I'm Nick Herriman, anthropologist at La Trobe University. "Symbols & Society" introduces how anthropologists think about symbols. Anthropologists have asked: Where do symbols emerge from? How do they work? What do they mean at deeper levels? Attempting to answer these and similar questions, we can also understand ourselves better.
I have to confess, when I was about 14 years old a bloke grabbed a big cockroach and chased me with it. I have to confess I shrieked! I had a pet mouse which I used to hold when I was a boy. But when I was older and living in my student hovel, a mouse ran across the floor near my feet. I jumped up and almost hopped up on a sofa. The same insect in one culture makes people scream in disgust; in another culture it's dinner. A mouse that is caged was fine for me; a mouse that is free to run inside and out made me squeam. Pork is a delicacy in many cultures, but in others it is filthy. Why?
Mary Douglas's "Abominations of Leviticus" argues that filth is culturally specific. Different cultures create unique symbolic orders. These symbolic orders divide up the world into different categories. No symbolic order is perfect; certain objects or things transgress or defy these orders. Such objects are liable to be thought of as disgusting and filthy. Before you get going, you might want to know a little about ruminants and their rumination.
Inside your hotel bathroom you find mold and a little plant sprouting. Do you find this clean or filthy?
Ruminants = cows etc.
Ruminants include cows, goats, sheep, giraffes, & camels. I think of them as animals which chew on grass, vomit it up and eat it again. They also produce milk.
Ruminants have 4 stomach compartments
What distinguishes ruminants is their 4 stomach compartments. The first of these 4 compartments is called the "rumen". This word can help you remember "ruminant"
Rumination
Ruminants chew some grass, swallow it, vomit (regurgitate) it, and then swallow it into another stomach. This process is called "rumination" or "chewing the cud". And now behold! The magnificence and excitement that is rumination:
I know you could probably watch that all day, but, once you have regained your composure, it's time to move on to another fascinating aspect of biology. My feet have a heel, arch, and toes. My cat has paws. A cow, by contrast, has a hoof (foot) which looks like it's made of two bits:
You can call this a "cloven hoof". Confident of this you are ready to move on and read Douglas.
How can we situate Douglas's theory? Anthropologists sometimes call Douglas's approach in "The Abominations of Leviticus" 'soft' structuralism. Why 'soft'.
In one sense she's a structuralist. She argues that filth only makes sense in relation to an entire system of symbols.
But she differs from Levi-Strauss's 'hard' structuralism in that she doesn't make hard-and-fast binaries and strict rules that apply to all cultures. She also describes meanings with more nuance and attention to how local people understand symbols; this makes her closer to the interpretive style of symbolic anthropology.
Further study: The Abject and Filth
Kristeva's idea of the abject (something lying outside the symbolic order) can be usefully combined to Douglas's idea of filth.
Summary
According to Douglas, our systems of ordering or classifying the world seem natural to us. In other cultures, different systems of ordering or classifying the world seem natural to them. This indicates that that the systems of ordering imposed upon the world. And they are imposed differently in different cultures. This has a morose implication; we can never access reality directly, only via culturally specific ways of ordering the world. Evidence of this emerges in the gaps. In all these different cultural systems, there are gaps or left-overs in-between categories. From these gaps, disgusting (and powerful) things emerge! The Section 11 take-home message? What doesn't fit into a culture's symbolic system counts as filth.
Welcome to Section 10. In Section 9 we considered Geertz's idea of culture as a set of symbols. This week, we consider yet another Symbolic Anthropologist who takes an Interpretive Approach; Sherry Ortner.
Identifying Key Symbols
Can one or several symbols can tell you all you need to know about a culture? Sherry Ortner thinks so. According to Ortner, a few key symbols are crucial to understanding any culture. To establish whether a symbol is key, you can:
analyse a cultural system and chose which symbols formulate the underlying elements of the culture (i.e. what you as an anthropologist think is important)
look at what people say is important (i.e. what they say is important)
There is “not one key symbol to every culture; cultures are of course a product of the interplay of many basic orientations, some quite conflicting”.
Key symbols are not 'hidden'; they are 'out there'
Ortner writes that all key symbols will “be expressed somewhere in the public system, because the public symbol system is ultimately the only source from which the natives themselves discover, rediscover, and transform their own culture” (94). This point probably relates to the public vs private debate regarding hair symbolism. I think Ortner's saying that she's not too concerned about what the necklace you inherited from your great aunt means to you. She's concerned with the symbols we [the 'natives' of our culture] share with others in our group or society; like the national flag, the cross etc.
Summarizing and Elaborating Symbols
Ortner distinguishes summarizing from elaborating symbols? What is the difference between the two?
1. Summarizing symbols ('feeling with' symbols)
Summarising symbols are, for example, the cross, and the flag. They sum up, represent in an emotionally powerful. Summarising symbols are those in which we have an emotional investment; Virgin Mary. To identify one I think of summarizing symbols as basically Durkheim's sacred symbols. They are sacred so you don't want to see them desecrated. Because we feel very strongly about these symbols, I think of them as 'feeling with' symbols.
2. Elaborating symbols ('thinking with' symbols)
Elaborating symbols are rarely sacred Elaborating symbols are good to think with e.g. man as a machine; cricket and baseball provide metaphors for life. There are 2 kinds:
a.Root metaphors "provide categories for conceptualizing the
order of the world”
b.Key scenarios "have elaborating power : provide categories
Both provide orientations i.e. cognitive and affective
categories; and “strategies” i.e. programs for orderly social action in relation
to culturally defined goals” (95). We use these symbols more for thinking with than for feeling with, so I think of them as 'feeling with' symbols.
