Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
to myth, or theories of myth, and it is limited to modern theories (2004, 1). Multivolume encyclopedias are dedicated to particular myths, which is clearly not Segals task here. But, as he rightly emphasizes, theory (of myth) is unavoidable (10). The encyclopedic approach nevertheless presumes a certain theory of myth, even if it is to choose what makes the cut. For a moment, if I set aside all that I have learned from Segals book, quickly going through different myths that I can think of, trying to figure out what makes each a myth, my own instinctive answer is to say, Well, its complicated. Segals synthetic approach is quite interesting. Whatever else it may be, he reminds us that a myth is at least a story (4). Not all stories are myths, of course. Myth is a type of story that has discernible main characters, with a weighty function (6)as opposed to the case of literature or folklore; and it is a type of story held in conviction by its adherents. Segal leaves the truth and falsity criterion as an open-ended issue. After all, only in some particular approaches are myths considered false, and not all care about such epistemological issues. Given the importance of epistemology, the first chapter appropriately considers Myth and Science. This can only come as a surprise, were one to forget that Segal is limiting his analysis to modern theories. From a modern perspective, myth presents itself as an oddity. Despite some mild attempts at reconciliation, myth is too unscientific, or at least prescientific.1 Segal neatly summarizes a number of scientific approaches to myth, such as E. P. Tylors, Levy-Bruhls, Frazers, Malinowskis, and Levi-Strausss. This kind of range continues in each subsequent chapter. Having essentially demonstrated that for most, myth is part of religion, religion is primitive, and moderns have science rather than religion
jung journal: culture & psyche, summer 2012 , vol. 6 , no. 3 , 72104
73
So what kind of myth do we use these days to cope with the world? According to Segal, our modern gods are the Hollywood stars. They are gargantuan in size on the screen and perform superhuman roles (2004, 140). Segal readily admits that, although we do know that these stars are not real gods, when they fail as peopleas normal human beingswe are shocked. We need them to stay distant; we need them to be more than mere human. Thus, the cinema blocks the outside world and substitutes a world of its own, inviting us to play along, to suspend our disbelief. In fact, Segal equates going to the cinema . . . to the church (142). The twentieth-century French philosopher Gilles Deleuze very much argued for this perspective as well in his work on cinema. To Deleuze, cinema was a way of reconnecting with the world after the disasters of World War II (Deleuze 1989). Science and reason fail
74
75