- Myths as the creator of a common identity.
Emerging from what has been said thus far is that, just
as the existence of society is a fundamental element of
the human lifestyle, so too myths, like language and religion,
are the basic things upon which human society is founded.
Myths are the essential building blocks used in the construction
and preservation of social frameworks and also of theistic
religions, as opposed to the non- theistic religions. Mythology
is used by human society, regardless of the latter's make
up, and regardless of the latter's various incarnations.
Mythology is thus exploited, in equal measure, by a nationalistic
society, a political society, a religious society made up
of believers in some or other type of deity, and a cultural
society. All these types of societies are defined by actual
and potential ranges, so that in the case where there is
a difference between its actual range, and its potential
one, the myths deal with the potential ranges, which are
always wider than, or identical to the actual range. In
the case of early Christianity its potential range spread
to all of humanity who was not at that time affiliated with
another theistic religion, and even then only if that religion
explicitly contradicted the precepts of Christianity. No
reservation was made as to the nationality, race, language,
and culture of the potential convert. It was possible for
a Jew to affiliate himself with Christianity so long as
he believed that Jesus being the messiah, the son of God
and one of the three entities that made up the Holy Trinity
did not contradict his view of Judaism. So too one who had
practiced Hellenic culture, or any other pagan believer,
for that matter could join Christianity, on the condition
that he had abandoned his faith in idols to the extent that
that idolatrous belief had contradicted a belief in One
God, expressed by the belief in the trinity, and who now
also believed that Jesus was the messiah. Thus, the Greek
Hellenists, the Romans, and any other pagan worshippers
were able to preserve those traditions that were influenced
by the pagan cultures from which they originated so long
as those traditions were merely superficially adhered to
without forming the core beliefs of the Christian convert,
and so long as monotheism, as expressed through the trinity,
was regarded as supreme. From this perspective it makes
sense why there was nothing holding back those from the
eastern cultures, and ethnic groups, from preserving certain
pagan characteristics within the framework of the Christianity
that they accepted upon themselves. This, to the extent
that the Eastern Orthodox (Christian) religion that emerged
was quick to integrate and incorporate these types of indigenous
characteristics into the religion without such a practice
being considered non- Christian. Christianity was able to
include within its ranks and contemporaneously, Egyptians,
Romans, and even Germanic tribes without cutting away at
each individual's ethnic background or separate national
affiliation. All these nations became integrated into Christian
society where the myths relating to the last supper and
the crucifixion of Jesus, and Judas Iscariot became the
common heritage of all believers, and left them with the
feeling that each was acquainted with his fellow and that
each was attached to the other through emotional and intimate
ties. Therefore when the Ottomans reached the gates of Vienna,
the battle that ensued was not merely part of a war in which
Austria tried to fend off the attacking Turks, but rather
it became a war that pitted Christianity against Islam.
It became a war between religions or a "war between
cultures", as those imbued with 21st century notions
would like to refer to it. Myths are responsible for creating
a familiar setting (through the sharing of a common mythological
heritage), which is enough to rouse powerful sentimental
feelings, intimacy and even solidarity in the hearts of
all of those who share the same mythology. Contrariwise
a myth can turn enemy on anyone who wages a war of destruction,
or who tries to inflict serious damage, or who acts in a
tyrannical manner towards others who have affiliated themselves
with the same mythological school. Collective solidarity,
in its negative construction, determines the level of rivalry
and even animosity that should be applied to all those who
are not in the same mythological circle. A natural covenant
between individuals on the one hand and a common feeling
of enmity towards a specified "other" on the other
hand both creates and defines a social framework. The definition
of a social framework is also a delineation of the limits
of that group as they have been confined by the framework.
From this perspective myths are also responsible for marking
out the boundaries. For example, a myth may relate to all
Japanese inhabitants, yet, so long as not all the Japanese
fully and intimately come to terms with that specific myth
a gap is created between the actual domain of the group
that positively relates to the myth (the actual boundary),
and the boundaries to which the myth purports to delineate,
or to sketch out, or to which its actual contents relate
to and to whom it is designated for (the etched out boundary).
