DOCSLIB.ORG

The Predicament of Heroic Anthropology Albert Doja

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Predicament of Heroic Anthropology Albert Doja The predicament of heroic anthropology Albert Doja To cite this version: Albert Doja. The predicament of heroic anthropology. Anthropology Today, Wiley, 2006, 22 (3), pp.18-22. 10.1111/j.1467-8322.2006.00439.x. halshs-00405952 HAL Id: halshs-00405952 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00405952 Submitted on 5 Oct 2009 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Published in: "Anthropology Today", vol. 22 (3), 2006, pp. 18–22 DOI:10.1111/j.1467-8322.2006.00439.x The predicament of heroic anthropology ALBERT DOJA Albert Doja completed his doctoral and post- doctoral research at the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris and University of Paris-5, Sorbonne. He has lectured and researched in Albania, France, England and Ireland. His latest book, Naître et grandir chez les Albanais: La construction culturelle de la personne (Paris: Harmattan), was published in 2000. He is Senior Research Fellow at the College of Humanities, University of Limerick, Ireland, and Honorary Research Fellow at the Department of Anthropology, University College London. Fig. 1. The young Lévi- 51 Strauss as fieldworker and 35 adventurer. RAI In the course of establishing structural anthropology as by contemporary anthropologists in their accounts of the an academic discipline in France, Claude Lévi-Strauss forms of resistance to oppression, it can be argued – albeit has been criticized both on the grounds of anti-humanism on the basis of completely different materials – that con- (Sartre 1960, Ricoeur 1969) and of its apparent opposite, trary to the beliefs of the majority of post-structuralist in the form of a humanistic metaphysics (Derrida 1967a, critics, Lévi-Strauss is again, if not at the centre, at least 1967b). These critics claim to reveal the weakness and very close to the current anthropological paradigm – in any alleged contradictions in the work of Lévi-Strauss; he has case much closer than Sartre. been accused variously of failure to subject his material Similarly, a synopsis of Lévi-Strauss’ critique of to analysis, of ethnocentrism, subjectivism, empiricism, Western humanism, which is philosophically expressed in clichéd thinking, archaism, primitivist utopianism, epi- the conception of man as a subject, shows a number of par- genetism, sloppy thinking, nonsense, theology and meta- allels with the principal axes of Heidegger’s criticism of physics – in short, of everything that is at odds with what modernity (Renaut 1992), a favourite theme of the decon- normally stands as Lévi-Straussian analysis. I showed structionists in other respects (Derrida 1987). It is there- elsewhere the critical extent to which Lévi-Strauss’s fore striking to note how Derrida and his supporters, while legacy has been misrepresented to the collective detriment criticizing Lévi-Strauss’ alleged metaphysical humanism, of anthropology and social sciences in general (Doja 2005, failed to grasp the philosophical relevance of his struc- 2006a). Now if we are to understand the modern condition tural arguments on this point. It would have been suffi- at all we need to return to Lévi-Strauss’ critique of history cient for Derrida and his followers simply to borrow from and colonialism, for his writings helped to make possible Heidegger the deconstruction of the history of modernity, modernist ideas of deconstruction, reflexivity, and the both its cultural component, with the advent of humanism, transient nature of culture and identity. and its philosophical aspect, with the advent of philoso- phies of the subject. The rules of the game Derrida’s Grammatology (1967a) represented an impor- It is of course not surprising that we find, in various aspects tant attack on the foundations of the structural approach, and of the new epistemological paradigm of anthropology, the his technique of ‘deconstruction’, the best-known or most echo of Sartre’s reflections on the importance of the inter- infamous of post-modernist strategies, has been widely action between social praxis, human agency and history used to destabilize anthropological and other assumptions in understanding symbolic systems (Delacampagne & about language, writing and meaning. Derrida’s strategy of Traimond 1997). But although some of the configurations critical analysis serves to expose underlying metaphysical described by Sartre 50 years ago are echoed in the very assumptions, in particular those which appear to contra- close attention paid to the details of indigenous discourses dict the surface argument of the text itself. The term has 18 ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY VOL 22 NO 3, JUNE 2006 Fig. 2. Claude Lévi-Strauss’ office in Paris. A T DOJ T ER LB A become synonymous with post-modern theory of various ‘of explicitly and systematically posing the problem of the sorts, but anthropology has been viewed as an arena par- status of