2a. Elaborating symbols: Root metaphors
One kind of
elaborating symbol is root metaphors. They provide categories for
conceptualising experience. COWS provide many categories for the Dinka. The
LIVING ORGANISM, Douglas notes, often provides a category for conceptualising
social phenomena; now machines sometimes provide this metaphor (e.g. CARS: That guy's a always firing on all cilinders, living life in the fast lane"). Root metaphors
also illuminate the life, space, and time as the WHEEL in Indo-Tibetan culture.
Therefore they “sort out experience, to place it in cultural categories, and to
help us think about how it all hangs together”.
In my society, we use COMPUTERS as a model for brain: I can't process what's going when it's noisy; there are too many inputs.
Maybe you could also say we HAIR is a root metaphor: "That was a close shave. Nex time you let you hair down be more careful. Don't get in the way of uptight [?] people. The bullet came within a hair's breadth of your shoulder.
2b. Elaborating symbols: Key scenario
The other kind of elaborating symbol is provides modes of
action. Ortner implies that there are several categories of key scenarios. Every culture, Ortner writes, has its own "vision of success" and what it considers "the best ways of achieving it". These 'best ways to achieve to it' are key scenarios. Her writing on key scenario is tentative and vaguer than her usual clear style, but Ortner seems to outline three kinds of key scenario:
Myths. These include the rags-to-riches story that is part of the American dream. This provides young Americans with a model to live-by. Young Australians are happy to leave uni and get a 'proper' government job. Young Americans are happier going out alone, using their individual and entrepreneurial skills to make it big.
Rituals. Success and the way to achieve it are "dramatized for all to see" in certain rituals. These rituals would include naven, slametan, and potlatch. Key scenarios may also include formal, named events which are enacted according to unarticulated formulae. In Ortner's words:"they formulate the culture's basic means-ends relationships in actable forms". They are "modes of action appropriate to correct and successful living in the culture".
Key cultural strategies. For Minangkabau of Indonesia the model for a successful life is to leave home, make a fortune, return every year for overflowing with gifts for everyone at the end of fasting month, bring honour to oneself and one's family.
So, working through this with my student Jacq, we think that in Australia, possibly the Australian Dream of getting married and owning a house is a key scenario of the key cultural strategy type. Australians tend to freak out about not owning a house (an apartment/condo will not do; that will apparently ruin Australian families!).
Another contemporary Australian example from Jacq relates to an in ideal female key scenario. The idea is that you get out of the home, have a career, prove you are successful outside the home, then you marry and have children, you give up your prestige and career for your children and husband, in fact your prestige transfers to your husband. And that is a model for women to live out. It is expressed as a narrative in a movie called "Kate and Leopold"; the message is you sacrifice your career for your children.
As far as rituals, we could say that the potlatch, a feast with elaborate gift-giving and communion with spirits, shows Kwakiutl people what success is and how to achieve it. To take an example of rituals in contemporary Australia, as my colleagues in Anthropology at La Trobe University point out, "schoolies" a week in which graduating high school students congregate at famous holiday areas, is a correct and successful way of being a teenager. (It also happens to be the liminal phase of the rite-of-passage from high school student to graduate). In America, "Spring Break" is part of being successful college student; and for parents or grandparents hosting a Thanksgiving is part of success.
Summarising vs elaborating symbols
Elaborating symbols are for catalysing thought and action. Summarising symbols are more about emotional commitment. But it's probably useful to think of elaborating and summarising as two ends on a spectrum of symbols. As Ortner stipulates, the distinction between elaborating and summarising is one of function, and either kind could always function differently (e.g. a cross could inspire someone to martyrdom).
In developing theoretical competency, or critical thinking, it is important that you push your understanding past just remembering and recognising theories. You also need to apply and combine theories.
To repeat, in this subject, I'm not looking at 'creative' and 'artistic' use of symbols by poets, novelists, artists etc., nor are Lakoff and Johnson. What they call "everyday metaphors" seems exactly like Ortner's "Root Metaphors". These include:
ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE as a symbol for love: When I first met him I felt attracted to him, but we needed a spark. There is an incredible energy between us, it’s like the atmosphere is charged.
MONEY as time. "Can you spare me five minutes of your time? I've invested so much in our relationship and it's come at a huge emotional cost. I don't know if it's worth me going on."
We don't use HUNGER metaphors in either case. In the USA, we don't say:
"When I first saw him I felt thirsty for him, but we need an appertif. There is an incredible gas cooker between us, it’s like the soup is lemony.
“Can you cook for five minutes of your time? I haven’t eaten much in our relationship and it’s come at a huge emotional hunger. I don’t know if it’s the flavor for me to continue.
But perhaps we use HUNGER metaphors in other scenarios, such as sex: she's got hungry eyes but I don't have the appetite.
Let's now take Lakoff and Johnson and compare their ideas with Ortner. From Ortner's persepective, we could say that:
ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE is an elaborating symbol for love, and,
MONEY is an elaborating symbol for time.
Alternatively, using Turner we could say that
ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE is a positional symbol for love, and,
MONEY is a positional symbol for time.
In summary, it seems to me that:
Lakoff and Johnson in "Metaphors We Live By"'
Ortner on Elaborating Symbols, and
Turner on Positioning Symbols
are talking about the same thing. They are talking about symbols/metaphors that connect with other symbols and signs.
Key Symbols in the Kwakwaka'wakw Cannibal Dance
In his Cultural Anthropology, Robbins applies Ortner's (and Geertz's) ideas to the Cannibal Dance of the Kwakwaka'wakw. I've used his ideas in this blog.
Critical reflections
Note that Ortner’s elaborating symbol seems to develop Turner’s positional symbol idea. Also it seems that Ortner's summarizing symbol is based on Durkheim's sacred symbols. Thus, the beauty of Orther's theory is that it ostensibly brings two formerly disparate theories (of Durhkeim and Turner) together.
