* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Moro-Myers-Lehman Text Supplement
Survey
Document related concepts
Tribe (Internet) wikipedia , lookup
American anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Structuralism wikipedia , lookup
Inclusive fitness in humans wikipedia , lookup
Intercultural competence wikipedia , lookup
Political economy in anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Cross-cultural differences in decision-making wikipedia , lookup
Incest taboo wikipedia , lookup
Social anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship wikipedia , lookup
Cultural anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Ethnoscience wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Lehmann-Moro-Myers Text Supplement Garrett Stephenson Ch. 2 Myth, Symbolism, and Taboo Learning Objectives To understand the importance of myth, symbolism, and taboo in the study of comparative religion. To learn different ways of defining and studying myth with cross-cultural perspective. To understand different anthropological approaches to myth and symbolism, particularly those of functionalism and structuralism. To gain an appreciation for the significance and function of taboo. To understand the integration of myth and symbol in religious practice. Section Summary Myths are sacred and true cultural narratives. They allow people to explain their origins and worldview, and act as social charters. Myths and religions depend on symbols and symbolic behavior. It is the task of the anthropologist to interpret the meaning of such symbols and myths, and to discern the sociocultural structure from which they are derived, as well as the function of such myths. No single analytical approach can result in a definitive account of myth; rather, multiple analyses are necessary. Myth is often an allegory for the present-day social structure. Structuralism seeks to identify the underlying patterns of all human thought, particular in respect to “binary oppositions.” The anthropological analysis of symbols can explain the problem of disjunction, “a gap between the overt superficial statement of action and its underlying meaning.” A taboo is a restriction or prohibition, which to an outsider has little or no meaning. However, under the surface, taboos are essential building blocks of social systems. Religions, such as experiential Protestantism, are dependent upon myth and symbolism, though these are sometimes expressed in alternative ways, such as in the practice of snake handling. Reading 7: Scott Leonard and Michael McClure, “The Study of Mythology,” 2004. Myths are narratives that help us understand fundamental human questions regarding our origins, identity, values, and behavioral conventions. The meaning of myth has always been contested, and to this day we are still without a single, all-encompassing explanation of myth. Early anthropologists, such as Frazer and Tylor, saw myth as “primitive science.” Malinowski revised the anthropological view of myth, placing it into its functional conception as a cultural charter and socializing agent. IM-2 | 1 Psychologists Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung saw myths as the conscious expression of ubiquitous, unconscious psychological phenomena. Joseph Campbell suggested that human narrative is based upon a “monomyth” of individual heroic adventure and self-discovery. Lévi-Strauss and other structuralists attempted to discern the essential and omnipresent framework of human myth, eventually postulating that myths are mediators between two binary oppositions. Mircea Eliade conceived of myth as a vehicle by which people can periodically return to their sacred origins; he also conceived of several polemics similar to Levi-Strauss’s binary oppositions. Scott and McClure consider all of these approaches as lacking in two areas: they ignore the fact that myths are “stories,” and that the psychological, literary, and structural/functional analyses are ahistorical, often ignoring the context in which the myth was conceived. Newer literary approaches to myth are desirable because they emphasize the historical evolution and sociocultural context of myth. No single analytical approach can result in a definitive account of myth; rather, multiple analyses are necessary. Discussion Questions 1. What can be learned about a society by studying its mythical narratives? 2. If you were to analyze a myth, which theoretical tools (of those that are explained in this reading) would you utilize and why? Which would you ignore? 3. Do you agree that “personal connections” of the scholar to the myth are pertinent, as suggested by Leonard and McClure? How can the emotional impact of a myth factor into a rigorous analytical framework? Reading 8: John Beattie, “Nyoro Myth,” 1960. Beattie suggests that myth is an explanation of the behavior and practices of present-day society. As a functional analysis, this article shows how this particular myth underpins Nyoro hierarchy and social structure by underscoring the legitimacy of Nyoro descentbased leadership. Myth is an allegory for present-day social structure. The Nyoro favor inheritance of wealth and authority by the youngest son, a custom which is validated by the story of the “first family.” The Nyoro “cautionary tale” suggests that while power must be invested in the young, the wisdom of the old must also be respected. Nyoro myths explain the origins of the ruling families and connect them to important mythical progenitors, thus investing them with ancestral authority. Myth has a very important social function, in this case the setting off of Nyoro leaders by explaining their credentials for governing. IM-2 | 2 Discussion Questions: 4. How does this myth validate Nyoro social structures? 5. Beattie draws directly from Malinowskian functionalism by emphasizing the very real way that myths explain social structures. Is this analysis compelling? Are there other analytical perspectives that could apply to this myth? 6. Are there myths from your culture that have functional implications? If there are, try analyzing them according to Beattie’s framework. 7. Can you think of any myths which cannot be explained according to a functional analysis? Reading 9: Claude Levi-Strauss, “Harelips and Twins: the Splitting of a Myth,” 1979. Levi-Strauss founded a method of analysis known as structuralism, which seeks to identify the underlying patterns of all human thought, particularly in respect to “binary oppositions.” The present analysis postulates a type of binary opposition that exists between a single benevolent deity and twins, one of which is good and the other bad, mediated by the hare, which represents incipient twins. For many indigenous American societies, twins were thought to have special superhuman powers, particularly the ability to control the weather. Twins, though equal at birth, undergo divergent events that “untwin them,” often meaning that one is “good,” while the other is “bad.” In the same way that twins may be considered superhuman, people born feet-first are also considered somehow heroic, though at times evil. Such generalizations are possible with a meta-analysis such as this one, where many different myths from many difference cultures are compared. Lévi-Strauss believes that the myths of the Americas are similar because the precontact population was sufficiently large to suggest that American societies were in contact with one another, thus making mythical exchange possible. In all American mythology, deities (as the hare, in this case) play the role of intermediary “between the powers above and humanity below.” Discussion Questions: 8. How does the hare in this analysis function as an intermediary? 