The Place of Mythology in the Study of Culture

This study has a two-fold objective. First, it attempts to completely vindicate the original work on mythology done by Freud and later elaborated on by Abraham and second, it shows that mythology can be used in a highly fruitful manner in understanding a given culture.

I think it would not be amiss here to recapitulate briefly Abraham's work on mythology. As he explains, myths are institutionalized dreams. They are made of the same materials as the ordinary dreams of both day and night. This basic material is fantasy, which is a derivative of blocked goals and subsequent wishful thinking. The dynamic psychological mechanisms of the ordinary dream are present in the myth—they operate in the same manner—and they are to be interpreted just as they are in dreams. The mechanisms employed most frequently in the myth are projection, displacement, condensation, secondary elaboration, and symbolization. (1)

I don't believe that any comment is necessary in regard to any of the mechanisms listed above with the exception of symbolization. This concept has suffered from so much misunderstanding that it will be worthwhile to discuss it briefly.

The definitive work on psychoanalytic symbolism was done by E. Jones. He concludes that the symbol represents some idea that has been repressed in the individual and for whom it stands as a symbol. Only that which is repressed is symbolized; only that which is repressed needs to be symbolized. He states further that the number of ideas which can be symbolized is remarkably small in comparison with the number of symbols that can be employed. He stresses the point that these repressed ideas relate to the physical self and its relationship to its environment, i.e. to