Mythic Structure Theory: Proposing a New Framework for the Study of Political Issues David L

Mythic Structure Theory: Proposing a New Framework for the Study of Political Issues David L. Schecter California State University at Fresno This article develops the tenets of a new political theory evolved from the discovery that there are numerous frameworks to study political issues, such as abortion, but few over-arching theories. I propose and explore the tenets and hypotheses of a new “mythic structure theory.” Mythic structure theory draws from numerous examples in literature and anthropology and treats political issues as mythical stories, referencing heavily the works of James Joyce and Joseph Campbell. The essay concludes with the specific application of mythic structure theory to the issue of abortion and an argument is made as to why mythic structure theory yields insights into the abortion debate not offered by other theoretical frameworks. The application of this concept is recommended for the study of political issues such as abortion, civil rights, the environment, and education. The idea for this work grew out of several thoughts coalescing. In recognizing the seriousness and non-ending quality of the abortion debate, for example, it appears that none of the current theoretical frameworks sufficiently explains the magnitude and complexity of the topic. In a normative sense, what is the best way to study this issue? Do the religious, legalistic, or public policy frameworks so prevalent in the literature reasonably explain the issue? What is the best way to navigate political topics in which there are numerous contested beliefs and assumptions? A “war” metaphor is often used to describe the debates over abortion, but this is too rigid to capture the nuances of the debate. After all, there are scholars in the debate who look at issues such as morality and ethics, not in terms of two sides in a “war,” but in terms of some universal concepts beyond mere earthly battles. An additional problem with the “war” metaphor is that it becomes reductive—a sort of shorthand that allows us to sidestep deeper thinking about the issue. These problems reflect what Clifford Geertz (1973), in The Interpretation of Cultures, considers common in the analysis of complex social issues: “ …one is left with a collection of anecdotes connected by insinuation, and with a feeling that though much has been touched little has been grasped” (312). Politics & Policy • Volume 33 • No. 2 • June 2005 222 Politics & Policy Vol. 33 No. 2 A recent review of the literature on abortion also suggests a gap relative to explaining such issues in a new and profound way. As Malcolm Goggin (1993) points out: “We are still left with the question of why there is so much conflict [over the issue of abortion], and why is there so little consensus. A second puzzle that deserves further study is the question of what abortion signifies?” (23). Goggin says his call for new research began with two major organizing questions: “First, ‘How can we best understand the politics of abortion, especially the institutional context and policy-making styles used to resolve conflict?’ Second, ‘How can that understanding help us predict what is likely to happen in the future?’” (27). This article attempts to remedy this situation by taking a small foothold in the field with the introduction and application of the mythic structure focus. This modest proposal asks us to consider the abortion debate and others like it with a different focus than any existing in the literature. Hence, this research draws from the interdisciplinary study of myth so prevalent in the fields of anthropology, sociology, and literature, and applies the study of myth to the realm of politics.1 In other words, this is a new review and new application of some ideas that have been touched on in the field before, but which have been glossed over or ignored by very recent political science theorists. The result is a new theoretical framework and set of hypotheses for studying political issues, which I subsequently apply to the issue of abortion in this article. The theory, if applicable to abortion, should also apply to other areas of political study, such as education, civil rights, environmental studies, the 1998 presidential impeachment debate, or the 2000 presidential contest. As such, this research provides an innovative way to view political issues and the people involved in them. It is meant to be a starting point for instructors and students of political science to reinvigorate debate on complex issues and understand them in a unique way. The Proposal: Mythic Structure Theory as a Framework Carl Jung (1964) and Joseph Campbell (1988) have sought to bridge competing theories in anthropology, literature, and psychology by looking for the common denominators that exist in these fields.2 They and others have been responsible for showcasing the beauty and complexity of many subjects by consistently stressing the simple stories that lay at the heart of so many larger issues. Jung highlights archetypes, while Campbell explores the power of myth to describe the similarities between cultures. Mythic Structure Theory 223 What is a myth? The Greek historian Herodotus first coined the term in the fourth century B.C. to “distinguish what he saw as essentially fictional accounts of the past from factual description” (Bently 1995, 6). Centuries later, the phenomenon of myths continues to attract scholars. French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss (1978) suggests that “even in a mediocre translation from the language of its original narration, the present-day reader spontaneously recognizes a myth for what it is,” and that they are usually composed of “contraposed ideas” he calls “binary oppositions” (also quoted in Bently 1995, 6). Binary oppositions are described as structures shared by all “story-forms” and are suggested by two of his better-known working titles, The Raw and the Cooked and From Honey to Ashes (Jones and Wilson 1987, 332). Adolph Bastian, a German anthropologist, distinguishes “between the particular local expression of a mythical theme, what we would now call its cultural and ethnic content, and what (he) saw as elemental ideas … believed to be a part of the biological inheritance of all [humans]” (quoted in Bently 1995, 7). This suggests there are multiple levels to mythical themes and that many myths have multiple meanings to consider. Apart from anthropologists like Levi-Strauss and Bastian, psychoanalysts such as Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung have attempted to help explain the power of myth. Freud considered myths as “universal but unconscious” stories and Jung went farther to introduce the concept of archetypes into the language. Archetypes are major figures such as the “Mother” or “Old Wise Man” that appear in numerous mythological traditions. Professor Roy Willis has suggested that all scientific attempts to account for the uniqueness of mythical stories are no more than our “culturally specific endeavor, as members of a socially and historically defined group called the Western scientific community to express what is ultimately inexpressible”(quoted in Bently 1995, 7). This suggests that we may have a tendency to see political issues through “scientific” lenses, which may not allow for an issue to be best understood. Scientific analysis of the abortion debate, for instance, clearly leaves out major conceptual issues that should be considered. In attempting to quantify and qualify the content of myth, perhaps we are guilty of simply falling into the trap of trying to understand “scientifically” too many things this century. Joseph Campbell (1988) provides a particularly useful way of working through this conundrum in The Power of Myth. There Campbell notes the importance of continually analyzing myths and learning how mythical themes can help us to analyze ourselves. Campbell offers the example of James Joyce. In Joyce’s work, myths are metaphors. In addition, 224 Politics & Policy Vol. 33 No. 2 Joyce gives us the term monomyth to describe the formula of most myths: separation-initiation-return. It is suggested that the prime function of myths, in this regard, is “to supply the symbols that carry the human spirit forward, in counteraction to those other constant human fantasies that tend to tie it back” (Campbell 1949, 11). It is in this positive vein that the mythic structure theory is proposed here, as a guide to help us make sense of the symbols and content of modern political problems. Lastly, political scientist W. Lance Bennett (1980) writes eloquently about the nexus of myths, rituals, and politics and concludes that “myths are the truths about society that are taken for granted … [they are] basic cultural principles … [that are] the basis of political consciousness in American society” (167-68). Bennett confirms the power of myths by arguing that they “condition the public to the powerful symbols used by politicians” and they “blend fact with fantasy and confuse history with legend” (168). The Tenets/Traits of a Mythic Structure Theory For Campbell and others who have attempted to draw from his work, all complex stories have similar traits.3 I am modifying Campbell’s work slightly by suggesting there are five such elements in these stories, or mythic structures, including the players and participants involved in the story, the places these individuals go on their journeys, the individual or collective ideals and truths they share which lead them to champion one particular cause over another, the unique language or rhetoric the participants use, and the notion of an historical and potentially never-ending conflict. Tenet One: Players and Participants He was an old man who fished alone in a skiff in the Gulf Stream and he had gone eighty-four days now without taking a fish. In the first forty days a boy had been with him. — Ernest Hemingway (1952, 9) In the week before their departure to Arrakis, when all the final scurrying about had reached a nearly unbearable frenzy, an old crone came to visit the mother of the boy, Paul.

Load more