Abstract
The rampant growth of political myths in the twentieth century is often regarded as one of the most disturbing phenomena of the modern world. At the least, they are a principal instrument by which totalitarian régimes have brought misery to mankind on an unparalleled scale. By making effective use of concepts such as the chosen race or class, and of a mythical language and symbolic rites, such systems have challenged the rational as well as the moral norms on which western civilization, and democracy in particular, was supposedly built. After the Second World War, during which the appalling consequences of political myth-making were so vividly demonstrated, attempts were made to analyse this mysterious power by theologians and philosophers, psychologists and sociologists, political scientists and historians, from their different vantage-points.1 Since in many ways political myths appear to be akin to the mythical structures elaborated by primitive civilizations and the forerunners of European culture, there were also attempts to find analogies derived from ethnology and anthropology. But the study of a given problem from various methodological standpoints does not always lend it greater clarity and this seems to be so in the case of the political myth.
Keywords
Social Function Charismatic Leader General Strike Linguistic Usage Classical Myth
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
- 1.See (e.g.) E. Böhler, ‘Unser lebender Mythus’, Schweizer Monathefte (1966–67), pp. 622, 626 et seq.; E. Cassirer, The Myth of the State (New Haven, 1967), pp. 3 et seq., 295 et seq.; J. J. Fahrenfort, Het mythische denken in de moderne samenleving (Groningen, 1946), passim; C. M. Edsman, ‘The Myth of the State, or the State’s religious legitimation’, in H. Biezais (ed.), The Myth of the State. Based on Papers read at the Symposium on the Myth of the State held at Åbo the 6th–8th September 1971 (Stockholm, 1972), p. 174; E. B. Koenker, Secular Salvations: The Rites and Symbols of Political Religions (Philadelphia, 1965), passim; H. Tudor, Political Myth (London, 1972), passim.Google Scholar
- 2.B. Feldman and R. D. Richardson, The Rise of Modern Mythology, 1680–1860 (Bloomington, Indiana, 1972), pp. xix et seq., 3 et seq., 165 et seq., 291 et seq.Google Scholar
- 3.See (e.g.) Cassirer; also B. A. van Groningen (ed.), De Mythe in de literatuur (The Hague, 1964); H. A. Murray (ed.), Myth and Mythmaking (Boston, 1960); T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Myth, a Symposium (Bloomington, Indiana, 1971); M. Fuhrmann (ed.), Terror und Spiel. Probleme der Mythenrezeption (Munich, 1971).Google Scholar
- 4.M. Bloch, Les rois thaumaturges. Etude sur le caractère surnaturel attribué à la puissance royale, particulièrement en France et en Angleterre (Strasbourg, 1924); L. Ejerfeldt, ‘Myths of the State in the West European Middle Ages’ The Myth of the State, pp. 160 et seq.Google Scholar
- 5.N. Conn, The Pursuit of the Millennium (London, 1970); K. Griewank, Der neuzeitliche Revolutionsbegriff(Frankfurt, 1969), ch. i. ii, iii; M. Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages. A Study in Joachimism (Oxford, 1969); J. M. Stayer, ‘The Miinsterite Rationalization of Bernhard Rothmann’, Journal of the History of Ideas, XXVIII (1967), 179 et seq.; F. A. Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (London, 1964); W. J. Bouwsma, Concordia Mundi. Career and Thought of Guillaume Postel (Cambridge, 1959), ch. viii.Google Scholar
- 6.Feldman and Richardson, p. xx.Google Scholar
- 7.Rev, edn. (2 vols., Oxford, 1969), I.Google Scholar
- 8.Rev. edn. (2 vols., The Hague, 1970), I, 1240; II, 2717. The third meaning was derived from a definition of historical myth in: F. W. N. Hugenholtz, ‘Historicus, Mythe, Publiek’, Forum der Letteren, III (1962), pp. 1 et seq.Google Scholar
