Difference between revisions of "Mythème"
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
This idea is somewhat disputed by [[Roman Jakobson]], who takes the mytheme to be a [[wp:concept|concept]] or phoneme which is without significance in itself but whose significance might be shown by [[wp:sociology|sociological]] analysis.<ref>*Claude Lévi-Strauss, 1955. "The Structural study of myth" in ''Journal of American Folklore'', '''68''' pp 428-444</ref> | This idea is somewhat disputed by [[Roman Jakobson]], who takes the mytheme to be a [[wp:concept|concept]] or phoneme which is without significance in itself but whose significance might be shown by [[wp:sociology|sociological]] analysis.<ref>*Claude Lévi-Strauss, 1955. "The Structural study of myth" in ''Journal of American Folklore'', '''68''' pp 428-444</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Phoneme=== | ||
| + | <!-- (analogous to *phoneme) --> | ||
| + | [[Lévi-Strauss]] coined the neologism by analogy to the phoneme (being the smallest unit of speech that can distinguish one statement from another statement, like the "d" versus the "b" in dog/bog). It's a faulty but useful analogy. It's faulty because a phoneme is itself meaningless, whereas a mytheme (understood as a sort of primary element of the mythic story) can be an event, for example, which is not meaningless in itself. It's useful because once the mythemes are identified, they can be aligned with other mythemes in particular kinds of arrangements (to other mythemes in time [diachronic] or to other mythemes in the same myth [synchronic], and so on). These arrangements are structures, hence the term "structuralism" to describe the overall process. Isolating the structures can reveal interesting things that have to do with many things from sociology to psychology. | ||
<!-- | <!-- | ||
| Line 43: | Line 47: | ||
To illustrate the notion of the mytheme and to demonstrate the application of structuralist myth criticism, Lévi-Strauss turns to the Œdipus myth. In «The Structural study of Myth,» he focuses on the internal structure of the myth, dividing the narrative into mythemes and characterizing each by a simple descriptive sentence such as «Œdipus marries his mother Jocasta,» or Œdipus kills his father Laios.» He then analyzes each mytheme in relation to the others, searching to establish interconnections or contradictions among them. For example, between the units «Œdipus marries his mother Jocasta,» and «Antigone buries her brother Polynices despite prohibition,» Lévi-Strauss discovers a meaningful link based on the concept of the overrating of blood relations. But, the mythemes, «Œdipus kills his father Laois,» «The Spartoi kill each other,» and «Eteocles kills his brother Polynices,» reveal the shared bond of what Lévi-Strauss names the underrating of blood relations. These and other relevant mythemes are then arranged into columns according to common features illustrating their relations, a schema which allows for a reading of the myth based on its inherent logical form. Lévi-Strauss describes his approach thus: «The myth will be treated as an orchestra score would be if it were perversely considered as a unilinear series; our task is to re-establish the correct disposition» (432). Only through the deconstruction and eventual reconstruction of a mythic narrative, asserts Lévi-Strauss, can one uncover the inherent harmony of the utterance: | To illustrate the notion of the mytheme and to demonstrate the application of structuralist myth criticism, Lévi-Strauss turns to the Œdipus myth. In «The Structural study of Myth,» he focuses on the internal structure of the myth, dividing the narrative into mythemes and characterizing each by a simple descriptive sentence such as «Œdipus marries his mother Jocasta,» or Œdipus kills his father Laios.» He then analyzes each mytheme in relation to the others, searching to establish interconnections or contradictions among them. For example, between the units «Œdipus marries his mother Jocasta,» and «Antigone buries her brother Polynices despite prohibition,» Lévi-Strauss discovers a meaningful link based on the concept of the overrating of blood relations. But, the mythemes, «Œdipus kills his father Laois,» «The Spartoi kill each other,» and «Eteocles kills his brother Polynices,» reveal the shared bond of what Lévi-Strauss names the underrating of blood relations. These and other relevant mythemes are then arranged into columns according to common features illustrating their relations, a schema which allows for a reading of the myth based on its inherent logical form. Lévi-Strauss describes his approach thus: «The myth will be treated as an orchestra score would be if it were perversely considered as a unilinear series; our task is to re-establish the correct disposition» (432). Only through the deconstruction and eventual reconstruction of a mythic narrative, asserts Lévi-Strauss, can one uncover the inherent harmony of the utterance: | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Finally, Lévi-Strauss sets forth a kind of grammar consisting of a series of rules of transformation or «structural laws» describing the relations among the mythemes, allowing for a global understanding of the narrative wherein every feature of the myth is interpreted in relation to all other features, thus establishing a system of analysis based solely on the inner constituents and construction of the myth at hand. | Finally, Lévi-Strauss sets forth a kind of grammar consisting of a series of rules of transformation or «structural laws» describing the relations among the mythemes, allowing for a global understanding of the narrative wherein every feature of the myth is interpreted in relation to all other features, thus establishing a system of analysis based solely on the inner constituents and construction of the myth at hand. | ||
