HOMEMAGAZINESPLURALMAGAZINEExplorationsIntoTheImaginary(01/1999)AHistoryOfTheImaginary.

TheTruthOfTheMyths

A History Of The Imaginary. The Truth Of The

Myths
CHAPTERI

StructuresandMethods
AnAmbiguousCondition

Whatifthehistoryoftheimaginarydidnotexist?Beyondallparadox,thequestiondeservestobe
raised. Following a hectic and contorted history, this discipline is hindered by theoretical and ideological
difficulties.
Itsheritageisambiguous.Eachideologyorviewoftheworldhasattemptedtomakeitsownpartofthe
imaginary absolute, depreciating alternative forms. This was most of all the case of theology and of modern
rationalism,tosaynothingoftotalitarianideologies.Theresultisoftenacaricature:modernmythsarerightist,
wrote Roland Barthes in 1957 (in his Mythologies) and the left, especially the revolutionary left, was
1
characterizedbystraighttalkthatrenderedthemythologicalartificeuseless .Thewriterwasunabletoavoid
thetrapofaverycommontypeofpolarization:wehavetheTruth,theothersareodd,namelystupid.Thisstate
ofmindisinitselfoneoftheessentialtraitsoftheimaginary.
Thisprejudicedidnotstopthemultiplicationofparticularthemes,fromthetimethatGreekhistorians
begantointerprettheirownmythsortowatchwithcuriositythemoresoftheBarbarians,untilthisendofthe
20th century, which is so much tempted by the invisible side of things. But the synthesis remains to be
achieved. Today it has certain advantages. The sidelining of the imaginary, coming most of all from the
scientific,rationalistandmaterialistictrendsofthelastcenturies,isnowhistory.Peoplearebeginningtore
discoverthefactthathistorymeans,mostofall,anadventureofthespirit.Theimaginarypermeatesallfields:
people are beginning to understand that their scientific research or political projects are touched by it to the
same degree as art or mystical ecstasy. On the other hand, the withdrawal of ideologies and a mind that
valorizesthediversityandrelativityofvaluesseemtobeabletoalleviatecertaincontradictions.Mythologies
existbothontherightandontheleft,withbelieversandatheists,withusandwiththeothers.
Butthereisalongwayfrompremisestoachievement.Fornow,historiansareworkingonsegments,
onclearcutissues.Theycomeupwithcountlesshistoriesoftheimaginary(intheplural)andnohistoryofthe
imaginary (in the singular.) This contrast is visible in the history of mentalities, considered an autonomous
discipline,carefullylandmarkedandjealouslykept.Thiswasoneofthemostspecificcontributionsmadeby
the school of the Annales or of the French Nouvelle histoire. A similar operation seeking to promote the
imaginarystoppedshortofthedesiredeffect.In1978LaNouvellehistoirepresented,withthisverytitle,its
report,inanencyclopedicworkeditedbyJacquesLeGoff(withRogerCartierandJacquesRevel.)LeGoff,
whohasmaderemarkablecontributionstotheresearchoftheMedievalimaginary,hadreservedachosenseat
forthisaspectofthathistory.WrittenbyByzantiumscholarvelynePatlagean,thetwentypagesofthisessay
2
onthehistoryoftheimaginary listedthisfieldamongthetenkeyconceptsconsideredthemostcharacteristic
oftheAnnalescurrent(withhistoricalanthropology,materialculture,newhistory,immediatehistory,thelong
time,thehistoryofthemarginal,Marxism,thehistoryofmentalities,historystructures.)
Thesurprisecameafewyearslater.IntheDictionnairedesscienceshistoriques(1986),editedby
AndrBurguire(inthenameofthesamehistoriographiccurrent,centeredontheAnnalesandthecoledes
hautestudesensciencessociales),theimaginarywasobviouslyabsent,attheverytimewhenstudiesonits
3
variousdepartmentsweremultiplying .Sincethen,thecontrastbetweenthemultitudeofresearchstudiesand

