Barthes – The Mythic Form, How to Read a Myth

Reading and Deciphering Mythical Speech, Propaganda, Advertisements

Sep 29, 2009

When it comes to reading mythical language or deciphering the meaning of myth, Roland Barthes postulates three categories of thought, avenues of analysis.

When presented with a mythical language-object, or even the necessity of crafting such an object or form, the interpreter resorts to one of three methods of analysis, according to French philosopher and semiotician Roland Barthes.

Three Modes of Interpreter – Producer, Mythologist, Receptive Audience

“If I focus on an empty signifier, I let the concept fill the form of the myth without ambiguity, and I find myself before a simple system, where the signification becomes literal again: the Negro who salutes is an example of French imperiality, he is a symbol for it. This type of focusing is, for instance, that of the producer of myths, of the journalist who starts with a concept and seeks a form for it.”

Barthes' first example features the select few at the top of the mythical language heirarchy : the propagandist, the journalist, the producer of myths. Borrowing an example from the field of speculative fiction, the “Yance Men” who are responsible for creating the fictional patriarch Yancy for dissemination amongst a receptive audience in Philip K. Dick's short story, "The Mold of Yancy,” would be prime examples of this caste.

The Critical Audience, The Mythologist

“If I focus on a full signifier, in which I clearly distinguish the meaning and the form, and consequently the distortion of the myth, and I receive the latter as an imposture: the saluting Negro becomes the alibi of French imperiality. This type of focusing is that of the mythologist: he deciphers the myth, he understands a distortion.”

Essentially describing a critically aware audience, Barthes herein promotes the intermediary role of the mythologist in decoding mythical speech – it being of utmost importance to understand that it is indeed a social fabrication rather than a truth, and further, understanding the distortion applied to the form. This distortion that is applied to the form and/or concept could also be understood as “spin” in contemporary political speech.

The role of a mythologist is a large one – the critical audience has no necessary moral obligation to train others to think in a likewise critical fashion, but it is of course a good turn to do so. By exposing the mythical form as an alibi for an impoverished historical element, the mythologist, a critical eye on the myth-producer, is the only audience that wields enough power to unravel and expose the motivations behind manufactured myth.

The Receptive, Captive Audience

"Finally, if I focus on the mythical signifier as on an inextricable whole made of meaning and form, I receive an ambiguous signification: I respond to the constituting mechanism of myth, to its own dynamics, I become a reader of myths. The saluting Negro is no longer an example or a symbol, still less an alibi: he is the very presence of French imperiality." (pp. 139)

This is by far the largest category, and the most dangerous, for Barthes. The general population, to be painted with a broad brush, would comprise this class of audience – the receptive and captive population.

Unable to discern the difference between myth and history, myth and reality, and the motivations behind the construction of this myth – the myth reader is beholden to the conjured reality and truths projected by the marketer, the propagandist, the preacher, the demagogue.

These unfortunates (or, perhaps for a lack of having to combat or struggle with the deeper interpretations and conclusions of mythical creation – fortunates) are not only myth readers, but further, myth consumers. They are unconsciously influenced and moulded by the images, words, and campaigns devised to shape their personalities – defining their musical tastes, purchasing patterns, fashion, social norms and values, and even their larger philosophies on life, love, and happiness.

Conclusion, Interpretation of these Three Interpretations

To conclude, as Barthes put his conclusion to this three tiered structure of mythical understanding, “The first two types of focusing are static, analytical; they destroy the myth, either by making its intention obvious, or by unmasking it: the former is cynical, the latter demystifying. The third type of focusing is dynamic, it consumers the myth according to the very ends built into its structure; the reader lives the myth as a story at once true and unreal.”

Continue Reading About Barthes' Mythologies

The copyright of the article Barthes – The Mythic Form, How to Read a Myth in Political Philosophy is owned by Nicholas Morine. Permission to republish Barthes – The Mythic Form, How to Read a Myth in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.