Translate this page:
Nota Bene. Books, journals, publishing technologies.
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate ☒
Library
 Your profile
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Back to contents

Litera
Reference:

The term «neo-mythology» in the foreign humanities discourse of the XX-XXI centuries: the specifics of its existence

Viderker Vyacheslav Vladimirovich

ORCID: 0009-0000-1617-6244

PhD in Cultural Studies

Associate Professor; Department of Law and Philosophy; Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University

630126, Russia, Novosibirsk region, Novosibirsk, Vilyuyskaya str., 28

viderker.v@yandex.ru

DOI:

10.25136/2409-8698.2024.6.70808

EDN:

BRHEDF

Received:

20-05-2024

Published:

04-07-2024

Abstract: The article is devoted to the specifics of existence of the term «neo-mythology» in the foreign humanities discourse of the XX-XXI centuries. The foreign texts, which contain the term «neo-mythology» as a key word, have become the focus of research for this article. The genesis and semantics of the idea of «neo-mythology» in foreign research papers are the subject matter of the research. The origin matters of the term «neo-mythology» in the Italian cinema of the 1950s-1960s are overviewed in detail. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the main tendencies of the development of the notion «neo-mythology». Russian and foreign researches touching upon contemporary mythology differ both in the content and in the usage of the term «neo-mythology» crucially. The following research was inspired by the necessity to find the terminological equivalents in Russian and foreign scientific works on modern mythogenesis. The research is based on structural-semantic and semantic-cognitive methods. Traditional methods of analysis, synthesis, comparison and generalization are used. The results of the research enabled us to make conclusions on the peripheral role of the term «neo-mythology» in foreign scientists’ works and conclude that their preferences lie within the terms «contemporary/modern mythology». The term «neo-mythology» in the foreign discourse is mostly used in works, which are either devoted to the research of some aspects of mass culture or closely connected with Russian humanities. The usage of the term «neo-mythology» in foreign research of mass/pop culture reflects the background of theoretical analysis of modern mass consciousness turning to myths. The conclusions made in the research are supposed to help Russian scientists work with foreign studies of contemporary mythology more productively.

Keywords:

neo-mythology, neo-myth, term, contemporary mythology, mythogenesis, discourse, mass culture, Vittorio Cottafavi, cinema, peplum
This article is automatically translated.

Introduction. In modern society, the dominant way of knowing the world around us is science, which is a specific generative environment that forms a separate space of scientific knowledge. This knowledge, demonstrating the criteria of scientific validity (evidence, consistency, consistency, etc.), is encoded by a group of texts defined as scientific research (texts).

Scientific research is based on the categorical and conceptual apparatus of the relevant branch of science. Thus, one of the conditions for conducting scientific research is the presence of a stable terminological system that contributes not only to the generation of knowledge in a certain text, but also to its (knowledge) translation and distribution into various discourses. V. N. Pilatova, defining discourse, notes: "the discursive structure of human existence sets the verbal way of using language" [1, p. 380], and further: "Discourse should be considered the central link in the language–discourse–speech trichotomy, designed to perform an intermediary function between the virtual language system and the actual speech system" [1, p. 381].

Violation of the rules of functioning of the terminological system, for example, the existence of terms with a blurred semantic field or the existence of more than one term for the name of one concept, is a barrier in the development of scientific knowledge. At the same time, the terminological system exists in a dynamic state, as it corresponds to scientific progress, which implies qualitative and quantitative changes. In this sense, the balance between development trends and sustainability is relevant for the system of terms. The rapid development of modern humanitarian and scientific discourse reflecting global socio-cultural processes entails the emergence of new concepts, which actualizes terminological issues. For Russian humanities, the process of establishing terminological equivalents in Russian and foreign language studies is of fundamental importance.

The author's study of the phenomenon of neo-mythologism in the domestic and world culture of the XX-XXI centuries revealed a significant difference in the content and functioning of the term. The purpose of this work is to study the existence of the term "neo-mythologism" in the foreign humanitarian and scientific discourse of the XX-XXI centuries. The results of the study are intended to contribute to a more productive work of domestic researchers of neo-mythologism with the Western corpus of texts on this topic.