Ortner's theory about elaborating symbols also works well with Lakoff and Johnson. Lakoff and Johnson are not anthropologists, they hail from the field of hermeneutics. Unfortunately, as scholars we have a hard enough time keeping with developments in our own disciplines (actually it's difficult enough to keep up with sub-disciplines). I wish Lakoff and Johnson had got together with Ortner; their results might have been magnified.
After reading Lakoff and Johnson, I think that root metaphors probably number in their hundreds in my own culture. So I'd say that Ortner made a more important discovery than she gives herself credit for. She showed a way to link what we might call the idioms of a language to a culture and society. By contrast, I have struggled to apply the idea of key scenario in many instances, possibly because I'm still a little unsure about what this concept means.
Conclusion
In Section 11, we will consider Douglas's idea that systems of symbols are imperfect reflections of reality and out of these imperfections filth and disgust emerge. For now, the take home message: In a symbolic system, some symbols work to organise
the system (elaborating); others work to sum up powerful feelings and crucial ideas (summarizing).
Welcome to Section 9 of Symbols & Society. The title of the reading is "Religion as a Cultural System", but I think it should be "Religion is a Set of Symbols". Geertz tells us that symbols provide a model of how the world and universe are made up. Symbols also provide a model for how to live. What is the difference between models of- and models for-? When do they come together? Why should we care?
The Geertz text we read this week can equally be considered a theory of religion or a theory of symbols. By way of background, if you're interested in seeing the text as a theory of religion, you might want to watch the following:
Now I'll try to summarise the theory in 150 words or less: Humans are born without sufficient survival instincts. We need culture to survive; agriculture; horticulture; fishing; herding and so on. Culture is outside of our heads when we are born; we need to get it in. Culture takes the form of symbols and we get it in through symbols. There are two kinds of symbols 'Models of' show you the way the world is. 'Models for' tell you how to behave in the world. Outside of religion, these are separate. They come together in religious rituals like
Baptism. Model of = baptism of Christ; model for = how to behave now you're born again.
Christmas. Model of = Mary, Joseph & Christ; model for = your family is & should be holy like there's is. The nativity scene is really real, and that is what your family should be like.
This is a photo of an evacuation plan. It tells you what to do in a fire. It is, therefore, a "model for". It is not used in a ritual, therefore, it is not associated with the religious perspective.
Geertz's Perspectives
Religion is a part of culture. So religion is also constructed out of symbols. But religions is characterized by a certain attitude towards the world, which is distinct from other attitudes within a culture. Geertz identifies four attitudes or "perspectives" as he calls them:
Common sense perspective. According to a common sense perspective, you don’t go for a swim in a flooding river, because you might drown. You drink water if you're thirsty. You water plants. This perspective is based on an unquestioning acceptance of reality as it appears to the five senses. Geertz characterises this as a kind of naive realism.
From the current scientific perspective, water is the liquid phase of a bond between an oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms
Scientific perspective. According to the scientific perspective, reality isn’t as it appears. For example, 99% of the H2) molecule, and thus water itself is space. But water doesn’t appear as space.
Renoir's aesthetic perspective of water
Aesthetic perspective. Different aesthetic perspectives can be seen when you compare how Turner, Renoir, or Hokusai paint water. It's how we see the world with 'artistic' eyes.
Hokusai's aesthetic perspective of water.
Religious perspective. According to the religious perspective, reality is merely an illusion. There is another order; you can’t experiment, you can’t see it, but appears as super important; really real. Of course, you can drown in water, but, aside from the obvious depriving the body of oxygen, what is really happening when you drown? For example, if you think of meeting the love of your in such terms as “it was fate”, “it was meant to be”. For example, Jeff Buckley [90s musician] died swimming in the Mississippi. People, even atheists, of my generation say things like "his music lives on", "fate took him" etc.. And maybe that same water is used baptize people so that they can be born again. That's what the water is really about, from a religious perspective. The religious perspective is always about purpose and meaning; it's not necessarily about afterlife, spirits, God etc.
These Baptists can perceive water from common sense, scientific, and aesthetic perspective. To some extent, these are distractions from what is really real; a miraculous power in the water to absolve sins and, through the power of the Holy Spirit, to enable you to be reborn.
Applying Geertz: Australian secular religion
I grew up steeped in contemporary Australian religion of professed atheism. I couldn't understand how anyone could be so naive as to believe in God. As far as I could discern, it was like believing in Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and other make-believe characters that make us feel good. I even got to the point that I was convinced that believing in God was a collective delusion bordering on madness. I wasn't so much scared of a universe without a God; I was scared of a world where many people could indulge in such a fantasy!
When I studied philosophy at Uni, I was shocked to learn that perfectly good arguments pointed to the existence of God. That still wasn't enough. Deep down, I felt the believers were mistaken. That changed after reading Geertz.
Geertz allowed me to see a different perspective that 'religious people' took. They see everyday reality as merely an illusion. They believed that what was really happening lay behind the deceptive surfaces of appearances. Then, as 'religious' began to appear less crazy to me, I began to see myself as religious.
For Australian nationalists, the water around Anzac Cove isn't just any water.
From a really real perspective, it will forever contain the blood of young Australians and their sacrifice for us.
Following that, I had a reflective moment. I came to see my secular, atheist beliefs as deeply religious. I tried to express this latter perception in this brief opinion piece. It applies Geertz's ideas to Australian 'religion'. The piece seems irreverent and disrespectful to me now--I wish I had got the tone better. Because I think the Digger or the Battler is just as worthy of respect as the chishinga (Week 8) or the Virgin of Guadalupe (Week 7).
I think the interviewer thinks I 'beg the question'; I didn't manage to convince him!
Evaluating Geertz
We need to look at critiques of Geertz, for several reasons.
In teaching this subject, and in my thinking more generally, I have been heavily influenced by Geertz. To provide balance I need to give some air to opposing positions.