works claiming their origin in the imaginary and the absence of a global and coherent discipline, with a
recognized historiographic status, has been further augmented. Therefore, today we have to approach the
imaginaryinanempiricalmanner,somehowthewayMoliresbourgeoisusedprose.
Failureorhesitationowed(apartfromtraditionalresistance)toseveralreasons.Thescopeandseeming
heterogeneityoftheterritorydonotmakeasynthesiseasy.Throughitsverynature,theimaginaryisharassed
byseveraldisciplinesthathavebeenestablishedforalongtimeinhistoriographyandintheintellectuallifein
general.Thehistoryofreligions,artandliteraturehistory,thehistoryofscience,thehistoryofideologies,the
historyofmentalities,or,morerecently,historicalanthropology(toquotejustafewexamples)sharethevast
fieldoftheimaginary,discouragingallattemptsatdecolonization.Theverysuccessofmentalitiesmadeit
difficult for the imaginary, as their numerous areas of contact could create the impression of quasiidentity.
Whymakeanaliasofanalreadyestablisheddiscipline?
Thespecializationofhistoricalstudiesisalsoinquestion.Ageneraltheoryoftheimaginaryshouldbe
basedoncomprehensionrisingaboveepochsandcultures,whichthetraditionaleducationofthehistorianfalls
shortof.Followingtheestablishedcategories(which,ofcourse,havetheirownvirtues),aMedievaliststudies
the Medieval imaginary, a Hellenist the Greek imaginary, a Sinologist the Chinese imaginary and a
contemporaryhistoryexpertmaystudythecontemporaryimaginary(ifhedoesnotdeemitbettertoyieldthis
tasktoasociologist.)
Buttheverydefinitionoftheimaginaryispreciselyitsuniversal,and,toacertainextent,transhistorical
character.Apsychologist,ananthropologist,aphilosopherwillfindissuesoftheirownthere.Theycomeup
withaglobalimaginarytoopposeittothefragmentaryimaginaryofthehistorians.Apetrifiedimaginaryand
one which is very different from the fluid imaginary historians dig deep into, here and there. Anyway, an
imaginarythatiseasiertoseeandestablishinthenumberedboxesofasolidanddurablestructure.
Anthropologists, philosophers and sociologists have perhaps written less than historians on the
imaginary,buttheyhaveundoubtedlymademoretheoriesaboutit.Unlikemosthistorians,theyhaveconceived
4
oftheimaginaryasaseparatefield.DozensofresearchCentersfortheimaginary havebeenformedtofollow
in the footsteps of Gilbert Durand (born in 1921), who is himself a disciple of the great philosopher of the
imaginaryGastonBachelard(18841962).Therearedebatesandpublicationsbringingtogetherphilosophers,
psychologists and psychoanalysts, literature professionals, sociologists, anthropologists. Sometimes, the
fortuitouspresenceofanhistorianbringsanexoticatmospheretotheseevents.Evenatinstitutionallevel,the
imaginaryiscutintotwo:onthisside,thereistheimaginaryofthosewhobelieveinstructuresandregularity,
namelyinwhatispermanent,ontheotherside,theimaginaryofthosewhoplaceemphasisondiversityand
change.

InSearchofaDefinition

The first difficulty in dealing with the imaginary is defining it. How can anyone stand up for the
rightsofadisciplinethatdoesnotevenhaveaconvincingdefinition?
According to velyne Patlagean, the field of the imaginary is made up of the entirety of the
representations that overstep the limits established by experience and the deduction chains authorized by
5
them. Therefore,everythingoutsidetheconcrete,indisputablereality,whichisperceivedeitherdirectly,by
logicaldeduction,orscientificexperiment,belongstotheimaginary.Theimaginaryis,therefore,thedomainof
thefalseandofthenonverified(orofthenonverifiable),aswell.
Thisdefinitionimpliesarationalisticbetitisnolongertheworstimaginablebet(althoughoneshould
besuspiciousaboutthepresenceofReasonasmuchasaboutitsabsenceithasprovencapableofbegetting
monsters no less frightening than those blamed on irrationalism and on the imaginary.) Unfortunately, the
fragilityofthisreasoningisobvious.Whereistheborderlinebetweentherealandtheimaginary?Fromone
individual to another and, even more, from one epoch to another and from one culture to another, this
appreciationwillalwaysbedifferent.Eachcultureproposesitsowninterpretationoftheimaginaryandofthe
relationshipsbetweenitandtangiblereality.Itwouldbearrogantandrashtoopposeourknowledgetoother

