Abstract

Anthropology is unabashedly reductionist, seeks "expianations" for ritual, and uses psychology and sociology; the historian of religions seeks understanding" of myths without reduction. Anthropological work is based on Taylor, Spencer, and Frazier and stresses the function of myth for social solidarity, unity of society and the psyche, or as symbolic expression of social relations. But functionalism fails to explain myths since social solidarity is an unintended consequence of myths. History of religions sees myths as encounters with Ultimate Reality. Symbols serve as a framework for rational thought and provide coherent unity to the world. But myths are described as symbols of symbols that refer to the sacred and get lost without a reference. Both methods reject or suspend the cognitive content of myth, and the referent of symbolic myth remains the problem of both disciplines