Ornamental Cookery

The weekly Elle (a rcal mythologic:Li tTcasure) givcs us almost

every, week:l fine photogr:tph of a prcparcd disn: golden
paf.(fldges studdcd wlth cherries, a faimly pink chickcn chaud
frol , a mould .of cray.fish surrounded by tllcr rcd shelts, a (rothy
charlone prctuficd wlth gt:.c fru t designs, multicoloured t rille
etc. '
Qlcgof)' which prtvails in chis type of
cookmg lS that or the smooth c03ling: there s an obvious
to glaze. surfaces, ta round them off, to bury the food
un er the Cven sediment of sauces, cToms, icing and jeUics. This

of course comc:s [rom the vcry fin::tIity of th.e coa(ng, which
belongs to a vlsua l and cooking acconling to Elle is

the alone, smce sight is a genrcel sense. For thcre
18., ln thls of glazing, a neccl for gcntil ity. Elle is a
h.ghly .vahl,able from the point of view of Jegend 3l
lcast, $mce .cs mie IS to present to ifS vast' publi c whieh (m:..rket-

researeh tells us) is worki ng-dass the d f
. "/ ream 0 smarlness.
Henee a whlch is based on coatings and :llibis, and is
for ever t rymg co extenuate and even to disgui sc the primuy
nature of foodstuffs, of mcat Or the abruptness of
se.1-food. COU? lry dlsh IS admiUed only as an e:<ception (the
good fa nu(y boiJed beef), as the Juste whim of ,' adcd
dwellcrs. Clty-
Dut :!.bove aU, coatings prepare and support one of the major

devc:lopmenrs of gcnteel cookcry: ornament:ui on. Glazing in
Elit, serves as for unbridled bcautification: chiseiled

pUnctuallOn of cherries, motifs of C:Jrved Jernon
of IrUme, silver pastilles, nabesques of glac fruit th'

coat (and Ihis is why 1called it a sed iment, rh:

!ood Itself bccomcs no more than an indetcrmi nate boo-rock) is

mtended ( 0 be tll e page on whicll cn b.. ,-cl, h 1
k ' "".. w 0 e rococo

cOQ cry (there IS a partiality for a pinkish colour).

7
8

ORNAM [ NTAl. COOKEII.V
Ornamcnlation procccds in IWO contradictory ways, which we
shall in:l moment sec di:\lC(;tiCllly rcconcilcd: on tne onc hand,
fieeing from nattl re thanks to a kind of frenzied baroque (sticking
shrimps in a Jemon, making a chicken Inok pink, servi ng grape
fruit hot), and on the ot her, t rying ta reconstilute it Ihrough an
incongruous art ifice (strewing meringue mushrooms and holly
lcaves on a rradilionallog-sha ped Ch ri stmas cake, rcplacing the
heads or crayfish around the sophisticn ed behamel which hides
their bodies). It s in fact t he same pattern which one finds in the
ebboration of perir-bourgeois (nnkets (ashtra}'s jn the shape of a
saddle, li ghters in the sh:\pe of a eig:u euc, terrines in the shape
of a h:uc).
This is bC(;:luse here, as in ail petit-bourgeois :\tt, t he irrepres
sible tendency towarJs cxtrcmc rcalism is countered - or
bal:anced - by one of the clcrnal Imperatives of journalism for
women's magazines: what s pompously called, at L'Expr(fS.
having iJ(Qs. Cookery in EII( is, in the same way, :1O 'idea'
cookery. Dut here invent iveness, conlincd ta a fairy-Iand rcalilY,
must be applicd oruy ta gnrllishillgs , for the gcntcc1 tcndency of
the magazine precludc5 ir from touching on the rcal problems
concerning food (Ihe re:!.l problem is not tO have the idea of
sti cking cherries into a p:t rtJidge, it is 10 have Ihe p:!. rtri dge, t h:lt
is t O say, tO pay for il).
This ornament:ll t'OOkcry is indeed supported by wholly
mythical economics. This is an opcnly drcam-like cookery, as
proved in fact by the photographs in Elle, which oevel show the
dishcs exccpt from a high angle, objecls al once ncar and
inaccessible, whosc consumption can perfcctly weil be accom
rli shcd simply by looking. lt is, in t e fu llcst mcaning of Ihe
ward, a cuisine of advertiscment, IOtally magiC:l l, espccially ""hen
one rcmembcrs Ih:l( this magazine is widely rC:ld in sm:lll-incomc
groups. The laner, in faet , cxplOlins the fmmer : il is bec:lUse
is addresscd ta a gelluincly working-class public Ih:\t it is vcry
careful nOl 10 ul.:e for g'J.nted that cooking must be economical.
Compare with L'Exprm, whose exclusivdy public
cnjoys :1 comfort:lble purchasing power : its cookery is ceal, nol
79
Striptease
Striptease - lcast Pari sian striptease - is based on il
contTo.iction : \Vornan is desexualized ;lt the very momen t when
shc tS Stri ppe<! nakc. We ma)' thercfore say lhat wc are dca ling
in J sense with il spccl'acle basccl on Ccar, or r:l.ther on the prctcncc
ofrcaT, as iferoticism hcre went no (urthcr than a sort of ddicious
terror, whosc rimai signs have only 10 he announced ta evokc al
once the idca of scx ami ils conjuration.
lt is ooly the dme taken in shedcl ing dothes which makes
voyeurs of the public; but here, as in :my mystifying spectacle,
the decor, the props and the stereotypes nlcrvenc [0 contradict
the ioi(ially provoc:ltve inntion and eventually bury ie in
insignific:lnce: cvil i5 aJverfed the better co impede and exorcize
jl. French striptease scems tO stem (rom what l have c.ulier called
'Operation M3.rgarine', li. mystifying device which consists in
inocubting rhe public wilh .3 touch of cvil, Ihe bener tO plunge
ie 3.fterw,uds inro 3. perm3.nently immune Moral Good: .3 few
particles of eroricism, highlighted by the very sitU3.{ion on which
the show is based, 3.re in fact absorbcd in a re:assuring ri tuai which
Qcgates the flcsh:ls surcly as the vaccine or Ihe tahoo circumscribe
and control the illncss or rhe crime.
There will cherefore bc in striptease a whole series of coverings
placed upon the body of the wom3.n in proportion 3.S she pretends
to strip it bare. Exoticism is the fitst of thcsc barricrs, fOf il is
always of a petrified kind which tr:lnsports the body into rhe
\\'orld of legend or romance: a Chinese WOffi:ln equippcd wim an
opium pipe (the indispensable symbol of 'Sinncss'-l, an undul.at
ing v3.mp with a gigantic cigarette-holder, a Venetian decor
complete with gondola, a dress with panniers :lOd a singer of
seren3.des: dl aim 3.t cst:lblishing the woman riglllfrom the starf
as an abject in disguise. The end of the striptease is then no
longer to dr:lg ioto the Iighc :l hidden depth, but to
Ste bdow, p. UI .
STRIPTEASE
through the shedding of an incongruous and artifici:al clOlhing,
nakedncss :15 :a Hafurnl vesturc of woman, whieh amounlS in the
end to regaining a perfectly chaste SC:lte of the fl esh.
The classic props of the music-hall, which Il re invari:ably
roull dcd up hcre, const:lIltly make the unvei1cd body more
remote, :l.nd force it b:ad: into the all-pcr":J.ding C:lse of a well
known rite: the furs, the {:lns, the glovcs, the fealhers, the fish
net stockings, in short the whole spectrum of adornment,
eonsI3ntly rn;:cs Ihe living body return to the category of
luxurious objcts which surround m:an with :l magic.11 decor.
Covered with fcalhers or glovcd, the wom:ln identifies hersclf
here as a stcrcotyped clement of music-hall, 3.nd to shed objects
a5 rim3.li stic as thesc is no longer a part of a furthet, gcnuine un
dressing. Fcathers, fu rs and gloves go on pervading the woman
with chcir m:lgical vireue cvrn once remove, and give her
something likc the cnveloping memory of a luxurious shell, for

ie is a self-cvidenc la w tlm the whole of stripccase is givcn in (he
very nature of the initial g:u ment: if the biter is improbable, 3.5

in (he case of the Chinese woman or the woman in rurs, the
n:t.kedness whi ch follows rcmains itself unrcal, smooth and

cncloscd like a J.utiful slippery object, withdrawn by its very
extr.lV3.gance ftom hum:!.n \l 5C: this is (he unJerl ying significance
of the G-String covcred with iamonds or sequins which is the
very end of srri ptease. ultimate triangle, by IS pure and
geometrical shape, by ts hard 3.oci shiny mJterial, bars the way ta
the scxual parcs like::l sword of purity, and delioirvely.drivcs the
wom::ln back into a minerai wnrld, Ihe (precious) :stone being
hcrc the irrcfut3.blc symbol of the 3.bsolutc objct, [har which

serves no purposc.
Co"lttrary to the comffion prejudice, the dance which

panics The stripteaSe from bcginning 10 end s in no way ail erottc
clement. It is prob3bly quite the reverse: the f:aintly rhythmicaI

undulalion in tll is case exorcizcs rhe fcar of immobility. Not only
docs it give ta the show the alibi of Art (the dam:cs in strip-shows

arc always 'artislic'), but abovc ail il constitutes the last barrier,
:lOci the most efficient of :lll: the dance, consisting of ritu:!.1 gestures

which have been seen a thOUs.1 nd times, :letS on movcmcnts as a

85

MYTHOLOGIE S
cosmelie, it hides nudity, ilnd smOlhers the spet:u:le under a
glaze of supcrfluous yet esscn ci al gcstures, for the 3el of becoming
barc is hcre rclcgaled to the r:1Ok of par1SiticaJ operations carri ed
out in an improbable background. Thus we sec the professionals
of striptease wrap tl1emsclves in the miraculous case which
constandy c10thes them, makes !hem tI:mOle, gives lhem tlle iey
indifference of skil fuJ praC[icioners, haughtily uking refuge in the
surencss of thei r technique : their science e\olhes them like :1
garment.
Ali this, Ihis meliculous exorcism of sex, ean be verilied
tJ umlfar;o in the ' popular (5ie) of amateur stri ptease:
Ihere, 'bcginncrs' undress in front of a few hundretl spcctators
wilhou! resoning or resorcing very c1umsil y to magic, which
unqueslionably restores la the spectacle ilS erotic power. Herc
wc find at the bcginning far fcwer Chinesc or Spanish wornen,
no feathers or furs (sensible suits, ordinary eoats), few disguises
as a starting point - gauche steps, unsat isfaclory dancing, gi rls
constantly thrcutened by immobility, and above ail by a 'tcchnic:Il'
j
awkwardncss (the rcsistanee of dress or brll) whch gives
tO the gesturcs of unveiling an unexpcctcd import ance, denying
1
the wornan the alibi of arC and the rcfuge of being :In objecl,
imprisoning her in 3. condition of weakncss an timorousness.
And yel, al the M Oll lin we see hints of another kind of
exorcism, probab!y typiC:l lly French, and one which in aetual fa ct
tends less to nullify eroticism than to lame il : the compre (rics
to givc stri ptC2se a reassuring petit-bourgeois Slalus. To surt
with, sl ripte:Jse is a sport: Iherc is a Striptease Oub, which
otg:l ni zes hcalthy CQnlests whose winners come out crowned 2.nd
rCw:lrded with edifyi ng prizes (a subscription 10 physic31 training
lessons), a novel (which can only be Robbe-Gri ll ct's Voytur), or
uscful prizes (a pair of nylons, five thousand francs). Then,
striple:lse is identified wi th a (uretr (beginncrs, semi- professionals,
professionals), Ihal is, to the honour3ble practicc of a specializa
tion (st rippers are skilled workcrs). One can even give them the
magical ali bi of work : tJ(1crJ lion; one girl is, say, 't/oing wcll' or
'rtJdl on the rtJay fo fu/fi/lillg lur proll1iu', or on the contrary
"ding !ttr finI sups' on the arduous path of striptease. Finally
S TRlPTEASE
and above ail, the competilors arc social1y Stuated: one is a
salesgirl, another a secretary (Ihere arc many sccreu ries in the
Striptease Club). SUiPlea5e here is made tO rejoin the world of
the public, is made famlliar and bourgeois, as if French,
unlike the American public (at tcast according to ",har one hears),
following an irrcsistible tendenc)' of ther socjal slacus, could not
eroti cism excepl as a houschold properly, sanctioned by
the alibi of wcekly sport mueh more Ihan by that of 1 magical
spectacle: and this is how, in France, striptease is nacionalized.
86
-
, .
,.
,.
My th Today
..
" What s :l myth, today ? 1 shall give al Ille Qutsel a first, very
si mple answcr, which is perfcdy consistent with ctymology:
"
myfh il a TJ'pt of!pu(h.1
Mylh il a 11P ofSfiru/'
..
"
Of course, il is not flIlJ type: language nccds spe<:aJ conditions
..
in a rder to b(,.'(ome myth: wc sJull sec (hem in a minute. But what
must he !lrmly CSlablishcd al tll Cstart is thal myth is a system of
communic:uion, [heU il is :1. message. This all ows one to pcrccivc
"
lhat myth cannot possibly be an abject, a concept, or an idc:l;
"
it s a mode of signifi cation, a form. Later, wc shall have tO :nsign
to this [orm historicallirnits, conclilions of use, and rcimroducc
.. society into it: we must nevcnheless fi fst describc il as (l form .
..
It cao be secn [hal 10 purporllO discriminalC among mythica l
.. objcctS :1ccording co Iheir subst:mce would he enlirely iIIusory:
since myth is " type or spccch, cvcrything C:lIIOC a mylh provided
!. il is oonveycd by a discourse. Jvfyth i not deli ned by the object
of its mesS-1.gc, but by the W:1,Y in which il utlers this message :
.. there arc rnrmallimits to myth, Iherc arc no 'suhstantial' ones .
Everything, then, can be a myth? Yes, l believe Ihis, for the
..
univer.c;c is infinitcly ferti le in Evcry objeet in the
world can rass rrom a dosed, silent existence tO :m oral state,
0 r en (Q appropriation by society, for thcrc il> no law, whethcr
natural or nOl, which forbids [;ll king about Ihings. A !rcc is a lrcc.
Yec;, of cou rse. Dm:1 t,cc as c.x presscd by Minou Drouet s no
longer quile a Iree, il is a [rce whieh is dccor:1ted, adapted 10 a
..
certain type of consumption, bdcn \Vith litcrary sdf-indulgence,
revoh, images, in slmrt \Vith a tyl>C of social lllagr which is addcd
10 pure mnfler.
1 h'numen ble othcr mnnin;1 of Ihe wonl 'mylh' Cln be clcd Ihis. Bil l
1 hne lJ"icd 10 delinc: Ihtl\ls, nOI v;olds.
JC)9
MYHIO LOGIES
Naturally, evcrything is not cxpressed al lhe sa mc lime: sorne
obj ects becomc the prey of mythical speech for a while, t hen they
others take their place and moin the statllS of myth.
Arc there objeers whi eh arc illroilahly a source uf suggestivcness,
as Baudelaire suggcsted aboue Woman? Certainly not: one can
conccivc of very :mcitnt myths, but thcre ':lre no etemal ones; for
il is human hi sfory which converts realily into speech, and ir
alone rules Ihe li fe and the death of mythiC:l llanguage. Aneient
or not, mythology can only have an hisrorical founJation, for
myth is a type of speech chosen by history: it cannat possibly
evolve from the ' n:\ture' of things.
Speech of this ki nd is a mess3ge. I l is thcrefore by 110 means
confined to oral speech. ft can consist of modes of IYtiting or of
representations ; not only wrillen discourse, but 3.100 phorography,
cinema, repotti ng, sport, shows, publicity, 311 thcsc C:l n scrvc as a
support ta mythic:tl speech. Myth can be defincd neilher by its
object nor by ilS malcral, for any m3.terial cm 3rbirrarily be
cndolYcd with mc:ming: the arrow which is brollght in order tO
signify a challenge is alsa a kind of speech. True, as far 3S percep
ti on is coneerncd
1
writing and picturcs, for inst3nee, do not cali
upon the s:lme type of consciousness; and even wit h pictures, one
can \1Se many ki llds of re:ading: a diagram lends itself to sig
nification more th3n a drawing, a copy more than an ori gi nal, and
3 arcature more Ihan a portrait. But Ihis is the point : we :are no
longer de:ing here with 3. thcoretical mode of rcprcscnt3.tion: we
ace dealing ",th ,},is pmicul:ar image, whi ch is given for ,"il
p3rli cul:ar signi fication. Mythical speech is made of a materiaJ
whi eh has already becn worked on 50 as 10 make ie suitable for
communication: it is becausc ail the malerials of myt h (whether
pi ecorial or wrinen) presul?pose :l signifying consciousness, Ihar
one can rc:lSOn about them ",hile discounting their substance.
This substance is not ul\irnportant: piclUrts, to be sure, are more
imperative than writing, they imp<Y.;c meaning 3t one strokc,
\Vithout analysing or diluling ir. But Ihis is no longer a constilucive
diffcrence. Piclurcs becomc 3 kinJ of writing as soon as Ihey l'Ire
meaningful: liJ.:e writing, they cali fo r a fais.
We shaH thercfote take lallguage, disrorme, sprech, etc. , co
uo
..
MYTH TODAY
..
mtan any significant unit or whether verb31 or visu31 : a
photogr3ph wi ll he a kinJ of speech for us in the same way as a
newspaper article; even abj ects will become speech, if they mean
something. This generi c way of coniving language is in faC!
justifie<! by the very hislory of wrting: long beCore tht: invention
of our alph:lbet, abjects like the Inc:L quipu, or dr.l.wings, as in
pictographs, h3ve been acptcd as speech. This docs nO{ mean
,hae one mUSI trcal myt hi c31 spt:ec:h li ke l:anguage; myth in facl

belongs to the province of a genu:l1 science, coextensive with
linguistics, which is mili%gy.


