Roland Barthes' Mythologies | Literary Theory | Part 1

Summary

This video introduces Roland Barthes' 'Mythologies,' a 1957 text central to literary theory and cultural studies. Barthes explores semiotics, applying sign theory to culture, examining how events like wrestling become myths perpetuated by the bourgeoisie. The video discusses wrestling as a clear example of Barthes' theory, highlighting its artificiality and the predictable yet compelling nature of its signs and narrative patterns. It raises questions about the authenticity of signs and the role of the critic in demystifying cultural myths, hinting at the series' deeper dive into Barthes' work.

Takeaways

• 📚 Roland Barthes' 'Mythologies' is a seminal text studied across various disciplines, including literary theory and cultural studies.
• 🔍 The text explores semiotics, the study of signs, and extends this analysis from language to culture, viewing cultural phenomena as sign systems.
• 🎭 Barthes examines wrestling as a cultural sign, arguing that it is more spectacle than sport, with clear and obvious signifiers.
• 🤼‍♂️ Wrestling is used as an example to illustrate how cultural events can be turned into myths, which then appear natural and universal.
• 👓 Barthes suggests that myths are often created and perpetuated by the bourgeoisie, reflecting their values and perspectives.
• 🔑 The critic's role, as Barthes sees it, is to demystify these myths, revealing the underlying realities they conceal.
• 🤔 Barthes acknowledges the possibility of creating new myths in the process of demystification, raising questions about the nature of his own work.
• 🎭 The narrative patterns in wrestling are predictable yet engaging, reflecting a form of justice that is extrajudicial and distinct from traditional systems.
• 🤹‍♂️ Barthes finds a paradox in wrestling, where it is both conventionally artificial and genuinely rebellious, challenging the notion of bourgeois culture.
• 📖 The series of videos aims to delve deeper into the text, covering more examples and the theoretical implications of Barthes' analysis.

Q & A

What is the main theme of Roland Barthes' 'Mythologies'?

The main theme of 'Mythologies' is the analysis of how everyday cultural elements are transformed into myths, particularly by the bourgeoisie, and how these myths are presented as natural and universal truths.

Which edition of 'Mythologies' does the speaker focus on in the video?

The speaker focuses on the 1972 English translation of 'Mythologies' in the video.

What is semiotics and how does Barthes apply it in 'Mythologies'?

Semiotics is the study of signs and their meanings. Barthes applies semiotics not just to language but to culture, interpreting cultural phenomena like wrestling as sign systems that need to be deciphered.

How does the speaker describe the relationship between history, nature, and myth in Barthes' work?

The speaker describes that historical events are turned into myths, which over time come to seem natural and universal, thus creating a myth that appears as the only reality.

Who does Barthes identify as the creators of myths in society?

Barthes identifies the bourgeoisie, or traditional and conventional society, as the creators of myths.

What is the role of the critic according to Barthes?

The role of the critic, exemplified by Barthes himself, is to demystify myths by stripping away their mythical elements and exposing the reality beneath.

What does the speaker suggest about Barthes' own potential creation of new myths?

The speaker suggests that while Barthes demystifies myths, he may also be creating new ones, raising questions about the possibility of escaping myth entirely.

What is the first example Barthes uses in 'Mythologies' to illustrate his theory?

The first example Barthes uses is wrestling, which he analyzes for its clear and full signification, character types, and narrative patterns.

How does Barthes view traditional justice in relation to wrestling?

Barthes views traditional justice with skepticism, as he admires the extrajudicial logic and appeal of wrestling, which rarely presents a truly fair fight.

What paradox does the speaker identify in Barthes' view of wrestling?

The paradox identified is that wrestling is both conventional and artificial, yet it retains a sense of rebellion, unruliness, and chaos, which Barthes seems to admire.

What question does the speaker pose regarding the authenticity of signs in culture?

