13. Conclusion: Symbols and Society

Welcome to the final section of Symbols and Society. In this conclusion, I consider the limitations of what we have studied in this subject. I also introduce other directions to pursue in your journey into anthropology.

Summary of the course

By now you are probably developing your own sense of the history of the social sciences and anthropology. After all, in this subject, you have covered some of the major thinkers in social theory (Durkheim, Freud, Jung, Levi-Strauss, Geertz) and in anthropology (Frazer, Ortner, Wolf etc.). I would now like to suggest what do with your developing knowledge. How can you use these theories like a scholar?

To start with think of the theories as 'explaining tools'. The more tools you have, the more chance you can get the job of explaining done. By doing this course you have learned to use some of the most important explaining tools so far available anthropologists studying symbols. These explaining tools are so powerful that their use is not limited to just analyzing symbols. They are also used for analyzing religion and culture more broadly. Nevertheless, we have used the tools specifically to explain symbols in "Symbols and Society". Seeing as humans are unique in the way we use symbols; if we can understand symbols better, we might be able to understand some of the unique aspects of human life.

You need to be able to evaluate the pros and cons of each explaining tools. It's not necessarily easy to compare the theories. This is because the different theorists look at different kinds of symbols. Freud wouldn't have been too interested in Ortner's key symbol such as the body as a machine, for example. Nevertheless, you need at least to be able to evaluate the pros and cons for using any of the theories to analyze a particular symbol.

Because each theory of symbols has pros and cons, none is perfect. At the very least, I hope you've been able to identify the theories about symbols that you had before you started this subject, and that now you can compare the your old theories with the new theories you've learned.

Making this more challenging, new theories rarely emerge to provide a different answer to the same old question. Rather they purport to provide a new answer to a new question. One way to think of this is, effectively:

1. Frazer asked, "where do symbols like the kissing under the mistletoe come from?". 
2. Durkheim asked, "what function do symbols play in society?" 
3. Freud asked, "why do we make slip up and mistakes in ways that indicate unconscious traumas?"
4. Jung asked, "how come all these famous symbols have a similar form?"
5. Levi-Straus pondered, "how come there is an underlying structure to myths, painting, social structures?"
6. Wolf asked, "how do different groups/classes find the same symbol meaningful in different ways"
7. Turner asked, "how do symbols connect up with other symbols; how do people explain the symbols in their lives; how are symbols actually used in ritual?"
8. Geertz asked, "how do symbols make life meaningful for us?"
9. Ortner asked, "what are the central symbols in a culture? how come some are worshipped, others not? How do the non-worshipped ones fit in?"
10. Douglas asked, "if symbols make imperfect models of the world, what do we do with the things that don't fit in to our models?"

Possibly, I'm putting getting this the wrong way around, because, let's face it, all these theorists already had their answers to their own questions ready! Irrespective, they are posing different questions and providing different analyses.

That said, ways to interweave these theories present themselves. If we analyzed the Virgin of Guadalupe we could easily interweave Durkheim's sacred symbols, Wolf's multivocal, Geertz's deeply meaningful models of, and Ortner's key symbol of the summarising variety! Wolf also pointed to a Freudian Oedipal interpretation of the Virgin. Being able to combine theories indifferent ways is part of your developing scholarly/analytical thought.

The next step is to analyze what all the theories constitute together. Together they form part of the sub-discipline of Anthropology we call "Anthropology of Symbols". As a subdiscipline, the Anthropology of Symbols sits beside Kinship, Political Anthropology, Economic Anthropology etc. In other words, it is one of the classical subdisciplines of Anthropology. You also need to be able to analyze at this sub-discipline.

The decline of the Anthropology of Symbols

To repeat anthropology of symbols is a field of study within anthropology. Symbolic anthropology (which is a particular approach to anthropology particularly associated with Geertz and called 'culturalist' or 'interpretive') was merely one approach to the study of symbols in anthropology. But with the decline of Symbolic Anthropology, the Anthropology of Symbols went out of fashion too. After the 1970s, anthropology lost interest in symbols. You can probably gather, if you have followed this course from start to finish, that I think this is a great loss! So what happened?

