Transcript Lévi-Strauss

Introduction to Semiotics of Cultures, 2010
Claude Lévi-Strauss
Structural Anthropology 1:
Chapter I, Anthropology and History
Part 1
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 Inuit 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).