Clarisse Betina V.

Fortes ENG 107-C

2014-72477 March 16, 2018

Myths as Political
The notion of myth, and mythology, is not as simple as it seems to be. Contrary to common
belief, myth does not directly translate to false or commonly misunderstood statements. Neither is myth
tantamount to traditional stories of the past. Various scholar writings offer different definitions of myth
and mythology. This is because there are also different factors that come at play in the process of building
conceptions about myths. For instance, one significant factor that ought to be considered is culture.
Because of differences in cultural upbringings, each society often has its own distinct understanding of
what constitutes myths. Eric Csapo particularly expounded on this aspect in his book ​Theories of
Mythology​. In the first chapter entitled “Introducing ‘Myth’”, he illustrated how the distinction among
myths, legends, and folktales varies depending on the culture and society. One example is how Ponapeans
and Hawaiians have been accustomed to combine myths and legends, producing a concept of
“myth-legend” (6).

Aside from a definition that focuses on culture, other notions of myth take a structuralist approach
in their explanation. One of the most well-known conceptions of myth with this approach is Roland
Barthes’ interpretation of myth as a body of significations1 (107). In this sense, myth carries its message
through ​signs ​which people are exposed to in their everyday lives (110). The most common form, of
course, is through verbal language (i.e. using words as signs), but for Barthes, communication of myths is
not limited to such form. Even images, music, or other cultural artifacts can be considered as a medium
for myths (114). The communicative aspect of myths is consistent with Barthes’ claim that myths serve a
social function in communities (142-145). Through myths, imposition of ideas is possible. They are able
to communicate the values and ideologies that people under a given culture ought to embody. For
instance, during the reign of Greek civilization, stories such as ​Trojan War ​can be interpreted as a means
to dictate the conduct of human beings in virtue of the desires of the gods and goddesses (Bulfinch). Such
stories also shaped how these people viewed the divinities (as powerful beings who have the capacity to
control the fate and turn of events within the lives of mortals). A more contemporary example could be
the ​Duterte narrative ​that one can observe in the present state of Philippine society, especially within the
political sphere. Through their social media platforms, supporters of the President often paint Duterte as
some kind of savior of the Filipinos. The one who has the capability to lift poverty, erase corruption, and
eliminate criminality. This is especially evident in the manner in which Duterte is described in posts from
Pro-Duterte blogs, such as the MOCHA USON BLOG. As many Filipinos are exposed to such platforms,
their perspective of Duterte is heavily influenced by what these signs, and the myth which they carry,
communicate (ultimately contributing to the formation of what is known as the “DDS or Duterte Diehard
Supporters” movement).

From Barthes’ conception of myths as a type of speech, it is understandable how myths are
capable of giving such a powerful impression. Their impact is found in its ability to penetrate the way
people view life in general, which most likely translates into concrete actions. Because of such
1
It is noteworthy, however, that Barthes’s conception of myth is not ​entirely ​structuralist as he still regards social
context as relevant in trying understand or interpret myths.
compelling force, it is also not surprising that myths can be attributed with a negative image. For instance,
myths can be used for propaganda. This can be a dangerous thing, especially if placed in the wrong hands.
Such use has the capacity to pacify the political imagination of the people and discourage the use of
critical reasoning when dealing with texts and images that carry myths. It is for this reason that Barthes
also introduced the concept of ​demystification (127) or the depoliticizing of myths (142-144). In this
concept, readers of texts are encouraged to look beyond the message provided by the myth and bring back
the history of the image or text at hand. One ought to question the reason behind the myth and ask how
such myth was formed. Is it a message that one ought to accept (i.e. is it accurately in line with the course
of preceding historical events and ideas)? Or is it something that requires one to reject or suspend his/her
belief?

