Understanding Myth and the Popular Meaning of Communication and Mediation

Noted French theorist Rolland Barthes defined myth as a statement what is encoded by its supporter or according to John Fiske its believer. The modern commercial outlook often disseminates some laboratory-made myths to the consumers or subscribers. A ‘T-shirt’ is marked with an interesting note “I was born intelligent but the EDUCATION system ruined me”. This is just a myth used commercially. Barthes defined myth as a story by which a culture explains or some aspects of reality or nature [Fiske, 2003]. So a myth is a cultural fall-out of something to be conceptualized or understood. In this discourse there is unlimited flow of myths reigning in every society, like,

“women are more matured than men”;

“all that glitters is not gold”;

“peace lives somewhere else”;

“the government is of, for and by the people”;

“long live revolution”;

“women are more caring than men”;

“if you teach a woman you teach the whole generation” etc.

Thus if connotation is the second order signification producing the meaning of the ‘signifier’, myth is the second order signification of the signified.

The structure and organization of myth:

Famous Communication analyst John Fiske analyzed extensively how myths work in broadcasting news.

“the jubillant supporters are shown...” or

“public representatives should be an example...”

or the roaring river...” etc.

Enormous myths are being used in news, advertisements nowadays which discursively work as stimulant to lead the readership to the rest of the stories or the event. So considering the role of myths it is necessary to know in detail about the structure of myth which can reveal the inside stories of structural uses of myths in extensive variety of social dimensions, specially how mass media work ! We have already iterated Barthesian definition of ‘myth’. Another noted Social Anthropologist Claude Levi Strauss defined myth as a ‘story that is a specific and local transformation of a deep structure of binarily opposed concepts that are important to the culture within which the myth circulates’[Fiske, 2003].

So myth resides in both ‘pro’ and ‘anti-establishment’ concepts rather cultural contexts that lead to opposite outcomes or fall outs of social activities. Myths often help living in an imaginative manner that provides enough comfort to its creator to combat the reality. If an Indian comments, “I am an apolitical person”, that gives him a little comfort to be away from either the ‘pain of political struggle’ or ‘from illicit political activities’. Fiske in this context argues interestingly that Levi Strauss’s concept is greatly influenced by Freudean theorization. In his language, “... from Freud he develops the idea that the analysis of myth is the cultural equivalent of the analysis of the dreams of an individual. A dreamer will know that he or she is dreaming, but will know only the dream’s (often absurd) surface meaning: its deeper, real meaning is available only to the analyst...” So from the above two analyses there is no doubt about the encoder of a myth knows only the superficial or external meaning. Fiske continues arguing, “myths arise from the repressed anxieties and unresolved contradictions hidden in the tribal or cultural subconscious.

Myth and class inequality:

On the other hand Rolland Barthes has emphasized on the dominating character of myth that is used by the dominant class to dominate oppressed class. However he goes on arguing that myth hides nothing and flaunts nothing: it distorts; myth is neither a lie nor a confession: it is an inflexion (Barthes, 1972, Julian). “Myth is a system of communication... it is a message... myth cannot possibly be an object, a concept, or an idea; it is a mode of signification, a form... Myth is not defined by the object of its message, but by the way it utters this message... there are formal limits to myth but no substantial ones... Everything then, can be a myth? Yes... every object in the world can pass from a closed, silent existence to an oral state, open to appropriation by society, for there is no law, whether natural or not, whichforbids talking about things... mythical speech is made of a material which has already been worked on so as to make it suitable for communication” (Rolland Barthes, 1972). So myth is not at all dependent on its narrative or syntagmatic arrangement but on paradigmatic juxtaposition of metaphorical order, thus dominates the text and its decoder. Finally myth is a powerful instrument of the privileged class to dominate others and a fancid way-out to the common people. But in religious activities myths are often found moving beyond class identities of people and homogenizing cultural outlooks and differences.

Structure of Myth:

According to Levi Strauss, all myths have similar structure and similar socio-cultural function in a determinate social format. Myth is commonly used ‘to make the world explicable’ through a story-telling manner to resolve various problems and contradictions [Storey, 2001]. Myth itself appears to be the logic-model and deals with the conflicting issues. If we agree with the myth that “Sachin Tendulkar is the best Batsman, India have ever produced” no contradiction would then come into the scene at least in a determinate social format, but society must stand for a consensus in that period of time. But at the same time it is also true that myth then would become an undeniable part of the dominant social institutions and appear as ‘culture’ banishing all possible deviant voices and contradictions. Owing mostly to Freud, Levi Strauss’ notion of myth stresses upon the ‘dream’ structure of an individual that passes through very close to the ‘reality’ or the ‘analysis’. The myths like ‘Mega Star’ or ‘Big B’ thus structurally belongs to Amitabh Bachchan and for Shahrukh Khan ‘King Khan’ or ‘Bolywood Badshah’ rules the market and society. But both these myths mostly appear to be quite binarily opposed in nature thus leaving off the conflict of interest or releasing the anxiety toward making a King of the kings.

