A feature of the social processes of recent decades has been the rapid development of mass media, which has changed both the everyday and political life of modern man.

The oversaturation of the information field and the corresponding process of transformation of social consciousness, predicted by such futurologists as D. Bell, O. Toffler and others in the 60s, are becoming a reality. At the same time, the communication structure of society turns from an environmental factor into a kind of aggregated product of the professional activities of various types of organizations that have a rather limited and specific range of tasks, but at the same time are capable of managing the course of public discussions. Manipulating public opinion is no more new than politics. However, today's development of technologies for utilizing public opinion can change political processes no less radically than the activity of the new European bourgeoisie did in its time. As during the formation of the first new European nation-states, the strengthening of tendencies towards the praxeological canalization of mass sentiments and public opinion seems to be a consequence of the increased multi-subjectivity of modern society.

The most important tool for implementing political strategies in the information market in lately became the media. Back in 1840, O. de Balzac first called the press the “fourth estate.” And a century later, with the transformation of electronic media, and especially television, into an integral element of political discourse, the main tool for conducting election campaigns, this social mechanism turned into a powerful political institution that literally transformed the systemic parameters of public power.

The main reason for the media to gain such a high place in political life modern societies is that with their help the state and other political actors can not only inform the population about the goals and values ​​of their policies, but also model relations with the public, maintain the authority and stereotypes of power.

The media have become the strongest tool for the purposeful construction of political orders, a means of building the connections and relations with the public necessary for the authorities.

In this regard, one of the most acute forms of political struggle has become the rivalry between the ruling elites and the opposition for control over the most important, mainly electronic media. The ruling circles are using all their capabilities and advantages to prevent opposition leaders from entering leading television channels, banning their print media, and preventing access to mass newspapers.

The use of media has become an integral part of political technology. More and more often we hear the expression “dirty technologies”. To put it in special language, recently political technologists have increasingly begun to resort to deviant technologies.

Regulatory technologies are methods of activity that are strictly determined by the laws, norms, traditions or customs existing in society. Deviant technologies are the opposite of them; they are methods of activity that deviate from such requirements and standards. These include a whole range of “gray” and “black” technologies that contradict the law or norms of public morality. As practice has shown, at critical points in the political process, namely during elections to the highest government bodies, foreign and domestic political crises, there is an unprecedented flowering this kind technologies, subjects of influence and power often resort to leaking compromising material, blackmail, information leaks, slander, and in some cases even to terror and organizing conspiracies. New methods of manipulating human consciousness are being invented all the time. For example, information Technology agitation and propaganda type are generally aimed at controlling the consciousness and behavior of people. The methods and techniques used for informing and communicating with public opinion are ultimately aimed at artificially constructing both political reactions and the needs of the population. In this sense, the most typical methods and methods of information, corresponding to such goals and the nature of agitation and propaganda, are disinformation and falsification of information. As well as manipulation of the consciousness of recipients.

Information level of analysis of political myth

Mythology appears as a typologically universal phenomenon. The classical myth forms the basis, the basis for subsequent modifications. In recent centuries, the diversity of mythological experience has gradually focused around socio-political problems: power, property, relations between various social groups and states. Modern myth retains as its “parental inheritance” the basis of classical mythology.

The specificity of political consciousness (especially at the level of social psychology) lies in the fact that it is extremely difficult to verify anything by experimental means, since information is usually insufficient, and there is also a certain rigidity of the stereotype that prevents the comparison of different, sometimes directly opposite information options. As a result, political-mythological consciousness simply “gravitates” towards a certain stereotype, clearly expressed and emotionally charged (August putsch - August revolution).

Political myth is defined as a phenomenon of complex hierarchical interaction in individual and mass consciousness of archetypal foundations with a rational interpretation of political reality.

The political myth has a super-value character. Since it is based on an archetype, it is connected with deep, leading needs, is emotionally colored, and is, as it were, a “trigger” for political activity. A person is capable of sacrificing a lot, sometimes even giving his life, being guided by an idea that is extremely valuable to him.

