Add ess o Co espondence: Salomé Sola Mo ales, email: [email protected]
A icle ecei ed on he 25 h Feb ua y, 2013. A icle accep ed on he 4 h May, 2013
Con lic o In e es : The au ho s decla es no con lic o in e es .
O iginal A icle
Salomé Sola Mo ales
Uni e sidad Au ónoma de Ba celona, Facul y o Communica ions S udies, Spain
Abs ac : T adi ionally my hical hough has been banished and conside ed less
impo an han logical hinking. Howe e , in he las decades se e al au ho s ha e
claimed he need o e alo ize his no ion. F om ou pe spec i e, my h is a key
concep o explo e he cons uc ion o meaning in media na a i es. Fo ins ance,
i we y o sol e undamen al ques ions as wha communica ion is o how media
make meaning, we should ake in o conside a ion he epis emological scope o
my h. This a icle’s main objec i e is o p o e ha he co-implica ion be ween
logos and my hos is essen ial o unde s and social communica ion and media ed
cul u e. Thus, o a oid any kind o educ ionism, i is necessa y o es ablish a
dialogue be ween he wo o ms o hinking and exp ession: he concep and he
imagina ion.
Keywo ds: My h, communica ion, media ed cul u e, i ual, na a ion
In oduc ion
This pape deals wi h he concep ualiza ion o my h and i s impo ance in he media ed
cul u e. We p opose a heo e ical and analy ical app oach o my h, as a undamen al issue o
unde s and he basis o social communica ion. Fi s o all, we will y o make a
concep ualiza ion o he complex no ion o my h and we will explo e i s pa icula i ies. This
is suppo ed, undamen ally, by he con ibu ions o Mi cea Eliade (1973), Joseph Campbell
(1993), Ku Hübne (1996), Lluís Duch (2002) and Hans Blumenbe g (2003). Secondly, we
will exp ess he connec ion be ween my h, i ual and na a i e, di e en ques ions ha a e
c ucial o unde s and media ed communica ion. Thi dly, we will unde line he ole o my hs
in e e yday li e and in he cons uc ion o iden i ies. Fou hly, we will gi e special emphasis
o he logo-my hical app oach, a heo e ical pe spec i e ha co-implica es my hos and logos,
as wo pa s o he same p ocess. And inally, we will highligh he heo e ical impo ance o
he my hological and he imagina ion in he s udy o media ed cul u e and communica ion.
KOME − An In e na ional Jou nal o Pu e
Communica ion Inqui y
Volume 1 Issue 2 p. 33-43.
© The Au ho (s) 2013
Rep in s and Pe mission:
kome@komejou nal.com
Published by he Hunga ian Communica ion
S udies Assoicia ion
My h and he cons uc ion o
meaning in media ed cul u e
S. Sola Mo ales 34
KOME − An In e na ional Jou nal o Pu e Communica ion Inqui y Volume 1 Issue 2 p. 33-43.
Towa ds a concep ualiza ion o he polysemic no ion o my h
Ou main p emise is ha my h is no a simple eali y because, as Mi cea Eliade (1973, p. 18)
has poin ed ou , i appea s in e y complex cul u al con ex s and ne e allows uni ocal and
linea eadings abou i . This means ha his no ion can be in e p e ed om mul iple and
complemen a y pe spec i es. Indeed, om a psychological app oach (Jung, 2011) my hs a e
conside ed elemen a y ideas, while om a his o ical-e hnog aphic poin o iew hey a e
called ‘e hnic ideas’ o ‘popula ideas’, as Joseph Campbell (1993) has sugges ed.
Fi s o all we will e e o he pa icula i ies o my h and will ollow he p oposal o Lluís
Duch, he Hispanic an h opologis who has bes explo ed my hic s uc u es o unde s and he
human being. In one o his majo wo ks, Mi o, in e p e ación y cul u a (2002, p. 27), he
au ho a gues ha my h comes o be p esen a all imes and in all spaces, i mus be
cons an ly ein e p e ed in e ms o new a iables ha a ise in he li e pa hs o indi iduals
and communi ies. The e o e, i has a pa icula impo ance in communica ion. The exis ence
o a se ies o cons an s ha p e ail and anscend any whim makes us say ha my h is a
s uc u al condi ion in human li e. O wha is he same ha all human beings a e my hical by
na u e; and hey use di e en my hs –his o ical a icula ions– in di e en con ex s o
cul u es.
As we conside a bi dogma ic o p opose an ul ima e and unique de ini ion o he e m, we
will limi ou sel es o a much mo e conc e e wo k: we will y o desc ibe he mos impo an
unc ions o my h ha shed ligh o he unde s anding o media cul u e and communica ion.
