Holte's corner

Abusive Mythologizing

In a previous post I brought the writings Sorel and how they fed into the propagandizing efforts of first Communists, later Fascists, and still later modern advertizers, neo-fascists, and modern politics in general. Georges Sorel wrote about the power of myth and fable. What he described is older than modernism. It is the power of Aesop's fables, and the power of the Bible. It is why Ronald Reagan could skunk people with far better logic and proof. One good picture is worth a thousand words, but one good visual narrative is worht a thousand pictures and a thousand words. Mythologizing, fable creating, tale telling can be used for good or for ill. Masters of story-telling can cause great positive transformations or create awful fracases and failures.

Mythologizing is the extraction of pure story from experiential material. The purest myths tell stories using "pure elements" of myth. Legends extract similar "pure elements" from otherwise more plebian stories. Moderns claim to value realism, with realism one tries to retain the things that depict the hero as a human being. But too much realistic detail can detract from the moral of a good story, so story-tellers are always tempted to simplify and fictionalize.

For example when telling the story of, say, a war hero and sky-ace and linking it to the mans character, it doesn't fit in with the story that he later was booted for office for taking bribes. Such a narrative is inconsistant with a narrative of success due to character, gravitus and virtue. For a lionizer, it is a side issue that the person later forgot to attend to all that. Mythologizers are tempted to leave that out of the narrative. As a great story teller once put it, they tend to leave out the "rest of the story."

On the other hand realism and mythologizing efforts can be combined when those telling the story are aiming at comprehensive wisdom. Weaknesses, foibles, and other qualities should be left in the story in order to play a role in teaching morals or lessons. Achilles has a spot in his heel that is not immortal so he can die. He dies because he arrogantly tempts fate,... David betrays a friend and subordinate in order to marry his wife, and then suffers the consequences later when his own son betrays him... The Israelites are not permitted to enter the Holy land after they rebel against "God" and show cowardice in the face of their promises... Our pilot hero was brought down, not by enemy aircraft, but by his believing his own selfish narrative. There is value in presenting people as fallible human beings. Even God is depicted as fallible. He/She/IT is depicted as regreting destroying humanity with a flood, then He/She/IT is depicted as wondering if he should do it by fire.

These are all narratives intended to get people to see things more than one way; both broadly and deeply.

However, folks often want to make a point that accords, not to reality or wisdom, but to their designs for how the world should be, ought to be, or how they want their followers to see it. That is there are people who use mythologizing and story telling abusively, for selfish ends, who manipulate others with stories, or who use stories to convince people to do twisted things. This is "abusive mythologizing." Reagan practiced it when he invented stories about "welfare mothers driving Cadillacs" or put himself into World War II battle scenes he only played as an actor.

Abusive mythologizing is a tool, which combined with sophistry is very powerful. Most of the awful things that happen today and in the past are the fruits of people who have been sold abusive myths.

Myth can retain human characteristics, but more often the mythologizers purify out character flaws.

The difference between good story-telling and abusive mythologizing is subtle. One mans demogogue is another's people's hero. Even true stories can be used abusively. However, the essential difference between legitimate story tellings and abusive story telling or mythologizing, is the substantive truth of the moral and of the fable/vehicle used to carry that moral. Essentially the story itself is just a story. It is how it is used that makes it good or evil. Just like a knife or other tool. A knife is invaluable at the dinner table, and utterly evil in the hands of a killer.

In the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha tells of a Physician father whose children had drunk poison. This has been used as a narrative to justify carefully and well crafted religion (color odor and taste). But it also involves a question of what constitutes legitimate story telling and what is not. The Father tells his crazy children through a messenger that he is dead. And this turns out to be the only thing that will get them to drink the medicine that counter-acts the poison they had drank earlier. Believing he is dead they drink the medicine and are cured. In that case the primary morality of the use of skillful words (the narrative that the Father had died) is in the effect -- that the only way the children will wake up is to recognize that they are truly on their own and can no longer use their father as a crutch.

This is, although admitted to be not true, later claimed to be absolutely not a lie. Why? We are expected to grapple with this. My own answer (and you'll have to find your own as well). Is that the Father spoke the truth because as long as the children were poisoned their father was dead to their perception.

The Lesson of this story is that stories and vehicles are not the same thing as history and reporting. They are meant to carry morals. The Lotus Sutra story of the physician is thus a morally positive story that conveys a deep truth. It is not abusive mythologizing.

Even so, in the hands of abusive people, even the Lotus Sutra becomes a vehicle for spreading abusive mythology. Traditionally this story has been used to justify the interpretation of "skillful means" as "lies" and as justification for wholesale lying. This is a matter of interpretation. In the hands of corrupt authority even the lotus Sutra becomes a vehicle for teaching lies, lying, and for creating a fantasy perception of reality.

