Mythmaking 101: Why Millions Have Bought into 'Death Panel' Propaganda

Renowned scholar Joseph Campbell accounts for the ubiquity and power of myth by relating its capacity to clothe the infinite in the language of the finite. While this may be true in a certain context, Campbell’s approach doesn’t help us understand two basic truths about mythmaking in today’s America, namely that the health care reform legislation currently before Congress is heavily mythologized; and for at least some Americans, this mythology is far more engaging than the actual legislation.

As Sharon Begley points out in this week’s Newsweek, while there do exist “honest and principled objections to health care reforms,” the most common (and vehement) rebuttals heard in the public square in recent months are, at best, profoundly distorted “exaggerations,” and at worst outright fabrications. To cite but a handful of examples: where the actual health care reform bill calls for electronic fund transfers from insurers to doctors, critics fear that “the government will have electronic access to everyone’s bank account”; where databases in which those not covered by private or employer plans may locate medical providers are mandated, critics see commissioners and bureaucrats deciding what benefits and treatments are appropriate; where optional end-of-life counseling is available, critics decry “death panels” and forced euthanasia of the old and infirm.

Importantly, I do not believe that re-reading the proposed legislation, however closely, will resolve these differences. For the belief structures that Begley identifies are not necessarily the result of a lack of familiarity with the text, but of a particular way of thinking. In an attempt to unpack this way of thinking, I shall turn to the work of another 20th-century thinker, one who likewise worked to understand the role of mythmaking in popular culture.

France is a Great Empire

For philosopher Roland Barthes, working in the context of 1950s France, myth is what he calls a second-order language, one that is built upon linguistic “signs.” A sign, in layman’s terms, is a word plus its meaning. A mythological construct is generated when a linguistic sign is coded with new and additional meanings. When I give a rose to my lover (to use one of Barthes’ examples) this implies my passion and commitment, not simply my interest in botany.

In his seminal book, Mythologies, Barthes illustrates this progression from linguistic sign to myth using the example of a magazine cover image of a young man of African descent in a French military uniform, saluting with eyes uplifted. Simple enough. On the level of myth, though, much more is intended, namely:

that France is a great Empire, that all her sons, without any color discrimination, faithfully serve under her flag, and that there is no better answer to the detractors of an alleged colonialism than the zeal shown by this [young man] in serving his so-called oppressors.

How has this transition from sign to myth been accomplished? It is not simply a matter of adding meaning, according to Barthes—something must be taken away. In the case of the image of the youth, much of the specific detail regarding the young man is drained away: his name, his upbringing, his education. His goals, commitments, and life’s accomplishments—these are forgotten so that he might serve as the carrier for new mythological content. For Barthes, then, the mythical concept is not particularly trustworthy; it is “formless, unstable, nebulous.”