Attached Political Myth paper summarized:
I. Introduction
A. The concept of "political myth" and its widespread use
B. Common features of myths identified by scholars
1. Narrative rather than propositional form
2. Inherited and culturally significant
3. Symbolically dense
4. Resistant to critical examination
C. The problem myths present for political theorists
1. Seen as antithetical to liberal democratic values
2. Historically associated with authoritarianism
3. Debate over whether myths should be eradicated or understood differently
D. Paper's contribution: Examining Habermas and Blumenberg's theories of myth
E. Outline of paper's argument
II. Two Theories of Myth
A. Background on Blumenberg's Work on Myth (1979) and Habermas's Theory of Communicative Action (1981)
B. Contrasting approaches to myth
1. Blumenberg: Myth persists as vital resource in modernity
2. Habermas: Myth is primal form abandoned as societies modernize
C. Significance of comparing their approaches
1. Highlights Habermas's preoccupation with myth
2. Clarifies political stakes of Blumenberg's writings on myth
D. Historical context of German intellectual tradition on myth
1. Romantic approach
2. Antifascist approach
3. Postmodern approach
E. Shared question: How to respond to narratives that defy criticism?
III. The Dialectic of Enlightenment and the Problem of Myth
A. Habermas's approach
1. Eliminating myths from the "lifeworld" as precondition for emancipated society
2. Transforming myths into criticizable validity claims
3. Inheriting core question from Dialectic of Enlightenment
4. Critique of myth's formal structures and effects on discourse
5. Goal of translating myths into rational argumentation
B. Blumenberg's approach
1. Myths as addressing existential anxiety and need for meaning
2. Complementary to "theoretic reason"
3. Myths as reworkable narratives, not static inheritances
4. "Agency of reception" in working on myths
5. Minimal normative prescriptions for adjudicating between myths
IV. Political Ramifications
A. Similarities between Habermas and Blumenberg's approaches
B. Key differences
1. Habermas: Teleological ideal of criticizable discourse
2. Blumenberg: Pluralism about acceptable myths
C. Trade-offs of each approach
1. Habermas: Clear political program but risks undermining meaning of myths
2. Blumenberg: Protects distinctive qualities of myths but lacks clear political framing
D. Argument for taking Blumenberg's solution seriously
1. Expands range of political theory
2. More ambitious politics attentive to figurative substratum of human thinking
E. Practical implications of Blumenberg's approach
1. Charitable recognition of myths' significance
2. Awareness of limitations and distortions in myths
3. Working on myths to address shifting needs
V. Conclusion
A. Reframing Blumenberg's late work
B. Relevance to contemporary concerns about mythic phenomena in politics
C. Blumenberg's insights for approaching modern myths
1. Pathological forms as symptoms of unmet cognitive needs
2. Need for holistic, long-term engagement with harmful myths
3. Cultivating cultures that foster imaginative ways of addressing underlying problems
24 Sep 2024 10:54 EDT