The Concept of Myths in Ideological Process - Essay Example

The Concept of Myths in Ideological Process Executive Summary The world has a lot of mysteries which cannot be easily understood by its inhabitants. There are some events whose explanations require application of super-natural perspectives. This different perspectives are largely determined by the culture exhibited different groups of people across the world. Every community has its own beliefs and practices that define the origin, existence and other important phenomena. This paper looks at how the concept of existence and the universe is confined in different ideologies and myths, ranging from one community to another. Myths are important stories which define how people value and comprehend the origin of the universe. Just like myths, ideologies vary from different scholars. The ideologies from different scholars in this paper will help to tell the distinctions between myths and ideologies. In trying to understand the concept of myths, it is important to draw clear distinction between the term and other related concepts like legends and folktales. This is because all these stories have an almost similar back ground. Most writers have their attention on elements of remoteness, mystery and heroism which these stories tend to have in their approach. In drawing differences between these stories, it’s important to understand that a legend is a story in which the main character is a man and not a supernatural being; the man has powers to do things which are beyond the abilities of other ordinary men. He does something that makes him the hero of all other folks. A folktale refers to a story which may contain paranormal human beings as some of the major characters; however the way these being are involved in the story is not systematic in the myth story. It should be noted that for a story to be characterized as a myth, it should purely involve supernatural elements to explain normal happenings and occurrences in the human world. Every society has its own mythical stories, this is due to the fact that cultural beliefs and practices changes from one society to another. Beliefs in the supernatural also varies from one part of the world to another, this means that to understand this concept, an interested person ought to discover what different communities preserve in the stories they pass from generation to another. This means that mythical stories are diverse and may not have single straight definitions that cut across all groups of people (Literary Jewels, 2007, para 1-2). It can be said that myths arestoriesconsidered to be factual and consecrated in different societies worldwide. These myths in most cases are described as “cosmogonic” meaning that they are based on some kind of origin, seeking to explain some order in the way things happen in the contemporary world. This order is referred to as “Kosmos” in Greek terminologies and interpreted as order. The general concerns of cosmology are to find the symbolic expressions of myths, this is important since it is crucial in establishing special values or cultural aspects in a general worldview. It is therefore true that there are those people who use myths as a way of explaining the nature of human beings and how they interact in the world. Characteristics of Myths There are certain features that characterize any kinds of mythical stories in all the different cultures of the world. First, all myths are cosmogonic narratives which are directly linked with origin, foundation and establishment of the universe as well as other important figures in the world. The setting of myths is typically at the beginning of ages, main characters in these stories are mostly super human beings. In addition, they do not only deal with giving explanation to the origin of the earth, but have a great bearing on various aspects of culture in normal life. For instance, they explain why people prefer certain kinds of foods, medicine and the importance of some ceremonies. Across all cultures, myths involve stories that have heroic characters that are central in propagating the main theme and explaining things the way we understand them in our contemporary world (McCloskey, 1993, p. 50). Are myths supposed to be sacred? Perhaps an important question that rocks the minds of most people is whether myths necessarily have to be sacred. Many scholars hold different views about whether myths should be used to explain sacred events and occurrences alone. As a matter of fact, myths have always been defined as ancient stories with sacred meaning which are said to be true. Another scholar with a similar view said that myths are supposed to be sacred and must be talk aboutas a license for action. In general, it is true that myths lack an element of sacredness in them; however, they appear to have a common understanding on important functions that form the world. Functionalism of myths One of the earliest scholars considered as a functionalist is Malinowski; this is because of the fact that in his studyhe emphasized that myths are supposed to serve the main purpose of being licenses for social action in the society. Roe holds the same opinion that myths are functional with implications as directed by different members of the society. The central theme in myths is usually very dominant, making other small themes to act as mere subordinates to it (Roe, 1961, p. 456). In this light, it is true that myths are crucial in propagating different world views and actions of people in different societies across the world. Myths and Idealism How do myths help to understand the concept of idealism in contemporary societies? To establish the relationship between myths and ideology, it