My/II as il um;%gal system

For mytholog)'l since ir is study of:l type of speech, is but one
fr.lgmenl of (his vast science of signs whi ch posrulated
SOOle forl)' ycars 3g0 under the mime of setll;olr>gy. Semiology has

not yet come into being. But since S3ussure himsclf, and sorne-
times independen!ly of him, 3 whole section of contemporary

research has conslantly becn referred co the problem of me.1ning:
psyeho-an:tlysis, sITucturalism, eidetic psychology, sorne new
types of lieer3ry criticism of which Bachelard has given che first
r
examples, 3re no longer eonccrned with facts exeept lnasmuch
as they 3re endowed with signifieancc. Now ta post'ubte a
significa lion is to have rCCOurse to semiology. J do not mc:! n th3e
semiology could account for all lhcsc aspects oC cqU31ly
weJl: thcy have di[erent contents. BUl they have a common

St:ltus: {hey :are ail sciences dealing with va lues. They are not
content wieh mceli ng the Cacls: they dcfine and explore them 3S
lokel1s for something else.
Semiology is a science of forms, si nee it studi cs signifi cati ons
aparr From Iheir content. 1 should like ta S3)' onc word 3bout the
necessry and The li mirs of such a formai scence. The necessity
is rh3t which applies in che case of ally exact bnguagc. Zhdanov
made fun of Alc..xantlrov the philosopher, who spoke of 'the
Jpllaicll i structure of Qur pllll/et.' 'ft lilas tl/()JIghl III/til Mll;',
Zhdanov s:lid, '/Iurl [of/U (jIOllt {Oliid ht sphuicul.' Zhdanov was
right: one cannot about strUCtures in terms of forms, 3nd
MYTHOLOG IE S
vitt versa. Ir mOly weil be mat on the plane of'li fe', there is but a
totality where structures and forms cannot be sepaf';}{ed. Out
science has no use for the incffable: il must speak about ' Iifc' if it
wanlS to uansform it. Against a cenain qui xotism of synthesis,
quite pbtonie incidentally, ail criticism must consent ta the
IlJusJ, ra the anifice of :malysis ; and in analysis, it must match
method and language. Less tcrrorizcd by Ihe spectre of
'formali sm' , hi storiai critcism fUighl have bcen less sterile; il
would have undcrstood Ihat the specifie study of forms docs not
in any way contrndict Ihc necessary principlcs of totaltlY and
Hislory. On the contraI)' : the more:] system is specifie.1lly
defined in ilS forms, the more amenablc il is ta historical cri ticism.
To parody a wcll-knowll saying, 1 shall say that a little formalism
lurnS one away from History, but [h:1.I a lot brings one back to it.
1s Ihere a bener eX:lI11p\c of talai criticism tl13 n the descri ption
of at once formai and historic:t l, semiologiC.'l1 antl
ideological, in Sartre's Sailll-Gcl/ct? The danger, on the eontrary,
is to consider forms as ambiguous objccts, half-form and h:Llf
subst:mce, te endow form with a substance of form, as was dOlte,
for inst:mce, by Zhdanovian realism. Semiology, once ils tiroits
are settlcd, is nor a mctaphysical (cap : it is a science among
others, neeessary but not suffieient. The important thing is ta sec
tlut the onity of an explanation cannot be based on the amputa
tion of one or other of Ils approaches, but, as Engels s:lid, on the
dialcctical C()-{)rdination of the p:\rricuJar sciences it makcs use of.
T his is the ase wil h mythology: il iS:l part bath of semiology
nasmueh :LS it is a form:!1science, and of idcology inasmueh as it
is an historiai science: it studics ideas-in-form.
2
Let me thercfore restate Ihat any semiology pDStubtes a
rebtion belwccn twO terms, a signifier and a signified. This
relation conecrns objeets whjch belong 10 differcnt categories, and
Ihis is why it is not one of eqoality but one of cquivalenee. Wc
The devdopmcnl (I f publicity, cl a natioonal pre5S, of radio, of ilIu, tntcd nCWi',
no t tO ' prak of lM $urvi",l of a myrd riW$ of corllm"ne.on which ruk Jt:>ci:)[
the dcvdoptnoCnt of a ..,miologicalse!tT>Ce more Ihmn na.
ln 1 Il,y, oow man}' n:ally non-signirying liclds. do wc crossf Vt ry rew,
lOm(:timu Ben: 1 am, t:.c.f....a true (hu il bc.rs no me5S:1gt. DUI
on ,lit beuh, whu nuteri.! for semioky! sJo!foln,. signJb, lignbooirds,
clothcs, SlIntan which arC so Ill.1ny messagts 10 me.
MYTH TODAY
must here he on our guard (OT despi te common parlance whi ch
simply sayS that the signifier tXpmUf the signified, wc arc
de:tlng. in any scmiological system, IlOt wi lh two, but with thrce
differcnt terms. For what wc: grasp is not al ail one terrn after the
ot her, but the correlation which unlcs them: thcre are, therefore,
the signifier, Ihe signified and the sign, wruch is Ihe associative
tot:11 o( the first two terms. Take a buneh o( rost.os: J use it to
sigllify my passion. Do we have hcrc, then. on1y a signifier and :]
significd, the roses and my passion? Not even [h:tt: ta put it
accurately) Ihere are here only 'passionifictl' roses. Dut on the
plane ofanalysis, wc do have Ihree terms ; for these roses weighted
wi th passion perfect1y and correctl y allow thcmsclvcs 10 be
dcmposed into roses and passion : Ihe former and Ihe Jatter
existed uniting and forming Ihis third objccr, whi eh is the
sign. It is :LS truc to say tbat on the plane of experi ence J C:lflnot
dissociat c tlle roses from the message tey as lO say that on
the plane of analysis 1 cannot confuse the roses as signifier :md
the roses as sign: the signifier s empty, the sign is full , it is a
mcaning. Or take a black pebblc : J can make t signify in severnl
ways, it is a mere signifier ; but if 1 weigh it with a definitc
signified (a death sentence, for instance, in an anonymous vote), it
will become a sign. Naturally, there are between the signifier) the
signified and Ihe sign, funcli onal implications (such as that of
Ihe pan to the whole) which are 50 close l hal 10 ana lyse them may
seem futilc; but we shall sec in:1 moment that lhis distinction has
a capiral importance for the study of myth as semiological
schema.
Nalural1y these thrte terms are porcly formai , and different
contents C:ln be given tO them. Here ::Ire :l few examples: for
Saussure, who worked on a but methodologic::.lly
exemplary semiological sYSlem - the language or JOllguf -the
signified is the concept, Ihe signiSer is the :Icoustie image (which
is mental) and the rel3\'ion bcl wccn concept and image is the sign
(the word) for instance), which is a conerete enlity.s For rreud,
as is weil kno",n, the hum:m psyche is a stratification oftokens Ot
1 The nouon of I1JQ rl is one oflhe mO$I C(1n1 ro,crsial in lnguisli C'l'. 1 kttp il lIete
(w the S<l.ke ofs.implidly.
113
MYTHOLOGIES
represent!lti ves. One lerm (1 refrain from givingil:lny precedcnc)
is constitulCd by the m:mifest meaning of bchaviouJ, anolher, by
ifs latent or rcal meaning (il is, for instance, the substr:t l um of the
ream); as for the third rerm, il is here also a correbrion of the
first I WO: it is the dre:J. m itsclf in ilS lOla!ty, the p:mpraxis (a
mi suke in speech or bchaviour) or Ihe neurosis, oonceived as
as economies cffcclCd [hanks to the joining of a
forrn (the first lerm) and an intentiona! function (the sccuntl
term). Wc cm ste hcre how nessary it is to distingui sh Ihe sign
from [he signifier : a drcam, 10 Freud, is no more its m:mifcst
d:llum than its latent cuntenl : it is the funetional uni on of thcse
IwO terms. l n Sartre:m critieism, finally (l shall keep tO t!tese
[hree well-known eX:l.mp!es), the significd is constituted by the
uri brinal erisis in the subje<:t (the scpaJ.tion from his mother for
Baudelaire, the naming of the thcrt for Genet); Litcrature as
discoursc forms the signifi er; and the relation between erisis and
discourse dcfines the work, which 1S a signification. Of course,
this tri-dimensional patlern, however constant in ils form, is
actualizoo n different W2yS: one cannoe thercfore say tOO often
that semiology call have ilS unit y ooly !lt the level of forms, not
COJltents; ilS field is limired, it knows only one opera li on: reacli ng,
or deciphering.
In myth, IVe tind 2g;ain the tri-dimensional pattern which 1
have JUS! describcd: the signifier, the signified and the sign. But
myth is a pceuli:!r system, in that it s constructccl from:! semi o
logical ch;) n which (!.xisted beforc il : it s Il JU()1/{I-ortlu Jtlll;o
I()gicol lYJftm. That whieh s a sign (nameiy the associative total of
a concept and an image) in the first system, becomes il mere
signifier in the second. We must here rec:lll that the materials of
mythi cal speech (t he language ilSClf, photogra phy, painting,
posters, rimais, objeets, etc.), however ditTerent at the start, are
reduced to a pure signifying function as soon as they are caught
by myth. Myrh sees in them only the same raw m:llerial; their
\Iflity is thar they ail come down to the statuS of il mcrc language.
Whct hcr t de:l ls with alphabet ical or [I ietorial wri ting, myth
wants to sec in them only a sum of signs, a global sign, the final
tcrm of a first semiologiea! chain. And il is precise!)' this final
"4
.\'1 YUI TODA y
term whi ch wi ll become rhe fi rs! lerm of the grcaler system which
il builds and of which il is only a parI. Everything happens as if
myth shifced the format system of the fi rst signi ficat ions sideways.
As this lateral shift is essential for the analysis of myth, l shaH
represent il in the following way, it being understood, of course,
that the spat aliza lion of the pattern is here only a mct:1rhor :
.. Sislli!iCf
1
<z . Significd
Loo"." { {
MYTH
-.
3. Sign
1 S IG N IFI ER Il SlGNlflED
li! S I GN
It cao be seen that in myth there are two semiologicai systems,
one of which is staggered in relation to the oiller: Il linguistic
system, (he language (or the modes of representalion whi eh are
assimilaroo (0 il), whi c.b 1 shall cali the longua!.t'-ohjecl, be<:ause
it s the language wruch myth gets hold of in order to build its own
and myth itself, which 1 shall cal1 meroltmguogt, because
Il JS a second language, ;/1 lli,1I olle spe!ks about the first. When
he rellects on a mctal:mguage, the semiologist no longer needs to
ask himself quesTi ons about the composition of the language
objecl, he no longer has tO rake into acounl the details of the
linguistic schema; he will only nced to know ilS total rerm, or
global sigo, and orny inasmuch as this [crm lends itself to myth.
This is why the semi ologist is entit led to treat in the same way
wricing and pielures: what he retains from them is tJl e fael [hat
Ihey are both sig1l1, that they both reach the threshold of myth
endowed with the same signifying function, that they constitute,
one juS! as mueh as the other, a Janguage-object.
It is now lime to give onc or IWO examplcs of mythical speech.
1 shall borrow the fjrst from an obsecv:ation by Valry. 1 am a
pupil in the second form in a F rench lyce. l open m)' Latin
grammar, and 1 read a sentence, borrowed from Aesop or
Phacdrus: 'll/ia ego nOIll;nor Ito. 1 stop and think. There is SOme
lhing ambiguous about this statcmcot : On the one hand, the
rtl QIUI, JI, p. 191.
MYTH OLO GI ES
won.!s in il do have a simple moning: bual/sr Illy Illlmr il liol/ .
And on the other h:md, the sentence is evident 1)' there i. n order to
signify something else to me. Inasmuch as it is addrcsscd to me,
a. pupi! in the second forrn, it tells me c1carly: 1 am a grammatical
example meanl to illustrate me rul e about the agreement of the
predicate. l am even forced to realize that the sentence in no W:ly
ilS meaning to me, that it tri cs very little 10 tell me
something about the lion :md what sort of naroe he h:ls; ilS true
and fundamental signification is to impose itself on me ::lS tin:
prr;sence of a certain agreement of the predica e. J concl ude that
1 :lm f:accd with a p:uticuJar, grcater, scmiologiC'3.1 system, since
it is co-extenstvc \\' ith the language: there is, indeed , a signifier,
but th s signifier is itse!f formed by a SUffi of signs, it is in itsclf a
first semological system (my is lioll ). T hereafter, the formai
panern s correctly unfolded: thcre is a signified (1 am a gram....
mala/ examp1e) therc is a global signification, whieh is
none other lhan the correlation of the signi fier and the signified ;
for nerher the n:lming of the lion nor 1he grammat ical example
are givcn separately.
And here is now :tnolhet example: 1 am at the barbcr's, and a
copy of Paris-Matck is offered tO me. On the cover, a young
Negro in a F rench uniform is s., llIling, with hi s eycs upli fred.
probably fixed 011 a fold of the trieolour. Ail this is the nua"in!.
of the picture. Dut, whethcr naively or not, 1 sec very weil wh:at il
signifies ta me : thal France is a gre:tl Empire, th:lt all her sons,
without :lny colour discrimination, f:l. ilhfully serve under her
flag, and that there is no better :lIlswcr tO Ihe del r:l CtorS of an
alleged coloni:a.lism than tIl e zeal shown by thi s Negro in scrving
his 5O-3 11ed opprcssors. 1 am therefore again face<! with :a
grcater semiologic .. l system: thetc is a signifier, itself alrcatly
Cormcd with a previous system (a bla,k so/dicr il giving ,lu
Emuh saluu) ; there is a significd (il is here a purposeCul mi xture
of Frenchness and militarincss) ; finally, therc is a presence of me
signified through the signifier.
BeCote t:\ ckling the analysis of each lerm of the mythical
system, one mUSt agree on terminology. We now know that the
signifier can be looked al , in mylh, from twO poinl s of view: as the
II6
MYnl TODAY
final term of the linguistic system, or :lS the liTSt term of the
mythical system. Wc thereCore nced two names. On the plane of
l:lnguage, that is, :\5 the fi nal term of the fir,a 1 sh:all cali
the signifier: melll"g (my IJ(IIII( il !iOIl. a Negro iJ giving tilt French
sil /ill e); on the plane of myth. 1 shall cali it: foTm. In the case of
the signified, no :ambigui,y is possible: we shall relain the name
CfJIIUPt. The third term is the correlation of the firsr two: in the
linguistic system, ir is the Jigl/; but it is not possible ta use thi s
word again wi lhout ambigui ty, sin in mylh (and thi s is the
chicf pcculiariry oC the latter), the signifier is al reatly formed by
the Jigll! of the language. 1 shan cali the third term of myth the
sigllifiCtJ/m. This word is h('re all the better jllslificd since myth
has in faet a dou ble funetion: it poi nts out and it noti lies, je makes
us untlcrsland somethi ng and it imposes it on us.
Tite fOTIII (/. /J// Ille COI/cept
The signifier of myth presents itself in an :amhiguous way: it s
at the samc lime mC:J. ning and form, full on one si de and cmpty
on the other. As me:ming, the signifier already postulalcs a
rC:ltling, r gr3sp il through my eyes, il has a sensory realily
(unlike the Iinguistic signifier, which is purcly menul), ehcre is a
ri chncss in it : the naming of the lion, (he Negro's sa lute are
credi ble wltoles, they have al their di sposa i a sufficicnt rationality.
As a total of linguis tic signs, the mcaning of the myth has its own
value, it bclnngs ln 11 history, thal of the lion or that of the Negro:
iu the me:lning, a signification s alre:l y built, ano could very
weil he self-sulTIciclll if myth did not u kc hold of it and did Ilot
turo it suddeoly ioto an empty. Ih"lr:l sitic:d form. The ",caning is
a./uady complele, it postulatcs a kind of kaowlcdge, a past, a
mcmory, a compamlive order of f:lcts. id('as, dccisions.
When il becomcs fonn, t he mc:ani ng lcaves its contingency
hehind; il emplies itSclf, ie becomes impovcri shoo, histor)'
eY:lporalcs, only Ihe lelter rcmains. T hcrc is hcre :l paradoxial
pcrmuuli un in the reading operations, :l n abnormal regrcssion
from meanng to fur m. from the linguislic sign lU thc mythic:t l
signifier. If one encloses Ijuia ego Ilomil/or Ica in D purely lin
gusti c system, the clause finds again thcrc:l fuJlness, a :l
"7
MYTHOLOG I ES
hislory: 1 am an ::mi mal, a lion, l li ve in a cemin country, l have
just becn hunling, they would have me share my prey with a
heiCer,3 cow :md a goal j but bcing the st ronger, l award mysctf li Il
the shares for v:J rious re:1sons, the 1351 of which is quite sim ply
that Illy HfflllC il Iioll. nut 35 the form of the myth, the clause
hardly ret:1ins anything of this long story. The mC2ningcontai ned
a whole system of values : a history, a gcogr1phy, a morality, a
zoology, a Li ter:ltllrc. The Corm has put all Ihis richncss al a
distance: its ncwly acquired penury alls for a significalion [ 0 fin
if. The story of the I;on must rcccde a grcal deal in order la m:\ke
room for the grammatical example, one must pur tlte biography
of the Neg:ro in parenthescs iC one wantS [Q fr ee the pieturc, and
prepare it ta rcccive its signified.
But the e:;semial point in aU this is thnt the form not
sllppress Ihe meauing, il only impoveri shcs il, it pUIS il al a
distance, ;r holds il 3t isposal. One believcs that the
meaning is goi ng to dic, but it is a de:lth wilh reprieve; the
loS<.'S its value) Ollt keeps its life, (rom whieh the form
of Ihe myth will draw ts nouri shment. The mcaning will be for
the form li ke an instanlancous reserve of hislOry, :t tamed
ri ehncss, which it is possible to cali all ..1 dismiss in a sort of npid
3lcerllation: Ihe form must cOllstantly be :tble tO be fOOtcd :Lgain
in tlle meallng and ta get Ili cre what nature it nccds for ilS
nutriment ; aoove all , il must he :tble 10 hide there. ft is this
COnS(2nt godme oC hide-:md-seek bctwccn the mC3ni ng and the
fOtm whieh defincs myth. T he fmm of myrh is not a symbol: Ihe
Negro who s.,lutcs is 1101 the syruhol of Ihe French Empire: he
has too much presence, he appcars as a rich, fully expcrienced,
spont:lnCOUS, innocent, indirputab'( image. Dut al the same time
this presence is t3. med, put aI a isl:Jncc, ffi:Lde aimOSI nans
pllent; it r1::ceJcs a linle, it bccomes the accompl icc o( a concept
which CQmes ta ie Cully armed, French impcri ati ty: once m3de
use of, it becomcs artifical.
Let us lInw look ae the signified : rhis hi story which drains out
of the form wiU be whoU)' absorhed by the concept. As for the
!:tller, it is Jetermined, it is :l.t once histori eal :md inlentional ; il is
lhe motivation which causes the myth to be uttered. Gram
1'8
MYTH TODAY
matCal exemplarity, French imperi ali ty, li re the very Jrivcs
behind the m)'th. The concepl reonstitutcs a chain of Cluses :Lnd
effccts, moti ves and intentions. Unlike tlle Corm, the conccpt is
in 110 way l1bstract: it fillcd with a situation. Through the
concept, it is a whole new history whi ch is implanred in the myth.
Inra the nami ng of Ihe lion, fir!;1 dca ined of ilS conringcncy,
the gramm:HicaJ cxamplc will :Lttr:lct my whole existence: Time,
which caused me ta he born at a certain period whcn Latin
grammar is t:lughtj Hismry , whieh sets me ap:ltt, through a
whole mcchansm of social segregation, from the children who
do not lcarn Latin ; paedagngie tradition, which causcd this
exam ple to be from Aesop or PI13eJrusj my own lin
habits, which sec the ::lgrcc:ment of the prediC3te as a
fact worth}' of notice and illustration. The s:Jffie gocs for the
Negro-giving-thc-salute: aS form, it s Ol caning is shallow,
isolad, impoverishoo; as the concept of French impcria lily, here
il is again ri ed la the totalilY of the world : 10 we genent History of
France, 10 ilScolonial advcntures, to its present diffi eulties. TruIh
ta tell, what is invcsred in the concept is Icss reality dun a certain
knowlcdge of te:. li ty j in passing from the tri tlte form,
the image loses sorne knowledge : the bcuer la t eceive the
knowlcdge in the conccpt. I n aeHlul faet, the lmowledge con
tllined in a mYlhial concept is confuscO, ma de of yielding,
shapeless associations. One must fi rml)' stress this open eharactcr
of the concept ; it is nOf 3t ail an abstract, purified cssence; it is:l.
formlcss, unstablc, nebu/ous condensalion, whase uniry ami
coherence arc ubove :1.11 due to ilS function.
In Ihis sense, wc Cl n 5:ly that the fundamental chamcter of the
mythical concept is ta be grammatic:t l excmplaric)'
very preciscly conccrns a givcl1 form of pupi l!;, French imperalil Y
mUSt 3ppcal te such and sueh group oC readcrs and not anothcr.
T he concept closely corresponds to :t function, il is delined 3S a
tendency. This cannot fail la rce311 the signified in anorhcr
semiolO'Jical system, Frcudianism. l n Freud, the second (erm of
the system is the latent me:lOing (Ihe conlent) of the dream, of the
parapra . .''o!s, of the neurosis. Now Freud docs remark that the
second-order mcaningofbcha viour is ilS r1::al mcani ng, chat which
MYTHOLOGIES
is appropriate to a complete silUation, including ils dccper levclj
it is, JUSI li ke the mythical concept, the very nfcnuono(bchavour.
A signifier.! can have severnl signifiers: Ihis is indccd the case in
lingoislcs and psytho-analysis. Il is also Ihe C:lSe in the mYlhical
concept: it h:\ s at ils disposai an unlimitcJ rn3SS of signifiees: 1
can find a thousnnd Latin sentences to actualize for me the
agreement of the predicatc, 1 can find a thousand images which
signify to me french imperiality. This melns that qU{/lItitivdy,
the concept is much poorer than the signifier, it often does
nothing but rc-present itself. Poverty and richncss are in reverse
proportion in the form and the concept: to the ql\:\litat ive poverty
of the form, which is the repository of a carelier.! mcani ng, there
corresponds the richncss of the concept which tS open ta the
wholc of HistOry; and to the qu:mtit:lIivc abundance of the fo rms
,here corresponds a smalt number of concepts. This repetition
of the concept through dilferent forms is prccios to the mytho
Iq,rsl, il aJlows him to deciphcr the myth : Ir is the insistcncc of a
kind of behaviour which reyeals its intention. This confinns that
there is no regular ratio between the volume of lhe signified and
that of the signifier. In language, Ihis rltio is proportionatc, it
hardly excecds the ward, or at least the concrete unit. In myth,
on the contrary, the concept can spreld over a very large expansc