However, I shall propose a new perspective upon which one can view and re-evaluate the concept
of myths within the context of Barthes’ definition. This new prospect shall remove the agency ascribed to
myths in the previous conception, and transfer such dominance to the ones who are able to ​handle​,
control​, or ​appropriate ​myths instead. With the shift in agency, it is not the myth which “imposes”
ideologies to the readers; rather, it is the dominant institution or the elite propagating the myth who does
the imposition. What, then, becomes of the function of the myth? The capacity to communicate ideas
through signs may be viewed as a means to ​preserve ​or ​capture ​the prevailing beliefs, thoughts, or
ideologies within a certain period in history. Myth does not force the readers to accept these concepts; it
only conveys a reminder that such beliefs, thoughts, or ideologies ​existed ​(or is existing) in time (like
counterparts for souvenirs or remembrances in terms of ideas). Viewed in this angle, myths can be freed
from the negative conception upon which it was once associated with.

To further understand, let us return to the previous example of the ​Trojan War and apply this new
perspective towards myths. One of the main ideas conveyed through the myth (within Barthes’ definition)
in the text is the idea of divinities having the capability to directly and closely intervene with human
affairs. For instance, the mood and desires of gods and goddesses were easily understood through
detecting concrete changes in seasons and nature. In that period in time, this ideology about divinities was
very influential that it shaped how the Greeks lived in their society. Even Plato, who advocated to banish
the poets, recognize the social impact of this myth (23-25). However, in the contemporary context of
society, such myth does not maintain the same level of influence as it has before. Even though the ​Trojan
War and other Greek literary texts are still being studied in present times, people do not adopt the
ideology that the myth communicates. This is because unlike before, when Greek religious and literary
institutions put high premium on Greek epics/poems, dominant structures of today do not longer press
such myth towards the people. (What is now more prevalent perhaps is the myth of the Judeo-Christian
notion of the Divine). Nevertheless, this does not eliminate the fact that such myth played a significant
role in the history of Greek life and civilization. Even though the myth does not hold an effective force in
present times, the preservation of such beliefs still holds merit.

One can raise an objection that the shift in the function of myth from imposition to the
preservation of ideas and beliefs allows for the deprivation of its power that significantly makes up its
value. With its previous function, myth can be viewed with high premium for its capacity to trigger a
certain mobility in people. However, though it is true that in this new perspective, myth loses its
compelling nature, it does not necessarily mean that it would also lose its power. Myth can still serve as
powerful ​tools to convey certain messages to society. Its forcefulness, however, shall depend on how
institutions and dominant social structures would present such myth and, of course, the corresponding
reception that would result from the people. It is for this reason that people ought to remain wary of who
handles what myths, as well as to be knowledgeable about the process (and importance) of
demystification.

In addition, having the function of preservation has its own power and advantages as well.
Preservation of ideas and beliefs through myths allows for the re-visiting of culture and traditions that
have once been present and influential in a society. This, in turn, enables people to execute comparative
analyses between previous states of society and its contemporary situation. Moreover, it also encourages
people to re-evaluate the prevailing myths, beliefs, and ideas which circulate within the present
socio-political sphere. In this view, myths are able to showcase their influence through a new approach
which does not necessarily put them in a negative light, i.e. without having to coerce ideologies onto
people.

The shift in the function of myths highlights two things: first, it is highly important to ensure that
no monopolization of myths would take place, especially if the control would come from self-seeking
social institutions or individuals. One may ask, though, how is this possible? This leads us to the second
point: we ought to encourage and emphasize the individual agency and the capacity for critical thinking in
people. If successfully employed, this may serve as a weapon against social structures that act with
underlying ill intentions and perpetuate the pacification of the political imagination.
Works Cited:

Barthes, Roland. ​Mythologies​. Translated by Jonathan Cape Ltd, 1972.

Bulfinch, Thomas. ​The Age of Fable​. Nuvisions Publications, 2007.

Csapo, Eric. ​Theories of Mythology​. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2005.

Plato. ​The Republic​. Translated by F.M. Conford, Oxford University Press, 1945.