I may be necessa y o cla i y ha we p esume ha my hs a e heo e ically ‘mul i unc ional’,
as hey a e o med by di e en mo i a ions (Duch, 2002, pp. 86-87). None o he
pa icula i ies o he my hs p e ails and, i we obse ed hem as a whole, hey will allow us
o unde s and he g amma and scope o my hs in he media ed cul u e.
One o he i s ea u es o he concep unde conside a ion is called by Duch, he
communica i e unc ion. This aspec is c ucial o us, because we unde s and my h as a
sea ch o meaning o as an a i ude ha demons a es he polyphonic and imagina i e
capaci y o he human being. Indeed, subjec s and g oups need di e en o ms o exp ession
ha allow hem o communica e hei humani y which is, acco ding o Duch, a complexio
opposi o umi. In his sense, my h, as Man ed F ank (1989) would say, ends o a mu ual
unde s anding o membe s o socie y and he ha mony o hei mo al con ic ions.
The so-called by Duch (2002) eodiceica unc ion is ano he key o unde s and he
undamen al s uc u e o my hs. In ac , my hs, wi h many di e en shapes, a e ela ed o he
mos impo an aspec s o human li e, bu especially a e ela ed o he p axis o domina ion o
he con ingency (Lübbe, 1986). Tha is o say, hese s uc u es allow human beings ace he
p oblems and adap hemsel es o changing si ua ions always ma ked by empo ali y and
human ail y. In o he wo ds, hese p ac ices help o e come he con ingency o he ex en
ha enable humans, indi idually, and g oups, collec i ely, o mo e “ om chaos o cosmos”
(Duch, 2002, p. 37). In a sense, a he apeu ic unc ion could also be eleased, since my h, as
eligion, allows subjec s (indi idual and collec i e) o ake a place in he wo ld. A social
place con igu ed by he media many imes. A hinke who s essed his las he apeu ic
unc ion is Hans Blumenbe g (2003), who belie es ha my hical na a i es a e he
mechanisms ha enable man o o e come anxie y and he aps o an unce ain des iny.
Now, i is ob ious ha my h mee s a se o cul u al, eligious and communica i e unc ions,
ha o e s comp ehensi e c i e ia o he di e en membe s o a cul u e; es ablishes
hie a chies among indi iduals and g oups, and d aws and blu s he bounda ies be ween he
p esen and he absen , as Duch (2002) has poin ed ou . Howe e , my hs also pe o m
his o ical and social unc ions: hey speak abou he o igins and e olu ion o all ypes o
S. Sola Mo ales 35
KOME − An In e na ional Jou nal o Pu e Communica ion Inqui y Volume 1 Issue 2 p. 33-43.
socie ies. And hese na a ions also p opose poli ical unc ions ha “se e he sel -
p esen a ion o consciousness o he iden i y o human communi ies” (Duch, 2002, p. 88).
And his is essen ial o unde s and he con igu a ion and ci cula ion o he media collec i e
imagina ies.
How o in e p e my hs?
When in e p e ing my hs, he e a e se e al app oaches o hei be e unde s anding. I would
be wo hwhile o de o e some a en ion o wo issues ha a e ela ed o hem: he na a i e
and he i uali y.
In he ligh o he na a i e pe spec i e, my h is a communica i e and expe ien ial way ha is
subme ged wi hin he scope o he na a ion and no only in he me e desc ip ion (S olz,
1988). One o he au ho s ha has adop ed his app oach is Blumenbe g (2003, p.41), who
has a gued ha my hs a e s o ies ha ha e a high deg ee o cons ancy in hei na a i e co e
and also some ma gins o a ia ion. In addi ion, my hs exp ess he complexi y inhe en in he
eali y o he wo ld and he human. In ac , “wha has become iden i ied by hei names is
eleased om i s bleak and s ange cha ac e h ough me apho , e ealing, h ough
s o y elling, he meaning ha encloses” (Blumenbe g, 2003, p.41). A he same ime, my hic
na a i e e eals he ea ly c ys alliza ion o he expe iences o communi ies. In o he wo ds,
i does no only gi e meaning o he ac ions o indi iduals always and e e ywhe e, bu also,
and mainly, o g oups. In ac , my hical s o ies, in he same way ha media s o ies, p o ide
communi y membe s ‘guidance’ and in o ma ion ha allows hem o be placed h ough an
iden i ica ion p ocess (in he psychological sense).
