We have spent much of this series trying to describe social structure before giving it a name.
Organisms have value systems.
Their signals engage the value-sensitive organisation of other organisms.
Repeated coupling produces collective form.
Persistent patterns become social structure.
Individuals inhabit those structures through differentiated repertoires.
Overlapping repertoires can produce affiliation.
And affiliations can become symbolically articulated as identities, values and ideologies.
We have now reached a different question.
What happens when human beings turn recurring patterns of social life into stories?
Myth may be one of the oldest ways in which societies have done this.
A myth can tell us what belongs together.
What must be protected.
What threatens the community.
What happens when established order breaks down.
What happens when someone leaves the familiar world.
What must be learned.
What must be brought back.
A myth can therefore be understood, among other things, as a symbolic map of relations that matter.
This does not mean that myths simply describe an underlying social topology.
They transform it.
They select from it.
They reorganise it.
They make some relations visible and others obscure.
But they may nevertheless preserve traces of recurrent structures of mattering.
From social relation to symbolic pattern
Consider a familiar pattern.
A community has an established way of organising itself.
Roles are known.
Expectations are familiar.
Relations are reproduced.
The community knows, broadly, how to continue being itself.
The pattern can be represented symbolically as:
home → order → continuity
But something happens.
A threat appears.
A resource disappears.
An old arrangement ceases to work.
A young person discovers that the inherited order cannot solve a new problem.
The existing repertoire is no longer sufficient.
Now the system faces a choice.
Reproduce the existing pattern as faithfully as possible.
Or explore beyond it.
A myth can turn this structural tension into a story.
Campbell's village compound
This is where Joseph Campbell's distinction between the village-compound path and the individual quest becomes interesting.
Campbell describes the village-compound way as life within the established symbolic and social world of one's community. The Joseph Campbell Foundation summarises this as remaining within "the sphere of your people"; Campbell contrasts it with the individual quest, in which the person moves beyond what the village compound can provide.
He calls the first the Right-Hand Path and the second the Left-Hand Path.
We should be careful with these terms.
Campbell's distinction is not simply a political classification.
Nor should we assume that "right" means morally good and "left" morally bad, or vice versa.
The distinction concerns different ways of relating to an inherited social world.
The Right-Hand Path remains within the established cultural order.
The Left-Hand Path involves an individual departure from it.
The village as a region of the topology
This gives us a suggestive way to read the village compound.
It can be understood as a region of relatively stable social mattering.
The relations are already organised.
The repertoire is established.
The boundaries are known.
The participant knows how to navigate the world.
The village therefore represents not merely a geographical location but a social topology that has become familiar and reproducible.
Its symbolic function is to make continuity intelligible.
The village tells us, in effect:
This is how our relations fit together.
These are the people to whom we belong.
These are the obligations that sustain us.
These are the paths through which life normally proceeds.
The myth makes the topology legible.
But the village can become insufficient
A stable topology is not necessarily an adequate one.
Conditions change.
New problems emerge.
The relations that previously sustained the community may no longer do so.
An inherited repertoire can become insufficient for a new environment.
This is one of the most interesting points in the whole model.
The problem is not simply that the old system is "bad".
It may have been highly adaptive.
It may have sustained the community for generations.
The difficulty is that the world has changed.
Continuity itself may now require transformation.
This gives us a dynamic problem:
How can a social system preserve what matters when its existing organisation is no longer sufficient to do so?
The hero leaves
This is where the hero's journey becomes particularly relevant.
The hero leaves the familiar world.
They enter a region in which the old rules no longer provide adequate guidance.
The journey involves danger.
Uncertainty.
Encounter.
Transformation.
The individual develops possibilities that were not available within the original repertoire.
Campbell's account of the quest explicitly places the hero beyond the familiar village compound and in a realm in which the ordinary rules no longer suffice.
From our present perspective, we can describe this as a transition across the social topology.
The hero has moved beyond a familiar region.
The unknown is a region without a map
The interesting thing about the journey is that the destination cannot simply be known in advance.
If it were already fully represented in the existing repertoire, there would be no need for the journey.
The hero therefore enters a region for which the community lacks an adequate map.
The individual must learn through encounter.
The repertoire changes.
New possibilities become available.
The unknown is therefore not merely geographically distant.
It is topologically unfamiliar.
The hero as explorer of possibility
This gives us a different way to understand the hero.
The hero is not simply unusually brave.
The hero performs a socially consequential exploration of possibility.
They move beyond the region in which established practices are sufficient.
They encounter something the community cannot yet construe adequately.
They acquire a new capacity.
A new relation.
A new knowledge.
A new object.
A new practice.
The exact form differs across myths.
But structurally, something new becomes available.
The boon
The journey would be incomplete if the innovation remained purely individual.
The hero returns.
And what they bring back matters.