Results. The process of remythologization, which began in world culture at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries and continues at the present time, led to the reactivation of the basic properties of mythological consciousness and the formation of stable mythological structures embedded in all spheres of public life. The mythological component of modern culture is not a simple "restoration" of ancient (classical) mythology. The spread and development of mythogenic practices in various spheres of life in modern society arouses increased research interest. The analysis of scientific research devoted to the problems of modern mythology demonstrates the terminological diversity. The term "neo-mythologism" has become widespread in Russian humanitarian and scientific discourse, the horizon of which includes research on the principles of creation and functioning of modern myths in artistic, political, social, and other spheres, as well as analysis of the worldview behind these mythogenic practices [2-4]. In Russian humanities, the creator of the term "neo-mythologism" is E. M. Meletinsky. The author of this article has previously investigated the genesis and essence of the concepts of "neo-mythologism" in the works of E. M. Meletinsky [5].

The terms "modern mythology" and "new mythology" have become widespread in foreign humanitarian and scientific discourse, which are opposed to "classical mythology" and "ancient mythology" - classical and contemporary mythology [6, p. 98, 7, p. 28], ancient and modern mythology [8, p. 174-175], new mythology [8, p. 175].

The term "neo-mythologism" is represented in foreign studies [9, 10], but it is quite rare and has a limited distribution. "The term "neo-mythology" defines the modern tendency to extract symbols and religious and mythical figures of world history from their natural context or religion and reinterpret, thus "constructing" a new myth" [10, p. 6].

Chronologically, the first use of the word "neo-mythologism" was discovered by us in an article in French published in 1962 in the French journal of fiction [11]. The author of the article entitled "Neo-mythologism and paleo-science fiction (V. Kottafavi "Hercules conquers Atlantis")" was Jacques Goimard (1934-2012), a French writer in the genres of science fiction and fantasy, a film historian. In addition to literary works in the genres of science fiction and fantasy, Fiction published news from the world of literature, cinema, comics, etc., related to the field of fantasy and supernatural.

A general analysis of the corpus of foreign works that thematize neo-mythologism allows us to identify two main groups of research in it.

The first group includes works exploring neo-mythological works in modern popular culture. Chronologically, the first works related to this group were devoted to the analysis of the cinematic practice of screening classical myths of antiquity, the purpose of which was to "fill" the traditional myth with an actual social and political agenda that meets the interests of a mass audience [11, 12]. This practice is based on the idea of myth as a universal structure for expressing the "eternal" themes and collisions of human existence. Antonio Gonzales, analyzing the films "Hercules conquers Atlantis" (ital. Ercole alla conquista di Atlantide, French Hercule à la conquête de l'Atlantide, dir. Vittorio Cottafavi, 1961, Italy, France) and "Atlantis, the Lost Continent" (English: Atlantis The Lost Continent, dir. George Pal, 1961, USA), came to the conclusion that they "update fragments of the Platonic myth taking into account modern problems" [12, p. 344]. In particular, V. Kottafavi's film "is an actualization or, rather, a transcription of the narrative structure of the mid-twentieth century" [12, p. 346], and the image of Hercules presented in it expresses the "archetype of a defender of human rights" [12, p. 346].

Western researchers consider the Italian director Vittorio Cottafavi (1914-1998), a well-known representative of the cinematic genre peplum, to be the author of the concept of "neo-mythologism". J. Guamar noted that V. Kottafavi defined his film as "neo-mythologism" or "paleo-science fiction" [11]. M. Winkler (Martin M. Winkler) writes: "in an era whose technology has enabled visual artists to move far beyond canvas, paint and brushes, the range of possibilities for adaptations has also expanded [meaning the translation of text into an image and, in a broad sense, the specifics of the message transcoding process – V. V.]. This is best seen in cinema and its offshoot, television, in particular in bizarre retellings of the Greek myth. In principle, such free adaptations are not something new. Even in antiquity, alternative versions of myths were widely distributed throughout literature and the visual arts, as evidenced, on the one hand, by the works of playwrights, mythographers, epic and lyrical poets, and, on the other, by the works of sculptors and painters. Modern visual aids have only advanced this tradition. They proved the special grace of the soil for the re-creation of images and reinterpretation of classical antiquity. Film director Vittorio Cottafavi, who directed several films set in antiquity, aptly called this phenomenon "neo-mythologism" [13, p. 14.]. In cinema, peplums are considered the most representative examples of neo-mythologism. "The most infamous genre of neo–mythological film is the epic films with muscular men shot in Italy in the 1950s and 1960s. Most, and the most famous or, depending on the point of view, the infamous of them are free adaptations of the myths of Hercules (Hercules)" [13, p. 15.].

