Changes

''[[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).

[[Claude Lévi-Strauss]] defined by defines the [[mytheme]] as the '''smallest, most succinct element of meaning [[signification]] in a [[myth]]''', «mythème» . The [[mytheme]] grounds his [[structuralism|structuralist approach ]] to [[wp:myth|myth criticism. Narrative unit in a ]], his [[structuralism|structural analysis]] of [[wp:myth|myths]].<ref>(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)).</ref>

==Wikipedia==In This [[idea]] is somewhat disputed by [[Roman Jakobson]], who takes the study of mytheme to be a [[wp:mythologyconcept|mythologyconcept]]or [[phoneme], a '''mytheme''' ] which is an irreducible nugget of myth, an unchanging element, not unlike a cultural meme, one that is always found shared with other, related mythemes and reassembled in various ways&mdash;"bundled" was without [[Claude Lévi-Strausssignificance]]'s image&mdash; or linked in more complicated relationships, like a molecule in a compound. For example, the myths of itself but whose significance might be shown by [[wp:Adonissociology|sociological]] and analysis.<ref>*Claude Lévi-[[wp:Osiris|OsirisStrauss]] share several elements, leading some scholars to conclude that they share a source1955. "The Structural study of myth" in ''Journal of American Folklore'', '''68''' pp 428-444</ref>

The cataloguer of folk tales ===Phoneme===<!-- (analogous to *phoneme) -->[[Vladimir ProppLévi-Strauss]] considered that the unit of analysis was coined the individual tale: the unitary mytheme neologism by contrast is the equivalent in myth of analogy to the [[wp:phoneme]]s, ([[wp:morphemebeing]]s and the smallest unit of [[wp:sememespeech]]s into which that can distinguish one [[Linguistics|structural linguisticsstatement]] divides language: the smallest possible units of meaning within a language system.  In the 1950s from [[Claude Lévi-Straussanother]] first adapted this technique of language analysis to analytic myth criticism. In his work on the myth systems of primitive tribesstatement, working from like the analogy of language structure, he adopted "d" versus the term ''mythème"b" in dog/bog). It's a faulty but useful analogy. It's faulty because a phoneme is itself meaningless, with the assertion that the system of meaning within mythic utterances parallels closely that of whereas a language system mytheme ([http://www.ditl.info/art/definition.php?term=3034].This idea is somewhat disputed by [[Roman Jakobsonunderstood]], who takes as a sort of primary element of the mytheme to mythic story) can be a an [[wp:conceptevent]] or phoneme , for example, which is without significance not meaningless in itself but whose significance might be shown by [[wp:sociology|sociological]] analysis. <!--Neologism coined by It's useful because once the mythemes are [[Levi-Straussidentified]] by analogy , they can be aligned with [[phonemeother]], and used mythemes in particular kinds of arrangements (to describe the elementary units employed other mythemes in the [[structuralism|structural analysistime]] of [[wp:myth[diachronic]]]s. Like or to other mythemes in the same myth [[[Saussuresynchronic]]]'s , and so on). These arrangements are [[signstructures]]s, hence the term "[[mythemestructuralism]] are created by binary or ternary oppositions and are analogous with " to describe the functions identified by overall [[Proppprocess]] in his morphology of . Isolating the folk tale. structures can reveal interesting things that have to do with many things from [[Mythemesociology]]s are to be identified with functions, and not with the characters of mythical tales[[psychology]].-->

To appreciate fully the complexity of the term, it is necessary to [[place ]] Lévi-Strauss's [[structuralist ]] [[theory ]] of the study of myth within the context of the late 19th-century and 20th-century [[tradition ]] of myth criticism.

During the second half of the 19th century, research in the fields of archaeology and philology brought [[about ]] a renewed interest in mythology, from both ethnological and aesthetic perspectives. While novelists, poets and playwrights turned to mythological [[figures]], particularly those of the Hellenistic tradition, to animate their creative pieces, academic research founded a new [[form ]] of critical study, the analysis of myth. Early critics, such as Ernst Cassirer, elaborated systems of [[interpretation ]] explaining the relation of myth to [[history]], [[religion ]] and art, and the problematic rapport between myth and [[belief]]. Mircea Eliade examined the [[relationship ]] of the sacred and the profane. The advent of [[psychoanalysis ]] introduced another perspective: Sigmund [[Freud ]] linked myth directly to the [[human ]] [[psyche]]; Carl G. [[Jung ]] developed the theory of the collective [[unconscious]], focusing on the [[notion ]] of archetypes; and other theorists and mythographers [[reinterpreted ]] the [[nature ]] of myth. Russian formalists, such as Vladimir [[Propp]], then explored a subset of myth, the folktale.