a discourse which borrows from a heritage the ticularly appropriate to the post-modernist agenda, espe- resources necessary for the deconstruction of that heritage cially with regard to unpacking of some of its key terms itself’ (ibid.: 414[282]). In his desire to deconstruct meta- and concepts such as ‘otherness’ and ‘culture’. physics, he was constructing a scholastics. Yet the ‘tristes tropes’ of post-modernists have identified Derrida’s critical engagement with Lévi-Strauss should a genuine and widely acknowledged problem in empiricism be seen as a necessary and important intervention in the and historicism, mainly through their dismissive attitude debate which developed around structuralism in the par- toward scientific analysis and the largely uncritical appro- ticular circumstances of 1960s France. Both Derrida and priation of literary criticism (Polier & Roseberry 1989). It Lévi-Strauss, in their own ways, were responsible for a is hardly surprising, therefore, that Derrida’s theories have redefinition of their discipline and for the development of taken hold especially in North American departments of a new ‘paradigm’. Whereas in anthropology Lévi-Strauss literature (Haverkamp 1995), while Lévi-Strauss’ contri- applied the structural method to the study of social facts, bution goes unrecognized, particularly in contemporary Derrida undertook a radical criticism aiming at the ‘decon- North American anthropology. struction’ of Western philosophical tradition. No wonder, then, that Lévi-Strauss’ contribution to However, if Lévi-Strauss’ text is for Derrida symptomatic the deconstructionist paradigm itself, notably in rela- of a specific history of Western metaphysical thought, the tion to the wider projects engaged in The savage mind urgency of his critique stems from the hegemony of struc- and Totemism, is ignored and largely overshadowed by tural discourse, which, he maintains, overstates its claim explicitly literary and philosophical debates (e.g. Lyotard ‘precipitately to have gone beyond’ the oppositions of the 1979). The post-modern critique, rather than building on old metaphysics (Derrida 1967a: 148[99]). Indeed, beyond it, at best neglected and at worst failed to understand, and the question of structuralism and the accusation that it is therefore rejected, Lévi-Strauss’ claim that ‘the ultimate ‘caught, by an entire layer, sometimes the most fecund, of goal of the human sciences is not to constitute, but to dis- its stratification within the metaphysics of logocentrism’, solve man’ (1962: 326[247]). Above all, the ‘rationality’ Derrida’s intervention can be seen as the clear reaction argument is rarely invoked, despite the fact that it could of philosophy to the challenge of structuralism and the lay strong claim to having mapped the philosophical human sciences. It is primarily about a philosophy which parameters of an increasing preoccupation with issues of is getting the measure of the new anthropology in full flow. contextualization and reflexivity within anthropology, in In this sense Lévi-Strauss was representative of what was the face of the declining coherence of meta-narrative and becoming a threat, to the extent of establishing a new arena grand theory. of intellectual power in the French academy. Apart from his radical questioning of the history of A gamble of rhetoric philosophy and the sciences, Derrida sought to distance Derrida engaged in a very tight game with Lévi-Strauss’ himself from the ‘controversy’ between Sartre and Lévi- work. But using structural anthropology for the purpose of Strauss, revealing the extent to which the debate between deconstruction meant that the instruments of this decon- anthropology and existentialism seemed obsolete and out- struction largely themselves resulted, as Derrida had to dated, a minor skirmish over a boundary which had already recognize, from the structural ‘adventure’ itself, whether shifted. Whereas Sartre’s criticism of structuralism, its it was ‘the sign of an epoch, the fashion of a season or the neglect of concrete relations and its reduction of human symptom of a crisis’ (Derrida 1967b: 9[3]). After all, to use agency and historical process, remained squarely within a against an entire movement of thought a critical logic which certain humanistic philosophical tradition, Derrida could is incontestably at the basis of that movement is somewhat be said to have engaged structuralism on its own ground, problematic. Derrida obsessively pursued his programme at the level of its discourse and its concepts. ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY VOL 22 NO 3, JUNE 2006 1 It is clear that what Derrida was charging the new dis- is never absolutely present outside a system of differences’ cipline of anthropology with, as it was presented by and (ibid.: 411 [280]). represented in the person of Lévi-Strauss, was a lack of Derrida himself located his own work in the perspective discipline at the conceptual level.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Introduction Part I Deleuze and Systematic Philosophy
