"MYTHOLOGIES" BY ROLAND

BARTHES
"Mythologies," published in 1957, is a pivotal work by French philosopher and semiologist Roland
Barthes that offers a rich analysis of contemporary culture through the lens of myth. In this collection of
essays, Barthes examines various aspects of popular culture, from advertisements and wrestling to the
mundane details of everyday life, revealing how these seemingly trivial elements serve to convey deeper
cultural meanings and ideologies.

The central thesis of "Mythologies" posits that myths are not merely ancient stories or legends but are
modern constructs that shape our understanding of the world. Barthes introduces the concept of myth
as a system of communication that transforms historical narratives into naturalized truths, obscuring the
complex social and political contexts from which they arise. He explores how myths operate through a
two-tiered system of signs, where the first-order sign (the object or image) interacts with a second-order
sign (the cultural meaning attached to it), ultimately constructing a new meaning that presents itself as
self-evident.

Throughout the book, Barthes critiques the ways in which contemporary society produces and consumes
these myths, particularly in the context of consumer culture. By analyzing popular icons and cultural
phenomena, he uncovers the mechanisms through which myths perpetuate dominant ideologies and
reinforce societal norms.

MYTH IS A TYPE OF SPEECH:

In "Mythologies," Roland Barthes elaborates on the concept of myth as a system of communication,

emphasizing that it is fundamentally a mode of signification rather than a mere object or idea. He asserts
that "myth is a type of speech," which allows us to understand that myths convey messages through
various forms of discourse. Barthes argues that myth cannot be defined by the substance of its objects
but rather by the manner in which it communicates its messages. He states, “myth is not defined by the
object of its message, but by the way in which it utters this message,” highlighting the importance of
the form over the content in the construction of myth.

Barthes posits that any object in the world can become mythologized, provided it is expressed through a
discourse that imbues it with meaning. He suggests that “the universe is infinitely fertile in
suggestions,” indicating that the potential for myth-making is boundless. For example, he discusses how
a tree, when described in a particular literary context, transforms from a mere object into a symbol
laden with cultural significance. This transformation illustrates how language and representation can
elevate an ordinary object into a vehicle of myth, enriched with social and ideological connotations.

Moreover, Barthes emphasizes that the process of mythologization is not static; objects can rise and fall
in their mythic status over time. He notes that “some objects become the prey of mythical speech for a
while, then they disappear,” suggesting that the lifecycle of myths is deeply intertwined with historical
and cultural contexts. This perspective reinforces the idea that myths are not eternal but are shaped by
human history and societal changes.

Barthes also expands the definition of "speech" beyond verbal communication, encompassing various
forms of representation, including writing, photography, cinema, and advertising. He argues that “myth
can be defined neither by its object nor by its material,” asserting that any medium can serve as a
support for mythical speech. This broadens the scope of what can be considered myth, as it includes
visual and textual representations that convey meaning.

He highlights the distinction between different forms of representation, noting that while images may
impose meaning more immediately than writing, both still require a signifying consciousness. Barthes
states, “mythical speech is made of a material which has already been worked on so as to make it
suitable for communication.” This suggests that the materials used in myth-making are not neutral; they
are carefully selected and shaped to convey specific messages and ideologies. Barthes argues for a
semiological approach to understanding myth, positioning it within the broader framework of semiotics,
which studies signs and symbols in communication. He asserts that “myth in fact belongs to the province
of a general science, coextensive with linguistics, which is semiology.” This connection underscores the
importance of analyzing myths as complex systems of signs that function within cultural contexts,
allowing for a deeper understanding of their role in shaping societal values and beliefs.

MYTH AS SEMIOLOGICAL SYSTEM:

In "Mythologies," Roland Barthes intricately links the concept of myth as a system of communication
with his broader exploration of semiology, the science of signs. He asserts that mythology is
fundamentally a study of a type of speech, which is one fragment of the vast field of semiology that
Ferdinand de Saussure envisioned. Barthes states, “mythology, since it is the study of a type of speech,
is but one fragment of this vast science of signs.” This connection emphasizes that myths are not
isolated phenomena; they are part of a larger framework that seeks to understand how meaning is
constructed and communicated in society.

Barthes elaborates on the necessity of semiology as a formal science that studies significations apart
from their content. He argues that while different disciplines—such as psychoanalysis, structuralism, and
literary criticism—may have distinct focuses, they all engage with the problem of meaning. He notes,
“they define and explore [facts] as tokens for something else,”reinforcing the idea that understanding a
myth requires looking beyond the surface to uncover the deeper values and ideologies it conveys.

