| Chapter 1: | Myth and Theory |
|
|
for during his discussion of Grail material, Lévi-Strauss commented that the structure of these myths may be primarily concerned with establishing ‘an equilibrium between two opposite worlds’ (1985, 234; emphasis added). Indeed, this is very close to the conclusion arrived at in this analysis, with the exception that the opposite worlds are in fact shown to be different manifestations of the same whole. The consequences of such a structure for the canonical formula are not explored by Lévi-Strauss; however, Mosko, who encountered a similar problem with the canonical formula, has developed a nuanced form, which fits the Welsh material very well (1991).
1.8. NEOSTRUCTURALIST THEORY
The theories of various post-Straussian structuralists have been influential in the development of the form of neostructuralism employed throughout this book (Bourdieu 1992; C. Hugh-Jones 1979; S. Hugh-Jones 1979, 1988, 1995; Kunin 1995, 1998, 2004; Leach 2000; Mosko 1985, 1991). By grappling with the usefulness of the structuralist endeavour in an open and honest way, they answer—and in many cases preempt—much of the criticism of the structuralist tool for myth analysis that has arisen over the last fifty years. Merleau-Ponty’s just criticism of the need to balance Lévi-Strauss’ theoretical model with lived equivalents46 has been answered by the fieldwork of all the theorists involved, and a modelling of this interrelationship has been attempted by (amongst others) Kunin and Mosko.47 This criticism often goes hand-in-hand with the suggestion that Lévi-Strauss drew his material from too wide a data pool. Again, many structuralists (Hugh-Jones 1979; Leach 1970; Mosko 1985; et al.) have demonstrated the ability of the structuralist analysis technique to yield interesting results in a far more restricted area, and while I believe that ultimately a study as ambitious as Lévi-Strauss’ Mythologiques is useful for highlighting the interconnectedness of neighbouring communities, its scope does raise certain problems that are avoided by a more concentrated study.
Perhaps the most crucial way neostructuralism has developed the debate is by positing structures that raise questions at the level of deep