Initially, neo-mythologism was considered primarily as a cinematic phenomenon. Neo-mythological works are adaptations of ancient myths to the demands of modern film audiences, involving the modernization of ancient narratives, in particular, drawing various parallels with current political, social and personal conflicts. Such neo-mythologism is characterized by a rather loose interpretation of classical myths, the combination of different myths into a single narrative, the introduction of new characters and plot twists into the text. It is important to note that the ancient myth, albeit in a modernized form, acts as the only plan of the image in these works. Thus, the classic myth, while maintaining its recognition, is filled, in fact, with new content that is in demand by a modern audience.

The very fact of the appearance of the term "neo-mythologism" in the field of cinematography, the most popular visual art of our time, is noteworthy. A cinematic image (a moving image), like any other image, has a sensory-motor nature. Movies simultaneously affect different human senses, which brings them closer to ancient myths that were played out rather than told in a primitive collective.

Scientific and technological progress of the late XX – early XXI centuries led to the creation of new technologies for generating visual content, which have been widely used in cultural and creative industries. The emergence of fundamentally new visual (sensory-motor) capabilities, in particular, computer programs, inspired the formation of new segments of mass culture and corresponding neo-mythological works, for example, video games "the most modern and popular products of neo-mythology" [10, p. 7].

The second group of foreign studies using the term "neo-mythologism" consists of the works of authors who are closely related to the Russian neo-mythological discourse [14-16].

Russian Russian culture Rainer Grübel, a modern German literary scholar and Slavist, in his article "(Neo-) myth and discourse in Russian culture: between nature and culture" (2019) [16], based on the method of analyzing binary oppositions, close to the traditions of the Tartu-Moscow semiotic school, explores the phenomenon of neo-myth in Russian culture XX-XXI centuries. The researcher formulated a thesis that aims to clarify the nature of the neo-myth: "Secondary mythologization / neo-mythism presupposes the demythologization of the primary (primitive) myth" [16, p. 54]. In general, the pair "mythical thinking / discursive thinking" analyzed by R. Grubel is an analogy of the binary opposition "non-discrete message / discrete message" put forward by Yu. M. Lotman [17], which has become widely known in Russian humanities. The fundamental difference between the elements of the pair is that "if a myth uses a means of equation and is prone to inclusion, then a non-myth ["discourse" in the terminology of R. Grubel – V. V.] uses a tool of distinction, it is prone to exclusion" [16, p. 51]. Myth practices a comprehensive (total) connection, striving for identification, which helps to erase all boundaries – between nature and culture, the whole and its part, a thing and its name, etc. Discourse, which in this case is identified with rational thinking, practices separation, which leads to an increasing fragmentation of natural phenomena and cultural phenomena.

Conclusion. Foreign mythologists of the XX-XXI centuries in their research actively address the problem of the existence of myth in their modern culture. The common place of the mythological discourse of our time has become, firstly, the recognition of the important role of the mythological component and the worldview behind it in modern, primarily mass (popular) culture and, secondly, a clear distinction between ancient (traditional, classical) and modern myths. Foreign researchers of modern mythology use different terms to refer to this phenomenon (contemporary mythology, modern mythology, new mythology). The term "neo-mythologism" (neo-mythologism, (neo)mythologism, neomythology) is peripheral in foreign scientific and humanitarian discourse and is found mainly in works that are either devoted to the study of certain aspects of mass culture, or are closely related to Russian humanitarian knowledge.