The speaker poses the question of what makes a sign seem genuine and admirable versus artificial and hypocritical, and how to apply such a standard to cultural signs.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Introduction to Roland Barthes' 'Mythologies'

This video introduces a series on Roland Barthes' 'Mythologies,' a seminal work in literary theory and cultural studies published in 1957. The speaker focuses on the 1972 English translation, noting it contains fewer essays than later editions. The book is divided into two sections, with the first offering examples, starting with wrestling, to illustrate Barthes' theories. The speaker plans to discuss more examples in subsequent videos. Barthes' approach to semiotics, influenced by Ferdinand de Saussure, extends the study of signs beyond language to culture. He aims to demystify myths created by the bourgeoisie, which he views as a dominant and traditional social class. The speaker suggests that as viewers progress through the examples, they will gain a better understanding of Barthes' theories, preparing them for the book's second part, where Barthes reflects on the implications of his work.

05:05

🤼‍♂️ Wrestling as a Cultural Sign in Barthes' 'Mythologies'

The speaker delves into the first example in Barthes' 'Mythologies': wrestling. Barthes posits that wrestling is a spectacle rather than a sport, with a predictable and artificial narrative that mirrors a play. The outcome is less significant than the dramatic process. Wrestling's signs are clear and unambiguous, with characters and narrative patterns that are easy to read. Barthes appreciates the genuineness in wrestling's artificiality, suggesting a paradox where it is both conventional and rebellious. The speaker raises questions about the creation of new myths and the possibility of a critic being neutral, hinting at the complexity and self-awareness in Barthes' approach to demystification.

10:07

🎭 The Paradox of Form and Genuineness in Wrestling

The final paragraph discusses the formalism and predictability in wrestling, yet notes the presence of genuineness that Barthes finds appealing. Wrestling is described as a paradox where its conventional and artificial nature coexists with an unruliness and chaos that Barthes seems to admire. The speaker reflects on the tension between what is perceived as bourgeois and what is not, questioning Barthes' personal stance on the matter. The chapter on the representation of Roman-ness in Hollywood is mentioned as a contrast to wrestling, where signs are artificial but lack genuineness. The speaker concludes by emphasizing the central questions of the book: what constitutes hypocrisy and how to apply standards to cultural signs, which are at the heart of Barthes' struggle with his own mythology.

Keywords

💡Mythologies

Roland Barthes' 'Mythologies' is a collection of essays published in 1957, which critiques various elements of French culture and media. The book is significant in the fields of literary theory and cultural studies. In the video, 'Mythologies' is discussed as a text that explores how everyday cultural elements are transformed into myths, which are then perceived as natural and universal, often serving the interests of the bourgeoisie.

💡Semiotics

Semiotics is the study of signs and symbols and their use or interpretation. In the context of the video, Barthes applies semiotics not only to language but also to cultural phenomena, examining how cultural elements function as sign systems that convey meaning. The video explains how Barthes uses semiotics to analyze wrestling as a sign system, where the actions and characters within wrestling represent broader cultural narratives.

💡Ferdinand de Saussure

Ferdinand de Saussure was a Swiss linguist and semiotician who laid the foundation for modern semiology. The video mentions that Barthes was influenced by Saussure's ideas on sign systems. Saussure's theories are relevant to the video's discussion of how Barthes extends the concept of signs from language to cultural phenomena.

💡Bourgeoisie

The bourgeoisie refers to the social class of capitalists or the middle class, often associated with traditional and conservative values. In the video, Barthes is portrayed as critical of the bourgeoisie, suggesting that they create and perpetuate myths that serve their interests. The video discusses how myths are presented through a 'bourgeois lens,' shaping societal perceptions and values.

💡Demystification

Demystification is the process of revealing the true nature of something that has been obscured or mystified. In the video, Barthes' role as a critic is described as demystifying myths, stripping away the layers of cultural interpretation to expose the underlying realities. The video uses the metaphor of 'striptease' to illustrate how Barthes uncovers the essence of cultural phenomena like wrestling.