Rolland Barthes, on the other hand, as it has been already argued in the first chapter, defines myth as a story by which a culture gets the magical touch of reality or what Fiske argues, some aspects of reality or nature. As he categorises myth as a fall out of the second order signification, so culture basically shapes the myth as a chain of related concepts. Barthes categorises second order conceptualization into two segments: ‘connotation’ and ‘myth’. Connotation when it becomes the second order meaning or conceptualization of the ‘signifier’ and ‘myth’ is constituted as a second order conceptualization of the ‘signified’. But unlike Levi Strauss, Barthes has observed the commissioned existence of dominant myths in every social format and in this way dominant myths represent dominant social class and so the dominant history. Fiske argues that myths, as Barthes accords, basically naturalize the dominant history because every myth carries a history with them but present it as natural not historical or social. Because of dominant myth, we know about masculinity, femininity and other subsequent categories, like, women are more caring than of course male beings; women are lovemaker looking after their husbands and children, males are breadwinner etc. Fiske also argues that myths usually disguise their historical origin but present meaning for contemporary use.

But such mythic structuration also has its end with the natural evolution of mankind and social formats, newer myths are coming into the scene day by day. Myths, once very dominant and looking quite natural, are facing severe challenge from the newer age, newer reasons, newer aspirations, newer hopes and of course from newer myths. Also counter myths, once defeated, may earn new space to live in. As Barthes accords, change of myths is ‘evolutionary but not revolutionary’, where newer myths do not reject older myths entirely but outcast some of their traditional aspects. Therefore, Fiske argues, ‘no myths are universal in a culture, nor eternally dominant, there are counter myths, newer myths to banish them and set new time for future, as in science, counter myths always appear to be very strong, often deny dominant myths’. In everyday soap operas, news bulletins, political speeches, lots of dominant myths are being telecast, rendered but counter myths also exist in common psyche which often have the power to outcast those so called dominant myths. Gerbner in his Cultivation research has shown massive portrayal of violence in American television specially supernatural [mythic] violence, psycho-fanatic violence, cruelty, murder, social outlaws etc. which outrage the image of civil law and social relationships.

However Barthes’ claim was that myths are being produced at the second order signification or connotation for consumption and in practice myths often become ideology to solve out socio-cultural jolts. Myths in a social format, according to Barthes, promote values and interests of the dominant groups or institutions and defend them. As myths elevate dominant interests of the society, polysemic approaches of signs would then achieve hardly any space in that limited format. Barthes accords that, ‘myth has...a double function: it points out and it notifies, it makes us understand something and it imposes on us’[Mythologies: Barthes]. However Fiske argues that the ‘final meaning of the myth, lies not in its narrative or its syntagmatic structure, for the events of the expedition and actual hunt are comparatively superficial decorations and do not need retelling. The final meaning is to be found in the paradigmatic relationship of the [binary] opposed concepts which is a conceptual way of structuring and thus of making sense of the real problem’.

Finally Levi Strauss’ notion of myth comes out completely antipodal to what Barthes talks of it about. For Levi Strauss, myth is a narrative which is constantly being used by the people even beyond its actual negotiable meaning. But for Barthes on the other hand, myth is a chain of concepts [Fiske, 2001, 03], people though aware of its meaning but may be unaware about its mythic character. So Barthes’ myth is totally class oriented or class specific where dominant class use myths while dominating weaker class. But Levi Strauss has distinguished myth and its operation fully open ended. Levi Strauss used myths of tribal societies, whereas Barthes was more concerned with contemporary global societies. However Fiske argues that apart from culture specificity and class orientation, society is also heavily distinguished by the gender bias that creates power blocs in the society. As Barthes points out that dominant class and their institutions, owning sources of production alongwith, also control and regulate myths to ensure subordination of people, but Fiske points out that capitalist societies are very much patriarchally programmed where class bias and gender bias both sculpt power blocs in society.