References
1. Pilatova, V. N. (2018). On the problem of defining discourse. Philological Sciences. Issues of Theory and Practice, 4-2(82), 378-381.
2. Ivanov, D. I., & Gavrikov V. A. (2017). Neomythological component of synthetic language personality. Philological Sciences. Issues of Theory and Practice, 2-1(68), 24-27.
3. Stroeva, O. V. (2020). Conceptualism in contemporary art regarded as neo-mythologism. The art and science of television, 16(1), 11-29.
4. Fayzullina, D. F. (2020). «Neomythologism» in the visual arts of the turkic peoples of the Volga region in the late XX – early XXI centures. Bulletin of the Kazan State University of Culture and Arts, 4, 75-79.
5. Viderker, V. V. (2021). Neo-mythologism: the origin and development of the notion in the works of E. M. Meletinsky. Cultural and anthropological research, 1, 13-20.
6. Baldt, E. (2014). Mythology and/of the Great War in Katherine Mansfield’s «The Daughters of the Late Colonel». In: Katherine Mansfield and World War One, 98-112. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
7. Jayatissa, P. G. R. M. (2023). Recreation Of Mythology in J. K Rowling’s Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire. North American Academic Research, 6(10), 28-34.
8. Hühn, H. (2020). Mythology and Modernity. In: Forster, M., Steiner, L. (Eds). Romanticism, Philosophy, and Literature. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 173-192.
9. Hanegraaff, W. J. (1999). New Age Spiritualities as Secular Religion: a Historian’s Perspective. Social Compass, 46(2), 145-160.
10. Xidakis, I. (2022). Neomythology: A New Religious Mythology. Religions, 13(6), 536.
11. Goimard, J. (1962). Neo-mythology and paleo science fiction (V. Cottafavi, Hercules and the Conquest of Atlantis). Fiction, 101, 139-144.
12. Gonzales, A. (1989). Myth and neo-myth. Atlantis in the cinema or how to show the ineffable. Dialogues of ancient history, 15(2), 333-356.
13. Troy: from Homer’s Iliad to Hollywood epic (2007). Ed. by Martin M. Winkler. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
14. Vojvodić, Ja., & Ioffe, D. (2019). [Neo]mythologism in literature: theories of myth and sign. Introduction. Russian Literature, 107-108, 1-29.
15. Vojvodić, Ja. (2017). (Neo)mythological Elements in the Modern Russian Prose (through the Example of «Surgeon» by Marina Stepnova). Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities and Social Sciences, 10(5), 768-775.
16. Grübel, R. (2019). (Neo-)Myth and Discourse in Russian Culture: Between Nature and Culture. Russian Literature, 107-108, 49-91.
17. Lotman, Yu. M., & Mints, Z. G. (2002). Literature and mythology. In: Lotman Yu. M. History and typology of Russian culture, 727-743. SPb.: Iskusstvo-SPb.

First Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The subject of the research in the article submitted for publication in the journal "Litera", as the author indicated in the title ("The term "neo-mythologism" in the foreign humanitarian and scientific discourse of the XX-XXI centuries: the specifics of existence"), is the specificity of the existence in the foreign humanitarian and scientific discourse of the XX-XXI centuries of the semantic core of the term "neo-mythologism" (neo-mythologism, (neo)mythologism, neomythology), which is, among other things, part of the more widespread concepts in foreign discourse (contemporary mythology, modern mythology, new mythology). Accordingly, the segment of theoretical, humanitarian and scientific discourse formed around "neo-mythological" topics in the XX-XXI centuries is an object of the author's attention. Moreover, as the author did not try to limit the object of attention to the foreign humanitarian and scientific discourse of the XX-XXI centuries, he was nevertheless forced to go beyond it, comparing the results obtained with the achievements of the Soviet schools of semiotics and mythology (E. M. Meletinsky, Y. M. Lotman, Z. G. Mints, etc.). According to the reviewer, the presented study demonstrates the conventionality of fragmentation of theoretical discourse based on the concretization of its segment around a single term, characterized not by a common semantic core of a set of synonymous terms, but by formal signs of word usage. The reason for this conditionality, based on the theory of self-description of semiotic systems by Yu. M. Lotman, is the dynamism of linguistic and cultural processes. Therefore, the result obtained by the author is valuable not only in terms of clarifying the origin of the term "neo-mythologism" (neo-mythologism, (neo)mythologism, neomythology), but also in the context of the development of scientific ideas about the phenomenon reflected using it. The author's chosen perspective (aspect) of recoding the primary (primitive) myth within the framework of the actual problems of social discourse on the example of the peplum film genre or the assessment by foreign scientists of Russian theoretical discourse, implying the interpretation of "neo-mythism" as a secondary mythologization, involving the demythologization of the primary source (image or mythology as a whole), reveals, in the opinion of the reviewer, a wider field knowledge of the nature of myth and mythological thinking. Based on R. Grubel's research, which in turn is based on the methodology of the Moscow-Tartu school, the author states the presence in theoretical discourse of the distinctions of myth based on the "inclusiveness" of everything ("comprehensive (total) connection") and neo-myth ("discourse"), which presupposes the analytical "exclusion" of individual phenomena and "the increasing fragmentation of natural phenomena and cultural phenomena." However, according to the reviewer, such an interpretation of the neo-myth remains conditionally abstract (if we take into account Yu. M. Lotman's exclusively abstract understanding of the semiosphere) and points essentially to two dynamic states of myth in linguistic and cultural processes: 1) the tendency to comprehensive (total) connection is the state of "myth"; 2) the tendency to comprehensive differentiation and fragmentation is the state of "neo—myth". In other words, mythological thinking, without losing its nature, which equally excludes scientific and theoretical rationality and the absoluteness of monotheism, develops in the logic of fluctuations in the main trends of mass consciousness from convergence to divergence (and vice versa) of natural phenomena and cultural phenomena. Thus, "Neomif" (or "discourse" according to R. Grubel) is not more rational than myth, but retains a special "rationality" inherent exclusively in mythological thinking within its own stochastic system (A. F. Losev: "The world is a horse"). Accordingly, its study additionally requires further investigation of the intersections and delineations of a variety of synonymous terms (neo-mythologism, (neo)mythologism, neomythology; contemporary mythology, modern mythology, new mythology, etc.), which, in all probability, reveal only different aspects of some common object of knowledge — the cultural phenomenon of myth. Thus, the subject of the study is considered by the author at a high theoretical level, which implies, among other things, the expansion of the heuristic potential of the category "neomif" in further promising research. The research methodology is based on the structural and functional position of the theoretical discourse on the foundation of scientific knowledge through a stable categorical and conceptual apparatus of the relevant branch of science, implying as one of the conditions for conducting scientific research "the presence of a stable terminological system that contributes not only to the generation of knowledge in a certain text, but also its (knowledge) translation and distribution in various discourses". Although the author does not deny that the terminological system exists in a dynamic state and it is characterized by a balance between trends in the development and stability of terms. Having chosen the definiteness of terminological statics, following the designated research program, the author comes to well-reasoned conclusions that, on the one hand, "the common place of the mythological discourse of our time has become, firstly, recognition of the important role of the mythological component and the worldview behind it in modern, primarily mass (popular) culture and Secondly, there is a clear distinction between ancient (traditional, classical) and modern myths," and on the other hand, that "the term "neo-mythologism" in foreign literature remains "peripheral" and is found mainly in works devoted to the study of certain aspects of mass culture or closely related to Russian humanitarian knowledge. In general, the author's methodological solution is relevant to the scientific and cognitive task, and the result deserves theoretical attention. The author explains the relevance of the chosen topic by the importance of scientific knowledge of stable conceptual and terminological systems. Of course, the author's thesis is relevant and very timely, especially given the increasing terminological complexity of humanitarian discussions. The scientific novelty of the study, which consists in defining a segment of the humanitarian and scientific discourse formed around the common semantic core of the concept of "neo-myth" in the XX-XXI centuries, as well as in clarifying the theoretical content of the term and expanding its heuristic potential, is beyond doubt. The style of the text as a whole has been maintained by the author scientifically, although the reviewer notes individual statements, the correction of which may contribute to facilitating the understanding of the author's thought. The author should consider the possibility of: 1) abbreviations of redundant words and expressions in some statements (the reviewer gives them in square brackets): "Scientific research [as such] is based on the categorical and conceptual apparatus of the relevant branch of science"; The author's study of the phenomenon of neo-mythologism in the domestic and world culture of the XX-XXI centuries revealed a significant difference in the content and functioning of the term ["neo-mythologism" in domestic and foreign humanitarian and scientific discourses]; 2) correction and harmonization of words taking into account the grammatical norms of the modern Russian language: "In modern society, the dominant way of cognition of the external and internal, i.e. external and internal to man, worlds is science, which is a specific generative environment that forms a separate the space of scientific knowledge", "The analysis of scientific research devoted to the problems of modern mythology demonstrates ...". The structure of the article corresponds to the logic of presenting the results of scientific research. The bibliography reveals the problematic field of research well, it is designed without critical violations of the requirements of the editorial board and GOST. The appeal to the opponents is generally correct and quite sufficient; the author makes a well-reasoned contribution to the current theoretical discussion. The article is of interest to the readership of the Litera magazine and, after minor edits, can be recommended for publication.

