Abstract
Bliesemann de Guevara develops a conceptual framework for the study of myth in international politics. The chapter gives an overview of the different myth theories drawn upon in the book, with a focus on three dimensions: myths’ narrative and non-narrative forms; their sources in strategic calculation or unconscious social construction; and their effects, ranging from ideological delusion to necessary fiction. It then explores different categories of sociopolitical functions of myth—determining, enabling, naturalising, constituting—and discusses how the myth concepts pertaining to these categories can be employed to study international politics and what their respective promises and limits are. The chapter concludes on a reflexivist note about myths in the discipline of International Relations, calling for an extension of mythographical enquiry into the discipline itself.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I discuss the range of theorists that have been used by the contributors to this book, which only represents a fraction of myth conceptualisations available in different disciplines (and certainly has its own biases). On other myth theories, cf. Bottici (2007); Flood (2013); Lincoln (1999); Scarborough (1994); Segal (2004); Von Hendy (2002).
- 2.
On different epistemological understandings, forms, and functions of myth cf. also Münch (Chap. 3).
- 3.
The positions mapped in the graph represent my reading of the myth conceptualisations and their relation to each other. The graph is thus necessarily a subjective, and highly simplifying, visualisation .
- 4.
In the English language, ‘narrative’ is often used in the broad sense of ‘frames’ that structure an overarching meta-narrative (e.g., narrative 1 = white, narrative 2 = black, meta-narrative = colourfulness). In contrast, German authors tend to use ‘narration’ to denote the process/activity of storytelling, while the ‘narrative’ is the product and structure of this activity, describing, in the narrower sense, the plot which establishes a relation between different statements (Gadinger et al. 2014, 21). I use this latter understanding.
- 5.
In Narrative and Time, Ricœur (1984) uses the Aristotelian muthos to signify emplotment, but does not discuss myth as genre. In his earlier work The Symbolism of Evil (Ricœur 1967, part II) he engages with myths in more detail in his aim to explore the human condition, uncovering the intentions behind traditional myths. See also Cooke (Chap. 4); Von Hendy (2002, 306–13).
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
Müller and Sondermann (Chap. 13) trace the ‘work on’ the ‘aid effectiveness’ myth.
- 9.
Kühn (Chap. 8) uses Blumenberg’s concept to explore myths regarding the international intervention in Afghanistan.
- 10.
- 11.
On the futility of such endeavour, see Cooke (Chap. 4).
- 12.
- 13.
Cf. Neumann and Nexon (2006) on four possible constitutive effects of popular culture on politics.
- 14.
On the methodology of mythographical approaches to international politics, see Müller (Chap. 6).
- 15.
Now Aberystwyth University, where I happen to work.
- 16.
See e.g. Kiersey (2012).
- 17.
See, for example, the critical blog ‘The Disorder of Things’ (http://thedisorderofthings.com/), which regularly features interesting discussions around these questions.
- 18.
REF—Research Excellence Framework—denominates a ‘system for assessing the quality of research in UK higher education institutions’ (see http://www.ref.ac.uk). It measures the quality of research outputs (publications), the research environment provided by higher education institutions, and the impact of research in wider society.
- 19.
This is, worryingly, a ‘decivilising process’ in Norbert Elias’ sense, as Andrew Linklater has remarked upon reading this chapter.
- 20.
For further discussion of how to deal with the mythology of IR, see the conclusions by Loriaux and Lynch, Chap. 15.
Bibliography
Academic Rights Watch. (2014). Academic freedom in Sweden 2013. Annual report. Accessed May 25, 2015, from http://academicrightswatch.se/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Academic-Freedom-in-Sweden-2013.pdf
Ashworth, L. M. (2014). A history of international thought. From the origins of the modern state to academic international relations. London: Routledge.
Barthes, R. (2013 [1957]). Myth today. In Mythologies. New York: Hill and Wang.
