Levi Strauss, Myth

7/29/2019 Levi Strauss, Myth

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/levi-strauss-myth 1/18

The Structural Study of MythAuthor(s): Claude Lévi-StraussSource: The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 68, No. 270, Myth: A Symposium (Oct. - Dec.,1955), pp. 428-444Published by: American Folklore SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/536768 .

Accessed: 01/06/2011 05:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=folk . .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Folklore Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal

of American Folklore.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=folk

http://www.jstor.org/stable/536768?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/536768?origin=JSTOR-pdf




THE STRUCTURAL STUDY OF MYTH

BY CLAUDELEVI-STRAUSS

"It would seem that mythologicalworlds have been built up only to be shatteredagain, and

that new worlds were built from the fragments."Franz Boas, in Introduction to James Teit,Traditionsof the Thompson River Indians ofBritish Columbia, Memoirs of the American

Folklore Society,VI (I898), i8.

I.o. Despite some recent attempts to renew them, it would seem that during the

past twenty years anthropology has more and more turned away from studies in thefield of religion. At the same time, and preciselybecauseprofessionalanthropologists'interest has withdrawn from primitive religion, all kinds of amateurswho claim to

belong to other disciplines have seized this opportunity to move in, thereby turninginto their private playground what we had left as a wasteland. Thus, the prospectsfor the scientific study of religion have been undermined in two ways.

I.I. The explanation for that situation lies to some extent in the fact that the

anthropological study of religion was started by men like Tylor, Frazer, and Durk-

heim who were psychologicallyoriented, although not in a position to keep up with

the progress of psychological research and theory. Therefore, their interpretationssoon became vitiated by the outmoded psychological approach which they used astheir backing. Although they were undoubtedly right in giving their attention to

intellectual processes,the way they handled them remained so coarse as to discredit

them altogether.This is much to be regrettedsince, as Hocart so profoundly noticed

in his introduction to a posthumous book recently published,' psychological inter-

pretations were withdrawn from the intellectual field only to be introduced again in

the field of affectivity, thus adding to "the inherent defects of the psychologicalschool . . . the mistake of deriving clear-cutideas . . . from vague emotions." Instead

of trying to enlarge the framework of our logic to include processeswhich, whatever

their apparentdifferences,belong to the same kind of intellectual operations,a naiveattempt was made to reduce them to inarticulate emotional drives which resulted

only in withering our studies.

I.2. Of all the chaptersof religious anthropologyprobablynone has tarriedto the

same extent as studies in the field of mythology. From a theoreticalpoint of view the

situation remains very much the same as it was fifty years ago, namely, a picture of

chaos. Myths are still widely interpreted in conflicting ways: collective dreams, the

outcome of a kind of esthetic play, the foundation of ritual.... Mythological figuresare consideredas personifiedabstractions,divinized heroes or decayedgods. Whatever

the hypothesis, the choice amounts to reducing mythology either to an idle play or

to a coarsekind of speculation.I.3. In order to understand what a myth really is, are we compelled to choose

between platitude and sophism? Some claim that human societies merely express,

1A. M. Hocart,SocialOrigins(London, 1954), p. 7.

428



The Structural tudyof Myth

throughtheirmythology, undamentaleelingscommonto the whole of mankind,such as love,hate,revenge;or thatthey tryto provide omekind of explanationsor

phenomenawhich they cannot understand therwise:astronomical,meteorological,

andthe like.But why should hesesocietiesdo it in such elaborate nddeviousways,since all of them arealsoacquaintedwith positiveexplanations?On the otherhand,

psychoanalystsnd manyanthropologistsave shifted the problems o be explainedaway from the naturalor cosmological owardsthe sociologicaland psychologicalfields. But then the interpretation ecomes oo easy: if a given mythologyconfers

prominenceo a certaincharacter,et us sayan evil grandmother,t will be claimedthat in such a societygrandmothersreactually vil and thatmythologyreflectshesocialstructure nd the socialrelations;but should the actualdatabe conflicting,twould be readilyclaimedthat the purposeof mythology s to providean outletfor

repressedeelings.Whatever he situation

maybe, a cleverdialecticwill

alwaysind

a waytopretendhata meaninghasbeenunravelled.2.0. Mythologyconfronts he student with a situationwhich at firstsight could

be lookeduponas contradictory. n the one hand,it wouldseemthatin the courseof a mythanything s likelyto happen.There is no logic,no continuity.Any charac-teristiccan be attributedo any subject; veryconceivable elationcanbe met. With

myth, everythingbecomespossible.But on the otherhand, this apparentarbitrari-ness is beliedbytheastounding imilarity etweenmythscollected n widelydifferent

regions.Therefore he problem: f the contentof a myth is contingent,how are we

goingto explain hatthroughouthe worldmythsdo resemble ne another o much?

2.I. It is precisely his awareness f a basicantinomypertaining o the natureofmyth that may lead us towards ts solution.For the contradictionwhich we face is

very similar to that which in earlier imes broughtconsiderableworryto the first

philosophers oncernedwith linguisticproblems; inguisticscould only begin toevolve as a scienceafter this contradictionad beenovercome.Ancientphilosopherswerereasoningabout anguage he way we areaboutmythology.On the one hand,they did noticethat in a given languagecertain equences f soundswereassociatedwith definitemeanings,and they earnestlyaimed at discoveringa reasonfor the

linkage between those sounds and that meaning. Their attempt,however, wasthwarted rom the very beginningby the fact that the same soundswere equallypresent n other anguages houghthe meaning heyconveyedwas entirelydifferent.The contradictionwas surmounted nly by the discovery hat it is the combinationof sounds,not the sounds n themselves,whichprovides he significantdata.