Supervalue arises from giving a special status to an unsatisfied, archetypal in source, basic need (for example, the need for “ strong hand", personifying power). An energy flow seems to “break through” into human consciousness, in which images, scenes, objects, and actions appear based on the archetype. As a result, an overvalued idea arises that destroys the habitual system of values, subordinating them to itself.

This is probably why the teachings of Nietzsche and Marxism are so popular. They reassess all values, realizing forgotten needs (belief in a superman, a return to the “golden age”).

A political myth can be considered as some information message, but not as an organized text. Unlike ideology, myth is not conceptually formalized. Its content is constantly changing and is not identical to itself.

From the point of view of psychological structure, myth can be decomposed into two structural levels of content organization. At the first (archetypal) level, which dominates the psyche of the bearer of political mythologies, there are unconscious archetypal foundations of myth, almost identical to the collective unconscious of K.-G. Jung. This is the instinctive elemental, embryonic level of myth, realized in dreams, visions, group symbolism, etc.

At the second level (stereotypical), which is more dependent on real historical conditions, unconscious elements are recoded into meaningful, narrative, emotional constructs, into a form of organizing knowledge about the world around us in the form of stereotypes. The archetype adapts to requirements today, turning into a stereotype.

At this level, the rational principle certainly dominates. The consciousness of the group “adapts” the archetype to changes in political reality, giving rise to appearances and semblances.

Archetypal images are embodied in stereotypes that bear the imprint of human individuality, significant features of a historical era, and the drama of specific political events.

Considering the information structure of modern myth, we can distinguish two levels of organization of the translation of a mythological message: invariant and transform.

An invariant is an initial stereotype, a basic algorithm, a stable framework that provides noise immunity, that is, aimed at making important replacements as difficult as possible and the possibility of compensating them (in the event of the loss of one of the components). This is a deep level that is not affected by the position of the interpreter, the specific political situation and the personality of the mythological character.

In addition, in the information structure of a mythological message there is some redundant information that can be lost without radically changing the essence of the transmitted mythological message. This is the “superficial level of myth”, which has low noise immunity and is subject to strong distortions on the part of the interpreter.

The consciousness of social groups is disoriented, suppressed, and uncritical in almost everything. Social groups, as a rule, are disoriented, disorganized, and easily move from “one faith to another,” changing political beliefs, sometimes to the exact opposite.

Let’s move on from dry theory directly to examples of political myth-making.

Political strategists and PR campaign specialists serving the presidential campaign diligently expanded the range of political myths associated with V. Putin. To do this, the entire possible arsenal of image-making moves was used. The regime’s information cannon continuously fired propaganda shells into the crowd of one hundred million Russian voters, and the acting masks Presidents were replaced with kaleidoscopic speed. If you look at interviews with Vladimir Putin (acting president at that time), in some he appears as a convinced market liberal, in others as a patriot-statist, in others as a conservative and pragmatist striving for the consolidation of society. In such interviews, questions are carefully selected, an appropriate emotional background and context are created, and the likely reaction of potential voters is calculated. And if you don’t think about the content of these propaganda démarches, don’t try to decompose them into structural elements, don’t ask the question “why was this particular thing said?”, then Putin’s political image turns out to be quite holistic and convincing. Those who are accustomed to “voting with their hearts” may not have noticed that the images of the “patriot-statist” and the “liberal-marketeer”, which were exploited in Putin’s election campaign, are not only incompatible, but radically opposed to each other. PR specialists, who are convinced that politics is a competition of manipulative technologies, and not a struggle of ideas, bet on the absolute majority of such voters. However, the most sober-minded of them sounded the alarm, realizing that the chances of winning at the expense of an electorate with vague political guidelines were not very great. What could hinder the success of the “technologists”? First of all, in our country there is a fairly large number of those who believe in ideas, who are devoted to ideals. The overwhelming majority of such idealists supported and support Gennady Zyuganov and will never change their preferences. They have a strong immunity to electoral manipulation, and no information attacks will force them to change their sympathies. For another, no less significant group of the population, it is important to fully understand the position of the presidential candidates and make an informed choice. They will pay special attention to television debates, study program manifestos, and look for clear answers to questions that interest them. And in this field there is a clear advantage of the leader of the Communist Party. He has a serious, carefully developed program, his position is set out in several books, voiced in hundreds public speaking. And what can his opponent oppose to Zyuganov? Only general phrases with vague, disappearing, as if in fog, semantic structures. Therefore, the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is quite capable of winning a political battle with the current owner of the Kremlin, and this is already half the victory. Today, “technologists” constantly show extremely high ratings of V. Putin. This was the case during the election race. Hoping that supporters of the leftist opposition will believe that the outcome of the presidential election is predetermined, and will be so depressed by the prospect of impending defeat that they simply will not go to the polls. However, here too, PR specialists could make a serious mistake by poorly studying Russian national psychology. Subconsciously, our people strive not for power, but for truth, and are ready to support someone who enters into an obviously unequal duel.

