I’m a fan of mythologist Joseph Campbell. Several of his lectures on mythology can be found on Netflix streaming. Campbell explains that there are myths from around the world that have survived for thousands of years that share the same structure, which his calls the “monomyth”. He summarizes the “monomyth” in his book The Hero with a Thousand Faces with this quote (which I found on the book’s Wikipedia article):
A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his fellow man.
This structure can be seen in stories from many religions and in modern stories too, such as Star Wars. Geiger refers to the Hero’s Journey structure, without naming it, as a ideology in the last paragraph of page 25, where the author explains
Successful films, it might be argued, are those that are able to articulate prevailing cultural beliefs effectively, making them seem natural and universal, rather than culturally and historically determined. Thus, for example, we might not question why many films focus on an individual hero who, through decisive, often violent action, triumphantly overcomes villainous people or forces that seek to control or destroy him (or, occasionally her). It may, then, require a step back to recognize that this formula is based on an ideological belief in the power of the individual, in the ability of individual action to solve problems in short order, usually by overcoming an individual villain. The fact that we know many real-life problems cannot be attributed simply to an individual villain or solved by invidual heroic action does not change our belief in individualism, nor our satisfaction in seeing this belief affirmed. Thus, belief in individual action (as opposed to collective or societal action) appears simply to be a fact, rather than an ideological notion that can be questioned and analyzed.
Some scholars believe that the “monomyth” isn’t as pervasive though the world as Campbell claims. Still, I find it interesting that an ideology could either appear independently several times throughout the history of mankind or spread throughout the world’s cultures and last for so long. It seems to me that the “monomyth” could be hardwired into our brains in a way, almost like an instinct for a compelling story. Can instincts or cognitive illusions – not sure how to what to call or how to explain this idea, but an example would that we are very aware of faces. We are hardwired to recognize the pattern of a face, sometimes seeing it in clouds or burnt toast. If you don’t easily recognize faces, you have a disorder called prosopagnosia – be considered ideologies because they warp reality by forcing us to perceive the world in ways that we are generally unaware of?
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 21, 2012 at 11:42 pm
jeremypwhite
Another example might be human sexuality. Most people have an instinct towards a heterosexual orientation. So people took it for granted and considered homosexuality to be against the way things ought to be. Now people are finally realizing that heterosexuality is not something we should take for granted.
I think an implication for designers is to ask ourselves what instincts do we have that may or may not be universal and when we design products, should we be aware of those instincts and purposefully design products that counter those instincts to make them apparent.
January 22, 2012 at 7:04 pm
colinmgray
Very interesting idea, Jeremy. I am dealing with this issue of ideologies in another class right now, focusing on critical theory implications for qualitative research. And from my personal viewpoint, it seems that ideologies ARE ideologies precisely because they are transparent and elusive, to some degree. Only when we can truly position take with another person can we begin to confront our own implicit ideological framework. I think this is one of the many valuable aspects of watching or partaking in work from cultures where the prevailing ideologies are completely different, since we have to work all the harder to uncover and deconstruct the ideologies being presented in contrast to our own.
All that being said, an implication for design might be that ideological transparency is most likely a good thing from the end user’s standpoint. That might get at what “feels” intuitive or “right” in a given situation.
January 23, 2012 at 4:56 pm
jeffreybardzell
Great post and a great question. I have a nuanced 2-part answer to your question.
First, it is possible for very similar ideologies to manifest across different eras and cultural settings. Homer’s Achilles the Aliens’ Ripley manifest a similar ideology in terms of the heroic individual who saves society through individual violence.
Second, it’s also possible for these apparently similar ideologies to differ in key details. In Chretien de Troyes’ (medieval French romance) Yvain, for example, the hero (Yvain) fails after the first third of the (book-length) poem precisely because his individual success at warfare has taken him from his home and community, from which he is subsequently exiled on account of his neglecting it. His liminal wanderings afterward have him slowly learning a more collectivist notion of heroics, before he is welcomed back to his home and community. Yvain is a very different sort of hero than an Arnold hero, and let’s not even mention Mel Gibson’s Barfheart.
It may be that some myths/ideologies (and, by the way, your linking of myth to ideology is a very insightful move on your part) are fundamental to human life, but it also seems to be the case that both myths and ideologies are plastic enough to fit different cultural contexts.