Bleiker, R., & Hutchison, E. (2008). Fear no more: Emotions and world politics. Review of International Studies, 34(Suppl. 1), 115–135.
Bliesemann de Guevara, B. (2014). On methodology and myths: Exploring the International Crisis Group’s organisational culture. Third World Quarterly, 35(4), 616–633.
Blumenberg, H. (1979). Arbeit am mythos. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Bottici, C. (2007). A philosophy of political myth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bottici, C., & Challand, B. (2006). Rethinking political myth: The clash of civilisations as a self-fulfilling prophecy. European Journal of Social Theory, 9(3), 315–336.
Bradley, H., Erickson, M., Stephenson, C., & Williams, S. (2000). Myths at work. Cambridge: Polity.
Buffet, C., & Heuser, B. (Eds.). (1998). Haunted by history. Myths in international relations. New York: Berghahn Books.
de Carvalho, B., Leira, H., & Hobson, J. M. (2011). The big bangs of IR: The myths that your teachers still tell you about 1648 and 1919. Millennium, 39(3), 735–758.
Cassirer, E. (1953 [1923]). The philosophy of symbolic forms. Vol. I: Language. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Cassirer, E. (1955 [1925]). The philosophy of symbolic forms. Vol. II: Mythical thought. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Cassirer, E. (1957 [1929]). The philosophy of symbolic forms. Vol. III: The phenomenology of knowledge. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Cassirer, E. (1967 [1946]). The myth of the state. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Collini, S. (2012). What are universities for? London: Penguin.
Cox, R. W. (1981). Social forces, states and world orders: Beyond international relations theory. Millennium, 10(2), 126–155.
Crawford, N. C. (2000). The passion for world politics. Propositions on emotions and emotional relationships. International Security, 24(4), 116–156.
Culler, J. (1983). Barthes: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elias, N. (1978). What is sociology? London: Hutchinson.
Elias, N. (2011). In R. Kilminster (Ed.), The symbol theory. Dublin: University College Dublin Press.
Elias, N., & Scotson, JL. (2008 [1965]). The established and the outsiders (Rev. ed.). Dublin: University College Dublin Press.
Flood, C. G. (2013). Political myth. A theoretical introduction. London: Routledge. Kindle edition.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977. Hempstead, NY: The Harvester Press.
Gabriel, Y. (Ed.). (2004). Myths, stories, and organizations: Premodern narratives for our times. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gadinger, F., Jarzebski, S., & Yildiz, T. (2014). Politische Narrative. Konturen einer politikwissenschaftlichen Erzähltheorie. In F. Gadinger, S. Jarzebski, & T. Yildiz (Eds.), Politische narrative (pp. 3–38). Wiesbaden: Springer.
Glynos, J. (2008). Ideological fantasy at work (IDA Working Paper 23). University of Essex. https://www.essex.ac.uk/idaworld/paper230708.pdf
Glynos, J., & Howarth, D. (2007). Logics of critical explanation in social and political theory. London: Routledge.
Hall, M. (2006). The fantasy of realism, or mythology as methodology, Chapter 8. In D. H. Nexon & I. B. Neumann (Eds.), Harry potter and international relations. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Kindle edition.
Hamati-Ataya, I. (2016). IR theory and the question of science. In K. Booth & T. Erskine (Eds.), International relations theory today. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hetzel, A. (2011). Dialektik der Aufklärung. In R. Klein, J. Kreuzer, & S. Müller-Doohm (Eds.), Adorno-Handbuch. Leben—Werk—Wirkung (pp. 389–397). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler.
Hobson, J. M. (2012). The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics. Western international Theory, 1760–2010. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (1973 [1944]). Dialectic of enlightenment. London: Allen Lane.
Howarth, D., & Steven, G. (2012). Poststructuralist policy analysis: Discourse hegemony and critical explanation. In F. Fischer & H. Gottweiss (Eds.), The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice (pp. 305–342). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kiersey, N. J. (Ed.). (2012). Occupy IR/IPE: A symposium on the global occupy movement. Journal of Critical Globalization Studies 5, 104–166.