As Geertz remains the towering figure in the study of symbols within anthropology, the scholars who critique are also among the most influential anthropologists. To read critiques of Geertz is to gain understanding into other profound theoretical positions.
One of the aims of this unit is to develop your ability not just to understand and recognize different theories. Granted this is difficult in itself, but to think like an anthropologist you need to go further. You must be able to situate the theories historically and reflect upon them critically. For these three reasons, we focus on two critiques of Geertz.
Rosaldo's critique
Renato Rosaldo was doing fieldwork with his wife, also an eminent anthropologist, among headhunters in the Philippines. She died. He felt so much rage he could now understand the feeling of headhunters. This understanding enabled him to critique Geertz's theory. Please read the section entitled "How I Found Rage in Grief" in the "Grief and a Headhunter's Rage".
You might also want to listen to my interview with anthropologist, Monika Winarnita, and what she has to say about Rosaldo and Metcalf (who critiqued Rosaldo).
Asad's critique
Asad also famously critiqued Geertz's use of the term "religion" in Asad's "The Construction of Religion as an Anthropological Category". I have summarized Asad's argument in a blog. But, of course, it's much better to read Asad himself.
For Geertz, culture (and religion within it) is a system of symbols. These symbols are models of the universe and models for how to behave. ‘Models of’ and ‘Models for’ appear just like theories until you experience ritual. Ritual is crucial to bringing them together and making them seem uniquely real. The uniquely real (not necessarily the supernatural) is religion. This is why the atheist, sceptic etc is religious in Geertz’s sense; because she will go to family dinners, sports parties (Superbowl, Grand Final, FA Cup, World Series etc.) BBQs, Christmas Lunch, and find that this is really real.
Welcome to Section 8 of Symbols and Society. In Section 7, we considered Wolf's idea that a symbol can mean different things to different groups in a society.This week we turn to another Symbolic Anthropologist, who also takes an interpretive rather than structural approach.
Turner & rites of passage
Turner is well-known for his analysis of rites of passage. I've presented on rites of passage here:
This week I turn to a less-known, though equally important, aspect of his work.
Explaining, Using, & Positioning
In this section, we Turner’s analysis of the forked stick. Here are my notes on Turner. Turner shows how a symbol can create profound meanings, can form social bonds, and can help organise and order other symbols within a culture.
In this presentation I outline Turner's idea that we explain symbols; we put them to use in rituals; and we see the world through them:
Ndembu men are called by hungry spirits to join hunting clans. A man so afflicted, hunts animals to appease the spirit. When the man is successful in the hunt, he hangs some of the meat on a monument/shrine made out of a stick with a fork at its end. This shrine is called a "chishing'a" in Ndembu. The stick is driven into the soil so it stands upright. The hungry spirit can now eat the meat it craved. But this fork is much more than just an object to feed spirits. This forked stick symbolizes the slaughterous power of the hunting clans. (As I mentioned in the Introduction to this course, we can compare the symbolism to the violent potential of 'thugs' in gangsta rap.)
Exegesis
When Turner asked Ndembu hunters what the word "chishinga" means, the answer he gives is that the word "chishing'a" is closely related to the word "curse". And this is because hunters are cursed. Their friends and family will be jealous of their success. and jealousy). Similarly if an anthropologist asked a Crip in South Central Los Angeles in the 1980s what the word "Crip" means, the Crip might explain that it is a political word, meaning "Community Revolution in Progress". Both of these examples are what Turner calls "exegetical meaning" of the symbols.
Operation
When Turner observed how Ndembu actually use the shrine, he noted what was done with the symbol and who did it. As he records, only hunters may cut a chishing'a. They prepare the shrine together (showing the unity of cult). Also the hunter takes his kill first to the shrine. Similarly our anthropologist in 1980s LA, might observed that only Crips have the right to make the "C" sign with their hands and fingers. Also this 'signing' can be part of gang dancing (the "Crip Walk"); tattooing (a Crip might tattoo the hand sign for "C" on his back); graffitti (the hand sign might be spray painted on a wall) etc. Both of these examples (hunters and their Chishing'a as well as Crips and their hand "C" hand sign) are instances of what Turner calls the "operational meaning" of the symbol.
Position
Turner also attended to the way the chishing'a as a symbol related to other symbols in Ndembu culture. He noted that it was situated in relation to major symbols of the landscape; of fertility; and of [masculine] virility. Similarly, my imaginary anthropologist doing fieldwork in 1980s LA might observe that the color blue is related to Crips, but also ties in with the L.A. Dodgers. So Crip members wore Dodgers sports gear and blue 'flags' (bandanas). These were worn hanging out of the pocket and were sacred in the sense that if our imaginary anthropologist pulled on one of these and blew his nose in one, he might find himself beaten or dead. The way these symbols (Chishing'a as well as the color blue) relates to other symbols in the larger constellation of signs is what Turner calls the "positional meaning".
Summary
So Turner saw symbols as being more than things which we attach meaning to. They are also things we talk about and explain (exegesis), that we use in rituals (operation), and that we make sense of the world through (position). These are the exegetical, operational, and positional ways of using symbols.
In Section 9, we return to question of the meaning we attach to symbols, through the theory of Clifford Geertz.
Welcome to Section 7 of Symbols and Society. After considering the classics in the first half of the course, we now begin the second half of the course.
Symbolic Anthropology--Structuralism
The last classic theorist we considered, Levi-Strauss, could be considered as part of an approach in the anthropology of symbols that is usually called "Symbolic Anthropology". "Structural Anthropology" or just "Structuralism" is the generally accepted term for Levi-Strauss's style of Symbolic Anthropology. Along with his followers, Levi-Strauss tried to uncover basic structures of meaning, which we are barely aware of, if at all.
Some people refer to these basic structures, borrowing from the linguist Saussure, as the langue of symbolism. Langue is the underlying structure of language (basically what you could call "grammar" or "syntax"). Similarly symbols are structured in ways we are, at least until Levi-Strauss provides us with a grammar, unaware of.
