Download - Vesa Matteo Piludu
Introduction to Semiotics of Cultures, 2010
Claude Lévi-StraussStructural Anthropology 1:Chapter I, Anthropology and HistoryPart 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).