Conspiracy, Hero-Savior, Unity and the Golden Age: archaic myths and their simple plots were the main means of explaining and understanding the world for ancient man. But what forms and functions has the myth acquired today? What is a political myth and why did it flourish in the 20th century? What role did technological progress and the media play in this? Why exactly in times of crisis does myth easily control human consciousness, preventing an adequate interpretation of reality? Let's figure it out.

In the mass consciousness, myth is rarely associated with modernity; it is usually perceived as fiction, something fantastic, something that does not exist, and is most often interpreted as deception. This was influenced, firstly, by the Christian paradigm, which perceived myth as a heresy, and secondly, by enlightenment rationalistic knowledge. However, as Mircea Eliade noted, “mythological thinking can get rid of outdated forms and adapt to a new culture, but not completely disappear.” Roland Barthes agreed with him, noting that myth cannot be defeated - when one myth dies, a new one takes its place (a myth can only be studied and tried to resist it). And indeed, despite the development of scientific thinking, the myth has not disappeared, although it has acquired new forms and functions. The crisis of rationalism, which manifested itself in the 20th century, led to the remythologization of human consciousness. Today, myth is a significant cultural reality, the nature and specificity of its functioning require attention and new understanding. Let's try to compare archaic and modern myths in order to learn to recognize them in the daily flow of information.

Before starting a conversation about myth in the context of modern reality, it is worth turning to the archaic era, in which myth played a primary role. For ancient people, myth was the main means of explaining and understanding the world.

Russian philosopher Boris Lvovich Gubman notes (1):

Myth is the first form of rational comprehension of the world, its figurative and symbolic reproduction, resulting in a prescription for action. Myth transforms chaos into space, creates the possibility of comprehending the world as a kind of organized whole, expresses it in a simple and accessible scheme, which can be translated into magical action as a means of conquering the incomprehensible.

What features did the archaic myth have? It contained a truth that did not require proof; myth could be filled with contradictions that did not need resolution; it was syncretic, symbolic and emotionally charged; time flowed in it according to special laws, and logic did not go beyond binary thinking. And, of course, in the myth there was always a hero, who was opposed to the trickster.

Mythological consciousness was an integral part of people's lives, which largely determined their relationships with the world. They listened to myths, learned from myths, their truth was never questioned.

Unlike the primitive period, myth today is present in culture as an absolutely conscious phenomenon: not only researchers are engaged in it, myth is actively used for their own purposes by various social and political forces.

One of the first to study modern myths was German philosopher Ernst Kassirer. He called man an animal that thinks symbolically and believed that it is “a symbol is the key to human nature.” The scientist views mythology as an autonomous symbolic form of culture, endowed with a special modality. In his Introduction to the Philosophy of Culture he writes (2):

Man now lives not only in the physical, but also in the symbolic universe. Language, myth, art, religion are parts of this universe, those different threads from which the symbolic network, the complex fabric of human experience is woven. All human progress in thinking and experience refines and at the same time strengthens this network. A person no longer confronts reality directly, he does not face it face to face. Physical reality seems to move away as a person’s symbolic activity grows.

In his work “Myths of the State,” Cassirer comes to the conclusion that in times of crisis in society, the human ability for symbolic interpretation is impoverished, due to which myth can control human consciousness, preventing an adequate interpretation of reality (3).

