Discussion Post W6

382 Jii MITH

MITH

Literary theorists Rene Wellek and Austin Warren noted that the concept of myth "is not easy to fix; it points today at an 'area of meaning' [or an issue of concern) ... shared by religion, folklore, anthropology, sociology, psychoanalysis, and the fine arts" (Wellek & Warren, 1956, pp. 190-191). Many contempo­ rary scholars in rhetorical studies would add their discipline to Wellek and Warren's ( 1956) list. Myth often is considered to be a key ele­ ment in rhetoric and public discourse. Hart ( 1997), for example, wrote, "Virtually all rhet­ oric depends on myth for its effect .... Even if a rhetor does not retell a mythic tale in full, he or she will use some device (a quick allusion, a metaphor) to invite the audience's remem­ brance of that tale" (pp. 242-243 ).

Hart (1997) defined myths as "master sto­ ries.describing exceptional people doing ex­ ceptional things and serving as moral guides to proper action" (p. 234). Wellek and War­ ren's (1956) definition is a bit different from, but not inconsistent with, Hart's definition.

They defined myths in this way: "But, in a wider sense, myth comes to mean any anony- mously composed storytelling of origins and destinies: the explanations a society offers its young of why the world is and why we do as we do, its pedagogic images of the nature and destiny ofman [sie]" (p. 191). Cultural histo- rian Richard Slotkin wrote,

Myths are stories drawn from a society's history that have acquired through persis- tent usage the power of symbolizing that so- ciety's ideology and of dramatizing its moral consciousness-with all the com- plexities and contradictions that conscious- ness may contain .... Myths are formulated as ways of explaining problems that arise in the course ofhistorical experience. (Slotkin, 1992, pp. 5-6)

Myths, in short, are narratives that report the struggles and heroic exploits from a commu- nity's past; frequently, mythic stories draw on archetypal images (particular characters, events, etc.) that transcend the boundaries of a specific community. Like dreams, myths "are complex mixtures of archetypal and cul- tural elements" (Rushing & Frentz, 1995, P· 45).t

Myths function as reference points or cog- nitive coordinates for the members of a cul- ture or community. They explain the world and suggest ways of coping with it. Doty (1986) explained,

Myths arenormative in supporting particu- lar types of behavior and. association and rejecting other eJUlmp/a; 'they are educative and heuristic in highlighting adaptive and adjustive patterns. They provide social co- hesion by creating a shared symbolic articu- lation of social patterns and relations, by leading to a releasing of tensions ... , and by blocking nonapproved explorations of rela- tionship or behavior or inquiry. (p. 29)

More simply, Weiss ( 1969) suggested that myths "condition the way men [sie] view the world and understand their experience" (pp.

MYTH il.l 383

3-4). For example, the ancient Greeks under- stood their world and their place in it through reference to a pantheon of Gods (e.g., Zeus, Apollo) and their exploits. Although science and rationality have displaced mythic Gods as a source for explaining most natural events, myths nevertheless continue to exist in differ- ent forms and exert considerable influence. Kertzer ( 1988) noted,

Each society has its own mythology detail- ing its origins and sanctifying its norms. Some ofthese revolve around great men (in Western society female cultural heroes are less common}, while others revolve around notable events that, whether having a his- torical basis or not, are defined through a web of symbolically constructed meaning. In the United States, children grow up learning about the Puritans, the Indians, the slaves, life on the plantation, the melting pot, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Daniel Boone, John Kennedy, and Martin Luther King. Indeed, their conceptions of society are in good part based on under- standings passed on through such symbols. They learn both what are valued norms of conduct and what are the criteria of success. More to the point here, these [mythic] sym- bols provide a way to understand such ab- stract politica1 entities as the nation and a means (indeed the compulsion) of identify- ing with them. (pp. 12-13; see also Ben nett, 1980; McGee, 1975)

Hart (1997) identified four characteristic types of myths based on their different func- tions. Cosmological myths explain "why we are here, where we came from, [and] what our an- cestors were like" ( e.g., the story of Adam and Eve). Societal myths offer instruction on "the proper way to live" ( e.g., the story about George Washington and the cherry tree, the novels of Horatio Alger).Identity myths pro- vide the members of a community with a story that serves as the basis for their sense of who they are as a collectivity ( e.g., the myth of American innocence that came under attack during the debate over the war in Vietnam).

