- From a social science perspective it would seem correct
to deal with the concept "myth" by looking at
the limits of its influence upon the crystallization of
society or upon other social processes while at the same
time putting the emphasis on the cultural aspect, as the
concept "culture" is broadly defined. For this
purpose this last mentioned concept will, at one and the
same time, include religious culture and national culture
as well as any other uniquely cultural element. This approach
appears to be the correct one, especially since myths are
a socio- cultural phenomenon. Myths do not relate to the
individual per se but rather to his capacity to act within
his social environment. Myths are only promulgated within
a social class. There exists no human society which does
not possess some type of myth in its traditions. It is not
possible to unify society into one bloc without the assistance
of a grand myth, and in the same vein it is not possible
to have a society that does not believe in a religion, as
this concept is very broadly defined. The term "religion"
includes those non- theistic religions which are adhered
to by their followers, although they have not been nor cannot
be scientifically proven, and yet those people who believe
in them conduct their lives according to the norms that
they think these religions demand of them or according to
norms that can be either inferred or linked to those very
specific religions. In a later discussion the spotlight
will turn its attention to those pagan societies that are
not bound by any ordinances emanating from a transcendental
source, viz. the pagan sphere, and yet there are also among
them ethical rules that relate to their way of life and
which, as a consequence of their belief in the deities,
become binding, not because they are precepts that emanate
from the Above, but because they are vital in weaving the
social tapestry that is necessary for sustaining the belief
in these pagan gods. Later on the differences between individual
morality and horizontal morality will be raised for discussion.
It is patently obvious that within modern secular society,
the rules and principles of behavior are determined by making
reference to a basic belief system, a system that is responsible
for forming the foundation stone, which is at the core of,
and which sustains that society's faith in its specific
organizational structure. Myths are responsible for the
phenomenon of social integration; they act as the unique
identity card for every type of culture. There is no society
(religious or national) that does not have at least one
unique cultural nuance and therefore a unique myth of its
own. In a situation where there are no recognizable differences
between various cultural groupings from the cultural, religious,
mythological, and ritual perspectives, that is a sign that
that these different cultural groupings are only at the
beginning stages of unifying into a separate entity and
breaking off from a wider cultural environment. Things may
also be moving in the opposite direction and it may then
also be a sign that the various, and previously separate,
cultural societies are crystallizing into one cultural bloc
where they weave together their various experiences to form
a new enlarged social tapestry representative of a mega
cultural grouping. What is ritual? Ritual may be defined
as an activity in which cultural groupings or sections thereof
perform certain ceremonies or enact a pseudo- drama. It
is an activity which brings to life a fundamental idea that
the community firmly supports. This idea is used as a building
block for the construction of shared social values. Whereas
a myth informs the reader of an event that occurred, a ritual
is the physical reenactment of that historical event. Not
every story can be classified a myth, neither is every show
that is performed deemed a ritual. The staging of a Shakespearean
drama can obviously not be called a ritual; neither can
the script of such a play be classified as a myth. This
is because this kind of play will find a comfortable audience
amongst groups of various cultural backgrounds; it having
ceased to act as a unifying factor in the formation of an
English cultural and national identity. If it could be said,
for the sake of honing in on this analogy, that the performance
of such a play in England looks and sounds very different
to any other country or society that is not English, and
that the audience watching the play, be they in Liverpool
or in London, understand things from a totally different
angle than the tourists who are part of that same audience
and who are watching the drama unfold at the same time,
it would be appropriate to term this play an English ritual
and to define its script as an English myth. These types
of plays could theoretically be classified as uniquely English
depending on their extent of solidifying an English identity
as opposed to a universal one. One of the trademarks of
a nation is the fact that it is constructed on the lap of
myths and rituals that are able to relate specifically to
the heart of that community of men who view themselves as
a distinct nation. With rituals and myths acting as the
backdrop for their uniqueness, the English are endowed with
the feeling of a mutual internal closeness that differentiates
them, at least in their own eyes, from all other national
groups.
|
