Introduction

Ideological discourses and scholarly paradigms have often forced mythic knowledge into the form of stable and petrified systems consisting of trinities and pantheons of local gods, or constructions that correspond to the systems typical for religions. Charles Briggs uses the notion of meta-discursive practices (Briggs 1993: 387-434) to denote the dominant approaches that have represented the research material in a modified or reconstructed form, according to the prevailing ideological tendencies or political and didactic aims. It is essential to disclose the ideological aims looming in the background of the text in order to evaluate the scholarly, mythological writings (cf. Briggs 1993: 420; Honko 1998: 160 et passim). This article aims to elucidate with some examples the difference between the meanings conveyed by the ethnocultural mythic tradition and the dominant ideological approaches that have attempted to reconstruct and reuse the traditional cultural elements according to prevailing ideological aims and research priorities.

Ethnocultural, mythic discourse does not follow the rational, modern, literary logic. Anna-Leena Siikala emphasises that shamanic mode of thought and mythic consciousness, i.e. the logic of mythic thinking, is not organised into concepts logically interlinked, but as ‘sensory images concerning mythic objects and being’ (Siikala 2002: 48 et passim). In this article I use the term mythic logic to denote a network of ethnocultural expressions of phenomena explained as caused by supernatural powers. In the examples in this article, mythic logic enabled the Sámi shaman (noaide) to send an insect to enter the mouth of the one on whom the noaide had cast a spell.