peoplesbeliefs.Letusbetteradmitthatourownknowledgeofthisworld,ourreasonandourscienceare
nourished by the imaginary just as much as any primitive superstition. Since the ultimate essence and
purpose of the Universe is still hidden from us, all human projects and knowledge are actually part of the
imaginary.Therefore,theimaginaryiseverywhereandnowheretobefound.
As far as Jacques Le Goff is concerned, he avoids any and all definition in the Foreword to his
collection called LImaginairemdival (1985). The great medievalist seems to be concerned with defining
what is not part of the imaginary, rather than what is. So, despite the inevitable overlappings, the imaginary
should not be assimilated with a representation of the outer reality, or with what is symbolic, or with an
6
ideology . Such a limitation could look draconian. Firstly, there is no representation identical to that of the
representedobjectallimages,eventhemostrealisticones,implyaninterventionevenifminimalofthe
imaginary. On the other side, it seems that the universe of symbols fully belongs to the imaginary, even
constitutingitsmostconcentratedandsignificantexpression.And,finally,ideologiescanbeinterpretedinall
faithassecularizedmythologies.
Le Goff proposes an interesting and subtle distinction between the Medieval categories of the
marvelous,themiraculous,andthemagic(thesecondreferringtoGod,thethirdtoSatan,andthefirst
beingsomehowneutral)hedealswiththetransfigurationofspaceandtime,ofdreams,oftheworldbeyond.
Alltheseimagesbelongtotheimaginary,but,onceagain,whatistheimaginary?
Toattemptananswer,wehavetoovercometherealimaginarydichotomyandtogiveupusingReason
asthemeasureofallthings.Theimaginaryisaproductofthespirit.Itsconformityornonconformitywith
whatisoutthereisasecondarymatter,althoughitisimportanttothehistorian.Theholyobviouslybelongsto
theimaginary,butthefactthatpeoplebelieveinGodisnotanargumentagainsttheexistenceofGod.Infact,it
isalsonoargumentinfavorofGodsexistence.Somepeoplebelieveinaliens:oneofthemostpicturesque
expressionsofthecontemporaryimaginary.Thisbeliefhasnothingtodowiththeexistenceornonexistence
of the aliens. Even the visit of a cosmic delegation would not change its purely imaginary character.
Imaginationisblendedwithouterrealityanditisconfrontedwithit:there,itfindssupportor,onthecontrary,
ahostileenvironment.Theimaginarycanbeeitherconfirmedorrejected.Itactsupontheworldandtheworld
actsuponit.But,initsessence,itisanindependentreality,havingitsownstructuresanditsowndynamics.
The imageimaginationimaginary relation also raises difficulties. According to Jean Jacques
Wunenburger, in French, the word imagination means a mental production of sensitive representations,
7
differentfromsensoryperception,ofconcreterealitiesandoftheconceptualizationofabstractideas. Starting
outfromthistrio,perception,imagination,conceptualization,theissueistoknowwhetherweshouldorshould
not leave the imaginary exclusively confined to the area of imagination and the imagination exclusively
confinedtotheareaofimages.
JeanPaulSartre(19051980)wasrighttoseetheessentialdifferencebetweenperceptionandimage,
thefactthatthelatterisintentional,asaprojectionofthemind.(LImagination,1936LImaginaire, 1940).
But, on the other hand, the same philosopher depreciated the image, considering it the poor relative of true
knowledge, a degraded kind of knowledge, some sort of a shadow, or a ghost. This led to an impasse,
which was avoided owing, most of all, to the contributions of Gaston Bachelard and his disciple Gilbert
Durand,whoplacedemphasisonthesymbolicdimensionoftheimageandontheorganizingdynamismofthe
imagination.
So,theimageismorethanjustashadowandtheimaginationmorethanawarehouseofimages.As
far as the imaginary is concerned, its products prove very complex and even extremely rigorous from the
theoreticalpointofview.Whatcanbemorecomplexandmorerigorousthanautopiaorareligion?Toreach
theimaginary(oratleastitsbeststructuredexpressions),theimaginationmustbefecundatedbyreason.This
way,theimaginationgoesfurtherthantheexclusivefieldofsensoryrepresentations.Itincludesbothperceived
images (which are inevitably adjusted, because there is no such thing as an image that is identical to the
object),elaboratedimages,andabstractideasthatstructuresuchimages.
Fornow,althoughwecannotseethesubstanceoftheimaginary,wecanverywellnoticeitsambiguous
status, split between very (or too) restrictive interpretations and, on the contrary, extremely generous
interpretationsthatallowittoincorporateeverything(cananyoneswearthatourveryexistenceismorethan