2.2. Now, it is easy to see that some of the more recent interpretationsof mytho-

logical thought originated from the same kind of misconception under which those

early linguists were laboring. Let us consider, for instance, Jung's idea that a given

mythological pattern-the so-called archetype-possesses a certain signification. Thisis comparableto the long supportederrorthat a sound may possess a certain affinitywith a meaning: for instance, the "liquid"semi-vowels with water, the open vowels

with things that are big, large, loud, or heavy, etc., a kind of theory which stillhas its supporters.2Whatever emendations the original formulation may now call for,

everybody will agree that the Saussureanprinciple of the arbitrarycharacterof the

linguistic signs was a prerequisitefor the acceding of linguistics to the scientific level.2 See, for instance,Sir R. A. Paget, "The Origin of Language. .. ," Journalof WorldHistory,

I, No. 2 (UNESCO, 1953).

429



Journal of American Folklore

2.3. To invite the mythologist to comparehis precarioussituation with that of the

linguist in the prescientificstage is not enough. As a matter of fact we may thus beled only from one difficultyto another. There is a very good reasonwhy myth cannot

simply be treated as language if its specific problems are to be solved; myth is lan-

guage: to be known, myth has to be told; it is a part of human speech. In order to

preserve its specificity we should thus put ourselves in a position to show that it isboth the same thing as language, and also something differentfrom it. Here, too, the

past experience of linguists may help us. For language itself can be analyzed into

things which are at the same time similar and different. This is precisely what is

expressedin Saussure'sdistinctionbetween langue and parole,one being the structural

side of language, the other the statisticalaspectof it, langue belonging to a revertible

time, whereas parole is non-revertible.If those two levels already exist in language,then a third one can

conceivablybe isolated.2.4. We have just distinguished langue and parole by the different time referents

which they use. Keeping this in mind, we may notice that myth uses a third

referent which combines the properties of the first two. On the one hand, a myth

always refers to events alleged to have taken place in time: before the world was

created, or during its first stages-anyway, long ago. But what gives the myth an

operative value is that the specific pattern described is everlasting; it explains the

present and the past as well as the future. This can be made clearthrough a compari-son between myth and what appearsto have largely replaced it in modern societies,

namely, politics. When the historian refers to the French Revolution it is always as a

sequence of past happenings, a non-revertible series of events the remote conse-quences of which may still be felt at present. But to the French politician, as well

as to his followers, the French Revolution is both a sequence belonging to the past-as to the historian-and an everlasting pattern which can be detected in the presentFrench social structure and which provides a clue for its interpretation,a lead from

which to infer the future developments.See, for instance,Michelet who was a politi-

cally-minded historian. He describes the French Revolution thus: "This day . . .

everything was possible. . . . Future became present . . . that is, no more time, a

glimpse of eternity."It is that double structure,altogether historicaland anhistorical,which explains that myth, while pertaining to the realm of the parole and callingfor an explanation as such, as well as to that of the langue in which it is expressed,can also be an absolute object on a third level which, though it remains linguistic by

nature,is neverthelessdistinct from the other two.

2.5. A remark can be introduced at this point which will help to show the singu-

larity of myth among other linguistic phenomena. Myth is the part of languagewhere the formula traduttore,tradittorereaches ts lowest truth-value.From that pointof view it should be put in the whole gamut of linguistic expressionsat the end oppo-site to that of poetry, in spite of all the claims which have been made to prove the

contrary.Poetry is a kind of speech which cannot be translatedexcept at the cost of

serious distortions; whereas the mythical value of the myth remains preserved,eventhrough the worst translation.Whatever our ignoranceof the language and the culture

of the people where it originated,a myth is still felt as a myth by any readerthrough-out the world. Its substance does not lie in its style, its original music, or its syntax,but in the story which it tells. It is language, functioning on an especiallyhigh level

430



The StructuralStudy of Myth

where meaning succeeds practically at "taking off" from the linguistic ground on

which it keeps on rolling.2.6. To sum up the discussion at this point, we have so far made the following

claims: i. If there is a meaning to be found in mythology, this cannot reside in theisolated elements which enter into the composition of a myth, but only in the waythose elements are combined. 2. Although myth belongs to the same category as

language, being, as a matter of fact, only part of it, language in myth unveils specific

properties. 3. Those properties are only to be found above the ordinary linguisticlevel; that is, they exhibit more complex features beside those which are to be found

in any kind of linguistic expression.3.o. If the above three points are granted, at least as a working hypothesis, two

consequences will follow: i. Myth, like the rest of language, is made up of constitu-

ent units. 2. These constituent unitspresuppose

the constituent unitspresent

in lan-

guage when analyzed on other levels, namely, phonemes, morphemes, and seman-

temes, but they, nevertheless, differ from the latter in the same way as they them-

selves differ from morphemes, and these from phonemes; they belong to a higherorder, a more complex one. For this reason,we will call them gross constituent units.

3.1. How shall we proceed in order to identify and isolate these gross constituent

units? We know that they cannot be found among phonemes, morphemes,or seman-

temes, but only on a higher level; otherwise myth would become confused with anyother kind of speech. Therefore, we should look for them on the sentence level. The

only method we can suggest at this stage is to proceed tentatively,by trial and error,

using as a check the principleswhich serve as a basisfor any kind of structuralanalysis:economy of explanation; unity of solution; and ability to reconstruct the whole

from a fragment, as well as furtherstagesfrom previousones.