of signifier, For instance, a whole book may be the signifier of
a single concept; and eonvcrscly, a minute form (a ward, a
gesture, even incidental, 50 long as it is noticcd) can serve as
signifier to a concept filled with :l very rich hislory. Although
unusual in language, this disproportion between signifier and
signified s Ilot specifie ta myth : in Freud, for instance, the
parapr:lxis is a signifier whose thinness is out of proportion ta the
real mC:lning which it betrays.
As 1 said, there is no fixity in mythical concept!;: they can come
into being, alter, disintcgrate, disappear completely. And it is
precisely bccallse they arc historical that history very casily
suppress lhem. This instability forces Ihe mythologist to use a
tcrrninology adapted ta it, and about which 1 should now like to
say a word, becausc itoften is a cause for irony: 1 rnean ncologism.
The concept is a constituting element of myth: if 1 want ta de
''0
MYTH TonAY
cipher ffi yths, [ must somehow be able 10 name concepts. The
dictionary supplies me with a fc\\': Goodncss, Kinclness, Wholc
ncss, Humaneness, etc. Hut by definition, since it is the diclionary
which givcs (hem 10 me. these panicular conceptS arc not
hi storiClI. Now whac 1 need IOOS! often is ephemer:al concepts, in
connection with limite cOlltingcneies: neologism is then
inevitablc. China is one Ihing, the ide:l which a French petit
bourgeois could have of it not 50 long aga is another: for this
peculiar mixture of bells, rickshalVS an opium-dens, no other
word possible but UnloveJy? One should at !cast get
sorne consolation from the fa cr th,lf conceptual neologisrns are
never arbitrary: they arc bult according ta a highl)' sensible
proportional rule.
Tite signification.
In scmiology, the third terrn is nothing but the association of the
first two, as we saw. It is the only one which is allowed ta he seen
in a full an salisfaclory way, the only one which is consumcd in
letual facto 1 have called it: the signification. Wc can sec that the
signification is the myth itself, just as the Saussurean sign is the
word (or more accurately the concrete unit). Dut before listing the
characters of the signification, one must refleet a litde on the way
in which it is prepared, rhat is, on ,he modes of correlation of tlle
mYlhical concept and the m}'thi cal Corm.
First we must nme th:1.t in myth, the fuse two rcrms :lrc
pcrfectly manifest (un lkc wlut happens in other scmiological
systems) : one of them is nor 'hidden' behind the other, they are
both given hue (and not one /lere and the othcr thcre). Howcver
paradoxical it may seem, my/h hM/!! l/orhi1lg: its funclion is ta
discort, not to rnake disappear. There is no lateney of the concept
in rel ation ta the form: there is no need of an unconscious in
order to explain myth. Of course, one is dealing with two
different types of manifestation: form has a literai, Immediate
presence; morcover, it is extended. This stems-this cannat be
repc:1lcd too often-front thc of the mythical signifier,
'Or pcrhJ(I! Si"ity? J USI as if Unin/lan;l y ... Bosqul'/", '" = Ba.squiIY.
MYTHOL OGIES
whieh is alrcady linguislic: sinee il is constitulClI by a meaning
which s :dready outlined, it a m appear only Ihrough a givcn
substance (whereas in language, the signifi er mental).
In the ease of 01':\1 myth, this extension is li near (f or nalll e is
hO/I); in that ofvisual myth, it is (in the centre,
the Ncgru's uni fMm, at the top, the blaekncss of his face, on the
lcft, the mlitary salule, etc.). The clements of the form therefor c
arc rclatcd as to place :md proximity: the moe of presence of the
form is spat ial. The concept , on the conlrary, appcars in global
fashioll , il is a ki ncl of nebula, the condensati on, more or less bazy,
of a cerroin knowlcdgc. Tt s clements arc linked by associative
relalions : it is supportcd not by an extension but by a dept h
(although Ihis meuphor is sllltoo spatial) : il S mode of
presence is rncmori al.
The rebtion which unit cs Ihe concept of the myth to ilS
meaning is essent iall y a reb.tion of deforma/ion. We find hcre
ag:l in ;!. certain formai analogy with a CQmplex semiological
such as that of the variollS types of psycho-analysis. JUSt
as for Freud the m:l.ni(cst meaning o( bchaviour is distortcd by its
latent in myth the mcaning distorted by the concept.
Of coursc, this distorti on is possible onl)' because the form of the
myth is alrcady constituted by a Iinguisrie mcaning. In simple
system like the 1:lnguage, the significd cannat di stort mything :l.t
311 because the signifier, being emply, arbitrary, offcrs no resis
tance to it. )Jut Ilerc. cverything is different: the signifier has, 50
to spcak, twO aspects: one fuJl , whieh is the mcaning (t he hisrory
of tbe lion, of the Negro saldier), one empty, which is the form
(for my Il1lllle lioll ; Negfo-Frellch-soldief-saluling-tht!-tric% /l r).
Wil at the concept distorts is of CQursc whar is full, the meaning:
the lion and the Ncgrn are depri ved of their history, changed into
gcstures. What Latin exemplariry distarts is the Jlaming of the
lion, in ail ilS conti ngcncy ; a. nd what French imperiality obscures
is :llso a pri mary language, a factual discourse whi ch was lelling
me about Ihe salure of a Negro in uniform. But titis distortion is
not an obliteration: the lion and the Negro remain here, the
concept needs them; they are half-amputared, they arc deprived
of memory, not of exislence : they are Ol t once stubborn, silently
MYTH TODA Y
rooted there, Jnd garrulous, a whol! y 3t the service of th e
concept. T 1le concept, litemlJ)', deforms, but docs not abolish the
meaning; a word can .perfectly rcnder this concradiction" it
aEenatcs it. .
Whar must alw:tl's be remcmbered is that mytb is a double
system; there occurs in it a .'>Ort of ubi(l uity : ilS point of departure
is constit u[c by the arriv:t l of a meaning. Ta keep a spatial
1l\ctaphor, Ihe approximative chameler of whi en l have al rcady
su cssed, 1 shaH say that the signification of the myth is consl
tuted by a sort of COll stantly moving turnstile whicJl presents
the mcaning of [he si gnifier and its form, a languagc
obJect and a mctalanguage, a purcJy signi fyi ng and a Jlurcly
imagining consciousncss. T his alternation is, sa to spcak,
gathered up in the concept, which uses il like an ambiguous
signifier, Olt once imcllcctive and imagi n:uy, arbitrary and natural.
1 do not wish to prejudge tlle moral implic:u ions of such a
mcchanism, but 1 shaH nOI excecd the li mi ts of an objective
analysis if 1 point out tltat the ubiquity of the signi fie r in myt h
exactly reproduces the physique of the alihi (which is, as one
reali zes, a spatialterm) : in the alibi too, there is a place which i5
fu ll and one whieh is empty, linked bl' a relal ion of negativc
identity (' 1 am nO[ whcre }'OU t..hi nk 1 am; 1 am wnere you thi nk
1 am not' ). But the ordina ry alibi (for the police, for instance)
has an end ; reality stops the turnstile revolving at a certain point.
My th is a value, truth is no guarantce for it. ; nothing prcvents it
from being a perpetuai alibi : il is enough that ilS signifier has I WO
sidl.'S for it alw::ays [() have an 'elsewhere' at its disposaI. The
mcaning is al ways Iherc to presenr the form ; the form is always
there to ou/distal/Ct! the meaning. And Iherc never is any contra
diction, confli ct, or split betweell the meaning and the form:
they are never al the same I n the same wa}', if 1 am in a c<l r
and 1 look al the $Cenery through the window, 1 can at will foc us
on the secnery or on the window- pane. At one moment 1 grasp
the presence of the gl:ass and the distance of the landscapc; at
anot her, on the contrary, the transp::arence of the and the
depth of the landscape ; but the result of this ::aheTnatioll is
constant : the glass is at once present and emply la me, and the
" 3
MYTHOLOG IE S
landsc:tpe unreal and full. The so rne thil1 g occurs in the mythicaJ
signifier: ilS form is empry bm present, its mc:ming absent but
full. To wonder <le this contradicti on 1 must volunlarily interrupt
this turnstilc of fotm :md mc.1ning, 1 must focus on cach
scpar::nely, :md :lpply to mylh Il static method of deciphcring, in
short, l must go ag:tinst ilS own dynamics: tO sum up, l must
p:1ss from the st:tle of reader 10 thu of mythologisr.
And it is ag:lin Ihis duplicity of the slb'llifier which delennines
the ch:tracters of Ihe signification. Wc now know chat myth is a
type of spcech cJefined by ilS intention (1 IIIlI Il gramll/atical
UQlIlpk) much more th:m by its li terai sense (1/if lIal/ie !iOll); :l1ld
that in spite of this, its intention is somehow frozen, purificd,
cternalized, I1Il1d( aUlmr by thisliteral sense (TIlt FUI/ch Empire?
ft' sj/Ill a focl: /001: al /hu gl)()(1 Nt'gro /'o salutes Ijl:e olle of ollr
oum bop). constituent :ambiguilYof mythiC:l1 speech h:ts two
consequences for the signification, which hellccforth :arpcars both
like a notification and like a Slalemcnt of facl.
Myth has an impemlive, buuonholing chamcler : stcmming
(rom an historical concept, directl y springing from cOlltingcncy
(a Luin class, a thrcatenecJ Empire), it is 1 whom it has come to
seek. Tt is turned Towars me, 1 am subjccted to ilS intentiollal
force, il summons me ta reeivc ils expansive ambiguity. If, for
instance, 1 t:tke a walk in Spain, in the B:tsque country,' 1 may
well notice in the houses an architectural uniey, a common style,
which !eads me to acknowledge the Basque house as a definite
ethnic producr. However, 1 do not fcel pcrsonally concerned, nor,
50 tO speak, au:acked by this unitary sryle: 1 sec only too weil th:1t
it was here beforc me, without me. h is a complex proouct
which has its delerminarions:lt the level of a very ',l'ide Mtor)':
ir does not 011 oU( 10 me, ir docs not provoke me into naming il,
e'Xcept if 1 thin1: of insening it in(O a V:lSI picturc of ruml habit3l.
But if l :lm in the Paris rcgion and 1 c:llch a glimpsc, al the end
of the rue Gambcua or the rue Jc:m-J:luts, of a natty white
ch:tlet wi th rcd rilcs, dark brown an :asymmctrical
roof and a wanlc-ancJ-t.I aub front, 1 (ccl as if 1 ',l'cre personally
'1 say 'i n Spain' in p<:lil-OoU!'\:COS ha, C'l.uscr.! a
wllo!e 'm)thial' architCClurc of toc Basque tO fiouri.h.
".
M YTH TODAY
receLving: an im[lerious injulKlion CO name this obj ect a Basque
chalet: or evcn bctlcr, to see il the very essence of basljuily. This
is beuusc the concept :appears la me in ail its :tpproprialive
nature: ir COrnes and sccks me Qut in arder 10 oblige me ta
acknowledge the body of intentions which have motivaced il and
arranged i, there as the sign:\1 of an individual history, as a con
fidence and a complicity: il is a real cali , which the owncrs of the
chalet scncJ out ta me. And this 011, in onlcr lO he more im
perious, lias :agrecd to ail manner of impoverishments : allthat
jusrified the Basque house on the phne of tcchnology-the barn,
the OUlsidc stairs, the ctc. - has becn dropped; there
rcmains only:a brief arder, not to he dispured. And the :ldhomina
tion is so frank that 1 feel this chalet has just becn ercated on
the spot,[or fl/e, li 1:e:t magicd object springing up in my present
life wit hom any tr:ace of the history whieh has causcd il.
For this interpellant speech is Olt the same ume a frozen speech:
at the moment of rcaching me, it suspends itsclf, turns away and
assumes the look of a generaliry: it sliffens, it makes ilsclf look
ncutr:al :md innocent. The appropri:arion of the concept is sud
cJenly drivcll away once more by the li teralncss of the meaning.
This is a kind of orrest, in both the physieal nnd the leg:\1sensc of
the term: french imperiality conemns Ihe salming Negro to he
nothing more lh:l n :lll nstrumental signi fier. the Negro suddenly
hai ls me in the narne of french impcrialicy; but at the samc
moment Ihe Negro's salute thickcns, becomes vitrified, freezes
into an eternal reference mc:ant to tstablish French
On thesurfaccof l:anguagcsomelhing hassloppcd moving: the use
orthe signific:uion is here. hiding behind the faet, :'lnd conferring
on it a notifying look ; but at thc same time, the faet par-,lIyses the
intention, gives it sornclhing like a malaise producing immobility;
in order tO m:ake it innocent, it frcczcs ir. This is bccause myth is
speech J' olm tHul reJ/oren. Only, speech which is restored is no
longer qUte that which stolen: whcn it was brought back, il
W:JS not put cxacdy in ilS pilee. If is tbis brief act of l:trceny, rhis
moment t:aken for a surreptitious faking. which gives myt hiol
speech its benumbed look.
One last e1ement of the signification remains to be examined:
'25
M YTH OLOG I ES
its motivati on. We know Ih,a in :t language, the si gn is arbitruy :
nOlhing compels the :t cousti c image trte ' naturall)" to mcan the
concept trte: thc sign, hc re, is unmOliv:ucd. Yet Ihis arbilI:triness
has li mits, which come from the associative relat ions of the ward:
Ihe language c.1n produce a wholc fragment of the sign by
anal ogy with other signs (for instance one S, 1yS oillluhle in French,
:lnd not /l1IIob/e, by :,":llogy with ame). The mythi cal signification,
on the orher hand, is never arbi trary; it is :waysin pari mOliv:l ted,
:a nd unavoid:ably oontains SOIUC :ln:l logy. For Lal;n exempL:aril )'
ta meel the naming of the li on, Ihere muSt be :l n analogy, which
is Ihc ag:rment of the predica tc; for French imperi alilY 10 gel
hold of the s:tluting Negro, there must be idenlicy betwccn the
Ncgro' s salure and thal of the French soldier. Motivati on is
neccssary la the very dupli cily of myth : myth pl:l ys on the
:a.na log)' between mcaning :tnd form, Ihere is no mylh wi lhout
moti v3tcd form.
7
In order la grasp the power of motivation in
mych, il is enough ta rdlect for a moment on an extreme case. 1
havc hcrc bcrore me :l coll ection of abjects 50 lacking in order
that 1 c:1n fin no Nu/m ittg in it; it woul secm Ihat herc, deprived
of :llly previous meaning, the form could not root its an:l logy in
anything, and that myth is impossible. But what the form caR
:llw:l yS give one te rcad is disorder itself: it C:ln give a signifiation
to the absurd, make the absurd it.<;e lf a mylh. This i5 ",hat
harpens when commonsensc m)'thifi cs surrea lism, for instance.
Even the absence of motivation does not emb:l t m s m)'th; for
Ihis :a bsence will itself be suffici cntl y objcctifi ed to bttome
Icgiblc: and fin:tl1y, the absence of mOtivaTi on will becomc a
sccond-order mori va tion, and myth will be re-est:tblished.
Motivation is unavoidable. It is nOlle lhe less very fragmentary.
From the point of vie- of .. is dSturbing in myth is pr iscly that
in form i.s mot1\"al c;d. FOC" ir thne i5. 'hl::l!!h' of it illhc u bit ra, ;ne5l< of
t he si&" ...hich is ilS grou"di"g. is s.iclu:ning in n.)"th is it.t f"C1Ort ' 0 faIs.:
n:lturc, its ", pc:rabumbna: of $i; nilia nl forms., u in thesc ob;<:et$ wbic" da:oralc
Iheir uscflnCS5 .... ith nJlUU! 'ppcarana:. The will 10 ..ci;h the l\:nif.auon
the fu it (Uo1",nt cof nalure aU5CS a of n:l usea: mylh 100 rich, ....ha! is;n
uceu is p,..,cstly ilS meci .. uon. Tbi. tIIusa like the one 1 rt d ans
,,'hich (cfu..: to choose physiland IJnl ;.ph}JiJ, ul nj; 'he t3i l n ideal
and t he s.ccolld t3i ln onOf"l1)". Ethieally, theu is a kind of il' hedging
OIlC'1 beu.
,,6
M YT I1 T OD .... V
To Sl:lr( with, it is not ' natural' : it is history whi ch supplies ilS
analogies ta the form. Then, the :ln:llogy between the meaning
:lnd the concept is never anyloing bu! p.1r!ial: the form drops
man)' analogous rcaturcs and kecps onl)' a few: ir keeps the
sloping roof, the vi sible bcams in the Buquc it abandons
the stairs, the barn, rit e wcathcrcd look, etc. One must even go
rurther : a complele m:lge would exclude myth, or ar lcast would
compel il to seize only ilS very T his is just wh:1I
h:1ppcns in Ihe ClSC ofbad painti ng
l
whi ch is whoUy bascd on the
myth of what is 'filled out ' and ' finished' (il is the opposite and
symmetrica l case of the m}' rh of the 2bsur: here, Ihe form
mylhifies 2n ' absence' , Ihere, a surplus). But in genernl my th
prcfers ta work wit h poor, incomplete images, where the meaning
IS :a.lrcady relieved of its fu, and re:tdy for :l signification, such as
Ci1 nc:1turcs, p:tsri chcs, symbols, etc. lhe OIotivat ion is
chosen :among other possible ones: 1cm very well "ive 10 French
imperialiry m:ln}' othcr signifiers bcsie a salute : a
French g:encral pi ns a decoration on a one-:lrmed Seneg:alcse, a
nun hands :l. cup of te.1 ta :l. bcJ- riJclen Arab, a white school
master !caches attent ive piccaninnies: the press undert:t kes every
day to dcmonstrate chat the store of mylltical is
incxhaustible.
The n;t lure or the mythical sgnifiaton can in fa ct be weil
conveyed br one p:mieular simlc: ie ncither Olore nor less
arbitr3ry than an ideogrnph. My th is a pure ideographic
system, where che forms :Ire still moti vatcd by the coneepc
which (hey while not yel, by :l long wa)', covering
the sum of ics possi bi litics for And juSt as
hi slOriC:l ll y, idcogrnphs have gradu3l1y Icf! Ihe concept :lnd
bccome :lSsociated with the sound, thus growing: lcss ami lcss
mOtiV:Hed, the wom oui stace of a mylh ca n be fecogni zed by the
arbitrarincss of its signifi cation: the whole of Molire is seen in a
doctor's fUIT.
Rtudillg ulld 1Il.J/II
How is a mylh rcceivecl Wc mUSt here once more come bad:
"7
MYTHOLOG i ES
to thc duplicity of its which is III once meaning :md
form. 1 Cln produec threc dilfercnt of rC:lding by focusi ng
on thc one, or the other, or bom:lt the same time.'
1. If 1 foeus on an empty signifier, l lei the concept fiU the.forlll
of the ffi)'th without ambigui l)', and 1 sImple
systcm, where tbe signification ag:lm :.the Negro
who salutcs is an fXample of French lmpen:thty, he IS a lymbol
for il. This type of focusing is, for nstlnee, that of the producer
of myths, of the journalisr who slarts ""ith a concept and seeks a
form fo r it.'
2 . If 1(ocus on a full signifier, in which 1clcady distinguish the
:md the fotm, and consequently the i sronion which
the one imposes on the other, 1 undo the sigllifiC31ion of the
myth, and 1t cccive the latter :1s :m impostur:: the saluting
becomes the alibi of French imperiality. ThiS typc of focusmg 15
that of the mythologisl : he dcciphers the myt h, he underS(:lflds a
distortion.
3. Fin:lll)', if 1 focus on Ihe mythical signifier on:ln
wholc made of mc:ming and farm, 1 receJve an :lmblguous
signification : l respond tO tbe constiluting mcchanism of
mylh, to its own 1 hecome a rcader of my.ths. The
saluting Negro is no longcr an c:xample or a symbol, slllIlcss an
alibi : he s the vcry pme/lu of French imperi ality.
The first twO types of focusllg are statie, :malytical; they
dcstroy the myt11, cither by making ils inlcmion or by
unmaslcing it : the former is cynie l, the latter demYfotl(ymg.
rdtng
third typc of focusing is dynamc, il consumcs the myth ac:co
tO the very , cOlIs huilt into ilS srructure : thc rc-ader lives the
fi)'t h as a story :l t once truc and unrcal. .
lfone wishes 10 conncct a mythical s(.: hema to a genent hiStOry,
10 cxplain how it corresponds ta interests .of. a dcfl.nilc society,
in short, to pass from semiology tO ldcology, Il IS obvlously :lt the
The frc<:dom in what (lne focwcs on il; a probkm .JOCS l'KIl
belong 10 Ihe province or ..,mick>J>y: il depcn<h on ,he conetetC SItuation of the
Jubio-'Ct. , r'- ' "
f ,cccivc the nam;n" orthe j",n aS a pille tXu'/J t 0 .....,ttn srlmlJU
r
""".UiC
'Ii"e .1i'. ou in 1 position in sclal",n 10 il. 1 come b.ct.
to the \' lluc or lhe conttx\ )n Ihis mythic:d icbcma.
MYTH TODA"
of lhe third type of focusi ng that one must pl:t ce oncsclf:
Il IS the roder of myths himself who musc rcveal (hcit csscntial
func.tion .. hc Ihis parcicul:u myrh today? If he
It III :In mnocent fas luon, wn:n i5 the poinl of proposing
It 10 rom? And if hc reads il using his powcrS of reflecrion, like
the mythoJogist, docs it matter which alibi is prcscn lcd ? If the
rcatlcr dl.lCS not sec French impcri:t lity in the S;l lming Negro, it
was not worth weighi ng Ihc \auer wi l h it; and if he secs it, the
myth is nothing more Ihan a political proposi tion, honcslly
expressed. In one word, ei ther thc inlcntion of Ihe mylh is too
obscure ta he cfficacious, or il is too clea r to be bclievcd. In eithcr
case, w/tere is Lhe ambiguity?
is. bu.t a false d ilemma. Mylh hides nothing :md nallnts
llodung: It dl5tort s; myth is ncithcr a li e nor:1 confession: il is an
inflexion. Placed before Ihe di lcmma which 1 mentioned a
moment ago, mych finds a Ihi rd w:ly OUI. Thrcatcned with dis
appcatanec if il yields 10 cil hcr nf the first two Iypes of focusi ng,
it gets Out of chis tight spot thanks 10 a compromise - it iJ This
compromise. Entrusted wi th 'glossing over' an intenti on:ll
concept, myth encounters not11ing but bcuayal n language, for
language can only obliteratc the concept if it hides ic, or unmask it
if it it. The c1abor.nion ofa sccond-order semiological
Will myt.h this dilemma: driven 10 having
elther ta unvell or to hqUld:lIc the euneept, ie will lIalllro!i:.r it,
. We rcach hcre the very principle of myth : il transforms hi stnry
Into nature. WC 1l 0W unJenit:l. nd wh)', ift tltt tJ'lS of lIte myth
th.e the adltominaton of the O)nccpt can
rcmam mamf(,."St wlthout howevcr appa ring to have an intercst
in the matter : wha r ca uses mYlhial speech 10 be uttcrcd is
pcrfcctl )'. but il is immediatel y frozen into
naturnl; It IS not read as a motive, bUI as a rcasan. If 1 rcad Ihe
Negro-s:tluting :lS symbol pure :lnd simple of impcrialiry, 1 must
renounee the rcalily of the picture, ir discredils itself in m}' eyes
when it becomes an instrument. Conversely, if 1 dccipher the
Negro's saJutc aS:ln alibi of coloniali ty, 1 shalter che myth even
morc surel)' by the obviouSliCSS of ilS motivation. Buc for t he
myth-rcaJ cr, Ihe outcomc is quite different: cvcrylhing happeos

