Key Theories on Myth and Religion Origins

Posted on Apr 2, 2025 in Religion

Theories on the Origins of Myth and Religion

Ancestor Worship (H. Spencer)

Herbert Spencer proposed that the concept of “manes” (the spirit of the dead) is central. Key ideas include:

• Source of Myth: Fear of the spirits of the dead.
• Practices: Rites of propitiation (sacrifice).
• Extension: Worship of animals and natural phenomena interpreted through faulty language or misunderstanding.

Animism: Dreams and Death

This theory posits that the concepts of dreams and death led to the belief in souls.

• The soul is believed to leave the body during dreams.
• Dreaming implies the body is lacking something; heart failure signifies death.
• Humans are seen as having two parts: a material body and an unseen spiritual soul.
• The belief extends to everything possessing a soul (including inanimate objects or fetishes).
• The cult of the dead is considered the origin of religion.

Dynamism (Mana)

In opposition to animism, dynamism suggests religion relates to dance and movement, distinct from sleep or death. It posits that things possess an impersonal, supernatural force (often called mana). Primitive peoples believe in this force and its transmission. This view suggests religion and mythology might source from an age preceding animism.

Cambridge Ritualists (J.G. Frazer)

Sir James George Frazer, in his work The Golden Bough, gathered extensive data on beliefs and practices, notably analyzing a Roman rite concerning Diana. He explored the relationship between:

• Magic
• Religion
• Myth
• Ritual
• Science

A key assertion is that myths often arise to explain existing rites (aitia – an explanatory cause or origin).

Rites of Passage (J.E. Harrison)

Jane Ellen Harrison, influenced by Durkheim, focused attention on initiation rites. She emphasized the importance of rites of passage, typically involving three phases:

1. Separation
2. Transition (liminality)
3. Incorporation

Sociological Approach (É. Durkheim)

Émile Durkheim viewed myths as explanations for collective rites. His concept of Totemism suggests that the Totem (representing mana or collective force) is a projection of society itself. Rites, therefore, symbolically represent social processes and structures.

Psychoanalytic Theories of Myth

Sigmund Freud

Freud, known for The Interpretation of Dreams, emphasized the role of the unconscious. He proposed that myths are collective expressions based on universal human complexes, such as the Electra and Oedipus Complexes, manifested similarly to dreams. He theorized the source of religion and mythology lay in a primal social group: a dominant adult male with females, whose maturing sons, seen as rivals, were ejected, eventually returning to kill the father.

Karl Abraham

Abraham suggested that dreams result from individual psychological pressure, while myths are the product of the collective pressure of a people’s tradition.

Géza Róheim

Róheim viewed myths as individual dreams adapted and tailored to the community.

Carl Jung

Jung explained the striking similarities across diverse myths through the concept of archetypes – archaic, universal patterns of behavior transmitted genetically and expressed symbolically in myths.

Bruno Bettelheim

Bettelheim, in works like The Uses of Enchantment (implied by “The psychology of fairy tales”), argued that the developing mind needs stories (modified myths or fairy tales) to help process and overcome psychological complexes.

Functionalism (B. Malinowski)

Bronisław Malinowski studied how different aspects of a culture function together. He argued that myths serve a crucial social function: they act as a charter to justify and validate the social order, customs, and beliefs of a particular society. These functions are considered essential and irreplaceable for social cohesion.

Comparative and Structural Mythology (G. Dumézil)

Georges Dumézil applied methods from comparative linguistics and structuralism to study Indo-European mythology. He proposed that ancient Indo-European societies were organized around a tripartite ideology reflecting three core social functions: sovereignty (magical and juridical), warfare, and productivity/fertility. This structure is reflected in their social organization, politics, and religion.

Social Tripartition Examples:

• India: Society organized by caste, traditionally linked to Brahma’s body parts:
  1. Brahmins (priestly) from the head.
  2. Kshatriyas (warrior) from the arms.
  3. Vaishyas (worker/producer) from the legs.
  4. Shudras (servile/indigenous population) from the feet.
  (*Note: Pariahs or Dalits exist outside this system.*)
• Indo-Iranian: Three symbolic objects representing classes:
  1. Cup (nobility or priesthood).
  2. Axe (war).
  3. Plow (farmers).
• Celtic: Caesar described Gaulish society with Druids (priests/intellectuals), knights (warriors), and commoners. Irish Celtic culture also reflects three classes (combination of warriors and peasants implies a productive class).
• Romans: Early Roman tribes possibly reflecting the functions:
  1. Ramnes (associated with Romulus – kings and priests).
  2. Luceres (associated with Lucumo – warriors).
  3. Titienses (associated with Titus Tatius – workers/producers).
• Germanic: The Elder Edda describes Heimdallr fathering three classes:
  1. Thrall (slaves – lowest stratum).
  2. Karl (peasants/freemen – producers).
  3. Jarl (nobles/warriors).

Religious Tripartition Examples:

• India: Three groups of Vedic gods linked to social functions:
  1. Varuna and Mitra (sovereign function).
  2. Indra (military/warrior function).
  3. Ashvins (twin gods of health/productivity).
• Ancient Roman Religion: The Archaic Triad:
  1. Jupiter (sovereign).
  2. Mars (warrior).
  3. Quirinus (productivity/community).
• Celtic (Irish): The Four Treasures of the Tuatha Dé Danann can be interpreted functionally:
  1. Stone of Fal (screams under the rightful king – sovereignty).
  2. Spear of Lugh (never misses) and Sword of Nuada (invincible) (warrior function).
  3. Cauldron of the Dagda (never-ending supply – productivity/plenty).
• Germanic: Major gods reflecting the functions:
  1. Odin and Tyr (sovereign function – magic/law).
  2. Thor (warrior function).
  3. Vanir gods (e.g., Freyr, Freyja – fertility/productivity).
• Greece: Remnants of a tripartite division are argued to exist in mythological passages (e.g., the Judgment of Paris, where goddesses offer sovereignty, military glory, or the most beautiful woman).

Formalist Approaches to Myth

Vladimir Propp

Vladimir Propp studied the external structure of Russian folktales (often applicable to myths). He identified fundamental units he called functions or “motifemes”, which represent the essential actions performed by characters. Key points:

• There are 31 distinct functions.
• These functions always appear in the same sequential order within tales.
• Not all functions need to be present in a single tale, but those that are present maintain the fixed order.
• In Historical Roots of the Wonder Tale, Propp argued that the structure of these tales derives from ancient initiation rituals, suggesting myths lie behind these rituals.

Walter Burkert

Walter Burkert proposed that myths are based on fundamental biological and cultural action programs essential to real life. He identified a common narrative schema in myth and ritual involving three phases:

1. Separation
2. Transition
3. Return (or reintegration)