F om he pe spec i e o he cul , my h and i ual a e unde s ood as p ocesses ha ope a e
simul aneously. Ac ually, he e a e many an h opologis s, among whom James F aze can be
highligh ed, who imposed he iew ha my h and i ual we e like wo sides o he same coin:
“The i s would come o de ine he na a i e sense (s o y) and he second, he ep esen a i e
and spec acula appea ance ( hea e )” (Duch, 2002a, p. 183). In he same ein, Joseph
Campbell (1993, p. 59) equa es he link be ween he classic mind-body dicho omy and
asse s: “My hs a e he men al suppo s o i es; i uals a e he physical ep esen a ions o
my hs”.
Al hough his concep has e ol ed and my h and i ual a e now conside ed sepa a e en i ies
o p ocesses (bu complemen a y) we canno o ge ha bo h ha e a e y simila na u e. So
besides ha ing a symbolic common basis, my h and i ual ha e also an essen ial
psychological and emo ional condi ion, which inds i s a ionale in he limi s. As i is well
known, he concep o limi has been s udied in dep h by Vic o Tu ne (1988). Fo he
B i ish an h opologis , he luidi y o my hical na a i es can be explained because o i s
liminal cha ac e . In ac , o him all liminal si ua ions a e happening in symbolic bo de s,
and hey include a se ies o conc e e a i udes (indi idual and collec i e) ha mus be
d ama ized in on o he g oup membe s. F om Tu ne ’s (1980) poin o iew, a i ual is a
e y s e eo yped beha io and powe ul in e ms o cul u al con en ions, ha communica es
he mo e aluable social alues, allowing pa icipan s o pe o m a ole.
I is ema kable ha he unc ioning o he i ual is simila o se e al media p ocesses. In
addi ion, my hs ell how a si ua ion led o ano he , how he wo ld became popula ed, how
chaos was ans o med in o cosmos, how he immo al u ned in o mo al, how seasons
appea ed in a clima e whe e hey did no p e iously exis (Tu ne , 1979, pp. 150-154). Tha
is, my hs explain he ans o ma ion p ocesses, he ansi ion om one si ua ion o ano he ,
he in e media e s eps ha elapse be ween he one and he o he o , wha is he same, he
anishing poin s sepa a ing he unspeakable om he unde s andable. In “My h and Symbol”
S. Sola Mo ales 36
KOME − An In e na ional Jou nal o Pu e Communica ion Inqui y Volume 1 Issue 2 p. 33-43.
(1979), Tu ne desc ibes liminali y as pu e po en iali y om which ex a logical beha io s
may a ise, o e en limi s may be o e idden o anscended.
All his leads us o belie e ha my h is a p ocess o phenomenon ha is subs an ially liminal.
And i has he ini ia ion o indi iduals as p elimina y ounda ion; hence some imes i wo ks
as a i e o passage. These p ocesses a e highly e ec i e in an on ological le el because he
pa icipan s ans o m hei si ua ion o anscend hei p e ious s a us o accep hei new
acqui ed posi ion. Al hough, acco ding o Tu ne , my hs a e no di ec ly connec ed o speci ic
i es, om ou pe spec i e hey a e ela ed, in one way o in ano he , o a cul ic p ac ice,
whe he conscious o unconscious. And hese heo ies a e o pa icula in e es o he s udy
o media ed i uals and communica ion.
My hs and quo idiani y
Bu besides ha ing a di ec link wi h cul ic p ac ices, my hs a e also an impo an pa in
cul u al compe ences and ep esen a signi ican de elopmen in daily li e. In his ega d,
B onislaw Malinowski (1974) has placed pa icula emphasis on he scope o he my hical
uni e ses in e e yday p ac ice. In ligh o his ideas, my hs a e s o ies ha deeply a ec all
socie y, and whose unc ion is o jus i y o ein o ce he belie s and coding p ac ices ha
a icula e he li e o a pa icula communi y. These p ocesses a e analogous o some o he
unc ions o he media, like con igu ing belie s, modi ying p ac ices and alues o p io i izing
ideas. All hese phenomena a e pa o he my hical discou ses and media discou ses a he
same ime. And as Malinowski (1974, p. 124) s a ed: “My h is no an idle an asy, no a
meaningless ou pou ing o e anescen d eams, bu a e y labo ious and ex emely impo an
cul u al o ce”.