The etched out boundary is the optional boundary that is
fixed by the myth, and if we relate to a myth as having
a "pseudo- intention", it is also a designated
boundary. The actual boundary is never meant to exceed the
limits of the designated boundaries. If, then, people who
live outside the area of the designated boundary approach
the people who do live there with the request to join their
group, an internal problem is bound to flare up amongst
the latter group. Therefore in order to enable this designated
merger, it is vital that a way be discovered to alter the
mythology. An example of this dilemma may be found in the
problem surrounding "who is a Jew?" that sprung
up amongst an Israeli sub- group that was part of a larger
Jewish societal group, when within the framework of the
Jewish State's institutions, the State of Israel, a man
by the name of Benjamin Shalit who had a married a non-
Jew sued to get his son Tomer to be recognized, within the
legal framework of the Jewish State, as a Jew, and, moreover,
to have him registered within the framework of the Populations
Registry of that state (the State of Israel) as a Jew. Jewish
mythology, as it has been expounded upon and as traditional
commentary has interpreted it, has establ that its myths
apply exclusively to Jews who have been born to a Jewish
mother. Since in this case the wife of the Jew was not Jewish,
his request was refused and was dismissed in the final instance
by the Supreme Court. This was all done after it became
clear that the laws of the State of Israel in force at that
time and as they were interpreted and understood, laid down
the rule that the only person who may be registered as a
Jew is one who the Jewish religion (in this case it is actually
Jewish mythology which includes the religious discussions
of the members of the group to which Jewish mythology refers)
has determined belongs to the Jewish race, and the Jewish
religion, as it was acknowledged there, rejects the son
of that Jew, who was born from a non-Jewish mother and holds
that that son (Tomer Shalit) does not belong to the circle
of Jews. This then is an example of an attempted break-in
by someone who finds himself locked outside the framework
designated for the Jews, a break-in that in the final analysis
was thwarted and was halted by those to whom the matter
was brought. Obviously the way of getting this same child
(Tomer Shalit) into the national- religious framework would
have been possible if, and only after, a condition had been
stipulated allowing the religious mythology of the Jews,
which are at one and the same time also national myths,
to amend itself in a way that the designated boundaries
of the Jewish group were to additionally include all sons
of Jewish fathers, whether or not the mother is Jewish.
On precisely this point there emerges an additional dimension
to mythology, the context dimension, and what is meant by
this term is not the storyline per se of the myth, but rather
the context, ultimate destination, value system, and rules
of behavior, to which the myth refers and to which it aspires.
The myths of the Japanese Shinto speak about loyalty to
the emperor, which extends to the value of loyalty in general;
about honoring one's father in particular, and honoring
one's parents in general; about showing respect to elders
and to sages; and about the importance and the centrality
of the Japanese isles, as well as other additional values.
Someone who accepts Shinto upon himself in the sense that
he feels emotionally intertwined to this religion, and who
views Shinto as especially meant for him, will try his utmost
to faithfully fulfill those behavioral precepts. On the
basis of this value system multitudes upon multitudes of
Japanese soldiers sacrificed their lives in the Second World
War and in many other wars. There is, then, hidden behind
Japanese mythology a very potent force, just as there are
significantly powerful forces in nearly all other mythologies.
From here it emerges that myths play a very forceful role
in determining the personal behavior of the constituents
of a society that functions within a framework of a particular
mythology (i.e. a religious group or a national one, and
to certain extent even a culturally defined society). This
conscious role is given expression in the form of a moral
code that directs constituent members to subscribe to a
particular ethical mode of behavior that has been prescribed
by that society's collective heritage. There are three types
of heritages each suiting a particular society: 1. An ethical
religious heritage- found in a society bounded by and infused
with religious themes. 2. A national ethical heritage- found
in a society bounded by and infused with national themes.
3. A culturally ethical heritage- found in a society bounded
by and infused with cultural themes. Thus far the functional
aspects of mythology have been analyzed which encompass:
1. Familiarity. 2. Intimacy. 3. Solidarity. 4. Internal
and mutual aid against external factors. 5. Opposition and
enmity to those who are hostile to, or opponents of, allies
who have been grouped in the same mythological circle. 6.
Practical delineation as it interrelates to the designated
delineation of that group. 7. A collective ethical pedagogic
heritage and the drafting of hereditary ethical codes. Additionally
three types of social groupings that myths delineate have
also been surveyed: The social religious grouping. The social
cultural grouping. The traditional/ nationalist which, as
will be explained below, is divided into : Civil - political
nationalism which is an outgrowth of the heritage formed
by the civil and political society; Ethnic nationalism,
constructed within the framework of an ethnic group which
has expanded itself and has formed a national lifestyle
unique to it. This last mentioned division of nationalism
into two separate types was a division which came about
as a result of policies that were put into place by modern
states, during the end of the nineteenth and at the beginning
of the twentieth century, when the states, in an attempt
to deal with the allure that mythology held for ethnic societies,
and trying also to compete with the magnetism, gravitational
pull, and inner cohesion that bonded these ethnic societies
together, and furthermore in light of the fact that there
was usually more than one ethnic group exiting within the
political framework of one state, concluded that without
creating nationalized myths they were doomed to witness
total dismemberment. Under these circumstances, these modern
states, and more especially those which made up western
society, toiled hard, in order to cultivate their own mythology.