It is not surprising that the upheavals and achievements of the last century have become such a crisis. Researchers agree that, starting from the second half of the twentieth century, along with the traditional features of mythogenesis, conditions appeared for the broadcast of a special type of political neo-mythological narratives ⓘ The term “neo-mythologism” is introduced by E. M. Meletinsky to identify the remythologization of culture and literature., thanks to which political experience is formed and stored in society and its collective memory. In essence, the role of myth remains the same, but the usual religious and social plots are replaced by a political imperative.

Among the conditions that led to this are technological progress, the emergence of mass society, the dominant position of the media in shaping the image of social reality and the increase in the visual component in human perception of the world, intense imaginative thinking associated with the capabilities of multimedia technologies.

The same Cassirer notes (4):

If we try to examine element by element what modern political myths are, it turns out that they do not contain anything completely new. All their details have long been known. Carlyle's theory of "Hero-worship" and Gobineau's thesis about the fundamental moral and intellectual difference of the races have been discussed many times. But these discussions remained purely academic, and something more was needed to turn old ideas into powerful political weapons. They had to be adapted to a modern audience, to create a new tool not only for thought, but also for action, to develop a technique for manipulating ideas. Scientifically speaking, this technique should act as a catalyst - speed up all reactions and help bring them to completion. Although the stage for the twentieth-century myth was prepared long ago, it could not bear fruit without the skillful use of new tools.

New technical capabilities allowed modern myth to realize its main task - the creation of a new “natural” reality that would coincide with people’s expectations and would not require reflection.

Political neomyth is characterized by the presence of semantic dominants, which are, as it were, centers of gravity around which the narrative itself is revealed. These dominants become basic archetypes that transform, adapting to the current reality. It is this reliance on basic archetypes that has given modern myths its vitality and functional strength.

Of all the possible plots that are built around basic archetypes, the French researcher Raoul Girardet identified four main ones: the Conspiracy, the Golden Age, the Hero-Savior and Unity (5).

Myth of Conspiracy popularizes the idea of ​​enemies of the people, whose hidden actions are necessarily aimed at conquering and exterminating society and the state.

The Myth of the Golden Age either calls to return to a bright past, where there was freedom, equality and fraternity, or calls to a bright future, perceiving national history only as a preparatory stage for the onset of this ideal future.

The Myth of the Hero-Savior endows a cultural hero with charismatic qualities; the gift of a prophet, the unsurpassed talent of a military leader, and high moral qualities are required on the list. The extent to which a modern political leader is mythologized can be understood by analyzing his biographical works. They highlight precisely those elements whose presence is necessary for a leader of the masses.

Myth of Unity based on the dichotomy of friends-enemies, friends-foes, us-them. It is “they” who are the cause of all adversity. The main psychological mechanism for the feeling of the masses in the category of “friends” is the mechanism of personification of the leader - the cult of personality. The name occupies a place equal to other cults - the specificity of mythological texts is such that myths without names practically do not exist.

Based on these far from complete data, it is easy to see that the myth continues to live today. If we talk about soil that is close and understandable to us, then this is the eternal confrontation between Russia and the United States, in which the dichotomy of good and evil inherent in any myth is realized and several plots are embodied at once: about conspiracy, unity and a hero-savior. Here, political strategists are trying to realize the presence of the mythological construct of a cultural hero and trickster. In the modern political myth, they try to label the president as a creator who builds the state and gives absolute good and stability. And the plot of “Unity” calls on everyone to rally around the “savior.” Tricksters are opposition and activist groups - they do not obey established authorities, violate prohibitions and go beyond what is permitted. In the myths that we are fed, as in ancient stories, there is a specific model of time, the point from which the cosmos emerges from chaos - this is the year 2000 - the beginning of a new era, before which people lived through the “dashing” nineties. The center of the mythical space, of course, is the Kremlin - all roads lead to it, which is well illustrated on the map of Moscow.

The ritualization of everything Soviet continues to play a role, which does not lose its relevance to this day - the celebration of May 9, October Revolution. This is how archaic precedent thinking is implemented.

It is not difficult to notice the syncretism of the modern political myth - it explains the country’s past, the rules of life necessary to achieve “that same” wonderful future.