    Notes Introduction 1. Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, and Helen R. Lane (New York: Viking, 1977), p. 240. 2. Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. Brian Massumi. (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1987), p. 3. 3. Gilles Deleuze, Negotiations, trans. Martin Joughin. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), pp. 88–89. 4. Gilles Deleuze, Empiricism and Subjectivity: An Essay on Hume’s Theory of Human Nature, trans. Constantine Boundas (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), p. 107. 5. Ibid., p. 106. 6. Henri Bergson, The Creative Mind, trans. Mabelle L. Andison (New York: Philosophical Library, 1946), pp. 21–28. 7. Gilles Deleuze, Difference and Repetition, trans. Paul Patton (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), p. 8. Part I Deleuze and Systematic Philosophy 1. Gilles Deleuze, Negotiations (1972–1990), trans. Martin Joughin (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), p. 31. 2. Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia, trans. Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987), p. 18. 3. Gilles Deleuze, Difference and Repetition, trans. Paul Patton (New York: Columbia University Press), pp. 170–6. 4. Gilles Deleuze, Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza, trans. Martin Joughin (New York: Zone Books, 1992). This logic of expression is developed in chapters 1–2 and 6–8. 5. Spinoza brings together the notion of substance and expression in Part 1 of the Ethics: definitions 4 and 6, Proposition 10, and the Scholium following Proposition 10. The treatment of modifications and individuals first appears in Part 2, Proposition 7 along with its Corollary and Scholium.
    [Show full text]
  • The Quiet Revolution: the Transformation and Reintegration of the Humanities
    THE QUIET REVOLUTION: THE TRANSFORMATION AND REINTEGRATION OF THE HUMANITIES "O Where are you going said the reader to rider" W.H. Auden Beth A. Casey Bowling Green State University ABSTRACT A transformation has occurred in the humanities during the past four decades which has permitted the humanistic disciplines to reintegrate with each other and with the social sciences. The gradual absorption of Saussurean linguistics has brought about a profound change in our understanding of the relationship between language and the world. This, in turn, has resulted in an age of theory and in the production of metalanguages which reinforce the connective power of the humanistic disciplines. Linguistic models have replaced models borrowed from the natural sciences in partial recognition of the fact that culture is discursively constructed and rooted in specifically historical situations. Imagery, theory, method, and style are borrowed from humanistic disciplines to aid the social sciences as the natural sciences provide fewer relevant models. We are moving toward a new philology or the study of culture as text. ★ Raymond Williams argues that we are passing through a long revolution which began toward the end of the eighteenth century and which is transforming humankind and its institutions.¹ This revolution he divides into three concurrent ones: a democratic revolution which is making it increasingly clear on a global basis that people must and will govern themselves; a cultural revolution which is extending the skills of literacy and advanced communication to all people; and an industrial revolution utilizing scientific and technological developments. The separated disciplines of politics, economics, art, and communications prevent our correlating cultural discoveries; thus, the transformation, Williams notes, is difficult for us to understand and describe.
    [Show full text]
  • Claude Lévi-Strauss at His Centennial: Toward a Future Anthropology Albert Doja
    Claude Lévi-Strauss at his Centennial: toward a future anthropology Albert Doja To cite this version: Albert Doja. Claude Lévi-Strauss at his Centennial: toward a future anthropology. Theory, Culture and Society, SAGE Publications, 2008, 25 (7-8), pp.321-340. 10.1177/0263276408097810. halshs- 00405936 HAL Id: halshs-00405936 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00405936 Submitted on 5 Oct 2009 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. 321-340 097810 Doja (D) 1/12/08 11:52 Page 321 Published in: "Theory, Culture & Society", vol. 25 (7-8), 2008, pp. 321–340 Claude Lévi-Strauss at His Centennial Toward a Future Anthropology Albert Doja Abstract Lévi-Strauss’s centennial is an opportunity to show his inextricable connec- tions with the evolution of 20th-century thought and what these promise for 21st-century anthropology. He has mapped the philosophical parameters for a renewed ethnography which opens innovative approaches to history, agency, culture and society. The anthropological understanding of history, for instance, is enriched by methodical application of his mytho-logical analysis, in particular his claim that myths are ‘machines for the suppression of time’.
