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 ( )

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 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

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 ( ): 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 ( ): 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 ( ): 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).