MYTH TODAY
MYTHOLOGI ES
as i f the pietu re lIaturl/lly conjured up the concept, as if the . the of che concept, whieh 1 have just
lt.l cnlJfied as the csscmi31funerion of myth, is hcre cxemplary. ln
sib'nifier gave a [fJ/lIIdat;1)1I tu the signified: the myth cxists from
the precise moment when French imperi ali ty achi evcs the :l fi rst (exclusively lingui:; tic) systcm, caus31ity would be,
natural state : myth is speech justified i" t;rcw. liteC3l1y, nalunl : fruit and vegelable prices [:lll bccause they :ire
in SC3son. ln the 5t.'C(l nd (mYlhical) :system, caus31i ty is artificial,
Herc is a new ex:tmplc which will help understa.nd clorl)' how
the myth-reader is Icd to r.uionali'le the signi fied by ffic:!ns of the faise; but il creeps, sa to spe2k, through the bad: doar of 3ture.
' rhis is wh)' mylh is expericnccd as innocent speech; not bccauliC
signifier. Wc are in the montlt of July, 1 re:ld a big: hC:).d line in
F I RST I ND ICATI ONS. its inrcncions are hicn - i f Ihey were hiddcn, they cou Id not be
FraI/ct-Soir: THE FA LL I N P RICES:
VEGETAIH.. ES : !'IUCl:: DROP BtGINS. Let US quiekly sketch cffiacous - but bec.m5e chey arc naturalizcd.
In f.1et, Wh3t allows Ihc rcader 10 consume myth innontl y is
the semiologiClI sehem;l.: the cxample bei ng a sentence, che
thar he does not see il 35 a semiological system but 31l an inductive
firsl system is purely linguistic. The signifier of the scond system
one. Wherc thcre is only an equiva lenec, hl' secs a kind of c:l.usal
is eompused here of a certain number of accidents, sorne lexial
(the words:firs/, begns, ,ht (r.'\ I\]), $Orne lypographiC\1 (enarmaus proccss: the signifier and the signifiecl have, in his eyes, a 11.:ltural
rclationship. This confusion Ca n he expresse..! othcrwise: 3ny
hcalllines where the rClder usuaHy sees news of worlll importance).
semiologic:lI system is a sYStem of va lues; now the mych
The signifiecl or concept is \V hat must be ealled by a barbarous
but unllvoidable neologism: govemmentali,y, the Government consumer takcs the signifi c:Hion fOf :l system of tacts: myth is
The read a$ a f:lc mal systelll, whcrcas I is bUI a semiologica\ System.
presented by the nalonal press as the Essence of
signi lication of the myth follows clcarly [rom thlS: frUl t and
vegetable pri ees arc fa!ling breal/se the govcrnment has 50
My th as Jluleu la /lguage
t.Iecidcd. Now ic sa happcns in this case (and this s on the wholc
Wh:lt s characteri stie of myt h? To tnnsfor m a mcaning inta
fai rl y rare) tbot the llewspapcr tsclf has, two lines below,
form. In othcr words, myt h is :l lways a language-robbery. 1
aVowcd one to sec through the myth wbich il had juSt clabo.l ted
\1 hether this is due to self-assurance or honesty, It adds (in smaJ1 rob the Negro who s salutiog, the white anu brown cha let, the
type, it is truc): ' The fall in priees is hclpctl by the return of st:lSOnal (ail in (ruil priees, not 10 make them into e:umples or
sca.sonal abundance.' This examplc is instructi ve for two rcasons. symbols, but tO n:l. tuTali ze through them the Empi re, my 13ste
for Basque things, the Government. Arc ail prim3fy languages
firstly it conspicuollsly shows that myth essentially aims at
a prey .fo r 15 (licre no meanng which can rcsist this ca p
causing :ln immedote docs nOI matter if one is
luer ollowcd to sec through the myth, ilS action is assume<! to be Iure WHh whl eh form thre:lIens it? In fact, nothing can he s:lfe
m onger than the r.:l.lional explanations which may belie iL from myrh, mylh cau develop ics sccond-order schema from any
Thi s rnc:Lns that the reading of a myth is exhausted al one stroke. meaning and, as we S3W, Stan from Ihe very Jack of meaning.
1cast a qui ck glanee:lt my neighbour's France-So;r: 1 euH only a Dul :tllianguagcs do nOI Tesisl equally weil.
Arlieulated la nguage, whi ch is most oftell robbed br myt h,
II1tQlIillg there, but 1 re:atl a true signi ficalion; 1rc(t;ve the pre
offers little rcsisl3nce. Tt contains in itsclf sorne mytliical disposi
sence of governmental action in the fall in fruit :md vcg:etable
tions, the OUlline of a sign-slrueture roeant 10 manifcsr the
priees. Thar is al!, :tnd rhat is enough. A more ancntivc reading
of the m},th will in no way increasc ils powcr or its inetfeetive intention which led tO ilS being used: il is what could bc cal/ed
ness: a myth is at the Sarnc rime imperfecrible and unquestionable; the exprmivmm uf la nguage. T he imper3ti ve or Ihe subjunctive
mode, for inst:lnee, are the (orm of.a panicular signific, diITcrenl
cime or knowledge will not m3ke il beller or worse.
,),
'3
0
,.
!\lYTH TODAV
MYT HOLOGIES

from the me:ming: the signifiet.l is herc my will or my rcqucst .

