Starcycle, I definitely agree with you in respect to cultural co-option and the disrespect often exhibited by academics. I had my own problems in college with a couple of "Indian scholars" from Anglo-Christian backgrounds; one wanted to explain the fascination with cycles and the "many-armed gods" in Hinduism with the use of psychedelic substances (soma juice). The other wanted desperately to re-interpret Krishna myths in a Freudian sense!
The first guy was a former hippie, and I suspected was still using "soma" himself, so I didn't blame him much.
But the second guy was openly contemptuous and Eurocentric in his approach; he refused to accept Indian translations of epic poems, for instance, as source material (I wonder where he thought those Krishna myths came from!). When a group of South Asian students complained, he accused us of sacrificing academic rigor in the name of "political correctness".
However, I don't feel that Campbell disrespected Indian cultures in his studies of Hinduism and Buddhism. He travelled throughout India and Japan, met with many religious teachers in both traditions, and had a keen interest in the oral traditions of the cultures he studied and of the cultural contexts of their religions. So
his comparative analyses, at least, seem to me appropriately grounded in a prior study of the traditions. That's for Hinduism and Buddhism; I don't know the extent of his exploration into early Hebrew cultural traditions and religion within their own contexts.
But in a way, you could say that both Christianity and Islam have been massively disrespectful of the original context of the "Old Testament". Even within each religion, especially as they have spread, that sort of thing happens. What could be more violent than the shift from the early schools of Christianity to Constantinian Christianity, with the creation of "Christian warriors"?
I find academics to be less harmful, actually... since people rarely read anything they write. Of course, 'stars' like Campbell are exceptions. Some are better than others, and of course you have to take anything any one of them says with a grain (or chunks) of salt. They do (like everyone) tend to cherry pick the attributes of the traditions they study that fit their personal biases. And yes, every western commentator on Indian culture misses or distorts something, often a lot of things, so I assume that happens with every other culture they study. It's the Orientalist traditions that do more damage (when they hit the mainstream).
Still, I think Campbell did OK with Hinduism and Buddhism, at least. He makes it clear that he's speaking as an outsider, and that when he compares religions or mythologies he is created his own artifice. But the basic concept of searching for commonalities in the human spiritual and psychological experience seems valid to me -- as long as it is not done callously, with a disregard for the history of cultural imperialism and genocide, as you rightly pointed out.
I like the name "starcycle" btw. You haven't been drinking soma juice, have you?