- 9.P. Robert, Dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la Langue Française (7 vols., Paris, 1953-70), IV, 722 et seq.; Der Grosse Duden (10 vols., Mannheim, 1958–71), V, 466 and VII, 459.Google Scholar
- 10.Robert, Dictionnaire, IV, 723.Google Scholar
- 11.H. von der Dunk, ‘Mythe en Geschiedenis’, Kleio heeft duizend ogen (Assen, 1974), p. 105.Google Scholar
- 12.Cassirer, pp. 5 et seq., 23, 180 et seq.; J. C. Brandt Corstius, ‘De mythe in de tijd van de romantiek’, in B. A. van Groningen (ed.), De Mythe in de literatuur, ch. iii.Google Scholar
- 13.R. Eickelpasch, Mythos und Sozialstruktur (Düsseldorf, 1973), pp. 10 et seq.; Cassirer, ch. i, iii. On Levy-Bruhl, cf. C. Lévi-Strauss, The Savage Mind (London, 1966), pp. 251,268.Google Scholar
- 14.Eickelpasch. ch. i, ii.Google Scholar
- 15.Ibid., pp. 40 el seq., 45 et seq.Google Scholar
- 16.Ibid., p. 46.Google Scholar
- 17.B. Malinowski, ‘Culture’, Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (1931–35), IV, 640 et seq.Google Scholar
- 18.Eickelpasch, pp. 43 et seq.Google Scholar
- 19.A. Grabowski, ‘Ueber die Bedeutung des Mythos fur die Gegenwart’, Archiv für Rechts und Sozialphilosophie, XI (1952–53), 515.Google Scholar
- 20.Nietzsches Werke (Leipzig, 1912–19), I, 27-205.Google Scholar
- 21.K. Marx to L. Kugelmann, 27 July 1871, Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Werke (38 vols., Berlin. 1956-), XXXIII, 252.Google Scholar
- 22.I. Berlin, ‘Georges Sorel’ Times Literary Supplement, 31 Dec. 1971, no. 3644, pp. 1617 et seq.; J. L. Horowitz, Radicalism and Revolt against Reason. The Social Theories of Georges Sorel (London, 1961), ch. ii.Google Scholar
- 23.G. Sorel, Reflections on Violence (authorized translation by T. E. Hulme, 1915), pp. 130–1; Glencoe edn., 1950, p. 140.Google Scholar
- 24.H. Barth, Masse und Mythos; die ideologische Krise an der Wende zum 20 Jahrhundert und die Theorie der Gewalt: Georges Sorel (Hamburg, 1959), p. 69.Google Scholar
- 25.Reflections, p. 133; Glencoe edn., p. 142.Google Scholar
- 26.Horowitz, pp. 39, 126.Google Scholar
- 27.A. MacIntyre, ‘Myth’, Encyclopedia of Philosophy (8 vols., New York, 1972), V, 437.Google Scholar
- 28.Reflections, p. 144.Google Scholar
- 29.Horowitz, pp. 20 et seq., 37.Google Scholar
- 30.Berlin, ‘Georges Sorel’, ubi cit. supra.Google Scholar
- 31.Cassirer, passim; another interpretation of the history of ideas in: H. Hatfield, ‘The Myth of Nazism’, in Murray. Myth and Mythmaking, pp. 199 et seq.Google Scholar
- 32.Cassirer, pp. 277 et seq.Google Scholar
- 33.MacIntyre, 435.Google Scholar
- 34.Grabowski, p. 518; Von der Dunk, p. 110.Google Scholar
- 35.J. Romein, ‘Gedachten over de Vooruitgang’, Carillon der Tijden (Amsterdam, 1953), pp. 26 et seq.Google Scholar
- 36.Griewank, ch. i. ii.Google Scholar
- 37.P. E. Kraemer, The Societal State (Meppel, 1966), Introduction; K. Griewank, Der Wiener Kongress und die Europäische Restauration 1814–15 (Leipzig, 1954), Vorwort.Google Scholar
- 38.J. G. A. Pocock, ‘Burke and the Ancient Constitution: a Problem in the History of Ideas’, Politics, Language and Time (London, 1972), pp. 202 et seq.Google Scholar
- 39.L. Honko, The Problem of Defining Myth’, in Biezais, Myth of the State, p. 17.Google Scholar
- 40.G. Groen van Prinsterer, Handboek der Geschiedenis van het Vaderland (2 vols., Amsterdam, 1852).Google Scholar
- 41.A. Pallister, Magna Carta, the Heritage of Liberty (Oxford, 1971); F. Thompson, Magna Carta (Minneapolis, 1948).Google Scholar
- 42.H. Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (London, 1931); P. B. M. Blaas, Continuiteit en Anachronisme. Het beeld van de Engelse parlementaire en constitutionele ontwikkeling in de Whig-geschiedschrijving en de kritiek hierop in dejaren 1890–1930 (Amsterdam, 1974).Google Scholar
Copyright information
© Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands 1975