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 Other publications by this author

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.