The "boon" is therefore particularly interesting from the perspective of our topology.
It need not simply be a magical object.
It can be understood as a new possibility for the collective repertoire.
Something that was unavailable becomes available.
A new form of knowledge.
A new practice.
A new capacity.
A new way of organising relations.
The individual has expanded the repertoire, and the possibility can now enter the collective reservoir.
The return is therefore socially significant.
From individual repertoire to collective reservoir
This gives us a striking recursive pattern:
collective reservoir → individual repertoire → departure → expanded repertoire → collective uptake → transformed reservoir
The hero goes beyond the established repertoire.
Something is discovered.
It is brought back.
The collective can now incorporate it.
What was initially individual becomes potentially collective.
A new pathway has been opened in the topology.
The hero does not simply destroy the village
This is where Campbell's distinction becomes especially useful for our project.
The Left-Hand Path is not simply rebellion against society.
Campbell's account describes a departure from the village compound, but the hero's journey is conventionally understood to involve a return carrying a boon; the Joseph Campbell Foundation likewise emphasises that the separation from the community need not be permanent.
The interesting dynamic is therefore:
departure from the existing order → discovery beyond it → return to transform the possibilities of the order
The hero may leave the topology.
But they do not necessarily abandon it.
They return with something that can change it.
Transformation in the service of continuity
This gives us a much subtler relation between stability and change.
A social system may preserve itself by reproducing its existing organisation.
But it may also preserve itself by transforming its organisation when circumstances require it.
The opposition is therefore not simply:
tradition versus innovation.
It may be:
reproduction through continuity versus reproduction through transformation.
This distinction may eventually become important when we return to politics.
A political movement that advocates institutional change may be trying to preserve something it considers fundamental.
A movement that defends an inherited institution may be trying to prevent a transformation it considers destructive.
The topology is dynamic.
The same symbolic position can therefore support very different political strategies.
Myth makes the dynamic memorable
Why turn this process into myth?
Because a symbolic narrative can preserve a complex relational pattern across generations.
The story makes the structure memorable.
A village.
A departure.
A threshold.
A dangerous region.
A transformation.
A return.
A gift.
These are not merely narrative decorations.
They can provide a symbolic model of how a social world responds to novelty.
Myth can therefore encode a dynamic relation between continuity and transformation.
Myth is not merely a mirror
We should nevertheless avoid saying that myths simply reproduce social structure.
They can also criticise it.
A myth may celebrate the inherited order.
Or it may condemn it.
It may glorify the outsider.
Or warn against departure.
It may reconcile innovation with tradition.
Or portray innovation as catastrophe.
The symbolic map can therefore be normative.
It doesn't merely show the topology.
It tells us how to feel about regions and pathways within it.
A map can privilege one path
This is important.
A symbolic representation never gives us the whole topology equally.
A myth selects.
One region becomes sacred.
Another dangerous.
One path becomes heroic.
Another shameful.
One boundary becomes inviolable.
Another becomes a threshold to be crossed.
The myth therefore transforms social mattering by assigning symbolic significance to its patterns.
It gives the topology a value-laden narrative geometry.
The myth can create the path it describes
There is another possibility.
A myth can encourage people to enact the pattern it represents.
If a culture repeatedly tells stories in which heroic departure is followed by beneficial return, those stories may contribute to a repertoire in which exploration becomes intelligible and legitimate.
Conversely, myths that depict departure as catastrophic may reinforce the attraction of the village compound.
The symbolic map can therefore alter the trajectories available within the social topology.
Again:
meaning feeds back into mattering.
The political relevance
This is where our political question returns.
A political tradition can also construct narratives about the relation between continuity and transformation.
One may tell a story in which inherited institutions are the accumulated wisdom of generations and therefore deserve protection.
Another may tell a story in which inherited institutions have become obstacles to justice and therefore require transformation.
Both are symbolic maps of social mattering.
They identify:
what is worth preserving;
what has become intolerable;
who belongs;
what threatens the system;
what kind of transformation is legitimate.
Political ideologies may therefore be understood partly as mythically structured maps of social possibility.
The left/right distinction revisited
We should still resist equating Campbell's Left-Hand and Right-Hand Paths directly with the modern political left and right.
The historical meanings are different.
Campbell's distinction concerns the relation of the individual to inherited social and symbolic order, not a contemporary party spectrum.
But the comparison is potentially illuminating.
Modern political traditions also have to answer a structural question:
What should be preserved, and what should be transformed?
The political right and left have often differed, among many other things, over how inherited institutions, hierarchies and boundaries should relate to demands for change.
Campbell gives us a much older symbolic vocabulary for a similar structural tension between continuity and departure.
That does not prove a direct equivalence.
It suggests a possible comparative pattern.
The hero and the reformer
Our topology gives us an even more cautious way of connecting the two.
