“Mythology is not a lie, mythology is poetry, it is metaphorical. It has been well said that mythology is the penultimate truth—penultimate because the ultimate cannot be put into words.”— Joseph Campbell
Building on our previous exploration of mythic phase-shifts, we now turn to the role of symbolic reflexivity in the ongoing creation and transformation of mythic worlds.
What is Symbolic Reflexivity?
Symbolic reflexivity is the capacity of a social formation to observe, interpret, and reconfigure its own symbolic infrastructures. It allows collectives not only to live within a mythic system but to recognise and transform that system from within.
This reflexivity is both a source of stability and innovation:
Stability, because it allows a community to maintain coherence by recognising and reinforcing core myths.
Innovation, because it opens space for reinterpretation, critique, and the generation of new symbolic forms.
Reflexivity as a Myth-Making Engine
Mythic worlds are not fixed; they are continually made and remade through reflexive processes:
Storytelling traditions evolve, adapting old myths to new circumstances.
Rituals are reinterpreted, shifting their symbolic weight.
Symbols gain, lose, or transform meanings through social negotiation.
Reflexivity enables symbolic systems to self-modify, preventing ossification and enabling responsiveness to changing contexts.
The Dialectics of Reflexivity and Myth
Symbolic reflexivity can produce tensions:
Too little reflexivity risks mythic rigidity, dogmatism, and exclusion.
Too much reflexivity can destabilise shared meanings, leading to fragmentation or loss of symbolic coherence.
Successful social formations negotiate this dialectic by balancing continuity with change—holding myths sufficiently stable to provide orientation, yet sufficiently flexible to remain relevant.
The Role of Agents and Institutions
Symbolic reflexivity is distributed but uneven:
Some individuals and groups act as myth-makers and myth-transformers, mediating between tradition and innovation.
Institutions (religious, political, educational) play critical roles in sustaining or challenging dominant mythic architectures.
Understanding reflexivity requires attention to these actors and their strategies within symbolic fields.
Reflexivity, Power, and Mythic Worlds
Reflexivity is not neutral—it is embedded within power relations. Who controls mythic transformation shapes which worlds can emerge or fade:
Dominant narratives often reinforce existing power structures.
Subaltern or marginalised groups may engage reflexivity to challenge and reimagine mythic order.
Thus, reflexive myth-making is a site of contestation and possibility.
Conclusion
Symbolic reflexivity is the engine that makes mythic worlds dynamic, living, and adaptable. It is through reflexive processes that myths continue to function as ontological infrastructures, shaping the very conditions of possibility for social life.
Our next post will explore the symbolic architectures that underpin reflexivity and myth, connecting these ideas to the infrastructures of collective reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment