
[2]
However,
scholars of mythology can be roughly divided into particularists, who emphasize
the differences between myths, and comparativists, who emphasize the
similarities. Particularists tend to "maintain that the similarities deciphered by
comparativists are vague and superficial".
[3]

Comparative approaches to mythology held great popularity among eighteenth-
and nineteenth-century scholars. Many of these scholars believed that all myths
showed signs of having evolved from a single myth or mythical theme.
[4]
For
example, the nineteenth-centuryphilologist Friedrich Max Mller led a school of
thought which interpreted nearly all myths as poetic descriptions of the sun's
behavior. According to this theory, these poetic descriptions had become
distorted over time into seemingly diverse stories about gods and
heroes.
[4]
However, modern-day scholars lean more toward particularism, feeling
suspicious of broad statements about myths.
[5]
One exception to this trend
is Joseph Campbell's theory of the "monomyth", which is discussed below.
[edit]Approaches to comparative mythology
Comparative mythologists come from various fields,
including folklore, anthropology, history, linguistics, and religious studies, and
they have used a variety of methods to compare myths. These are some
important approaches to comparative mythology.
[edit]Linguistic
Some scholars look at the linguistic relationships between the myths of different
culturesfor example, the similarities between the names of gods in different
cultures. One particularly successful example of this approach is the study
of Indo-European mythology. Scholars have found striking similarities between
the mythological and religious terms used in different cultures of Europe and
India. For example, the Greeksky-god Zeus Pater, the Roman sky-god Jupiter,
and the Indian (Vedic) sky-god Dyau Pit have similar names.
This suggests that the Greeks, Romans, and Indians originated from a common
ancestral culture, and that the names Zeus, Jupiter, andDyaus evolved from an
older name, *Dyus ph
2
ter, which referred to the sky-god, or to get a perfect
English cognate, a day-father, in a Proto-Indo-European religion.
[6]

See also: Proto-Indo-European religion and Proto-Indo-Iranian religion
[edit]Structural
Some scholars look for underlying structures shared by different myths. The
folklorist Vladimir Propp proposed that many Russian fairy taleshave a common
plot structure, in which certain events happen in a predictable order.
[7]
In contrast,
the anthropologist Claude Lvi-Straussexamined the structure of myths in terms
of the abstract relationships between its elements, rather than their order in the
plot. In particular, Lvi-Strauss believed that the elements of a myth could be
organized into binary oppositions (raw vs. cooked, nature vs. culture, etc.). He
thought that myth's purpose was to "mediate" these oppositions, thereby
resolving basic tensions or contradictions found in human life or culture.
[8]

See also: Lvi-Strauss#The structuralist approach to myth, Structural
anthropology, and Vladimir Propp
[edit]Psychological
Some scholars propose that myths from different cultures reveal the same, or
similar, psychological forces at work in those cultures. SomeFreudian thinkers
have identified stories similar to the Greek story of Oedipus in many different
cultures. They argue that these stories reflect the different expressions of
the Oedipus complex in those cultures.
[9]
Likewise, Jungians have identified
images, themes, and patterns that appear in the myths of many different cultures.
They believe that these similarities result from archetypes present in
the unconscious levels of every person's mind.
[10]

See also: Oedipus complex, Analytical psychology, and Jungian archetypes
[edit]Some mythological parallels
Comparative mythology has uncovered a number of parallels between the myths
of different cultures, including some very widespread recurring themes and plot
elements. Here are some examples.
[edit]The Flood
Main article: Deluge (mythology)
Cultures around the world tell stories about a great flood.
[11]
In many cases, the
flood leaves only one survivor or group of survivors. For example, both
the Hebrew Bible and the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh tell of a global flood that
wiped out humanity and of a man who saved the Earth's species by taking them
aboard a boat.
[12]
Similar stories of a single flood survivor appear in Hindu
mythology,
[13]
Aztec mythology,
[14]
and the Greek myth of Deucalion.
[edit]The creative sacrifice
Many cultures have stories about divine figures whose death creates an essential
part of reality.
[15][16]
These myths seem especially common among cultures that
grow crops, particularly tubers.
[17]
One such myth from New Guinea tells of a
miraculously-conceived girl named Hainuwele, whose murdered corpse sprouts
into the people's staple food crops.
[18]
The Chinese myth of Pangu,
[19]
the Vedic
myth ofPurusha
[20]
, and the Norse myth of Ymir all tell of a cosmic giant who is
killed to create the world.
[15]
Similar is the Christian myth of Christ, whose death
refashions the world.
[edit]The dying god
Main article: Life-death-rebirth deity
Many myths feature a god who dies and often returns to life.
[21]
Such myths are
particularly common in Near Eastern mythologies.
[22]
The anthropologist Sir
James Frazer compared these "dying god" myths in his multi-volume work The
Golden Bough. The Egyptian god Osirisand the Mesopotamian god Tammuz are
examples of the "dying god", while the Greek myths of Adonis (though a mortal)
has often been compared to Osiris and the myth of Dionysos also features death
and rebirth.
[23]
Some scholars have noted similarities between polytheistic stories
of "dying gods" and the Christian story of Jesus of Nazareth.
[24]
Awareness of
these similarities goes back to the early Christian era, when the church
father Justin Martyr discussed them.
[25]