Symbolic Anthropology--Interpretive Anthropology
Fatimah
We now move into another branch of Symbolic Anthropology as theorized by Wolf, Turner, Geertz, Ortner, and others. "Interpretive Anthropology" or "Interpretative Anthropology" is the generally accepted term for their style of Symbolic Anthropology. These authors deal with meanings we are intensely aware of; they see the symbols as providing powerful insight into other aspects of the culture.
Those who like to borrow the Saussurian terminology refer to this as the parole of symbolism. It's the part of symbols that are out there and visible; not the symbolic structures of symbols that live our heads.
Virgin Mary appears--Marian Apparitions
This week we consider an apparition of Christ. You may be familiar with the phenomenon of people sighting Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. One example of a "Marian Apparition" (as we call these sightings) occurred in 1917 when Mary appeared to 3 shepherd girls in a place called Fatimah in Portugal."Our Lady of the Fatimah" is the name given to that sighting. The "Fatimah" image to the left is a photograph of a statue. The sculptor depicts what he or she thinks Mary looked like when She appeared to the girls. Of course, the sightings of Mary trace further back in history.
Cults of the Virgin
Often after apparitions of the Virgin, cults appear. "Cult" in the anthropological sense refers to an officially recognized branch or specialization with the mainstream of a religion. (The contrasts with "cult" as it is used in the media, to describe allegedly crazed, brainwashed, religious extremists.) So the different Church-approved apparitions of the Virgin each has their own cults. For instance, a group of people who are devoted to Our Lady of Fatimah or the Virgin of Guadalupe. Such people might spend more time worshiping their Virgin than God or Jesus.
Virgin of Guadalupe
This week, we consider Wolf's 1958 analysis of the Virgin of Guadalupe. Who or what is the Virgin of Guadalupe? After the Spanish conquest of Mexico, the Virgin Mary appeared, in 1531, to an Indian convert. Mary appeared on a site, near Guadalupe, where the Aztec Earth Goddess had formerly been worshiped. A church dedicated to the Virgin was then built on the site where this miracle occurred. Mexican people still undertake pilgrimages to this shrine, in the same way, their Aztec ancestors once did. What does this symbol mean to Mexican people?
Image of the Virgin of Guadalupe can be found everywhere!
Wolf writes that "Today, her image adorns house fronts and interiors,
churches and home altars, bull rings and gambling dens, taxis and buses, restaurants and houses of ill repute. She is celebrated in popular song and verse."
Meant different things for 3 groups
Wolf
suggests that there were 3 kinds of families/groups in Mexico. The Virgin meant something different for each:
1. Indian families
Indian families are the Indigenous societies of Mexico; think Aztec, Mixtec, Zapotec, Maya etc. They lead a "closed and static life" in the villages. In practice women and men are relatively equal:
In this kind of
family, the husband is ideally dominant, but in reality labor and
authority are shared equally among both marriage partners. Exploitation
of one sex by the other is atypical; sexual feats do not add to a
person's status in the eyes of others. Physical punishment and
authoritarian treatment of children are rare."
For Indian families the Virgin represents a return to a kind of land of milk and honey:
the image of the Virgin is addressed in passionate terms as a source of warmth and love, and the... beer drunk on ceremonial occasions is identified with her milk... Guadalupe is identified with the mother as a source of early satisfactions, never again experienced after separation from the mother... As such, the Guadalupe embodies a longing to return to the pristine state in which hunger and unsatisfactory social relations are minimized
2. Mexican families: She represents providing life to children and the death of the father
Mexican families are mobile, engaged in national life.
In Mexican families, the acknowledged, legitimate sons facing with authoritative
fathers:
Here, the father's authority is unquestioned on both the real and the ideal plane. Double sex standards prevail, and male sexuality is charged with a desire to exercised domination. Children are ruled with a heavy hand; physical punishment is frequent"
I guess this the kind of father who would have his shirt unbuttoned to reveal gold necklaces and who take pride in 'sexual conquests' of other women. What would the Virgin mean for his family? Wolf suggests:
the Guadalupe symbol is charged with the energy of rebellion against the father. Her image is the embodiment of hope in a victorious outcome of the struggle between generations. [The Virgin symbolizes ] the promise of life. [The Virgin of Guadalupe is identified the] mother...within a context of adult male dominance and sexual assertion...the Guadalupe symbol is charged with the energy of rebellion against the father. Her image is the embodiment of hope in a victorious outcome of the struggle between generations...[There is a] symbolic identification of the Virgin with life; of defeat and death with the crucified Christ.
As with Indian families, the Virgin is associated with the mother and sustenance, but in the Mexican version of the Guadalupe myth, the mother is part of a struggle against the father and the sustenance does not take the specifically passionate form of warmth, love, and milk.
3. Disinherited families
Wolf also suggests that there is another kind of family. These are the families (mestizo etc) of unacknowledged/illegitimate sons. Their fathers are probably, in Wolf's thinking, the macho, women-conquering Mexican men who refuse to acknowledge the children they produce through their sexual affairs. The Disinherited:
"arose in [Mexico] as illegitimate offspring of Spanish fathers and Indian mothers, or through impoverishment, acculturation or loss of status... For such people, there was... no proper place in the social order [and no] rights of citizenship and legal protection. Where Spaniard and Indian stood squarely within the law, [the disinherited] inhabited the interstices and margins of constituted society"
For them, the Virgin of Guadalupe story was about
not merely the guarantee of their assured place in heaven, but the guarantee of their place in society here and now
It was also about driving out the Spanish fathers who abandoned them to their lowly status. The Guadalupe myth was a story
in which the illegitimate sons would possess the country, and the irresponsible Spanish overlords who never acknowledged the social responsibilities of their paternity, would be driven from the land. "
So there you have three different groups and three different interpretations of a single symbol.
