It's the initiatory or transformative function of a story that (at least in part) makes it a myth. This is one of the places corporate mythology fails, since the only sanctioned activity within its bounds is consumption or production. That mono-myth has overrun all else in our culture, not the "hero" (with a thousand faces.) Within this framework, I only have "value" based on what I can consume or provide for consumption. Though these things are an obvious necessary element of life, they are the exclusive focus of the first chakra in the Kundalini model of psychic awareness: a worm that exists purely to eat through one end and shit out the other.
(Also note to self, look at this)
"You are more than the sum
ReplyDeleteOf what you consume
Desire is not an occupation"
- KMFDM, Dogma
I think that's the outsider's view of corporate mythology. Ever read Ayn Rand? There's a totally different mythological structure built up within the corporate culture that absolutely has a transformative aspect.
ReplyDeleteI have read Ayn Rand. At least, what little I could choke down. Ironic how mythological it is since part of her premise seems to be (ostensibly) anti-myth. But I don't think of the "transformation" you speak of as a positive thing. Perhaps for the individual, in the short term- but painting a face on something doesn't change what it is. Simply repackaging Walmart as a single-word, eco-friendly brand doesn't keep it from being a blight upon the Earth. ;) (But the PRICES!)
ReplyDeleteThe myth of the individual- which does tie into Rand- comes up a lot in some of the writing I've been doing. In and of itself it is neither positive nor negative, it's simply one of the results of our cultural heritage. ("Our"- assuming you're in the US or arguably Europe.) It has both dimensions, it just happens that when something is blown up to consume everything else it tends to show more of the negative than the positive.