Lets get something over and done with. Claude Levi Strauss was very likely related to Levi Strauss of jeans fame. Levi Strauss is the family name, and many Jews of the time simply used that as the entire name. Claude was actually of Jewish descent, though his family was Christian. So He was fired from his job in France after the German take over of France, not killed. Levi Strauss of Jeans fame was a German Jew who immigrated to the Americas. So yes, they were probably related, but never met.
I disagree with Claude Levi Strauss’ work in how He used it and not on the basic ideas creating his structuralist theories. The understanding of Raven and Coyote is just off beat from how I know those legends. The structure does exist, but it is constantly changing because the people in charge are constantly changing. There is also the realization that a culture has the structure to it but also an underlying other culture that is not following any of those rules.
The structuralist statement by Levi Strauss on culture is that "mythical thought always progresses from the awareness of oppositions toward their resolution[1]."
Then using this he looks for things that contradict each other and then for something that mediates for that subject. Thus Coyote and Raven in his theories mediate between life and death.
The argument against this is that, “"the Trickster names 'raven' and 'coyote' which Lévi-Strauss explains can be arrived at with greater economy on the basis of, let us say, the cleverness of the animals involved, their ubiquity, elusiveness, capacity to make mischief, their undomesticated reflection of certain human traits[2]."
The above theory is much easier to understand for one very good reason. Coyote and Raven are almost always the heroes in their stories, and death or life have very little to do with the stories. In fact, the ones I grew up with had Coyote making stars, or Crow singing songs. There was never a mention of death, because the animals were immortal in these stories.
The trickster is a major and beloved character in stories. He is only hated or thought of differently when dealing with those who want order to things.
To show my reasoning I will use another legendary figure, Robin Hood. There are several legends of Robin Hood, but they follow after two different patterns. The first is that of the trickster common thief who was constantly stealing from the rich and getting away with it. The other is the legend of Robin of Locksley[3] who was a small lord and went on to being a thief to thwart an evil king.
Robin Hood may have actually existed, there are many people who believe this. But for this matter I will say there were several different people that fell under Robin Hood.
The Noble Gentry used Robin as a way to hold themselve above the common peasant. The pious nature and the attitude of a great man. The idea promoted by the yeomen or small land owners was that they were just as noble as those above them. Thus Robin Hood becomes a symbol to them of equality, and a sign to us of a heirarchal system.
The other Robin Hood is known as a rebel. Many men took on the name when in open rebellion against the government. Other criminals used it or had it used against them at different times[4]. Thus Robin Hood was an outlaw and to be hated by the upper class.
These two different ideas built up and around each other to make the legend we know today.
Thus we have a trickster, the man who robs from the rich and gives to the poor. His cunning and skill is beloved by many, and even today people will call a criminal a Robin Hood as a way of praising someone. Yet, among those who must make the rules and keep order to them, a Robin Hood is a very different figure.
Levi Strauss looks at the trickster and seems to apply his own logic within the idea of the heroic/hated figure. The eater of the dead does not work, but the idea that there are several references, two sides on those references, and then a legend built around that idea does follow the French Structuralist ideas.
That may be the big problem within French Structuralism, the ideas are true but the application has major problems. The reasoning behind it may simply be the same as why Robin Hood was viewed as an outlaw and a hero. The people who write the rules demand that everyone follow them. The French Structuralists were writing rules for everyone and thus had ideas that everything must follow their rules.
Culture has ways of sneaking in without any real explanation. Let’s use another trickster to explain what I mean. Anansi is the spider god of West African lore. He is also the basis for the story of Br’er Rabbit and was an inspiration to millions of African Slaves.
While growing up I was told the songs sung by slaves trying to escape were called “Anansi Songs.”
We can find this same cultural undertow within Germanic lore and the modern world. A person only has to look at the days of the week and see that most of them are named after old gods.
Although I do agree that there are patterns of how people react around things, I do not see it as explaining everything like Levi Strauss did. Therefore I will agree with it, but not for the reasons given.
[1]Structural Anthropology, p. 224
[2]Diamond, p.311
[3]For a while new.Familysearch.org said my ancestor was this same Robin Hood. I had to research the subject to find out if this was true.
[4]The histories above give a great deal of context to this story and very little ability for me to just say which page to look up.
No comments:
Post a Comment