Chapter One

  • Henry Tudor
Part of the Key Concepts in Political Science book series (KCP)


The question as to what constitutes a political myth is surrounded by too much confusion to be capable of a short answer. However, we can make a start by disposing of a widely held but misleading preconception. In common usage, the term ‘myth’ stands for any belief that has no foundation in fact. A myth, we are told, is a fiction or illusion, the product of fantasy and wishful thinking rather than the result of any serious attempt to tackle the world in which we live; and political myths are simply fictions or illusions about political matters. There is nothing wrong with using the term in this popular sense—provided that it is used as a term of abuse and with no pretensions to academic rigour. The student of politics is, of course, entitled to regard a given set of beliefs as being false; but it is not his business to denounce such beliefs. His business is to determine what kind of belief they are, to examine their logical structure and to explain why the men who hold them take them to be true. And, in this enterprise, it is as vague as it is tendentious to use the term ‘myth’ as a synonym for ‘illusion’. There are as many different kinds of illusion as there are kinds of belief. Indeed, some would argue that, since any practical understanding entails an abstraction from and therefore a distortion of reality, all practical beliefs are fundamentally illusory. Whether or not we wish to go this far, it is clear that, if we are to use the term ‘myth’ with any precision, we must give it a meaning which enables us to distinguish beliefs which are myths from beliefs which are not.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    Georges Sorel, Reflections on Violence, trans. T. E. Hulme and J. Roth, Collier Books, New York, 1961, pp. 41–2.Google Scholar
  2. 5.
    Ibid., p. 50. See also R. Bastide, “Mythes et utopie”, Cahiers Internationaux de Sociologie, VII, Jan.—June, 1960, no. 28, pp. 3–12.Google Scholar
  3. 9.
    H. D. Lasswell, The Analysis of Political Behaviour, An Empirical Approach, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, (Fourth Impression) 1966, p. 197.Google Scholar
  4. H. D. Lasswell and A. Kaplan, Power and Society, A Framework for Political Inquiry London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1952, pp. 116 ff.Google Scholar
  5. 10.
    C. J. Friedrich and Z. L. Brzezinski, Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy, Frederick A. Praeger, New York, 1961, p. 99.Google Scholar
  6. 11.
    H. Diels & W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Zürich/Berlin, 1964, Xenophanes, B16.Google Scholar
  7. 15.
    H. J. Rose, A Handbook of Greek Mythology, University Paperbacks, Methuen, London, 1964, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
  8. 16.
    F. Jacoby, Die Fragmente der Griechischen Historiker Leiden & Berlin, 1923–58.Google Scholar
  9. T. S. Brown, “Euhemerus and the Historians”, Harvard Theological Review, 39: 263, 1946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 21.
    J. J. Bachofen, Myth, Religion, and Mother Right: Selected Writings trans. R. Manheim, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1967, p. 85. See also p. 185.Google Scholar
  11. 30.
    Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, Selected Works in Two Volumes Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1958, Vol. II, p. 175.Google Scholar
  12. 35.
    Müller’s work, see R. M. Dorson, “The Eclipse of Solar Mythology”, in Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), Myth: A Symposium, Indiana University Press, Midland Books, Bloomington, 1965.Google Scholar
  13. 36.
    G. W. Cox, An Introduction to the Science of Comparative Mythology and Folklore, London, 1881. For the satire on Müller, see Rev. R. F. Littledale, “The Oxford Solar Myth”, published as an appendix to F. M. Müller, op. cit.Google Scholar
  14. 37.
    Edward Burnett Tylor, The Origins of Culture Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1958, p. 392. (This is part one of Tylor’s Primitive Culture first published in 1871.)Google Scholar
  15. 39.
    Andrew Lang, Myth, Ritual and Religion London, 5th edition, 1929, P. 47.Google Scholar
  16. 42.
    Jane Ellen Harrison, Themis: A Study of the Social Origins of Greek Religion, London, Merlin Press, 1963, p. 328.Google Scholar
  17. 45.
    See S. H. Hooke (ed.), Myth and Ritual, Oxford, 1933; and A. M. Hocart, The Life-giving Myth and Other Essays, ed. with introduction by Lord Raglan, Methuen & Co., London, 1970.Google Scholar
  18. 47.
    T. H. Gaster, “Myth and Story”, Numen, I 1954, PP. 186 ff.Google Scholar
  19. 48.
    Clyde Kluckhohn, “Myths and Rituals: a General Theory”, Harvard Theological Review, xxxv, 1942, PP. 45–79.Google Scholar
  20. 49.
    Ernst Cassirer, The Myth of the State, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, (fifth printing) 1963, pp. 284 ff. Friedrich & Brzezinski, op. cit., p. 171. Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism London, George Allen & Unwin, 1967, pp. 377 ff.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pall Mall Press Ltd London 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henry Tudor
    • 1
  1. 1.University of DurhamUK

Personalised recommendations