Second Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

The author of the reviewed article refers to the deciphering of the term "neo-mythologism" in foreign humanitarian discourse. This factor is, in principle, quite justified, it has a certain scientific interest, is debatable, debatable. The article is divided into standard, logically verified parts. In the introductory block, it is noted that "one of the conditions for conducting scientific research is the presence of a stable terminological system that contributes not only to the generation of knowledge in a certain text, but also to its (knowledge) translation and distribution into various discourses", "violation of the rules of functioning of the terminological system, for example, the existence of terms with a blurred semantic field or the existence of more than one term for the name of one concept is a barrier to the development of scientific knowledge." It is worth agreeing with this statement, accepting it as a kind of starting point for scientific research. I should immediately note that it is desirable to subtract the article, make corrections to some formulations, words: for example, "so, humanitarian and scientific discourse has a more mobile terminology compared to natural science discourse," etc. The purpose of the work is concretized, it boils down to "the study of the existence of the term "neo-mythologism" in foreign humanitarian and scientific discourse XX-XXI century . The results of the study are intended to contribute to a more productive work of domestic researchers of neo-mythologism with the Western corpus of texts on this topic." The main part of the study is focused on the disclosure of the issue. Judgments in the course of the unfolding of the topic are objective, verified: for example, "the process of remythologization, which began in world culture at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries and continues at the present time, led to the reactivation of the basic properties of mythological consciousness and the formation of stable mythological structures embedded in all spheres of public life," or "the term "neo-mythologism" in foreign It is represented in studies [9, 10], but it is quite rare and has a limited distribution. "The term "neo-mythology" defines the modern tendency to extract symbols and religious and mythical figures of world history from their natural context or religion and reinterpret, thus "constructing a "new myth" [10, p. 6]," etc. As can be seen from this fragment, the author is attentive to citations, references. No serious editing of the text is required; the information is compiled systematically, taking into account due criticism. The methodology of the research has an analytical and empirical character, the style of the composition correlates with the scientific type itself. For example, "the first group includes works exploring neo-mythological works in modern popular culture. Chronologically, the first works related to this group were devoted to the analysis of the cinematic practice of screening classical myths of antiquity, the purpose of which was to "fill" the traditional myth with an actual social and political agenda that meets the interests of a mass audience ...". The specifics of the examples are also sufficient: "this practice is based on the idea of myth as a universal structure for expressing the "eternal" themes and collisions of human existence. Antonio Gonzales, analyzing the films "Hercules conquers Atlantis" (ital. Ercole alla conquista di Atlantide, French Hercule ? la conqu?te de l'Atlantide, dir. Vittorio Cottafavi, 1961, Italy, France) and "Atlantis, the Lost Continent" (English: Atlantis The Lost Continent, dir. George Pal, 1961, USA), came to the conclusion that they "update fragments of the Platonic myth taking into account modern problems" [12, p. 344]. In particular, V. Kottafavi's film "is an actualization or, rather, a transcription of the narrative structure of the mid-twentieth century" [12, p. 346], and the image of Hercules presented in it expresses the "archetype of a defender of human rights" [12, p. 346]." In my opinion, the very concept of "neo-mythologism" is interpreted correctly by the author, no serious factual violations have been revealed. For example, one can agree that "a neo-mythological work is an adaptation(s) of ancient myths to the demands of modern film audiences, involving the modernization of ancient narratives, in particular, drawing various parallels with current political, social and personal conflicts" [edit], or "the fundamental difference between the elements of the pair is that "if myth uses the means of equation and tends to include, whereas non-myth ["discourse" in the terminology of R. Grubel – V. V.] uses the tool of distinction, it tends to exclude" [16, p. 51]. Myth practices a comprehensive (total) connection, striving for identification, which helps to erase all boundaries – between nature and culture, the whole and its part, a thing and its name, etc." etc. In general, the set number of tasks has been solved, the work is not so great, but the available text is enough to specify the author's point of view. The conclusions of the text correspond to the main part: "the term "neo-mythologism" (neo-mythologism, (neo)mythologism, neomythology) is peripheral in foreign scientific and humanitarian discourse and is found mainly in works that are either devoted to the study of certain aspects of mass culture, or are closely related to Russian humanitarian knowledge." The material can be used in the study of humanitarian subjects. I recommend the article "The term "neo-mythologism" in the foreign humanitarian and scientific discourse of the XX-XXI centuries: the specifics of existence" for publication in the journal "Litera".

