Roland Barthes' conception of myth evolved out of his interest in how everyday common sense,doxa, was presented as 'natural' and universal, and yet was connected to power relations in society (Hebdige 1993). Although a Marxist ethics directs his examination of myth, Barthes follows the structuralist method of semiotics to investigate the mechanics of myth. North (following Levi-Strauss) outlines four characteristics of structuralist analysis; firstly the shift from conscious to unconscious infrastructure; second, the emphasis on the relations between terms; thirdly, the synchronic study of the system; and finally, the study of general laws within the system (1990). Structuralism as a broad perception was the concern of thinkers throughout history, but as a post-war homogenous perception and mode of thought, structuralism has its base in the work of Ferdinand de Saussure, who is also a starting point for Barthes and myth.

Roland Barthes follows on from Saussure' s dyadic model of the sign as constituted by a signifier and signified. These components are inseparable from the sign; they are constructed as to be the necessary elements of the sign. This is similar to Hjemsle's dyadic model of expression (signifier) + content (signified) = sign, but opposed to a triadic system such as that of Pierce, which states: representamen + interpretant + object = sign (North 1990). The difference for Saussure (and Barthes) is the removal of the referent, the thing that is 'stood for'. Saussure rather emphasizes the mentalistic nature of semiosis, signifier and signified are psychological entities that occur as a result of psychological and social experience (North 1990). As such, semiosis as per Saussure is a subjective experience, and this is a fundamental attribute of a structuralist system, the creation, rather than the discovery of meaning (Hawkes 1977).

Download complete article