💡Wrestling

Wrestling, as discussed in the video, is used by Barthes as an example of a cultural phenomenon that operates as a sign system. Unlike a sport, wrestling is described as a spectacle with predictable narratives and characters, where the outcome is less important than the dramatic process. The video explains how wrestling's clear and obvious signs and types of characters serve to create a mythologized version of reality.

💡Signs

In the context of the video, signs refer to the elements within cultural phenomena that carry meaning. Barthes analyzes how these signs function within wrestling, with each gesture and character type having a clear and full signification. The video emphasizes how wrestling's signs are overt and unambiguous, contributing to the mythic quality of the spectacle.

💡Myth

Myth, in the video, is discussed as a cultural construct that transforms historical events or cultural phenomena into narratives that appear natural and universal. Barthes is concerned with how myths are created and perpetuated, often serving to reinforce the status quo. The video uses wrestling as an example of how a cultural event is turned into a myth that seems inevitable and beyond question.

💡Natural

The term 'natural' in the video refers to the perception that certain cultural myths are inevitable and inherent, rather than constructed. Barthes critiques this notion, arguing that what appears natural is often a result of cultural and historical processes. The video discusses how myths are made to seem natural, thus becoming accepted as universal truths.

💡Paradox

Paradox, as mentioned in the video, refers to the contradictory or opposing elements within a concept or phenomenon. In the context of wrestling, Barthes sees it as a paradox where it is both conventional and artificial, yet also contains elements of rebellion and chaos. The video explores this tension and questions what makes a sign or phenomenon seem genuine versus artificial.

Highlights

Introduction to Roland Barthes' 'Mythologies', a seminal work in literary theory and cultural studies.

Exploration of Barthes' 1972 English translation and its significance in understanding his essays.

The book is divided into two sections: examples and theoretical analysis.

Discussion of the first example in 'Mythologies': professional wrestling as a cultural sign.

Barthes' application of semiotics to culture, expanding beyond language to interpret cultural signs.

Influence of Ferdinand de Saussure's theories on sign systems in Barthes' work.

Barthes' examination of how historical events are transformed into myths over time.

The role of the bourgeoisie in creating and perpetuating myths according to Barthes.

The critic's task, as seen by Barthes, to demystify and reveal the true nature of cultural phenomena.

Barthes' self-awareness of the potential creation of new myths in the process of demystification.

Analysis of wrestling as a spectacle with clear, full signification in its signs and characters.

Identification of wrestling characters as types with predictable and clear narrative patterns.

Barthes' view on the paradoxical nature of wrestling as both conventional and genuinely rebellious.

The question of whether there is a standard to distinguish genuine signs from hypocritical ones.

The complexity of Barthes' own mythology and the potential for his work to be seen as hypocritical.

The series will continue with more examples and a deeper dive into the theoretical aspects of 'Mythologies'.

Transcripts

Welcome to the first in a series of videos on  Roland Barthes' "Mythologies," which is a text  

from 1957. This particular text is a frequently  studied work in terms of literary theory, cultural  

studies, English -- different disciplines like  that. It's not a really difficult text in terms  

of literary theory, but it has its challenges, and  I thought it might be nice to do a series on it.  

Now the text has come out in different editions.  I'm looking particularly at the 1972 English  

translation. It doesn't have all the essays that  Barthes wrote, and later editions include some  

extra essays as well. But it has enough examples  to to get you started and to really get into the  

theory. So, the book consists of two sections. The  first section is really just examples ... and in  

this video I'm just going to talk about the very  first example, which is wrestling. We have this  

corny sort of image here, which is fitting  because wrestling is all about corniness,  

as we will find out. In subsequent videos I'll do  at least a few more examples, and we'll see how  

many we actually cover. If you want to see lots,  you can let me know in the comments, but the main  

thing is that as we go through the examples we  start to get a hint of the theory overall, so that  