Third Peer Review

Peer reviewers' evaluations remain confidential and are not disclosed to the public. Only external reviews, authorized for publication by the article's author(s), are made public. Typically, these final reviews are conducted after the manuscript's revision. Adhering to our double-blind review policy, the reviewer's identity is kept confidential.
The list of publisher reviewers can be found here.

For the effective progressive development of world scientific thought, there is a need to establish the equivalence of terms in Russian and foreign language studies. In the article "The term "neo-mythologism" in the foreign humanitarian and scientific discourse of the XX-XXI centuries: the specifics of existence", submitted for publication in the journal "Litera", the author analyzes the phenomenon of neo-mythologism in the domestic and world culture of the XX-XXI centuries. As the researcher notes, "the process of remythologization, which began in world culture at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries and continues at the present time, led to the reactivation of the basic properties of mythological consciousness and the formation of stable mythological structures embedded in all spheres of public life." Therefore, the relevance of the research is indisputable, because in the context of widespread myths and the phenomenon of mythologization in popular culture, theoretical research in this area is extremely in demand. In this article, the author attempts to trace the semantics, functionality and history of the formation of the term "neo-mythologism". In particular, in contrast to the opinion of Western researchers who consider the Italian director Vittorio Cottafavi to be the author of the concept of "neo-mythologism", the researcher cites the first mention of this concept discovered by him in an article in 1962 by the French writer Jacques Guamar. The researcher also provides a general analysis of the corpus of foreign works directly related to the studied problem. He identifies 2 groups of works: works exploring neo-mythological works in modern popular culture, and works closely related to Russian neo-mythological discourse. The author notes the presence of various terms in foreign studies on modern mythology (contemporary mythology, modern mythology, new mythology), while the term "neo-mythologism" (neo-mythologism, (neo)mythologism, neomythology) is peripheral", "found mainly in works that are either devoted to the study of certain aspects of mass culture, or they are closely related to Russian humanitarian knowledge." There is a desire to follow the functioning of the term "neo-mythologism" in foreign and domestic scientific discourse, we are confident that the results of the study will contribute to "more productive work of domestic researchers of neo-mythologism with the Western corpus of texts on this topic." However, we believe that the author's opinion on the further application of this term is not quite clearly expressed. In the conclusions, I would like to see recommendations on the correct use of the potential of this terminological education. The logic of the research is built correctly, the work has a clear structure. The content of the article corresponds to its topic. The style of presentation is scientific. The bibliography contains the works of domestic and foreign authors, revealing the peculiarities of studying the topic in the system of world scientific knowledge and showing the general erudition of the researcher. The article "The term "neo-mythologism" in the foreign humanitarian and scientific discourse of the XX-XXI centuries: the specifics of existence" is of interest to the readership, the topic is relevant, therefore it can be recommended for publication in the journal "Litera".
Nota Bene
 
For authors
 
Other
 
Our sites
© 1998 – 2024 Nota Bene. Publishing Technologies. NB-Media Ltd.