justimaginary?)
TocuttheGordianknot,weproposetogotothearchetypes,ascomponentelementsoftheimaginary.
Thehistoryoftheimaginarycanbedefinedasthehistoryofarchetypes.Weknowfairlywellthatthisterm
forgedbyPlatoandtakenupbyCarlG.Jungisveryoftenregardedwithsuspicionandevencontested.But
we do not wish to ascribe a transcendent meaning to it, nor to apply it, like Jung, to a vague collective
unconscious,bywayofapsychoanalyticaljustification.Itjustseemstousthatmanisprogrammedtothink,
feel, and dream in a very well defined manner. His mental constants get crystallized into what can be called
archetypes.
Soletusdefinethearchetypeasaconstantoranessentialbentofthehumanspirit.Itisanorganization
scheme,amold,whosematterchanges,butwhosecontoursstaythesame.
The historian always watches out for differences, but, still, he has to acknowledge the fact that
throughout epochs and cultures human beings and communities react in a rather similar manner when faced
with life, the world, history. The differences attract everybodys eyes, of course, but they prove minimal as
comparedtothefundamentalunityofthespirit,structuredbyarchetypes.
Thehistoryoftheimaginaryisstructuralbecauseeventhemostsophisticatedconstructionsofthespirit
can be simplified, decomposed and reduced to an archetype. But it is also very dynamic, precisely because
archetypes are open structures, which evolve, are combined among themselves, and whose contents is
incessantly adjusted to the changing social environment. Structural and dynamic history of archetypes: no
contradictionbetweentheseterms.Anyimbalanceinfavororagainstoneortheotherelementswouldseriously
affecttheaccuracyoftheperspective.
Here,thehostilitiesbetweenpureandtoughstructuralthinkersandthesupportersofhistoricityareleft
hot.ThebattleissymbolizedbythetwogreatpatronsoftheimaginaryinFrance,GilbertDurandandJacques
Le Goff. The former says directly in his classical book Les structures anthropologiques de limaginaire
(1960) that we feel all evolutionist or historical interpretations of the myths must be trashed (...) History
cannotexplainthearchetypalmentalcontents,ashistoryitselfpartakesoftheimaginary.And,mostofall,in
each historical phase, imagination is there with a double and antagonistic motivation: pedagogy of the
imitation,oftheimperialismofimagesandarchetypes,toleratedbythesocialenvironment,butalsoopposed
fantasiesofrebellion,owedtotherepressionofthevariousregimesoftheimagebytheenvironmentandthe
historicalmoment.Anyway,thereisnoquestionabouttheuniversality(...),bothpsychologicalandsocial,of
8
thegreatarchetypes.Therecanbenosuchthingasaprogressiveviewofthehumanimagination.
Suchastatementactuallyannulsallhistoryorletshistorydealwithanecdotaldetailsonly.Thisis,most
of all, the view of structural anthropology and psychoanalysis. Carl G. Jung, Claude LviStrauss
(Anthropologie structurale, 1958 La Pense sauvage, 1962), and Gilbert Durand, despite the differences
separating their analyses, place heavy emphasis on crystallized forms of the imaginary, produced by the
constantsofthehumanmind.Howcananyonerequireofanhistoriantotrustamethodthatmaydevaluehis
visionoftheworldanddestroyhisprofession?
Inthemeantime,GilbertDurandbroughtmorenuancestohisantihistoryjudgmentof1960.Heand
9
hisschooltriedtopartiallyfillthegapthatseparatedthemfromhistory. Generally,anthropologybecamemore
opentothehistoricalmethod.Ontheotherhand,historians,temptedbythelongduration,begantoconsider
durablestructuresmoreclosely.Buttheencounterbetweenthetwoorientationswillnothappenovernight.The
former will never give up the archetypal tendencies that the latter tends to annihilate in favor of historically
determinedmodels.Thelongdurationisstillpartoftime,ithasnothingtodowithatemporality.LeGoff
attacks, without the slightest concession, the suspect ideology of the archetypes (with reference to Gilbert
Durand),explainingthatthe modelsofthe imaginary comefromscience,the archetypes from mystifying
10
delusions.
Modelsversusarchetypes.AccordingtoLeGoff,thePurgatory, studied in one of his books (La
NaissanceduPurgatoire,1981)issuchamodel.TheoriginofthesewaitingroomstoParadiseishistorically
dated(definitivecrystallizationinthe12thand13thcenturies)andstronglytiedtoacomplexofsocial,political
andmentalevolutionaryprocesses(thedeclineofthetemporalpoweroftheChurch,nowtryingtorecuperate