is important to understand what ideology means. Ideology can be broadly explained as the sum total of all intellectual work applied in a bid to enhance people’s or group behavior (North 1981, p.30). Various scholars also hold the same view, noting that ideology is a very important and crucial concept in general human life (Kau& Rubin, 1979, pg, 100). In their analysis, these scholars were motivated by the concern of what inspired institutional changes in history, they came to a conclusion that ideology accounted for a greater percentage of the change process. Ideology was found to be an issue that had the potential to triumph over free rider problems and challenges causing people to behave in different ways. For instance, most people litter remote parts of the country because they know that there are no authorities within to arrest them. In this perspective of ideology, there are three important aspects which come out more strongly. First is the concept that ideology is a very significant device for economizing community and individual functions. By this device, individuals are able to be in harmony with their environment, here, they get a chance to interact with a worldview which simplifies the process of decision making. The second important aspect is that ideology is a complex phenomenon that is intertwined with various honorable and ethical judgments concerning the equality of the world which different society members perceive. In the third aspect, ideology receives a different perspective by society members. In this aspect, society members have the habit of changing their ideological perspectives once they realize that they are not in tandem with the ideology. In general, ideology according to Higgs (1987, pg, 176) is something which is “somewhat coherent, rather comprehensive belief system about social relations” this brings the notion that we usually develop diverse belief systems just because knowledge is considered to be scarce and lacking in supply, making it an expensive commodity to acquire. Parallel advances in fields of economics and socio-economics that stresses on the significance of ideology also stress on irrational thinking and people’s behavior. It is a general observation that individuals forego their own interests and values for the benefit of social groups that they belong to since they believe the group can give them some level of utility and has values that they share and believe in. this concept is true since different opinion leaders and entrepreneurs in the ideological field use a language which is highly symbolic or rich in rhetoric to galvanize their ardent followers or staunch members of the group. This means that people respond to symbols more than they do on other kinds of communicational matters. This is where the aspect of myths comes into play. Myth and mythology are known to employ signs and secret codes in their application. North has in fact pointed out that myths are important cultural aspects which shape the concept of ideology. They have even been cited as representatives of human psyches by Campbell (1968, pg, 255). So how exactly are myths connected to ideology? In their natural sense, stories about myths are used to impart values and certain principles in people. In this case, values are equivalent to ideology since both concepts are important for solidarity of the group. Similarly, both ideology and myths serve similar functions in the society. Function of Myths According to Campbell, myths have four important functions which they perform; first, their functions are pedagogical in nature, this means that they enable a human being to live and survive under any prevailing circumstance. Secondly, myths serve a sociological function, here; they support and validate a definite communal organisation. However, this function varies from one place to another since myths are not standard for all types of communities. Thirdly, the function of myths is mystical; this means they have a duty to help people to comprehend the wonders in the universe and in themselves. Being mystic, myths expose the universe to different dimensions of mystery, and to the understanding of the mystery which presides over all forms of living and non-living components. The final role of myths can be said to be theirattention to a cosmological dimension. This is the same dimension which science draws attention to i.e, explaining how the universe came into being and its shape too. In doing so, this dimension seeks to explain all the mysteries that are accompanied by the developmental processes of the universe. All this functions of myths have many similarities to ideology with respect to explanations that have been put forward by Higgs. According to Higgs perspective of ideology, the sociological function of myths can be linked to his aspects of solidarity while the pedagogical meaning is similar to the pragmmatic aspect. Similarly, cosmology as explained in myths is similar to Higg’s rational feature, this is because, in both cases, emphasis is in explanation of how the biosphere exists as it is. The pedagogical function of myths is also equivalent t the affective aspect of ideology in the sense that it has the ability to give meaning to communicative morals. It is imperative to appreciate that the world is filled with all kinds of improbabilities. This means that at least every individual lives by a certain mythology. It is impossible for every person to give scientific proof that his holding ideology is the correct one. The idea of choosing and sticking to an ideology is still a mystery to many people. In any case, there shall always be some kind of people’s emotional and irrational attachment to it. It is a common observation