University of Virginia Library

MYTH AND RITE

Malinowski (1948), in arguing against certain scholars who concerned
themselves solely with disembodied paper versions of myth, carried his
point of view to the other extreme by stating that the meaning of a myth

can only be seen in terms of its cultural function, its pragmatic role in
social life, its integration into the full context of social life. Myth was
related to belief, rite to action, but they were not at different levels of
behaviour. Malinowski in fact merged them and talked of an organic
whole, which itself fused into the total social context. He wrote:

Malinowski's reluctance to grant myth a separate existence was linked
with the basic view he held about religious phenomena, especially magic
and, therefore, ritual. Ritual was grounded in emotional wishes and was
an emotive reaction with pragmatic interest in the face of the uncontrollable
and unforeseen. This means that for Malinowski myth had no intellectual
or symbolic content; its primary purpose was not to make things intelligible.
Myths do not explain, they are not `an intellectual reaction upon a puzzle',
they have `emotional colouring and pragmatic importance'.

But despite this overall position curious anomalies are to be found in
Malinowski's actual treatment of myths and rites. To cite an example
from his essay `Myth in Primitive Psychology' (Malinowski 1948), let
us look at the myth concerning how humans lost their power of rejuvenation
by sloughing their skins (p. 103 passim). The story revolves around three
persons, mother, daughter and granddaughter, and the loss of eternal
life is presented in terms of conflict between grandmother and granddaughter.
The grandmother cannot remain as young as the granddaughter,
and death is represented in terms of the succession of alternate generations.
Compare this with another myth. The myth which Malinowski explicitly
connected with the annual feast of the dead (milamala) recounts the
permanent removal of the dead to Tuma. The denial of the right to
continue to live in the village after death is represented in terms of the
rejection of mother by daughter and solidarity of grandmother with
grandchild—a reversal of the former story with the same elements (p. 110).
While the myth, then, deals with the separation of the dead from the
living, the milamala as ritual is staged once a year to bring the dead to
the living for a short period of time, for prosperity depends on their
continuing interest (see Malinowski 1948, `Baloma: The Spirits of the
Dead'). Thus the myths which clearly are variations on a theme state

the necessity of death and the necessity of separation of the dead from the
living in terms of succession and replacement, while the ritual establishes
communion between the dead and the living.

The dialectical relation between the milamala myths[9] and rite may be
expressed as follows. Myth sets out an original ideal state of affairs and
after presenting a set of inherent contradictions poses resolutions leading
to dynamic present time. Rite, on the other hand, starting from the
imperfect present, attempts to achieve the ideal conditions set out in
original mythic time. Thus the myths, beginning with the time of the
co-existence of three generations, state the necessity of death and of
separation of the dead from the living in terms of succession and replacement,
while the ritual establishes contact and communion between them.

Malinowski's major theoretical assertions were about the relation between
myth and magic in the Trobriands. Myth did two things in respect of
magic—it validated the `sociological claims of the wielder' of magic and
gave him a pedigree, and it `served as a foundation for a system of magic',
shaping the ritual and vouchsafing for the truth of magical belief (ibid.
p. 119). There was a reciprocal relation between myth and magic: `myth
has crystallised into magical formulae and magic in turn bears testimony
to the authority of myth' (1960, p. 303).

Looking at the role of myth from the standpoint of magic, Malinowski
asserted that myth appeared in the magical rite in the form of mythological
allusions in the spells. The pedigree of the magician and the charter for
the magic were expressed chiefly in the u'ula, the foundation or the first
part of the spell. Frequently, references to mythical events were made
and the names of mythical ancestors, who in succession had used the
formula since its creation by the founder of the magic, were recited.
Sometimes the magician identified himself with the mythical ancestors,
uttering their names as in the first person.

But when we look at the relevant myths and rites, we find that Malinowski
was misled by his prior assumption that myth and magic were
indissolubly linked, each reflecting and giving legitimacy to the other.
He did not inquire, although the evidence pointed that way, whether
myth and rite may say and do different things precisely because they are
separated as well as connected. We would digress too much if we examined
the facts in detail. Suffice it to say here that a close examination of the
myths relating to the flying canoe, Kula, and agricultural magic, and of
the corresponding rites, show that there is an interesting discrepancy
and inversion between them. The myths, dealing with the heroes of ideal

time, explore certain inherent contradictions in the logic of morality as
acted out by persons of varying and permuted kinship statuses, and the
final message of the myths is that magic of the fantastic kind is irretrievably
lost and what remains is magic of a limited kind. In the rite, however, the
magician living in present-day historical time, with its limitations and
imperfections, claims to impersonate and approximate the ideal state and
conditions of mythical time.

Thus in effect once again the relationship between myth and rite appears
as an inversion, or reversed progression, or paradox. This paradox is not
different from the pattern that emerged from my analysis of Thai data.
What I am suggesting, then, is that myth and associated ritual may in
fact provide frameworks for stating the two sides of an insoluble paradox,
and both may attempt the alternative kinds of mediation allowed by the
paradox.

