Open main menu

Wikipedia β

Mythologies is a 1957 book by Roland Barthes. It is a collection of essays taken from Les Lettres nouvelles, examining the tendency of contemporary social value systems to create modern myths. Barthes also looks at the semiology of the process of myth creation, updating Ferdinand de Saussure's system of sign analysis by adding a second level where signs are elevated to the level of myth.

Mythologies (French first edition).jpg
Cover of the first edition
Author Roland Barthes
Original title Mythologies
Translator Annette Lavers
Country France
Language French
Subjects Semiotics
Publisher Les Lettres nouvelles
Publication date
Published in English



Mythologies is split into two: Mythologies and Myth Today, the first section consisting of a collection of essays on selected modern myths and the second further and general analysis of the concept.


The first section of Mythologies describes a selection of modern cultural phenomena, chosen for their status as modern myths and for the added meaning that has been conferred upon them. Each short chapter analyses one such myth, ranging from Einstein's Brain to Soap Powders and Detergents. They were originally written as a series of bi-monthly essays for the magazine Les Lettres Nouvelles.

In a typical example: Barthes describes the image that has been built up around Red Wine and how it has been adopted as a French national drink, how it is seen as a social equaliser and the drink of the proletariat, partly because it is seen as blood-like (as in Holy Communion) and points out that very little attention is paid to red wine's harmful effects to health, but that it is instead viewed as life-giving and refreshing- 'in cold weather, it is associated with all the myths of becoming warm, and at the height of summer, with all the images of shade, with all things cool and sparkling.'[1]

In another chapter, Barthes explores the myth of professional wrestling. He describes how, unlike in the sport of boxing, the aim of theatrical stunt fighting is not to discover who will win or 'a demonstration of excellence',[2] it is a staged spectacle acting out society's basic concepts of Good and Evil, of 'Suffering, Defeat and Justice'.[3] The actors pretending to be wrestlers, like characters in a pantomime, portray grossly exaggerated stereotypes of human weakness: the traitor, the conceited, the 'effeminate teddy-boy'. The audience expects to watch them suffer and be punished for their own transgressions of wrestling's rules in a theatrical version of society's ideology of justice.

In an interview Barthes once mentioned working on an essay on hidden tracks. This essay, however, has never been published.

Essays in the first (partial) English translation of MythologiesEdit

Myth todayEdit

In the second half of the book Barthes addresses the question of "What is a myth, today?" with the analysis of ideas such as: myth as a type of speech, and myth on the wings of politics.

The front cover of the Paris Match magazine that Barthes analyzes

Following on from the first section, Barthes justifies and explains his choices and analysis. He calls upon the concepts of semiology developed by Ferdinand de Saussure at the turn of the century. Saussure described the connections between an object (the signified) and its linguistic representation (such as a word, the signifier) and how the two are connected. For example, the object and properties of 'a walnut tree' are joined by the sounds or letters that signify 'walnut tree' to give us the sign for 'walnut tree', a set of sounds and written letters that, although they are only arbitrarily connected to a walnut tree, come to mean the 'walnut tree' to us.

Working with this structure Barthes continues to show his idea of a myth as a further sign, with its roots in language, but to which something has been added. So with a word (or other linguistic unit) the meaning (apprehended content) and the sound come together to make a sign. To make a myth, the sign itself is used as a signifier, and a new meaning is added, which is the signified. But according to Barthes, this is not added arbitrarily. Although we are not necessarily aware of it, modern myths are created with a reason. As in the example of the red wine, mythologies are formed to perpetuate an idea of society that adheres to the current ideologies of the ruling class and its media.

Barthes demonstrates this theory with the example of a front cover from Paris Match, showing a young black soldier in French uniform saluting. The signifier: a saluting soldier, cannot offer us further factual information of the young man's life. But it has been chosen by the magazine to symbolise more than the young man; the picture, in combination with the signifieds of Frenchness, militariness, and relative ethnic difference, gives us a message about France and its citizens. The picture does not explicitly demonstrate 'that France is a great empire, that all her sons, without any colour discrimination, faithfully serve under her flag,' etc.,[4] but the combination of the signifier and signified perpetuates the myth of imperial devotion, success and thus; a property of 'significance' for the picture.

Myth and powerEdit

Exploring the concept of myth, Barthes seeks to grasp the relations between language and power. He assumes that myth helps to naturalize particular worldviews.[5]

According to Barthes, myth is based on humans’ history, and myth cannot naturally occur. There are always some communicative intentions in myth. Created by people, myth can easily be changed or destroyed. Also, myth depends on the context where it exists. By changing the context, one can change the effects of myth. At the same time, myth itself participates in the creation of an ideology. According to Barthes, myth doesn’t seek to show or to hide the truth when creating an ideology, it seeks to deviate from the reality. The major function of myth is to naturalize a concept, a belief. Myth purifies signs and fills them with a new meaning which is relevant to the communicative intentions of those who are creating the myth. In the new sign, there are no contradictions that could raise any doubts regarding the myth. Myth is not deep enough to have these contradictions; it simplifies the world by making people believe that signs have inherent meaning. Myth “abolishes the complexity of human acts, it gives them the simplicity of essences…”[6]

