Bruce Lincoln’s Definition of Myth

    Myth is a very potent form of discourse. Insofar as myths provide insights into the ways things are and/or the way things ought to be, they are helpful. Insofar as myths serve to justify the exercise of power against those with less power or no power at all, they are harmful.

    If that is the case, an even-handed definition of myth is worth formulating. In this post, I present excerpts from a book by Chicago scholar Bruce Lincoln entitled Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology, and Scholarship (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999). The excerpts describe myth in neutral terms. Page numbers are given in brackets. 

A taxonomy is encoded in mythic form, the narrative packages a specific, contingent system of discrimination in a particularly attractive and memorable form. What is more, it naturalizes and legitimizes it. Myth, then, is not just taxonomy, but ideology in narrative form. [p. 147]

“Isn't scholarship just another instance of ideology in narrative form? Don't scholars tell stories to recalibrate a pecking order, putting themselves, their favorite theories, and their favorite people on top?” [quoting an imaginary student; p.207]

Ideology is a part of scholarship but not the whole. [p. 208]

Scholarly texts result from a dialectic encounter between an interested inquirer, a body of evidence, and a community of other competent and interested researchers, past, present, and future. [p. 208]

If mythology is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes. [p. 209]

    Lincoln does not draw the comparison, but myth as deployed in religious traditions of Judaism and Christianity is myth with footnotes; the myths of Jewish and Christian scripture are continually rethought in light of new evidence or old evidence revisited; primary and secondary sources are distinguished; the results are subject to peer review in the community.

    As David W. Frauenfelder puts it in a sparkling review, Lincoln’s understanding of scholarship as “myth with footnotes”

is scholarship, now, as theology, the taxonomic narratives of a kind of catholic church: that is, of a whole body of believers who come to their ideological conclusions by dialogue and mutual submission. 

     On the epistemological plane, the difference between a community of scientific faith and a community of religious faith is not as great as many make it out to be. 

Bibliography

Lincoln, Bruce. Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology, and Scholarship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.

Comments

[Truman Show 2]

Bruce Lincoln’s take on comparative mythology is that it is difficult because of the knowledge required and that the material gives substantial opportunity for the scholar to beguile his audience. He also dissects the work of these prior scholars for being bias and prejudice in their assumptions. I would have to agree with him on this topic. Like your description of myth I think the scholars add their own insights on the way things are and ought to be. Mr. Lincoln has a very unique was of defining myth compared to others before him.

[TheTrumanShow1]

I agree that Bruce Lincoln had a different way of defining what the word myth itself truly means and I do not think that I have heard of it like that, but I'm not sure I totally agree with his view either. Myths to me can come in so many different forms and cultures that I don't know if you can depict one exact definition to describe them all.
Another thing that stood out to me was the very last line because we have been talking about the difference in faith in science and faith in religion in one of my other classes and so it brought me back to all of our class discussions that we have had so far. In the end I believe that we were still split pretty evenly on the belief that science and religion are separate or that they are both connected and necessary for each others own growth.

[Chariots of Fire 4]

Thank you for summarizing what he said TheTrumanShow2 because I'm not going to lie it went straight past my head when I read it myself. Now that I understand what he was saying I have to agree. I really like the way you stated it TheTrumanShow2 when you say "the material gives substantial opportunity for the scholar to beguile his audience." That exactly what I think of when i here the word myth. Tricking the audience, not lying but merely stretching what you say to get your audience to get the point your trying to make. I have a new understanding of mythology now.

[Truman Show 2]

I have never heard mythology defined as “ideology in narrative form” before, or that scholarship is myth with footnotes. I agree with Truman Show 1 that the last line really sticks out to me because of what we have been studying in class with the faith in science and faith in religion, which again I agree with Truman Show 1 that in class we were still split evenly that science and religion are separate or that they are both connected and necessary for each other’s own growth.

[dead man walking 2]

I agree completely with the above comments suggesting that faith and religion must grow together. There are just so many components to both that correspond. Like, for an example, in our class discussion today about the Bible giving a reason as to why snakes had a negative adaptation with the loss of the legs and what we know from science that snakes at one point did have appendages. And this is all pretty easily said. I did, however, have a hard time reading this passage and understanding the point. And I too have to go back to the quotation: “If mythology is ideology in narrative form, then scholarship is myth with footnotes.” To me, this is the center of the essay, and is just a fancy way of inferring that religion and its followers are the same as textbooks and its scholars. Both are learned from and preached to an audience. Both are hypothesized. Both books (Bible and the textbook) are read critically, and an explained or understood. So maybe it’s possible that centuries from now our ancestors will look at our science as another religion, or put together both religion and science? It might be a little farfetched, but I think it is something worth pondering about. And as for the definition as myth, I think this has more to say about science and religion than historical narratives like myths.

