Photo by The New York Public Library on Unsplash
British sociologist and anthropologist Edmund Leach studies in part creation myths. We’ve explored his arguments and ideas on creation myths in prior arguments, but never laid out a cohesive—though simplified—framework to analyze creation myths, or myths period, through the Leachian lens.
First: note that we will define a myth via Leach as a structured narrative that explains or justifies the world, humanity, universe, social structures, cultural practices, or certain beings.
As opposed to stories or legends, “myths” are embedded into the social fabric and lifeblood of a culture and clan, reflecting a sort of collective consciousness and shared experience.
A cornerstone of Leachian analysis of myth is understanding myths through binary oppositions, which I’ve covered in several other articles (separate articles are available on binary structures, binary oppositions, mediation, and creation myths). I suggest clicking on one of those articles for a quick recap.
So, as we know, binary mythological structure posits myths as being the solution to binary oppositions via mediation. Beyond the utility of myths as mediating binary oppositions, Leach says that myths serve to establish order, enforce societal norms, cohesion, and hierarchies, transmit cultural information and values, and define human roles.
Leach also speaks to the cyclical and thematic nature of myths (especially underlying cognitive structures and cultural tensions they may reveal), as well as their social implications (essentially, what and how they mediate a given set of binary pairs). Thus, we can loosely compile Leachian mythological analysis into the following:
Mediation: How does the myth mediate the binary oppositions present?Opposition: What are the binary oppositions in the myth?Social Implications: What social norms or hierarchies does the myth reinforce?Themes: What underlying cycles or themes are present in the myth?
As a study hack, you can call this the MOST model of analysis: mediation, opposition, social [implications], themes. Leachian analysis in this manner helps us look under the hood of myths and figure out the context, drivers, and impact. Here’s an example in applying this model to the Norse Creation Myth:
Opposition: Chaos (Muspelheim) vs. Order (Asgard)Mediation: Odin and his brothers defeat the chaotic giants, establishing order in the cosmos.Social Implications: reinforcing the valorization of heroes and the importance of maintaining societal (and cosmic) order.Themes: the cycle of creation, destruction, and rebirth (connections to Hinduism!) and the role of heroes in establishing and maintaining order.
Here’s one more model, applied to the Greek Creation Myth of Zeus defeating the Titans:
Opposition: Titans (primordial chaos) vs. Olympian gods (established order)Mediation: Zeus leads the Olympian gods to a violent victory over the Titans, thus establising a new divine order.Social Implications: emphasizes the importance of leadership, strength, and an ordered society.Themes: transition from chaos to order, the legitimization of a new ruling class, and the cyclical nature of power struggles.
We can also note a few limitations to Leach’s approach: it may be considered oversimplified, focused on structural as opposed to cultural, historical, or individualistic elements, and assumes binary thing (BOS for short: binary, oversimplified, structural).
So, I hope that covers all bases for you! Feel free to leave any questions or thoughts in the comments. Also, check out my full Religion 101 article list (useful for studying, or just learning!) here.