We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
PERSPECTIVES OF A SOCIOLOGY OF FILM
It would be permissible to assume that there is an element of myth which explains the contemporary longing for the cinema. Just because traditional structures of life are uprooted and are on the verge of disappearing altogether, the modern cinema-goer is seeking a participation mystique in the events on the screen. Here he finds a totality of an apparent life which traditional institutions like churches or communities — small or large — do not seem to be able to offer any more. 'The world would appear empty without pictures', as one of my correspondents has very aptly put it.
Malinowski's well-known interpretation of myth confirms our sociological analysis of the impact of cinema on modern man. 'Myth', writes Malinowski, 'as it exists in a savage community, that is, in its living primitive form, is not merely a story told but a reality lived ... As our sacred story lives in our ritual, in our morality, as it governs our faith and controls our conduct, even so does his myth for the savage.'1 In this sense we are all 'savages'. Anyone who is familiar with recent developments in childpsychology knows that the non-rational character of the child's reaction towards the world persists even then when the rationalisation of the child's mind is already fully developed. The same applies to the adult. 'In jedem echten Manne ist ein Kind verborgen — und das Kind will spielen', says Nietzsche, in one of his profoundest remarks which anticipate recent investigations in children's play. Play, participation mystique, behaviour patterns and conduct are certainly interlocked. This interlocked structure I have in mind, when I speak of the mythical element in our passion for the cinema.2
Perhaps I should strengthen this argument by another consideration. I think that the sense organs of historic audiences change during the course of ages. Take the Elizabethan audience as an example. I quote from the brilliant Shakespeare lecture to the British Academy (1944) by H. S. Bennett on Shakespeare's
the human mind is an entirely different book from the same author's Mentaliti Primitive. One can only conclude from this that C. has not read the Fonctions and his criticism thus loses substance.
1 Cf. B. Malinowski, Myth in Primitive Psychology. London, 1926, p. 2 1.
2 1 am fully aware of the wide implications of the term participation, one of the most difficult terms in the history of philosophy and sociology. I hope to deal with the theoretical implications of participation in another context. Meanwhile interested readers ought to consult Jean Przyluski's Participation, Paris, 1940. In spite of P.'s criticism I adhere to Levy-BruhPs exposition of participation as given in the Fonctions. Cf. also C. R. Aldrich, The Primitive Mind and Modern Civilisation, London, 1931, and C. F. Bartlett, Psychology and Primitive Culture, Cambridge, 1923.
19