that people are usually swayed about by emotional and symbolic rhetoric of different issues; this is usually achieved through the use of poetry or stories. Across different cultures, every kind of ideology has a separate kind of myth that is linked to it. This gives it the much needed emotional base, without which it would be impossible to have a successful political movement. There are different writers who have tried to establish the difference or connection between ideology and mythology. Halpern (1961, p. 129) gave an attempt to analyse the trendy technical applications of myths and ideology. In his attempt, he had a significant concern of establishing the kind of influence which both aspects had on history. He posits that myth and ideologies are both most important non trivial concretions of diverse cryptograms that have been put together over generations in people’s culture. This means that they hold enough influence in the balance of history so that they can be remembered by members of the society from one generation to another. Halpern says that myths are special features of appearance and principle of a very old and prehistoric man while ideology is the special features of appearance and principle of the contemporary man. (Halpern, 1961, p. 135). But why is thecase for these two concepts? This is because, problems encountered under the science of myths and ideologies are similar. A question which most of the scholars try to find meaning to is exactly how these two ideas come into focus and manage to attain widespread currency. This question remains to be the main challenge facing psychological as well as social origins of myths and ideology. The second important aspect is that errors and fantasies in both ideas are religiously maintained something that again brings out the psychological and social functions of myths and ideologies. A probable answer to the question raised by Halpern is that myths derive their foundation from normal experiences while ideologies arise from different situations. However, it should be understood that myths and ideologies are not necessarily distinct from each other. As pointed out earlier, a more sense can be seen in a broader sense to be quite elementary compared to an ideology. Conversely, ideology signifies processes that are similar to myths. To validate this notion, we need to refer to our prior descriptions of origin of these two ideas. Myths originate in particular expressions or alterations of experiences. On the other hand, ideology comes out as an expression of a specific type of social situation. In expressing an ideology in its origin, a meticulousunderstanding is what is “expressed”. In this case, the use of the word “express” means a particular “experience” In a bid to purify ideas of myth and ideology, Halpern critically considers the effect of the work of two authors. First he examines the influence of Sorel, a history scholar, according to Sorel, myths are causes of radical changes in the society which provides man with early preparations for warfare (Halpern, 1961, p. 138). On the contrast, Utopia posits that a myth is simply an a product of intellect that has no bearing for combat preparations. According ideology has two main perspectives; first it is an accumulation of “conventional lies” that arises out of a civilization. Here ideology seems to cater for the welfare functions of status quo and operates like an “opiate” just to make stupid the consciousness of a potential rebellions class in a bid to make them alert to their appropriate myths. In their origin, myths express conventional ideas that are typical of middle class thinking and are accepted in intellectual conventions. When it comes to functions, this thinking confinesconflict to limits commonly acceptable by the entire society.A different author who tried to establish the connection between myths and ideology is Feuer. According to this author, any kind of ideology is made up of an invariant as its main ingredient (Feuer, 1975, p, 1). This is the myth that is typical of an intellectual head who finds success in redeeming and liberating people who are oppressed in one way or another. Examples of such leaders include Marx as well as other German socialist leaders that belonged to the nineteenth century like Wilheim Liebknecht. In a similar manner Italians had an experience of mosaic myth during the uprising of the fascism. The Italians seriously wanted salvation out of their own decadence which would propel them back to their long desired roman glory. According to their nationalist leader, Mazzini, this movement was instrumental since nit was to lead and provide salvation to the people that were suffering under oppression (Feuer, 1975, p. 11-13). What Noah, an author considers as intellectual entrepreneurs, Higgs refers to them simply as opinion leaders. On the other hand, Feur refers to them as ideologists. Feur seems to have a big concern with this people than any other group. For Feuer, this group of people comprises of Max and Engels since they successfully engaged in many revolutions and were able to meet groups like those of the working class. In order to have the philosophers sensible, the ideas of aesthetics have to be incorporated mythologically in a bid to have the interests of all people (Eagelton, 1991, p. 151). According to Feur, every ideologist has one main wish, to prove that his myth is in tandem with nature itself. There is no single ideology which is satisfied with showing its mosaic myth in a language that is deemed to the philosophical-scientific. According Feuer’s thinking, there is no ideology which is comfortablebeing in the class of societal myth. Sorel placed emphasis on the fact that myths