Binary Opposition in Myth: The Propp/Levi-Strauss Debate in Retrospect

Abstract

In 1928, Russian folklorist Vladimir Propp published his pathbreaking Morphology of Folktale in a limited printing of only 1600 copies (Bravo 1972:45). In his Morphology, Propp delineated a syntagmatic sequence of thirty-one which he claimed defined Russian fairy tale (Aarne-Thompson tale types 300-749). Unfortunately, few Western scholars read Russian and Propp's important monograph had little impact upon direction of folk narrative study. Only famed linguist Roman Jakobson in his 1945 folkloristic commentary for Pantheon edition of Afanas'ev's Russian Fairy Tales referred to Propp's research in a brief summary of his findings (1945:640-641) . It was not until Professor Thomas A. Sebeok of Indiana University arranged for an English translation of Propp's Morphology in 1958 Propp's remarkable analysis became accessible to Western folklorists (cf. Breymayer 1972; Bremond and Verrier 1982; and Cardigos 1996:33-36, but see Chistov 1986:9). Three years earlier, French anthropologist Claude had responded favorably to an invitation issued by same Professor Sebeok who was then editor of Journal of American Folklore to participate in a symposium on myth. (Among others in symposium were David Bidney, Richard M. Dorson, Reidar Th. Christiansen, Lord Raglan, and Stith Thompson.) Levi-Strauss's paper, entitled Structural Study of Myth which initiated a veritable flood of 'structural' enterprises, was written without any knowledge of Propp's Morphology. The 1955 JAF issue was published as a separate book under title Myth: A Symposium in 1958, same year Propp's Morphology appeared in English. In his essay, contended that mythical always works from awareness of oppositions towards their progressive mediation and further the purpose of myth is to provide a logical model capable of overcoming a contradiction (1955:440, 443). LeviStrauss has persisted in his definition of myth or mythical thought. In The Naked Man, final volume of four-volume Mythologiques, in a chapter entitled Binary Operators, he has this to say of mythemes, his neologism intended to refer to basic units of myth: Of course, all mythemes of whatever kind, must, generally speaking, lend themselves to binary operations, since such operations are an inherent feature of means invented by nature to make possible functioning of language and thought (1981:559). To be sure, is well aware he has been accused of overusing the notion of binary opposition (1995:185) . Like Propp, had proposed a formula for structure of narrative, but unlike Propp, his formula was totally algebraic involving functions and terms (1955:442; for a discussion of formula, see Mosko 1991). Whereas Propp had extrapolated his thirty-one function sequence from linear of events recounted in his 100 fairy tale corpus, sought to discover what he felt was underlying paradigm (of oppositions). did recognize order of events as presented in narrative as told, but he elected to ignore order. In his terms, myth will be treated as would be an orchestra score presented as a unilinear series and where our task is to re-establish correct disposition (1955:432, my emphasis). The use of descriptive label perversely seemed to suggest linear sequential (utilized by Propp) was an obstacle to be overcome by in his efforts to arrive at supposed underlying paradigm. As Champagne puts it, Levi-Strauss regards such linear, sequential forms as obvious and superficial (1995:42). is certainly cognizant of difference between syntagmatic and paradigmatic structure (1988:205). Moreover, throughout his four volume Mythologiques series, repeatedly denigrates sequential syntagmatic while at same time praising virtues of paradigmatic. …