Structural repitition or parallel structures:

Fiske argues that as because structures are fundamental in making sense of the whole world, structuralism often demonstrates or is evident in some parallel structures that defines the difference of cultural praxis in a synonymous way. Fiske exemplifies beautifully that a space is being treated as house, farm, wilderness etc. Animals can be treated into parallel categories, such as, domestic animals, wild animals, pets etc. Human being also are being categorized into different parallel structures, like, family, neighbours, businessman, tribal, criminal etc. These parallel structures or structural repititions denote cultural differences and at the same time organize those anomalies in a synonymous structure. Such repititive structures are widely seen in both Bengali and Indian societal boundaries. Often these repetitive structures form convention and are being forcibly tried out as analogous or anomalous structures by the limited social authorities. Thus Fiske argues that, ‘structuralism teaches us to look for the deep structures that underlie all cultural and communication systems. It also enables us to demonstrate that the various social and cultural systems that we use to organize and make sense of our lives are not random or disconnected, but are analogous to each other’. Therefore myths are closely associated with the existing deep structures or langue in which both class, cultural and gender bias control the society and various paroles.

Meaning and Culture:

As Claude Levi Strauss has distinguished language into paroles within its deep structure i.e. langue. Thus meaning lies in the paroles and langue acts as a base [deep] structure of it. In mass mediated society a deep structure or langue can generate infinite number of paroles as episodes that would definitely influence or affect the concept of binary structuration of meaning. Therefore front page of a particular newspaper generates number of headlines [Fiske, 2001, 03], even a particular story-structure also can generate number of headlines and pictures. Ultimately this deep structure [langue] sets about the culture with structured oppositions.

Nature and culture:

As it has been argued in detail that the structuralist approach enquires an open-ended analysis where sense making is the crucial factor, generated from nature or the reality and the culture or the structured sense. Claude Levi Strauss has analyzed this derivation between nature and culture in his book “The Raw and the Cooked” (1969) which justifies fooding and cooking as cultural procedures are both generated from the nature. According to Levi Strauss, food is a very powerful anomalous category and acts between nature and culture. This food and cooking culture can be extended to a wider range of cultural transformations [Fiske, 2001, 03] that even affect the age-old determinacy of a traditional culture. Raw food, according to Levi Strauss, is well extended to ceremonial cooking, occasional cooking, commercial cooking, official cooking and other various cultural praxis. Fiske argues that ‘...this process starts conceptually before any instrumental transformation, for all cultures divide nature into the edible and non-edible, though all...place different natural objects in each category...’. Though human body can accept or digest almost the whole nature, such delicate division between edible and non-edible brings out the cultural specification of human beings. In addition to that such distinction becomes a discriminating process where what a society considers edible may be inedible in other society. Chinese people are very much traditionally knwon as cockroach eaters, some of eastern Indian aboriginals eat dogs.

At the same time in terms of edibility or non-edibility, wide cooking range also is an identity of a society and is an instrumental to the social transformations. Specially in Bengali linguistic society such categorization still acts as a social identity. Even in West Bengal long after the partition [1947], Hilsa and Prawn are still known as iconic-symbols of the two prime Indian Football Clubs, East Bengal and Mohun Bagan. This transformation of nature into culture is also identical with ‘Ghati’ [West Bengalees] who are fondly symbolized with Prawn and ‘Bangals’ [migrated from today’s Bangladesh as refugee] are fondly known as ‘Hilsa’ eaters. Moreover these categorizations become more anomalous or analogous when by different preparations of ‘Daal’ we can identify the cook as, may be, traditionally ‘Bangal’ or ‘Gahti’ or ‘Oriya’. Nonetheless there are even various cooking methodologies that signify the person, which region he/she is coming from. Refugees from Barishal are traditionally known for excellent cooking, whereas for some special preparations or the cooking systems of various vegetables Ghati people are well acclaimed. Bangals [traditional East Bengalees] cook all lunch dishes specially ‘Daal’[pulse], vegetables, using sweetner [chiefly sugar] along with other salty ingredients more than what ‘Ghati’s do. More so, Kolkata is still known by its Rasogolla, as Delhi by Laddu [the famous categorization: Jo Khaya O Pachhtaya, Jo Nahin Khaya O Bhi Pachhtaya] etc.

Not only cooking and food systems, such distinction between nature and culture and cultural tranformation is widely seen in rural Bengal areas in worshiping gods. People of Purulia and Bankura worship ‘Tusu’ [goddess Lakshmi, the god of wealth] to observe harvesting and collecting of crops [chiefly Paddy] from fields. These are all quite substantial examples of structural methodologies as Levi Strauss thought of it extensively. We all know that Chinese food is such a cooking system that opens an image of the Chinese cultural discourse, but in India, what is available in the name of Chinese recipe in common restaurants and road-side kiosks is far from what a Chinese person desires to have. But common Indian food scenario is binarilly distinguished between Chinese cuisine and Indian cuisine. This is also a structural transformation that comes from the nature reaches to a binary opposed culture.

