Journey to the Sea

an online magazine devoted to the study of myth

Joseph Campbell: The Hero’s Journey

Posted by Priscilla Hobbs • Nov 1st, 2008

Joseph Campbell, a noted mythology scholar, devoted a large part of his life (especially four often-mentioned years during the Great Depression) reading considerable amounts of world literature: ancient mythology, fairy tales, Arthurian romance, modernist fiction, and works of religious doctrine and philosophy. He observed in his reading similarities that seemed to traverse time and culture. In many stories, for example, a character ventures out on a quest to accomplish some task and then returns home to benefit his community. This pattern, which Campbell called “the hero’s journey,” held a prominent place in his writings. He outlined the essential elements of this pattern in his book The Hero with a Thousand Faces, emphasizing the pervasiveness of this one pattern in stories from around the world.

Campbell detailed many steps in the hero’s journey, but he often summarized the pattern in three fundamental stages: separation, ordeal, and return. Separation pulls the hero away from his or her comfortable living area and throws him or her into a new realm full of fantasy, metaphor, and surreal experience — an Other Place. To enter this new realm, the hero must cross a threshold separating the known from the unknown. The hero can be completely willing to face the quest regardless of consequence, like Lancelot going to save Guinevere or Theseus volunteering to slay the Minotaur. Sometimes, the hero is curious about the Other Place and unknowingly crosses the threshold, like Pinocchio voyaging into the Land of Play or Alice tumbling down the rabbit hole into Wonderland. Occasionally, the hero is reluctant and must be pushed, pulled, or otherwise forced across the threshold: Arjuna in the Hindu epic The Mahabharata is at first unwilling to fight his kinsmen, and Hamlet refuses to avenge the death of his father.

Once over the threshold, the hero undergoes a series of ordeals that shapes his or her ability, such as making friends, sparring against minor enemies, and receiving magical items and tools needed to complete the journey. All this is in preparation for the ultimate test against the Guardian. This character, often found near the end of the hero’s adventure, is the ultimate trial for the hero, standing in the way of the hero’s quested object or return, which Campbell called “the boon” — an elixir for the hero’s village, a damsel in distress, or a piece of knowledge needed to accomplish the mission. If the Guardian is fully defeated, the hero can easily return home; if not, then the return is a fight or flight for the hero’s life. Once home, the hero then must reintegrate with his or her society and share the boon.

To best understand the importance Campbell placed on the hero’s journey, it is necessary to understand his four functions of myth. As Randy mentioned in his previous article titled “Myth: A Definition,” Campbell believed that myths historically served four functions: a mystical function, a cosmological function, a sociological function, and a psychological function. This fourth function, the psychological, Campbell described in these words: “The myth must carry the individual through the stages of life, from birth through maturity through senility to death […] in accord with the social order of his group” (Bliss 9). This psychological function is the realm of the hero’s journey.

In ancient or traditional mythology, these stories often emphasized the community. These cultures taught that the individual had a specific and often unchangeable role in society, and the myths served as instruction and initiation for the individual to take on that role. The journey in these myths often originated outside the hero, initiated by the gods or by some threat to the hero’s community: Rama submits to exile to ensure peace in the kingdom, the gods order Aeneas to establish a settlement in Italy, and Beowulf aims to rid his people of the threat of the dragon. With the romances of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, however, Campbell saw an important shift in emphasis in the hero’s journey stories to the individual (often in the name of love for a forbidden lady). Lancelot’s quest to rescue Guinevere, for example, in Chretian de Troyes’s “Lancelot” or “The Knight of the Cart,” is motivated entirely by personal love and not by any heroic duty owed to the community to rescue its queen.

This emphasis in the hero’s journey pattern has only increased in the wake of the psychoanalytic revolution, when scholars began to seriously focus on psychological interpretations of myth and literature. The psychoanalyst Carl Jung identified the mythic realm with the collective unconscious, a level of the psyche in which he thought all humans share and participate. Jung spoke often of archetypes, primordial images that appear in all world mythologies and that he argued originate in this collective unconscious. Drawing on the emphasis on the individual in Arthurian romance and in Jung’s work, Campbell identified the hero’s journey as one such archetype pointing to the psychological process by which an individual integrates the conscious with the unconscious:

The fourth function of mythology is [now] to initiate the individual into the order of realities of his own psyche, guiding him towards his own spiritual enrichment and realization. […] The adventure of the Grail […] has become today for each the unavoidable task. (Occidental 521-522)

The popular hero’s journey stories of the twentieth century focus on the psychological aspects of the struggles of the hero. While these heroes still often benefit their communities in some ways, the emphasis is internal: Frodo struggles against his own inner demons induced by the power of the Ring;  Luke Skywalker resists fear, anger, and the seductive power of the Dark Side; and Harry Potter overcomes the dark magic Voldemort has left inside his head.

Joseph Campbell may have over-emphasized the similarities in these hero’s journey stories, going so far as labeling this pattern the monomyth and thereby implying that all myths follow this pattern (Hero 30). Other writers have expanded on this notion, presenting this pattern as a formula upon which all successful stories must be written. I would object that not all myths fit perfectly into the model Campbell outlines, and I would insist that good stories can be written that do not follow this pattern. Even so, I agree with Campbell that the existence of such similarities in many ancient and modern stories may tell us something about human psychology and may provide us direction and inspiration for finding our own place in this world.

References & Works Cited

2 Responses »

  1. when did the change from pedagogical to psychological occur? They are not the same and I wonder why one is replaced when a fifth could have been added.

  2. Thanks for the comment! I’m not entirely sure I understand your question. This article describes what Joseph Campbell believed to be the four essential functions of myth. Everything I have read by Campbell refers to the fourth function as “psychological.” (The first chapter of Pathways to Bliss, which is drawn from two talks he gave in 1967 and 1968, refers to it this way.) I have seen many lists of Campbell’s four functions that refer to the fourth as “pedagogical,” but when they describe that function they mean the same thing as the “psychological” function:

    The myth must carry the individual through the stages of life, from birth through maturity through senility to death. (Bliss 9)

    When you say that the pedagogical and psychological functions are not the same, what exactly do you mean? Do you mean that Campbell used them differently? Or do you mean that other theorists use these terms differently? What would you say the pedagogical function of myth is? the psychological function?