3.2. The technique which has been applied so far by this writer consists in analyz-

ing each myth individually, breaking down its story into the shortest possible sen-

tences, and writing each such sentence on an index card bearing a number corre-

sponding to the unfolding of the story.

3.3. Practicallyeach card will thus show that a certainfunction is, at a given time,

predicatedto a given subject.Or, to put it otherwise, each gross constituent unit will

consist in a relation.

3.4. However, the above definition remains highly unsatisfactory or two different

reasons. In the first place, it is well known to structural linguists that constituent

units on all levels are made up of relations and the true differencebetween our grossunits and the others stays unexplained; moreover,we still find ourselvesin the realm

of a non-revertibletime since the numbers of the cards correspondto the unfoldingof the informant's speech. Thus, the specific characterof mythological time, which

as we have seen is both revertible and non-revertible, synchronic and diachronic,remains unaccounted for. Therefrom comes a new hypothesis which constitutes the

very core of our argument: the true constituent units of a myth are not the isolated

relations but bundles of such relations and it is only as bundles that these relationscan be put to use and combined so as to produce a meaning. Relations pertaining tothe same bundle may appear diachronically at remote intervals, but when we havesucceeded in grouping them together, we have reorganized our myth according to atime referentof a new nature correspondingto the prerequisiteof the initial hypothe-

431



432 Journalof AmericanFolklore

sis, namely,a two-dimensionalime referentwhich is simultaneously iachronic nd

synchronic nd whichaccordinglyntegrateshe characteristicsf the langueon one

hand,and thoseof theparoleon theother.To putit in evenmore inguistic erms, t

is asthoughaphonemewerealwaysmadeupof allitsvariants.4.0.Two comparisonsmayhelpto explainwhatwe have n mind.

4.1. Let us first suppose hat archaeologistsf the futurecomingfrom another

planetwould one day,whenall human ife haddisappearedromtheearth,excavate

one of our libraries.Even if they were at firstignorantof our writing,they mightsucceed n decipheringt-an undertakingwhichwouldrequire,at someearlystage,the discovery hatthe alphabet, s we arein the habitof printing t, shouldbe read

fromleft to rightand fromtop to bottom.However, heywouldsoonfind out that

a wholecategoryof booksdid not fit the usualpattern: hesewouldbe the orchestra

scoreson the shelvesof the music division.But after trying,without success, o

decipher taffsone after the other,from the upperdown to the lower,they would

probablynoticethatthe samepatterns f notesrecurred t intervals, ither n full or

in part,or that some patternswere stronglyreminiscent f earlierones. Hence the

hypothesis:what if patterns howingaffinity,nsteadof beingconsideredn succes-

sion,were to be treatedasonecomplexpatternandreadglobally?By gettingat what

we callharmony,heywould thenfind outthatanorchestracore,n order o become

meaningful,has to bereaddiachronicallylongone axis-that is,pageafterpage,and

from left to right-and alsosynchronicallylongthe otheraxis,all the noteswhich

arewrittenverticallymakinguponegrossconstituent nit, .e.onebundleof relations.

4.2. The othercomparisons somewhatdifferent.Let us takean observergnorantof our playingcards,sittingfor a long time with a fortune-teller. e wouldknow

somethingof the visitors: ex, age, look, socialsituation, tc. in the sameway as we

know somethingof the differentcultureswhosemythswe try to study.He would

also listento the seancesandkeepthemrecordedo asto be ableto go overthemand

makecomparisons-aswe do when we listen to mythtellingand record t. Mathe-

maticianso whom I haveput the problemagree hatif the manis brightandif the

materialavailableo him is sufficient, e maybe able to reconstructhenatureof the

deckof cardsbeingused,thatis: fifty-twoor thirty-two ardsaccordingo case,made

up of fourhomologous eriesconsistingof the sameunits(the individual ards)with

onlyonevarying eature,hesuit.

4.3.The timehascome to give a concrete xampleof themethodwe propose.We

will use the Oedipusmyth which has the advantage f beingwell-known o every-

body and for which no preliminaryxplanations thereforeneeded.By doing so, I

am well awarethat the Oedipusmyth has only reachedus underlate formsand

throughliterary ransfigurationsoncernedmore with estheticand moralpreoccu-

pations hanwith religiousor ritualones,whatever hesemayhave been.But as will

be shown later,this apparently nsatisfactoryituationwill strengthenour demon-

stration atherhan weaken t.

4-4.The

mythwill be treatedas wouldbe an orchestra core

perversely resentedas a unilinear eriesandwhereour task is to re-establishhe correctdisposition.As if,for instance, we were confronted with a sequence of the type: I,2,4,7,8,2,3,4,6,8,1,4,5,7,

8,I,2,5,7,3,4,5,6,8.., the assignmentbeing to put all the I's together,all the 2's, the 3's,

etc.;theresult s a chart:




12 4 78234 6 8

1 45 78

12 5 73456 8

4.5- We will attempt to perform the same kind of operation on the Oedipus myth,

trying out several dispositions until we find one which is in harmony with the prin-

ciples enumerated under 3.1. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the best

arrangement is the following (although it might certainly be improved by the helpof a specialist n Greek mythology):

Kadmos seeks his sister

EuroparavishedbyZeus Kadmoskills the

dragon

The Spartoikilleach other Labdacos(Laios' fa-

ther) = lame (?)

Oedipuskills his Laios (Oedipus' fa-father Laios

ther) = left-sided ?)

Oedipuskills the

Sphinx

Oedipus marrieshismother Jocasta Eteocles kills his Oedipus = swollen

brotherPolynices foot (?