With Lévi-Strauss (1963, Ch. XII) we get a further extension of the
theory of the relationship between myth and ritual. Rejecting the views
that myth is an ideological projection of a rite or that, in reverse, the
ritual is a kind of dramatized illustration of the myth, he advocates that
their relationship be seen in dialectical terms `accessible only if both
have first been reduced to their structural elements'. While Lévi-Strauss's
method of revealing the logical and symbolic structure of myth and ritual
is indeed stimulating (see also 1963, Chs. X and XI), one is not sure of the
plausibility of his demonstration. A case in point is his imputation of
a dialectical relationship between a Pawnee myth and the ritual of another,
alien society (Ch. XII) whose connection with Pawnee society is asserted
in an arbitrary manner.

Following Lévi-Strauss, I have attempted to analyse the structures of
myth and ritual as separate entities and then to examine the nature of
their relationship. I think my demonstration of the relationship is plausible
because I am fairly confident of having observed Malinowski's dictum
that we must see myth and ritual within their `live' social and cultural
context. The following are the implications of the analysis.

First, a particular myth (and its variations) within a social universe
can be seen to have additional meaning when compared with another
myth, as long as the latter is a contrary within a larger universe of meaning.
I have tried to demonstrate that Phraa Uppakrut and Chao Phau Tong
Khyang belong to the same universe of meaning, as aspects of the Naga
symbol and as representing community interests in rain, good health, and
order in society. But the two sets of myths state counter-propositions;
they represent two attitudes regarding man's relation to nature. In one,
Uppakrut as Naga is represented as a Buddhist agent; in the other, Chao

Phau is an independent powerful entity with whom villagers have a
separate relationship.

A second implication of my analysis concerns the relation of myth to
ritual as represented in the ethnography treated here. There is no simple
correspondence, one does not directly reflect the other. The myth does
not validate the rite in Malinowski's terms. The stories about Phraa
Uppakrut represent him as a monk, a product of the union of the Buddha
and a mermaid, and a force ranged on the side of Buddhism against
Mara, the demon of chaos. In the associated rite—the ceremony of
invitation—he is tamed and converted into a Buddhist agent whose
protection is all-important. This conversion is the prelude, the first stage,
in the merit-making rite, which then proceeds to communicate with the
thewada before the sermon is preached. The myth concerning Phadaeng
and Nang Ai has no direct connection with Chao Phau Tong Khyang, to
whom the rite of Bunbangfai is addressed. Chao Phau Tong Khyang is
an end result of the story in that he comes to embody or symbolize the
spirit of the swamp, which represents the union of nature and man. The
myth underlines the power of nature, symbolized as Naga, and the
necessary collaboration of man with it if man is to experience prosperity.
The associated rite of Bunbangfai is a simple one of propitiation of and
bargaining with the spirit of the swamp and the guardian deities who embody
the resolution made by the myth. The rockets which in the myth represented
competition between men for a prize, for which the Naga was
ineligible, become in the rite the vehicles of wishes communicated by
man to the guardian spirit, who has transcended the opposition and
encompasses the co-operation of nature and society. Whereas Bun Phraawes
accents the status of monks and elders as ethical merit-makers, Bunbangfai
erases this form of social structure and reduces all villagers to the status
of Chao Phau's children, equal in relation to one another. The Bunbangfai
rite, then, dramatizes the subjection and dependence of all villagers as
children vis-à-vis their guardian phii.

In formal structure the two myths and the rites associated with them
show a pattern in which one is the mirror image of the other. In the
Buddhist myth and rite, the myth validates the religious status, authority
and power of the swamp monk, who represents nature; the rite enacts just
the opposite—his domestication and subjection to Buddhism. The myth
says he is a Buddhist agent; the rite makes him so. The myth and rite
connected with the guardian phii show opposite oppositions. The myth
is only incidentally concerned with Chao Phau, for he is the residue or
resolution of a devastating conflict portrayed in the myth between man
and nature. The rite expresses the simple dependence and subjection of

man to the guardian spirits, whose superior position and powers are not
in question. The myth describes the conflict, the rite simple dependence.

This pattern, then, demonstrates a particular formal relationship not
only between a myth and its associated rite, but also between two complexes
of myths and rites which stand in `dialectical' association within the
larger universe of religious behaviour. These formal relations derive their
content, in the present ethnography, from the particular ideology and
idiom of Thai village religion which poses its religious conceptions in
terms of basic logical operations. The ideology of Buddhist ethical ritual
conduct is that man should surmount his normal sensory nature in the
service of spiritual self-improvement: the ritual of Uppakrut expresses
this in the idiom of taming. The ideology of Buddhist mythology, on
the other hand, is that supernatural deities were incorporated into the
Buddhist pantheon as benevolent moral agents. The myth and the ritual
thus represent the two co-existing ethical attitudes. The idiom of the ritual
propitiation of guardian spirits is that of bargaining with and appeasement
of a `father' by villagers who are his `children'. This is a relationship
of dependence and of authority. The ritual expresses this relation. The
myth expresses the ideology of a superior power invested in natural forces
which gain their guardianship status through conflict with man and the
latter's subjection or fusion with nature. It states in fact that man confronted
by nature must accept the facts of life and accept its power to harm as
well as to reward. The myth and the ritual of Bunbangfai express this
double relation.

To sum up. The Buddhist theology and mode of ethical action is one
kind of proposition concerning man's orientation to the world. The
theology and ritual of the guardian spirits phrase the counter-orientation.
In the Thai context both appear as necessary and inevitable. Whereas the
idiom in which each is phrased is Thai, the formal pattern they present
is that of the human use of logical operations in terms of opposition and
complementarity, paradox and its alternative mediations.