All the examples given above are of structural prototypes that appear in mutually binary oppositional categories:

Chinsese food : Non-Chinese food [because in such Indian cuisines, some are inevitably having Pakistan and middle eastern roots];

Bangal [taken refuge in India after partition] : Ghati [traditionally West Bengal dwellers];

Hilsa : Prawn;

North Indian : South Indian;

But the degree of transformation has gradually become wider with more and more consumerization of such traditional categories [broad and binarily opposed], while paradigmatic options needed to be expanded more to cater the growing consumerization. But still empowerment of structures is very much evident in different categories of lives and mediation, as for example, still majority of Mumbai films can well be categorized into binary structures, like: Good : Evil; Hero : Villain; Law & Order : Anarchy; Old : New; Religious : Secular; Conventional : Revolutionary; Society : Underworld; Elite : Antisocial etc. Let us interpret some films:

Connotation # 1: Amar Akbar Anthony:

This particular blockbuster of 1970s, portrayed two special religious binary identities under one mainstream religious plane [here Hinduism on which the whole society was portrayed]: The whole text possessed three identities: two religious categories, Christianity and Islam and a Police Officer [predominantly Hindu or mainstream on which most of the Mumbai films are made]. However all categories were sufficiently projected in different societal forms. Anthony in Christian [Church oriented] society and Akbar in Muslim [Bazar oriented] society. Rest of the film followed the same narrative fictional line-up: Initial narrative - Mounting - Climax [chiefly happy marriage]. The meanings of categories are:

Mainstream Religion [as perspective] [Educated Police Officer] : Others;

Chritianity [Bohemianism (individuality), pub-culture] : Muslim [workers, rituals]

Law & Order [Civil responsibility] : Villains [Smugglers]

Masculinity : Femininity

Connotation # 2: Vaastav:

This is another Mumbai blockbuster initially started with a binary composition of elite and non-elite societal category. Then it moves to another binary composition: society and the underworld [where the hero (starring Sanjay Dutt) once ousted from the society gets refuge to ‘Vitthal bhai’] refuting elite-non elite boundaries. It also projects another binary character, hero’s brother (Manish Behl), who happens to be a graduate, management staff, looking for a well-bred life, keeps himself away from his ‘Don’ brother. In between these three prime binary-opposed categories lots of murders, encounters, underworld planning have been propelled in this film. The binary opposed categories are:

Elite : Non-elite;

Social Praxis : Anti-social Activities;

Decent Life [education] : Underworld lifestyle;

Law & Order : Anarchy;

Hero [not villains, because hero himself is a traditional villain] : Villain [the Society];

Humanity [Hero] : Cruelty [Education, social institutions];

Masculinity : Femininity

Anomalous or continuing or mediating category: Hero / Anti-Hero.

Connotation # 3: Political Bandhs:

Often Bandhs or Strikes have been called by different political parties, non-political institutions, social [civil] groups and various other categories of a region. Today a bandh is not only a widely-dealt issue but a quite popular category for mass-mediation. Media institutions often have become politically polarized while giving coverages. In case of opposition-called bandhs, media houses, supporting ruling sects, frantically look for even small groupings in roads. They cover number of government buses and other vehicles running on the road. But in opposite cases, they cover stranded people in different places, like, Railway stations, Airports and other places. Uncrowded road is here the strongest metonym of a strike. Clash between police administration and strike supporters is a common metonym of state domination, even if the supporters launch violent attack on public property or administrative personnels. Political oppositions always have the same allegation that the bandh is ‘politically motivated’ [instead of adding ‘ill’ as prefix], thus ultimately appears to be almost anti-social, anti-progress, anti-development, anti-industrialization, anti-people and even anti-political iconic-symbol. This is a massive transformation because Bandh once was treated as the last weapon of movement against the establishment]. Finally whatever be the outcome strike-callers greet people for making it a success and the opposition also greet people for making it failure or unsuccessful. The binary categories are:

Support : Dissupport or opposition;

Rulling political groups : Political oppositions;

Issue : Politics;

Individuality : Organizations;

Success : Failure;

Anomalous or Continuing or mediating category: Bandh.

Fiske at this juncture points out that all such structural categorizations depend on various myth categories [second order signified], and upon our knowledge about other available myths in a particular genre. He further divides the structure into three ‘groups of values’:

Actual elements- the narrative;

Values [determinate] specific to the genre, say, [Mumbai films or Indian films] : Other films; or our culture : their culture;

Universal value system - Good : Evil; Hero : Anti Hero;

Structuralism innately prescribes these three central value systems starting from the reality element-system to the universal value system i.e. universally accepted axiomatic value statements by which all binary opposed categories are being made. He accords that the third group i.e. universal value system are finally culture specific but always have been given the ‘natural’ status, thus ‘appear to be a part of nature rather than culture. So the myths always have been very powerful and act as natural.