This explains why my h is no used o amuse o en e ain, bu i has o be employed when a
i e, ce emony o social o mo al ule needs a jus i ica ion, a gua an ee o an iqui y, eali y o
holiness (Malinowski, 1974, p. 131). The use o my h in hese occasions, as gua an o o
meaning o he g oups, is closely ela ed o he concep o adi ion. In ac , my h s eng hens
adi ion and gi es alue o he communica ion be ween gene a ions. The e o e indi iduals
can e u n o he o igins o emembe he pas o esol e issues o p esen eali y, using
symbolic and my hical o ms. Thus, i is clea ha my hs ha e an essen ial symbolic na u e
o , wha is he same, ha hey use symbols o exp ess hei mission. No can we deny ha
media cul u e has a my hical and symbolic cha ac e i we conside he p e ious p oposal.
Ano he o he key issues when add essing he scope o my h is i s link o imagina ion. In his
sense, he con ibu ions o Gilbe Du and (1981) a e highly ele an . Unlike Le i-S auss
(1979), o whom my h is a pa icula o m o communica ion ha can be assimila ed in o
language, Du and belie es ha my h, ins ead o a no a ion ha is ansla ed o dec yp ed, is
seman ics p esence and, being composed o symbols, i comp essi ely con ains i s own sense
(Du and, 1981, p. 340). In ac , as he has poin ed ou , my h does no ansla e, e en in logic
because any a emp o ansla e my h –as any a emp o mo e om he seman ic o he
semio ic– is an a emp o impo e ishmen (Du and, 1981, p. 341). F om his iew, wha
eally ma e s abou my h is no he h ead o he s o y, bu he symbolic meaning o he e ms
ha appea on i , so ha he ansla ion i sel is in alid. So, we should unde s and ha he
uni e se o my h is no ounded on diach onic o synch onic ela ionships, bu on
comp ehensi e meanings. Tha is because i is a uni e se loaded by an immedia e seman ics
and i can only be dis u bed by he media ion o discou se. Thus, Du and is igh when he
claims an in eg a i e iew o he a che ypical symbolic and my hical hinking modes, whe e
imagina ion and eason a e complemen a y.
S. Sola Mo ales 37
KOME − An In e na ional Jou nal o Pu e Communica ion Inqui y Volume 1 Issue 2 p. 33-43.
Bu pe haps he mos in e es ing aspec o he s udy o my h is i s epis emological and
on ological scope. Ac ually, o us, he e a e issues ha posi i e science and he hypo he ical-
deduc i e me hod will ne e be able o sol e. Indeed, he denial o imagina i e and my hical
o ms has la gely limi ed me e on ological desc ip ion o he subjec and he iden i ica ions
ha subjec s and g oups do in ela ion o media. I is impo an o ema k ha , o us, “my h
can make an expe ien ial basis o he abo e ques ions and could be ‘e ec i e’ (symbolically)
o gi e he some saul om he exo e ic o he eso e ic” (Duch, 2002, p . 89).
Because o his, we demand a eno a i e concep ion o my h, which allows o e come he
dogma ic s uc u e ha p i ileges concep ualiza ion, as he exclusi e and absolu e way o
app ehend eali y and con igu e human li e (Duch, 2002, p. 430). And ha a e all, i does
no hing bu me ely impo e ish i . In his sense, i is necessa y o e alo ize he meanings and
he imagina i e and my hical way o unde s anding he eali y and he communica ion. As
Blumenbe g (2003) has highligh ed, my hs ha e a o ed he educ ion o a unique His o y,
p omo ing se e al en iching and complemen a y meanings. The e o e my h can be p oposed
as a c i ical and al e na i e model, which would allow he opening o di e en and c ea i e
ho izons. In ha way, i will be possible o con inue he he meneu ic pa h ha is ypical and
necessa y o human communica ion.
The logo-my hic: a co-implica ion be ween my hos and logos
The Wes e n hough has been domina ed h oughou His o y, and e en oday in many a eas,
by sepa a ing me aphysical dicho omies. These i educible an agonisms (among which may
be ci ed as examples: essence-exis ence, eason-emo ion, mind-body, image-concep ,
in e io -ex e io o my hos-logos) assume ha among he abo e concep s o p ocesses does
no exis any kind o link o con inui y. By con as , E ns Cassi e (1976, pp. 446-450)
conside s ha only symbolic o ms a e capable o media ing be ween he dualisms o
adi ional hinking and expe ience o human beings. Fo us, as o Cassi e , he ue concep
o he symbolic canno adap o he adi ional classi ica ions o me aphysical dualism, bu
mus o e come and b eak i s ames. Bu ob iously, his kind o ca ego ical dicho omies
o ge s ce ain nuances, as he as ange o g ays ha is ound be ween whi e and black.