The mythic hero can be thought of as an archetype of topological exploration.
The political reformer can sometimes play a similar structural role.
They encounter a mismatch between the existing organisation of social mattering and some emerging need.
They leave the familiar pathway.
They encounter possibilities not yet incorporated into the collective repertoire.
They attempt to bring those possibilities back.
The political outcome may be constructive, destructive or ambiguous.
The structural pattern is nevertheless recognisable.
The danger of the hero
The topology also explains why the hero's journey is dangerous.
A novel pathway may genuinely solve a problem.
But it may also destroy a structure that was carrying essential forms of mattering.
Not every departure is an innovation.
Not every outsider brings a boon.
Some innovations damage the system.
Some destroy valuable relations.
Some cannot be integrated.
The community therefore faces a genuine adaptive problem:
Which departures expand the topology, and which cause it to disintegrate?
Myth often explores exactly this ambiguity.
Return is as important as departure
This is why the return matters.
A new possibility has to become socially incorporable.
The hero must translate their experience into something the community can use.
In our terms:
a possibility acquired in one region of the topology must become available within the repertoire of the collective.
The boon is successful when it expands the collective reservoir without destroying the relations that make collective life possible.
The return therefore represents integration of novelty.
Myth as social memory
Myth can preserve these patterns across generations.
A community does not have to rediscover the problem from scratch.
It inherits stories about:
departure,
danger,
sacrifice,
transformation,
return.
The stories become part of its reservoir.
The culture therefore inherits not merely conclusions but models of how change can occur.
That is a powerful form of social memory.
Myth and repertoire
This brings our repertoire concept back into view.
A person who has inherited stories about heroic departure has symbolic resources for recognising certain situations.
A crisis may become legible as a "call".
A difficult transition may become intelligible as a "trial".
A return with new knowledge can become recognisable as a "boon".
The myth has provided a semiotic repertoire for construal of change.
It does not determine what the person will do.
But it makes certain interpretations available.
Myth can map more than one topology
There is another complication.
A myth need not map only the social topology.
It can simultaneously map:
psychological experience;
biological life;
cosmic order;
social structure;
spiritual possibility.
This is one reason myths can be so difficult to reduce.
A single symbolic pattern can operate at several levels.
The hero may be leaving a village, transforming a psyche, entering a sacred realm and representing a social innovation simultaneously.
The topology of mattering therefore need not be the only topology represented.
Myth can connect several.
The symbolic map is not the terrain
This qualification should remain central.
We are not claiming that there exists a single universal topological structure and that every myth accurately depicts it.
Myths are cultural constructions.
They select.
Recombine.
Exaggerate.
Idealise.
They can preserve historical relations or transform them.
They can also create entirely new symbolic possibilities.
Our proposal is more modest:
myths may provide symbolic construals of recurrent patterns of mattering that are otherwise difficult to represent abstractly.
That is something we can investigate comparatively.
What myth adds
If social structure is the organisation of mattering-relations, myth can make the dynamics of those relations narratively visible.
It can show:
stability;
disruption;
boundary crossing;
transformation;
return;
reintegration.
It can give temporal form to a topology.
A static relation becomes a journey.
A region becomes a world.
A boundary becomes a threshold.
A transition becomes an ordeal.
A new pathway becomes an adventure.
A transformed topology becomes a return.
Myth turns social dynamics into narrative form.
The map changes the traveller
And because the myth enters the repertoire, it can also change how future participants navigate the topology.
The symbolic map affects the traveller.
A person who knows a story of transformation may construe uncertainty differently from one who knows only stories of decline.
A community that tells stories of renewal may interpret disruption differently from one whose myths emphasise restoration of an idealised past.
The map becomes part of the repertoire.
The repertoire influences participation.
Participation changes the topology.
The loop closes again.
What we have established
We began by modelling social mattering relationally.
We then introduced topology as a way of describing the shape of those relations.
Individuals inhabit the topology through repertoires.
Affiliations emerge through overlapping patterns of participation.
Those patterns become symbolically articulated.
Politics provides one form of symbolic mapping.
Myth provides another.
Campbell's village-compound and individual-quest distinction gives us a particularly suggestive example of a mythic map for the dynamic tension between social continuity and transformative departure.
The resulting cycle is:
social mattering → topology → repertoire → affiliation → symbolic map → transformed participation
The next question
But there is still something missing.
We have described how mattering can become symbolically mapped.
We have described how political and mythological meanings can feed back into social relations.
But we have not yet followed the feedback all the way around.
What happens when a newly created meaning changes the collective reservoir?
When a new symbol creates a new affiliation?
When a new concept alters what people notice?
When an altered repertoire changes participation?
When that participation reorganises the topology itself?
In other words:
How does the topology of mattering change once meaning begins to feed back into it?
That is where our final substantive post must take us.
No comments:
Post a Comment