And these are not all the signs that can be covered, armed with a simple scheme for constructing a myth. It is important to note one feature here. Modern political myths have come to one important innovation - the influence on people's consciousness. Political myths, up until the First World War, were simply meant to oppress and suppress human physical freedom. Modern ones have gone deeper, and now it is important to master what is inside a person - his thoughts and feelings, to influence the psyche and a total change in worldview. With the takeover of cultural space by the masses, it became important to deprive people of the autonomy of the will and the ability to think independently. This is precisely what explains the lack of opposition in a totalitarian society and the intolerance of the ruling regime towards dissent. But here, too, the methods of influencing society have changed - there is no longer physical violence, people’s obedience is developed according to their will, thanks to the formation of faith in a prosperous future.

Therefore, right now, in an era when 90% of the news feed is occupied by political events, it is especially important to be able to recognize this reality built around us.

Selection by topic

—

—

—

Links to sources

1. Cultural studies. XX century. Encyclopedia. St. Petersburg: University Book, 1998. T. 2. P. 53.

2. Kassirer E. Experience about man: Introduction to the philosophy of human culture (Translation by Muravyov A.N.). // The problem of man in Western philosophy. / Translations / Comp. and after. P.S. Gurevich; General ed. Yu.N. Popova. Moscow: Progress Publishing House, 1988. P.3-30.

3. Kassirer E. Language and myth. On the problem of naming the gods // Cassirer E. Favorites: The Individual and the Cosmos. M.; St. Petersburg, 2000; Kassirer E. Conceptual form in mythical thinking // Kassirer E. Favorites. Experience about a person. M., 1998; Cassirer E. The Myth of the State. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.

4 Kassirer E. Technique of modern political myths // Vestn. Moscow State University. Ser. 7, Philosophy. 1990. No. 2. P. 58-65.

5. Antonos, G.A. Girardet R. Political myths and mythologies. Paris, 1986 Text: review / G.A. Antonos // Abstract journal. Social and human sciences: Zarub ezh. lit. Ser. 4. State and law. - 1996. - No. 1. P. 3-8.

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Similar documents

The concept, types and functions of political myth, its technological characteristics. Components of the Russian national myth. Historical practice of using mythology as a political tool. Processes of myth-making modern Russia.

course work, added 12/17/2011


Concept and general characteristics political management. Political communication How central part political-technological process. Political culture, its concept, essence, classification and role in the life of society and the political process.

course work, added 12/25/2009


The essence and fundamental features of the political regime, its features and principles of construction. Diversity of political regimes in modern world, their distinctive features and orientation. Characteristics and types of democratic political regime.

abstract, added 11/22/2009


Definition of a political myth, its types, properties, psychological prerequisites for its occurrence. Myth-making as a social process, its specific subjects, functional mechanisms for the creation and dissemination of myths in the political space.

abstract, added 07/27/2010


The space of politics as an active space of myths. General scheme of the psychological foundations of mythological consciousness and behavior. Studying the features of the formation of individual and collective mythological consciousness, the emotional and sensory aspect.

test, added 09/13/2012


The concept of political myth. Basic properties and characteristics of political myth. The structure of national mythology, the history of its origin. The problem of forming the mythology of a nation, the role of participants in myth-making. Socialist myth in modern Russia.

abstract, added 05/21/2016


Political image as an emotionally charged image of a political leader that has developed in the mass consciousness. Components, psychological content and conditions for the formation of an effective political image. Psychological models of political image.

abstract, added 09/28/2010


Structural Elements and Responsibilities political system. Forms of government. The concept and structure of the political regime. Communist totalitarianism in the USSR. Signs of an authoritarian state. Models and features of democracy. Principles of the rule of law.

presentation, added 03/18/2014

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Similar documents

The concept, types and functions of political myth, its technological characteristics. Components of the Russian national myth. Historical practice of using mythology as a political tool. Processes of myth-making in modern Russia.

course work, added 12/17/2011


The essence and nature of the concept of “political space”. Issues of sovereignty in the global space on modern stage development. Problems of political space in modern Russia, main trends and prospects for its further development.

test, added 04/30/2011


Definition of a political myth, its types, properties, psychological prerequisites for its occurrence. Myth-making as a social process, its specific subjects, functional mechanisms for the creation and dissemination of myths in the political space.