[Dead Man Walking 6]

I am very interested about how Bruce Lincoln had a different way of defining what the word myth itself truly means and I obviously agree with his view. Yes, myths can arrive from many different forms and cultures, so it is very complicated to explain exactly what the definition of myth is. To me, myth does not simply mean the reading of it by itself; it is more of the tricky way to understand while reading that. But at the end, there is something to be gotten out of that message. The last sentence, “On the epistemological plane, the difference between a community of scientific faith and a community of religious faith is not as great as many make it out to be” does stand out to me. Whether, scientific and religious faiths are viewed separately, all in all they communicate with each other and help to make it better in the world.

[The Truman Show 3]

I believe that Dead Man Walking 2 has a very good point. I believe that it is very possible that one day religion and science will become closer and closer. As humans continue to learn and explore the world around them, more and more connections between the scientific world and the biblical world will become apparent. These "Myths" may become easily explained through scientific facts and figures. Nobody can tell what the future will hold... so we shall wait and see.

[Pulp Fiction 1]

I would have to Agree with the most recent comment by Truman Show 2. Although Bruce Lincoln believe the previous authors were bias, I could find many things that are bias and make my point. For whatever project or reasoning. I have been in many arguments over abortion,drugs, and who's the best NFL quarterback ever... I have no been in an argument that has showed that your competitor or opponent was right by giving them some facts or knowledge about their topic. It would make no sense to let that happen. It seems to me that Bruce Lincoln's thought of a myth is correct in his eyes and wrong in others.

[True Grit 4]

I agree with you Truman Show 3 in that as science and religion come closer through research and facts, that peoples eyes will be opened to those connections and it may show that the two entities can coexist and live together in an ever changing world. Until then, there will always be a contention between the two in most people's minds.

[Dead Man Walking 5]

Ideology in a narrative form is a new way of defining mythology that I have never heard before. It is easy to make research like that be bias because there is not enough research out there so each researcher can put his or her own twist on their research.

[The Mission 3]

I completely agree with Bruce Lincoln on his definition of myths. He describes how myths are insights about how things are and how things should be. He is right, I believe, when he says that myths are very harmful especially with those who have less power. Although I do think he has somewhat of a point, I do not completely agree with Lincoln when he says that, “The difference between a community of scientific faith and a community of religious faith is not as great as many make it out to be”. I believe that it comes down to the roots of science and religion. Science is based off of evolution and the Big Bang Theory and religion is obviously based off of God’s miraculous creation of humankind. If we evolved from apes, then where did the apes come from? There is always that question that a scientist will not be able to answer, but for Christians, the proof is right there in black in white – the whole story is in the Bible.

[true grit 5]

It is very interesting to hear this. I don’t think I would totally disagree with what Lincoln is saying. I never really would of thought or really know where to begin to think of myth as an ideology. The fact we’re taking these stories and putting them above all else in a sense. I don’t know how I really agree with that to the most extent, other than possibly how maybe we understand and take these stories, or myths, and try to extend them into practice daily to a literal sense. Thus getting the point the maybe we idolize them way more than possibly should.

[Pulp Fiction 6]

I believe that faith in science and faith in religion are two very separate matters. Science is all known fact, if you do a science experiment, anything you thought is either proven or disproved leaving you with all the answers that you previously questioned. In faith, on the other hand, it is very hard to say what is and isn't factual. I believe that is why there are so many different religions and so many different stories on how we all came to be. No one can say for certain how anything happened because we weren't there. I do however believe that religion is catching up to science in a way that they can both be used together to explain things. Scientific studies help us understand the most logical way that things in biblical history may have happened and hopefully they will keep making advances in science and be able to tell us more.

[True Grit 12]

I find the statement about the difference, or lack thereof, between scientific faith communities and religious faith communities to be an interesting one. Some scientists believe that they can prove their ideas, without a doubt, by worldly standards. Some religious people believe that they can prove their ideas, without a doubt, by the standards of a higher power or his revelation to humankind. These two groups act in such as similar way that it seems almost contradictory that they each may think that the other group is idiotic.

[Pulp Fiction 1]

I agree with the imaginary student on p.207 because his/her focus on imagery in a sense is the same as mine. I feel as though, “putting themselves, their favorite theories, and their favorite people on top” is a way writers or people use to support their belief. The reason I am for this student is because no one supports their beliefs through one example in life. There are multiple circumstances or priorities that authors or writers use to support their ideas. Whether it’s bias or not they make the reader understand their point of view and how they want you to perceive them. I would say that if you want to support your points of view it would only be right to show a pro and con, but normally people don’t want to show their weakness to their argument.