cannot be refused and verified, further, he explained that myths are solely poignant vision of movement, this is in contrast to a an ideology which aims at demonstrating a concept. An ideology is motivated by the desire to obtain its social myth out of a certain perspective. This method is also referred to as “Isomorphic projection” this implies that similar structural behaviors which characterize social myth are predicted on the whole world, but in this case as a total myth. After this prediction has been made, the ideologist comes in with an aim of obtaining as a social myth to signify the myth of the world. The particular case of Marxist ideology in his ultimate orthodoxy presents itself more than just a historical materialist but also a dialectical materialist for the entire nature. The entire universe seems to stick to Marxists revolutionary ideologies. It develops through a series of opposite struggles making progressive leaps that are qualitative in nature. This negated prior stages which are in respect to their fundamental laws. Feuer goes a step ahead to analyse any existing relationship between myths and science (Schumpeter, 1949). In order to effective make his study; he gives a keen look on the unconscious motives that are within the activities of the scientist. He says that the thinking of scientists has long been affected by their unconscious motives. For instance Werner, a scientist, while in the youth association was affected by the romantic viewpointwhich was characteristic of the social group circle he belonged. He also presents the case of Einstein who was equally affected when he found himself in a circle of friends characterized by extreme hostility to any kind of absolutism, moral and scientific natural world. In this case he observed that what separates the scientists from ideology is not just the mere presence of unconscious factors exhibited in his thought processes but rather, there’s something more which features prominently. This is the ability of the scientific method to go beyond the unconscious motives by manner of making experiments for establishing predictions as well as verifying and falsifying. Another scholar who also had an interest in the relationship between myth and ideology was Eagleton. According to this author drawing a clear distinction between these two concepts is not very easy“Are myths the ideologies of pre-industrial societies, or ideologies the myths of industrial ones?”he argues that in case there exists distinct boundaries between the two concepts, then in the say, there is a likelihood of significant differences between them. He says that myths and ideologies belong to peculiar worlds that are characterized by symbolic meanings. However, between the two, myths are the most voluminous developing just like the metaphysical aspects revolving around birth, death, maters of sexuality, locations of people and places as well as their origin. On the other hand, ideologies appear to be very precise, practical kinds of conversations which incorporates such big issues but brings them to impact directly on matters of power. In a broad sense, the concern of myths is likened to how the aardvark happened to get its long nose compared to how to spot a communist out of crowd of many leaders. In addition, myths are concerned with matters of history by viewing them as merely infinitely repetitive ideologies. On the contrast, ideologies of the nineteenth century can hardly fit into this perspective. In fact, one can argue that such ideologies, though they appear to be historical in the kind of content they have, they are immobile in the form. As a matter of fact, history in this context is viewed as a current myth. The sociological meaning associated with myths is equally shared by both Eagleton and Campbell. This idea is seen as looking to achieve the natural and universal social structure which makes any possible alternative to it appear unthinkable. He says that myths and ideologies work together because the rational side which is associated with any movement or ideology does not have the capacity to stir political action especially on the part of the group members. In a bid to summarize the Pareto perspective in reference to ideas and motives, Eagleton says that ideas are only spacious realizations which reflect the never changing human motives. These particular ideas have to be held important principles that contribute to organizing a unifying of those forces which appear to be true inasmuch as they also pose serious threat to the most noble and deepest views. As a matter of fact, sorrel pointed out that socialism has to be viewed in the urgency of a mythic image apart from it being the circumlocution of science. Semiotic Approaches to Myths The concept of myths can also be approached using the semiotic approaches. This is a wide area which provides a hint on the historical nature of myths and how they are continuing to evolve from generation to generation. Semiotics is an important way which gives specialized tools and materials the deal with the necessity to effectively comprehend the communicative features that draws clear distinction between different mass media and the developing technology. Inasmuch semiotics is renowned field in the field of communication, it is only found at the periphery of popular discourse as much as discussions around myths are concerned. If terminologies in semiotics are seen in most popular texts, then there is a likelihood that lexicon is likely to be overlooked by the person who is reading the text (Weiss, 1993, p. 57) it should be noted that in as much as cultural texts can be written in many levels when being analyzed, the lexicon of semiotics can be symbolised