The Myths We Don’t Call Myths: 1 Hidden Myths: Seeing the Invisible Architecture

By now, readers are familiar with the structural view of myth: myths are not simply stories to be believed or disbelieved. They are infrastructure — constraints that shape what can be thought, said, acted, and valued. They are conditions of intelligibility, enabling coherent worlds rather than prescribing particular outcomes.

With this groundwork, we can look more closely at the myths we rarely name as such. These are the invisible frameworks that stabilise modern thought, culture, and knowledge, often under the guise of reason, necessity, or inevitability.

Consider the idea of progress. In science, politics, and technology, progress is treated as natural, linear, and inevitable. It is seldom called a myth — yet its function is unmistakably mythic. Progress constrains expectation, channels action, and legitimises authority. It provides a scaffolding that makes the unfolding of events intelligible and purposeful, even where the underlying dynamics are contingent or complex.

Similarly, notions of rationality and necessity operate like myths. Rationality is often presented as universal and neutral, but in practice it delineates what counts as coherent thought, acceptable action, or legitimate knowledge. Necessity constrains explanation, narrowing the field of intelligible possibilities. Both stabilise systems of authority and expectation, making certain courses of action seem unavoidable or natural.

Even the desire for closure — the wish for finality, ultimate explanations, and settled truths — functions mythically. Closure provides comfort, order, and intelligibility. It organises thought and action, quietly shaping what is considered resolved, complete, or authoritative. Without acknowledging its mythic character, closure can be mistaken for an objective endpoint rather than a structured pattern of meaning.

The pattern is recursive: the very attempt to demythologise — to expose myths and elevate reason, science, or secular critique — carries its own structuring assumptions. Claims of neutrality, universality, or objectivity are themselves stabilising narratives. Recognising them as myths does not delegitimise inquiry, but illuminates the invisible scaffolding that supports it.

The purpose of this series is diagnostic. It does not polemicise or condemn; it seeks to reveal. By naming the myths we rarely call myths, we can see the architecture shaping our perception, reasoning, and social life. Once seen, these patterns can be navigated consciously, critically, and responsibly.

In the next post, we will examine progress as myth in detail, exploring how its stabilising function guides expectation, action, and belief, and how recognising its mythic structure changes the way we inhabit contemporary worlds.