Multivocal & Syncretic
Wolf used the word "syncretic" once and didn't use the word
"multivocal" at all in this article. Nevertheless, anthropologists describe the Virgin of Guadalupe in these terms. What do they mean? Syncretic usually refers to the mixing of a world religion (e.g. Catholicism) with local religions (e.g. Aztec religion).
Syncretism
Wolf's analysis is typically associated with syncretism. This presentation introduces the idea.
Multivocalism
Multivocal usually describes a single symbol that can have different meanings to different groups within a given society.
I misunderstood this the first time I came across the concept because I didn't realize what multivocality is not.
What multivocality is not (i)
You may have observed that the 'swastika' can mean different things to, for example, Indian Hindus or Austrian neo-Nazis. Or you might have thought that hair can mean different things in different cultures. These are NOT examples of multivocality. Multivocality occurs within a single group in which different group members understand the symbol differently. When we consider the special topic of hair, "multivocality" does NOT mean that hair symbolizes different things in different cultures.
What multivocality is not (ii)
Similarly, the point of multivocality is NOT that a symbol can mean different things to different individuals. The point is rather that one group in a society (e.g. mestizos or mystical Muslim Javanese) apply a different meaning to a symbol (e.g. the Virgin of Guadalupe or slametan) compared to another group (e.g. Indigenous Americans or orthodox Muslim Javanese).
Combining theories
As discussed in Week 6, at university you are expected to develop skills in critical thinking. This
means more than just understanding, recognizing, and applying theories.
It also implies the ability to combine theories. So whose theory could we combine with Wolf?
One obvious answer is that Wolf's analysis could be tied in with Durkheim. I could draw on and say that worshiping the sacred Virgin of Guadalupe brings the people of Mexico together. Then I could note the different meanings the Virgin has for different classes in Mexican society. Then I could say, that using the idea of multivocality, as it is described by Wolf, we see that the different classes come
together around (Wolf) the same sacred symbol, and this provides unity to
Mexican society (Durkheim). This is not the point Durkheim (obviously) or Wolf explicitly intended to make, but combining their ideas provides new insight.
Discussion: Virgin of Guadalupe
Virgin and a Lowrider
The
Virgin of Guadalupe is still a potent symbol for Mexicans both in
Mexico and in the U.S.A. I've heard people joke that Mexicans believe in
Guadalupe, not Catholicism! That's surely an exaggeration, but it does give some indication of how important She remains.
Discussion: Eric Wolf
Wolf was not a just Symbolic Anthropologist. He is more famous as a Marxist Anthropologist. We could call him 'Marxist' because his research focused on the global development of capitalism and the role non-Europeans played in its growth. Actually, Wolf came to be seen in opposition to Geertz and the other Interpretive Anthropologist from the Symbolic Anthropology school. This is how Ortner describes it:
Inspired mainly by Max Weber, Geertz and his followers were interested in new ways of thinking about culture—about how culture provides people with meaning in their lives, and about how anthropologists can come to understand those meanings. Wolf and company...were inspired mainly by Marx, and were interested in the ways in which people’s lives are shaped less by their culture, and more by the economic and political forces in play, both locally and globally.
Eric Wolf
This 'Marxist' trend in Wolf's work was apparent even before he published the 'Virgin of Guadalupe' in 1958. In 1957, collaborating with Sidney Mintz, Wolf published 'Haciendas and Plantations. This essay attempted to outline two social and economic forms in Latin America.
Subsequently, Ch 1 of Wolf's Europe and the People Without History (1982) remains one of the profound challenges to ideas of Western superiority. I see it as similar to Said's Orientalism (1978), Asad's Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter (1973), and Kahn's "Anthropology and Modernity" (2001). Like these works, Wolf's book argues against the implied idea that Europeans in the modern period were at the forefront of modernity while non-Europeans were only bit-players.
So Wolf came to be associated with Materialism asking questions of brute power; "who controls the guns? who controls the money? who controls the land?" and not questions like "what does the Virgin of Guadalupe mean to these people". You can probably see evidence of both approaches in the Virgin of Guadalupe article though!
Image of Mexican woman (purportedly a witch) with Virgin of Guadalupe pictures on the wall
Summary and Main Points
Before moving on, let's recapitulate. You should be familiar with the concepts "multivocal" and "syncretism", representing the two most important concepts this week. And that's this week's take-home
message. Some symbols mean different things to different groups; they are multivocal. Also, some symbols combine elements of different religious beliefs; they are syncretic.
Welcome to Section 6 of Symbols & Society. In the past five sections, you have learned about the most influential thinkers in the Anthropological study of symbols. Each of these theorists takes a different approach; not one is accepted as right. Most anthropologists would be highly critical, for different reasons, of each theorist.
Thus, the primary goal this week is to revise the theories and develop an ability to evaluate them. That ability to evaluate them could be called "critical thinking". To develop this ability it is crucial that you realize you're not being asked to accept any of the theories. You are being asked to recognize, apply, evaluate, and maybe even create with them.
An even better way to revise would be to read Elms' analysis of the fairy-tale, 'Goldilocks and the Three Bears". The reading
covers the origins and evolution, psychoanalytical, and structuralist
approaches to symbols. It will also help you revise and evaluate the
theories. Finally, Berg reflects upon and weighs up different theories.
This is a skill you will also need to understand the world from an anthropological perspective.
History of Anthropology
You might not have noticed this, but in the first five weeks of this course we have covered the major schools which defined the modern discipline of anthropology from its beginnings (c1870) through till the 1960s.
Origins and Evolution: Frazer, Tylor (1870s-1910s).
Functionalism in sociology (Durkheim 1900s) & anthropology (Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown etc. 1919-1960).
