Social-Symbolic Capital of Society: Normatism vs Mythology

Abstract

The article is devoted to the problem of under what conditions and how exactly social myths and rituals can be a source of legal norms and at the same time the result of social adaptation of these norms in society. The author positions this approach to the perception of the relationship between law and myth as controversial, noting that law is real and universally binding, and myth is only a fiction and a retelling of certain ideas. However, the article argues the position that together these two social phenomena form the socio-symbolic capital of society and the state. It is shown that both myth and law jointly construct the collective memory of the people and the identity of the nation, and also form a value-normative basis for building legal and power-political institutions. It is noted that through legal norms, myths move from the sphere of the symbolic to the sphere of the normative, consolidating in national law the images of the «heroic past», the ideas of «primordial statehood» and «Cossack freedom». Thanks to this, the law becomes not only a regulator of social relations, but also an effective tool for the reproduction, preservation and development of cultural and value orientations. This gives the author of the article grounds to speak of a «circle of social and symbolic capital», in which there is no dominant normativity or mythology, because both phenomena periodically and permanently transform into each other: myth - symbol - custom - norm - natural given - ritual - archetype (as a perfect myth). It is described how such social and symbolic capital consolidates society, confirms the legitimacy of power, stimulates the defense capacity of the population and encourages the development of the state, which is conceptualized as the mobilization function of social myths and law. At the same time, social and symbolic capital demonstrates the historical continuity of state traditions and the special purpose of the people and nation, which is conceptualized as the legitimizing function of myths and law. Everything is described by the author as contributing to the stability of the state while preserving political pluralism, strengthening public memory, and projecting a vector of collective self-determination.