This is why sorne linguiSlS h:avc oefined the indicative, for

instance, as a zerO statc or degrec, compare ta the subjunctive or

the imperative. Now in a fully constit uted mytll, tne mcaning s
never at zero cgrce. and this is why the concept can istort ie,
naturalize it. We must remember once :again that the privation of
meaning is in 110 way a zero degree: this s why myth can pcr
fetly weH get hold of ir, give it [or instance the signification of
the absurd, of Sllfrcalisrn , ctc. At bottom, it would only be thc
zero d""'grce which could resi st myth.
Language lcnds itself ta myth in another lVay: it is very rare
that it imposes al the outsel a full meaning which it is impossible
ta distort. This cornes from the abstractness of i. rs concept: the
concept of tru is vague, it lends itsClf to multi ple conti ngencics.
Truc. a language :\I ways has at its disposai "Jo ",hale appropriatiug
organization (lhil" treC, the Hce whirh, etc.). But there :llways
remains, around the fi nal meaning, Il halo of virlualities whcre
other possible meanings are noating : the rncaning cao almOSt
ahvays be lmrp reted. One could say that a language offers to
myth an opcn-work mcaning. Myth can casil y insinuate itselr
into it, and sweU there: it is a robbery by colonization (for
instance: tlle rail in priees has st:lrted. But whot f:ll\? That due to
the season or th:\[ due to the govcrnment? the signification
bccomcs herc a parasite of the arlicle, in spite of the latter bcing
dellnite).
When the meaning is tOO full for myth to be able tO invade
it, myth goes around it, and carries it away bodily. This is
what happens 10 mathematicallanguagc. ln itself, it cannat be
istorted, il has taken ail possible precautions against illlerprt:fa
tivn: nu parasi tical sigofication can worm icself into it. And this
is why, precisely, mylh takes it alV:J.y en bloc; il takes a cert:J.in
m:lthematical formula (E = and makes of !lUs unalterable
moning the pure signifier of mathematicity. Wc can sec that
wh:lt is here robbcd by myth is sorncthing which rcssls, some
thing pure. Myth C31l rcach everylhing, corrupt evcrything, and
cven the ver}' act of refusing onesclf ta iL. Sa that the more the
langulge-object resist s al fi rst, the greater ilS final prostitotion;
whocvcr herc resis . . '"., eOffip ' 1 crc1y yle " 1 cls compleTe!y E .
On, Cln g;'c
language, which derives ils ve .il . I:mguage a finis /ml
of dcath M t ry cetlon (rom thls acce ptance
. d. Y on the contrary, 1$ :t language whi ch does not
w:mt to le: It wrests rrom lhe mcanin h . ..
,n ;ns;d;ous, dcg"dcd
. fiC13.1 repneve III whi ch il seules cornrotlably it turns lh
mro spcalung corpses. ,em
Here is.annther language which r<:sists myth as much as it ca .
our poenc language. Cont cmporar ' tr 10 ,n .
lcmio/Ilgica/ sy.telll. Whereas m tI .) poe Y ]S a. regresslve
Olt the amplification of a 1 rst y l :alms at an ult ra-signHiC:1.tion,
an em 1 .... 5.y5[em, petry, on the Conirary
of an a prc-semiolugical
. .e, .Ill sort, It trlCS to transform the sign baek int
me.1nmg: liS Ideal, ultimatcly, would he 10 rcach h . 0
of words b h. not t e mcamng
, ut t e meantng of things themselvcs 11 Thiss 1 "
ou s the langu . . l " l Y Il
h1 d age, lilcreases as much as it can the abstraelness of
1 e concept and the f h .
li mit the link b t .'.fi s a ( e sign and s!fetches to the
e ween slgnJ and signifi ed T he opc k
structure of th . h . n-wor
. e concept 15 cre maximally exploitcd onr k C 1
ln p.rosc, il i$ ail the potential of the si Tnifi d l h w lat
pO.ClIC tries to 3ct ua li ze, in the hope of al at the
th mg hke the transcendent quality of th th. . g sorne
11uman) 1-1 . . e mg, Its natural (not
.. ng. ence the cssenuahst ambitions of POCtry ,he
conVi ctIOn mat . t 1 l '
reciscl ' . 1 a one Cil te l es tllC tfzillg i/l irstlf, llasmuch
Ph)' as Il wants CO be 3.n anti-language. Ali told of Il h '
w 0 use s!"\N"J""h l ' a t osc
J'-- , pocts are t le least formali s! , (,0' ,hcy arct1le
J' CIa5.'uc . a1)">OCtry, on Ihc contrar would Oc .
mflhial lySJem since i( im y, 10 sucb a Stronsly
t t p/lfril]. The on one extra si!;nifi cd: wllicll is
.ml ,1. $ signifier of l ne", ,o'ho. n i"" hmh as mcani ng of . dis.eoul"$C
,W ICIISIlS ......." c' fi"" S
OOC:urs, cornes from the do:ttte r
3
'"":"""' S1llm when il
scen that "'.., dcal in no .....t.y ""{I h: h;P3rent fu.<lon of Ihe IWO il COIn be
y b
d(gDNI absotplion cfOne rorm iMO a=n et ",un <.:<,"\tI11 and form, but ",ith ail
U >e of the mans cm,.,." , . L __ r. By e/cgaMe 1 the mast coooomicai
. . t 15 """"use of an fi
m(ilnrng and (1),II(nl l'_1. g . a \lM: lhot cri lies
no.; n Ul gc IS an,th1I b
meanlni IS 1 rOtnl . 1 g Ut 1 system of farms, and tht
llWelre
'.<r,
,.
..n "" mg hcre
1
",ith t he . S
nalura! qual;ly of thi ..
,
.gs,
"
situatcd 1 ..Ire'. U5C cf trm,
1 a stml agIe;! syslcm (SIlinr..(;url, p. z8J).
'33
'3'

MVTHOl.OG I ES
only ones who believe thar the rnc.'\nng of the words is .3
form, .""ith which they, being realists, cannot he content. ThiS IS
why our mcxl ern poctry 31ways :lssertS itself \'1$.:1. murder of
langu\'Igc, a kind of spatial, tangible analogue of Si lence. Poe.try
oceupit;S a whi ch is the reverse of that of myth: myth I.S a
scmiological system which has the pr.ctcnsion .of tr.allsccndm
g
itself into a (aetuai system; pocrry !S a semlologtcal system
whieh has the pretension of conu"act ng into an cssential system.
But herc \'Igain, as in the case of mathematical language, the
very rcsistance olfercd by pnet ry makcs it an idcal prey for myth :
the apparent lad: of nrJer of signs, which i5 the poetie of an
cssential order, is capturcd by mylh, (\l\d cransformed lOto an
cmpt)' signifier, which will serve tO sig/lify poctry.. This expla.ios
the imprubllble character of modern p<lcuy : by fiercely rcfusmg
myth, p<letry surrenders to il bound hanc! and foot. Conversely,
th e rules in classical poctry constitutcd an :leccptec! myth, the
eonspicuous arbitr.l!"iness of whi ch amound tO perfc<:tion of a
kind, sin the equilibrium of a liemiolngiQl system cornes from
the :lrbiml rincss nf its signs,
A volunt:u y aeccpl"ancc of myth. on in faet define :-- bole of
our u adilional Litcrnwre.. According to our norms, tlus Llteraturc
is an undoub[Cd mythical system: there is il meaning, lhat orth.e
diFtCoursc; there is a signi fier, wheh is rhi s same discollrse as
form or wrili ng; there is a signified, wllieh is the concept of
literature; Lhere is a signifi cation, whi eh is the literary
l began tO disc\l!;S this prublem in Writh../g Dtgru Zao , whlch W3.S,
aU lold, nothing but a mytholngy of luerary language, T.here l
defined writ ing: as the signifi er of the litcrary myth, that 15, a
form which is alrcay fiHed with me:ming and which rCCClVes
from the concept of Liler:llure a ne\\' 1 suggestcd
' 34
..
MVTH TODA V
..
that history, in modifying Ihe wrirer's eonsciousncss, had pto
vokcd, a years or 50 ago, a moral erisis of litenty
was revcaled ali signifier, LiteralUre as signifi
"
catIOn;. re)cc?ng the nalu .. re of uaditiOJlal litenr}' languagc,
the wrlter vJOJcntly s]uftc hls position in the di re<:tion of an
of lan,gnage.. The subversion of wri ting was tlle
by whleb a nll mher of wri ters attempted (0
rCJccI Lltcr3.mre a.<; a mythi cal system. Every revoIt of this kind
has becn a murder of Literature as signific.'\tion: ail h:we postu
laled the redueti.on of li terary discourse (0 a simple semiologieal

or c:cn, ln the cascofpoetry, (O a prc-semiologieal system ..
Thl.. S 15 a..n .. Immense r:t sk, whieh requi red radical types of
h,avlOur: Ir IS ..weil knOll'tl that sorne went as fa r as the pure and
sImple scuttlmg of the c!i seourse, silenee-whether rea l or
as the only possible wcap<ln abainst the
major power of myth : its rccurrenee.
It thus.:lp.pears that il is cXl remel y c!ifficult tO vanqui sh myth
:rom the \OSide: fOf the very elTort one makcs in order to escape
lU stranglehold bceomcs in ile; !lien the prey of myth : myt h Cln
always, as las.. ! rcsort, signi fy the rcsistance whieh is brought
to bcar ab':1tnst u '. {Cil , the bCSl wca pon :Jb'":1 inst myth is
perhaps to U .. 10 Ils turn, and ro prOduec an /JrlifirillJ
mrh: an thls rceonstltutcd myth will in faet be ::t mythology ..
myth la nguage ,of something, why Ilot rob myt h? Ail
that,ls n,cedcd I.S to use Ll as the depa rtllre point for a lhird
semlOlogleal cham, trI take ilS signification as the fir st rerm of a
second myth, Literawrc offers sorne great examples of slleh
artifi cial mythologies .. TshaH only evoke here Fbuhcrt's BrJ/ll)arr!
rll1d Puchet. Ir is \Vhat couhl he Cliled an experimellLal m)'th,
:a scn.d-or.der myrh, Bouvard and hi s friend Pcuebet represent
a ..eertam klIId of bourgeoisie (which is ineiJcnL1 Uy in conniet
wu h bourgeois strara): their di.scourse olrl!aily constiCutes
a of speech; its language dot;S have a me:l niog, b\l(
thlS IS the empty form of :1 coneeptua l signifi cJ, whieh
here IS :1 kmd of tcchnologie;'! ] unsatedness. T he mec!in" of
. and (or ms, in this firs t mythica l systc;", a
SigmfiCltlon whlch IS Ihc Thetori e of BOIIV3Td :md Pcuebel. lt
' 35
MYTHOLOGIES
is Ol t Ihis point ( 1 am breaki ng t he proc<::SS into its components
for the S3ke of analysis) t hat Flaubert nl crvcncs: ta this fi rst
mythical system, which alrcady is :l
he superimposL'S a third chain, in wluch t he fi rst hnk the
signific.1tion, or final lerm, of Ihe fir sl mylh. The rhL1:0ne of
Douvard and r ieuchet bccomcs the form of t he IICW system; ehe
concept here is duc ta Plaubert hi msclf, to F.laubcrc's gaze on th.e
myth which Bouvard and P":'Cuchct. for It
consists of Iheir n:nivcly il1cffeceua l mclml tlOnS, thel r mablhty to
fcel satisfied, the panic succession of their :tpprenticeships, in
shore ""hat 1 would very much li ke ta c:all (but 1 sec storm
cJouds on lhe horizon) : bouva rd-and- pcoehet-ity. As for Ihe
final signification, it is the book, it is BQ/l1)ord ami Pimdut
il S. The pOwer of t he second myth is t hat it gives thc first its basls
as :t naivet)' whi ch is looked at. Flaubert has uncl ertaken a Tcal
archaeologieal restorati on of a given myt hical speech: he is
Vi oll et-l e-Duc of a certain bourgeois idoology. But less m11ve
Ihan he has strewn his reconstitution with
supplemenlary orn;unents which demystify it.
(whieh arc the form of the second myth) arc subJull ctl ve
tli ere is a semiologic::l l cquiv31ence bctwecn thc
rcstituli on of the discou rse of Bouvard and Ptuchet and theu

Flau,hert' s great merit (and that of all mythologies:
Ihere :Ire rem:lrkable ones in Sartre' s work), is thnr he gave to the
probh:m of re:l li sm a frankly semiological it is a
somcwhat inconlplete merit , for FlauOeTI S ldoology, smce the
bourgeois W::l S for him onl y an aesleti c cyesore, was not at ail
reali sti c. n ul al least'he avoidetl the major sin in liternry malters,
which is 10 confuse ideological wi th semiologieal rcality. k
idcolob'Y, literary realism docs not depend Olt ail on the
spoken by the wrirer . Language is a form, it .c:mnoc posslbly. be
either realistic or Ali it cm do is elther tO be mythlcal
or not, or perhaps , as in Of)U1)a rd and Plcuchn, counter-mythical.
Now, unfortunatc\y, there is no antipathy hetwecn realism and
u A lubjul\Cl ivc rorm il is in the subjund\'( mode .h" Latio
'indirrct style 01' lliKourse', which is:aD admir:!b1.: nS'rI\mtn. ror dcmystificollOS'l.
..
..
MYTIl TOOAY
..
myth. lt is weil kf10wn how o[ten our ' realistic' litenture s
mythiCl I (if onl y as a crude myth of rcalism) and how our
' Iiteraturc of the unrel l' has :1( le:ls[ the merit of being onJy
slightly 50. The wise thing woultl of course be 10 dcfine the

wrter' s rC31i sm as an cssenti31ly idcologic31 problem. This
eerrainly does nOI mc.1n Ihat ehcre is no rcsponsibili ty of form

towards rcalit y. But this rcsponsibiliry can be mcasured only in
semi ological rerms. A fo rm can he judgcd (sim:e forms arc on
trial) only 3S sb'11ification, not u expression. The w(i!cr's lan
guage is not expecced ta UpUSCl/ t realicy, but te signi fy il . This
impose on critics t he dury of using two rigorously
lhstmcl methods: one must deal with the writer'!'; rea li sm ei ther
3S idcoJogical SubS(:mce (Muxist lhemes in Brecbt's work for
. .
IIIstanee) or as a semiologieal value (the props, the actors, the

music, the colours in Drechtan dram:tlurgy). The Ideal of course
would he to combine these two types of criti cism; the mi stakc

which is constantl}' made is to confuse them: ideology has ilS
mcthods, and sa has semi ology.
The bourgeoisie as a joint-JI(Jcl: company
Myth lends jtsclrro hi srory in IWO ways: by its form, which is only
relativdy moti vatcd; by its concept, the nal'Ure of which is
historcaL One cail t hcrdorc imagine a diachronie study of
myths, whethcr one SubmilS them to a rctrospeclon (which
foundin g an hi stori cal myrhology) or whether one foll ows
sorne of yester<lay's myths clown 10 thci r present forms (which
mcans founding prospecti ve history). If 1 k(:ep hue 10 ::1 syn
chronc sketch of concernpot:lry myths, it is for an objcti vc
rC3son : our society is the pri vileged field of mythi ca l signi fica
ti ons. We musc now say \\I hy.
Whatevcr the accidents, the compromises, the concessions and
the pol itical adventures, whatever the technical, economic, or
even social eh:lIIges whieh hi story brings us, our socict y is still :\
bourgeois society. 1 am nOf forgcu ng chat since 1789, in F rance,
sevent t ypes of bourgeoisie h,we sueceeded one ano(hcr in
power ; bu! the same st3tus - a cerrain regime of ownership, a
' 37
"

