I think this discussion, ironically enough, is becoming mired in the
grounds of binary opposition. One need not choose between extensive
research in Levi-Strauss and not reading him, or between comparative and
"deep" studies of culture.
What I am advocating is an approach that recognizes Levi-Strauss' value
without insisting that the study of magic necessitates a deep study of
his corpus. Despite arguments to the contrary, Levi-Strauss did indeed
publish twenty books, and the entire field of anthropology (myself
included, on a limited scale) grappled with his ideas, as evidenced by
articles throughout the literature. Has he been rejected entirely?
Hardly. Yet even those theorists (such as Sahlins) who take him very
seriously have extracted what they found useful, listened to the
critiques, incorporated them into their work, and continued.
Levi-Strauss has a wide field of influence, but he has no followers in
anthropology today. Few people read MYTHOLOGIQUES, not because it says
nothing relevant, but because others have since said many of the same
things and without the questionable assumptions regarding the role of
history, or the selection of his cross-cultural comparisons, or whether
he picks and chooses what he wants.
As for Levi-Strauss' contempt for fieldwork - in CONVERSATIONS, he says,
"I don't mean this in a disparaging manner, but fieldwork is a kind of
'women's work' (which is probably why women are so successful at it)."
The nuance here might be debatable, but that opening doesn't sound
promising.
Dan Harms
Coordinator of Instruction Librarian
SUNY Cortland Memorial Library
P.O. Box 2000
Cortland NY, 13045
(607) 753-4042
|