abstract, added 07/27/2010


The essence and structure of the political process. The concept of the political process and its form. Structure and types. Flow modes. Features of the political process in modern Russia during the transition period from totalitarianism to democracy.

thesis, added 12/16/2002


The relationship between the political system and the political regime in modern Russia. Exercise of power. Undemocratic tendencies in the political regime. Political regimes Soviet state. Political power in Russia: the problem of legitimacy.

course work, added 09/28/2006


Concept, basic theories and factors of leadership. Typology of political leaders. Functions of a political leader. Features of the exercise of political leadership in modern Russia. Modern concepts of the nature of leadership.

course work, added 09/20/2003


Theoretical and methodological aspects of the “political participation” of citizens in the life of the country, its essence, types and forms of occurrence. main characteristics of political behavior. Practical and purposeful forms of political participation in modern Russia.

abstract, added 09.20.2011


Typology of parties and political movements in modern Russia. Features of the formation of parties and party systems in bourgeois Russia. Distinctive features of the Russian multi-party system. The history of the creation of the one-party system in the Soviet state.

In the modern world, political mythology is becoming increasingly interesting for analysis. By declaring a particular political idea or value a “myth,” that is, a false and irrational idea (value), it is almost impossible for a researcher to maintain the accuracy of using the conceptual apparatus and the boundary between strict scientific analysis and ideological polemics. What is an undoubted truth for one political system, for its political opponents will be nothing more than a myth used to win the sympathy of the electorate.

N. Shestov defines a political myth as “a stable and emotionally charged stereotype of the perception of the political realities of the past and present, generated by the need for orientation of the individual and social structures in the political process” Shestov N.I. Political myth now and before. Saratov, 2003. P. 79. If we specify the definition, we can say that a political myth is a form of political creative activity, the content of which is the construction of stereotypical ideas about the political realities of the past and present.

Researcher of political mythology A.N. Kolyev gives the following definition of a political myth: “A political myth is an archetypal construction projected into the sphere of self-organization of a society or people” Kolev A.N. Political mythology. M., 2003. P. 75.. Myth is associated with an archetype, and this speaks of the involuntary nature of myth-making, of its interaction with the objectively existing structure of thought inherent in the archetype.

K. Flood defines a political myth as “an ideologically marked story about the events of the past, present and projected future” Flood K. Political myth. Theoretical research. M., 2004. P. 41. By “ideologically marked” K. Flood understands that myth bears the imprint of accepting assumptions, values, tasks that are accepted as the basis of a certain ideology or system of related ideologies and, thus, contains an explicit or hidden call to take a certain ideological position. This means that there is ideological marking objective sign story, although ideological coloring may manifest itself to a greater or lesser extent. The concept of ideological marking of a story includes the content embedded in it, the true impact that the narrator has with the power of his words. But, in addition, this concept also covers aspects corresponding to ideology that remained outside the scope of the story, that is, what could have been present in it, but was not included in it. This refers to ideological aspects that were implicitly involved in the choice of the content of the story and its interpretation. The selection of information, the determination of the qualities of historical figures, their driving motives and goals, the choice of descriptive or other means of narration, grammatical structures, the general organization of the story, the place where it is presented to the audience and other factors are significant insofar as they give the story a certain ideological orientation, different from the orientation of others ideologies. Consequently, any political text can be called mythological to the extent that it is ideologically colored.

The peculiarity of a political myth is that it always strives to become reality. A political myth seeks not only to justify one or another course of events, to ensure people’s faith in the correctness of the political actions being carried out, but also to construct memorable, vivid images of participants in the political process, the facts of political life, and the image of state policy as a whole. Become real myth can only with the help of means that precisely influence the consciousness of the masses. It is not enough for a myth to gain life; it needs further development, which is carried out through the media.

Often, myth becomes a shell of those ideas about political reality, those political beliefs within which entire social groups exist. Researcher A.M. Lobok notes an interesting property of myth: “for a person located inside a myth, it is a world of absolute and indisputable truth. And this means: myth is a lie that has a super-significant character for a person” Lobok A.M. Anthropology of myth. Ekaterinburg, 1997. P. 30..