Klemperer, V. (2006 [1957]). Language of the third Reich. LTI—Lingua Tertii Imperii. A philologist’s notebook. London: Continuum.
Law, J. (2004). After method. Mess in social science research. Abingdon: Routledge.
Leach, E. (1970). Lévi-Strauss. London: Fontana and Collins.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1955). The structural study of myth. The Journal of American Folklore, 68(270), 428–444.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1978). Myth and meaning. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Lincoln, B. (1989). Discourse and the construction of society: Comparative studies of myth, ritual, and classification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lincoln, B. (1999). Theorizing myth: Narrative, ideology, and scholarship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Little, R. (2007). The balance of power in international relations. Metaphors, myths and models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Loriaux, M. (2008). European Union and the deconstruction of the Rhineland frontier. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, C. (1999). Beyond appeasement: Interpreting interwar peace movements in world politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
Midgley, M. (2004). The myths we live by. London: Routledge. Kindle edition.
Miskimmon, A., O’Loughlin, B., & Roselle, L. (2013). Strategic narratives. Communication power and the new world order. London: Routledge.
Neumann, I. B., & Nexon, D. H. (2006). Harry potter and the study of world politics. In D. H. Nexon & I. B. Neumann (Eds.), Harry potter and international relations. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield. Kindle edition.
Perera, S. (2016). Bermuda triangulation: ‘Messy truths’ and ‘simple lies’. Cooperation and Conflict.
Ricœur, P. (1967). The symbolism of evil. Boston: Beacon.
Ricœur, P. (1984). Time and narrative (Vol. I). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kindle edition.
Scarborough, M. (1994). Myth and modernity. Postcritical reflections. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Schrecker, E. (2010). The lost soul of higher education. Corporatization, the assault on academic freedom, and the end of the American university. New York: The New Press.
Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak: Everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Scott, J. C. (1992). Domination and the arts of resistance: Hidden transcirpts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Segal, R. A. (Ed.). (1996). Structuralism in myth: Lévi-Strauss, Barthes, Dumézil, and Propp. New York: Garland Publishing.
Segal, R. A. (2004). Myth. A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shantz, J. (2000). A post-sorelian theory of social movement unity: Social myth reconfigured in the work of Laclau and Mouffe. Dialectical Anthropology, 25(1), 89–108.
Sorel, G. (2004 [1908]). Reflections on violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Teschke, B. (2003). The myth of 1648: Class, geopolitics, and the making of modern international relations. London: Verso.
Vitalis, R. (2015). The birth of American international relations. White world order, black power politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Von Hendy, A. (2002). The modern construction of myth. Bloomington, IL: Indiana University Press.
Weber, C. (2010). International relations theory. A critical introduction (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
White, H. (1973). Metahistory: The historical imagination in nineteenth century Europe. London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Yanow, D. (1992). Silences in public policy discourse: Organizational and policy myths. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(4), 399–423.
Zehfuss, M. (2014). Conclusion: What can we do to change the world? In J. Edkins & M. Zehfuss (Eds.), Global politics: A new introduction (2nd ed., pp. 610–628). London: Routledge.
Acknowledgements
This chapter was partly written during a fellowship at the Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg (HWK) Institute for Advanced Studies, co-financed by the Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences, Bremen University, and Jacobs University. I thank my fellow HWK fellows and the participants of the BIGSSS-InIIS colloquium for lively discussions and helpful ideas. Thanks are also due to Inanna Hamati-Ataya, Sybille Münch, Katja Freistein, and Andrew Linklater for insightful comments and critique, and to Alastair Finlan for invaluable advice and support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Guevara, B.B. (2016). Myth in International Politics: Ideological Delusion and Necessary Fiction. In: Bliesemann de Guevara, B. (eds) Myth and Narrative in International Politics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53752-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53752-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-53751-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-53752-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)