Mo eo e , hese me aphysical di isions do no only sepa a e he men ioned elemen s due o
hei di e ences, bu gi e di e en alue o hem.
Thus, depending on he his o ical and cul u al momen , one o he a eas o concep s iden i ied
will be e alua ed posi i ely and he o he elega ed o e en banished. To some ex en , we
could summa ize he end luc ua ing be ween my hos and logos: when one held sway, he
o he ceased o exis . In ac , as Duch has p oposed (2002, p.158), wha has been a emp ed in
Wes e n cul u e has been ha he logos eplaces he my hos, as well as “ he nous akes he
place o he e os, he being (on) o he becoming (genesis), he eidos o he ais hesis, he
essence o he exis ence, he ac o he powe , he de ini ion o he in ui ion”. And his
sup emacy o logos –as well as he sup emacy o my hos–, as we will see, can ha e pain ul
consequences.
Bu which a e he easons why my hs, as he image o he exis ence, ha e been elega ed
om he posi i is and adi ional way o hinking? Some au ho s, such as Giamba is a Vico
(1995), who a ibu es a high deg ee o his o ical u h o he my hical ales, ocused his
c i icism in ca esianism, whose p ejudices agains my hical hough we e iew b ie ly below.
While we can say ha Desca es was one o he mos in luen ial in ellec uals in he c ea ion
o mode n Wes e n hough , we canno o ge ha some o his pa adigms ha e been ins alled
coe ci ely in some a eas o e lec ion. Du ing he se en een h and eigh een h cen u ies his
s a emen s, along wi h o he hinke s like Bacon and New on, we e e ec ed agains he

S. Sola Mo ales 38
KOME − An In e na ional Jou nal o Pu e Communica ion Inqui y Volume 1 Issue 2 p. 33-43.
my hical and mys ical hough (Lé i-S auss, 2002, p.124). And any ype o specula ion abou
my hs was banished. The illus a ed Science sough o elimina e all hose ‘subjec i e’
elemen s like as es, eelings, desi es, moods, images o e hical p o isions ha a e no
suscep ible o being e i ied. (Duch, 2002, p. 489).
A he same ime, he alue gi en by Desca es o logos (logocen ism) and he sup emacy
g an ed o he scien i ic echnical me hod, led o he iumph o iconoclasm. In ac , acco ding
o Albe Chillón (2000, p. 141), he in luence o he Ca esian pa adigm is one o he easons
esponsible o : “The longs anding iconoclasm p o essed by he Enligh enmen , cha ac e is ic
o mode ni y”. Mo eo e , as sugges ed by Du and (1971), Ca esianism aised he iumph o
he sign o e he symbol, he concep o e he imagina ion, because all Ca esians ejec
imagina ion, as well as eeling as phenomena ha induce e o s. I is in e es ing o ecall ha
in he i s pa o he Discou se on Me hod, Desca es poin s o conside a ake e e y hing
ha is no mo e han likely (Chillón, 2000, p. 141):
“A e all, he Ca esian logocen ism ex ols he concep and pos pones he image. In
doing so he e uses o see, no only ha he concep is bo n as an image and i needs
images o unc ion, bu also ha concep and image a e he wo aspec s o he symbol.
Also, ha he dis inguishing cha ac e is ic o human in ellec is ce ainly he unc ion o
symboliza ion”.
Bu i was no only Desca es who ejec ed he symbolic and my hical hough by a ibu ing
p eponde ance o eason; nume ous au ho s, such as Sigmund F eud o James F aze , also
judged nega i ely he wo lds o my h as w ong. And hey a gued ha hese wo lds should be
e u ed, exceeded and inally eplaced by Science (Campbell, 1993, p. 23). Fo hese
in ellec uals, he ela ionship be ween my hos and logos was ne e dialec ical. Tha is, he e
was ne e in e ac ion o co-implica ion be ween hem, bu denial o one pa o he bene i o
he o he . Howe e , o he esea che s, as Blumenbe g (2003, p. 20), emphasized ha “ he
bounda y line be ween my h and logos is imagina y”. So we canno accep a sepa a ion
be ween hese wo ways o unde s anding eali y, since bo h o ms o exp ession canno be
canceled as hey a e complemen a y:
“Saying ha he cou se o hings has gone om my h o logos implies a dange ous
igno ance, because one belie es o be able o ensu e ha , a some poin in he dis an
pas , he e was an i e e sible leap o wa d ha would ha e de ini ely le some hing
[my h] behind” (Blumenbe g, 2003, p. 35).