Political mythology in one way or another addresses the motives of meaning and life - either in the direct form of political rhetoric, or in terms of awakening a certain kind of archetypes of public consciousness. K. Hübner pointed to the special logic of myth, sensitive to the living fullness of the world, and therefore associated with the value motives of one or another logical choice: “They say that the technical-industrial world has invariably improved the conditions of our material existence, and this for the most part is undoubtedly true But, on the other hand, we must also admit that this was not always the dream of mankind, if we read what all philosophers and prophets have said. human history called the highest happiness, if we consider the value orientations of past times, often so different from ours, we can find that those desires that seem natural to us were completely alien to them. It’s not that this improvement in living conditions was not useful to them, although this also happened in their time, but such improvements were sought in a higher context, which was mythical, religious = or moral." K. Huebner. The Truth of Myth. M., 1996. pp. 260-261..

A political myth, as noted by A.N. Kolyev is always and always vulnerable until he goes back to the absolute myth Kolev A.N. Political mythology: the realization of social experience. M., 2003. P. 161.. The problem of “finishing” a political myth is connected with the fact that it is impossible to simultaneously maintain both its realistic and mythical side. Either there are no mystical foundations (that is, ideas about the archetype are lost), then there is no concept (no connection with modernity), or they are not connected with each other. As a result, mythological and ritual communities perish either from the lack of manifestation of the archetype or from the lack of connection with modernity. Consequently, for the survival of a political myth, myth-making activity is necessary, which is essentially politics.

Political myth-making combines elements of the activity of the masses (class) and polytechnic manipulators who turn into its (his) representatives. The loss of energy potential by the mass (sooner or later this happens) leads to the attenuation and degeneration of the myth, turning it into an obvious fake that does not solve any existential problems. It is at this moment that the myth loses its connection with the archaic and becomes a deception. According to A.N. Kolyev, a political myth is characterized by a certain set of components: a picture of the world in the form of a mythologized concept of Truth (the foundations of justice), a point in time associated with the source of national history and culture, the moment of their highest glorification or severe injury (analogous to the initiatory experience in a mystical ritual - chosen glory or trauma), an image of the future (understood as a return to the origins of the “golden age”) and a deep opposition “us-them” (analogous to the mythical opposition of Good and Evil). Political myth is constantly in a state of completion and addition: from identification by common experience, through a certain borderline psychological state, to symbolization and ritualization - operating, combining symbols. In the mature stage, myth gives rise to mythological and ritual communities, but then passes into the stage of unification and dies, having lost its mobilizing power.

The embodiment of a myth can only take place if the actions of the author of the myth comply with a number of principles. A.N. Kolyev in his work “Political Mythology” identifies the following principles for the actualization of myth:

Firstly, a myth cannot be born non-mythologically. If, when constructing any political model, it does not adhere to mysticism, its lifespan is very limited. That is, political myth is closely (although perhaps implicitly) connected with cult and tradition. This means that deciphering a myth and identifying its plot concept always involves identifying parallels with classical myths and religions.

Secondly, a technology is needed to select the “key” to the myth. The myth already exists in society; you just need to find the “key” and know the moment when it needs to be applied. Hence the close connection of political myth with tradition and archetypes of the collective unconscious.

Thirdly, the myth must have the quality of totality. Setting yourself the task of using mythological views to solve a local political problem is empty. We must set the task of developing a single myth that can replace the flow of mythological scraps so successfully used in advertising products, but also quickly become boring and cease to influence people’s behavior.

As many researchers note, political myth is closely related to ideology. Ideology implants the dominant system of values, which is reflected in the semantics of mythologies. On the one hand, mythology participates in the formation of national or class self-awareness, on the other hand, “mythologization can become a secondary product of ideology if it intensifies the tendency to instill in the consciousness of society a false understanding of reality” Erasov B.S. Social cultural studies. M.: 1997. P. 163.. As noted by N.I. Shestov, “ideology and political mythology are not two different entities, but two levels of development of the text, in which the individual and society embody their vision of the political process and their emotional attitude towards it” Shestov N.I. Political myth now and before. Saratov, 2003. P. 96. Therefore, from the perspective of political mythology, ideology is a political myth that has received the sanction of a political institution (or a researcher designating a specific thought stereotype as an ideologeme), or more precisely, a particular combination of political myths within the political-mythological field of a given society.