Limitations of the anthropology of symbols

If nothing else, the critical thinking you've developed during the course of this subject, should cause you to call into question the entire validity of anthropological approaches to symbols. This presentation covers some of the more obvious reasons to be sceptical about the Anthropology of Symbols.

Turn to emotions

One critique of the Anthropology of Symbols relates to emotions. The critique, as first expounded by Rosaldo in "Grief and a Headhunter's Rage:, holds that focusing on meaning overlooks the significance of emotion. Of course, Geertz and Durkheim make reference to emotions in the context of rituals; they said that the emotions make the meanings seem more profound and real. But Rosaldo and then a whole new sub-discipline, the Anthropology of Emotions, came to take precedence over symbols.

Turn to the body

Another critique relates to the body. Anthropologists began to see the body as more significant in cultural life than symbols.  This was in part thanks to theories of embodiment (derived from the philosophers Merleau-Ponty and Heidegger). It was also partly due to the work of anthropologist Bourdieu who, drawing on Mauss's idea of Techniques of the Body, came to see habitus (the culturally- and class-specific ways in which our body operates in space) as crucial in understanding human life.

Ortner: Marxism rose and Culturalism fell

Ortner (2016) has another explanation. (Remember studied Ortner's Key Symbols approach in Section 10.) According to Ortner's history, in the 1960s, interpretive anthropology, which Ortner calls the 'culturalist' wing was associated with Geertz. This was pitted against a Marxist wing. The Marxist was associated with Wolf, who, after writing The Virgin of Guadalupe" became increasingly materialist in outlook. The Marxist wing evolved in the 1970s into new critiques of anthropology:

 in the 1960s and 1970s American anthropology was dominated by a split between a “culturalist” wing, led by Clifford Geertz (e.g., 1973) and his students, and a Marxist or materialist wing....  From the point of view of the culturalists, the work of the political economy scholars was reductionist: people’s motives were reduced to simplistic “interests,” and people’s lives were seen as reflexes of mechanical forces. From the point of view of the materialists, on the other hand, the work of the culturalists...ignored the harsh realities of power that drove so much of human history. The culturalist perspective prevailed through much of the 1960s and 1970s, at least in the United States. At the same time, and partly overlapping with the Marxist/political economy approach, new critiques were taking shape that also insisted on the importance of taking questions of power, inequality, domination, and exploitation into account. . The practitioners of these new kinds of work ... all agreed, at least implicitly, that anthropology had to start paying attention to issues of power and inequality, and in the long run, starting somewhere in the 1980s, they came to prevail.

Is this how it happened? What do you think?

Final words

Speaking personally, teaching this subject is a wild conceptual ride for me. The world appears radically different through each of the various perspectives we have studied. Considering the theories together, I feel amazed by the extraordinary power of our species to create symbols. Immersed in symbols make me not only human but also part of a specific society and culture. Yet the theories shatter the simple confidence I had that my understanding of the world, but reflects the world as it is. They suggest that what is meaningful to me emerges not out of the world but something else. It could be that meaning emerges the thought of our ancient ancestors, maybe our infantile trauma or universal archetypes, deep structures or cultural systems. Symbols, and thus the way I make sense of the world, are ordered according to principles that emerge from culture and society, and not from the world itself.

Muslim Veils: Different Analyses (Special Topic 3)

Veils are piece of cloth that people wear around your head. Nuns of different cultures wear them. Jewish and Muslim women in different parts of the world wear veils too.

Issues surrounding whether Muslim women should or should not wear veils have been on-and-off the public agenda in many countries. In Western public discourse, you can find people supporting Muslim women veiling. Supporters might say "the veil is an expression of female agency" or "it’s just as an expression of religious piety". And you can find people opposed to it. Opponents might say, "it’s a rejection of all we stand for" or "it's simply an expression of male control over women". I find both views, for and against veiling,  uninformed by the kind of qualitative analysis anthropology gives.