AntigoneburiesherbrotherPolynicesdespiteprohibition

4.6. Thus, we find ourselves confronted with four vertical columns each of which

include several relations belonging to the same bundle. Were we to tell the myth,we would disregardthe columns and read the rows from left to right and from topto bottom. But if we want to understand the myth, then we will have to disregardone half of the diachronic dimension (top to bottom) and read from left to right,column aftercolumn, eachone being considered as a unit.

4.7. All the relations belonging to the same column exhibit one common featurewhich it is our task to unravel.For instance,all the events grouped in the firstcolumn

on the left have something to do with blood relationswhich are over-emphasized, .e.are subjectto a more intimate treatment than they should be. Let us say, then, that thefirst column has as its common feature the overratingof blood relations. It is obviousthat the second column expressesthe same thing, but inverted: underratingof bloodrelations. The third column refers to monsters being slain. As to the fourth, a wordof clarificationis needed. The remarkableconnotation of the surnames in Oedipus'

433



Journalof AmericanFolklore

father-line has often been noticed. However, linguists usually disregard it, since to

them the only way to define the meaning of a term.is to investigate all the contexts

in which it appears,and personal names, preciselybecausethey are used as such, are

not accompaniedby any context. With the method we proposeto follow the objectiondisappearssince the myth itself provides its own context. The meaningful fact is no

longer to be looked for in the eventual sense of each name, but in the fact that all the

names have a common feature: i.e. that they may eventually mean something and

that all these hypotheticalmeanings (which may well remain hypothetical) exhibit a

common feature, namely they refer to difficulties to walk and to behave straight.

4.8. What is then the relationshipbetween the two columns on the right? Column

three refers to monsters. The dragon is a chthonian being which has to be killed in

order that mankind be born from the earth; the Sphinx is a monster unwilling to

permitmen to live. The last unit

reproducesthe first one which has to do with the

autochthonous origin of mankind. Since the monsters are overcome by men, we maythus say that the common feature of the third column is the denial of the autochthon-

ousorigin of man.

4.9. This immediately helps us to understand the meaning of the fourth column.

In mythology it is a universalcharacterof men born from the earththat at the moment

they emerge from the depth, they eithercannot walk or do it clumsily. This is the case

of the chthonian beings in the mythology of the Pueblo: Masauwu, who leads the

emergence, and the chthonian Shumaikoli are lame ("bleeding-foot,""sore-foot").The same happens to the Koskimo of the Kwakiutl after they have been swallowed

by the chthonian monster, Tsiakish: when they returned to the surface of the earth"they limped forward or tripped sideways."Then the common feature of the fourth

column is: the persistenceof the autochthonousorigin of man. It follows that column

four is to column three as column one is to column two. The inability to connect two

kinds of relationshipsis overcome (or ratherreplaced) by the positive statement that

contradictoryrelationshipsare identical inasmuch as they are both self-contradictoryin a similar way. Although this is still a provisional formulation of the structure of

mythical thought, it is sufficientat this stage.

4.10. Turning back to the Oedipus myth, we may now see what it means. The mythhas to do with the inability, for a culture which holds the belief that mankind is

autochthonous (see, for instance, Pausanias, VIII, xxix, 4: vegetals provide a model

for humans), to find a satisfactorytransitionbetween this theory and the knowledgethat human beings are actually born from the union of man and woman. Althoughthe problem obviously cannot be solved, the Oedipus myth provides a kind of logicaltool which, to phraseit coarsely,replacesthe original problem:born from one or born

from two? born from different or born from same? By a correlation of this type,the overratingof blood relations is to the underratingof blood relations as the attemptto escapeautochthonyis to the impossibilityto succeed in it. Although experiencecon-

tradicts theory, social life verifies the cosmology by its similarityof structure.Hence

cosmology is true.4.11.o. Two remarksshould be made at this stage.

4.11.1. In order to interpret the myth, we were able to leave aside a point which

has until now worried the specialists,namely, that in the earlier (Homeric) versions

of the Oedipus myth, some basic elements are lacking, such as Jocastakilling herself

and Oedipus piercing his own eyes. These events do not alter the substanceof the

434



The StructuralStudy of Myth

myth althoughthey can easilybe integrated,he first one as a new caseof auto-destruction columnthree) while the second s another aseof cripplednesscolumnfour). At the sametime thereis somethingsignificantn these additions ince the

shift fromfoot to headis to be correlatedwith the shiftfrom: autochthonousriginnegated o: self-destruction.

4.11.2. Thus, our methodeliminatesa problemwhich has been so far one of themainobstacles o the progress f mythologicaltudies,namely, he questfor the true

version,or the earlierone. On the contrary,we define hemythasconsisting f all its

versions; o put it otherwise:a mythremains he sameaslong as it is felt as such.A

strikingexample s offeredby the factthatourinterpretationmaytakeinto account,and is certainlyapplicableo, the Freudianuse of the Oedipusmyth.AlthoughtheFreudianproblemhas ceased o be thatof autochthony ersusbisexual eproduction,it is stillthe

problemof

understandingow one can be bornfromtwo: how is it that

we do not haveonly one procreator,uta motherplusa father?Therefore,not onlySophocles, utFreudhimself,shouldbe includedamongthe recorded ersionsof the

Oedipusmython a parwithearlieror seeminglymore"authentic"ersions.

5.0.An important onsequenceollows. If a mythis madeup of all its variants,structural nalysis houldtake all of theminto account.Thus,afteranalyzingall theknownvariantsof the Thebanversion,we shouldtreatthe others n the sameway:first,the tales aboutLabdacos'ollateral ine includingAgave,Pentheus,andJocastaherself; heThebanvariant boutLycoswithAmphionandZetosasthecityfounders;moreremotevariants oncerningDionysos (Oedipus'matrilateralcousin),andAthe-

nian legendswhere Cecrops akes the placeof Kadmos,etc. For each of them asimilarchartshouldbe drawn,and thencompared ndreorganized ccordingo the

findings:Cecropskillingthe serpentwith the parallel pisodeof Kadmos;abandon-ment of Dionysoswith abandonment f Oedipus;"SwollenFoot" with Dionysosloxias, i.e. walking obliquely;Europa'squest with Antiope's;the foundationofThebes by the Spartoior by the brothersAmphionand Zetos;Zeus kidnappingEuropaandAntiopeand the samewithSemele; he ThebanOedipusand theArgianPerseus,etc.We will then have several wo-dimensionalharts,eachdealingwith a

variant,obeorganizedn a three-dimensionalrder

Fig. 1.

435




so thatthreedifferent eadingsbecomepossible:eft to right,top to bottom, rontto

back.All of thesechartscannotbe expectedo be identical;butexperiencehows hat

anydifferenceo beobservedmaybe correlated ith otherdifferences,othata logical

treatmentof the wholewill allow simplifications,he finaloutcomebeingthe struc-tural awof themyth.

5.1. One may objectat this pointthat the taskis impossibleo perform incewe

can onlywork with knownversions. s it not possible hata new versionmightalter

the picture?This is true enoughif only one or two versionsareavailable,but the

objectionbecomes heoretical s soonas a reasonablyargenumberhasbeenrecorded

(a numberwhichexperiencewill progressivelyell,at leastasan approximation). et

us make thispointclearby a comparison.f thefurniture f a roomand thewayit is

arrangedn the roomwere known to us only through ts reflectionn two mirrors

placedon

oppositewalls,we would

theoretically isposeof an almost nfinitenumber

of mirror-imageswhich would provideus with a completeknowledge.However,shouldthe two mirrorsbe obliquely et,the numberof mirror-images ould become

very small;nevertheless,our or five such imageswould very likely give us, if not

complete nformation, t least a sufficient overage o that we would feel surethat

no largepieceof furnitures missing n ourdescription.5.2. On the otherhand, it cannotbe too stronglyemphasized hat all available

variants houldbe taken ntoaccount. f Freudian omments n theOedipus omplexarea partof the Oedipusmyth,thenquestions uchas whetherCushing's ersionof

the Zuniorigin mythshouldbe retainedor discarded ecome rrelevant.There is no

one trueversionof whichall the othersarebut copiesor distortions.Everyversionbelongs o themyth.

5.3. Finally t canbe understoodwhyworkson generalmythologyhavegivendis-

couraging esults.This comes rom two reasons.First,comparativemythologists ave

picked up preferred ersions nsteadof usingthemall.Second,we haveseenthat the

structural nalysisof one variantof one mythbelonging o one tribe(in somecases,even one village) alreadyrequires wo dimensions.When we use severalvariants

of the samemythfor the sametribeor village, he frameof reference ecomes hree-

dimensional nd as soonas we try to enlarge he comparison,he numberof dimen-

sionsrequired ncreases o suchan extentthat it appearsquiteimpossibleo handle

them intuitively.The confusionsand platitudeswhich are the outcomeof compara-tive mythologycan be explainedby the fact thatmulti-dimensionalramesof refer-

encecannotbeignored,ornaivelyreplaced ytwo-orthree-dimensionalnes.Indeed,

progress n comparativemythologydepends argelyon the cooperation f mathe-

maticianswho would undertake o express n symbolsmulti-dimensionalelations

which cannotbehandledotherwise.

6.o. In orderto checkthis theory,3 n attemptwas madein I953-54 towardsan

exhaustive nalysisof alltheknownversionsof the Zunioriginandemergencemyth:

Cushing, I883 and I896; Stevenson,904; Parsons,923; Bunzel, I932; Benedict, I934.

Furthermore, a preliminary attempt was made at a comparison of the resultswith

similar myths in other Pueblo tribes, Western and Eastern. Finally, a test was

undertaken with Plains mythology. In all cases, it was found that the theory was

sound, and light was thrown, not only on North American mythology, but also on a

previously unnoticed kind of logical operation,or one known only so far in a wholly3 Thanks are due to an unsolicited,but deeply appreciated, rant from the Ford Foundation.

436



The Structural tudy of Myth 437

different context. The bulk of material which needs to be handled almost at the

beginning of the work makes it impossible to enter into details, and we will have to

limit ourselveshere to a few illustrations.

6.i. An over-simplifiedchart of the Zuni emergence myth would read as follows:

INCREASE DEATH

mechanicalgrowth emergenceled byof vegetals BelovedTwins siblingincest gods kill children

(used as ladders)

food value of migration led by mgical contest

wild plants the two Newekwewith peopleof the

dew (collectingwild

sibling sacri- food versuscultiva-

ficed (to gain tion)

victory)

food value of

cultivatedplantssibling adopted(in exchangefor

corn)

periodicalcharacterof

agriculturalworkwar against

Kyanakwe (garden-ers versushunters)

hunting war led bytwo

war-godssalvationof thetribe (centerof

warfare the world found)sibling sacri-ficed (to avoid

flood)

DEATH PERMANENCY

6.2. As may be seen from a global inspection of the chart, the basic problem con-

sists in discovering a mediation between life and death. For the Pueblo, the problemis especially difficult since they understand the origin of human life on the model



Journalof AmericanFolklore

of vegetal life (emergence from the earth). They share that belief with the ancient