MYTHOLOGIES

cerrain order '3 ccrtain idcology - remains at 3. Icvcl. Now

a phenomenon QCCurs n the m:lucr of naming This

regimc : as :ln economic facI, the bourgeoisie is J}Ollll'l! ,withoui

any difficulty: capiratism is openly profcsscd. U As a faet,

the bourgeoisie has sorne difficulty ill

Iherc arc no 'bourgeois' parties in the Cham ber. As an

fact, il complctc1y disappc:us : the bourgeoisie has oblitcrated

name in passing from rcality co rcpresentation, from t(.onomlC

m:tn (0 mental man. It cornes [0 an :l grccment with the faets, but
docs not compromise about values, il mnkes ilS st:ltllS undcrgo a

re:ll ex-1JM'natin! operation: the is defin,c:' tlu
social clfm whie}r dotS nO! !PQIl{ to be IItI/IIrd. Bourgc{IIS, petlt
bourgcois', 'C:lpitalism',u ' prolet:l.riat"4 arc the locus .of :l.n
unccasing haemorrhagc: mcaning flows out of them untll thelr
vcry narne bccomcs unneeCSSl1ry .
This ex-nomn:Hing phcnomcnon is important; let us examme
it a !iule more doscly. Politic:llly, the haemorrhage of the name
'bourgoois' is effccted through the ide:! of I/atifJ//. This ,:a5 once a
progressive idea, which has scrved 10 get rid of the
lOd:ly, lhc bourgeoisie mcrges inlO the nation, 1f,It ln
arder ta do sa, tO cxc\ude from it thc clements whl ch It dea.des
are allogenou5 (the Communists). This syncretls.m
all ows the bourgeoisie to attract the numcm:al support of lts
tcmporary alli es, ail the intermcdialc, tltere.fore 'shapcless'
classcs. A Jong..ontinued use of thc word 11ll 11!)1l lu s [;11100 10
dcpoliticizc it in depth; the political is there, ver:
near thc surface and sorne circt\ms(:tnces maKe It sudden\y mam
fest. There u: in the Chambcr sorne 'national' parties, and
nominal syncrerism here males conspicuous what it had.
ambition of hiding : an esscntial disparity. Thus thc P?IItIClI
vocabulary of thc bourgeoisie atrc:ldy postulates that thc umverSllI
1& 'The fatc of ..piI1Iism li 10 ma1r.c the wC1lthy,' .
U The word 'c,pitalism' li uOOo , nOC <:conomleally, hut "lcologlC;llly; \1 ClnnOC
po$Sibl)" enler Iht VOClIbulary p( a.nly in f.g)p t
oukl pri5Ot"ltr be condcmncd by a tribun.l ror 'anli-apI11hM plol1mg ln 50 nuny
\\-orJs.. , ., h h . _, b."
U The hourtCQisie l'\evef IUCS the .....ord Prokllrtll. w le wP . :'
Ld"t-wiPS myt b, ucpt ...hen il is in ilS in lCrnt 10 illugillC thc l'role,," . t bcing kd
by c...T\,nIIP;" Put}'.
MYTH TODAY
for it, polirics is alrcady a rcprcscnt:l.tinn, a fragment of
ldcology.
.in spitc of Ihe univcn;ali scic effor.t of il'! vocabulary,
the cycotually strikes aga inst a rcsisting oore which is,
by dertnltlon, the revolut ionary pafty. Buc this party can consti
cute only a polilical ri chncss: in a bourgeois culture there is
ncither .prolet:lri.an culture nor prolcta rian moralilY, there is no
prolcramn art; lcologicall y, ail that is nut bourgeois is obliged
co borrO/ll from the bourgeoisie. Bourgeois ideology can therefore
ovcr cvcryth ing and in so doing lose its name wi thnut
nsk: no l'lere throw this namc of bourgeois b;ick at ic.
Ir can .wlthoUl resLStanee subsume bourgeois theatre, lrt and
hllman1ty under thcir ctcnul analogues; in a ward, ie r.:an f;X
nominate itsclf without rcslt:l int when there is on!y one si ngle
human nature Jc ft: the defC<:tion from thc namc ' bourgeois' is
here complete.
True, there are revoles ag::linsc bourgeois idcolngy. This is
whae one gcncraUy caUs the aV:lnt-g:arde. But these revolts are
socially limited, they open (Q salvage. First, bccause Ihey
c.o.me ,from a 5mall section of the bourgeoisie itsclf, From a
mmonty group of :utists intellecluals, wi thout public ot her
th:1n the class which they contest, and who rcmain dependent on
ilS money in order 10 express themselves. Then, these revolts
always get theie inspir:1tion from a very strongly made distinction
betwcen the cthicall y and the poli ticall y bourgeois: what the
avant-garde is bourgeois in arC or morals - the shop
kecper, the PhlhstlOc, as ln the hcyJay of Romanticism but as for
political contestation, there is none. Ir \Vhat the
does not about the bourgeoisie is ils langu3j;C, not its
status. ThiS does not neccssarily mean that it approves of this
slatus; simply, ie leaves it aside. Whatever the violence of lhe
11 11. i , lhal Ihe adVCrgrie5 of the bourgeoi.ie on mattcrs of tthies or
rOf Ihe ntOSl part indifferenr, or nell altached, to its poIilia.l
deleMlH.n2t'Dfl.s, Converse!y, il, po!itic:al ",d\"tr.urics to issue. buic con
demnallon orns rcpresenr.ni ons; go r:o fu as toshue tht-m. This divets ty
o( benefi(s the hoUTiCOUtlC, Il 2UOWS Il !O Cln>Oufbge ts n..m e. For (he
boU'1;eom1C. , h""td bc UlldU$l.ood only 2$ Synlhess of lS dClcnnin..tioru .. nd IS
npresen(l uollS.
'39
MYTHOLOG IES
provocation, the nature it finally cndorses is dut of'deretict' man,
nOI alicnated m:m; :md dcreliCI man is sti ll Elernal Man.
1B
This anonymity of the bourgeoisie bC1:Omes even more
marked when one paS5CS from bourgeois cuhurc proper 10 ilS
derived, vulgarized and appl ied form s, 10 what one could cali
pubLc philosophy, ,hat which sust:lns everyday life, civil
ceremonials, secular rites, in short the unwriuen norms of
i nterrc1ationships in a bourgeois society. le is an illusion to reduce
the dominant culture to its inventive core: Ihere aiso is a bourgeois
culture which consists of consumption alone. The whole of
France is steeped in chis anon)'mollS ideology: our press, our
films, our thcatre, our pulp lirernturc, our rinlals, our Justi ce,
our diplom:lCY, our collvers.ui ons, our rcmarks about the
we.1ther, :l murder [rial, a louching wcdding, the cooking we
dream of, the ga rments wc wear, cverything, in cveryday life, is
dependent on the rcrresentation which the bourgeoisie hal alld
malus us have of the rel3tions between man and the world. Thcse
' normali zed' forms am act liule attention, by the ver)' faet oftheir
extension, in which their arigin is casil )' last. They cnjay an
intcrmedia te posi tion : being nejlher dircccJy polirical nor
directly ideologieal, they live peaceful!y belween the :l.etion of the
and the qUJrrcls of the imcllectuals; more or Jess
aba ndoned by lhe former the lalter, lhey gravitate towards the
cnormou!> mass of the undifferentiated, of the insignific:mt, in
short, of nature. Yct it is through its erhic that the bourgeoisie
perv:\des Fr.lnce: practised on a national sel le, bourgeois norms
ne exper ienced as the evideO! la\\'5 of a natural ordcr - the
funher the bourgeois dass propagate!> its represent:ltions, the
mo re naluralized Illey becomc. The faet of the bourgeoisie be
cornes absorbed into an amorphous universe, whose sole inhabi
tant is [tcrnal Man, who is Ilcit her prolcurian nor bourgeois.
It is rhercfore by penctrating the intcrmccl iate classes chat the
bourgeois ideology can mas! surely lose iLS name. Peti t-bourgeois
norms are the resi clue of bourgeois culture, they are bourgeois
truths which have become dcgraded, impoverished, com
u 11Ie. c a n be dcrcliM ml n which bd order rorcnmplt).
This does nQI Iffect iD IIIJ' W1.y Ihe stCUli. y of , he Eacn(1'$.
MYTH TODAY
mercialilc, slightly archaie, or shall wc say, out of date? The
politicalllliance of the bourgeoisie and the petite-bourgeoisie has
for more than a ccntury dcrermincd the hi story of France; il has
Tarcly and C:leh time only temporarily (1848, t 871,
193
6
). ThIS all Iance gol doser as time passcd, il gradually bttame
symbiosis; transiem awakenings might happen, but the common
Ideology was never qucst iollecl again. The S:lme 'natu ml' v:lrnish
covers up aU ' natonal' represencations: lhe bi g weJJi ng: of the
bourgcoisi.e, which uriginales in a class rilual (the display and
consumptlon of wealth), can beu no relation ro the cconomic
sratus of rhe lower middle-c/ass: but through the press the news
and li terature, ie slo,:ly hecomcs the very norm as' dre:lmC{}:
though hved, of che petit-bourgeois couple. The
IS con.'itantly absorbing into ils idee/ogy a whole
section of hum:lOity which docs not have ilS basic status and
Li ve up to jt exccpt in im:l gi nat ion, Ihal is, :lt the COSt of an
and an impoverishment of consciousncss." By
ilS representations Over a whole Cl talogue of collective
for petit-bourgeois use, the bourgeoisie countenanccs the
Illusory lack of differcntiation of the social classes : it is as from
the moment whell a typist C3rni ng l\Venty pounds a month
r eroglliuJ Ilcmlf in the big wedding of the bourgeoisie that
bourgeois ex-nomination achievcs ilS full ctrect.
The Jlight from the name ' bourgeois' is not therefore an
illusory, second:lry, n:ltur:11 or insignificant pheno
Il IS the idcology ilsclf, the pmccs.<; through
the bourgeOISie Ir:msforms the rcaliey of [he world illto :ln
Image of the world, History into Nature. And Ihis image has a
remarkable fcalure : it is upside down.
20
The Stalus of Ihe
?<>urg.eoisie is particular, hisloriClI: man as rcprcsented by it
umversal, eternaJ. The bourgeois dass has prcciscly bui lt
li S powe r on tcchnicnl, scientific progrcs.<;, on an unlimited
U To .indu coll1 i"<: (or the i. I l ...'a)'ll an inhuman
undtnalmg, 001 d re:lmi ng li(e ;lIlu de"ny, bUI .Iso
drams uc Ind the ali ui of
If men thelr co",!tuon, " pl' .. r ideology invcrtcd u in a
camcn obscur.!, t hi. phm<Jm(:1IOfl (olh .....s (rom their hi.tarie.l yjul pro.xss '
(t.-brx, Tht Wf1U1I IINI.>ty). . ..
'.'
MYTHOl.OGIES
tr:tnsformiu ion of mUure : bourgeois ideology yiclds in return an
unclungeable nature. The lirst bou.rgcois philosophcrs pervadetl
the world wi t b sign ifications, subjected ail things to an idca of the
rational, and decreed that they were meant for man : bourgeois
ideology is of the scicntistic or the intuitive kind. ir retOrds fa etS
or perceives V3lues, but refuses explanations; the order of the
world can he Sttn as sufficient or .neffable, il s neve r secn as
signific:mt. Fi nally, the basic idea ofa pcrfl'Ctible mobile world,
produces the invertcd image of ::m unchanging humanity, charac
reraed by an indcfi nite repctition of ies ident;ry. In a ward, in the
contemporary bourgeois society, the passage from the re:l l ta t he
ideological is dcfined as that from an onri-phys to a pUlldo
ph)'Sis.
Ai]'" ;s depo/iticized speech
And this is where we come back ta myth. Semiology !tas taught
us that myrh has the t ilsk of gi .... ing an hisrorieal intention a
natunl justification, and making conti ngency appcar etcrna!.
Now this proccss is exactl y th:lt of bourgeois ideology. If our
society is objectively the privi legcd field of mythi cal significations,
it is bcca.usc form::l ll y myth is the most :lppropri:ltc instrument
for Ihe idcologicli inversion which defincs this society: at ail the
levels of hum:m communication, myth oper:ltcs the inversion of
ollfj-plrysiJ inw pseu(!()-phJ's..
What t he world suppli es to myth is :ln hi...torical rC:l li ty,
dcfined, e ....cn if this goes back 4uite a while, by the wa)' in which
men h;tvC proJ.uccd or uscd it ; and \Vhat myth givcs in retum is a
HOf/lTIlI image of titis rcality. And JUS[ as bourgeois ideology is
defined by the abandonment of the name ' bourgeois' , my[h is
constitulcd by thc Joss of the hi srorical quality of things: in il ,
Ih ngs lose thc memury that they once were made. The world
eR[crs bngu;tge :lS 3 diale<:ti cal relat ion bct wecn activitics,
betwee:n hum<\ll :l ctions ; it comes out of myth Ils a harmonious
Jisplay of essences. A oonjuring: trick has t:lken place; il I1:1S
turncd reality inside out , it has empticd it of hiscory and has
olled it wit h nature, it has rcmoved from things [heir human
MYTH
mC:lII ing 50 aS to make [hem a hum::lll insignifie:mcc. Tht
funroon of myth is 10 empty re:lIity : it is, literall y, a ceasclcs:;
flowing a hacmorrhagc, or pcrhaps an evapor.ltion, in short
a perceptible absence.
It is now possible tO complete. the semiological definition of
myth in a bourgeois society: mylh (polilic: JfMt:h. One
must naturally understand politi((J1 in i18 decpcr rneaning as
dl.."scribing the whole of human relations in {/icir rC:lI,
structure, in thcir power of rnaking the l-l'orld; one must abovc aIl
gi\'e an active value (0 the prefix dt- : lIere ir reprcscllts an
operational movemem, it pcrmanently embodcs a def3ulting.
In the c:ISe of the soldier-Negro, for instance, what is got rid ofi s
cestainly not French impcrialit y (on the conlrary, sinec what
be aetuali "-Cd is ifS presence); il is the contingent, historical,
ln one word: filbri({/Icd, quali t)' of eoloni alism. Mylh does flot
deny things, on the eontrary, cs functi on is to tal.k about them
sim ply, it purifies them, it makes [hem innocent, il gives
:l natural and cternal justification, it givcs them a cJaril)' whch
is not thn of an cxplanat ion but that of a statement of faet. Jf 1
Sfult tilt fact of Frcnch impcriality withoui cxplaining ie, 1 am
very Dcar co onding thal it is natural and gOtS mit/Will sIlJ'ing: l
am rcassured. In passing from hi story to nature, myth aets
onornieall y: it :abotishes the complexity of human 2CIS, il
givcs [hem the simpJicity of essences, ir dacs away :!ll
Jialectics, with any gOlIg back beyond what is immcdi:llely
visible, it organizcs a world which ;s without contradi ctions
bccausc it is wthout depth, a world widc open and wallowing in
the evident, it c!>1:ablishcs a bIissful dui t)': things appear to rncan
something by t hcmse!vcs.
However, is myth always depolilicizcd speech ? In other \Vords,
is reali ty al ways political? Is if enough to spca k about a thing
naturally for ie to becomc mYlhica l ? One could answer with Marx
that the most natural object contains a politica! tracc, howe ....er
faint and diluted, the more or !css mcmorable prescnce of the
hum:m act which has produced, fiued up, used, subjected or
u To lbe.plr.:.<urc-p:indpk of ml" OOOJ ld lx lildcd the cbrlty-principle
of mJth.o1ogocal h.uIJI4Olty. AH Ih. cf mylh i. Ihere : ilf cuphoric.
MYTHOLO G1ES
rejectcd it
22
The language-abject , which 'speaks rhing!" can
CJsi ly exhi bit this trace; the metalanguagc, which sptah (lfthings,
much less easily. Now myth :l lways cornes under the heading of
metalanguage: the dcpoli ticization which il cu ries out often
supcrvencs against a background which is already naturalized,
depoli tieizcd by a general metalanguagc which is lrained to
Cf!lr:brate rhings, and no longer to '/Jet them'. It goes without
saying that the force needcd by myth to distort ils object is
much less in the case of a trce thall in the case of::a Sudanese : in
the latter case, the is very the surfacc, a large
quantity of arrificial nature is needed in order ta disperse il; in
the forme r it is remote, purified by a whole ccn tury-old
of Thcre arc, thercfore, strong myths and
wcak myths; in the former, the politicn! quantum is immediate,
the depoliticization is :!.brupt; in the !:luer, the polilical qualily
of the objcet has !rud like a eolour, but the slightest thing can
bring its strength brutally: what is more natural th:m the
and what more 'poli tial' than the sea by the
makers of the fil m The L05t COII/illtl/r?u
In mettl:mguage constitutcs a "i nd of preserve for myth.
Men do not have with myth a rclationship on truth but on
use: they depoliticize according ta their necds. Sorne mythical
objects arc lefe dormant for a time; they are then no more
vague mythic-J.I whose political Joad sccrns
neutral. But this indicates only that tlleir situation has brought
this 1oout, not that cheir structure is dilfcrcnt. Th is is the case
with our Latin-grammar examplc. We must note that hete
mythical speech warks on a material which has long been ttans
formed: lhe sentence by Aesop belongs to ]iler:lIUTe, it is nt the
vcry start mythified (therefore made innocent) by its being
fiction . But it is enough tO replace the initial terro of che chain
for an instant into ilS nature as langu:!.gc-object, ta gauge the
emptying of rcality operned by myth: cao one imagine the
feeli ngs of a real society of animais on findi ng itself transformcd
into a grammar examp1c, intO :t predicative In arder 10
n d . M.n. ud the cnmille of Ibc eberry-trcc, Tlrt Gtrmall U ro!ol1.
Ud. p.9-I.
'44
MYTH TODA Y
gauge the poli ticalload of3n object and the mythical holl ow whieh
espous1!S ic, one must never look Olt things from the point ofview
of the signifi cation, but from of the significr, of the thing
which has been robbcd; and withi n the signifier, from the point
of view of the bnguagc-object, S, of the meaning. Thefc s