from differing styles. Currently, it is evident that structural semiotics has been modified to an approach that is being considered as being distinctly critical. In fact this approach tends to have leaps in its intellectual capacity towards theoretical elucidationsof undertones and context. Semiotics connected to cultural condemnation is frequently interpreted in the course of a well-to-do and literary explanation just as it is the case with essays (Barthes, 1972, p. 50;Eco, 1979, p. 35). However, it should be understood that they have the ability to offer impressions of un-authoritativeness, by merely being entertaining or obviously polemic in nature especially when they are utilized from outside their main discipline (Saper, 1997, p. 3-4). In situations where the language used in semiotics appears to be generally above the ken of popular conversation, scholars have enjoyed culture rich and meaningful objects of concentration for these particular tools and other methods. The complexity that comes with the gloom of semiotic glossary sometimes appears to be very challenging. However, it is important in informing as well as developing literacy campaign for media so that it is part of the wider aspect of communication curricula. It is evident that mass media has had an enormous influence on cultural myths which had long been assumed, neglected and given little concern. In this case, it is also important to point out that semiotics has played an important role in serving as an important project for media literacy. In the same ways, it is instrumental in the process of deconstructing myths that are entrenched within certain cultures. This means that approaches of shifting semiotics from the margins requires careful development of other methods that requires structural historical foundations of the discipline and at the same time, establishes an analysis which is reliable and supportive in nature. Barthes, a historical scholar has been active in establishing the historical improvement of myths. Right from the time he took interest in this topic he says that he had for a long time taken myths as mere stories that were filled with a lot of falsehood and unverifiable claims. In addition, these stories tended to establish a perspective that tried to give meaning to certain practices and the nature of a society’s social institutions. After studying the concept carefully, he later came to acknowledge that a myth was actually a language which gave attention to the specific nature of semiotics and the underlying phenomena (Barthes, 1972, p. 109-159). Later, after a period of close to fifteen years, Barthes reaffirmed his position by documenting it in an essay that was titled, “Mythology Today” The activity of analysing myths lies solely in the ability to articulate relationships between all the various aspects of a determined sign systems which establishes meaning around assumptions related to culture and constrained in that particular form.This process starts by first recognizing an object that is ideological or by establishing a awareness that the sign system has theories which look like being natural or appear historical in nature. Something that is important about myth is that they usually mix together with the intended message denying their very existence via perceptible subordination to the very substance of the initial and second signifiers. According to Barthes, when people become fully aware of a myth, it tends to shift and modify itself. For instance, a good case in point is when someone is watching a play while at the same time the play presents another character reading;in this case the play establishes a narrative that is internal in nature. In the process of watching the reader in the play, attention immediately shifts from the content of the story to the particular kind of play and its association with the immediate audience. Craig offers another example that helps us understand how semiotics apply in understanding the concept of myth, he says that by driving through history, it is possible from the examples given by Barthes that people need to look through the windshield of a car and not look at the windshield itself (Saper, 1976, p. 6). The driver has to look through the windshield of the car in order to guide it along the road. When the driver happens to look at the windshield, his focus and concentration changes to the framework of traveling inside the car. In this example sit can be seen that the process of analysing a myth aims at changing awareness from the real figure to the ground. It also changes attention from denotative and connotative symbols to the real perspective in the specific structure of communication. It is important to understand the real definition of semiotics in reference to its role in propagating myths. In general semiotics is viewed in its broader sense as the study of signs as an important communicative phenomenonwhich stands in place of or initiates a change (Eco, 1976, p. 16). It can also be viewed as the field of signs in establishing language between people in a society. In this definition, language is used to refer to all forms of written and spoken works including gestures and images. A fundamental unit that represents another thing or concept is called a “sign.” The sign possesses a theoretical association between its signifier, which may be either a word, or image and the signified which is the basic concept that is represented (Stam et al, 1992, p. 8). In normal relationship, the signifier and the signified appear to be very distinct in terms of theoretical framework; however, these two concepts work together in a bid to establish communicative demonstration with a real impression of purposeful