Greeks, and it is not without reason that we chose the Oedipus myth as our first

example. But in the American case, the highest form of vegetal life is to be found in

agriculturewhich is periodicalin nature, i.e. which consists in an alternation betweenlife and death. If this is disregarded,the contradictionsurges at another place: agri-culture provides food, thereforelife; but hunting providesfood and is similar to war-fare which means death. Hence there are three different ways of handling the prob-lem. In the Cushing version, the difficulty revolves around an opposition betweenactivities yielding an immediate result (collecting wild food) and activitiesyielding a

delayed result-death has to become integrated so that agriculturecan exist. Parsons'version goes from hunting to agriculture,while Stevenson'sversion operatesthe other

way around. It can be shown that all the differencesbetween these versions can be

rigorouslycorrelatedwith these basic structures.For instance:

CUSHING PARSONS STEVENSON

Gods allied,use fiber Kyanakwealone, use Gods allied, use fiberstringson their fiber string Men f stringbows (garden-

Kyanakwe ers)

VICTORIOUS OVER VICTORIOUS OVER VICTORIOUS OVER

Men alone, use sinew Godsl allied, use Kyanakwealone, use

(hunters) (untilMen f sinew string

sinew stringmen shift to fiber)

Since fiber strings (vegetal) are always superiorto sinew strings (animal) and since

(to a lesser extent) the gods' alliance is preferableto their antagonism, it follows that

in Cushing's version, men begin to be doubly underprivileged (hostile gods, sinew

string); in Stevenson, doubly privileged (friendly gods, fiber string); while Parsons'

version confronts us with an intermediarysituation (friendly gods, but sinew stringssince men begin by being hunters). Hence:

CUSHING PARSONS STEVENSON

gods/men - + +

fiber/sinew - - +

6.3. Bunzel's version is from a structural point of view of the same type as

Cushing's. However, it differs from both Cushing's and Stevenson's inasmuch as the

latter two explain the emergence as a result of man's need to evade his pitiful condi-

tion, while Bunzel's version makes it the consequenceof a call from the higher powers-hence the inverted sequences of the means resorted to for the emergence: in both

Cushing and Stevenson, they go from plants to animals; in Bunzel, from mammals

to insects and from insects to plants.6.4. Among the Western Pueblo the logical approach always remains the same;

the starting point and the point of arrival are the simplest ones and ambiguity is metwith halfway:

438




life

mechanical growth of

plants

wild plant food

cultivated plant food

L animal food life destroyed

huntwar

death

Fig. 2.

The fact that contradictionappears

n the middleof the dialecticalrocess

hasas itsresultthe production f a doubleseriesof dioscuricpairsthe purposeof whichis to

operatea mediationbetweenconflictingerms:

I. 3 divine messengers 2 ceremonial clowns 2 war-gods

2. homogeneouspair: siblings (brother couple (hus- heterogeneouspair:dioscurs(2 brothers)and sister) band and wife) grandmother/grandchild

which consists in combinatoryvariants of the same function; (hence the warattribute f the clowns whichhasgivenrise to so many queries).

6.5. SomeCentralandEasternPueblosproceedheotherwayaround.Theybegin

by statingthe identityof hunting and cultivation(first corn obtainedby Game-Fathersowingdeer-dewclaws),ndtheytry to derivebothlife and deathfromthatcentralnotion.Then, insteadof extreme ermsbeingsimpleand intermediarynes

duplicated s amongthe Westerngroups, he extreme ermsbecomeduplicated i.e.,the two sistersof the EasternPueblo) while a simplemediating ermcomesto the

foreground for instance, he Poshaiyanne f the Zia), but endowedwith equivocalattributes.Hence the attributes f this "messiah" an be deduced rom the placeit

occupiesn the timesequence: oodwhenat thebeginning(Zuni,Cushing),equivo-cal in the middle (CentralPueblo), bad at the end (Zia), except n Bunzel wherethe

sequences reversed s hasbeenshown.

6.6. By using systematicallyhis kind of structuralanalysist becomespossible o

organizeall the knownvariants f a mythas a seriesforminga kindof permutationgroup, he twovariants lacedatthe far-endsbeing n a symmetrical,hough nverted,relationshipo eachother.

7.0.Our methodnot only has the advantageof bringingsome kind of orderto

439




what was previously haos; t alsoenablesus to perceive ome basic ogicalprocesseswhich are at the root of mythicalthought.Three mainprocesses houldbe distin-

guished.7.I.0. The tricksterof Americanmythologyhas remainedso far a problematic

figure.Whyis it thatthroughoutNorth Americahispart sassignedpracticallyvery-where to eithercoyoteor raven? If we keep in mind that mythical houghtalwaysworks from the awarenessof oppositions owardstheir progressivemediation, he

reason or those choicesbecomes learer.We needonly to assume hat two oppositetermswith no intermediary lways endto bereplaced y twoequivalentermswhich

allow a thirdone asa mediator;henone of thepolar ermsand themediator ecomes

replaced ya new triadandso on. Thuswehave:

INITIAL PAIR FIRST TRIAD SECOND TRIAD

Life

Agriculture

Herbivorousnimals

Carrion-eatingnimals

(raven; oyote)

Hunt

PreyanimalsWar

Death

With the unformulatedrgument: arrion-eatingnimalsarelikepreyanimals theyeat animalfood), but they are also like food-plantproducers theydo not kill what

they eat). Or,to put it otherwise,Pueblostyle:ravensareto gardensas preyanimals

are to herbivorous nes. But it is also clear thatherbivorous nimalsmay be called

firstto act as mediators n the assumptionhattheyarelike collectors ndgatherers

(vegetal-food aters)while they can be used as animalfood thoughnot themselveshunters.Thus we mayhave mediators f the firstorder,of the secondorder,and so

on, whereeach termgivesbirth o the nextby a doubleprocess f opposition ndcor-

relation.

