* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Lévi-Strauss
Dual inheritance theory wikipedia , lookup
Social stratification wikipedia , lookup
Cultural ecology wikipedia , lookup
Tribe (Internet) wikipedia , lookup
Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship wikipedia , lookup
Cultural relativism wikipedia , lookup
Popular culture studies wikipedia , lookup
Ethnography wikipedia , lookup
Incest taboo wikipedia , lookup
Post-processual archaeology wikipedia , lookup
Political economy in anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Structuralism wikipedia , lookup
American anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Cross-cultural differences in decision-making wikipedia , lookup
Intercultural competence wikipedia , lookup
Ethnoscience wikipedia , lookup
Social anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Introduction to Semiotics of Cultures, 2010 Claude Lévi-Strauss Structural Anthropology 1: Chapter I, Anthropology and History Vesa Matteo Piludu University of Helsinki Lévi-Strauss (1908-2009) Lévi-Strauss in Brazil (Claude) Lévi-Strauss hasn’t invented the famous jeans … the founder of the company was Levi (Loeb) Strauss Structural Anthropology 1 French edition: 1958 (Durkheim’s centenary) 5 parts 17 scientific articles written between 1944 and 1957. Less fragmentary than Barthes’ myths. Field: ethnic cultures, native American cultures, general theory Relations between anthropology, history, linguistic Conscious and unconscious social and mental processes of which cultural institutions are external manifestation Holistic goal: analytical theory potentially valid for all society The generalization depart from empirical, ethnographic data and always return to it Barthes and Strauss: ideals/writing/goals Mythologies’ Bathes (´50) critic of middle class and media discourse Great writer in French, use of neologism, humor Importance of history Negative attitude toward myths Discourse limited to modern popular culture Poor discussion on previous general cultural theory Lévi-Strauss there are no “simple” and “sophisticate” societies The ethnic cultures have a complicate, different logic It’s relevant to give the ethnic cultures the same status of Western ones Great writer in French, use of neologism, humor Importance of history Complex attitude toward myths general theory able to compare the most different culture Rich discussion on previous general cultural theories Chapter I Introduction: History and Anthropology This chapter is fundamental, it’s a kind of conceptual summa of the whole book Micro and medium analysis Ethnography: observation and analysis of human groups considered as individual entities (small ethnic groups, small cultural groups) Long field research: months or years The group are theoretically selected, often the studied society differs from the researcher’s one Microanalysis Ethnology: utilize for comparative purpose the data collected by ethnographers The comparison are between different ethic group of the same cultural area (Finno-Ugrian, Pueblo Indians) Medium level analysis Macro analysis Social Anthropology: devoted to the study of social institutions considered as systems of representations Cultural Anthropology: study of the system of representation on which cultural and social life is based Macro analysis: both are related to the comparison of different cultures, speculative level Anthropology and history Anthropology: even if it is focused on diachronic level (comparison of cultures in the different historical times), often failed in historical researches Problem: the anthropologists seems to be unable to trace the history of the phenomena, to apply the historians’ methods Ethnic cultures seems to have less historical data than Western ones The critics of Lévi-Strauss In the first part of the chapter, Lévi-Strauss criticize fiercely some anti-historical attitudes of cultural anthropologist Evolutionism Ideological and colonialist application of biology’s theories: social Darwinism, that really differs from Darwin’s theories Western civilization on the top of the pyramid: the most advanced expression if the “evolution” of societies WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Male Protestant) or WFC (White French Male Catholic) was considered the most suitable dominator The “primitive” groups were considered only “survivals” of earlier stages The “social evolution” was a justification for colonialist’s power: the “primitive” culture should be “civilized” to reach the next step in the evolution Typical evolutionist book: Golden Bought by Sir Frazer http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/frazer/ Lévi-Strauss vs. evolutionism Lévi-Strauss fiercely opposed all the evolutionist’s theories Native peoples aren’t considered “less sophisticate”: for L-S Intuit are excellent technicians, the native Australians great sociologist Lévi-Strauss vs. Tylor (evolutionism-diffusionism) Sir Edward Burnett Tylor (1832-1917): all cultural elements are a species, related to each other by diffusionism history isn’t necessary, is necessary to understand only the function of the tools Tylor: ”the bow and arrow are species, the habit of flattening skulls is a species …” (Primitive culture, I, 7) Tylor’s classics: Researches into the Early History of Mankind and the Development of Civilization (1865), Primitive Culture (1871), Anthropology (1881) Lévi-Strauss: an ax doesn’t generate an ax Two identical tools could have a different function in different societies Detailed history of each tool is absolutely necessary Lévi-Strauss on totemism Totemism isn’t the lowest step of religious or cultural evolution Totemism is a rare social fact, related to few, special cases Totemism should be considered different from the general logic and aesthetic tendency to classify into categories the physical, biological and social entities Evolutionists vs. Historians Both evolutionism and