When, ac ually hese wo o ms o exp ession mus coexis . P ecisely hei coexis ence is he
basis o he mu ual en ichmen . This idea owes Cassi e ’s o Hübne ’s hough o whom
he e is no di e ence be ween he concep ual and he my hical, an opposi ion ha he
a ionalis adi ion had wan ed o see, pa ly o main ain i s hegemony and con ol.ii
Howe e , we ound a ious p oposals ha make us necessa ily decons uc logocen ic logic
om i s own base. The epis emological pa adigm o Thomas Kuhn (1962), o example,
shows some o he limi a ions o Science and concep ual hinking. Besides, i allows us o
mani es he inhe en polysemy o each scien i ic discou se and he need o ansla e and
in e p e i wi hin a pa icula adi ion. F om his pe spec i e, any a gumen a ion mus be
aised as a ques ioning o he e e ence sys em as Paul K. Feye abend (1993) has sugges ed.
F om his poin o iew Science is some imes close o my hs han i is p epa ed o admi . I is
impo an o no e ha he au ho belie es ha eason and Science ha e displaced o he
belie s, among which we could ce ainly include my hical hinking. This would indica e ha
logical hinking ins ead o been ques ioned o in e io ized, is aken o g an ed e y o en.
S. Sola Mo ales 39
KOME − An In e na ional Jou nal o Pu e Communica ion Inqui y Volume 1 Issue 2 p. 33-43.
I should be emembe ed, he e o e, ha subjec s appea in a hos en i onmen whe e he e
a e al eady a numbe o unques ionable la en implica ions. Logics ha unc ion as cogni i e
amewo ks, om which indi iduals and g oups unde s and, de ine o delimi he
su ounding wo ld. O ega y Gasse (1997) has gi en a me aphysical sense o hese sha ed
belie s, since o him hey o m pa o human li e om he beginning. He e i is impo an o
poin ou ha he belie sys em canno be indi idual o ex acul u al: hence i is condi ioned
by he media cul u e and cul u al adi ion in which an indi idual o g oup is inse ed.
So ano he pa adox ha we ind o add ess he dicho omy logos/ my hos (concep / image) is
he e y di icul y o sepa a ing hese wo o ms o exp ession and hough . In ac , in he
my hical hough we can some imes ind a concep ual backg ound and ice e sa. In he same
manne as in an h opology “emic” is also “e ic”, o ins ance.
Ye , pa adoxically some imes he c ea ion o my hs is pe ec ly a ional –in he sense o
economic a ionali y–. Such is he case o he McDonaliza ion o he socie y p oposed by
Geo ge Ri ze (1993). This my h, a uly exp ession o capi alism, includes a se ies o
symbols and cha ac e is ics ha a e simila o “pu e” science like e iciency, calcula ion and
alsa ion, uni o mi y and p edic abili y o au oma ion.
On he whole, om ou pe spec i e, i is necessa y o es ablish a dialogue be ween he wo
o ms o exp ession and communica ion. I is he e o e necessa y o build “b idges,
media ions ha b ing us close o hings ha emain in he ambi o dis ance o igno ance;
and hen ge amilia wi h hese hings” (Duch, 2002, p. 153). Because i we medi a e only in
he domain o one o he sphe es – he logic o he my hical– we would be accep ing he ule
o a dange ous single speech: he mono-discou se. All o ali a ian discou se is based on he
p eponde ance o one o hese a eas: he a ional o he my hical. And as His o y has shown
o us many imes, he empi e o one hese sphe es can ha e e y ad e se consequences. A
my hical speech wi hou c i ical consciousness –as he Holocaus , o example– o a logical
discou se de oid o a ec ion –as he wo ship o echnology o ma ke – becomes an
abe a ion ha des oy ue humani y. In sho , o us, my hos and logos a e no wo exclusi e
ways o exis ing o being in he wo ld, bu wo di e en o ms o exp ession ha should be
co-implica ed and enhanced by each o he .
My hs, imagina ion and communica ion
Ac ually, he complemen a i y o he co-implica ion be ween he wo discou ses is a
comp ehensi e key o unde s and communica ion and one o he e idences o human
mul i ace ism (Duch, 1984, pp. 247-332). A mul i ace ism ha needs he wo d as an
indispensable means o sal a ion, which d i es human communica ion, and all o ms o
exp ession. Communica ion is he undamen al mission o he human being and his way o
gaining knowledge abou himsel and o he s. A ac ha highligh s he need o implica e bo h
he my hical and logical discou se, image and concep , imagina ion and abs ac ion.