Political text and mass culture:

Both in traditional and contemporary social boundaries, political texts are often found highly structured [regimented], continuous and communicated to the targeted mass to achieve immediate [short-term] stimulated results. In this course, political vanguardism always becomes an invariable factor to motivate or modulate required expectation of results or outcome of communication. This is very much plausible when political texts are made of various stimulant elements to re-legitimizing political goals. Such elementary stimulant factors are often being misconceptualized with ‘ideology’ and ‘ideological struggle’, as ideology is frequently been made up by the vanguards of different vertically framed strata within the political party. Such formulation of ideology practicing materials result in a utopianism or utopian shell wherein people organize their livelihood and revolutionary praxis as well. Even in the contemporary world different political or semi-political platforms, despite not having regimented structures, often try to regimental-ize their message-texts to their audience. But in such cases, in most of the developing countries, audience do not always come out with complementary vanguard-ist approach, because of being deprieved to get food, clothing and other elementary factors to organize their livelihood. Here educated middle class people, for many reasons, are the best receiver of such regimented message to become vanguards and lead the struggle against such deprivation.

But as the political texts often appear to be quite binarily opposed to each other [situational in terms of political continuity], create mass culture in different pockets of interest. Unlike autocratic dictation, political vanguardism may also produce mass culture specially for middle class people because they are the best receiver [opinion leaders also] of political texts as well as most vulnerable section of a community. In other words, may be, the political mass culture is necessary for them because of their vacilant attitude that they should remain vanguard but not freelance opinion leaders. This is a utopia but the most perpetrated social communication process.

However each political text has its own identity and requires a time-certainty to be an issue of vanguardism but basically such text is timeless and remains beyond any semiotic explanation. Let us take an example, ‘US-imperialism and industrialization in developing nations’-- ideally may come out as two binarily opposed text-codes but the reality is something else. Nowadays US-imperialism and corporate conglomeration or transnationalization of industrial coporations are synonymous or identical, to be very precise, unlike some earlier generic genres [cases] of direct militarization to some oil-producing countries. Borrowing Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky, it can be easily determined that US imperialist terror has three genres: Constructive - when US launch direct military attack to any nation; Benign - when US promote its imperialist motif indirectly; and Nefarious - which goes against the interest of US strategies. For many developing countries, like India, such imperialist motif is benign in character which brings home massive corporate-concentration and neo-imperialism where corporate militarization is being ruthlessly imposed on such countries.

But on the contrary, developing nations also aggressively looking for sharp industrial growth so as to retain balanced economic growth. This is again a generic problem of all developing countries. On the one hand to get hold of indusrialization political parties need to be quite liberal in nature, be more cultural-oriented than traditional class-responsive, because with the natural developmental growth all-round trans-classification of older class identities occurs inevitably. With the growing disguised unemployment in agricultural sector land proportion per unit [a person, or a family unit] has become sharply negative compared to the earlier situation. Furthermore education development quotient along with other cultural factors [outlook, aspiration, and other modes of individuality] have also been quite edged down over [beyond] the developmental discourse. So a natural de-class-ment is inevitably an outcome where new industrialization may supplement the requirement. But this is the juncture we have been talking about nowadays. In this era of corporate conglomeration US neo-imperialist force have progressed so far that almost all the corporations of Asia and Europe remain under their domination. Both in media and industrial conglomeration US remains the only state power [except China] that every corporation depends upon. Therefore all anti-imperialist forces of developing countries have to face a double-edged text, a side of which is, either to accept industrialization with transnational corporate investment to generate internal industrial set up for the growth of employment, or to remain clerical toward older monolithic concept of imperialism otherwise.

Thus political vanguardism gradually losing its earlier control over such conceptual monoliths freeing out such texts to develop naturally and independently. So the question of mass culture itself is feebled out to liberal pluralist in nature which accepts multiple textual interpretation and multicultural identities. It is really difficult to, however, enrich or feed vanguardism with regular political agenda and a hardcore sense of struggle. But still political opinion leaders and leadership put forward such sense-making statements to keep the audience charged and committed. It is, therefore, a two-fold struggle for the political vanguards to make all incoming texts revolutionary, on the one hand, and retain audience under the banner, on the other. But movement specially the political movements would continue, even if not structured, to find out the best alternative to however neo-imperialism hits the common lives.