when we get to the second part, which is really  kind of Barthes taking a step back and thinking  

about what all of this means, we will be well  prepared to understand where he's coming from and  

what he's doing overall. We can already introduce  [the book and the theory] a little bit because  

he's really talking about semiotics. Semiotics is  the study of signs and he's going back especially  

to a previous thinker, Ferdinand de Saussure,  who wrote a lot about sign systems and how we  

should understand them.What's unique about Roland  Barthes is that he applies these signs not just to  

language but [to] the culture, and that's the big  breakthrough here, that he's trying to say, well,  

we can not only look at how language functions but  we can look at how something in culture (something  

like wrestling) can act like a sign system, and we  need to interpret that particular sign system. So  

in the introduction to the 1970 edition he says,  "I had just read Saussure." He says this in the  

preface, and he's very conscious of the fact that  he's so influenced by this particular thinker.  

Now in terms of his big picture, right at the  start here even before we get to the theoretical  

part we can see that what he's trying to do  is he's trying to see how myth functions in  

relation to what he calls history and nature. So  if we think of history ... we have all kinds of  

events that happen. You know, the 1968 Paris  Student Revolt, let's say. That's one event.  

He actually refers to that in the preface. Lots of  different events happen. Wrestling can be an event  

too. And what tends to happen is that these events  are turned into myth somehow. We create a myth  

out of these events. And then over time this myth  starts to take up the whole field. In other words,  

it seems like it's the only reality out there.  It's as if everybody has to believe in it,  

and that makes this myth seem natural. So this is  going to get a bit messy here, but this ... myth  

all of a sudden seems very natural, because it's  the only thing that we can think of. We can even  

call it universal. It's as if it's the only  perspective out there. Now for Roland Barthes  

it's especially a certain social class that  creates these myths. That's the bourgeoisie.  

So the bourgeois myth is what rules supreme and  by "bourgeois" he means kind of traditional,  

conventional society in this period -- everything  that a leftist like Barthes doesn't like,  

as you can imagine. He basically says that  this myth is typically read or interpreted  

or presented to us through a sort of bourgeois  lens. So if we kind of draw some spectacles here,  

it's as if we are looking through the same glasses  all the time. And it's the job of the critic,  

which in this case would be Barthes . . . so if we  draw him over here, okay, so there he is ... and  

he's kind of looking at all of this, it's his  job to demystify the situation ... to kind of  

take the mythical element away and expose things  as they really are. And as he's talking about  

striptease in one of his chapters, that kind  of taking away of the clothing, I suppose that  

that applies also to what he himself is doing.  One of the questions would be whether any of  

this this kind of revealing of what's really  there has its own sexy quality you could say.  

Now Barthes is aware that as he is looking at  the myth, it's possible that he himself creates  

new myths. Do we ever really escape this notion of  myth? That raises the question, well, what is his  

mythology? Does he have his own mythology? Does he  have his own sign system that we from our vantage  

point then need to understand? In fact, that's  why we can also draw ourselves. This would be  

the reader of Barthes ... looking at Barthes. We  come with our own spectacles, and as you can start  

to see, this really complicates the picture.  But Barthes does raise this in his preface,  

this problem of what is his own mythology. Is he  totally neutral? Can you ever escape myth? These  

are some of the questions that he is asking  right from the start. So let's have a look  

at wrestling then. We'll just sample one chapter  here just to get us into the text a little bit. As  

I mentioned if you want to have lots of examples  covered that's totally fine. You can let me know.  

So what is wrestling? Well, the first thing  we can say about it is that it's a spectacle.  

It's not a sport, he says. It's very dramatic, but  the outcome is not as important as the process.  

