The Myths We Don’t Call Myths: 3 Necessity and Rationality as Mythic Constructs

Building on our analysis of progress, we now turn to two further myths that structure contemporary thought and action: necessity and rationality. At first glance, these concepts appear purely descriptive or normative, objective guides to reasoning. But examined through the lens of structural myth, they reveal themselves as subtle frameworks that constrain intelligibility and stabilise authority.

Rationality is often presented as universal, impartial, and neutral. It is the gold standard for decision-making, inquiry, and argumentation. Yet in practice, rationality delineates what counts as coherent thought, permissible argument, or legitimate knowledge. It imposes constraints on acceptable reasoning, framing both what can be asked and what can be accepted as an answer. Like myths of progress, rationality structures the space of intelligible action.

Similarly, necessity — the sense that certain outcomes, principles, or truths are unavoidable — functions mythically. When we speak of a law of nature, a mathematical theorem, or an inevitable social trend, we are appealing to necessity. But necessity does not generate events; it constrains the interpretation of events, establishing what can be conceived as acceptable or expected. By doing so, it stabilises authority, legitimises knowledge systems, and organises expectation.

Both rationality and necessity operate invisibly. They are rarely treated as mythic because their claims to objectivity are so deeply internalised. Yet their effect mirrors the structural work of myth: they delimit possibility, guide action, and provide coherent frameworks for navigating complex phenomena. Recognising them as myths does not diminish their utility or significance; it illuminates the architecture that enables human understanding and coordination.

Like progress, these myths are generative. They make intelligible certain courses of action, certain forms of argument, and certain social hierarchies. They also render other possibilities invisible or unintelligible. Awareness of this structural function allows one to navigate the frameworks consciously: to act, decide, and reason with insight into the constraints shaping thought itself.

In the next post, we will examine closure, endpoints, and the desire for finality — showing how the quest for completeness and ultimate explanation operates as a stabilising myth in both scientific and cultural domains.