You are here: UK Essays » Essays » Anthropology » British Strauss Reaction

Cookie Information

Privacy Information

Free Essays - Essays

British Strauss Reaction

What was the reaction of British social anthropologists to Levi Strauss’ work? Discuss with reference to either Leach or Douglas.

To focus on Levi-Strauss’ work and the British reaction is to understand a dominant aspect of British Anthropology in the 1950s and 60s. Levi-Strauss’ influence was in respects a welcome contribution and in others, an attempt to simplify diverse cultures into a universal model. This essay places his contribution in an historical context regarding the existing British anthropological tradition and illuminates the framework of his method. Levi-Strauss’ work is broken down into three main topics and observed in the above context.

Mary Douglas’ work is analysed as a response to Levi-Strauss, and atypical of the mainstream British reaction. She at first adopts his work, questions it and then finally develops an individual direction. Her work is observed, not only as a singular response, but also to other influences such as Victor Turner.

Finally showing Levi-Strauss as an enduring influence in shaping the British field. British Anthropology progressed into a multi-facetted discipline dissimilar to the universal scope of Levi-Strauss’ work. He has however achieved recognition for elements of his method and analysis in helping to underpin British Anthropology’s critiques.

British anthropology before Levi-Strauss was concerned with three major themes. British colonialism was coming to an end and the anthropologists were becoming aware of its limitations and heritage. The 1950s were a time of reconstruction after World War II. Nazi racism had stimulated a moral reaction. Japanese victories created a disillusionment that the notion of western superiority as fallible.

Imperialism in its traditional form was disbanding, and therefore Levi-Strauss’ formula provided a mere reflection. The British anthropologists were rejecting the evolutionary perspective, which was not scientifically rigorous in its methods. Finally, the British field had been dominated by two leading figures: Malinowski with his theory of functionalism, and Radcliffe-Brown, associated to an idea of structural functionalism. Both concentrated on the analysis of empirical data.

Levi-Strauss based his writings on the idea that structural analysis holds the key to understanding a universal human nature. This overarching theme was developed with reference to three main areas of influence: structural linguistics, Durkheimian sociology and the Boasian school of American cultural anthropology. His three main areas of study were: kinship as a basis for social organisation, the study of the human mind, and myth analysis.

Although they are presented here in chronological order, the essence to his work was the study of the human mind. He perceived kinship as an expression of the mind in social formation. However, he came to believe it was not an adequate representation, as it “…was perhaps too embedded in social action to provide a sure guide to mental processes.” (Kuper 1997: 169). He thus turned to the idea of myth as its purest expression.

After Levi-Strauss’ structuralism appeared on the British field of anthropology it was appropriated by various anthropologists. As mentioned above, his first topic of discussion was on kinship, an area already much talked of in Britain. Thus Levi-Strauss’ contribution was welcomed to shed new light on the existing debate.

British anthropology was largely dominated by specific African ethnography and the associated ‘descent theory’ from Radcliffe-Brown, through E.E. Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes utilised to understand basic social formation. Levi-Strauss however, focused on an idea of ‘alliance theory’ to analyse the same. This he believed constitutes the exchange of women by groups of men as a form of communication in terms of expression from an abstract model.

As both theories stemmed from elements within Durkheimian thought, British anthropologists were familiar with the underlying logic of Levi-Strauss’ work. Both theories, worked from the idea of social structure: ‘Descent theory’ deals with actual relations enduring over time, whereas ‘Alliance theory’ concentrates on an abstract structural model, to which the norms of social organisations are the concrete expressions (Schneider 1965:26). At this time, Levi-Strauss’ work was not received positively in general, yet his ideas were not dismissed as of little importance.

Having discussed Levi-Strauss’ method, why it entered into the British field and how it was incorporated, we now follow the progress of the British reaction. The spreading of his work was undertaken by a few anthropologists, including Edmund Leach, Rodney Needham and Mary Douglas. This development, as Adam Kuper states, “…was facilitated by the almost religious enthusiasm of some of the proponents of Levi-Strauss’ ideas.”(Kuper 1997:161). However, in regards to the early work of Levi-Strauss, there was much misinterpretation and misuse of his ideas. Both David Schneider and Kuper highlight Needham’s orthodox interpretation of ‘Alliance theory’ (Schneider 1965: 37 & Kuper 1997: 166).

In 1962, Levi-Strauss released two books (Totemism & La Pensee Sauvage). Levi-Strauss believed in the ‘psychic unity of mankind’, and used a structuralist approach to uncovering the workings of the human mind. To this end, he utilised ethnographic evidence. As Dan Sperber states, “the structures of such symbolic systems as totemic classification is determined by a universal human ability rather than by the inabilities of ‘primitives’, or by practical need, whether individual or social.” (Sperber 1985: 33). The British reaction was at its most positive to this analysis, as the underlying logic had been derived from Durkheim. Levi-Strauss offered a new way of looking at the world and its formations that according to some could help British anthropology achieve a forward-looking perspective.

By now the ideas of Levi-Strauss had become central and even domineering in British circles. However, British anthropology was not focused exclusively on his work. In the words of Kuper, Levi-Strauss’ structuralist approach as a “…creative impact on his British colleagues has been particularly apparent in the revival of the study of systems of thought.” (Kuper 1997: 172).

Levi-Strauss next turned to myths as a pure expression of the ‘untamed mind’ (La Pensee Sauvage). Mary Douglas mentions that an excited anticipation preceded this project (Douglas 1970: 307). Many anthropologists tested his structural formula on various examples. The interest was whether or not myth analysis could prove how the mind worked and why it created myths. Many attempts were made including Leach’s study on Genesis and Douglas’ work on Leviticus.

At this point the reaction towards Levi-Strauss and his structuralist method began to falter. Immediate questions arose such as his use of ‘binary oppositions’ in forming an underlying structure of myths. Further, many saw his method as too deterministic. He was accused of using myths simply to reach an understanding of the structure of the human mind. In regards to this, his position in the British debate moved from having a central positive reaction, toward an uneasy questioning and further rejection of his analysis.

To view this movement in the British field, it is not enough to focus on the failings of Levi-Strauss’ work. Its development fragmented into a wider scope of study, with more influences and different approaches being attempted, such as the Manchester School. Therefore, the British reaction to Levi-Strauss is not only a questioning of his work, but also the influence of an expanding discipline. His decline reflects a negative reaction, and his contribution is just one of various developing approaches.

The work of Mary Douglas in relation to Levi-Strauss mirrors the progressing British reaction. At first she is one of Levi-Strauss’ main propagators in Britain, as shown by Kuper above. In regards to Levi-Strauss’ structuralist method in understanding the human mind, Douglas appears enthusiastic. Her famous work Purity and Danger (1966) uses Levi-Strauss’ canonical formula on myths to dissect food ritual in Leviticus. As Douglas develops her understanding of this method, she begins to question its very validity.

In 1967, Douglas wrote an article on Levi-Strauss’ analysis of the ‘story of Asdiwal’. Her strongly critical account of the use of his method shows a divergence from the standpoint of other supporters. Leach, for example believed ‘Asdiwal’, as L. Thomas proclaims, “…was, at least before the Mythologiques series, the most successful of Levi-Strauss’ encounters with myth.” (Thomas 1976: 1). Douglas on the other hand questions Levi-Strauss’ use of oppositions. She accuses him of creating synchronic timeless accounts. In turn this lead to an unusable model when relating to attitudes of time. Levi-Strauss’ process of deduction, Douglas suggests, is deterministic in achieving a pre-set goal and the facts are made to fit. Although this incorporates into a general view, it does lead her into a more individual take on his myth analysis.

“At the outset of any scientific enterprise, a worker must know the limitations of his method. Linguistics and any analysis modelled on linguistics can only be synchronic sciences. They analyse systems. In so far as they can be diachronic it is in analysing the before and after evolution of systems. Their techniques can be applied to any behaviour that is systematic. But if the behaviour is not very systematic, they will extract whatever amount of regularity there is, and leave a residue.”(Douglas 1967: 67) (Emphasis own)

Although her analysis was decisive, it cannot be called conclusive. She focuses mainly on specific problems and inconsistencies within his work. Therefore, it seems that she is systematically rejecting his analysis to establish her own understanding. A fuller analysis is made later by Thomas, who observes a problem with the Levi-Strauss’ analysis as a whole and an incomplete understanding of relations to the society from which the myth originated (Thomas 1976).

By 1970, Douglas’ view had progressed from basic Levi-Straussian terms. Following her thoughts on residues left behind by structural analysis, she is led to incorporate notions from Victor Turner. A short article end The Healing rite (1970) focuses on a comparison of the works of Levi-Strauss and Turner. Both men, she observes, deal with symbolic structures. In comparing the two, she relates “…Turner’s work on the efficacy of symbols with that of Levi-Strauss on the same theme. Admittedly, for Turner it is the main interest and for Levi-Strauss a subsidiary one.” (Douglas 1970: 305). This led Douglas to concentrate more on emotive elements in her analysis, stating how interlocking systems cannot be explicitly used to provide examples of social life (Douglas 1970: 303).

Douglas develops the notion of ‘mediatory roles’ in Implicit Meanings (1975) and focuses on an observation of societies that are not as systematic. She discusses the parts of society that Levi-Strauss’ reductionist methodology does not include. A major part of her thinking was to refute Levi-Strauss’ claim of separating the intellect from the emotive. Douglas, in returning to her work Purity and Danger, is not shy in realising her own error of judgement. She states, “How wrong could I get? The mistake was to overemphasize the intellectual and underemphasize the sociological pressures, the very trap that I was constantly warning my critics against.”(Douglas 1975: 193).

In this essay specific stages of the development of Levi-Strauss’ work in terms of the British reaction were assessed. The historical events at the time stimulated a nationwide change in outlook and the Levi-Straussian ideology was convenient. The British anthropologists’ reaction was in part borne out of a national wave of sentiment. The discipline gained maturity, with reflectory implications to the structuralist debate, which were apparent in later critiques of Levi-Strauss. Further, anthropology expanded supporting a wider collection of data and theories previously lacking. Here works such as Asdiwal Crumbles by Thomas, indicate a more comprehensive and specific analysis.

Mary Douglas’ own work has shown how Levi-Strauss was specifically reacted to. His influence undeniably stimulated her thinking, and helped to advance a specific analysis. Levi-Strauss’ work as a moving entity illuminates an overview perspective. It therefore becomes clear that no matter how reaction swayed, its very existence testifies that Levi-Strauss remained a prominent figure in British anthropology’s development.

British anthropology was reacting to Levi-Strauss’ work, also possible is that levi-Strauss was reacting to the reaction. Sperber states that many scholars in the 40s and 50s were putting great belief in a ‘unified science of communication’ and “Levi-Strauss’ early methodological papers were meant as contributions…soon to be superseded…” (Sperber 1965: 49). To take this further, his enduring structuralist method could be in part a response to the expectancy in his work.

Finally, the reactive forces have been stimulated both by Levi-Strauss’ work and also the wider historical context. British anthropology has thus developed through a multitude of influences of its own origin and from other external forces.

Sign up and be the first to receive our latest offers: