Flood Christopher - Political Myth: A Theoretical Introduction

POLITICAL MYTH

Theorists of Myth

Robert A. Segal, Series Editor

Jung and the Jungians on Myth

An Introduction

by Steven F. Walker

Ren Girard and Myth

An Introduction

by Richard J. Golsan

The Poetics of Myth

by Eleazar M. Meletinsky

translated by Guy Lanoue and Alexandre Sadetsky

Northrop Frye on Myth

An Introduction

by Ford Russell

Cassirer and Langer on Myth

An Introduction

by William Schultz

Forthcoming in paperback:

Myth and Religion in Mircea Eliade

by Douglas Allen

The Myth and Ritual School:

J. G. Frazier and the Cambridge Ritualists

by Robert Ackerman

POLITICAL MYTH

A Theoretical Introduction

Christopher G. Flood

First published 2002

by Routledge

Published 2013 by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

711 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, USA

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright 1996 by Christopher G. Flood

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

CataloginginPublication Data available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN 13: 978-0-415-93632-3 (hbk)

For my wife and sons

CONTENTS

Myth is often viewed in limited ways. Sometimes it is seen as otherworldlyas concerned with gods rather than humans, with events in heaven rather than events on earth. Other times it is regarded as primitiveas the possession of early or dead cultures rather than of modern, Western ones. One of the most valuable contributions that Christopher Floods volume on political myth makes to the study of myth generally is his insistence that political myth is to be found in contemporary society and is to be found not only in distinctively religious times and places but in everyday life.

Flood does not equate political myth with myth per se. On the contrary, he distinguishes political myth from what he calls sacred myth and argues against those who facilely equate the two. But he then proceeds to show how political myth is akin to sacred myth. Political myth does not possess the aura of sacredness, but it can nevertheless harbor an authority as near to that of sacredness as the secular world in which it exists will allow.

Just as for many theorists myth is a part of religion, so for Flood political myth is a part of ideology. Political myth is ideology cast in the form of story. The narrative form of political myth accounts considerably for its persuasiveness.

In the course of delineating the nature of political myth, Flood provides detailed surveys of current theorizing about ideology, about sacred myth, about narrative, and about communication. He carefully presents the views of others before proposing his own. He offers correctives to simple-minded notions. Arguing that ideology is to be found in all modern societies, he shows how varied are the forms it takes. Granting that ideology expresses ideas, he examines the forms in which those ideas are expressed. He recognizes the role of propaganda and even delusion in political myth but refuses to reduce political myth to either mere brainwashing or sheer emotion. He shows how, even if political myths seem blatantly false or preposterous to others, they are plausible to adherents.

While writing as a political theorist, Flood approaches his subject from an array of interdisciplinary perspectives. He employs theories from religious studies to grasp the spell of sacred myth and in turn political myth. He uses theories from the social sciences to decipher the pervasiveness of ideology in the modern world. He turns to writings in the fields of art criticism, literary criticism, and communication to etch the narrative and even the nonverbal, visual dimensions of political myth. Overall, he utilizes the insights of other disciplines to elucidate not merely the message of political myth but also the means by which the message is inculcated. To borrow the overworked phrase of Joseph Campbell, Flood strives to establish the power of myth by analyzing the medium no less fully than the message.

Together with Franz Boas, Bronislaw Malinowski was the first theorist to insist that myth, like any other aspect of culture, be studied in its living context. Writing early in the twentieth century, Malinowski pioneered the view of myth as a practical, daily force in society. But Malinowski focused on the unifying function of myth, linked that function to myth as aetiology, and studied myth among nonliterate peoples only. Moreover, myth for Malinowski means largely sacred myth. In all these respects Floods approach is more varied. For example, for him by no means need all members of a society subscribe to a political myth. Malinowski makes passing mention of myth in modern society but does not, like Flood, investigate its presence there. As Floods overview of the literature demonstrates, much work on sacred myth and on political myth has been done since Malinowskis day. Floods contribution is to amass the scholarship on political myth, to synthesize it, to reshape it, and to produce at once a broad and a precise study of this key category of myth.

Robert A. Segal

POLITICAL MYTH

The word myth makes frequent appearances in the headlines of newspaper reports. Many academic studies of political or historical topics have also been published with a reference to myth in their titles. Given the apparent importance attached to myth in contemporary societies, it might be expected that the phenomenon would have attracted widespread attention as an object of theoretical definition and discussion. However, the best that can be said is that the field is in a process of slow crystallization. It cuts across the traditional borderlines of several academic disciplines, with the result that the recent scholarly literature on the subject is scattered among publications catering for different readerships, ranging from political scientists and historians to sociologists, anthropologists, communications specialists, and literary/cultural theorists. This is potentially a source of richness in diversity. Reciprocal benefits could be derived from comparing the results given by different conceptual and methodological approaches. In practice it has tended to mean impoverishment through fragmentation, lack of debate, and failure to challenge inadequate arguments.

The relative lack of theoretical work on political myth is especially striking when it is compared with the enormous body of material devoted to the general theory of myth (which I will call the theory of sacred myth to avoid confusion) or to the theory of ideology, both of which are intimately related to the theory of political myth. The definition of sacred myth and the conceptualization of ideology have each been the object of competition between rival schools of thought within their respective fields. To some extent the very absence of consensus as to their nature or function has been a mark of their status as desirable properties for symbolic appropriation. At the same time, while most researchers into the theory of sacred myth have shown little or no interest in the theory of ideology, and most theorists of ideology have paid little or no attention to the theory of sacred myth, so too the theory of political myth has been largely overlooked by both camps. Conversely, scholars who have concerned themselves with political myth have tended to locate their work either in relation to the theory of sacred myth, with perhaps a few brief remarks on the concept of ideology, or, more rarely, in relation to the theory of ideology, with perhaps some cursory allusions to the theory of sacred myth. But few have given due weight to both.