Ostensibly, veiling is a religious issue. In the Q'ran, God says:

O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful.

But this doesn't really help us anthropologists understand Muslim veils. Why?

In the study of religious adherence we tend to focus more on what ordinary, lay-folk believe. Some anthropologists focus on studying religious specialists (who in Islam might be called "clerics", "ustadz", "ulama", and other words). But although religious specialists are influential, as specialists, they are 'special', so we analyse their understandings as them as having very particular stances on matter.

In any case, what matters to us interpretation. As much as certain people would like to say there is only one correct interpretation of the Bible, Torah, Q'ran, Scriptures etc., they only say that because so many interpretations exist! As we can see from the research by Abu-Lughod and Lindquist the veil has a wealth of significance that can't be easily deduced from the Q'ran passage above.

I think the best way to  begin approaching this topic is an extension (literally) of the Hair Debate (Special Topic 2). The question of public vs. private symbolism remains crucial in understanding Muslim veils. From this one question anthropologists might ask is, "what do veils mean, personally, for women who wear them?"  The other question is, "what do veils mean in the cultures in which they are worn?"

In this, the third special topic, from my subject Symbols and Society, I consider two different accounts of veiling. From them, we get a sense of similarities and difference in the meaning attached to veils in two different Islamic cultures.

Image of Malay women wearing jilbabs (the Malay Muslim veil) at my field site, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. These women are waiting to eat the food they have prepared for a communal meal.

 Abu-Lughod: Veiled Sentiments

Bedouin woman

GLOSSARY 

ghinnawa = poetry of yearning and love

hasham = modesty, shame, shyness, sense of being unworthy

tahasham = having hasham

It might be surprising given the title of the book, but in her Veiled Sentiments, Abu-Lughod only directly deals with the meaning of wearing a veil on p. 159. It must be remembered though, anthropology is mostly about providing context. Consistent with the idea of holism, anthropologists feel that one must have a picture of the whole culture and society (Awlad Ali Bedouins) before a single phenomenon (wearing a veil) can be understood. Also the word “veil” in the title is metaphorical; the ghinnawas, highly personal poetry, give veiled expression to highly personal and, in certain contexts, inappropriate poetry recited by women. So what does Abu-Lughod have to say about actual veiling in the physical? 

Bedouin Wedding Procession

The immediate context is tahashsham. I’m going for a simplified explanation that will leave the experts rolling their eyes: hasham is a feeling a shame, shyness, and unworthiness. Tahashsham refers to women who comport themselves in an appropriate manner. A woman who tahashsham is disinterested in sex; avoids contact with most men (aside from those of her father's family); is publicly disinterested in her husband. And most of all, for our purposes, women who tahasshsham wear a thick veil. They particularly do this in the presence of male superiors and strangers. To understand this in detail you'll need to read pp. 153-159 of Veiled Sentiments, which is available online at most university libraries. I have also tried to summarise it here:

Lindquist: Maju, malu and veils

Glossary:
Maju= advanced
malu = coy, shy, reserved
jilbab = veil which leaves face exposed

Located near Singapore and Malaysia, the Indonesian island of Batam is replete with modern factories and brothels. Singaporean men use it as a source of cheap labour and cheap sex. For an analogy, you might consider Tijuana; the Mexican city just over the border form San Diego, where young American men might go for buck's nights etc.

Factories in Batam as a rule typically only employ young women (it used to be the virginity was also tested!).  Lindquist writes about Indonesian women have migrated from all over Indonesia to Batam to work in the factories:

“As unexpected as it might seem, migrant women sometimes wear Muslim veils or take ecstasy in the same places and for the same reasons,” writes Lindquist. The factories, as a rule, employs only young single, high-school educated females. These young women may feel ashamed because they have travelled to demonstrate their personal development; but often fail to save money and ‘get ahead’ and be maju. To be maju is to be up-to-date, developed, cutting edge. A country that has made itself maju is Korea or Japan; a Muslim that has made herself maju would be sophisticated and embody the latest in practice and thinking about Islam [which would include wearing the veil]. The opposite of maju is to be backward, rural, traditional. Migration is about becoming maju and not malu (modest, shy, embarrassed).