7.I.I. This kind of process an be followed n the mythologyof the Plainswhere

we mayorder hedataaccordingo thesequence:

Unsuccessful ediator etween arthandsky(Starhusband's ife)

Heterogeneousairof mediators

(grandmother/grandchild)

Semi-homogeneousairof mediators

(Lodge-BoyndThrown-away)

440



The Structural tudyof Myth 44I

WhileamonghePueblowe have:

Successfulediatoretweenarthnd ky

(Poshaiyanki)Semi-homogeneousair fmediators

(UyuyewindMatsailema)

Homogeneousair fmediators(theAhaiyuta)

7.1.2. On theotherhand,correlationsayappearn a transversalxis;(thisistrueevenon thelinguisticevel;seethemanifold onnotationf therootpose nTewaaccordingoParsons:oyote,mist, calp, tc.).Coyotes intermediaryetweenherbivorousnd carnivorousn thesamewayasmistbetweenkyandearth; calpbetweenwarandhunt(scalps war-crop);orn mutbetweenwildplants ndculti-vatedplants;garments etween nature"nd"culture";efusebetween illageand

outside; shesbetweenoofandhearth chimney).Thisstringof mediators,f one

maycallthemso,notonlythrowsighton wholepiecesof NorthAmericanmyth-ology-whytheDew-Godmaybeat the same imetheGame-Masterndthegiverof raimentsndbepersonifieds an"Ash-Boy";rwhythescalps remistproduc-ing;orwhytheGame-Mothers associatedithcorn mut; tc.-butit alsoprobablycorrespondso a universal ayof organizingailyexperience.ee, orinstance,heFrenchorvegetalmut;nielle,romLatinnebula;he uck-bringingower ttributed

to refuseoldshoe)andasheskissinghimney-sweepers);ndcompareheAmericanAsh-Boy yclewiththe Indo-Europeaninderella: othphallic igures mediatorbetweenmaleandfemale);master f the dew andof thegame;ownersof fine

raiments;ndsocialbridgeslowclassmarryingntohighclass); hough mpossibleto interprethroughecent iffusion shasbeen ometimesontendedinceAsh-Boyand Cinderellaresymmetricalut invertedn everydetail(whilethe borrowedCinderellaale n America-Zuni urkey-Girl-is arallelo theprototype):

EUROPE AMERICA

Sex female male

Family tatus doubleamily nofamily

Appearance pretty irl uglyboy

Sentimentaltatus nobodyikesher inhopelessovewithgirl

Transformation luxuriouslylothed ith strippedfugliness ithsupernaturalelp supernaturalelp

etc.

7.2.0.Thus, hemediatingunction f thetricksterxplainshatsince tspositionis halfway etweenwopolarerms emustretainomethingf thatduality, amelyan ambiguousndequivocalharacter.ut the tricksterigures not theonlycon-ceivableorm of mediation;omemyths eem o devotehemselveso thetaskof




exhaustingall the possible olutions o theproblemof bridging he gapbetween wo

and one. For instance,a comparison etweenall the variantsof the Zuniemergence

myth providesus with a seriesof mediatingdevices,each of whichcreates he next

onebya process f opposition nd correlation:

messiah>ioscurs>rickster> isexual>ibling married grandmother->4 terms> riadbeing pair couple grandchild group

In Cushing's ersion, hisdialectic s accompanied ya change romthespacedimen-

sion (mediatingbetweensky and earth)to the time dimension mediatingbetween

summerandwinter, .e.,betweenbirthanddeath).But whilethe shift is beingmade

fromspace o time,the final solution(triad)re-introducespace, incea triadconsists

in a dioscurpair plus a messiahsimultaneously resent;and while the point of

departurewas ostensiblyormulatedn termsof a spacereferent sky andearth)this

was neverthelessmplicitlyconceived n termsof a time referent(firstthe messiah

calls; then the dioscursdescend).Therefore he logic of myth confrontsus with a

double,reciprocalxchangeof functions o whichwe shall returnshortly(7.3.).

7.2.I. Not onlycan we accountor theambiguous haracterf thetrickster, utwe

may also understand notherpropertyof mythical iguresthe worldover,namely,that the same god may be endowedwith contradictoryttributes;or instance,he

maybe good and badat the sametime.If we comparehevariants f the Hopi mythof the originof Shalako,we mayorder hemso thatthe followingstructure ecomes

apparent:

(Masauwu:)' (Muyingwu:Masauwu) (Shalako:Muyingwu) (y:Masauwu)

wherex and y represent rbitrary aluescorrespondingo the fact that in the two

"extreme" ariants he god Masauwu,while appearingalone insteadof associated

with anothergod, as in variant wo, or beingabsent,as in three,still retains ntrinsi-

callya relativevalue.In variantone,Masauwu alone) is depictedashelpfulto man-

kind (thoughnot as helpfulas he couldbe), and in versionfour,harmful o man-

kind (thoughnot asharmfulas he couldbe); whereasn two,Muyingwus relativelymore helpful than Masauwu,and in three,Shalakomorehelpfulthan Muyingwu.We find anidentical erieswhenorderingheKeresan ariants:

(Poshaiyanki:) - (Lea:Poshaiyanki) (Poshaiyanki:iamoni) (y:Poshaiyanki)

7.2.2. This logical framework s particularlynterestingsince sociologistsare

alreadyacquaintedwith it on two other evels:first,withthe problemof thepeckingorderamong hens; and second, t also correspondso what this writerhas called

generalexchangen the fieldof kinship.By recognizingt alsoon the levelof mythi-cal thought,we may find ourselvesn a betterposition o appraisets basic mpor-tancein sociologicaltudiesandto give it a moreinclusive heoreticalnterpretation.