He e i would be in e es ing o make an app oach o he e ymological o igin o he wo d
communica ion, which de i es om he La in comunica e (sha ing o pooling) and he G eek
κοινωνία (communion). Two wo ds ha hin a he need o complica e and uni e di e en
app oaches, among which we can men ion, wi hou any doub , he logical and he my hical
cha ac e o he human being.
P ecisely he di e ence be ween communica ion and in o ma ion, om ou iew, is based on
his assump ion. While communica ion p o ides a ension be ween he logical exp ession and
he my hical, he me e in o ma ion educes he my hical o he logical. Thus, ha is one o he
easons why we mus unde s and he logo-my hic hinking as an essen ial an h opological and
S. Sola Mo ales 40
KOME − An In e na ional Jou nal o Pu e Communica ion Inqui y Volume 1 Issue 2 p. 33-43.
communica i e p axis. O , wha is he same, as a necessi y in ou ime, consis ing in he
enuncia ion o any kind o o ali a ian discou se (Duch, 2002a, p. 501).
I is wo h men ioning ha he alleged commi men o a ionali y has caused many o ms o
“epis emological iolence” (Teo, 2010). P ecisely wi hin social esea ch, we can ind
logocen ic in e p e a ions ha gi e a lowe posi ion o he subjec obse ed. We a e hinking,
o example, o he con ibu ions o Edwa d Said, who c i icizes in O ien alism (2003), he
owne ship and de ini ion –always educ i e– o he O ien al by his o ians, w i e s and
Eu opean a ele s. All o hem helped o c ea e o e ime an indispu able scien i ic alue
based on imp essions, p ejudices and s e eo ypes.
Bu his kind o epis emological iolence can also be seen in he discou se o he media ha
legi ima es acism and social exclusion, o example, based on an alleged he o ic o
“objec i i y”. We a e hinking o he coun less news epo s o ele ision p og ams ha
associa e mig a ion o blackness wi h c ime, o ins ance, o mo e ecen ly Islam wi h
e o ism. All his cons uc ed “bad” news uses logic o c ea e a my h abou he o he (in ha
case he o eigne , he immig an ). Theses TV epo s o newspape a icles, as i is well
known, a e based undamen ally on police s a is ics o es s. And his is a ac ha p e en s o
hinde s a c i ical discou se o he answe o he ecep o s. The logic o es s cons uc s an
i emediable “ u h” ha e y ew ecei e s can ejec . He e i is e y easy o see how a
pa icula p esen a ion o da a in he media can become a common belie a ound people. And
how his belie can ans o m in o an i a ional ea o he immig an s o Muslims, o
example.
Like Science, Media (as an ins i u ion and a socializa ion agen ) ha e a highe s a us han he
heo e ical c i icism exp essed by a ma ginalized o he . In ha way, he hegemonic discou se,
s e eo yped and exclusiona y, can’ be ejec ed o denied. And inally his mono-discou se
ends up becoming an accep ed eali y, in a sha ed belie . The e o e by means o my h,
con eyed by he media, i is possible o cons uc an admi ed and sha ed logic.
Howe e , no all communica ion is logical o esponds o logical hinking. And he e we a e
e e ing o he highly subjec i e and pe o ma i e na u e o all communica i e exchange.
F om he enuncia i e communica i e ac o he media ed ecep ion o i ual pa icipa ion i
is necessa y o d aw a pa h o “he meneu ic ho izon” (Gadame , 2007), ha allows o c ea e
senses. And his subjec i e app op ia ion o eali y and he message i sel is based no only on
he logic o logical meaning bu also and mainly on he expe ience, namely in he sense
a ising om he in e subjec i e expe ience.
He e, i is impo an o conside imagina ion as a c ucial ca ego y o unde s and bo h
my hical o ms o exp ession and he unc ioning o he media. As Chillón has no ed (2000,
p. 140) imagina ion is he psychic acul y pa excellence, which, by means o con igu a ion
and syn hesis, is ul ima ely esponsible o all imaginable o ms o insigh and
communica ion. I will be wo hwhile o cla i y his complex concep . We unde s and
imagina ion, no as a special a i ude o cha ac e is ic o some ace s o exis ence (such as
an asies o d eams), bu as he c ucial psychical dynamic o all exis ence.
Fu he mo e, imagina ion is cen al o unde s and media cul u e (Duch and Chillón, 2012, pp.
235-292). Tha is because he cons uc ion o eali y and he wo ld in which he subjec s and
g oups ake place inds i s way and i s sense h ough imagina ion. Indeed, he human being
con igu es he enigma ic wo ld by “building hings in hemsel es as phenomena, ha is, as
igu es in elligible and communicable”. (Chillón, 2000, p. 140). So we canno o ge he
powe o imagina ies and my hs in he media ed cul u e. F om ou pe spec i e, he na a i es
ha appea in he media a e con igu ed hanks o some a che ypal o s e eo ypical images.