At the core of semiology, Barthes identifies a relationship between three terms: the signifier, the
signified, and the sign itself. He explains that “there are, therefore, the signifier, the signified and the
sign, which is the associative total of the first two terms.” This triadic relationship is crucial in
understanding how myths function. For instance, when one considers a bunch of roses, the roses
themselves act as the signifier, while the passion they symbolize serves as the signified. Together, they
form a sign that conveys a specific message about love or affection. Barthes emphasizes that “the
signifier is empty, the sign is full; it is a meaning,” highlighting how the sign itself embodies the combined
significance of both the signifier and the signified
Returning to the concept of myth as a system of communication, Barthes underscores that myths
operate through this semiological framework. Myths transform ordinary objects or ideas into powerful
symbols that communicate cultural values and ideologies. For example, when a tree is mythologized in a
literary context, it transcends its physical existence, becoming laden with meanings that reflect societal
beliefs about nature, life, or identity. Barthes asserts, “everything can be a myth provided it is conveyed
by a discourse,” illustrating that the potential for myth-making is boundless, as any signifier can be
imbued with significance through cultural narratives.

Barthes also highlights the historical and contextual nature of myths, asserting that they cannot evolve
from the “nature” of things but are instead shaped by human history. He states, “myth is a type of
speech chosen by history,” reinforcing the idea that myths are dynamic and contingent upon the cultural
and social contexts in which they arise. This historical dimension is essential for understanding how
myths function as ideologies that reflect and reinforce specific values within society.

He emphasizes that myths operate within a tri-dimensional pattern of signifier, signified, and
signification, similar to other semiological systems like language and psychoanalysis. Barthes states, “the
signifier can be looked at, in myth, from two points of view: as the final term of the linguistic system,
or as the first term of the mythical system.” This dual perspective is crucial for understanding how myths
function.

For Barthes, the signifier in the context of myth is not just a simple representation; it becomes a “form”
that is loaded with meaning derived from its prior linguistic context. He explains that in myth, a sign (the
associative total of a concept and an image) from the first semiological system becomes merely a
signifier in the second system of myth. This transformation highlights how myths are constructed from
pre-existing semiological chains, effectively creating a “second-order semiological system.” Barthes
illustrates this with examples, such as the phrase “quia ego nominor leo,” which serves both as a
grammatical example and as a deeper commentary on the nature of language itself.

Moreover, Barthes provides a compelling example involving a photograph in a magazine depicting a

young Black soldier saluting. He notes that while the image has an immediate meaning, it also conveys a
broader ideological message about French colonialism and national identity. He writes, “there is a
signifier, itself already formed with a previous system,” which emphasizes how the image draws on
cultural narratives to create its significance.

To clarify the terms used in this analysis, Barthes distinguishes between the signifier (meaning) in the
linguistic system and the signifier (form) in the mythical system. The signified remains constant as the
concept, while the third term, which he calls signification, reflects the correlation of the first two terms
in the context of myth. Barthes states, “myth has in fact a double function: it points out and it notifies,”
indicating that myths not only convey meaning but also impose certain interpretations on their
audiences.

THE FORM AND THE CONCEPT:

In this section of "Mythologies," Roland Barthes explores the relationship between the form and the
concept within myth, emphasizing their distinct yet interconnected roles. He argues that the signifier of
myth embodies a dual nature: it is both rich in meaning and impoverished as a form. Barthes writes,
“the signifier of myth presents itself in an ambiguous way: it is at the same time meaning and form,
full on one side and empty on the other.” This duality highlights how the signifier retains a sensory
reality while simultaneously stripping away historical context when it transforms into a form.

When Barthes refers to the "form," he explains that it becomes a mere shell, devoid of its rich historical
background. For example, the phrase "quia ego nominor leo" (because my name is lion) in a linguistic
context is full of narrative and meaning, encompassing a story about the lion's strength and role in
nature. However, when this phrase is taken as a form within a myth, it loses its depth and becomes a
simple grammatical example, “the formal pattern is correctly unfolded” but devoid of its original
richness.

Conversely, the "concept" in Barthes' framework is filled with intention and historical significance. He
notes that the concept is “determined, it is at once historical and intentional,” and it serves as the
driving force behind the myth. The concept reintroduces a broader historical context and societal
implications that the form lacks. For instance, the concept of "French imperiality" associated with the
image of a Black soldier saluting carries layers of historical meaning related to France’s colonial past,
which the form alone cannot convey.