| Line 57: | Line 52: | ||
Lévi-Strauss's structural approach to myth analysis offers a set of tools for that analysis which aids in the reconstitution of the meaning of the myth, as well as its interpretation as a cultural phenomenon. He further suggests that the purpose of myth lies in the reconciliation of opposing elements: «Mythic thought always works from the awareness of oppositions towards their progressive mediation...» (440). When examined structurally, in relation to each other, the seeming contradictions of myth resolve themselves and a unified meaning surges forth from the narrative. Through the identification and analysis of mythemes, the smallest, most succinct elements of meaning in a myth, the integrity and significance of primitive mythologies blossom. | Lévi-Strauss's structural approach to myth analysis offers a set of tools for that analysis which aids in the reconstitution of the meaning of the myth, as well as its interpretation as a cultural phenomenon. He further suggests that the purpose of myth lies in the reconciliation of opposing elements: «Mythic thought always works from the awareness of oppositions towards their progressive mediation...» (440). When examined structurally, in relation to each other, the seeming contradictions of myth resolve themselves and a unified meaning surges forth from the narrative. Through the identification and analysis of mythemes, the smallest, most succinct elements of meaning in a myth, the integrity and significance of primitive mythologies blossom. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
<ref>*[http://www.ditl.info/art/definition.php?term=3034 Pamela A. Genova, in ''Dictionnaire International des Termes Littéraires''] "Mythème/mytheme" (in English) A succinct view of Lévi-Strauss's use of ''mytheme''.</ref> | <ref>*[http://www.ditl.info/art/definition.php?term=3034 Pamela A. Genova, in ''Dictionnaire International des Termes Littéraires''] "Mythème/mytheme" (in English) A succinct view of Lévi-Strauss's use of ''mytheme''.</ref> | ||
--> | --> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
* [[Matheme]] | * [[Matheme]] | ||
| − | |||
[[Category:Anthropology]] | [[Category:Anthropology]] | ||
[[Category:Linguistics]] | [[Category:Linguistics]] | ||
Revision as of 06:57, 12 November 2006
Etmology
Mythème, a term in French coined by Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908- ) on mythe (v. article MYTHE)+ suffixe -ème «the smallest analyzable element» derived from the linguistic term phonème, «smallest distinctive unit of articulated speech», from the Greek *ςοντμα, «sound of the voice», cf. morphème (1921) English lexeme (1940), monème (Martinet, 1941).
Definitions
Claude Lévi-Strauss defines the mytheme as the smallest, most succinct element of signification in a myth. The mytheme grounds his structuralist approach to myth criticism, his structural analysis of myths.[1]
Structuralism
In the 1950s Claude Lévi-Strauss first adapted this technique of language analysis to analytic myth criticism. In his work on the myth systems of primitive tribes, working from the analogy of language structure, he adopted the term mythème, with the assertion that the system of meaning within mythic utterances parallels closely that of a language system.
This idea is somewhat disputed by Roman Jakobson, who takes the mytheme to be a concept or phoneme which is without significance in itself but whose significance might be shown by sociological analysis.[2]
Phoneme
Lévi-Strauss coined the neologism by analogy to the phoneme (being the smallest unit of speech that can distinguish one statement from another statement, like the "d" versus the "b" in dog/bog). It's a faulty but useful analogy. It's faulty because a phoneme is itself meaningless, whereas a mytheme (understood as a sort of primary element of the mythic story) can be an event, for example, which is not meaningless in itself. It's useful because once the mythemes are identified, they can be aligned with other mythemes in particular kinds of arrangements (to other mythemes in time [diachronic] or to other mythemes in the same myth [synchronic], and so on). These arrangements are structures, hence the term "structuralism" to describe the overall process. Isolating the structures can reveal interesting things that have to do with many things from sociology to psychology.
See Also
- ↑ (cf. in particular «The Structural Study of Myth» (1955); Tristes tropiques (1955); Anthropologie structurale (1958); La pensée sauvage (1962); Les mythologiques, 4 vols. (1964-1971); and Anthropologie structurale deux (1973)).
- ↑ *Claude Lévi-Strauss, 1955. "The Structural study of myth" in Journal of American Folklore, 68 pp 428-444