These a e undamen al igu es ha appea in e e y s o y o media na a i e – om he news
o science ic ion–. Recu en images ha gi e exp ession o common desi es, unconscious
ea s o ensions ha a e abo e human conscious conduc (Campbell, 1959, p. 233). All hese
S. Sola Mo ales 41
KOME − An In e na ional Jou nal o Pu e Communica ion Inqui y Volume 1 Issue 2 p. 33-43.
a che ypical con en s symbolize o iginal and p ima y models and ha e a edundan cha ac e
because hey appea in all cul u es always in luenced by each social con ex o his o ical
momen .
Finally i should be no ed ha pa icula adi ions, h ough speci ic my hs c ea ed and
na a ed by he media, p o ide consis ency, ixa ion o igo ha c ea e, a leas , he sense o
a communi y, he eeling o belonging o exclusion and he iden i y i sel .
As i is well known, he images depic ed in he media p opose models abou how o d ess,
mo e o espond o es ablished s anda ds o beau y. Bu unde he yoke o hese mi ages,
my hs o ideal models la gely una ainable, we can ind se ious psychological e ec s such as
dep ession o ea ing diso de s. He e, he in e p e a ion o hese images by ecei e s is e y
limi ed because he e is no hing beyond he ep esen a ion. These sel - e e en ial images a e
so explici di ec , ha people app ehend hem immedia ely. And don' gi e oom o any
ques ion. Howe e , we canno o ge ha he pu sui o desi e, pleasu e and beau y a e no
new demands and, deep down, e eal he human s uggle agains he con ingency.
Thus, o a oid communica i e educ ionism o impe ialism –sup emacy o one o he wo
a eas s udied–, ou p oposal, he logo-my hic, aims o each he p ope adminis a ion o
human exp essi eness and enhance he in e subjec i i y as a speci ic e sion o human
speech in i s dual e sion o my hos and logos.
Conclusions
In sho , we canno o ge ha he my hical, exp essed h ough speci ic my hs and hei
in e p e a ions, is a e sa ile and mul i unc ional p esence in he li es o indi iduals and
g oups. Tha is because he logo-my hical exp essions a e complemen a y and help us
achie e a mo e comple e ision (al hough ne e inal) o eali y. In his ega d, i is wo h
emembe ing ha he symbol allows he union o hese wo sphe es o hough and
expe ience. In ac , he symbolic unc ion is a combina ion o he wo cons i uen dimensions
o hough : logos and my hos, eason and ep esen a ion, concep and image, numbe and
igu e, analysis and syn hesis, speech and na a ion (Chillón, 2000, p. 142).
On he whole, knowledge, he collec i e cul u e, he sha ed eali y and mo eo e he
indi iduals and g oups beha e in a symbolical way: hey exp ess and communica e
igu a i ely o , wha is he same, hey use igu a ions o become in elligible. And his eali y
and i s media ed o ms o exp ession a e undamen ally imagina i e, as hey a e con igu ed
and c ea ed h ough symbolic o ms and my hical na a i es ha cons i u e hem.
Finally, media ed cul u e is one o hese eali ies ha a e exp essed in a my hopoe ic way.
This means ha he media cons uc hei s o ies in a my hical way: by using ables, s o ies,
igu a ions and he imagina ion. Bu , wha is he scope o he my hopoe ic? As E ns Cassi e
(1976) has poin ed ou , his na u al quali y o language whose essence is my hical and
me apho ical equi es indi ec ways o desc ip ion. And he p ima y subjec s o his language
would be con using o ambiguous e ms ha necessa ily ha e o be in e p e ed symbolically.
This ambigui y inhe en in language, which we also see in he cons uc ion o iden i y o in
communica ion, owes i s o igin o my h. Al hough my h is na u al, i does no ha e o be
ela ed o he na u e o ex e nal objec s. In sho , we canno o ge he alue o he symbolic
in c ea ing iden i ica ions o ansmi ing belie s, because symbols a e c ea ed wi hin human
communi ies. And wha is mo e impo an hey unc ion as cohesi e elemen s ha c ea e
ideology and images om each communi y. In conclusion, human being knows and builds
e e yday eali y h ough symbols, my hs, me apho s, and inally, media ions ha a e c ucial
o unde s and he communica ion and he in luence o he media on indi iduals and g oups.