384 MITH

Eschatological myths (see also the entry for apocalyptic discourse) "help a people know where they are going [and] what lies in store for them" in the future (e.g., the promise of heaven or the threat of hell in various Chris- tian religions) (p. 242}. If myths are elaborate with respect to the characters and events con- tained within them, then they may fulfill nu- merous functions ( e.g., the story of the Amer- ican Revolution). When incorporated into public discourse, myths can produce instru- mental as weil as constitutive effects.2

Consider the narrative or story of Moses leading the children of Israel out of Egyptian bondage. Some Christians might object to la- beling this story as a myth because the term often suggests something completely ficti- tious. But the exodus story is a myth; it is a story of great events and people who provided a community with an understanding of its or- igins. And it has had a profound impact on Western societies. Walzer ( 1985) noted,

Since late medieval or early modern times, there has existed in the West a characteristic way of thinking about political change, a pattern that we commonly impose upon events, a story that we repeat to one another. The story has roughly this form: oppres- sion, Iiberation, social contract, political struggle, [and] new society .... This isn't a story told everywhere; it isn't a universal pattern; it belongs to the West, more partk- ularly to Jews and Christians in the West, and its source, its original version, is the ex- odus oflsrael from Egypt. (p. 133)

As Walzer suggested, the exodus myth helps to shape the way in which members of various cultures think about political struggle. We find its imprint in all types of public dis- course. At the beginning of his study of the role of narratives or stories in forensie or ju- dicial discourse, LaRue ( 1995) provided a reading of Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black's opinion in the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, a key moment in the evo- lution of American jurisprudence with re- spect to the separation of church and state.

The opinion, LaRue argued, was shaped by an underlying narrative-the story of exodus. LaRue noted,

As one reads, the Book of Exodus seems to hover in the background .... The story be- gins with the "early settlers" fleeing the "bondage" and the "persecutions" that characterized the European experience .... Like the ancient Israelites fleeing from Egypt, the "early settlers" must suffer in the desert [before they are finally delivered to the "promised land"]. (pp. 20, 22)

As numerous scholars have noted (Miller, 1993; Osborn,1989; Rosteck, 1992; Smylie, 1970; Snow, 1985 ), the exodus myth was an important resource in the discourse of the civil rights movement; it helperl to shape or structure the experience of many black Amer- icans and provided them with the courage to continue with their struggle. The exodus myth was especially prominent in Martin Lu- ther King, Jr.'s famous speech, "l've Been to the Mountaintop," delivered the evening be- fore his assassination in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1968.

The story of the exodus of the Jews from Egypt is just one of the countless myths that continue to inhabit our public discourse. Slotkin ( 1992}, for example, noted,

The myth of the frontier is our oldest and most characteristic myth, expressed in a body of literature, folklore, ritual, historiog- raphy, and polemies produced over a period of three centuries. According to this myth- historiography, the conquest of the wilder- ness and the subjugation or displacement of the Native Americans who originally inhab- ited it have been the means to our achieve- ment of a national identity, a democratic polity, an ever-expanding economy, and a phenomenally dynamic and "progressive" civilization. (p. 10)3

Slotkin suggested that the myth of the frontier helps to explain the connection between prog- ress and expansion in American thought. The

continual repetition of the myth encourages Americans to understand progress as the re- sult of a recurring cycle-from initial (but de- caying) civilization, through im encounter with the wilderness frontier, to progress and a new revitalized civilization. For example, John F. Kennedy's famous address to the Democratic Convention in 1960 evoked this myth as it encouraged Americans to strike out and conquer their "new frontier." A related, and equally popular, mythic form is the agrarian myth organized around the heroic exploits ofthe "yeoman farmer" (Burkholder, 1989; Hofstadter, 1955; Smith, 1950).

Consider a final example. Since the birth of the tool, humanity has been plagued by the fear that its technological creations might someday turn against humans. This cultural anxiety has been the source of countless sto- ries, perhaps receiving its most exemplary ex- pression in Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (Small, 1972). Although the "Frankenstein myth" (as it sometimes is termed) can be con- sidered as a distinct or autonomaus trans- cultural story, it also might be understood as an evolutionary moment or phase in what Rushing and Frentz (1995) described as the "myth of the bunter." Humans, especially men, continually engage in the quest for iden- tity, and Rushing and Frentz argued that this quest is at the root of the bunter myth. Draw- ing on works in anthropology (e.g., Camp- bell, 1949), Rushing and Frentz (1995) main- tained that the young bunter gains bis or her identity through participation in this initia- tion ritual. The repetition of variations on this basic story line embody and perpetuate the quest for identity. But modern society has witnessed the "technologization" (p. 7) of the hunter/hero; the "quest for identity" has been transformed into "a search for power" (p. 72). Victor Frankenstein was the "prototype" (p. 70) of the technological bunter, only now the roles were reversed; the technological bunter was as much the hunted (by the tech- nological creations that humans bad invented in their quest for power) as the bunter. Rushing and Frentz suggested that the logic of the technological bunter can be found in vari-

MY7H ~~ 385

ous discursive and cultural products, from Ronald Reagan's concept of the Strategie De- fense Initiative (SDI or "Star Wars") to popu- lar films such as Blade Runner and The Termi- nator.