Batamindo Industrial Complex

“In conversations with workers who wore the veil it was clear that most of them began to do so only after they had arrived on Batam. The typical response to my enquiry about this was that they had only just ‘become aware’ (baru sadar). For instance, Widya, from the city of Yogyakarta in Central Java, claimed that she had always wanted to wear a jilbab before she came to Batam, but that it was rare there. While in Java it was easy to be branded fanatik (cf. Brenner 1998:232), on Batam one gained support not only from roommates but also from the agencies and companies that recruited them. Widya continued: ‘one of the good things about working here is that there are a lot of religious activities. In the kampung [my village of origin] it is usually only on Hari Raya [the day of celebration that breaks the Islamic fasting month] that there is anything going on.’

One aspect of personal development these young migrant women can work on is religion—there are more religious activities and information sessions than where they came from. Wearing the veil (jilbab) is part of this religious development; they need not return to their home feeling malu, even if they have little money saved, at least the veil shows they are developed. Lindquist writes:

In the [Batam industrial] estate, however, it is possible to take part in religious activities on a daily basis, either in the main mosque or in a wide variety of organizations that are organized through particular companies or by community-based groups created by workers and supported by the estate management. The interests of the workers, the companies, and the local government appear to converge, as the movement of workers is restricted to the mosque (or the church), the dormitories, and the factory. The development of the [Batam] industrial estate is matched by the spiritual development of the worker” (Lindquist 2004, 493).

At a more complex level, Lindquist ties wearing a jilbab in with morality, affect, subjectivity, nationalism, migration and various other concepts. According to Winarnita (2011) for Lindquist, modesty/shame/shyness or malu is:

a key emotional trope [for female migrants to Batam]…Lindquist argues that in migration malu should be understood in relation to representations connected to the originating nation…to him malu is an important starting point for thinking about the motivations and actions of Indonesian migrants in negotiating their hopes and frustrations. [Lindquist] he sees the women migrants as having agency in which malu becomes a reflexive management of appearances in the face of dramatic economic and social change.

You want to show how advanced you are by succeeding in migration both in earning a wage and becoming a better Muslim. Thus wearing a veil symbolises to others that one has become advanced or maju.

Symbolic Significance

The veil could thus be seen as symbolising something personal for the wearer herself (such as her personal journey to Batam). She also sends out message to others about herself, whether it be that she is malu or tahasham. To understand these different levels of symbolism it is useful to refer to the great anthropological debate regarding hair.

Summary

So for Lindquist failing in migration makes female workers feel malu. To deal with this feeling of malu, the sex workers take ecstasy. Those who work in factories want to feel like they have 'made it' and one way of showing of success is religious development. And one sign of religious development is wearing a veil. When the workers go back home, they wear a veil, they can feel less malu. Feelings of malu lie behind both taking ecstasy (for sex workers) and wearing a veil (for factory workers).

For Abu Lughod, writing about Bedouins, wearing a veil is also related to feelings of hasham. 

Reflection

I think of hasham and malu as important symbols and feelings. The feelings/states they relate to include modesty, humility, shame, shyness, coyness, chastity etc.

11. Symbols & Categories--Douglas

Welcome to Section 11 of Symbols & Society. 

Confession time.

When I was about 14 years old, I was hanging out at my uncle and auntie's house. A bloke grabbed a big cockroach and chased me with it. 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 jump.

 

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. 

Inside your hotel bathroom you find a little green plant sprouting from the mold.
Do you find this clean or filthy?

Frogs

Let's take the example of frogsEnglish speakers divide the world into:

1.  marine animals and
2. land animals. 