In conclusing myth, like other tools at our disposal is a tool. Religious thinking and myth can be used either to provide guidance, or to define and spread dogmas. It can be used in an abusive and authoritarian manner, or it can be used to enlighten and uplift.

Abusive myth is usually used to promulgate one view of reality over others. Dogmas are set doctrines that are approved by "authorities." Authorities in this context tend to arrogate to themselves not just the role of giving guidance about how to behave, but to set laws and impose them on people. The Bible, for example, talks about how it is an "abomination" to lay with another man. That is guidance. The hebrew can be interpreted in several ways. Dogma is the taking of that "guidance" and making it law. Such laws might sound reasonable to strait folks like myself, but might be interpreted differently by people in other circumstances. Those passages are balanced by other passages, and modified by examples and custom. For example the passages in the bible about stoning a disrespectful son were never intended to be acted on. Bibles and other religious "law" are meant to be guidance for guiding people not dogma for imprisoning them minds. Nevertheless in the hands of unscrupulous or twisted teachers they become exactly that.

The other role of abusive mythologizing is to try to give justification to abusive rule-making and abusive dogma. Most laws are not one size fits all. When two kids get into a fight, it's not always the best course of action to try them as adults in a court of law. Abusive mythologizing takes stories and uses them to moralize a one size fit all morality. Abortion as "baby killing." "Welfare Mothers drive Cadillacs on the public dole." "liberals are traitors...." etceteras.

The Rabbis learned to interpret contradictory guidance and set guidelines that people could take or leave. Buddhists learned to differentiate their role as teachers from their role as rulers. Buddhism could accommodate societies where there were "Gods", "no Gods", and I think where there is "One God." Other religions get in trouble because they tend to confuse their role as teachers and guidance givers with a role as rulers and judges.

Serving that role has been "abusive mythologizing" such as turning an itinerate self-taught teacher into part of a "God-head." Or making saints out of very unsaintly people. The church set such impossible standards for its leadership, while at the same time teaching that it was okay to do bad things -- as long as one later repented and asked Jesus for forgiveness. Thus a whole gamut of bad to incredibly bad people have done incredibly evil things while wearing the cloak of Christianity and claiming that either "God will forgive" -- or "it is ordained." All this has been bolstered by abusive myths and wishful thinking.

The other error that myth-users make is "replacement." That is taking a story and treating as if it were history or reporting. Or taking a story and twisting it out of context. One should never lose the original context for a story when using it under new contexts.

For example, Daniel is the original narrative that serves as a model for Revelations -- not the other way around. Likewise Daniel's vision is firmly rooted in the vision of other late Kingdom and early diaspora prophets. The Context of both lies in the history of the Jews as an oppressed and self-oppressed people and in the role on human imagination that authoritarianism and paganism have played. Not as an excuse for more authoritarianism and a pagan interpretation of Christianity. And certainly, replacement theology interpretations that demonize Jews and treat Christians as the topic of Daniel and Revelations are just plain loopy. Everything has to be interpreted at least once in terms of original context. Once one understands context, one can go on to all sorts of fantastical and creative interpretations, or even fantastical and hair raising internal revelations. But it is abusive to do things half-way or in a twisted manner [These amount to the same thing].

Christians imposed a thousand years of darkness by trying to turn the very good guidance of the early Rabbis and teachers of Christianity, into often arbitrary and catch-22 style set dogmas and by trying to rule the "material world" by rules that simply sewed confusion and when argued and which required wars and insurrection to resolve. They not only did that but they turned the very Jewish founder-messiah into a symbol of Jewish persecution and violence. They tried to force Jews, even otherwise Christian Jews, to stop practicing the "Law" that their ancestors had promised to uphold until the end of time, and in the process punished people for following the guidance of the Bible. In the middle ages they often burned people at the stake for taking their vows of poverty too seriously or criticizing the corruption of the Clergy. One God? Jesus divine? Charity and poverty? All these things have been literally fought over time and time again, because the church has tended to try to impose dogma rather than constraining itself to advice and wise guidance.

Even so, as I said before, it is how myths are used that determines whether they are abusive or compellingly truthful. A Christian who lives as he/she preaches, who preaches with wisdom, and who tries to guide people "in this world' rather than ruling "this world" can be a very inspiring Christian. A Jew who studies and follows the teachings of Judaism, and who lives righteous, generous and and thoughtfully, is a very inspiring person. A Moslem who sets aside the self-righteousness and prejudices of his brothers and lives by the core of his own teachings, can be an inspiring presence among us Westerners. When teachers eschew hatred and bigotry and use their myths wisely, then the counter for abusive mythologizing is sustaining and creative mythology that is designed to lead, guide and develop reality -- not replace it.

Chris

Posted by cholte at December 2, 2006 03:07 PM