Despite the advances of science and the proliferation of the scientific method, myths persist. They appear to be inescapable. Scholars uncover myths or mythic elements in a variety of sources; they can be found in political communication (Bass & Cherwitz, 1978; Bennett, 1980; Dorsey, 1997; Edelman, 1971; Fisher, 1973; Gustainis, 1989; Klope, 1986; McGee, 1975; Nimmo & Combs, 1980; O'Leary & McFarland, 1989; Rosteck, 1994; Rushing, 1986b), agricultural policy debates (Peterson, 1991; Peterson & Horton, 1995), popular films (Rushing, 1986a, 1989), com- mercial advertising (Berger, 1997; Leymore, 1975 ), and even the discourse of corporations (Crable & Vibbert, 1983). It is little wonder, then, that myth has become an important concept in contemporary rhetorical studies.

~ Notes

I. On the need to define myth narrowly, see Rowland (1990) and the responses by Brummett (1990), Osborn (1990), Rushing (1990), and Solomon (1990).

2. On this distinction, see the entry for effects of rhetorical practice.

3. See also Rushing ( 1986a, 1989) and Slotkin ( 1973, 1985).

m Heferences and Additional Reading

Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies (A. Lavers, Trans.). New York: Hili & Wang.

Bass, J, D., & Cherwitz, R. ( 1978). Imperial mission and manifest destiny: A case study of political myth in rhetorical discourse. Southern Speech Communica- tion }ourna~ 43, 213-232.

Bennett, W. L. (1980). Myth, ritual, and political control. Journal ofCommunication, 30, 166-179.

Berger, A. A. ( 1997). Narratives in popular culture, media, and everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brummelt, B. ( 1990). How to propose a discourse: A re- ply to Rowland. Communication Studies, 41, 128-135.

386 i~: MITH

Burkholder, T. R. (1989). Kansas populism, woman suf- frage, and the agrarian myth: A case study in the Iim- its of mythic transcendence. Communication Studies, 40, 292-307.

Campbell, J. (1949). The hero with a thousandfaces. New York: Pantheon.

Cassirer, E. (1946). Language and myth (S. K. Langer, Trans.). New York: Harper.

Crable, R. E., & Vibbert, S. L. (1983). Mobil's epideictic advocacy: "Observations" of Prometheus-bound. Communication Monographs, 50, 380-395.

Dorsey, L. G. (1997). Sailing into the "wondrous now": The myth of the American navy's world cruise. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 83, 447-465.

Doty, W. G. ( 1986). Mythography: The study of myths and rituals. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Edelman, M. ( 1971 ). Politics as symbolic action. Chicago: Markham.

Fisher, W. R. (1973). Reaffirrnation and subversion ofthe American Dream. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59, 160-167.

Fulmer, H. W. ( 1990). Southern clerics and the passing of Lee: Mythic rhetoric and the construction of a sacred symbol. Southern Communication Journal, 55, 355- 371.

Gustainis, ). ). ( 1989). )ohn F. Kennedy and the green be- rets: The rhetorical use of the hero myth. Communi- cation Studies, 40, 41-53.

Hart, R. P. (1997). Modern rhetorical criticism (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hofstadter, R. ( 1955). The age of reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. New York: Knopf.

Kertzer, D. I. (1988). Ritual, politics, and power. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Klope, D. C. (1986). Defusing a foreign policy crisis: Myth and victimage in Reagan's 1983 Lebanon/Gre- nada address. Western Journal of Speech Communica- tion, 50, 336-349.

LaRue, L. H. (1995). Constitutionallaw as fiction: Narra- tive in the rhetoric of authority. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Leymore, V. L. (1975). Hidden myth: Structure and sym- bolism in advertising. New York: Basic Books.

Liilcoln, B. (1989). Discourse and the construction ofsoci- ety: Comparative studies of myth, ritual, and classifi- cation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Marsden, M. ( 1978}. The American myth of success: Vi- sions and revisions. in ). Nachbar, D. Weiser, & ). L. Wright (Eds.), The popular culture reader. Bowling Green, OH: Popular Press.

McGee, M. C. (1975). In search of "the people": A rhe- torical alternative. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61, 235-249.

Miller, K. D. (1993). Alabama as Egypt: Martin Luther King, )r. and the religion of slaves. In C. Calloway- Thomas & ). L. Lucaites (Eds.), Martin Luther King, Jr. and the sermonic power of public discourse. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.