See also: Descent to the underworld and Jesus Christ and comparative
mythology
[edit]The structure of hero stories
A number of scholars have suggested that hero stories from various cultures
have the same underlying structure. Otto Rank, who began his career as a
follower of Sigmund Freud, argued that the stories of heroes' births have a
common Oedipal structure.
[26]
Other scholars, including Lord Raglan and, more
recently, Joseph Campbell, have also suggested that hero stories share a
common structure.
[27]
Some comparative mythologists look for similarities only
among hero stories within a specific geographical or ethnic range. For example,
theAustrian scholar Johann Georg van Hahn tried to identify a common structure
underlying "Aryan" hero stories.
[28]
Others, such as Campbell, propose theories
about hero stories in general. According to Campbell's "monomyth" theory, hero
stories from around the world share a common plot structure.
[29]
Because of its
extremely comparative nature, the monomyth theory is currently out of favor with
the mainstream study of mythology.
[5]

See also: Monomyth and Hero
[edit]Axis mundi
Main article: Axis mundi
Many mythologies mention a place that sits at the center of the world and acts as
a point of contact between different levels of the universe.
[30]
This "axis mundi" is
often marked by a sacred tree or other mythical object. For example, many myths
describe a great tree or pillar joining heaven, earth, and the
underworld.
[31]
Vedic India, ancient China, and the ancient Germans all had
myths featuring a "Cosmic Tree" whose branches reach heaven and whose roots
reach hell.
[32]

See also: Yggdrasil, Omphalos, and Mount Meru
[edit]Titanomachy
Many cultures have a creation myth in which a group of younger, more civilized
gods conquer and/or struggle against a group of older gods who represent the
forces of chaos. In the Greek myth of the Titanomachy, the Olympian
gods defeat the Titans, an older and more primitive divine race, and establish
cosmic order.
[33][34]
In Hindu mythology, the devas (gods) battle
the asuras (demons).
[34]
And the Celtic gods of life and light struggle against
the Fomorians, ancient gods of death and darkness.
[34]

This myth of the gods conquering demons - and order conquering chaos - is
especially common in Indo-European mythologies. Some scholars suggest that
the myth reflects the ancient Indo-Europeans' conquest of native peoples during
their expansion over Europe and India.
[35][36]

However, non-Indo-European cultures also have such myths. For example, many
Near Eastern mythologies include a "combat myth" in which a good god battles
an evil or chaotic demon.
[37]
An example is the Babylonian Enuma Elish.
[38]

See also: Titanomachy, Theomachy, and Theogony
[edit]The deus otiosus
Many cultures believe in a celestial Supreme Being who has cut off contact with
humanity. Historian Mircea Eliade calls this Supreme Being a deus otiosus (an
"idle god"),
[39]
although this term is also used more broadly, to refer to any god
who doesn't interact regularly with humans. In many myths, the Supreme Being
withdraws into the heavens after the creation of the world.
[40]
Baluba
mythology features such a story, in which the supreme God withdraws from the
earth, leaving man to search for him.
[41]
Similarly, the mythology of
the Hereros tells of a Sky God who has abandoned mankind to lesser
divinities.
[42]
In the mythologies of highly complex cultures, the Supreme Being
tends to disappear completely, replaced by a strongly polytheistic belief
system.
[43]

See also: deus otiosus and Sky Father
[edit]Founding myths
Main article: Founding myth
Many cultures have myths describing the origin of their customs, rituals, and
identity. In fact, ancient and traditional societies have often justified their customs
by claiming that their gods or mythical heroes established those
customs.
[44][45]
For example, according to the myths of the Australian Karadjeri,
the mythical Bagadjimbiri brothers established all of the Karadjeri's customs,
including the position in which they stand while urinating.
[46]

See also: National myth
[edit]