There's more good news. What you have covered so far are some fundamental thinkers in Religious Studies. If you decide to move into this field, you already have a head start. Other classic authors you might analyze include Kant, William James, Peter Berger, and Mircea Eliade. But what you have already covered is quite an achievement in itself. But more important than plotting the history of anthropology and the major theories in Religious Studies, is an ability to evaluate theories (think critically).
Theories are limited
So now you have a variety of anthropological concepts and theories (tools) in mind (kit)! You are developing an anthropological toolkit. What do you do with your theories and concepts? How should you think about your toolkit and put it to use?
In 'hard' science, no-one seriously questions for example Newton's Laws. In anthropology. it's the opposite; no-one seriously and wholeheartedly accepts any theory. We are sometimes called the "yes...but..." discipline. In other words, "Yes, Durkheim was correct in some regards, but..." and then the anthropologist explains why Durkheim was mostly wrong!
Theories are more about different questions
Because of this you could say that different theories are not about providing different answers to the
same questions. Rather theories provide different questions, and answering these different questions provides unique insights. The attitude of the anthropologist is not "hey,
here's a theory that answers all our questions"; but rather "what if we
looked at the world using this theory? What would it tell us..
Evaluating & Using Theories
Another way to approach this is to think of a theory as a kitchen tool, say a knife. At chef school, you are only asked to use knives, sharpen knives; know which knives are more appropriate for different tasks. You're not necessarily going to fall in love with all knives. Same with studying anthropology at uni. You're only being asked to be able to use theories; adjust them to your needs; know which theories are more applicable to explain what you're looking at. You're not being asked to fall in love with the theories.
Maybe this presentation will better explain what I'm getting at:
Welcome to Section 5 of Symbols and Society. In Section 4, we studied Jung's idea that all humans share unconscious archetypes; these take form as symbols and myths. This week we will study Levi-Strauss's idea of structuralism. Levi-Strauss argues that there is an innate structure to human thought processes. This structure involves several basic sets of binary oppositions. Symbols, folktales, kinship, food mores etc. from all around the world incorporate and express these binary oppositions (Elms 1977: 259). Here is the overview of this week:
Structure of harelips & twins stories
A good
introduction to structural analysis can be obtained by reading
Levi-Strauss's "Harelips and Twins" essay. If are time poor, please feel free to use my summary. Levi-Strauss sees that the hare (a kind of rabbit) is common feature in Indigenous American myths. The hare is usually a trickster and has super-powers. Levi-Strauss makes, for the first time, a connection between hares, people with hare-lips and twins. Twins embody contradictions (we could call these binaries) of good and bad, heaven and earth. Twins are actually a single body that divide into two in the womb. Any person with a hairlip was about split in two in the womb but didn't, therefore he/she embodies incredible opposite powers. Similarly any hare is animal that was about to split into but didn't, so any hare also embodies these opposite powers. So Levi-Strauss sees a symbol (the hare in Native Story) and it embodies dual characteristics of the culture. This also enables him to connect the hare with hare-lipped people and twins. This was supposed to be a great insight. It indicates that myths stories and symbols are actually manifestations of similar underlying structures which we are unaware of; these structures are usually organised in opposites (binaries).
Structure of kinship
Now, let's consider a structural analysis of kinship. We will use Levi-Strauss's analysis of the relationship between a nephew and his maternal uncles. Anthropologists call this relationship the avuncular relationship.
First I want you to do my quick introduction to kinship. Get yourself a pen and piece of paper!
If you're having trouble understanding, the following presentation might help:
If you're still unclear, you'll need to read pp 41-51 of Structural Anthropology.
Paradigmatic & Syntagmatic
Hopefully the above examples provide a basic idea about how Levi-Strauss's structuralism works. Now we have to take it another level of complexity by introducing paradigmatic (synchronic, the order of things in a story, meal, ritual, sentence etc.) and syntagmatic (diachronic, the replace-ability, compatibility, or 'swap-ability' of these elements).
For another example of structural analysis, let's turn to Levi-Strauss's analysis of the elements of cuisine.
Consider a BBQ (“barbie” in Australia; "braii" in South Africa). What is consumed
first? Second? Third? Maybe you start with potato chips (crisps); then it's cooked meat and salads; then afterwards you have cake, chocolate, or other sweet foods. This is the diachronic arrangement. (I don't want to confuse, but Levi-Strauss also calls this "paradigmatic relationship")
Now consider what is served together. For example, what goes
with tomato sauce? Sausages. Also meat goes with salad. Cream goes with cake. This is the synchronic arrangement. (Again, I don't want to confuse, but Levi-Strauss also calls this "paradigmatic relationship". If these new terms are confusing just ignore them for the meantime.)
Finally, all these 'elements' (potato chips, meat, salads, cake, chocolate, salad, cream) are called gustemes. (Because, for Levi-Strauss they are like phonemes in a sentence)
These are the basics of Levi-Strauss's analysis of 1950s meals in England and France:
Like language, it seems to me, the cuisine of a society may be analyzed into constituent elements, which in this case we might call “gustemes,” and which may be organized according to certain structures of opposition and correlation. We might then distinguish English cooking from French cooking by means of three oppositions: endogenous / exogenous (that is, national versus exotic ingredients); central/ peripheral (staple food versus its accompaniments) ; marked / not marked (that is, savory or bland). We should then be able to construct a chart, with + and — signs corresponding to the pertinent or nonpertinent character of each opposition in the system under consideration.
In other words, in English cuisine the main dishes of a meal are made from endogenous ingredients, prepared in a relatively bland fashion, and surrounded with more exotic accompaniments, in which all the differential values are strongly marked (for example, tea, fruitcake, orange marmalade, port wine). Conversely, in French cuisine the opposition endogenous / exogenous becomes very weak or disappears, and equally marked gustemes are combined together in a central as well as in a peripheral position.
