Oshun’s Abebé: symbolic examples of Candomblé's afro-religious imaginary and knowledge from an aesthetic perspective
Rev. Cadernos de Campo, Araraquara, v. 24, n. esp. 1, e024011, 2024. e-ISSN: 2359-2419
DOI: https://doi.org/10.47284/cdc.v24iesp.1.18190 8
schema, the archetype, the symbol, and the myth (Durand, 1994). These categories act
complementarily in the structuring of narratives that permeate the unconscious, identified as
inseparable from one another. In this regard, Teixeira (2006, p. 3, our translation) asserts that it
is "[...] the imaginary that, through the process of symbolization, defines the symbolic-
organizational competencies of individuals and groups [...]", inherent to the processes that guide
the formation of identities.
Some formulations involving Gilbert Durand's theory of the imaginary gain
prominence, given that this research focuses on the symbolic dimension and its particularities.
The schema, considered prior to the formation of imagery, addresses gesturality and,
consequently, establishes a relation of conformity to the primary impulses of physicality (Pitta,
2005). The archetype corresponds to the expressive semblance of schemas, characterized as the
first space endowed with the rationalization of the unconscious, which emanations from the
contexts in which their particularities are expressed (Durand, 2012). The symbol, in turn,
formally represents the archetypes in a given social context and acts as an illustration of them,
especially relating to the sense of vision, which is habitual in rites where implicit senses mark
the presence of the sacred (Pitta, 2005). Finally, the myth is linked to rationalization capacities,
provides a narrative to the structures that precede it (through its discursive apparatus), and
standardizes human habits (Durand, 2012) by conceiving a materiality that governs societal
morals, even if they are relative.
The categories derived from the theory of the imaginary are organized from
constellations of images where the isomorphism of their characteristics acts as a communal
imperative (Pitta, 2005). Within this classification, two regimes influence the possibilities of
rationalizing these images: the diurnal and nocturnal regimes of images, whose opposition
guides their basic compositions:
Gilbert Durand perceives in the material he studies two fundamentally
different intentions at the base of the organization of images: one dividing the
universe into opposites (high/low, left/right, ugly/beautiful, good/evil, etc.),
and another uniting the opposites, complementing, harmonizing. The first is
the diurnal regime, characterized by light that allows distinctions, by debate.
The second is the nocturnal regime, characterized by night that unifies, by
reconciliation (Pitta, 2005, p. 22, our translation).
The diurnal regime, defined by the images reflected in the heroic dimension of symbolic
understandings, is permeated by significant elements related to solar powers, under which the
clarity of reason shines free of doubts. This regime is tied to the dichotomies of rationality and
also to martial representations capable of removing distinct, non-homogeneous components