We shall try to find out the reason behind different social inclusions and exclusions. The way we shall follow to analyse theAnalysing society and to writewriting the history of society is not an easy task. After a restive debate, the way towe shall analyse society appears into be the following way: i) individualism, ii) holism, iii) structuralism and post structuralism.
Individualism emphasises upon the moral worth of the individual‖individual, and recognises one’s goalgoals and desiredesires ignoring any external interference offrom society and other institutions. It also makes the individual its focus as the fundamental premises. Therefore, to interpret any social fact the individual stands as the prime object and no other factor comes into consideration to stand as historical. On the other hand, holism stands for ‘Whole’, an idea asserting that a system cannot be explained by a single component within it. Rather theThis system as a whole can explain the way how the parts behave. The term holism is used within social and cultural anthropology to analyse the society as a whole, and here it denies the functions of separate partparts of society and, thereby the socialseeing society as an entity of being. Therefore, on the basis of this theory, an empirical study is not possible; otherwise, our vision willwould remain monochromatic.
SinceSince the sociological and socio-anthropological approach implies the relation beingbetween the parts is more important than the parts themselves taken singularly, we shall interpret the Mongal texts in the light of Levi-Strauss's structuralism of Levi-Strauss. Levi Strauss, thea French structuralist, hasgave enough contribution to discuss this theory otherwise, and he is more appropriate in the context of the study of mythmyths. As our prime objective is to reconstruct the socio-economic history of medieval Bengal as represented in MongalKavya, the major sources of our study, being mythical in nature, we must comprehend what Mytha myth is. Why does it stand for?