Mythologies Summary

Mythologies

by Roland Barthes • 1957 • 160 pages
4.08
16.7K ratings
Philosophy Essays Theory
Send EPUB to your Kindle
Chapters summary Summary FAQ Reviews

Key Takeaways

1. Myth is a type of speech that transforms meaning into form

Myth is a type of speech.

Myth as communication. Barthes defines myth not as a specific object or concept, but as a mode of signification - a way of communicating messages. This broadens the scope of mythical analysis beyond traditional stories to encompass all forms of cultural expression, including images, objects, and practices.

Transformation of meaning. The key function of myth is to transform complex historical and cultural meanings into simplified, naturalized forms. This process strips away context and contingency, presenting ideological constructs as self-evident truths. For example:

  • A photo of a black soldier saluting the French flag becomes a symbol of French imperial unity
  • The idea of the "good French wine" obscures the economic and social realities of wine production

2. Semiology reveals the structure of myth as a second-order sign system

Myth is a peculiar system, in that it is constructed from a semiological chain which existed before it: it is a second-order semiological system.

Semiological analysis. Barthes applies the linguistic concepts of signifier, signified, and sign to analyze how myth operates. In myth, an existing sign (with its own signifier and signified) becomes the signifier for a new, mythical signified.

Layers of meaning. This second-order system allows myth to appropriate existing cultural signs and infuse them with new meanings:

  • First-order sign: A black soldier saluting (signifier) = A specific military gesture (signified)
  • Second-order mythical sign: The same image (signifier) = The concept of French imperial unity (signified)

By understanding this structure, we can deconstruct how myth manipulates existing meanings to convey ideological messages.

3. Myth naturalizes history and transforms culture into nature

The function of myth is to empty reality: it is, literally, a ceaseless flowing out, a haemorrhage, or perhaps an evaporation, in short a perceptible absence.

Depoliticization of meaning. Myth's primary function is to strip away the historical and political context of cultural phenomena, presenting them as natural, inevitable, and universal. This process of naturalization makes contingent social constructions appear timeless and unquestionable.

Erasure of complexity. Myth simplifies complex realities by:

  • Removing traces of human agency and social struggle
  • Presenting cultural norms as biological imperatives
  • Obscuring power relations and social inequalities

Examples:

  • The "eternal feminine" myth erases the historical construction of gender roles
  • The myth of "French wine" conceals labor practices and economic structures in viticulture

4. The bourgeoisie uses myth to depoliticize and universalize its ideology

The bourgeoisie is defined as the social class which does not want to be named.

Bourgeois ex-nomination. Barthes argues that the bourgeoisie maintains its power by making its particular class interests appear universal and natural. This process of "ex-nomination" (un-naming) allows bourgeois values to permeate society without being explicitly identified as such.

Universalization strategies:

  • Appealing to "common sense" and "human nature"
  • Presenting bourgeois cultural practices as the norm
  • Using abstract concepts like "the nation" to mask class distinctions

The result is a society where bourgeois ideology becomes invisible, functioning as an unquestioned background to everyday life.

5. Myth on the Left is inessential and poverty-stricken compared to bourgeois myth

Left-wing myth is always an artificial myth, a reconstituted myth: hence its clumsiness.

Limited scope of leftist myth. Barthes argues that while the Left does produce myths, they are less pervasive and effective than bourgeois myths. This is because:

  • Left-wing ideology aims to transform reality, not preserve it
  • The language of the oppressed is more direct and less prone to mythification

Characteristics of leftist myths:

  • Often tactical rather than strategic
  • Limited to specific political concepts
  • Less able to proliferate and adapt

Barthes suggests that true revolutionary language resists mythification by maintaining a direct, transformative relationship to reality.

6. Myth on the Right is expansive, pervasive, and central to bourgeois culture

Statistically, myth is on the right. There, it is essential; well-fed, sleek, expansive, garrulous, it invents itself ceaselessly.

Ubiquity of bourgeois myth. Right-wing or bourgeois myth permeates all aspects of social life, from politics and morality to aesthetics and consumer goods. This expansiveness allows it to shape the entire cultural landscape.

Characteristics of right-wing myth:

  • Highly adaptable and self-regenerating
  • Able to incorporate and neutralize potential challenges
  • Deeply embedded in everyday language and practices

Barthes argues that this pervasiveness makes bourgeois myth particularly insidious and difficult to challenge, as it becomes the "common sense" background of society.

7. Everyday objects and practices can become vehicles for mythical speech

Everything can be a myth provided it is conveyed by a discourse.

Mundane mythologies. Barthes extends mythical analysis to everyday objects and practices, revealing how they carry ideological messages. This approach shows how myth operates not just in grand narratives, but in the minutiae of daily life.

Examples of everyday myths:

  • Soap powders and detergents signifying purity and moral cleanliness
  • The "Blue Guide" travel books promoting a particular vision of national culture
  • Wrestling as a spectacle of moral conflict and justice

By analyzing these seemingly trivial phenomena, Barthes demonstrates the pervasive nature of mythical thinking in modern society.

8. Literature and art can both perpetuate and challenge mythical thinking

True, it is not any type: language needs special conditions in order to become myth.

Artistic engagement with myth. Barthes explores how literature and other art forms interact with mythical structures, sometimes reinforcing them and sometimes subverting them.

Approaches to myth in art:

  • Perpetuation: Some works uncritically reproduce mythical thinking
  • Deconstruction: Others expose and challenge the mechanisms of myth
  • Artificial mythologies: Some artists create deliberate "counter-myths" to critique dominant ideologies

Examples:

  • Flaubert's "Bouvard et Pécuchet" as a critique of bourgeois mythology
  • The way certain films naturalize historical and social realities

Barthes argues for a critical approach to art that recognizes its potential to both reinforce and challenge mythical structures.

9. Myth operates through specific rhetorical devices and figures

One must understand here by rhetoric a set of fixed, regulated, insistent figures, according to which the varied forms of the mythical signifier arrange themselves.

Mythical rhetoric. Barthes identifies specific rhetorical strategies that myth employs to naturalize its messages and make them appear self-evident.

Key rhetorical devices of myth:

  • Identification: Conflating distinct concepts (e.g., nation and bourgeois interests)
  • Tautology: Circular reasoning that avoids explanation
  • Neither-norism: False balance that obscures real alternatives
  • Quantification of quality: Reducing complex phenomena to simple metrics

By understanding these rhetorical moves, we can better recognize and critique mythical speech in its various forms.

Last updated:

Report Issue