    [Show full text]
  • Savage Mind to Savage Machine
    Savage Mind to Savage Machine: Techniques and Disciplines of Creativity, c. 1880-1985 Ginger Nolan Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy under the Executive Committee of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 2015 ©2015 Ginger Nolan All rights reserved ABSTRACT Savage Mind to Savage Machine: Techniques and Disciplines of Creativity, c. 1880-1985 Ginger Nolan This dissertation explores how the imagined semiotic mode of the unconscious, illiterate “savage” was instrumental to twentieth-century technologies of production in two respects: firstly, in the context of a global division of labor, as a way to disqualify certain groups’ intellectual products from the category of intellectual property; and, secondly, in disciplines of aesthetic production, as an imaginary model on which to base new technologies of design and communication. In my dissertation, Savage Mind to Savage Machine: Techniques and Disciplines of Creativity (1870-1985), I argue that class inequalities under capitalism have been linked to the ongoing formulation of two distinct—albeit tacit—categories of epistemic subjectivity: one whose creative intellectual processes are believed to constitute personal property, and one whose creative intellectual processes—because these are deemed rote or unconscious—are not regarded as the property of those who wield them. This epistemic apartheid exists despite the fact that the unconscious psyche or, as I call it, the “Savage Mind,” was, at the same time, repeatedly invoked by modernist designers in their efforts to formulate creative technologies, ones that tended increasingly towards digital modes of production. The history I examine in the dissertation reveals how modernist design has implicitly constituted itself as the process through which unconscious, magical creativity becomes consciously systematized and reified as technological, scientific forms of production.
    [Show full text]
  • A Discrete-Event Simulation of Claude Lévi-Strauss' Structural Analysis Of
    S S symmetry Article A Discrete-Event Simulation of Claude Lévi-Strauss’ Structural Analysis of Myths Based on Symmetry and Double Twist Transformations Jean-Francois Santucci 1,*,†, Albert Doja 2,† and Laurent Capocchi 1,† 1 University of Corsica, UMR CNRS 6134 SPE, Campus Grimaldi, F-20250 Corte, France; [email protected] 2 University of Lille, CNRS UMR 8019 Clersé, F-59000 Lille, France; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] † These authors contributed equally to this work. Received: 19 August 2020; Accepted: 12 October 2020; Published: 16 October 2020 Abstract: This paper presents a modeling and simulation approach in order to perform a generative analysis of folktales aimed at validating Claude Lévi-Strauss’ theory and method. To this aim, a discrete-event simulation is proposed. The simulation is based on the development of a set of discrete-event models dedicated to generating a set of folktales from an initial one, according to Claude Lévi-Strauss’ structural analysis based on symmetry and double twist transformations. This paper describes in detail how these discrete-event models have been implemented in the framework of the DEVSimPy software environment by using myths of Native American mythology and folktales of Corsican oral literature. The validation involved the following steps: (i) definition of a reference folktale (according to Claude Lévi-Strauss’ methodology) (ii) generation of a set of folktales by performing their own transformations (iii) generation of a graph allowing to analyze the links that have been created after performing a set of folktales transformations. Finally, the computational validation of Lévi-Strauss’s method is intended to ground a new research that may reformulate structural analysis and elaborate a neo-structural model of canonical formalization based on transformational morphodynamics.
    [Show full text]
  • An Answer to the Question: 'What Is Poststructuralism?' Bernard E
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers Working Papers 2007 An Answer to the Question: 'What Is Poststructuralism?' Bernard E. Harcourt Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/ public_law_and_legal_theory Part of the Law Commons Chicago Unbound includes both works in progress and final versions of articles. Please be aware that a more recent version of this article may be available on Chicago Unbound, SSRN or elsewhere. Recommended Citation Bernard E. Harcourt, "An Answer to the Question: 'What Is Poststructuralism?'" (University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper No. 156, 2007). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Working Papers at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHICAGO PUBLIC LAW AND LEGAL THEORY WORKING PAPER NO. 156 AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION: “WHAT IS POSTSTRUCTURALISM” Bernard E. Harcourt THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO March 2007 This paper can be downloaded without charge at the Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/publiclaw/index.html and The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=970348 An Answer to the Question: “What Is Poststructuralism?” Bernard E. Harcourt University of Chicago March 12, 2007 Paper delivered at the Seminar on Law and Political Theory Tel Aviv University December 13, 2006 1 Bernard E. Harcourt 3/12/2007 An Answer to the Question: “What Is Poststructuralism?” Bernard E.