no doubt if we consul ted :!. h'(lI li on. , he would maintai n that
the grammar cxample is SIrQlIgly depol iticized state, he would
qualify as fu lly pQlical the juri sprudence whch leads him ta
d aim a prey beallse he is the strongcst, wc dC:l 1 \Vith a
bourgeois lion who would not fail ta mythify hi s mength by
givi ng it the {orm of il dury.
One can cJcarly scc that in chis the politie:LI
of the myth cornes from its situation. My th, as we know, is a
value: it is enough to modify its circumstances, the gencral
prccarious) system in which it oceurs, in arder ta rcgulate its
scope with grcat accuraey. The field of the myth is in this case
redllccd 10 the second Corm of:!. French lyce. But 1 suppose that 1
child mthroflcd by the story of the lion, the heifer ::and the cow,
and recovering through the li fe of the the actual
reali ty of thesc animais, would apprcciatc with much less
unconccrn th:m wc do the of Ihis lion changcd int o
a prediC:l.te. In fact, wc hold this myth ra he palide::! !!y insignifi
cant onl y becluse it is not meant for us.
Mylll on Le!f
If myth is depoliticized speech, theTe is 1t 1c,1st one type of
speech which is the opposite of myth: that which rell/aim
politic:!.!. I-Iere we must go back ta the distinct ion between
languagc-object and If 1 am a woocutter and T
led to namc the trcc whi ch l am felling, the form of
my sentence, l 'speak the trce', 1 do not speak about it. T hi s
means my language is transitivel y li nkcd ta its
abject; between the tree and mysclf, chere is nothi ng but my
labour, that is ta say, an action. This s a politica l language: it
represents nature for me only inasmuch 1 am going to trans
form it, ir s a thanJ:s 10 which l 'aCl t/u object'; the n ee
'45
MYTHOLOG IES
is not an image for me, it is simpl y the me:ming of my tlction.
Dut if 1 am not a woodcuuer, l can no longer 'spc:1k the rree' , 1
call oruy speak about il, 011 ie My language is no lonb"er the
instrument of an ' acted-upon Iree', it is Ihe ' ttcc-cclebrated'
whieh bccomes the inst rument of my langu:tge. 1 no longer have
anything more than an intrallsilive rclationship with the Ircc;
this trI..'e is no longer the meaning of re3lity :lS a human tlCtiOll , it
is :m i mage-af-()/Ie' .- dispoJIlI. Cumpared to the re:l llanguti ge of
the woodcuuer, the languab"e 1 creale is a sccond-orcler Itlll guagc,
a metalangutlge in which 1 shalJ henccfonh not ' aci the thing;s'
but 'aet thcir lurnes', :md whi ch is ta the primary language what
lhe gesture is 10 the act. This second-order language is nOI
entirely mYlhieal, but il is the very locus where myth seules; for
mytn c m work unly on objects whi ch have already recci voo the
mediation of a fi rst language.
T here is Iherefore one language which is not mythi cal, it is lhe
language of man as 3. procluccr: whcrever man speaks in order ta
transform realily and no longer to preserve il as an image,
wherever he links hi s I:mguage to the making of things, meta
b nguage is referrcd to a I:l.Ilguagc-objcct, and myth s impossible.
11tis s wh)' revolutionary language propcr cannot be mYlhical.
Reyolut ion is dell ned as a cat hartc aet mC\'l fl( to rcveal the
politiealload of ,he world : it 1II(11:(S the world i and its language,
ail of it, is funcl ionall y absorbcd in this m:\ king. lt is because it
gcnerares speech which is [/Illy, that i5 to say initia lly and fi naUy,
political, and nut, like myrh, speech which is initially politicaJ :md
finally nat unl, that Revolution e"c1udes myth. Just
ex-nomination char3.cterizes at once bourgeois ideology and
m}' [h itself, revolutionary dcnomination identifies reyolution
and the absence of mYlh. The bourgeoisie bides the fact that it is
the bourgeoisie and thercby produces myth; revolution annoullces
itsclf openly as revolution and thereby abolshos myth.
l have becn asked whether thcre are myths ' on lne Left'. Of
course, nasmuch, preciscly, as the Left is not rcvolution. Left
wing myth supervenes precisely at the moment when revoluti on
changes itself into 'lhe Lef!' , lhat IS, when il accepts ta wcar a
mask, to hide ilSna me, ra generatc an innocent meral:mguage and
MYTIi TODAY
to distort irsclf intn ' N:ll ure' . This revolulionary ex-nomination
may or may not be l:!'cti Cl I, this 1S no place to discuss il. At any
rate, il is sooncr lJf later expcriellced as a proccss contra')' 10
rcvolution, and il is :tlways more or Icss in relation ta mylh Ihat
revolulionary hislO')' defincs its ' deviations' . Therc came a day,
for instance, when it was .<;oci alism itself which dehned the
Stalio myth. Stalin, as a spoken object, has cxhibitcd for years, in
their pure Slate, the constituent eharacters of mythical speech: a
meaning, which W:lS the real Stalin, that of hislorYi a signifier,
whieh was the rirual invocuion 10 Sulin, and the troabl(
charac[cr of the ' natural' epithets wi th which his name was
surroundcd; a signi fi e<:! , wnich was the intenti on tO respect
orthodoxy, disci pline and unt y, uppropral by the Communist
tu a definite situation; and a signification, which was a
sanctified Stahn, whose hiSlorica l determi nants fount! them
selves groundcd in n:Hure, sublimaled un der the name of Genius,
that is, somclhing irrational ancl inexpressible : herc, depoLiticiza
tion is cvident, it [ull y reveals the presence of a myth. H
Yes, mylh cxists on the Left, but il does nOI at ail have (here
the same qualities 3S bourgcois myth. uft-willg lII)'dl ;$ i nme1ll ;ul .
To Slart wi th, the nbjects whieh il takes hold of are rare - only a
feIV politicaLnotions - unless it h:l. s itself recourse ro the whole
reptrtoire of the bourgeois myths. Lef(-wing myth never
rcachcs the immense field of hum:lO relationships, the very vast
surface of 'insignifieanr' idcology. Everyday life is inaccessible 10
il : in a bourgeois society, lhere 3re no 'Left-wing' myths con
eerning marriage, cooking, the home, the theatre, the law,
morality, etc. Then, it is an ineidental myth, its use is not pan
of:l. strategy, as is the CIlSC with bourgeois myth, but onl)' of a
taetics, or, at the worst, of a deviation; if it QCCurs, il is :lS a myth
suited to a convenicnce, nOl 10 a necessi ty.
Fin:lUy. and above ail , lhis myt h is, in essence, poverty
striden. h does not know how to proliferate; bcing produced on
order and for a temporally limitcd prospect, it is invcntcd with
U II is th_t Krushehe"ism presenlal 1101 U poIIC21d,ange,
but and onl)' u 1 li"l/l j,tit t O"t "frs'O/l. Ali inc;ornpkl e cnrwcrsion. inti.
for Krushchc:v "cvaJuw SI:.lin, but did 001 upbin him_did 001 re
J"l Liliciu him.
'47
MYTHOLOGIES
diffieullY, ll iaeks a major faculty, chat of fabulizing. Whatever it
does, thcrc remains aoout ie somcthing still and literai, a sugges
tion of sornet hi ng donc t O on1cr. As it s exprcssivc\y put, ie
rem:lins oorren. In faet, wh:u cao be more meagre chan the
Stali n m)' th ? No invent ivencss here, and only a dumsy :. ppro
priation: the signifie r of the myth (chis form whose Infinite wealth
in bourgoois myth we have just secn) is not vari ed in che lcast: it
is redueed (Q a liuny.
This imperfection, if that is the word for ie, cornes from the
nalure of the ' LeCt': whatever the imprccision of the rerm, Ihe
Left :l lw:l)' s detines itself in relation ta the oppressed, whethcr
prolctarian or colonizccl.
2s
Now the spctth of the oppressed can
only be poor, monotonous, Immediate: his destitution is the very
Y:lrdsti ck ofhis language : he has only one, always the same, that
of his actiolls; metalanguage is a luxur)', he cannot yet have
[Q it. The speech of the oppressed is real, likc that of the
woodelltter; ie is a transitive type of speech: il is quasi-unabl e
to lie; Iying is 0. richness, :l li e presupposes propen y, truths and
fo rms tu sparc. This essent al barrenness prouccs rare, thread
ba re myths: either transienl, or c1umsily indisereet; by thel[ very
bcng, [hey label thcmsclves as myths, and point ta their masks.
And thi s mask is hardly that of a pseudo-physis: for that type of
physis is also:l richncss of a sorl, thcopprcsscd can ooly borrow il :
he tS unable to throw out the real mcani ng of things, to give (hem
the luxury of an cm pt y form, open co the innocence of :l fa lse
Nature. One can say that in a sense, Left- wing myth is always:1O
anificial m)' th, a reconstituted myth : hence ilS dumsiness.
My/II 011 the Rigll l
mylh is on the right . Thcre, it is essential ; well-fed,
sleek, expansive, garrulous, ie nvcnts itsclf ceaselcssly. It takes
hold of cvcrYlhing, ail aspects of the law, of morali ty, of aeslhceies,
of diplom:lcy, of hotl sehold equipment, of of en tcr
tatnment. !ts expansion has the very dimensions of bourgeois
To(by it is the coloniud peoples who assuo.,., to the full the ethieal anJ politicat
condition dcscribd by Mux as bcing of the
MYTH TODAY
ex-nomination. The bourgcolsic w:lnts to keep rcality without
kceping the appcarances: il is Iheeefore tlte very negativity of
bourgeois appca ran., infi ni{C Ii ke every negali vty, which
solicits mylh infi nitcl y. T he oppresscd is nothing, he has nnly
one language, t..hat of hi s cmJncip:l tion; the oppressar is every
ching, hi s language is rich, mult iform,supplc, with ail the possi ble
dcgrees of dignity at its disposa i : he has an cxdusive ri ght co
mcta-Ianguage. The opprcssed /mt(s the Ivnrld, he h:ts onl y 30
activc, transi ti ve (poli tica l) language ; the oppressor conserves ie,
his language is plenary, intran sitive, gestunl, thcatric:l.l: it s
Myth. The language of the former ai ms Iransforming, of the
latter Ol t eternalizi ng.
Does this cornpleteness of the myrhs of Order (this is the
name the bourgeoisie gives to ilself) inc1ude inner di ffcrences?
Arc there, for instance, bourgeois mylhs and pelit- bourgeois
myths? Therc cannat be any fundamental dillerenccs, for what
ever the public which consumes it, myt h alw:lys postulated the
immobility of N:lture. But thcrc can be dcgrees of ful fi lmcnt or
expansion: sorne myths ri pcn bette! in sarne social steata: for
myth also, there micro-c1irnatcs.
The myth of Childhood-as-Poct, (or instance, is an adval/ccd
bourgeois myth : it has hardJy come OUt of inventive culture
(Cocteau, for cxample) and is juSt reaching consumer culture
(L' Exprm). Part of the bourgeoisie C:'In still find jl 100 obvously
invenled, not mythica l enough ta (cel cmidcd to counlcnancc il
(a whole pan. of bourgeois critici.sm works only wilh duly
mychi ca l matcrials). It is a Ol )'th which is not yet wel l rUIl in, it
does not yct <:ontai n cnough ,/(flurt : in order ln make the Child
Poet pa rt of a cosmogony, one must renounce Ihe pnx.ligy
(Mozart, Rimbaud, etc.), ami accept new norms, {hose of psycho
pcdagogy, Freudimism, etc.: as a myth, it is SliJl unripe.
Thus cI/cry myth can h:lVC its history an its gcography; each
is in fact the sign of the other: a myth ripens because il spreads.
1 have not been able to carry out any ecal srudy of the social
geography of myths. But it is perfecrly possible tn dmw what
linguists would cali the isoglosses (of a myth, the lines whch
limit the social regon wherc it is spoken. As this region is
' 49
MYTHOLOGIES
shifting, it would be better to speak (lf the waves of implantation
of the myth. The Minou Drouet myt h has thus had at [east three
waves of :l. rn plific.1 tion : {il L' EA'prtSS ; (2) Par-Mau!J. Elle;
(3) Frmtct-Soir. Sorne mylhs hesitate: will they pass inw tabloids,
the home of the suburb:tnite of pri vate means, the hairdrcsser's
salon, the tube? The social geography of myths wi ll rcmain
diffieult to trace as long as we lack al\ analytieal socio\ogy of the
press. III Out wc ean say Ihat its place aln:.' lly exsls.
Sinee we cannol yee dr.,w up Ihe li st of tne dial ectal [orms of
bourgeois myth, wc can always sketch ilS rhetorical forms. One
must understand here by rhc/oric a set of fi xed, regulated,
insistent figures, according to which the varied forms of the
mythieal signifier arrange thcmscl ves. Thcsc fIgures arc trans
parent inasmuch as they do nO[ affect the plasricil Y of the signifi er;
but they arc already sufficientl y conccptualized to adapt ta an
historieal rcprcsentation of the world (just as classical rhetotie
cm account for a representation of the Aristote\ian type). It is
through (hei! rheloric th:l. t bourgeois myl hs outli ne Ihe general
prospect of this pse ff d()-phyr which defines the dream of the
contcmporary bourgeois worM. Hcre arc its pri ncipal figu res:
r. The inoCl/Jaml . 1 have already givcn examples of this very
general figure. which consists in admiuing the accidenta i evil of a
dass-bollnd institution the octter to conccal its princi pal evil.
One immunizes the contents of the collective imagination by
mcans of a sma\l inoculation of acknowledged evj!; one thus
protCCtS ie aganst the rsk of a gcncrali:f.ed suhversion. Thi s
/ibm" trea(ment would not have becn possible only a hundred
yeaTS Then, the bourgeois GOO(I did not compromise with
anything, it was qui te still. It has become mueh more suppl e
sinee: the bourgeoisie no longer hesitatcs to aeknowJcdge sorne
le ci,(:Ubl;on of is .!alum. O, he' inrOO",,"ion
cornes on1r br :accident. "",_M a/rh lIn . 5 puhtlcil)' -thc
compOSilioo\ of public in ICfH'l$ of &unJml of (1... F;!aro, July l uh, 1%;):
oot of cl eh 100 ccaJcr5 living in to",n, 53 Clr, 49 bathrcom, ele., wheccas
the of livini!' in France rcckoned as :U per cent ;
balhroom, 13 per cent. the purchasin!: of the Pa ri, Mard rc. dcr ;$
high coulJ h. ve bccn prcdicted from the IDylhology of this publication.
MYTH TODAY
localized subversions: the avant-garde, the irrational in child
hood. etc. It now lives in a balaneed eeonomy: as in any sound
joint-stock comp:m y. the sOlaller shares - in law but Ilot in facr
compensatc the big ones.
z. TIIe privatioll ofHis/ory. My th deprives the abj ect of which ie
spcaks of ail HistoryY In it, history cvaporates. It s a kind of
ideal servant: ir prepares ail things, brngs rhem. lays them out.
the master arrives, it silcntly dis.1ppears: ail t!l ar s Icft for one to
o is to enjoy this beautiful objeet without wondering wherc it
cornes from. Or even better : it ean only come from cternity:
sinee the beginning of Ume, it has bcen made for bourgeois man,
the Spai n of the Blye Cuide has becn made for the tourist, and
have prcparcd their dances wth :l view to an cxoric
fcstivity. We ean see ail the disturbing thi ngs whieh this fe!iciwus
figure rernovcs from sight : bath deterrni ni sm and freedam. No
thing is produccd, nothing is ehsen: ail one has to do is to
posscss these new abjects from whieh ail soilin g: trace of origi n
or choi ec has been removcd. This miraculous cv:tporat ion of
history is anolher forrn of a concept eornmon to most bourgeois
myths: the irresponsibility of man.
3. ldentijn/J11 . The petit-bourgeois is a ma n unable to imagine
the Other.
u
lfhe cornes face ro face with llirn, he blinds himsclf,
ignores and denies him, or cise transforms him into himself. In
the petit-bourgeois universe, ail thc expericnces of confrontation
are reyerbcraling, any orherness s reduccd to s:l meness. The
spectacle or the tribunal, whieh arc bath where the Other
[hrcatens to appcar in full viclY, beeome mirroTS. This is because
the Other is a scanda1 whi ch threatens his essence. Dominici
eannot have access to social existence unless he is previously
n Man:' ". ""e musr P"Y to Illas history, silice iJ rolocy boi/s do""n 10
other :m ern)neous roucq>lioll of .his lUs_y, or III " rllmplele dllrafliolf fro".
i,' (The C"",u I lolfOty) .
Il Mar:<: ' ... whn them rcprescntuivc of th<: class, s tho c
thcir minJs, (h(ir do 001 cxt enJ Ibe limils whi ch this dass
hos sella ilS aclvities' (n. Bruma;,,) . And Gorli: 'the pctil.bourgeois
is rh. man who prefured himseJf to else.'
MYTHOL.OG I ES
rcduccd to the SUie of:l sm:lll si mubcrum of the President of the
Assizcs or the Public Prosccutor: rhi s is the price one must p:ly
i n order to condemn him jusdy, since Justice is :l weighing
operation ;'I nd sincc scalcs c,1 n only weigh li!.:e 3g3insl like. Thele
3re, in any peli t-bourgeois consciousncss. small simulaera of the
hoolig:m. the p:lfficide. the homosc.'\-ual , eIC . whi eh pc.riodicall y
the judiei:l ry e:<tr:lcts from ilS brain. purs in the dock, admonishes
and condemns: one never u es anybody bUI analogues who haV!
aJlTay: il is :l qucsliun of dircclion. nOI of n:llOre, for Ihu/'s
!tOlV IIltll au. Somerimes - rarelY - lhe Olher is reve:ded as
