ROBERT S. WISTRICH
217
ronment. But Israeli society and culture also have their own inner histori–
cal dynamics which have for too long been ignored, whether through
ignorance or design.
The deconstruction of national mythologies is, of course, a perfectly
legitimate and necessary element in seeking to understand any long-term
historical process. But it needs to be remembered that myth is something
more subtle than merely an erroneous belief or dogma held to against all
the historical evidence. The popular usage which equates myth with falla–
cies that can be disproved by logical reasoning, or the simple reference to
historical facts, is frequently accepted in a naive fashion by revisionist
historians. New documentation and new interpretations of historical
events based upon them are a normal and natural part of the evolution of
historiography in any society. Demythicizing a past which has been in–
vested with a quasi-sacred character, or pointing out that events which
have been given unique significance by one generation may not retain
this meaning for its successor, is equally natural. After all, most interpreta–
tions of history are to some extent based on an arbitrary selection of
events and can easily assume a mythical character. Israeli history and his–
toriography are no exception to this rule, and like the writing of history
elsewhere, have inevitably been influenced by ideology. But the process
of de-ideologizing that history and stripping it of its allegedly mythical as–
pects is by the same token not immune to similar objections of selectivity
and arbitrariness. Is "revisionist" history, for example, any less subject to
an ideological or political agenda, to the conscious (or unconscious) desire
to create counter-myths, than the very orthodoxy against which it rebels?
Myths can simultaneously perform many functions. Not all of them
are negative or merely justificatory rationalizations of a particular status
quo. They may indeed provide legitimation for existing social and politi–
cal practices, for a dominant elite, social group, or ideology. Myth may
also be intended as a mobilizing agent to galvanize commitment or iden–
tification with a cause, as has often been the case all over the world in the
past two centuries. Above all, most myths are to some degree narratives
that seek to anchor the present in the past - and the Zionist "myths" un–
der attack today do not differ from this pattern. Myths seen in this light,
as a special kind of narrative, as symbolic statements or frames of reference
which give meaning to the past, are not necessarily false or harmful ex–
amples of pseudo-history. Their true significance more often lies in what
they can tell us about the ways in which a particular nation, social group,
or set of individuals seeks to organize its collective memory and to estab–
lish a distinctive identity. The process of analyzing or deconstructing
myth is most revealing precisely when it unveils the deeper social and un-