itslostinfluenceinthespacetimeofafterlife,thevalorizingoftheindividualresponsibilityconcept,etc.)The
fading of the Inferno today, in the space of western Christianity, could be approached with a similar
methodology.Thestructuresoftheworldbeyondchangethewaythestructuresofourworldchange.(Butlet
us notice that an interpretation of the imaginary uniquely centered on historically defined models makes it
significantlydependentonsocialstructuresandmaterialconditions,whichisintunewiththeAnnalesschool
and,mostly,withJacquesLeGoffsmethod.)
ThemodelproposedbyAlainCorbininhis1988workonthemaritimeimaginary(LeTerritoiredu
vide. LOccident et le dsir du rivage, 17501840) is even more strongly marked by time. The author
announces a methodological debate, making a powerful statement against the tendency to despise every
temporalinsertionintheanalysisofmentalstructures.Thisisnotaquestionofadheringtothebeliefinthe
11
anthropological structures of the imaginary regardless of duration. The attack against Gilbert Durands
schoolisexplicit.Noteventhelongdurationconcept,coinedbyhistorianFernandBraudel,seemstohim
sophisticatedenoughtograspthedecisiveturningpoints.Insearchofdatablemechanisms,withamaximum
chronologicalaccuracy,AlainCorbinplacesby16601675thebeginningofanevolutionthathadtoendby
dissipatingtheoldabhorrenceprovokedbythemaritimespaceinfavorofatotallynewdesireforashore.
The historical method (in history as well as in anthropology) also warns against the trap laid by
superficial similarities. Apparently unchanged images can have different functions. Nobody has the right to
diffusethehistoricalandculturaldiversity.ThisisareproachagainstJamesGeorgeFrazer(18541941),the
greatclassicofthisgenre,authorofthefamousGoldenBough(18911918)hisprimitivesareallalike,none
being marked by time or by space they think and act in an absolutely identical manner. But the justified
reactionagainstsuchalevelingsometimesleadstoabrokenuniverse,wheremanbecomesanalientoman.
Rejectionorvalorizationoftime?Rejectionorvalorizationofspatialdepartments?Longdurationor
breakingphasesbelongingtoamoreorlessrestrainedtemporalframework?
Infact,everybodyisright.Contradictorythesescanbeendorsedwithequallyconvincingarguments.
Everybodywillfindtheirownreasonsthere,exceptfortheinterpretationoftheimaginarythatimpoverishes
and deforms it. Because, to tell the truth, the issue must not be defined in terms of a choice between
immutability and movement, between uniformity and diversity. Despite this apparent contradiction, the same
creditshouldbegiventoopposedprinciples.Thisway,themodelofthepurgatoryisinperfecttuningwiththe
archetypalspacetimeoftheworldbeyond.Archetypes,modelsandspecificmanifestationsarebutthreelevels
ofthesameconstruction.
Twoexamplesofthecontemporaryimaginarywillhelpusseethismattermoreclearly.Forthisbrief
demonstration,wewillstudytheendoftheworldasatotalitarianphenomenon.

NothingIsNew,EverythingIsNew:theImaginaryThroughoutHistory

Our time has a wide range of means to blow the world to pieces. Dangers (real or imaginary, that
matters very little) play a decisive role in the contemporary psychodrama. Their emergence is datable,
sometimesevenextremelyaccurately.Nuclearwarfarewithitsmultiplepossiblescenariosbeginswithavery
real event: the Americans dropped the Abomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. The imminence of an
ecological catastrophe became dominant in the minds of people in the 60s. At the same time came the
demographicanxietytriggeredbytheacceleratedgrowthoftheworldpopulation(moreexactly,oftheThird
Worldpopulation,aphenomenonparalleledbythedemographicstagnationordecreaseintheWest.)In1972
the Club of Rome identified in a famous report the ingredients of an explosive cocktail the five factors
describedthenwerefood,population,production,resourcesandpollution.Thepopulationgrewtoofast,food
andrawmaterialsbecameinsufficient,thepollutionowingtobadlyplannedproductionwasincreasingly
violentinitsaggressionagainstthenaturalenvironment.Cosmicperilswerealsothere,suchasclashingwitha
cometorameteorite.Thedinosaurbusinesstheirsuddendisappearancesixtyfivemillionyearsagocame
forthby1980anditisstillastarsubject.Thetwomastersoftheearth,thedinosauralongtimeagoandman
todaymayhaveasimilarfate,todominatetheworldandtoperishstupidlyattheclimaxoftheirpower.