diffusionism have a great deal in common: both approaches differs from the historian’s methods Historians studies individual problems: persons, events, groups, phenomena precisely located in space and time Evolutionist: breaks the individual problems in species, categories, stages: all the “steps” (animism) are product of abstractions that lack the corroboration of empirical evidence The evolutionist studies are superficial: they not teach us about the conscious and unconscious processes in concrete individual or collective experiences Who’s who? Franz Boas (1858-1942): relativism Boas: Geographer/anthropologist/ethnographer History of native peoples as reconstruction (American Anthropologist n. XXXVIII) To be legitimate, the anthropological researches should be restricted to a small region with clearly defined boundaries, and comparison should not be extended beyond the area of studies Similar customs or institutions cannot be always held as a proof of contacts Limited distribution in time and space is useful for a deepest research Originality of each social system Versus universal laws of human development (Tylor) Lévi-Strauss: Taken to an extreme, Boas’ position would lead to historical agnosticism But Boas’ position could also include history Franz Boas (1858-1942): problems Boas: It’s important not only how things are, but how they are come to be Relation between the objective world and man’s subjective world (semiotics) as it had been taken in different cultures (anthropology) Lévi-Strauss: The follower of Boas has often forgotten history or written micro histories of one Native American people Risks of a too rigorous ethnology that is nothing more than basic ethnography Synchronic more relevant than diachronic Who’s who? Who’s who’s result Franz Boas posing for figure in US Natural History Museum exhibit entitled "Hamats'a coming out of secret room" (1895 or before). Malinowski (functionalism) vs. Boas Bronisław Kasper Malinowski (1884-1942): complete different attitude to the field work Disdains study of any source material or regional bibliography before going to the field Wonderful intuition Herodotage: curiosity for primitive eccentricities of man In search of eternal truths about the function of social institutions The functions are often too biological Lévi-Strauss: The critics of Lévi-Strauss about Malinovski are somewhat similar to the Barthes’ ones about fake ethnographical films: exoticism and “natural” mythology Who’s who? Who’s who? Lévi-Strauss on history Only the study of historical development permits the weighting and evaluation of the interrelationship among the components of the present-day society Even a little history in anthropology is better than no history at all To understand modern habits it’s necessary to known their cultural history: The modern French apéritif should be connected with the values of spiced wines in the Middle age Analyzing the Italian wine-cult (ure) should be considered the values of wine in Ancient Greece (wine as blood of Dionysus) and Christian faith (wine as blood of Jesus) The relevance of beer in Nordic society should be connected with Viking or Finno-Ugrian cultic elements We should compare modern dress with previous taste to understand the changes and continuity in fashion Lévi-Strauss and the drinks’ long history … Lévi-Strauss vs. functionalism Say that a society functions is truism; but to say that everything in a society functions is an absurdity (Structural anthropology; p. 13) Cultural institution haven’t only a primal, biological function (nutrition, defense, comfort, mating and propagation), but also a secondary, symbolic one Certain characteristic are obviously universal (gardening): but the anthropologist should be able to understand the different meanings of gardening in different societies (Ancient Rome, Renaissance, English gardens, American gardens) For Malinowski the anthropologist have no need to study the complicate symbolism of marriage, because marriage is only a public expression that two people enter in “a state of marriage” … so the deep meaning of marriage is … marriage! Why is necessary to travel to Melanesia, if all is so easy? Anthro-truism Lévi-Strauss vs. functionalism 2 For Lévi-Strauss is not so relevant the universality of the function, but the fact that customs are so varied the empirical observation of a single society will not make possible to understand universal motivation The Trobrianders’ complex ideas about the values of each sex are simplified by Malinowski in this way: “for the continuation and very existence of family, woman as well man is indispensable; therefore both sexes are regarded by the native of equal value and importance” First statement: truism Second: false, the Trobrianders hold male superiority Lévi-Strauss vs. Margaret Mead Margaret Mead classified North American Indian tribes as competitive, cooperative, individualistic Lévi-Strauss It seems a taxonomy of old zoologists grouping animals as solitary, gregarious or social Barthes has done the same critics to the Blue Guide’s writers taxonomy of Spanish types Anthropology and History: similarities Same subject: social life Same goal: understanding of man Same methods: collection of sources and comparison Both are concerned with societies that differs from the researchers’ one: remoteness of time or cultural heterogeneity Same goal: the exact reconstruction of what happened requires skills, precision, sympathetic approach The historian avoids mistakes comparing as much sources as possible The anthropologist avoid mistakes comparing as much ethnographical texts as possible, from a certain number of different regions. Some groups are studied from different point of views and generation The historian could also use ethnographical writings as sources Anthropology and History: differences Lévi-Strauss: History organize its data in relation to conscious expressions of social life Anthropology