Structure in Myth or the Myth of Structure?

Do human cultural traditions have any intrinsic meaning, or are our cultural institutions merely instances of a larger human chaos? This is one of the most important questions which both Lévi-Strauss and Foucault wish to address throughout their work. Lévi-Strauss argues that human myth is constrained by linguistic structures (213); on the other hand, Foucault, (apparently) conversely, seeks to demonstrate that institutions within society which appear to be governed by rational purpose must be understood as the inadvertent result of genealogical relationships, and ultimately the elite’s attempt to control deviancy (135-169).

Lévi-Strauss states “Mythology confronts the student with a situation which at first sight appears contradictory. On the one hand it would seem that in the course of a myth anything is likely to happen... But on the other hand, this apparent arbitrariness is belied by the astounding similarity between myths collected in widely different regions” (208). However, he argues that understanding myth as a language helps to alleviate these apparent contradictions (209). In order to discern this structure, Lévi-Strauss argues that the process of comparative mythology must be properly structured in the way that an orchestral score must be properly read in regards to the different instrumental parts which inevitably are included in the score (213). Furthermore, he argues that myths do not have “true” or “original” forms (217). Rather, a myth is a composite of all of its cultural variants; thus, a proper “structural analysis should take all of them into account” (217).

Clearly, Lévi-Strauss understands that to thoroughly analyze every permutation of a particular myth is impossible; hence, he attempts to strip several myths down to their basic components and structure them according to their most significant units (219). Lévi-Strauss’ rigid examination of these units leads him to describe families of myth where certain apparently key figures within a particular version might play especially significant roles but yet do not appear in cultural variants; for instance, consider his discussion on the Hopi myth of Shalako and the very different roles which the god Masauwu holds in certain variants of the tale, yet, in others, Masauwu may not even be present. In summary, Lévi-Strauss imposes a very rigid, almost mathematical, system upon the construction of mythology.

Foucault addresses the issue of structure from a decidedly very different perspective. Foucault begins by depicting two, apparently, very different types of penalties. Foucault historicizes the significance of the scaffold as important for public performances of bodily torture and execution, which served as a means of publicly displaying the disciplining of the perpetrator. Furthermore, the public display of the body following brutal forms of torture or execution would help to reinforce the severity of the penalty (34).

Following Foucault’s analysis of this earlier western system of public torture, he discusses the significance of the “gentle way of punishment”. However, Foucault does not believe that the shift between earlier forms of public torture and modern notions of imprisonment do not come about due to an informed ethical consciousness; instead, they are necessary to satisfy a demand for a universal mode of punishment for all perpetrators and crimes (116-117). Moreover, the goal of both the new gentle mode of punishment and its earlier more violent counterpart are the same, namely, to ultimately create a class which is obedient to the hierarchical elite. This is achieved by modern prisons through continual surveillance, which is experienced by the victim as “anonymous power”. Foucault states “this network [of constant surveillance] ‘holds’ the whole together and traverses it in its entirety with effects of power that derive from one another: supervisors, perpetually supervised” (176-177). Moreover, the institution of the prison fits into yet a greater system of coercion which includes military groups, medical facilities, schools, and religious institutions (300).

Thus, Foucault’s system initially appears to differ from Lévi-Strauss’. In particular, Lévi-Strauss has attempted to uncover the logical structure within human culture and, in particular, within myth, which are governed by certain universal human laws; in contrast, Foucault attempts to demonstrate that the presumption of purpose within human is merely accidental to a hierarchical political agenda. In other words, Lévi-Strauss demonstrates how despite the appearance of great diversity amongst myths (and more broadly human culture), the basic structures of myths are related; inversely, Foucault demonstrates that despite the appearance of particular logical structures within human society, social institutions need to be understood amidst a greater human genealogical relationship of thought. In this regard, Foucault might also understand himself as examining human mythology.

However, Foucault has also implicitly imposed a structure of his own upon the development of western penal traditions in regards to their genealogical development. In particular, Foucault has similarly demonstrated how the intellectual development of the prison came about through conformity to both a hierarchical human structure and an intellectual genealogy. In this manner, both Lévi-Strauss and Foucault share some sort of a notion of universal laws which guide human cultural developments.