    [Show full text]
  • Development Team
    Paper No. : 10 Theories and methods in social and cultural Anthropology Module : 16 Structuralism: Levi Strauss and Edmund Leach Development Team Principal Investigator Prof. Anup Kumar Kapoor Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Paper Coordinator Prof. Anup Kumar Kapoor Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Vineet Kumar Verma Content Writer Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Prof. Subir Biswas, Department of Anthropology, West Content Reviewer Bengal State University, Barasat, West Bengal 1 Theories and methods in social and cultural Anthropology Anthropology Structuralism: Levi Strauss and Edmund Leach Description of Module Subject Name Anthropology Paper Name 10 Theories and methods in social and cultural Anthropology Module Name/Title Structuralism: Levi Strauss and Edmund Leach Module Id 16 2 Theories and methods in social and cultural Anthropology Anthropology Structuralism: Levi Strauss and Edmund Leach Table of Contents Introduction 1. Historical Context 2. Claude Levi-Strauss ₋ Method of Structuralism ₋ Structuralism in Kinship ₋ Meeting of Myth and Science ₋ Primitive Thinking' and The 'Civilized Mind' 3. Levi-Strauss’s Major Works and Publication ₋ Elementary Structures of Kinship ₋ Totemism ₋ Savage Mind 4. Edmund Leach ₋ Political Systems of Highland Burma ₋ Pul Eliya: A Village in Ceylon 5. Post-Structuralist Summary Learning Objective To introduce history of anthropological thought of Structuralism by tracing its historical development To classify the course of historical development,
    [Show full text]
  • Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences”1 (1970)
    Jacques Derrida, “Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences”1 (1970) Perhaps something has occurred in the history of the concept of structure that could be called an “event,” if this loaded word did not entail a meaning which it is precisely the function of structural—or structurality—thought to reduce or to suspect. But let me use the term “event” anyway, employing it with caution and as if in quotation marks. In this sense, this event will have the exterior form of a rupture and a redoubling. It would be easy enough to show that the concept of structure and even the word “structure” itself are as old as the epistémé—that is to say, as old as western science and western philosophy—and that their roots thrust deep into the soil of ordinary language, into whose deepest recesses the epistémé plunges to gather them together once more, making them part of itself in a metaphorical displacement. Nevertheless, up until the event which I wish to mark out and define, structure-or rather the structurality of structure—although it has always been involved, has always been neutralized or reduced, and this by a process of giving it a center or referring it to a point of presence, a fixed origin. The function of this center was not only to orient; balance, and organize the structure—one cannot in fact conceive of an unorganized structure—but above all to make sure that the organizing principle of the structure would limit what we might call the freeplay of the structure.
    [Show full text]
  • The Advent of Heroic Anthropology in the History of Ideas
    The Advent of Heroic Anthropology in the History of Ideas Albert Doja Introduction It is sometimes claimed that Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski more or less single-handedly created modern anthropology. This may have seemed to be the case at midcentury, when Boasian American anthropology had di- verged out into many specialized strands and Marcel Mauss’s students had not yet made their mark in French anthropology. British kinship studies seemed, in contrast, to rest securely on a method invented by Malinowski and a theory developed by Radcliffe-Brown, as an established ‘‘science of soci- ety.’’ As Eriksen and Nielsen put it, major changes took place in anthropology during the 1950s and 1960s, economics and politics were reconceptualized and new theories of symbolic meaning transformed the discipline.1 Develop- ments in North America and Britain differed, although the problems raised were similar, yet the single most important theorist was French. If already in the first postwar years, Claude Le´vi-Strauss will emerge as an exemplary thinker, the most important figure in the history of anthropology and the ‘‘ecumenical,’’ ‘‘paradigmatic anthropologist’’ of the second half of the twentieth century, this implies a good deal about the intellectual milieu of our time and of anthropology in particular.2 In the 1950s and 1960s, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is Le´vi-Strauss’s astute promotion 1 Thomas H. Eriksen and Finn S. Nielsen, A History of Anthropology (London: Pluto Press, 2001), 95. 2 Stanley Diamond, ‘‘The Inauthenticity of Anthropology: The Myth of Structuralism,’’ in In Search of the Primitive: A Critique of Civilization (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 1974), 292–331.