Thesesolutionsseemundoubtedlymodern.Allthescientific,technologicalandpoliticalingredientsof
ourtimearegatheredhere.Nobodycouldhaveimaginedbeforetheendofthe19thcenturyandevenlessin
theAntiquityorintheMiddleAgesanuclearwaroranenvironmentdegradedbypollution.Butpeoplehad
alreadymadeotherscenariostoservethesameproject:thedestructionoftheworld.Oneofthemostancient
and most universally invoked is that of the Deluge. This myth, in different variants, tells the story of how
mankindwasdestroyed,followedbythestoryofitsrebirthduetoasmallnumberofindividuals.Nuclearwar
istheDelugeofourtime.Withfewexceptions,thescenariosaboutit(strategicsimulation,scientificstudies,
literary or motion picture fiction) place it in the perspective of an incomplete end of the world, just like the
Deluge.Mostofhumankinddisappears,civilizationcollapses,butthehumanadventurecontinues,inaugurating
anewhistoricalcycle.Thesameistrueoftheecologicaldisaster:thiswouldbetheendofcivilization(ofthe
moderntechnologicalandpollutingcivilization),butnottheendofman.
Herewefindaveryancientimaginaryaboutendsoftheworld,whichispartoftheeternalreturn
pattern (studied by Mircea Eliade, 19071986, in his Mythe de lternel retour, 1949.) Ends and rebirths
alternate throughout a (cosmic and human) cyclic history. The constituent elements of this archetype are
borrowedfromobviouscosmicandnaturalcycles:thesuccessionofdaysandnights,oftheLunarphases,of
theseasons,ofvegetation.Delugeornuclearwararesecondaryimages,derivedfromthisoriginalpatternof
theworld.
Butthearchetypalimageofthecirclecompeteswiththenolessarchetypalimageofthestraightline.
The latter, applied to the march of humanity, can point either to a continuous route or, on the contrary, to a
brutalanddefinitiveend.Inthecaseofabrutalend,theimageofdeathoneofthepermanentobsessionsof
the imaginary is projected over the destiny of mankind. Individual death becomes collective death, the
extinctionofthespecies.Nuclearwarcansignify,accordingtosomescenarios,theabsoluteendofmankind.
Without anychanceof survival.Thisalternative has itsown precedents, too. All wehave todois goto the
Apocalypse the apocalypses where the end of the world is orchestrated by a giant conflagration. Still, a
religious Apocalypse associates the end of terrestrial existence to a new reality, situated in a transfigured
universe.ThisisoftenmissingwiththenuclearApocalypseorwithothercontemporaryapocalypsesthatare
characteristic of a partially desecrated civilization. The end, if it is really complete, does not seem to be
12
accompaniedbyanycompensatorysolution.Itistheend.
So,undernewclothes,wefindobviouslyancientstructures.Therefore,itisperfectlyjustifiedto
reducemodernendoftheworldscenariostoarchetypalformulas.But,ontheotherhand,thehistorianhasthe
righttoplaceemphasisonthenoveltyofphenomenaandonthenewrelationshipsbetweentherealhistory
andthestructuresoftheimaginary.Nooneshouldminimizethespecificfunctionofthecontemporarygreat
fears, their connection with politics, science or religion, which are considerably different from those of the
DelugeorofthestrictlyreligiousApocalypse.Thedesecratedend,thetechnologicalanxiety,thedeclineofthe
west and the rise of the others are new images, even if they, too, can be decomposed into archetypal
elements.
Whiletheendoftheworldcomesfromfarbackintime,thetotalitarianphenomenonseemstobea
characteristicelementofthe20thcentury.ItisbutvaguelysuggestedbytraditionaltyranniestheJacobinterror
alone anticipates it, owing to its single party system, its ideologizing work and general mobilization, its
industrial organization of repression. An incomplete and evanescent experience as compared to the
accomplishedtotalitarianmodelofourtime.Thequasiperfectionoftotalitarianismisexplainedbytheexistence
of a material capacity for organization, propaganda, surveillance and repression that were not in place in
precedingepochs,but,tothesameextent,bytheaffirmationofanextremelyvirulenttotalitarianimaginary.
Thecrisisofthe20thcenturyoneofthemostprofoundriftsinthehistoryofcivilizationsthefailuresofthe
technological civilization but also its real or presumed potential have been sublimated into an ideal of
surpassing history by creating a new world and a new human being. Fascism, Nazism and Communism
plannednotonlytocontrolpeopleasanyordinarytyrannydoes,but,firstandforemost,tochangethecourse
ofhistoryandtochangehumannature.
Thetotalitarianexperiencemayessentiallybelongtorecenthistory,butitscomponentscomefromfar
back.Withoutclaimingtodoacompletereview,letusquicklypointtoafewarchetypalelements.