A. Tsuladze distinguishes two types of myth. The first type is technological myths created to fulfill short-term political objectives. The second type is “eternal” myths. They are based on archetypes. Such myths do not change over time, they are almost impossible to destroy, since they are embedded in the mentality, customs and traditions of each specific people. Such myths can either be actualized, that is, brought to life, or driven into the depths of the subconscious. The main feature and power of “eternal” myths lies in their ability to return to life in a different guise, to constantly be reborn and not disappear. At the heart of the "eternal" myth is an archetype. “Archetypes are the energetic fuel of myth. Once formed, they accompany this or that people throughout their entire historical journey. Therefore, in order for a politician to become a mythological character, he must not only create some kind of construct, but fit into some kind of national, “eternal” myth” Tsuladze A. Political mythology. M., 2003. P. 60. .

An archetype can be defined as a general and universal image; these are the dominant forces, gods, that is, images of dominant laws and principles general patterns. Archetypes are a kind of inheritance that we inherited from previous generations, which is present to us as a given and which we cannot refuse no matter how much we want. Archetypes are embedded by nature in entire social groups (collective unconscious) and are activated in certain situations. Thus, we can say that myth is a phenomenon of the collective psyche.

“A political myth is a special myth that stores in the collective memory of the people their social experience, the imperatives of the spiritual and moral dimension of political processes” Kolyev A. Political mythology: Realization of social experience. M., 2003. P. 126..

“A political myth spontaneously arises from human nature and at the same time is created artificially by him. A political myth is an adaptation of some cultural myth for political ideas. It is always based on some artificial concept” Ibid. C. 127..

Thus, the main characteristics of a political myth, as already noted, are reliance on an archetype (prototype, idea) and some technological artificiality. And here symbols play a special role in the creation of myths. For example, the name is one of the main mythological symbols. “The name given to a social phenomenon turns out to be a symbol, which becomes the most essential perception of the named object” Ibid. P. 152.. By naming a phenomenon, we imagine it, and how we name it will shape its image in our minds. That is, how the myth is presented in the media will determine our understanding of it. IN modern media We are observing a tendency towards the emergence of new words and concepts; old words often acquire a new meaning and are capable of completely changing the essence of what was said. All this requires study from the point of view of its impact on mass consciousness.

In addition, the core element of the political process is the figure of the political hero. The main quality of a political hero is a miraculous force that moves the masses. The masses do not care how the hero acquired his qualities. For them, a political hero is a deity materialized as a result of an epiphany. “Until a group has been formed that recognizes its leader in politics, he cannot be a real personification of the mythical moods of the masses” Kolyev A. Political mythology: Realization of social experience. M., 2003. P. 183.. That is key value has not the politician himself as a person, but the myth formed about him - the image that the masses imagine.

“The plot built according to the monomyth scheme (crossing the threshold of reality, trials beyond the threshold, returning to people) is repeated in a wide variety of myths and fairy tales and is largely preserved in the mythologized destinies of politicians. For example, the Russian national myth is distinguished by the presence of a mythical hero with a very non-standard strategy success - Ivan the Fool and Ivan the Tsarevich" Ibid. P. 176.. That is, the “miraculous transformation” of a person from the people into a just politician. Great value in this situation has a Russian mentality. For example, you can recall the situation with the first Russian President Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin, who rode on a trolleybus with ordinary people and immediately became a national hero - this is the clearest example of the discrepancy between myth and reality.

Public policy is a kind of mythological space. Political myth is part of the technology for controlling ordinary consciousness.

Thus, when approaching political myth as a dynamic factor in the political process, representing independent manifestations of social activity, a qualitative connection is revealed between ideology and mythology. A connection due to the inclusion of ideology and mythology in a single process of society’s understanding of its political state at different moments. Essentially, we are dealing with various methods and forms of such comprehension, the meaning of which is established by the circumstances of the political process.