Skip to main content

The Search for a National Mythos

This morning I finished reading Susan Cooper's excellent Over Sea, Under Stone, the first in her The Dark is Rising sequence. It was in many ways delightfully British, from characters who frequently declared something to be "smashing" to the incorporation of some of the Arthurian legends into the work. This sparked me thinking a bit more about Britain's national mythos, something that J.R.R. Tolkien also spent quite a bit of time thinking about. While many of us would assume that the stories of King Arthur are Britain's national mythology, or might even think for a bit on the tale of Beowulf and Grendel, Tolkien did not consider these uniquely British-- certainly they do not have the same close association with England that the Greek gods have with ancient Greece or that Odin and Thor, or the legends of Sigurd, have with Germany.

The tale of Beowulf and his triumph over Grendel comes from continental Europe, of course, and is thus not uniquely British. Tolkien noted that much of the Arthurian canon comes from the French rather than being native to Britain; it was partly this feeling, that England lacked a national mythology, that pushed Tolkien, a scholar of language and mythology, to his great work, the work that was not complete even at his death and has since been continued by his son Christopher. Middle Earth was in many ways an attempt to provide England with the mythology Tolkien felt it lacked. With its underlying mythology, cultures, languages, tales and history, Tolkien's work was decades in the making and the tales of Middle Earth have become some of the most popular of all time.

We in the United States also seem to lack a national mythology. Certainly there exists an abundance of Native American mythologies and religions, but the dominant culture pushed them aside with their practitioners as we overswept the continent with "Manifest Destiny" in our minds and hearts. I have heard it said that the Civil War is our national mythology, and it certainly seems at times to fit the description. The battles and leaders have become legend in the hundred and fifty years since the war occurred, spawning an endless number of books and movies, papers and photograph collections, to say nothing of the dedicated men and women who memorize and study the minutia of the war and participate in re-enactments. It marked a major turning point in our history; it is further appropriate as a national mythology as it was largely a conflict made inevitable due to the debate over slavery in the United States. The story of slavery is at the heart of our history, an institution that shaped us into who we have become, for good and for bad. It is not a side issue, as it is sadly sometimes portrayed in high school textbooks but the main issue in our history, an institution whose effects we are still dealing with today. The massive struggle that finally ended slavery in the United States seems epic enough to serve as a mythology.

I wonder what it says about us that we can take such pride in our national mythologies? It is certainly true that our mythos shapes us in many ways as a people, that the legends and stories we select as part of our mythologies speak to our culture, from the capricious Greek gods to the pantheism of many Native American belief systems. We seem to need these stories and tales. We look back at them for examples of great bravery and courage in the face of impossible adversity, for cautionary tales about the dangers of pride and greed. Like language, our myths shape us just as we shape them, a fascinating process to behold.

Comments

  1. I believe our national mythology was progress, ever-unfolding technological progress. It reached it's peak with the moon landing and has eroded through time. I remember the space shuttle challenger blowing up and how absolutely shocking that was for a nation that thought it could accomplish anything through science and technology. I do no believe this mythos is as strong today. People are now keenly aware of the limits of technological progress, but it still remains our mythology to some extent.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Unanswerable Questions" for Evolution Part One

Creation Ministries International has launched a new initiative, which seems a lot like all the other creationists blitzkriegs before it. With the wonderfully creative tagline of "Question Evolution", CMI intends to challenge "evolutionists" and their "indoctrination" of high school students with the supposed dogma of evolution. They also aim to  cut the population of atheists by half , presumably by challenging the "faith" that every atheist (and only atheists, no "real Christians") is supposed to hold in Darwin's great idea. The main thrust of this is a tract with fifteen "unanswerable" questions for evolutionists. I'm done putting quotation marks around the word, evolutionists; from here on out I ask my readers to recognize that it is a creationist term that is about as silly as calling someone a general relativist (accepts general relativity) or germist (for accepting germ theory). Regardless, CMI seems just as i...

What Creationists Don't Understand

There are quite a number of concepts that one could successfully argue that creationists fail to understand; whether this is out of a simple lack of knowledge or willful ignorance is hard to say and certainly can't be generalized to every creationist. Some, the everyday creationist, I would like to think simply haven't been exposed to the evidence. Others, the holders of Ph.D's in various fields, especially in the sciences, who happily reject evolutionary theory are willfully ignorant (John Whitmore comes to mind). But I think there is one idea that creationists of all stripes simply fail to understand; evolution is based on solid, visible evidence. Evolution is not some tenant of a "science religion" that descended down to Darwin from on high, it is an explanatory framework based on quite a lot of facts and mountains of evidence. It is evidence that leads to the conclusions of evolution, that life changes over time and, given the long history of the earth, all ...

The Absurdity/Agony of War

Science writer Mary Roach is never one to shy away from parts of science that verge on the absurd, as anyone who has read any of her books surely knows. I'd read two of her previous books, and been enchanted enough by Roach's unique combination of endless curiosity and a wry sense of humor that I rushed to lay my hands on her newest book. Grunt: The Curious Science of Humans at War will not fail in living up to the expectations that fans of her work will bring. Those who have never read her before will be hard-pressed to put down a book that I finished in a few short days.  The real joy of reading something by Mary Roach is her talent for seeking out strange areas of science that a reader might never have known about. As an investigator, she answers questions you never knew you had. Her newest work   is no exception. We discover, for instance, how the military tests the ability of a fighter jet to survive a mid-air collision with a large bird--by firing a dead chicken...