Vesa Matteo Piludu

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

2. Lévi-Strauss (1908-2009)

3. Lévi-Strauss in Brazil

4. (Claude) Lévi-Strauss hasn’t invented the famous jeans … the founder of the company was Levi (Loeb) Strauss

5. 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

6. 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

7. Chapter I Introduction: History and Anthropology • This chapter is fundamental, it’s a kind of conceptual summa of the whole book

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. The critics of Lévi-Strauss • In the first part of the chapter, Lévi-Strauss criticize fiercely some anti-historical attitudes of cultural anthropologist

12. 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/

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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, phenomenaprecisely 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

17. Who’s who?

18. 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

19. 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

20. Who’s who?

21. 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).