Barthes further illustrates this relationship by explaining how the concept can draw from an extensive
range of signifiers. He states, “a signified can have several signifiers,” allowing for a multitude of
expressions of the same underlying idea. This means that while the form may be limited in its richness,
the concept is open to a vast array of historical narratives and interpretations.

Moreover, Barthes highlights the instability of mythical concepts, noting that they can evolve,
disintegrate, or disappear over time. He states, “there is no fixity in mythical concepts,” emphasizing
their historical nature and the necessity for mythologists to adapt their terminology to capture these
ephemeral ideas. This leads him to the use of neologisms, which he sees as essential for naming
concepts that arise from specific historical contexts, such as "Sininess" to describe a French bourgeois
perspective on China.

THE SIGNIFICATION:

In this SECTION, Roland Barthes elaborates on the dynamics of myth, particularly focusing on the
relationship between meaning, form, and signification. He defines **signification** as the collective
outcome of both the myth’s meaning and form, encapsulating the myth itself. Barthes states, “the
signification is the myth itself,” thereby asserting that the signification represents the culmination of the
interaction between the first two terms (meaning and form) in a unique way.

One of Barthes' key points is that in myth, both the meaning and the form are explicitly present; myth
does not conceal one behind the other. He asserts, “myth hides nothing: its function is to distort, not to
make disappear.” This means that while both aspects are visible, they distort each other in the process
of signification. The form, with its literal and immediate elements, is tied to a sensory reality, while the
concept comes with a deeper, associative structure of knowledge, which Barthes likens to a “nebula”
that encompasses various historical layers.

This relationship is crucial because Barthes notes that “the relation which unites the concept of the
myth to its meaning is essentially a relation of deformation.” Here, the concept distorts the meaning,
stripping it of its historical context and reducing it to gestures or simplified representations. For instance,
the phrase "my name is lion" carries rich narratives about the lion's life, but when treated as a form, it
loses depth and becomes merely a grammatical example. The concept of French imperiality, associated
with a Black soldier saluting, similarly obscures the soldier's history and individual story, presenting him
instead as a mere symbol of imperial pride.

Barthes also uses the metaphor of a “turnstile” to describe the constant interplay between meaning and
form in myth. He explains, “the signification of the myth is constituted by a sort of constantly moving
turnstile which presents alternately the meaning of the signifier and its form.” This indicates that while
the myth can present different aspects at different times, it maintains a continuous relationship, allowing
the meaning to subtly influence the form and vice versa—highlighting the myth’s dual nature.

Finally, he points out that this duplicity means that myth is not merely about its literal sense; it is defined
by its intention and how it communicates a larger narrative or ideology. Barthes states, “myth is a type
of speech defined by its intention much more than by its literal sense.” The ambiguous nature of myth
therefore results in signification being both a “notification” of the myth's existence and a “statement of
fact” that conveys the ideological underpinnings inherent in the communication.

THE BOURGEOISIE AS A JOINT STOCK COMPANY:

In this SECTION OF "Mythologies," Roland Barthes examines how the bourgeoisie operates within the
framework of myth, particularly focusing on the idea of **ex-nomination**—the process through which
the bourgeoisie obscures its identity and ideology. Barthes argues that while the bourgeoisie is openly
recognized as an economic force (capitalism), it struggles to acknowledge its political and ideological
presence. He writes, “the bourgeoisie is defined as the social class which does not want to be named,”
highlighting this tendency to erase its own identity from discourse.

Barthes describes how the bourgeoisie merges into the concept of the nation, using it as a means to
unify various social classes while excluding those deemed "other," like Communists. This blending allows
the bourgeoisie to maintain power without explicitly naming itself. The term "nation" becomes a vehicle
for bourgeois ideology, masking the underlying political realities. He notes, “the political vocabulary of
the bourgeoisie already postulates that the universal exists,” suggesting that their language aims to
create an illusion of universality while still being rooted in specific class interests.

Moreover, Barthes points out that the bourgeoisie’s culture extends beyond high art or intellectual
discourse; it permeates everyday life, shaping norms and behaviors in a way that feels natural and
inevitable. He states, “the whole of France is steeped in this anonymous ideology,” indicating that
bourgeois values infiltrate various aspects of society—from media and literature to social rituals and
daily interactions. This normalization serves to obscure the class distinctions and maintain the status
quo.