meaning. A signifier usually operates concurrently in line with the signified. This working association results in a sign which through the theoretical correlation which is referred to as “Signification or semiosis” (Barthes, 1972, p. 113; Barthes 1978, p. 48). This relationship is central towards abolishing ambiguities the signs that some along. For a sign to be effectively used without distorting its meaning, it must have three main elements, these elements are icon, index and the third one is the symbol (Peirce, 1955, p. 104-5). The icon on the sign is used to resemble a specific things, a index on the other hand is useful in providing a direct fundamental relationship between the sign and what it is linked with. The third element, the symbol represents a sign which can only be comprehended through special knowledge that is shared of a certain culture or convention. In the general perspective, the concept of signification shows the actual meaning of a sign in the cultural framework of communication. While this concept seems to appear rather apparent, the meanings that are connected to it are social constructions and their distinctions are subtle objects that make up element of semiotic study (Leeds, 1993, p. 10-11). When the above complexities are put to perspective in theoretical models, the question which many scholars remain to ponder is whether it is possible to address these principles through a suitable and assessable model. It is possible to establish a model that can be used to draw clear differences between these two aspects; the signifier and the signified. Take this example, always; there is a relationship (R) or association that exists between the plane of expression denoted as (E) and the corresponding plane of content denoted with letter (C). In this association, the initial order can be represented as (E.R.C.). In this case the potential ambiguity that had been raised earlier can now be addressed since the prevailing relationship (R) takes the cultural framework of the expression (E) to be the signifier representing the probable meaning or content (C). Take a practical example of a cartoon program on television, as the program begins, Bart a character in the program can be seen enjoying a skateboard in the town streets. According to the example, the expression, indicated by the initial “E” is that image which looks like the form of a human being; this image is recognized in the relation (R) to the concept(C) which is signified in the program. This concept is what represents the particular behavior of a typical human being. In this case it can easily be argued that the association in the program is a relationship (R) of a recognizable image. Hall establishes that in a much as the relationship between the signified and the signified exists, the prevailing association between denotation and connotation is significant only in the case where an analytical distinction is needed (1980, p. 132-3). In this context it is important to understand that denotation does not simply imply a literal meaning that can easily be comprehended from the altered interpretive meanings linked with the particular connotation. Rather, the sign may simply appear to be generally understood as possessing a certain natural meaning in its own sense. Conclusion Myths can therefore be understood in multiple dimensions depending on the perceived understanding of the signs and symbols. It is a concept that requires researchers to explore different models in trying to establish meaningful conclusion from it. The study of a cultural aspect which varies from one group of people to another requires careful systematic approaches which may require application of different models. Use of sign systems as it is the case with semiotics requires a person to first establish relationship models that draw meaningful distinctions between the signifier and the signified. Thereafter, it is much easier to link the relationship and analyze myths from that perspective. Bibliography Barthes, R, 1972. Mythologies.Trans. Annette Lavers. New York Barthes, R, 1978. Elements of Semiology.Trans. Annette Lavers and Colin Smith. New York. Campbell, J. 1988. The Power of Myth. Doubleday, New York.. Eco, U. 1979. A Theory of Semiotics. Indiana U.P, Bloomington, IN.. Feuer, Lewis S. 1975. Ideology and the Ideologists.Harper & Row, New York. Hall, S. 1980. "Encoding/Decoding." Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies 1972-79. Hutchinson, London. Halpern, B. 1961."Myth" and "Ideology" in Modern Usage."History and Theory.Vol.1, pp. 129-149. Kau, and Rubin, 1979. "Self-Interest, Ideology, and Logrolling in Congressional Voting." The Journal of Law and Economics.Vol22 no2 pp. 365-384. Literary Jewels, 2007.The Concept of 'Myth' in Literature.Viewed 26 march 2014, Leeds.H, W. 1993.Semiotics and Communication: Signs, Codes, Cultures. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. McCloskey, 1993.Second Thoughts: Myths and Morals of U.S.Economic History.University of Iowa Press, Lowa. North, D, C. 1981. Structure and Change in Economic History. W. W. Norton & Company, New York. Peirce, C, S. 1955. Philosophical Writings of Peirce. Dover, New York. Roe, A, 1961.The Psychology of the Scientist.Science.Vol12 no1, pp. 456-459. Saper, C, 1997. Artificial Mythologies: A guide to Cultural Invention.University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. Schumpeter, J, A. 1949. "Science and Ideology."The American Economic Review. Vol 39 no. 2, pp. 344-359. Stam et al, 1992. New Vocabularies in Semiotics: Structuralism, Post-Structuralism and Beyond. Routledge, New York. Weiss, P, 1993, "What We Think About When We Think About Models." Esquire. Vol 120 no1 pp. 56-63. Read More