In the United States this process begun straight after the
Constitution was ratified and was given more impetus especially
after the American Civil War. This was done through the
construction of myths that centered on the Founding Fathers,
the Framers of the Constitution, and on events that led
to the War of Independence. It included the creation of
national American festivals such as Thanksgiving Day in
celebration of the first tilling of the land by the pioneer
settlers of the North American colonies and the adventurous
tales surrounding this event. It continued with days of
remembrance for the leaders of the United States (which
are rituals) commemorated through studying their historical
achievements (which qualify as myths). It also includes
adapting theistically- religious festivals such as Christmas
and turning it into a national American holiday- at least
from the ritualistic aspect. Even the genocide of the American
Indians (Native Americans), with the help of the private
movie industry- ostensibly a private sector, but effectively
working for the public interest-was turned into a myth.
At the same time the phenomenon of repeatedly watching these
types of films became a tradition- effectively turning into
a ritual. Myths surrounding Nazi Race theory were ostensibly
based upon "studies", whose credibility is very
much in doubt, and which were in any adopted by the Germans
without great discernment. These studies merely filled their
feverish desires of finding a source to the superior heritage
of the German nation. Without implying, in any way, Heaven
Forefend, that it was invalid aspirations and warped tendencies
that were responsible for the alterations and the add-ons
that were inserted into the myths of Early Christianity,
and stressing, rather, that doubt cannot be cast upon the
pure intentions of Peter and Paul, it must nonetheless be
admitted that those myths that came about during Christianity's
early period were ignited with the burning desire of the
then Christian spiritual leadership to increase the numbers
of Christians. Against this backdrop Christianity tailored
itself to fulfill it goal- which was considered sacrosanct
to the heads of Christianity- of spreading Jesus' gospel
to as many followers as possible. This same goal was foremost
in the minds of the Spanish and Portuguese during their
expeditions of conquest and expansion in Latin America,
only by this time there was no longer a need in augmenting
Christian mythology. As has emerged from part 1 of this
book, it was specifically because of this very goal that
there never was a policy of genocide carried out upon the
"Indians" in Latin America- as, contrarily, there
was on the North American continent within the context of
Protestant's mission of expansion - since the aim was always
to enlist them as members of the Christian religious society
and to endow them with the legacy of Christian mythology.
In part 8 of this book the differences between the West
and Imperial China will be discussed. In that Part it is
concluded that the basic difference between the two is that
in the West man rebelled against the political regime of
the Deity and his human earthly messengers as was witnessed
in the separation of religion and politics, whereas in China
there was no necessity to rebel against Divine political
authority because there the Divine was never involved in
the political regime. In light of the insights gained in
this Part the aforesaid may be refined especially as it
relates to Imperial China and it may be acknowledged that
both in regards to Imperial China and in regards to Early
Japan the only type of regime (whether under emperor or
king) that could succeed was one that relied upon the grace
of religious mythology, not the grace of religious people.
The regime itself was inundated with religious beliefs,
but because the ruler himself was held to be part of the
divinity, or the "son of a deity", there was no
conflict of interests between him and the religious clergy;
and the latter considered themselves subordinate to the
ruler whom they worshipped. In China, as was recounted,
the emperor himself was would appoint the deities. The emperor
was regarded to be on the same level as a Supreme Deity,
and there was therefore a delicate but institutionalized
balance between the emperor, on the one hand, and forces
that emanated from a supernatural source, on the other.
The emperor's divinity acted as a buffer that prevented
any insurrections. If however war was waged against the
empire, the eventual victor would also be endowed with the
status of demigod. There is then no reason to speak of a
rebellion, whether it be in China, at least not until 1911
C. E., or whether it be modern day democratic Japan, where
no rebellions seem to be emerging on the horizon. Therefore
man's great revolt against the Divine that took place in
the West could never have happened and indeed did not happen,
until at least 1911, when China's imperial period finally
ended. Mythology in Japan, and to a great extent, in China
as well, played both a national and religious role. Myths
were responsible for uniting the both the Japanese and the
Chinese, each one having built its nation upon the founding
principles of these super narratives. This is true both
in the sense of establishing a distinct and singular ethnic/national
collective (in practice the ethnic differences between the
subgroups were wiped out from the national consciousness,
thanks to a common mythology), and in the sense of establishing
a distinct religious collective. Shinto is not merely a
religion. It is also one of the basic elements responsible
for a unified national identity in Japan. Therefore, as
a result of various mythologies, the Japanese, the Chinese,
and the Jews regard themselves as comprising a distinct
nation, and - at their very core and generally speaking-
a distinct religious collective. Here is manifest another
of mythology's capabilities- creating a collective that
is nationally- religiously defined, so that these two disparate
but fundamental elements are welded together to form an
internally lethal combination. It is possible to claim,
with regard to the Jews, that the aforesaid has been proven
true by the very fact that the Jewish dispersion across
foreign and often hostile lands in every corner of the globe
for a period approximating 2000 years failed to prevail
over their national- religious mythology. This in itself
is an indication of the strength of the three- fold combination
of myth, religion, and nation.