Barthes also discusses the avant-garde as a reaction to bourgeois ideology, noting that these movements
often arise from within the bourgeois class itself. While they critique bourgeois art and morals, they
typically do not challenge the economic or political foundations of bourgeois society. He writes, “the
avant-garde does not tolerate about the bourgeoisie is its language, not its status,” illustrating that
these revolts are limited in scope and often fail to address the broader systemic issues at play.

A critical aspect of Barthes’ analysis is the inversion of reality and ideology within bourgeois society. He
asserts that the bourgeoisie transforms the historical reality of class struggle into a universal
representation of humanity, effectively creating an “upside down” image where the particular becomes
the universal. He explains, “the status of bourgeoisie is particular, historical: man as represented by it is
universal, eternal.” This inversion allows the bourgeoisie to maintain its power by presenting its values
and norms as natural and timeless, thus obscuring their contingent historical origins.

MYTH IS DEPOLITICIZED SPEECH:

In this section of "Mythologies," Roland Barthes delves into the concept of myth as a form of
**depoliticized speech**. He argues that myth serves to transform historical realities into naturalized
images, effectively stripping them of their political significance. Barthes states, “myth has the task of
giving an historical intention a natural justification,” highlighting how myth creates an illusion of
permanence and inevitability around social constructs.

He explains that the bourgeois ideology operates similarly, as it also seeks to erase its identity by
abandoning the name "bourgeois." This leads to a significant loss of the historical context of things,
where “things lose the memory that they once were made.” By doing so, myth presents a simplified view
of reality, making complex human actions appear as mere essences devoid of their historical roots.
Barthes writes, “the function of myth is to empty reality,” suggesting that myth acts as a filter that
removes the depth and contradictions of human experience, presenting a world that seems clear and
self-evident.

Barthes further elaborates on how this depoliticization occurs through a broader metalanguage that
already naturalizes certain concepts. He notes that “myth always comes under the heading of
metalanguage,” meaning that myths often arise in contexts where the political implications are less
visible or have already been obscured. This results in what Barthes calls "strong myths" and "weak
myths," where the political significance of an object may either be immediately apparent or faded, but
can be reactivated under the right circumstances.

For example, he uses the metaphor of a lion transformed into a grammar example to illustrate how a
mythical representation can strip away the lion's inherent political reality. He suggests that if a real lion
were to witness this transformation, it would perceive its situation as politically charged, contrasting
with the more benign view held by humans. Barthes concludes that the political insignificance of a myth
often depends on its context and the audience it addresses, indicating that myths are not inherently
devoid of politics but are shaped by their circumstances.
MYTH AS STOLEN LANGUAGE:

In this section of "Mythologies," Roland Barthes explores the idea of myth as a form of “stolen
language,” asserting that myth transforms meanings into forms, effectively robbing them of their
historical and contextual significance. He states, “myth is always a language-robbery,” suggesting that
myth takes elements from reality—like cultural symbols or social actions—and naturalizes them,
removing their original meanings and context.

Barthes argues that all forms of language can be susceptible to this theft, but not equally; articulated
language is particularly vulnerable because it harbors inherent mythical dispositions. He writes,
"articulated language...offers little resistance," as it is often abstract and filled with multiple possible
interpretations, making it an easy target for myth. For example, when prices fall, the meaning can be
twisted to serve various narratives—whether seasonal or political—showing how myth can obscure
complexities.

On the other hand, Barthes points out that more structured languages, like mathematical language,
resist myth more effectively. He explains that these languages are not easily distorted due to their
precision: "mathematical language...cannot be distorted," which is why myth often takes such precise
meanings wholesale, exemplifying a kind of corruption. He notes, "the more the language-object resists
at first, the greater its final prostitution."

Barthes contrasts myth with poetry, which he describes as a form of language that attempts to return to
a more fundamental meaning, seeking to distill language back to its essence instead of amplifying it.
Poetry, he argues, aims for “infra-signification,” trying to regain a pre-semiological state of language.

He also discusses the role of literary realism and myth, asserting that realism in literature is often
intertwined with myth. He stresses the importance of distinguishing between ideological and
semiological realities when analyzing literature. Barthes concludes that critics should use two distinct
methods—one focusing on ideology and the other on semiological value—highlighting the complexity of
meaning in written works.