It's much more like a play. We enjoy the action,  we follow it, we watch it, but we don't worry too  

much about who wins, in part because the whole  context is somewhat artificial and possibly fixed  

anyways. The next thing that's important is that  he talks here about what kind of sign this is. He  

says that in wrestling signs are always clear. So  as you read each chapter, before you get to the  

theoretical part, I would encourage you to kind  of try to figure out what is the theory about  

signs in this chapter? Don't get sucked into  just a topic, whether it's margarine, or cars,  

or steak, and stuff like that. Try to figure  out what is he actually saying about the way  

in which signs are operating here. When it comes  to wrestling, he says there is a kind of "pure and  

full signification." In other words, every sign is  super obvious in what it means. He writes at one  

point, "The gesture of the vanquished wrestler (so  the wrestler who's on on the mat, you might say,  

who's being beaten) signifying to the world of  defeat, which far from disguising he emphasizes  

and holds like a pause in music, corresponds to  the mask of antiquity meant to signify the tragic  

mode of the spectacle." In ancient times, they  would have these masks on to signify if they were  

laughing or crying. It was very obvious. In the  same way here, the signs are super super. You're  

not going to be mistaken about what a particular  move in wrestling or a particular pose represents.  

We also see that we have these very clear types  of characters. His example here is of Thauvin,  

the disgusting man, the bastard, who is  cruel and unpredictable. We kind of hate him,  

but we also understand his sense of justice  and the way he's trying to survive in a certain  

kind of world. It's a complicated picture  here, but it's nevertheless a type. And if  

you've watched a little bit of wrestling,  you can probably see other types as well,  

like the pretty boy. And there's lots of other  ones. But the main point here is that these  

types of characters are very easy to read. You  know what you're dealing with. We can also say  

that there are very clear narrative patterns.  ... The stories are predictable. And yet we  

enjoy watching them anyways. So, commonly we have  "Suffering, Defeat, and Justice." The suffering  

has this classical sense of spectacle, which also  creates a sort of heroism, because even if you are  

a wrestler who's defeated, there's still heroism  in that to some extent. The justice part I think  

is really quite fascinating here because this is  not your traditional justice. One of the things  

that you'll recognize as you go through the book  is that Roland Barthes, being quite the leftist,  

hates traditional institutions, which of course  means that he's also going to hate or distrust  

the traditional justice system. Maybe that's  where he kind of admires wrestling a little bit,  

because very rarely is a fight ever truly fair.  We're dealing with a kind of extrajudicial way of  

understanding the world, which has its own its  own kind of logic, and its own kind of appeal.  

Another thing that's that's predictable  is that we have very symbolic moves ...  

when it comes to wrestling. He talks  about the hold, the forearm smash,  

and other moves. These things are predictable  and they have their symbolism, their meaning.  

If we sum all of this up, what we can say is that  on the one hand we have a great deal of formalism.  

All of these things follow a predictable form  and a pattern. But there is still something  

genuine in wrestling as well. If you read  between the lines in the chapter you see that  

Barthes is trying to get at that the wrestling  is this weird paradox, where on the one hand  

it's conventional, it's artificial, it's fake.  But you get the sense that it's not entirely  

bourgeois in the way that other things.  There's still the sense of rebellion and  

unruliness and chaos, which I think Bart  seems to secretly admire a little bit.  

So here right away in the book you start to  get this tension somewhat, where we think,  

well, is this bourgeois? Is it not? Does  Roland Barthes like it? And as you go on,  

right away [in] the next chapter he starts talking  about representation of Roman-ness in Hollywood.  

There he talks about signs that are artificial  but are not genuine. So what makes a sign seem  

more genuine and something that we can admire and  what makes something artificial and hypocritical?  

Is there a standard for that? How do we apply  that to signs? That's a question that I'm not sure  

Barthes always raises or even answers, because  that gets to the heart of who he is. What does  

he think is hypocritical? That's really one of  the issues that this book struggles with. Okay,  

so hopefully that gives you a good sense of  the first chapter, [and] the introduction,  

and we'll go on with our series and talk some  more about other examples and the theory.