Myth and epic exclude the other from relation through filiation-based violence.

Evidence

My th, therefore, contains a hidden violence that catches in the links of filiation and absolutely challenges the existence of the other as an element of relation. The same is true of the Epic, which singles out a community in relation to the Other, and senses Being only as in-itself, because it never conceives of it as relation. — Édouard Glissant, Poetics of Relation, 297

Categorization

• XREF: Glissant’s critique of myth filtered through his relation theory of identity; parallel to his refusal of atavistic/root identity elsewhere in Poetics of Relation. — connects to: Myth and epic enact being as closed filiation, excluding the other.; Structural exclusion that hides its own mechanisms constitutes violence — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1741; Myth differs from signification in that it escapes any act of consciousness

Broader Connections

• Myth and epic enact being as closed filiation, excluding the other. #corroborates (0.97)
• Structural exclusion that hides its own mechanisms constitutes violence #expands (0.75) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1741
• Myth differs from signification in that it escapes any act of consciousness #expands (0.72)