... French cooking is diachronic (the same oppositions do not come into play in different parts of the meal). Thus French hors-d’oeuvres are built around the oppositions maximal transformation / minimal transformation of the type “ charcuterie” raw foods, which does not recur synchronically in subsequent dishes....There are, finally, certain incompatibilities which are consciously maintained by the social group and which possess a normative value: hot food / cold food; milky drink / alcoholic drink; fresh fruit / fermented fruit, etc.
Thanksgiving: Application of Levi-Strauss's Structuralism
OK
now let's see if you can apply this theory yourself. I spent a bit of
living in the US as a kid. I found about a special ritual meal on a
holiday called "Thanksgiving", occurring annually on the 4th Thursday of
November. As I recall this is what I was told about it:
Families
get together on this Fall (Autumn) evening to eat, traditionally,
Turkey, pumpkin and other dishes. Thanksgiving commemorates an occasion
when 'American Indians' (now called First Nations) shared a meal with
the European settlers (usually called Pilgrims). The food they shared
with the Pilgrims was Turkey and various other American vegetables and
fruits, so now every year we eat the same food.. Thanksgiving is a time
to give thanks to the Indians for sharing their land with us, and to
give thanks to God for this great land (i.e. USA).
Anyway,
that's what I was told, back in the 1980s. Since then I've heard the
ritual criticized for various reasons, but I'll leave those criticisms
aside for now. Let's just focus on what a structural analysis could say
about the following meal plan (i.e. menu!):
Think about such oppositions as sweet-sour; indigenous-exotic; main dish-sides; raw-cooked. Also keep in mind the difference between paradigmatic (synchronic) and syntagmatic (diachronic) elements. What
is the paradigmatic structure of the culinary elements ('gustemes') of
this Thanksgiving Meal? How about the syntagmatic structure? Remember,
in the ritual context, the main course and sides are served, on the
table, and eaten at the same time.
Get ready for reading...
Levi-Strauss's greatest essay is The Structural Study of Myth. It's a monster (figuratively and literally!) of an essay. When I first read it, this essay took me hours and hours to understand, and then it changed how I understood humans. In the essay, Levi-Strauss analyses Oedipus myth.
Before you read the essay helpful to brush up on the details of the entire myth/saga. This website should guide you through the larger Oedipus myth. It also relates elements directly to Levi-Strauss's structural analysis. In the same essay, Levi-Strauss also discusses Zuni myths--this website will help with those.
One more thing, we've got to change our terminology a bit. What Levi-Strauss called "diachronic" in his food analysis is now "syntagmatic"; both refer to the order of things, one after another. And what he called synchronic in his food analysis is now "paradigmatic"; these two terms refer to the relationship between elements at a single moment in a story or a meal.
If you're still struggling with the structural analysis of myth, you can turn to Leach, one of the towering figures of 20th century anthropology. In one of the chapters of his bookClaude Levi-Strauss, Leach took it upon himself to restate the entire argument of the "Structural Study of Myth". This indicates Leach was also a humble and generous man. It also indicates that Levi-Strauss is extremely important and difficult to read!
By now you should be able to understand this:
Reflections on Levi-Strauss
Levi-Strauss's analysis of the Oedipus myth clearly differs from Freud's analysis. But can you explain the underlying theories which give rise to such radically different interpretations? In spite of the differences, can you ascertain similarities?
Analysis of Levi-Strauss
But is Levi-Strauss right? Is he correct, in fact, correct to stress the role of opposites in cultures?
One way to respond to these questions is as follows: Anthropologists assume that the world is meaningless. Reality has no meaning, but for some reason (which Geertz goes into) we humans try to construct meaningful lives. In this regard, humans seem to be unique. Assuming that the world is random and not pre-organized meaningfully, Lévi-Strauss seeks to understand how we go about creating meaning. What patterns emerge when we look at human meaning-making? L-S comes up with this answer: one way that we make reality meaningful is through opposites. His writing is teeming with examples of opposites. My experience seems to confirm that opposites are a way of making meaning. Where I do fieldwork (East Java and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands), opposite such as day/night, raw/cooked, man/woman, black/white, inside/outside, good/bad are crucial in creating a meaningful life. Also (as far as I can remember— we’re going back as far as the 1980s here!!!) it seems to me that in places where I have lived (Australia, Japan, Russia, England, USA, Canada) these opposites were also fundamental. And the opposites produce meaning and behavior in different ways. Anyway, this evidence supports Levi-Strauss’s observations.
Another way to respond is that, since the time of Levi-Strauss, anthropologists have been less concerned with proving truths about the world and more with developing systems for interpreting the world. The emphasis (again using Geertz) is on interpretation rather than science. Whether that’s a good thing I’m unsure.
Summary of Levi-Strauss
Levi- Strauss's structuralism claimed to unlock underlying patterns in rituals, meals, sentences, clothing, and various other phenomena. These patterns were not the observed surface meaning. However, underlying the surface meaning, deep structures could be observes. Furthermore in these structures meaning did not emerge from single to but only in the relationship between various terms following models like A is to B as C is to D. These ideas have profound implications not only for anthropology but for scholars of folktales and mythology and in the burgeoning field that was to become the discipline of Cultural Studies. Later Levi Strauss thought tidy structures do you need biological qualities of humans and our minds, but that is for further study. For our purposes, it is sufficient that you understand Levi-Strauss's ideas:
that cultural phenomena can be reduced to basic units of meaning;
that these units of meaning are opposed like binary code;
that symbolism in the form of stories, rituals and so on express this code; and,
that this tells that our thought is encoded with meanings which are not immediately apparent to us.
If you are still a little unsure about this, rest assured we will revise it next in Section 6: Evaluating Theories & Critical Thinking. Bur for now, the take-home message: the meaning of symbols is structured according to basic underlying units of meaning.
