| Chapter 1: | Myth and Theory |
|
|
is also constructed from readily available material—mythemes—which the author (bricoleur) subconsciously utilises to express the structure (Kunin 2001a, 41). The two processes are parallel and yet distinct: a masterful storyteller will consciously cohere his narrative through all the means available to his art; yet the underlying structure expresses itself subconsciously.
For ease of understanding, the underlying structure can be pictured on three levels (S1, S2, S3): these levels of structure are not explicitly stated in this manner by Lévi-Strauss, yet they lie implicitly behind much of his analysis (Kunin 2004, 7–15). Confusion over how his analysis operates at these various levels has led to both many unfair criticisms of his work and many unfortunately misguided emulators. When dealing with this complex area, it is first necessary to distinguish between the surface, or narrative level, of the myth and any levels of underlying structure that may be extrapolated from the raw data. This distinction between literary motifs and underlying structure distances Lévi-Strauss from the structural analysis of Propp, Dundes, and literary structuralists.20 For Lévi-Strauss, the narrative is the surface representation of deeper underlying structural patterns. This underlying structure is not unitary but is itself composed of different levels of depth, each of which is examined at different points in Lévi-Strauss’ analysis.21 The deepest level of structure, S1 is perhaps the most controversial part of the theory. This level represents the primary and universal patterning of the human brain, and it is both abstract and contentless (Kunin 1996, 196); it can be imagined as two blank computer disks containing no data and existing in isolation from each other. This level, then, is seen as the limitations set on our vision of the world by our most fundamental cognitive biology.
The next level of structure, which may be termed S2, is where the analysis moves out of psychology and into more reassuring sociological territory. This level represents the level of structure that would be shared by closely related cultural groups: it is analogous to the ‘most basic level of [computer] programming’ (Kunin 2004, 8). This level is still contentless, but it establishes a relationship between the two fundamental units. Thus, whilst the data at this level is still abstract, it forms a basic equation