Propp's theories [[represent ]] an important backdrop for Lévi-Strauss's later work, for the French structuralist enunciates his conception of myth analysis in contradistinction to Propp's approach. In Morphology of the Folktale (1928), Propp establishes a system of classification of folktales based on function; he describes the function of a tale as «an act of a [[character]], defined from the point of view of its significance for the course of the [[action]].» For him, the relevance of systems of folktales lies in the organization and interpretation of functions within the tales. He proposes a rigorous system of interpretation, later criticized as narrowly limited. He asserts for example that the [[number ]] of possible functions found in folktales never surpasses 31, and the number of character roles in a tale is eight. Propp classifies the tales into a series of types based on the functions each tale exhibits. He states that the unit of analysis is the [[individual ]] tale, and the limited number of possible functions represents the [[stable]], constant element, the fundamental set of components of any given tale.

Although Lévi-Strauss, like Propp, concentrates on the structure of [[narrative]], the interpretative system of the French structuralist differs essentially from Propp's theories. First, for Lévi-Strauss, the unit of analysis is not the folktale, but the myth, a form of narrative he views as more fundamental than its offspring, the tale; he asserts that folktales, through their artistic [[development]], obscure the original [[logic ]] inherent in primordial myth. From Lévi-Strauss's perspective, [[myths ]] represent central components of [[cultural ]] [[consciousness]], and simultaneously reflect and [[help ]] form the human [[mind]]. Whereas Propp concerns himself with the aesthetic form of his [[object ]] of study, Lévi-Strauss focuses on the [[logical ]] form, the «algebra» of a system of [[ideas ]] embodied in a mythology. The structuralist approach to myth analysis thus focuses on the [[internal ]] framework of the myth instead of on its [[external ]] functions.

Lévi-Strauss bases his analysis of myth on the linguistic [[model ]] set forth by such structural [[linguists ]] as Roman [[Jakobson]], who in his study of language concentrates on the examination of the simplest, most easily [[identifiable ]] constituents of language and their interrelations. He shifts the emphasis from an examination of the elements themselves, as was the [[case ]] with traditional linguistic theory, to an exploration of the interrelations between [[them]]. Structural [[linguistics ]] [[divides ]] language into a series of units called phonemes, morphemes and sememes, the smallest possible units of meaning within a language system. These units, considered in [[isolation]], exhibit little significance; their potential for broader meaning is [[born ]] out of their union, interrelationships and [[order]].

units...present in language when [[analyzed ]] on other levels; namely phonemes, morphemes and sememes--but they, nevertheless, differ (among themselves); they belong to a higher order, a more [[complex ]] one. For his [[reason]], we shall call them gross constituent units [...] or mythemes.

In other [[words]], in language, phonemes, morphemes and sememes [[exist ]] architectonically. In a [[sentence]], sememes, dependent on [[grammatical ]] structures, are built of words, composed of groupings of phonemes, the most basic units of language. A meaningful sentence can thus be described in gross as groupings of phonemes. Similarly, a myth contains groupings of mythemes. It is important to note that while a mytheme performs an immediate meaningful function by itself, it derives a greater, more significant relevance in its connections with other mythemes. The [[full ]] meaning of a myth results from the combination and comparison of its mythemes. Lévi-Strauss elaborates:

[[subject]], or, to put it otherwise, each gross constituent unit

will consist in a relation...The [[true ]] constituent units of a myth

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 «[[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]]:

read diachronically along one axisFinally, Lévi--that 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, page after pagethus establishing a system of analysis based solely on the inner constituents and [[construction]] of the myth at hand.

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 left to right--the narrative. Through the [[identification]] and also synchronically along analysis of mythemes, the othersmallest, most succinct elements of meaning in a myth, the integrity and significance of primitive mythologies blossom.

gross constituent unit, i<ref>*[http://www.ditl.einfo/art/definition. one bundle of relationsphp?term=3034 Pamela A. Genova, in ''Dictionnaire International des Termes Littéraires''] "Mythème/mytheme" (432in English)A succinct view of Lévi-Strauss's use of ''mytheme''.</ref>