You can eat marine animals (fish) and you can eat land animals (chickens). But animals like frogs spend their entire life going from the water to land and back again. As a result they don't fit into our categories of land and marine animals. We view them with disgust. 

But frogs are also associated with supernatural power. For instance, we imagine witches would put frog legs in their cauldron 

Cows and other ruminants

Before we get going with he next example, you might want to know a little about ruminants and their rumination.

Ruminants = animals with 4 stomach compartments (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.  This process is called "rumination" or "chewing the cud".  What distinguishes ruminants is their 4 stomach compartments. 

 he first of these 4 compartments is called the "rumen". This word can help you remember "ruminant"

Rumination

 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.

Abominations of Leviticus

"The Abominations of Leviticus" is a famous chapter from Douglas's book; Purity and Danger.

After reading the chapter, please take a look at my presentation:

Please feel free to use my notes on this presentation.

Supernatural power and abomination

One connection is crucial to point out here. We associate filth with supernatural power. 

Critical thinking

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.

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.

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.

10. Key Symbols--Ortner

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:

1.  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)
2. 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).

Reading Ortner

OK now I've confused you with my interpretation, it's much better to read the original: Ortner, SB 1973, 'On Key Symbols', American Anthropologist, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 1338-1346. (jstor.org/stable/674036).


You might also, if I haven't put you off, want to watch my presentation on Ortner's ideas:

Here are the notes for my Ortner presentation.

Expanding Ortner's 'Root Metaphor' Concept

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.

Here's an example. In Metaphors we live by, Lakoff and Johnson (1980) provide possibly more than 100 examples of everyday metaphors used in Western, English-speaking cultures.

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: 

1. 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.
2. 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:

1.  "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. 
2. “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).

9: Symbols as Models--Geertz

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:

Understanding Geertz

Now it's time to read Geertz's "Religion as a Cultural System", in which the author argues that religion is a set of symbols. I have summarized it here.

You might then like to watch my presentation:

 

'Models of' and 'Models for'

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 

1. Baptism. Model of = baptism of Christ; model for = how to behave now you're born again.
2. 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). 

You might also want to listen to me (and others) interviewed in a radio program about religion: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/earshot/the-accidental-atheist/7889880

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. 

1. 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. 
2. 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.
3. 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. 

Discussion

In this subject, I also have a special topic based around Geertz's description of ritual meals, called "slametan". So if you want to read more Geertz, you could start there.

Summary

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.

8. Symbols: Explaining, Using, & Positioning--Turner

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:

Here are my notes for the Turner presentation.

Ndembu hunting clans and the forked stick

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.

6. Revision: Evaluating Theories & Critical Thinking

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.

What we've learned and we're going

Before I go any further, let's revise what we've covered so far in the course and consider what we will cover in the coming weeks. You can do this by listening to Podcasts 19 & 20 entitled The Symbols of Christmas in my series, The Audible Anthropologist. In these short podcasts, I apply different theories to the same symbols--the symbols of Christmas.

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.

1. Origins and Evolution: Frazer, Tylor (1870s-1910s). 
2. Functionalism in sociology (Durkheim 1900s) & anthropology (Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown etc. 1919-1960). 
3.  Psychoanalysis: Freud, Jung etc (1900s-2000s).
4. Structural Anthropology 1960s-1970s: Levi-Strauss, Needham.

Religious Studies

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:

5. Symbols & Thought Structures--Levi-Strauss

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

Go to my Blog on Kinship and Care for more on the structure of kinship. 

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).

Here are my notes on syntagmatic and paradigmatic.

Structure of meals

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. 

 Inspired by this analysis, I wrote an op-ed drawing on Levi-Strauss's insights to analyse Australian BBQs. (As a disclaimer, "Secret Men's Business" was not my title.) My op-ed shows how we can apply Levi-Strauss's ideas to other symbolic phenomena.

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.

The Structural Study of Myth

OK now you're ready to read The Structural Study of Myth. This presentation is here to help:


Here are my notes from this presentation.

Leach explains the Structural Study of Myth

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 book Claude 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.