Moore, M. P. (199I). Rhetorkai criticism of politica) myth: From Goldwater legend to Reagan mystique. Communication Studies, 42, 295-308.

Nimmo, D. D., & Combs, ). E. (1980). Subliminal politics: Myths and mythmakers in America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

O'Leary, S., & McFarland, M. (1989). The political use of mythic discourse: Prophetie interpretation in Pat Robertson's presidential campaign. Quarterly Jour- nal of Speech, 75, 433-452.

Olson, K. M. (1991). Expanding the horizon ofjustifica- tion: The roJe of myth in cultural transformation. In D. W. Parson (Ed.), Argument in controversy: Proceed- ings of the Seventh SCAlA FA Conference on Argumen- tation. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication As- sociation.

Osborn, M. 0. (1989). "l've been to the mountaintop": The critic as participant. In M. C. Leff & F. ). Kauffeld (Eds.), Texts in context: Critical dialogwes on signifi- cant episodes in American political discourse. Davis, CA: Hermagaras Press.

Osborn, M. (1990 ). In defense of broad mythic criticism: A reply to Rowland. Communication Studies, 41, 121- 127.

Peterson, T. R. (1991). Telling the farmers' story: Com- peting responses to soil conservation rhetoric. Quar- terly Journal ofSpeech, 77, 289-308.

Peterson, T. R., & Horton, C. C. (1995). Rooted in the soil: How understanding the perspectives of land- owners can enhance the management of environ- mental disputes. Quarterly Journal ofSpeech, 81, 139- 166.

Rosteck, T. ( 1992). Narrative in Martin Luther King's I've Been to the Mountaintop. Southern Communication Journal, 58, 22-32.

Rosteck, T. (1994). The intertextuality of "The Man From Hope. • In S. A. Smith (Ed.), Bill Clinton on stump, state, and stage: The rhetorical road to the White House. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press.

Rowland, R. C. (1990). On mythic criticism. Communi- cation Studies, 41, I 01-116.

Rushing, ). H. (1983}. Tbe rhetoric of the American western myth. Communication Monographs, SO, 14- 32.

Rushing, ). H. (1986a). Mythic evolution of the new frontier in mass mediated rhetoric. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 3, 265-296.

Rushing, ). H. (1986b). Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" ad- dress: Mythic containment of technical reasoning. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 72, 415-433.

Rushing, ). H. (1989). Evolution of "the new frontier" in Alien and Aliens: Patriarchal co-optation of the femi- nine archetype. Quarterly Journal ofSpeech, 75, 1-24.

Rushing, ). H. ( 1990). On saving mythic criticism: Are- plyto Rowland. Communication Studies, 41, 136-149.

Rushing, J. H., & Frentz, T. S. (1995). Projecting the shadow:. The cyborg hero in American film. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Slotkin, R. (1973). Regeneration through violence: The mytholog.Y of the American frontier, 1600-1860. Middletown, MA: Wesleyan University Press.

Slotkin, R. (1985). Thefatal environment: The myth ofthe frontier ;,. the age of industrialization, 1800-1890. New Ynrk: Atheneum.

Slotkin, R. (1992). Gunfighter nation: The myth of the frontier in twentieth-century America. New York: Atheneum.

Small, C. (1972). Ariellike a harpy: Mary Shelley's Fran- kenstein-Tracing the myth. Pittsburgh, PA: Univer- sity of Pittsburgh Press.

Smith, H. N. (1950). Virgin lAnd: The American West as symbol and myth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- sity Press.

Smylie, J. H. (1970). On Jesus, pharaohs, and the chosen people: Martin Luther King as biblical interpreter and humanist. Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology, 24, 74-91.

MYTH ~~ 387

Snow, M. ( 1985). Martin Luther King's "Letter From Bir- mingham JaiJ• as Pauline epistle. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71, 318-334.

Solomon, M. (1979). The "positive women•s• journey: A mythic analysis of the rhetoric of STOP ERA. Quar- terly Journal ofSpeech;65, 262-274.

Solomon, M. (1990). Respanding to Rowland's myth or in defense of pluralism: A reply to Rowland. Commu- nication Studies, 41, 117-120.

Sutton, D. ( 1997). On mythic criticism: A proposed compromise. Communication Reports, 10, 211-217.

Sykes, A. J. M. (1970). Myth in communication. Journal ofCommunication, 20, 17-31.

Walzer, M. (1985). Exodus and revolution. New York: Ba- sie Books.

Weiss, R. ( 1969). The American myth of success: From Horario Alger to Normtm Vincent Peale. New York: Basic Books.

Wellek, R., & Warren, A. ( 1956). Theory of Iiterature (3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace.