The common nature of ideology and mythology as an object of socio-philosophical analysis

Poluboyarinov Andrei Romanovich Postgraduate Student, Department of Social Philosophy, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia 117198, Russia, Moscow, Miklukho-Maklaya str., 10k2, office 606 poluboyarinovandrey@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

Surova Elizaveta Dmitrievna Postgraduate student, Department of Social Philosophy, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia 117198, Russia, Moscow region, Moscow, Miklukho-Maklaya str., 10k2, office 606 e.d.surova@gmail.com

Dualism of ideology. Ideology is a certain structure that extends into the areas of both conscious, rational, and unconscious, pre-rational, mythical. T. Eagleton wrote that "the rationalistic view of ideology as a conscious, well-articulated belief system is obviously not adequate: it misses the affective, unconscious, mythical or symbolic sides of ideology; as well as the way, constituting the life of the subject, obviously spontaneous relations to power structures and the invisible coloring of everyday life" ^{[1, p. 221]}.

Despite the fact that Antoine Destute de Tracy coined the term "ideology" as "the science of ideas", that is, the comprehension of ideas in a rational scientific way, later studies have shown that ideology also has a hidden, unconscious character. "Another important feature of ideology is its mystery, its non–decomposability into purely rational principles. Ideology always appeals to some mysterious existence that cannot be fully expressed in speech and about which rational concepts and proofs cannot be given" ^{[2, p. 53]}. L. Althusser said that ideology is rather a special kind of "experience" by the subject of the material conditions of his existence, in which the imaginary is intertwined with the real.

The main thesis of this study is that ideology and mythology have a common nature when ideology is based not on true, scientific knowledge, but on illusory and false. Ideology in its illusory nature becomes practically indistinguishable from mythology and adopts its basic properties and functions. Ideology can either include certain myths, or create them independently.

Characteristics of ideology in the context of Marxist social philosophy. An important place in the study of the nature and essence of ideology is occupied by the works of K. Marx and F. Engels. Of particular research interest are their early works on this issue, namely "German Ideology". At the same time, the problems associated with ideology and the corresponding changes in consciousness are also present in later works, such as K. Marx's Capital.

Laying the foundations for the formation of a materialistic understanding of history, K. Marx defines that "consciousness can never be anything other than conscious existence, and the existence of people is a real process of their life. If in the whole ideology people and their relationships are put on their heads, as if in a pinhole camera, then this phenomenon also stems from the historical process of their lives" ^{[3, p. 16]}. Consciousness reproduces the surrounding reality, but under the influence of ideology, perception is distorted in a certain way. It is possible to clarify the real state of things only by getting rid of ideology with the help of criticism. Hence the understanding of ideology as a form of false consciousness, although K. Marx himself did not use the phrase "false consciousness". It will appear later in F. Engels in a letter to F. Mehring in 1893: "Ideology is a process that the so—called thinker performs, although with consciousness, but with false consciousness. The true driving forces that motivate him to work remain unknown to him, otherwise it would not be an ideological process" ^{[4, p. 83]}. However, K. Marx's analysis of ideology does not end there, and he also considers other aspects of ideology.

The social class that owns the main means of production and the practice of production activity of which is widespread in society, acts as the ruling class. It is the ideas and views of the ruling class that begin to prevail in society. "In every epoch, the thoughts of the ruling class are the dominant thoughts, i.e. the class that represents the dominant material force of society is at the same time its dominant spiritual force" ^{[3, p. 36]}. The ideology of the ruling class no longer acts as a "false consciousness", but becomes close to the concept of the "worldview" of the corresponding class. Material activity acts both as a starting point in the formation of ideology, and its most frank and direct embodiment.

At the same time, K. Marx designates the limits of the domination and spread of ideology. "While in everyday life any shopkeeper is perfectly able to distinguish between what someone pretends to be and what he really is, our historiography has not yet reached this trivial knowledge" ^{[3, p. 40]}. At the level of experience and material activity, the ideology imposed and carried out by the ruling class at some point reveals its inconsistency, although the ruling elite strives "to achieve its goal ... to present its interest as the common interest of members of society, i.e., speaking abstractly, to give its thoughts the form of universality, to portray them as the only reasonable, universally valid" ^{[5, p. 47]}. Then it becomes possible to expose ideology and discover things as they really are, or rather, things are perceived by a certain class with its own system of values and natural-scientific paradigm, in contrast to the alien thoughts and ideas imposed by the ruling class. As T. Eagleton notes, "ideological consciousness is involved in a bidirectional movement of inversion and dislocation. Such ideas take hold of an individual's social life and at the same time become completely unrelated to it" ^{[1, p. 78]}.

Hence, there is some difficulty in defining ideology as a "false consciousness". If consciousness is a reflection of material activity, then in the material activity itself there must be some moment of falsity, illusory, so that consciousness reproduces it and becomes false. This difficulty blurs the boundaries of the falsity of consciousness itself and transfers the problem from the speculative, cognitive sphere to the material and active area. In this connection, consciousness cannot be false in relation to its object, since it is itself a part of it and reproduces quite adequately those contradictions, the inherent falsity of which is subsequently transmitted to consciousness.

Compared with the earlier work "German Ideology" in Capital, ideology is not only a form of consciousness, but also the most objective reality of capitalist production, together with which ideology passes into the consciousness of individuals. "If in the "German ideology" the ideology was not to see things as they really are, then in the "Capital" we are talking about the fact that reality itself is duplicitous and deceptive" ^{[1, p. 87]}.

So, in the works of K. Marx and F. Engels' ideology appears in at least three senses: ideology as a "false consciousness", ideology as a "worldview" of the ruling class, which expresses and imposes its material interests on the rest of the classes, as well as ideology as a form of class struggle, which is a system of beliefs and values of the respective classes. 

In general, it is important to note for this study that ideology is a certain state of consciousness of the corresponding class. From an epistemological point of view, "both elements of truth and elements of illusion can coexist in ideologies" ^{[6, p. 355]}. The outgoing socio-economic system suffers more and more failures and generates more and more illusions, which makes the ideology of the ruling class corresponding to it more abstract, false and illusory, while the practice of the new progressive socio-economic system confirms the greater truth and greater objectivity of the ideology of the new class.

Changing the purpose of myths in society. Now let's turn to the myths. Having originated in primitive society, the myth helped a person to cope with the difficulties of life, to comprehend those phenomena that are impossible to know, to organize social connections of individuals. The man of primitive society perceived the myth as something real, since the myth meant the experience of the ancestors, which should be trusted.

Transforming, by the modern era, the myth receives a new purpose – to identify and destroy the inconsistencies between the spiritual component of a person and the social reality that does not always suit him. The function of the myth is to coordinate the external objective experience of a person and his emotional experiences. The myth is intended so that those phenomena that cannot be known in a given period of time can be comprehended by a person ^{[7, pp. 15-22]}. It is here that the similarity of the functions of ideology as an "experience" according to L. Althusser and myth as a special form of "coordination" and "explanation" of social reality for a person is traced, which indicates the common roots of myth and ideology. 

Myths as a source of ideology. The connection of ideology with mythology is also expressed in the fact that mythology, being transformed social knowledge, is the source and component of ideology. In this case, its function is to combine scientific knowledge and elements of ideology, such as values, guidelines and the image of the future ^{[8, p. 63]}. "Pseudoscientific social knowledge can be compared with a binding, residual liquid that fills all the free "pores" and "cavities" of social ideology – it is used when all other elements of this institution cannot be used, and the ideologist has only one way out – to connect social pseudoscience to substantiate his conclusions. Emotions and beliefs are often added to this, which are supplemented by primitive algorithms of actions and practical guidelines ..." ^{[8, p. 63]}.

Ideological mythology. Emerging myths in the course of history gradually become part of the national political mentality and are transformed into ideological myths under the influence of the interests of various social groups. Ideology and mythology are components of everyday political consciousness. Ideological mythology expresses ideology proper with a predominant irrational component. The ideological myth arises as a result of the interpretation of the myth in the structure of ideology. An ideological myth is formed on the basis of the interests of the relevant social classes, which determine the content and form of representation of such a myth. The ideological myth provides the individual with patterns of thinking and behavior used by him on an unconscious level. Ideological myths can be created purposefully, and then this process will be called myth-making, or they can arise spontaneously, in which case this process will be mythologization.

"At the ideological level, there is an active exploitation of some properties inherent in the myth, which is clearly manifested in myth-making processes" ^{[9, p. 35]}. An example of ideological myth-making is the myth of noble origin in Plato's ideal state, where the "admixture" of various metals to human nature determines their social position in the state.

The specificity of the ideological myth is that it conveys knowledge about society, but at the same time distorts and sometimes transforms them beyond recognition. Myths can develop and transform both within themselves and together with ideology. Cognition in ideological myths is mixed with emotional and sensual attributes. An ideological myth, firstly, sets out events applicable to the current situation in the state; secondly, it is subjected to directed rationalization; thirdly, it can arise spontaneously, but more often it is created purposefully; finally, it originates in the consciousness of the corresponding class.

An ideological myth can have both a positive (instill confidence in the subject, faith in success) and a negative effect (contain prejudices, push to extreme extremism). An ideological myth is an obligatory component of ideology and cannot be eradicated by rationalizing it.

The "mythomotory" of ideology. The influence of myth on ideology is carried out through "mythomotor". The myth is an appeal to the past, which sheds light from there on the present and the future ^{[10, p. 83]}. The "mythomotory" of ideology refocuses the motivating and driving force of myth on the goals it sets. The myth contains a certain driving mechanism of constant self-actualization of the past in the present and the present in the past, which performs two functions: justifying and contrapresentative or contrasting.

The substantiating function of the myth is that it shows the present in the context of history as "right", "necessary". The first function justifies the existence of the present or future state of things within a certain narrative set by the past. Contrapresent – on the contrary: the myth on the example of history points to the shortcomings of the present reality. The second function provides the opposition of the "heroic" era of myth and the present. These functions are applicable not to the myth itself, but to its meaning, meaning in the present, to the power through which the myth affects people.

In the case when the interests of a particular social class come into conflict with the established industrial relations, contrapresentative mythomotorics can acquire a revolutionary character, that is, to subject modern phenomena to criticism, to call for their change. Contrapresentative mythomotory shows the past as a political and social utopia to which it is necessary to strive ^{[10, p. 85]}. This function serves as a contrast between the "heroic" era of myth and the present.

Thus, the myth can serve as a tool for introducing changes into social reality, an impetus for their beginning. The revolutionary transformative character of the myth, colored by one or another ideology, becomes an instrument of a real ideological struggle. The past is interpreted not as a "heroic" epoch that has gone and lost forever, but as a utopia and an ideal of a social structure, for the realization of which people must make efforts.

The inertial force of the past, which lies in the myth, serves each ideology differently. Ideology constructs myths in such a way that the past is not only a witness, but also a justification for the truth of current ideological positions.

Common properties of myths and ideology. Ideology rationalizes and to some extent orders the spontaneous and chaotic nature of myths, at the same time myths give ideology an elusive and constantly multiplying character. The use of myths in ideology provides (or only creates the appearance of) its ancient foundation, which initially differentiates social space in accordance with the system of differentiation established by ideology, despite the fact that the impact of myth is fundamentally disorganized. K. Levi-Strauss, analyzing ancient myths, formulates that the mythological field begins at an arbitrary point and methodically extends in various dimensions. "Often the canvas on which the myth is embroidered is given by experience" ^{[11, p. 144]}. Disparate myths, incorporated into one ideology, convey the same message through several codes. Differences in the articulation of myths, depending on cultural, social, economic and other factors, often keep the mythological basis unchanged.

Under the influence of rationalization and ordering, ideological myths flow into ideological programs. The use of the mythological component increases the effectiveness of the functioning of ideology ^{[12, p. 19]}.

The A-centricity of the myth is borrowed by one or another ideology, creating a web of meanings, explanatory and justifying mechanisms. "The myth has no absolute unity or source. Its center or source is always just shadows, that is, elusive, impracticable, and most importantly, non–existent possibilities" ^{[13, pp. 456-457]}. In turn, there are also reverse trends in the mythological field, which is subject to the imperialist ambitions of ideology, which consist in the centralization and structuring of the a-centricity of myths and their symbolic order. A myth or a system of myths is given a broader logic and a deeper system of meanings is established, directly related to ideology.

Ideology through myths assumes a-centricity and produces a diversified and comprehensive impact on the end users of ideology, for whom ideology can acquire a disparate in the spheres of life, but at the same time comprehensive. However, it is the structural analysis of myths within ideology that returns their secret organization. The peculiarity of myths reduced to a single ideology lies in the commonality of properties that exist despite the differences between specific myths.

The structures of ideological myths have the features of generative matrices that perform their function through successive deformation of various types, which can be represented as an ordered series and which allow us to study each specific myth taken in individuality down to the smallest detail.

