Chris,
It's been a good discussion, and one that I hope has been useful to others on the list.
In that spirit, I'll present my own closing remarks.
Levi-Strauss is indeed a brilliant and thoughtful man. I think one of the reasons that he became so popular was that he combined an intellectual and creative (meant in the positive sense) methodology with a system that claimed to address the anthropological longing for a universal theory of humankind. I can certainly understand the appeal of both of those elements.
Still, brilliance is not enough when it comes to theory. Someone must engage with evidence on the ground, seek out counter-examples, and seek proof for universal assertions, if not universally, but at least broadly. Levi-Strauss' dislike of fieldwork is not necessarily a cause for alarm - many anthropologists have done as little fieldwork as he - but he seems curiously disinterested in discovering the context and accuracy of his assertions. He once stated that it didn't matter whether a motif was present in the stories of a culture or in his mind - both were proofs of their universality. Most anthropologists would beg to differ. I think that Levi-Strauss' undoubted intellect and skills as a writer can sometimes conceal at the same time as he seeks to illuminate, which leads to more than the usual level of caution when recommending him.
To concede a point to Chris, I acknowledge that the intellectual climate of the time and the field had an impact on Levi-Strauss' acceptance. I hope I did not give the impression that anthropologists are somehow immune to the same paradigm shifts that other fields experience. Nonetheless, I also know the field of anthropology, and most anthropologists - who are not theorists, and who are often anxious to find any theory to help them define their fieldwork - would be dipping into Levi-Strauss' toolbox much more than they are now if his theories had been verifiable and applicable on the ground. While magic may not be popular in anthropology, largely due to definitional issues that are admittedly troubling, it is nonetheless a useful concept, so it revives time and time again despite opposition. Levi-Strauss' work, while influential, has remained at a low level of usage after the initial flurry around 1970.
I'd hardly suggest that Levi-Strauss should not be read. He has written many seminal articles that are still discussed and quoted in anthropology on topics of great interest in the field of magic. Still, I think that we should approach his corpus in the same context that we might read all thirteen volumes of The Golden Bough - with caution and the acknowledgement that others have considered his thought and found it wanting. They could have been wrong on some points, yet knowing this when encountering him can lead to a more critical and fruitful encounter with his ideas.
Thanks,
Dan Harms
Coordinator of Instruction Librarian
State University of New York - Cortland
Memorial Library B-110
(607) - 753-4042
|