medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture

>From: Marjorie Greene <[log in to unmask]>

>It was Jung who used mythology, an artifact of the
>past, and applied it to people he was working with,
>not the other way around. He used mythology to try to
>explain and understand the present. He also used myths
>as metaphors for modern problems, applying the fables
>of the past to help understand modern man.

And in turn his approaches have been used to analyze mythology and interpret
the beliefs of the past. If you are not familiar with such uses, please look
at popular journals such as Parabola.

>Why? If it's OK to "impose" archetypes and use such
>approaches on people today, why not "impose" them on
>the people who started them all.

Because "the people" *didn't* start them. Jung's approaches are simply his
interpretations of mythology in general, not the ideas and cultures of each
group that produced their own mythology.

>This is an utterly gratuitous statement with no
>possibility of proof. Why do you think this?

I find *your* statement "utterly gratuitous." Obviously you have no interest
in why I said this or what "proof" I might have to offer. But for anyone
else who may still have an open mind on the subject, study of languages and
use of words/concepts reveals a great deal as to how concepts evolved over
time. You put enough concepts together and you can reconstruct a mindset and
see how it changed and evolved.

>And how do we determine what "their own terms" are?

Do you really want to know what I think? Or is this a rhetorical question
and the implicit answer is, "Of course we can't!" In fact, it's very
difficult and not at all like having someone from the culture here to
explain and describe what they think. However, examination of language,
literature, and, in particular, how people explain and justify their
behaviors can tell us a great deal.

>I fail to see any disrespect in attempting to
>understand the past by using modern techniques. We can
>- and do without causing a ruckus - diagnose with a
>certain amount of probability the diseases people died
>of by scrutinizing descriptions of their physical
>symptoms. Why is it so controversial to do the same
>with diseases or disorders of the mind, especially
>with people who left behind their own words or
>artifacts?

Diseases are not people, people are not diseases or disorders, though the
medical profession often treats us as if we are simply sets of disorders and
symptoms, not whole people. So I don't agree with your analogy that
determining cause of death is the same as understanding mindset. As I
described in another post, I disagree with approaches that classify mindset
and religious systems into predefined categories. I also disagree with
seeing them simply as collections of "symptoms." Mindset and worldview are
not simply collections of separate beliefs and behaviors--a crucial
component is the implicit synergy that binds them together and makes them
work. And how many ancient and medieval peoples actually left their words
behind them? In my own specialty, Celtica, oral tradition was the rule for
hundreds of years. And artifacts are open to interpretation and speculation.
Reconstruction is not always easy. If we begin by deciding what categories
we are going to fill, we have already limited the likelihood that we will
come close to re-constructing the past as it was. I think there's a very
human tendency to create in our own image and likeness; I also think we
should work against that tendency when we study the peoples of the past.

And if you have trouble with the notion of "disrespect," I'll draw your
attention to Alice B. Kehoe's essay, "Eliade and Hultkrantz: the European
primitivism tradition." (The American Indian Quarterly, Summer-Fall 1996 v20
n3-4 pp.377-93). Kehoe contends that Eliade and Hultkranz, through their
models of shamanism, have shown little respect or understanding for native
cultures. As I see it, using Jungian approaches to interpret mythology shows
a similar lack of respect and understanding. In a way, I think that when we
moderns approach the peoples of the past, we are like Europeans landing in
America. How will we interact with the peoples we meet? Will we let them
tell us their stories in their own words? Or will we dissect and classify
them to fit our notions of what's significant and important?

Francine Nicholson, M.A.



_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html