    [Show full text]
  • The Advent of Heroic Anthropology in the History of Ideas Albert Doja
    The advent of heroic anthropology in the history of ideas Albert Doja To cite this version: Albert Doja. The advent of heroic anthropology in the history of ideas. Journal of the History of Ideas, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2005, 66 (4), pp.633-650. 10.1353/jhi.2005.0054. halshs-00405957 HAL Id: halshs-00405957 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00405957 Submitted on 8 Sep 2009 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. The Advent of Heroic Anthropology in the History of Ideas Albert Doja Introduction It is sometimes claimed that Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski more or less single-handedly created modern anthropology. This may have seemed to be the case at midcentury, when Boasian American anthropology had di- verged out into many specialized strands and Marcel Mauss’s students had not yet made their mark in French anthropology. British kinship studies seemed, in contrast, to rest securely on a method invented by Malinowski and a theory developed by Radcliffe-Brown, as an established ‘‘science of soci- ety.’’ As Eriksen and Nielsen put it, major changes took place in anthropology during the 1950s and 1960s, economics and politics were reconceptualized and new theories of symbolic meaning transformed the discipline.1 Develop- ments in North America and Britain differed, although the problems raised were similar, yet the single most important theorist was French.
    [Show full text]
  • Claude Lévi-Strauss
    CLAUDE LÉVI-STRAUSS Claude Lévi-Strauss 28 November 1908 – 30 October 2009 Elected Corresponding Fellow of the British Academy 1966* by JAMES J. FOX Claude Lévi-Strauss was a major figure in anthropology. In 1959 he was appointed to the Chair of Social Anthropology at the Collège de France, a position he held, with considerable intellectual flourish, for twenty-three years. In a lifetime of over a cen- tury, he remained productive into his nineties, propounding a form of analysis that became popularly known as ‘structuralism’. His publications included major works on the foundations of kinship, on systems of complex social classification and on the logic of myth. Elected to the Académie française, Lévi-Strauss eventually became Dean of the French Academy. * Biographical Memoirs are not commissioned for Corresponding Fellows of the British Academy, but it was thought appropriate to mark the tenth anniversary of the death of Claude Lévi-Strauss in this way. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the British Academy, XVIII, 289–304 Posted 31 October 2019. © British Academy 2019. CLAUDE LÉVI-STRAUSS When Claude Lévi-Strauss was elected to the British Academy in July 1966 he was recognised and acclaimed as the leading anthropologist in France. His reputation was based on a global recognition that extended well beyond anthropology. Born on 28 November 1908, he lived to be over 100 and continued writing well into his nineties. He was enormously prolific, writing some sixteen books and numerous papers that were, even by French standards, remarkably varied. He was a public figure who was frequently interviewed for his engaging opinions on diverse subjects and his academic career was indeed stellar.
    [Show full text]
  • Claude Levi-Strauss and Structuralism
    For Calvin & Hobbes fans Structuralism ANTH 348 : Ideas of Culture Claude Levi-Strauss (1908 - 2009) Totemism , 1963* Structural Anthropology , Volume I, 1963 The Savage Mind , 1966 The Elementary Structures of Kinship , 1969 The Raw and The Cooked , 1969 From Honey to Ashes , 1973 Tristes Tropiques , 1974 Structural Anthropology , Volume II, 1976 *All refer to English translations of original publications in French. Claude Levi-Strauss Levi-Strauss on video Educated at La Sorbonne & University of Paris. Claude Levi-Strauss Traveled to Sao Paulo, Brazil in 1934 to teach. Claude Levi-Strauss: Return to the Amazon Did fieldwork in Brazilian Anthropologist Claude Levi-Stauss dies interior with several Indian groups: Bororo, Tupi, aged 100 . Nambikwara. ANALYSIS: “Lévi-Strauss' work was the Although limited, this fieldwork altered his view pinnacle of structuralism in France”. of “primitive” peoples. Taught in Sao Paulo, New School for Social Research Lévi-Strauss and his wife, Dina, (NY) and the College De in their tent while doing fieldwork in France. Mato Grosso, Brazil. 1 Claude Levi-Strauss Claude Levi-Strauss Not interested in meaning of specific symbols Influenced by writings of Emile Instead looking for Durkheim & Marcel Mauss. patterned way that Also ideas of Prague School of elements relate to one Structural Linguistics , especially, another in overall system. Ferdinand de Saussure and Roman Languages are built up on Jakobson. contrasts between sounds Emphasis on synchronic/descriptive (minimal pairs). study of language rather than the diachronic/historical study. Phonemes are arbitrary Levi-Strauss sought to use linguistics units of sound as a model for other social sciences. Are not meaningful by Like language, culture is a collection themselves & must be of arbitrary symbols .
    [Show full text]