9. What can this analysis tell us about myths in general? What are some other examples of binary oppositions? IM-2 | 3 10. Do you agree with Levi-Strauss’s use of a meta-analysis rather than an in-depth investigation into one group’s mythology? Can one establish general characteristics of myth by looking at several different cultures? 11. What is the connection between twins, people with harelips, and people born feetfirst? Do you find this argument convincing? Reading 10: Raymond Firth: “An Anthropologist’s Reflections on Symbolic Usage,” 1973. Anthropologists are especially equipped to ascertain the meaning and importance of symbols for the culture which generates them, and to use the knowledge to further explain the human condition. Specifically, the anthropological approach can explain the problem of disjunction, “a gap between the overt superficial statement of action and its underlying meaning.” An anthropological approach must provide systematic description and comprehensive analysis of symbols or symbolic acts. The anthropological study of symbols has its roots in the very beginning of the discipline, but did not reach its fever-pitch until the mid-late twentieth century. Anthropologists must try to relate their interpretations of symbolic language and behavior to other social values and cultural phenomena with which they are familiar. One should attempt to analyze not only political and religious symbols, but also everyday symbols and symbolic behavior. Researchers must account for both private and public aspects of symbolic behavior, as well as the relationships between public/private and social/personal symbols. Anthropologist must survey symbolic analyses by specialists of other disciplines to construct a more thorough and rigorous account. Discussion Questions: 12. How can you relate your knowledge of symbols from your own culture to those of others in order to better understand them? 13. What attributes of cultural anthropology make it especially well suited to studying symbols? 14. Do you believe that most behavior has a symbolic element? How is non-political or non-religious behavior symbolic? What kind of “everyday” symbolic behavior can you discern in your culture? IM-2 | 4 Reading 11: Mary Douglas, “Taboo,” 1979. A taboo is a restriction or prohibition, which to an outsider has little or no meaning. Beneath the surface, however, taboos are essential building blocks of social systems. Douglas suggests that without taboos, every thought and action would be subject to personal appraisal and re-appraisal, thus slowing our though processes and making interaction far more difficult. Taboos are the result of a particular and often different worldview: the difference comes from the way a culture categorizes its knowledge. Within the political realm, taboos are important expressions of power and authority. Because taboos depend on classifications of social and cultural relationships, as those classifications change, so do taboos. As more and more people subscribe to particular classifications, whole social structures are built up behind them, thus strengthening the taboo. Taboos also strengthen the classification systems and social structures they are based on by suppressing challenges to these systems. Because taboos are often built upon social distinctions, when such distinctions are weakened, so too are the taboos. Taboos essentially convert basic classifications into psychological reflexes, thus greasing the wheels of thought, action, and social interaction. At the same time, taboos are barriers, inhibiting the person from conceiving of reality differently from those around him. Taboos are not arbitrary; they are expressions of the social structure. Discussion Questions 15. Discuss the relationship between categories, social systems, and taboos. How does each inform the other? 16. How do taboos perpetuate the existing social order? 17. Do you agree with Douglas’s assertion that taboos are necessary in order to pass on knowledge and to regularize behavior? Could a world without taboos be viable? 18. Since their meanings are often obscured to an outsider and unrecognizable to an insider, what sort of research would be necessary to achieve an in-depth analysis of a system of taboos? IM-2 | 5 Reading 12: Mary Lee Daugherty, “Serpent-Handling as Sacrament,” 1976. Daugherty contends that the act of handling poisonous snakes reflects “the danger and the harshness of the environment in which most people have lived.” In her analysis, snake handling is similar to any other kind of mainstream sacrament, such as communion. Serpent-handling religions are usually found among groups of people who are especially culturally and economically isolated, who seldom venture far from their communities. Such communities are most commonly found in Appalachia, particularly in West Virginia. Their worship services are generally informal and unstructured, and the teachings of the Bible are passed on orally—though the Bible itself is interpreted literally. Snake handling is an alternative way of celebrating the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The handling of snakes also symbolizes the power over sickness and death as wielded by Jesus Christ, and suggests that such power is omnipresent. When one is bitten and is injured or dies, it is believed that God allowed it to happen in order to reemphasize mortality and the dangerousness of the practice. To handle a snake and risk death signifies a deep commitment to one’s faith and the willingness to sacrifice oneself. Through the handling of snakes as a group experience, worshipers experience a profound sense of community, spiritual power, and equality in the face of adversity and sociopolitical marginalization. Daugherty suggests that the symbol of the serpent is a kind of mediator between several binary oppositions, such as sickness and health, mortality and immortality. 19. In what ways does the handling of snakes reaffirm social bonds and create a period of equality? 20. Would you characterize this analysis as functional, structural, literary, or psychological? What combinations of theoretical interpretations, if any, are present? 21. How is the symbolic act of snake handling a product of the society from which it has developed? Do you agree with Daugherty’s analysis that the social structure accounts for the snake-handling sacrament? 22. How does the mythical story and figure of Jesus Christ underpin the symbolic act of snake handling? IM-2 | 6