Therejectionofhistoryandthedesiretoegressonesownconditionseemtodefinetheuniversal
reactionofhumansconfrontedwithhistoryandwiththelimitsofthehumancondition.Thisprojecthastodo
with the evasion from a turbulent and unpredictable space and the refuge to a protected area that can ensure
harmony and happiness. This one is symbolized, at the most basic level, by archetypal images such as the
island or the cave (and, even more basic, the maternal womb.) It is the recurrent dream of a closed, tribal
society,torefertothewellknowntheoryofKarlPopper(19021994)putforthinLa socit ouverte et ses
ennemis(1945).Onthereligiousplane,thestruggleagainsttherealworldandhistoryhasbeenmanifestinthe
millenarian ideologies and movements (teaching about the establishment of a onethousand year Messianic
Kingdom.)Thetotalitariansolutionsofthe20thcenturymostofallNazismandCommunismareinsome
way nothing but secularized millenarianism. The charismatic leader (Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao,
etc.),anindispensableimageinthesystemofthetotalitarianimaginary,alsobelongstoanarchetypallineage,
personifiedbytheMessiahortheSavior(orbytheAntichrist,tohisadversaries.)So,wecomeclosetothe
sacred,despitesecular,materialistandscientificappearances,adeformedandcorruptedsacred,butonewhich
isverymuchpresentintheideologiesstructuredasreligions(dichotomybetweenGoodandEvil,triumphof
anabsolutetruth,flourishingofthehumanspirit,universalharmony),inthecultoftheleader,orintheritualof
ceremonies. The rejection of the Other (the class enemy in the Communist system, the biologically impure
beingaccordingtotheNazidoctrine)andthecohesionofacommunityfreedfromitsundesirableelementsalso
belong to an archetypal structure: the quest of Unity and the dialectics of the relations between Us and the
13
Others.
New construction, archaic materials. Archaic materials, new construction. The fabrics incessantly
evolveandgenerallybecomemorecomplexasmankindcontinuesitsjourneyforwardontheroadofhistory,
buttheconstituentmoleculesarethesame.Theendoftheworldisbyfarmorediversifiedandsophisticated
today than the flood or the universal fire, to quote the two most common traditional solutions. The
contemporarytotalitarianregimesarefarmorecomplexthanthesimplepatternoftraditionalmillenarianismor
utopias(tosaynothingofthearchaicsymbols.)But,ifwewanttofocusonessencealone,theendoftheworld
isalwaysthesameendoftheworldandtheevasionofhistoryisinspiredfromthesamefantasies,oneepoch
afteranother.
ThewordsoftheEcclesiastes:nothingnewunderthesunandPantharhei,thefamousphrase
attributedtoHeraclitus,donotexcludeeachotheratall.TheyarethetwobasicprinciplesoftheUniverse,also
sheddinglight,betterthananydemonstration,ontherulesandlogicoftheimaginary.

TheImaginaryandReality

Atthebeginningofthiscentury,theFrenchHellenistVictorBrard(18641931)attemptedtotrack
Ulysses.HefoundintheshoresandislandsoftheMediterraneanSeaalltheplacesdescribedbyHomerand
gathered into a beautiful album a rich collection of photos proving a striking correspondence between the
descriptionsinthepoemandthelandscapeasitistoday(seethefourvolumesofNavigationsdUlysse,1927
1933anditsiconographicsupplementDanslesillagedUlysse,1933.)Aseducinginquiry,butonewhichis
basicallywrong,theperfectexampleofwhatshouldnotbedonetotheimaginary.
Theimaginaryhasitsownstructuresandevolutionprinciples.Itwouldbeabsurd,ofcourse,todeny
itsrelationswiththereality.Nobodywilleverinventnewcolors,butonlycombinationsoftheexistingones.
Anewfacewillmostprobablybedrawnstartingfromverywellknowntraitsofthehumanface.Autopiawill
do nothing but arrange otherwise certain components of the real relationships between people. An historical
mythwillincludecharacters,landscapesandsituationsthatshouldfittheconcreteworld.Thesensorymaterial
usedbytheimaginaryisnotessentiallydifferentfromthematerialoftangiblematter,butitisreforgedand
pouredintoaspecificmold.Itisnotthematter,butthestructuresthatcount,andtheyhaveanincontestable
degree of autonomy. How can anyone take a sacred tree for an ordinary one? How can anyone mistake the
terrifyingoctopusimaginedbytheEuropeansortheeroticoctopusoftheJapanesefortheverycommonreal
octopus? Roger Caillois (19131978) described everything that separates them in an exemplary study: La

