Concealed Tricksterism as a Modus Operandi in C. Lévi-Strauss’s Idea of the Myth of Oedipus

This article examines the contradictions in the analysis of the Oedipus myth in C. Lévi-Strauss’s The Structural Study of Myth. The author provides a new explanation for the biased choice of arguments to prove that the myth of Oedipus is a logical tool for solving the question of the origin of man. Traditionally, criticism of Lévi-Strauss’s analysis of the structure of myth has attributed its subjectivism to the shortcomings of the structuralist approach itself, which compares myth to linguistic utterance. The author of the article concludes that the contradictions in Lévi-Strauss’s concept of myth are explained by a particular research position. This is the position that recognises the inevitably play-based nature of working with mythological material since myth is comprehended not only as a linguistic object, but also as a complex semantic whole. This position is defined in the article as the trickster position because it allows for contradictions in argumentation and the author’s being aware of them. The article analyses Lévi-Strauss concept of the trickster in The Structural Study of Myth. It is hypothesised that in his analysis of the Oedipus myth, Lévi-Strauss uses a method that allows mediation between the two opposing conceptions of human origin found in it. Since the Oedipus myth lacks the figure of the trickster-mediator, this function is performed by the will of the researcher himself. In addition, the structural analysis of the myth itself is seen as a mediating practice aimed at the experience of overcoming the methodological conflict between scientism and psychologism that developed in the mid-twentieth century in the field of ethnology. Lévi-Strauss’s idea of the proximity of the trickster to the figure of a cultural hero endowed with creative qualities found undeniable support in subsequent scholarly thought. According to the author of the article, this idea is confirmed by the very nature of Lévi-Strauss’s research activity: a new structural method is created by him through the conscious assumption of distortions in the work with the material. In interpreting Lévi-Strauss’s methodology as mediative, the author relies on hermeneutic and cultural-historical methods, as well as the method of revealing contradictions in a reflexive statement.