proceeds by examining the unconscious foundations of social life Definition of Culture by Tylor Culture: Complex whole wich include knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society Unconscious elements of ethnic cultures Lévi-Strauss: Few social groups are able to offer a rational explanation for any cultural custom and institution When the natives are questioned, they answer: The things have always been this way Such was the command of the gods Such was the teaching of ancestors Unconscious elements of European cultures Lévi-Strauss: Few social groups are able to offer a rational explanation for any cultural custom and institution In our European society there are cultural elements that are generally accepted, as: Table manners Social etiquette Religious attitudes This customs are generally accepted by everyone, although their real origin and function are not often critically examined The Europeans think according to habit Resistance to departure from customs is due mostly to mental inertia Modern thought Lévi-Strauss admit that the Modern thought has favored that critical examination of custom According to him, this is also a result of the development of anthropology But at the same time he states that even secondary elaborations (modern theories) acquire an unconscious quality rapidly: psychoanalysis was accepted by popular culture with surprizing rapidity Boas, language and unconscious culture According to Lévi-Strauss, Boas was the first anthropologist able to connect properly unconscious, culture and language According to Boas, the structure of a language became unknown until the introduction of a scientific grammar The language is imposing conceptual schemes which are taken as objective categories The linguistic classification never rise to consciousness In ethological phenomena, although the same unconscious origins prevails, these often rise on consciousness (Boas’ opinion, not LéviStrauss) Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) Lévi-Strauss admires the Cours de linguistique générale (1916), which marked the advent of structural lingusitics The structural linguist extract from words the phonemic « reality » of phoneme The anthropologis should fsomething similar to phonems in culture Something that is not immediately evident Phonemes: is the smallest segmental unit of sound employed to form meaningful contrasts between utterances: Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) Saussure-comics Lévi-Strauss In culture there should be an imposing form upon contents It’s necessary to grasp the unconscious structure underling each institutions and custom to obtain a principle of interpretation valid for other institution and other customs By showing institutions in the process of transformation (in history) … it is possible to find out what remains the same … The structure that remains permanent in the historical turmoil, in the succession of events Example: dual societies A structural theme existing and operating in different spatial and temporal context The village is divided in two exogamic groups, they have a relation of both competition and cooperation: Gifts, marriages, reciprocity Village Example: stability in instability New Guinea: Mekeo, Motu and Koita Seligman demonstrated that they have a highly complex organization constantly troubled by various factors: warfare, migrations, religious schism: some clans are destroyed and new groups emerged continuously Even if the social units are constantly varying, the formal character of their relationship is maintained Even if there are wars and exterminations, the cycle of reciprocal gifts exchange and marriages logic is restored as soon as possible with new groups and new partners The identical social structure is not perceived easily, it must be isolated by constant observation through the years Lévi-Strauss’ citation of Marx “Men make their own history, but they don’t know that they are making it” Marxadamus spoke again The ghost of Marx and Obama Accumulate and eliminate Anthropology couldn’t be indifferent to history and conscious expression of social phenomena But the anthropologist should eliminate, by a backward course, the conscious elements (wars, instability) to find out the complete range of unconscious one (fixed social rules, restored after the chaos) The unconscious possibilities are not unlimited After the collection of an enormous amount of complex elements, the anthropologist should be able to simplify (bricolage) History and unconsciuos The unconscious element are useful also for historians, as they are not satisfied any more with chronology of dynasties, political history Economical history is the history of unconscious elaborations Thus any historical book should be saturated with anthropology Lucien Febre in Le Probléme de l’incroyance au XVI siècle refers to psychological attitudes and logical structures Same journey The historian and the anthropologist travel together ”on the road toward the understanding of man” But under “a different light” Historian: transition from the implicit to the explicit Anthropologist: from the particular to the universal Same direction, different orientation: the historian is fixed on the concrete, the anthropologist goes forward “more and more into the unconscious” the difference is in the organization of the data Anthropology as Heart of Darkness Sigmund Freud and in the uncanny world of unconscious Written / Unwritten Anthropology isn’t only the science of people “without” writing Anthropology is also concerned with populations which possess writing: Ancient Mexico, Arab world, Far East It in many cultures (Zulu) exist a strong tradition of oral history Lévi-Strauss hoped for a deep collaboration between the two discipline This “hope” is actually realized in many recent studies on oral history (memorials of war, for example) After a lecture about Lévi-Strauss, the student is ready for his unconscious travel