7.3.0.Finally,whenwe havesucceededn organizinga wholeseriesof variantsn

a kindof permutationroup,we are n a position o formulatehelawof thatgroup.

Althoughit is not possibleat the presentstageto comecloser hanan approximateformulationwhichwill certainly eedto be mademoreaccuraten thefuture, t seems

that everymyth (consideredas the collectionof all its variants)correspondso a

formulaof thefollowing ype:

fx(a) : fy(b) fx(b) : a- I(y)

442




where,two termsbeing givenaswell as two functionsof theseterms, t is stated hata relationof equivalencetillexistsbetween wo situationswhen termsandrelationsare inverted,undertwo conditions: . that one term be replacedby its contrary;2. thatan inversionbe madebetween hefunctionandthetermvalueof twoelements.

7.3.1. This formulabecomeshighly significantwhen we recallthat Freud con-sideredthat two traumas(and not one as it is so commonlysaid) arenecessarynorderto give birthto this individualmythin which a neurosisconsists.By tryingto

apply the formulato the analysisof those traumatisms and assumingthat they

correspondo conditions. and2. respectively)we shouldnotonlybe ableto improveit, but wouldfind ourselvesn the much desiredpositionof developing ideby sidethe sociological ndthepsychological spects f thetheory;we mayalsotake it to the

laboratoryndsubjectt to experimentalerification.

8.0.At thispointit seemsunfortunatehat,with thelimitedmeansat thedisposalof Frenchanthropologicalesearch, o furtheradvancecan be made. It shouldbe

emphasized hat the task of analyzingmythological iterature,which is extremelybulky, and of breaking it down into its constituent units, requires team work and

secretarialhelp. A variantof averagelength needs several hundredcards to be

properlyanalyzed.To discovera suitablepatternof rows and columnsfor those

cards,specialdevicesareneeded,consistingof verticalboardsabout wo meters ongandone andone-halfmetershigh,wherecards anbepigeon-holedndmovedatwill;in order o buildup three-dimensional odelsenablingone to comparehe variants,severalsuch boardsare necessary, nd this in turn requiresa spaciousworkshop,a

kind of commodityparticularly navailablen WesternEuropenowadays.Further-more,as soon as the frame of referencebecomesmulti-dimensionalwhichoccursatan earlystage,as has been shown in 5.3.) the board-systemas to be replacedbyperforated ardswhich in turn requireI.B.M.equipment,etc. Since there is little

hope that such facilities will become available n Francein the near future, it ismuchdesired hat someAmericangroup,betterequipped hanwe areherein Paris,will be inducedby this paperto starta projectof its own in structuralmythology.

8.I.o.Threefinal remarksmayserveasconclusion.8.I.i. First,the questionhasoftenbeenraisedwhymyths,andmoregenerallyoral

literature,re so muchaddicted o

duplication, riplication r quadruplicationf thesamesequence. f our hypotheses reaccepted,he answer s obvious:repetitionhasas its function o makethe structure f themythapparent. orwe have seenthatthe

synchro-diachronicaltructure f the mythpermitsus to organize t intodiachronical

sequences(the rows in our tables) which shouldbe readsynchronicallythe col-

umns). Thus, a mythexhibitsa "slated"tructurewhichseepsto the surface,f one

maysayso,through herepetition rocess.8.I.2.However, he slatesarenot absolutelydentical o each other.And sincethe

purposeof mythis to providea logicalmodelcapableof overcoming contradiction

(an impossible chievementf, as it happens,hecontradictions real),a theoretically

infinitenumberof slateswill begenerated, achoneslightlydifferent romtheothers.Thus,mythgrowsspiral-wise ntil theintellectualmpulsewhich hasoriginatedt isexhausted. ts growthis a continuousprocesswhereas ts structure emainsdiscon-tinuous. f this is the casewe shouldconsider hat t closelycorresponds,n therealmof the spokenword,to the kindof beinga crystal s in the realmof physicalmatter.

443




This analogymay help us understandbetter he relationship f mython one handto bothlangueandparoleon theother.

8.I.3. Prevalentattemptsto explain alleged differencesbetween the so-called

"primitive"mind and scientificthought have resortedto qualitativedifferencesbetweenthe working processes f the mind in both cases while assuming hat the

objects o whichtheywereapplying hemselves emained erymuchthe same.If our

interpretations correct,we areled towarda completelydifferentview,namely, hatthe kind of logic which is used by mythicalthought is as rigorousas that ofmodernscience,and that the difference ies not in the qualityof the intellectual

process,but in the natureof the thingsto whichit is applied.This is well in agree-ment with the situationknown to prevail n the field of technology:whatmakes asteelax superioro a stoneone is not that the firstoneis bettermadethanthesecond.

Theyare

equallywell

made,butsteel s a different

hingthan stone.In the same

waywe maybe ableto showthatthe samelogicalprocesses reput to use in mythas in

science,and thatman has alwaysbeenthinking equallywell; the improvementies,not in an allegedprogress f man'sconscience, ut in the discovery f new thingstowhich t mayapply tsunchangeablebilities.

ScolePratiquedesHautes1tudes,Sorbonne

Paris,France

444

Levi Strauss, Myth

Documents

Transcript of Levi Strauss, Myth