Pieuvre.Essaisurlalogiquedelimaginaire(1973).
Therefore,theworstcaricatureistoconsidertheimaginaryjustanotherdisguiseofreality.Morethan
twothousandyearsago,Greekhistoriansandphilosophersbegantorationalizemyths.Theirmethodwasnot
verysophisticated:theyjustevacuatedthesupernaturalandkepttherest.Tothem,theTrojanWarhadtaken
placebecauseawarhadnothingsupernaturalinit:ifthesupernaturalistakenoutofHomerswork,thiswar
14
willbeleft. The historians of our time sometimes fall into the same trap the moment they try to identify
historicalfactsunderthepolishoflegends,betheytheTrojanWarorthefoundationofRome.Ofcourse,a
legendcanincludebitsofrealhistoricalinformation.Butitcanalsobeexclusivelynourishedbyarchetypes.
ThisiswhatGeorgesDumzildemonstratesregardingthefoundationofRome,asubjectwewillcomebackto.
Supposethehistoriansonlyhave,forafewthousandyears,acorpusofnucleistoriesastheonly
pieces of information about the second half of the 20th century. Will they have the right to infer from our
evidentobsessionthatarealcatastrophehastakenplace?
Asfarastheimaginaryisconcerned,thestartingpointremains,infact,asecondarymatter.Realor
invented, partially invented or composite, the facts and the characters are actually part of an ideal typology.
Whoeverwishes,atanyprice,tointerprettheimaginarybywayoftheconcretereality,ortorecomposethat
concrete reality starting out from the imaginary, confines himself into a false question. There are numerous
interdependencies and permanent exchanges between those two realms, but these are very sophisticated
relationshipsthatareestablishedthroughmentalclimatesratherthanbythebrutalinvasionoffactsintothe
etherealdomainofthespirit.
Ontheonehand,itiseasytoseethepersistenceofstructures,themesandmodelsintherhythmsof
historicallife,changingthem, bringingthemto stardom, or,onthecontrary,withdrawing them from center
stage.Theresistanceagainsttherealandthedialoguewiththatsamerealcoexist.
The resistance against the real sometimes acts by way of a remarkable capacity to deny what is
obvious or to reverse its meaning, which proves the autonomy of the imaginary and the durability of its
models.Peoplegenerallyseewhattheywanttoseeandlearnwhattheyalreadyknow.Theexplorationofthis
planetatthebeginningofthemodernepochoffersastrikingexample.Columbus,thediscovererofAmerica,
defiantlyignoredhisowndiscoverybecauseitwasnotintunewiththeacceptedimageoftheworld(wherethe
Americancontinentdidnotexist.)AnimaginarygeographyhandedoverfromtheAntiquityprovedstronger
thantherealgeographicalfacts.Followingthesameinheritedpattern,navigatorssearchedinvain,fortwoor
threecenturies,thegreatsoutherncontinentthathadtooccupythesouthernhemisphereoftheearth.Contrary
arguments were systematically turned into favorable ones (each discovered isle became a fragment of the
searchedseashore),fortheonlyreasonthattheidealpatternpresumedtherewasasoutherncontinentalmass
15
whichwasallegedlysymmetricaltothenorthernworld.
The purpose of the imaginary is not, however, to annihilate the real in order to take its place. Its
strategiespursuethecheckingoftheconcreteworldbyadjustingtheidealmodelstotheheavinessofmatter
andtothechangingcircumstancesofhistory.Inarealworldthatcanonlybedeceiving,theimaginaryplaysa
compensatoryrole.Itisatworkeverywhereandpermanently,butmostofall,theperiodsofcrisisaugmentits
manifestation,asitissummonedtocompensatefordisappointment,tobuildascreenagainstfearsandinvent
alternativesolutions.Endsoftheworld,millenarianism,utopias,exacerbatedcontrasts,providentialcharacters,
occult