irreducible: not bec:Jusc of a suddco scruplc, but becausc
COllllllon Jeme lebels: a m:1Il does not n3ve a white skin, but a
black one, :l nother drinks pe:lr juice, nOI Pemrx/. How can one
:l ssimilatc the Negro. the Russian? Thcrc is here a figu re for
emergcneies: exoticism. The Other becomcs :J pure object, a
spcct:\ctc,:\ clown. Rc1cg:\tcd to the confines of humanty, he no
longer threatcns the security of the home. This figu re is ehiefl y
petit-bourgeois. [o'or, even ifhe is unablc 10 experience the Otlter
in himsclf, the bourgeois can al least imagine the place where he
fits in: this is what is known as li bcrali sm, which is a sort of
ntellcclual cquilibrium based on recognzed places. The petit
bourgeois d:lsS is not liberal (il produces F:\scism, whereas the
uses it): il follows the same route as the bourgeoisie,
but bgs behind.
4. J'aut%o Yes, 1 know, it's an ugly word. Dut 50 is the thing.
Taulology is this verbal devcc which consists in dcfining li};e by
like ('Drnnlll il Jrallla'). Wc c:m view it :lS one of those types of
magical bch:l.Viour dC:llt with by Sartre in his OutHlIt of a
TI/tory of Ilu EmQlion!: one L1k.cS refuge in tautology as one
does in fe:\r, or anger, or sadncss, whcn one is :lt a loss for :m
cxplanation: the accidencal failure of language is magic:\lly
idcntified with what one decies is a n:ltural rcsistance of the
object. Til tautology, there is a double murer: one kills r:ltionality
becausc il rcsists one; one kills language bccause it bctrays one.
T:\utology is a fai nt at Ihe ri ghl moment, a saving aphasia, ir: is a
death, or pcrhaps a comedy, the indignant 'represent"ation' of tho
MYTIt TOOAY
rillllS of rc:l lity over and aoovc bnguagc. Sinee it is magica l, il
can of course only t:lke rduge behind the :lrgumenl of aUl hori ty:
thus do p:lrents:lt (he end of their telher reply to Ihe ehild who
keeps on asking for explanalions: 'b((auJc tI,o,'j !tom il is', or t'Ven
bcucr: 'iust huause, I!III/'S aIl' - a magieal :lei :Jshamed of ilself
whieh verbally m:lkes the gcsture of ralionality, bue immedi:lIcJ;
ab.1 ndons the lauer, :Jnd believcs itself 10 he even with cauS3lily
bccausc il h:ls ulteretl lhe word whieh inrroduees il. T:J ulOlogy
Icstfi cs to a profound distrusI of !:lnguagc, which is rcjecteJ
because it has fai lcd. No\Y any refuS31 of !:lngu:lge is a de:l th.
T:Jutology ere.lles :1 de1td. :1 motionlcss wori J .
5 Ntillltr- Norm. By 1 mea n this mythologieal figure
whi c.h consisls in statng two opposites :lnd balancing the one by
[he other so as ta rejeer them bOlh. (1 wa nt lIeitJ/tr Ihis flor t03t.)
ft is on the whole :l bourgeois figure, for it rclales tO:l modern
fnrm of li beralism. We find agll in /lere the figu re of the sc.1Ies:
re:llity is li.rst reduccd to analogues; then it is weighed; Ji.nally,
equali ty having becn ascercained, ir is gOI rid of. Here also chere is
magical behaviour : both p:lrties are dismisscd because il is
embarrassing 10 ehoose bceweefl them ; one Occs from :ln in
tolerable n.:alilY, teducing it to IWO opposites which b:l lance
caeh othee only inasmueh as tlley :\ fe purcly formai, relieved of
aU thci r specifie weight. Neither-Norism can have dcgraded
forms : in asrrology, for cxample, ill-Iuck is always followcd by
equal good-luck; they 3re always prcdieted in a prudently
compensalory perspective: :l find cquilibrium immobilaes
values, life, dcstiny, etc.: one no longer necds to ehoose, but
only to endorse.
6. The quantificQtion of'l/lalil.!. This is a figure which is laIent in
al! the prcccding ones. By redueing any qualit y 10 quantity,
myth eeonomizcs intelligence: ic undersrands rcalily more
cheaply. 1 have given several cxamples of chis mechanism which
bourgeois - and cspeci:llly petit-bourgeois-mythology does not
hesitate ro npply tO nesthctic rcalities whiclt ie deems on the
other hand {O part:lke of an immaterial essence. Bourgeois
'53
I\t YTHOLOCIES
thcalre is a good examplc of contradiction: on the one
h;md, theaue is prescnted lS an essence whieh c:mnol he redllced
tn aoy language and rcvc:!.ls itsclf onl y to the hC3rt, to intuition.
From thi s qual iry, il reccivcs:l. n irritable dignilY (it is forhiddell
lIS :1 crime of ' lesc-esscnce' lO speak. about the Theatre JCitmificQIIy:
or rather, any inrell ectu:lI way of viewi ng the Iheaue is discrediled
as scientism or pedanti c I:J.nguage). On the other hand, bourgC() is
dramatic art rests on a pure quantification of dfccts: a whole
circuit of computablc appe:lrances csublishcs a quantitati ve
cquality betwttn the cost of a ticket and the of an aetor or
the lux uriousness of a set : wh::tt is currently meant by the
' naturalness' of an :l ctor, for instance, is above ail a conspicuous
qu::mtlty of efTcets .
7. Tilt $M / tIl/CIIf offcm. Myths (end towards provcrbs. Bourgeois
idealogy invcsls in rhis figure interests which are bound lO its
very essence: uni versa!ism, the refusa! of any explanation, 3n
unalterabl e hi erarchy of the world. BUI we must agai n distinguish
the language-objcct from the mctal:1nguagc. Papular, ancestral
proverbs still partakc of 3n instrumental grasp of the worlJ as
object. A rural statemenc of fact, such 2S 'thr meadur J Jitu'
keeps a Ie:l l li nk with the usc(ulness of fine weather. ft is an
implicidy technologial S[atement ; the word, here. in spite of its
gener:l l, :l. bstract form. paves the W2y for aClions. it inscriS itself
iolQ a fabricn illg order : the farmer does not speak about the
we:lthcr, he ' ;telS il' , he draws it into his labour. Ali our populnr
proverbs thus represent active speech whch has graduait )'
solidified into rencxive spe.crh, bU( where reflccuon is cllrt:l iled,
reduced co :1 statemcnt of fact, and so to speak. timd, prudent,
and doscly hllggi ng experience. Papuhr proverbs fore.s more
du n they assert, they remain the speech of a humanity which is
making itsclf, nat one which is. Bourgeois :1phari sms, on the
other hand, belong to meta!anguage; They are a second-order
language whi ch bea!s on abjects :11ready prepared. Their cJa s.<;ea l
form is the rn:1xim. Here the statcment is no longer directed
lowards a world to Oc made ; it must averlay one which is alrcady
made, bury the traces of This production uoder a self-evidcnt
MY.TH T O DAY
of eternit y: ie is fi cou?ter-cxpbnatioll , the dcrorous
cqUlvalem of a t:lUtology, of dus peremptory bccQ/iSt: which
p3renffi in need of knowledge hang above the heads of their
childrcn. The fou ndation of the bourgcois li fatement of faci is
(r)/Ii7110R se/ISe, that is, truth when it stops on the arbitrary order
of him who spca ks it.
l listed these rherorica l fi gures withoul any special oruer,
and tilere may weil be many others : sorne can bccomc "'orn nut,
aihers can come imo bcing. But it is obvious (hat those given
here, sueh as they 3re, faH nlo two great eategori es, whieh arc
lik.e the Zodiacal Signs of the bourgeois Ihe Essences
and the Scales. Bourgeois ideology CQnei ll uausly transforms the
rraduclS of history into essent;a! types. Just as the cuttlefi sh
squns its ink in order ta prOloct itself, il cannat t est ullli! it has
oblicurcd the ccasclcss nl aking of the world, 11xatcd this world
inra an object which cali he for ever posscssed, C:ltalogued its
riches, embllmed ic, and injecleJ intn reality !i()me purifying
essence whi eh will SIOp its transformation, ilS night towards
alher forms of existence. And thesc riches, thus fix:tted and
frozen, will al I3st bC"COme computable: bourgeois mor:tli ty will
essent iall y be a wcighing opemion, the essences will bc pb.ccd in
scalcs of which bourgeois m:m will relll3;n the motonlcss be:lm.
For the very end of myths is la immobi lize the \l'or Id: tbey must
and mimic a univcrsal order which has fi xated once and
faf ail the hierarchy of posSC!;sioll s. Thus, every day and every
whcre, man is stopped by myths, referred by them to thi s
mationlcss prototype whi eh lives in his place, StinCli him in the
manner of a huge internaI parasite :Incl assigns tO hi s activi ty the
narrow limi ts wthin which he is allo\\"ed to suifer wil hout upset
ting Ihe wor1d: bourgeois pseudo-physis is in the fuJ! est sense
a prohibition for man agai nst invc nti ng himsclf. Myths 3re
nothing but this ce:lsclcss, unliring solicit3lion, {his insidious
and illilexible Ihat ail men rcrogni:ze thclllscJvcs in thi s
image, e(crna! yet bcaring a dale, whi ch buil t of them one
day as j { (or ail time. For the Nature) in wlli eh they are locket! up
'55
MYTJ-IOLOGIES
under the pretext of being elernali w .l, is nothing but an Usage.
And il i5 thi s Usage, however lofty, that they must take in halHl
and transform.
Nuessity /lud limils ofmy/hola!,y
1 must, as a conclusion, say :. fc lV words about the myt hologist
himselr. This term is ralher gr.llld :md self-assured. Yel one can
predic! for the mythologist, if Ihere ever is one, a felV diffi cultics,
in feding if not in mcmod. Truc, he will have no tf(>ohi e in
feeling justified: whatcvcr its mist:.kcs, mythology is certain 10
participatc in the makillg of the wodd. Holding as a principlc
that man in :t bourgeois society is ott every turn plun ged into a
false Nature, it attcmpts 10 find again under the assumed inno
cence of the most unsophistic>tted rc1ationships, rhe profound
alienation whieh Ihis innocence is meanl ta make one accept. The
unvciling whi ch ir carrjes out is therefore a political ael : founded
0 11 a rcsponsible idea of language, mythology Ihercby poslulates
the freedom of the latter. It is cer!:li n th:.! n this sense mYlhology
harl1lmlul lVith rhe wodd, not as it is, but as it w:mts 10 creale
itself (Brecht had for this an efficien tly ambiguou!; ward:
Eillvtf5tamlnJs, ar once an underslandillg of rcality and a eom
plicity \Vith it).
harmony justifies the mythologist but not (ulfil
him : his st:HU5 still remains basiolly one of bcing cxc1udcd.
Justificd by the potitical dimension, the myrhologist i5 seill at 3
distance fcom ir. His spch is a meralanguage, il '3CI:;' oothing ;
al Ihe mosr, ie unvei ls - or docs il ? 'fo whorn ? His rask al ways
rcmans ambiguous, hampered by ils clhic;t l ori gin. He can li ve
revoluton:u y aClion only vlc uiously: hcnce the setf-nscinus
character of hi s function, this something a liule srilf and pains
taki ng, muddled :md excessivc1y simplified which brands any
int cllcctual bchaviour with an openly political found:llio n
('uncommitted' types of literature arc infinitcly more 'elegant';
they arc in thci r place in melalanguagc).
Also, the myrhologist cuts himsc1f off from aU the myth
consumees, :1O Ihis is no small maller. Ir this appli ed la a
MYTH T ODAY
part icular secrion of the collectivity, well and good.
u
But when
a myth reachcs the entire community, it is from the latter thar the
myt hologisr muSt become estrallged if he wants ta li berate the
myth. Any myth wi lh sorne cgree of gcnerality is in faet ambi
guous, because il represents the very humanity of lhasc who,
having nothing, have borrowcd il. To deeipher the T our de
f rance or the 'good French Wine' is tO eut oneself off from those
who arc emertainccl or wa rmed up by (hem. The myt hologist is
condemned to li ve in a theorerical sociality; for him, 10 be n
society is, al besr, [Q he Iruthful : his utmost socali ty dwells in his
urmas! mor.lIity. His oonncction with the world is of the order of
sarasm.
One must even go funher : in J sense, the mythologist is
excJuJed [rom this histary in the name of whieh he prufc.<iscs ta
ael. The havoc whieh he wreaks in the language of the com
munit y is absolute for him, ir hi s to the brim: he
must li ve Ihis assignment wirhoUl :Illy hope of going back or
any assumpt ioll of paymcIlt. il is forbidden for llim ta imagine
wh:tt the \'torld will collcretely bc like, when the immooiate
object or hi s criticism has disappc:lrcd. U topia is an impossible
luxury for him: he greatly cloubts thal lomorrow's truths will bc
the exact reverse of today's li cs . History never ensures the
rtiumpl! pu re and simple of somcthing over its opposite: il
unvci ls, while making itself, unimaginable solutions, unfore
secable synthcscs. The mythologisl is no'[ cven in a Moscs-like
situation : he cannat see the Promised Land. For him, 'tnmorr nw's
positivily s cotirel)' hidtlen by today's neg:nivity. Ali the v:l. lues
of his undertoking appear 10 him as of dest ructi on : the lancr
accuratcl y cover Ihe former, nothing protrudes. This subj ective
grasp of hi swry in which the potcnt sccd of the futu re is IIotlti/lg
bu' the mast pcofound apoca lypse of the present has been
exprcsscd by Saint-Just in a strange saying:: 'WIllil lO1lSI itilftS du
'. rI $ nOf on!)' (nlm Ihe f>lIhlie Ih3\ one bceomcs il iK ,;omclimcs 1190
objcc! of the myth. In o.<J er 10 Chi tdhoo.J , for
InSUnCe, [ hlve '<> to spe;lk, 10 "tel: cD'ljir{(Hrt in Minou Droufl 1
had 10 igno,", in hcr, under the ClWrmOU$ m)"rh with Vrhich she i5 cumb<rcd.
oomcthing Ifndcr, apcn, pol>Sibil it y. It i. ncnr 2 good thing 10 Il,_i'lll
t;lIte ,i M..
'57
MYT HOLOGI ES
RepubHe is /11, /0//11 destruetioll of rlIJUJt is opposed 10 il .' This must
not, 1 t hi nk, be understood jn the trivial sense: of: 'One MS 10
clcar Ihe way bdoec reconsu ucIing.' The copul:1 has an ex
haUSli ve mcaning: (herc is for sorne men a subjcctive dark night of
hi stry whcre the futu re hecomes an essenCe, Ihe csscnti a!
destruction of the pase
One JaSe cxcJuslon thrcatens the m)' thologisl: he CtJ nstantly
funs the risk of c:J.using t he rcality wllieh he purports tO proteet,
to disappcar. Quite apart from ail speech, the O.S. J9 is a techna
logically defl ncd obji."ct: il is c:lpablc of a certain spccd, il mccts
the wnd in a certain way, etc. And us type of re:l lity cannat be
spoken of by the mythologlsl. T he mechanic, the enginecr, cven
the user, 'sptaJ..' Ihe objCCI'; but (he mythologist is eondcmncd
10 mcta!:l.Ogu:tgc. This exclusion al Tcady has a name : il is what
is rull ed ideologism. %h:movism has roundly condcmned il
(without provi ng-, incidcntally, that i( was, for til t time bcillg,
avoidablc) in t he cl dy Lukcs, in Marc's )inguisllcs, in works
like those of Dnichou or Goldmann, opposing to it t he ret"ieence
of a rca lity inaccessible 10 idrology, such as Ih:H of language
:lccording ta Sl2lin. ft is t ruc Ihat idco!ogism rcsolves the contra
diction of alien:n ccl rea!ily br an amput:l.tion, IlOl:l synthcsis (bue
:15 for Zhdanovislll, it dl.X"S not cvcn rcsolve ir) : wine is objectivel)'
good, :lOJ fi t (/1/.' JI/Ille ti/l/( , the goodncs. .. uf winc is :l myth:
herc is the aporia. T he myt hologst gels Ollt ofths 3S hest he C"J n :
he dC:l ls witb Ihe goodncss of not wi th the winc tsclf, just
:lS the histori an tl cals wi th idco!Ob'Y, not with t he
PellJio in themsclves.
30
11 scems Ihlt thi s is a difficulry pert:Ii ning ta our limt"S: t here
is as yet onl)' one possible choic<'", :md this choice C".ln be:u unl y
on [WO C<lul lly eXlrcme melhocl s: eit her to posit a rcality which is
entircl)' permc3hlc ru hi slory, :"I nd idcolobrize; or, convcrsely, (0
posit a Itllily whi ch is IIltill/lIlCly impenclrl blc, irrcducible, :lnd,
in this case, In a word, 1 do not yee sec a synthcsis
Eveil here, il! thcsc mYlhologies, l have usru Irid:Cry: finding il jI.1nfu l con
.. 10 wQrk QI! the u pur;u;on ur rcality, 1 tu...: !iurrcd W il uc(uhely
dcn$C, 10 di sCQvcr in il t st<rp,i. ng cnml'act!lC!iS whidl 1 wilh ddigh!,
I nd 1 tu\"e a fcw en",,,!.-I or . uh.mnt::l. I psycho-aMlysla' aboul $OJTiC
mythiL"lI objccts.
MYTH TO DAY
bC(wccn idcology :1nd poclry (h)' poetry 1 underSl3nd, in li. vcry
gcnernl wa)', Ihe se.uch for the ina li en3ble me:millg of thing"S) .
T hc fact [ha l wc cannat ma nage 10 achie"e more dlln an
unst:lblc grasp of realily givcs the mCl sure ofour pn'scnt
ali cnarion; wc cOlUit:lot ly dri ft bct wcen the object :"Ind ilS de
mystification, powcr/ess to render ils whoJeness. For if we
pcnetratc the object, we libcratc it but wc deslroy il; and jf wc
acknowlcdge irs full wciglH, wc respect it , bUl we rcstore il tO a
st:ltC wll ich s still mystificd. Il wuuld stem Ihal wc l rc cun
demncd for sorne limc yet aJwa.ys to spcak exuHiVfIy aoou i
rcalily. T his is prnb3bly bt.'(:ausc idcologism and its opposite arc
types of behaviour which arc 51ill Ill agical, terrorized, blinded
and fascnatcd by (he split in the social wor/d. And yet, this is
wh3t wc must scek: a bct wccn reality and men,
hct wccn description and cxpl:\Il:lIion. bctwccn objt.'el and
knowlcdge.