Most myths in general and, in particular, ideological myths are organized into closed groups ^{[14, p. 76]}. Various groups of myths have inherent internal principles of organization that move and crystallize mythological material. In every ideological myth, all forms and content of the ideology associated with it are often implicitly laid down. However, there is no complete clarity in the ideological message of the myths ^{[14, p. 133]}.

The peculiarities of the nature of myths are related to the way of their genesis. Myths are not reduced to a single code and are not a simple addition of several codes. A certain group of myths itself establishes a code that is superior in strength to those used to encrypt the numerous messages contained in the myth. Ideology brings to the established system of myths a certain universal meaning, different from that which is inherent in each myth individually.

The functional role of myths in ideology often consists in filling the void and incompleteness in places where there is an insurmountable gap between ideology and the stolen and enslaved social order. In such situations, myths serve as a system of rules, the elements of which are freely combined to convey various information. Not only ideology, but also mythology lays down the deep mechanisms of differentiation systems within social groups. K. Levi-Strauss, exploring the myths of North America, concludes that already primitive myths establish an internal order, "which within a certain social group makes it possible to distinguish between higher and lower, between people of noble origin and ordinary members of the community" ^{[15, pp. 267-268]}. In other words, myths contain the basis for further typologization of social ties and relationships.

However, mythological production is characterized by an allegorical, distorted representation of ideological reality. Myths impose their transcendental deduction on the results of ideological deduction, which hypostases extreme forms of ideological expression and generates a number of images that abstractly resolve ideological contradictions and disputes. Instead of a true change in social space, the myth ends with an imaginary fusion of ideological contradictions.

The events described in the myth are presented as a model for future reproduction. Mythology differs from science and is similar to ideology in T. Eagleton's understanding in that, instead of using logic, it appeals to a symbol. Like ideology, it has affective, unconscious sides and should not be viewed only through the prism of the rational.

A.F. Losev argued that "any thing passing through consciousness is symbolic, that is, mythical, ultimately" ^{[16, pp. 412-413]}. Getting into reality, the symbol is mythologized and described from the point of view of the existing social paradigm.

Despite its symbolism, myth is not only fiction, according to A.F. Losev, but is also the existence of human society: "Myth is reality itself, life itself" ^{[13, pp. 412-413]}. Many myths contain a figurative meaning, describe a different reality, which they themselves are not. However, at the same time, the myth itself exists as "a genuine real reality, not metaphorical, not allegorical, but completely independent" ^{[17, p. 69]}.

Myth is not a product of purposeful creation. Myth is something ephemeral, which exists primarily in individual or collective consciousness, serves as the basis for the formation of consciousness, and also manifests and is realized as a result of the work of consciousness.

Myths form mythological thinking, the characteristics of which are called the separation of subject and object, object and sign, being and his name, spatial and temporal relations, origin and essence. In other words, the mythological consciousness already has primary systems of differentiation and typologization.

The existing gap between ideology and the social order that myths fill forms the assertion of the existence of a certain world, the existence of which lies in its dissimilarity. Mythological speculation based on real oppositions and contradictions depicts the world in its primary asymmetry, which manifests itself in various ways in accordance with the perspective of its perception by the subjects of ideology. "In order for the birth of a myth to take place and it, in turn, gave rise to other myths, it is necessary and sufficient for the manifestation of some initial opposition in the cumulative experience, after which other oppositions will be generated" ^{[18, p. 571]}. Rather, myths provide temporary and local answers to the problems posed by the insurmountable contradictions existing between ideologies and the social order, and in this case they try to legitimize them or disguise them. The content of the myths is not preceding, but following in relation to this first impulse.

Myths do not offer a solution to ideological contradictions, but they point to the internal driving forces of the functioning of society. Ideology uses myths as a special technique that adapts the unconscious to some intuitively perceived poetic structure. Only in the mythological universe can the essential objective differences between ideology and social order become indistinguishable.

The social impact of an ideological myth is often reduced to rites and rituals. "When a myth has nothing more to say, it exists only through repetition" ^{[19, p. 93]}. Rites and rituals are designed to fill the void of social practices arising between ideological principles and real social relations.