Why do people believe in myth? The power of myth is in its impressive character. It seeks to surprise the audience. This impression is way more powerful than any rational explanations which can disprove the myth. So, myth works not because it hides its intentions, but because the intentions of myth have been naturalized. Through the usage of myths, one can naturalize “the Empire, [the] taste for Basque things, the Government.”[7]

Speaking of myth and power, Barthes asserts that myth is a depoliticized speech. He uses the term ex-nomination (or exnomination) , by which he "means 'outside of naming'. Barthes' point was that dominant groups or ideas in society become so obvious or common sense that they don't have to draw attention to themselves by giving themselves a name. They're just the 'normality', against which everything else can be judged."[8] For example he says, "[the bourgeoisie] makes its status undergo a real ex-nominating operation: the bourgeoisie is defined as the social class which does not want to be named" (italics in original).[9] Myth removes our understanding of concepts and beliefs as created by humans. Instead, myth presents them as something natural and innocent. Drawing upon Karl Marx, Barthes states that even the most natural objects include some aspect of politics. Depending on how strong the political side of myth is, Barthes defines the strong and the weak myths (des mythes forts et des mythes faibles).[10] Depoliticization of the strong myths happens abruptly, as the strong myths are explicitly political. The weak myths are the myths which have already lost their political character. However, this character can be brought back by “the slightest thing”.[11]

The model of semiosis suggested by Barthes.

Barthes also provides a list of rhetorical figures in bourgeoisie myths:

  • The inoculation. The government admits the harm brought by one of the institutes. Focusing on one institute, myth hides the inconsistency of the system.
  • The privation of History. A history standing behind a myth gets removed. People don’t wonder where the myth comes from; they simply believe it.
  • Identification. The ideology of bourgeoisie seeks for sameness. It denies all the concepts that don’t fit into the system. The bourgeoisie either ignores subjects that differ from them, or they put the efforts to make this subject the same as the bourgeoisie.
  • Tautology. The myths of the bourgeoisie define the concepts through the same concepts (Barthes provides an example of theatre, “Drama is drama”)[12]
  • Neither-Norism (le ninisme). Two concepts are defined by each other, and both of the concepts are considered inconsistent.
  • The quantification of quality. Myth measures reality by numbers, not by quality. This way, myth simplifies reality.
  • The statement of fact. Myth doesn’t explain the reality. Myth asserts a certain picture of the world without explanation just like a proverb does.

The model of semiosis suggested by Barthes seeks to link signs with the social myths or ideologies that they articulate.[13]

Mythologisation and cultural studiesEdit

In writing about the mythologisation process, Barthes refers to the tendency of socially constructed notions, narratives, and assumptions to become "naturalised" in the process, that is, taken unquestioningly as given within a particular culture. Barthes finishes Mythologies by looking at how and why myths are built up by the bourgeoisie in its various manifestations. He returns to this theme in later works including The Fashion System.


  1. ^ Barthes, Mythologies, p. 60
  2. ^ Barthes, Mythologies, p.15
  3. ^ Barthes, Mythologies, p.19
  4. ^ Barthes, Mythologies, p.116
  5. ^ "International Encyclopedia of Communication". International Encyclopedia of Communication. 
  6. ^ Barthes. Mythologies. p. 143. 
  7. ^ Barthes. Mythologies. p. 131. 
  8. ^ McKee, Alan (2003). "How do I know what's a likely interpretation?". Textual analysis: a beginner's guide. London Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. p. 106. ISBN 9780761949930. 
    • See also:
  9. ^ Lakoff, Robin Tolmach (2000). "The neutrality of the status quo". The language war. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 53. ISBN 9780520928077. 
    • Citing:
    • Barthes, Roland (1972). Mythologies. London: Cape. p. 138. OCLC 222874772. 
  10. ^ Barthes, Roland (1957). Mythologies. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. p. 218. 
  11. ^ Barthes. Mythologies. p. 144. 
  12. ^ Barthes. Mythologies. p. 152. 
  13. ^ "International Encyclopedia of Communication". International Encyclopedia of Communication. 


  • Barthes, Roland, Mythologies. Paris, Editions du Seuil, 1957.
  • Barthes, Roland, translated by Annette Lavers. Mythologies. London, Paladin, 1972. ISBN 0-374-52150-6. Expanded edition (now containing the previously untranslated 'Astrology'), with a new introduction by Neil Badmington, published by Vintage (UK), 2009. ISBN 978-0-09-952975-0
  • Barthes, Roland, translated by Richard Howard. The Eiffel Tower and Other Mythologies. New York, Hill and Wang, 1979. ISBN 0-520-20982-6
  • Welch, Liliane. "Reviews: Mythologies by Roland Barthes: Annette Lavers." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. Volume 31, Number 4. (Summer 1973).

See alsoEdit