A characteristic feature of the myth is its constant evasion from analysis and its fundamental inexpressibility. "The topics multiply to infinity. If at some point it seems that we have managed to isolate a separate topic, then after that we have to state that it merges with others again due to the discovery of new, previously unforeseen similarities. Consequently, the unity of the myth manifests itself only as a project and a trend, but not as a state of the myth itself. This unity is an imaginary phenomenon generated by the efforts of interpretation" ^{[18, p. 15]}. Ideology, reproducing the myths of antiquity or generating new ones, merges with the myth and adopts its main characteristics. In the myth, ideology acquires an infinity of meanings and constant self-actualization. Just as "mythological thought recognizes nature only when it is able to reproduce it" ^{[18, p. 324]}, ideology produces only those myths that can be reproduced to it and embedded in its structure.

Consideration of the connections of mythology and ideology of the bourgeoisie by R. Barth. In the work "Myth today" R. Bart writes that myth is a word, but it is not any word. This is a word supported by a certain context, often social, with targeting ^{[19, p. 277]}. The myth really must exist in a certain historical, social context. It will be relevant in a certain culture or era, but not in another. This is its historicity, ideology.

The transformation of history into nature is inherent in myth ^{[19, p. 289]}. The consumer of the myth perceives a certain historical fact without any evidence. As if this knowledge is a priori and does not require confirmation. R. Barth attributes the same characteristics to bourgeois ideology ^{[19, p. 304]}. At the same time, the myth is not just false knowledge, but hidden, deformed, substituted ^{[19, p. 289]}.

The bourgeoisie, according to R. Barth, is a social class that does not want to be named ^{[19, p. 299]}. We can assume that bourgeois ideology is "hidden". As long as the idea of this ideology seems to us natural, and not historical, it has the right to exist. But when we discover this ideology, see it as it is, it will lose its mythic character, and thus, perhaps, will cease to be an ideology, will not be able to perform its functions. We can say that the mythology of the bourgeoisie is that it has no ideology.

In this regard, it is important to say that, according to Barth, it is impossible to fight with a myth, because a myth can always make it so that it denotes the resistance offered to it ^{[19, p. 296]}. When we try to overcome an old myth, we create a new myth about the naivety of the previous myth. If we deny that a certain class has an ideology, it does not mean that it does not exist, it means that it exists in the form of a myth. In the case of the bourgeoisie, the absence of its ideology is a myth.

R. Barth assigns the reading and deciphering of myths to the mythologist, who returns knowledge from the natural to the historical, ideologizes it. R. Barth writes: "Perhaps the best weapon against myth, in turn, is to mythologize it, to create an artificial myth, such a reconstructed myth would just turn out to be true mythology" ^{[19, p. 296]}.

Creating a myth by discrediting the previous one is ideology. The elimination of a myth, which does not entail the appearance of a new one, is true mythology. In this case, ideology is the purposeful creation of false knowledge, and mythology is a substitution, a deformation of knowledge that arises spontaneously.

Conclusion. K. Levi-Strauss wrote in Structural Anthropology that "nothing resembles mythology so much as political ideology. Perhaps, in our modern society, the latter has simply replaced the former" ^{[20, p. 217]}. The common nature of mythology and ideology is expressed, first of all, in the fact that these phenomena represent a certain way of organizing imaginary or symbolic and real orders, as well as their interaction. K. Marx and F. Enegles in "German Ideology" defined the essence of ideology in that it is "vapors of the material life process" ^{[3, p. 16]}. In this study, ideology was considered as the form and state of consciousness of the corresponding social classes of their material interests, moreover, consciousness is not rational, but false, transformed, perverted and filled with myths. The mythical essence of ideology is determined by the specific nature of the myth, the features and structures of which are subsequently integrated and embodied in ideology. Mythology and ideology form ideological myths, which are formed depending on the interests of the respective social classes. The "mythomotor" ideology consists in the fact that the past indicated in the myths has an inertial transformative force in relation to the present. Also, on the basis of the analysis, the following properties characteristic of both mythology and ideology have been identified: spontaneity and chaotic origin; an elusive and constantly multiplying producing mechanism; the foundation for systems of differentiation and the introduction of differences; disorganized nature; deployment in various social fields and dimensions; transmission of the same message through several codes; social, economic, cultural and other conditionality of articulation of ideology and myths; a-centricity and diversification; comprehensive and comprehensive impact on end users; lack of complete clarity and eluding analysis; fundamental inexpressibility; binary mechanisms of opposition formation; transcendental deduction; unconscious poetic structure; ritualism and repeatability. Ideology can both integrate already formulated myths into its structure and produce its own. However, not every myth can be used by ideologies for their own purposes, but only the one that ideology is able to embed into its structure and reproduce.