Claude Levi-Strauss
published Tristes tropiques several years after his experiences took place. I understand this is by far the most
readable of his works, a fascinating combination of travel writing and serious
anthropological research. According to Patrick Wilcken, author of a biography of Levi-Strauss, his subject was almost on the point of becoming a full-time
journalist when he wrote Triste tropiques.
"He wrote Tristes tropiques consumed by guilt,
feeling that it was taking up time that should really have been devoted to
proper academic work."
It's easy to pick
holes in this magnificent wreck. A few comments will make it clear how the book
was compiled as a hotchpotch of travel writing, theoriszing, and vague
speculation. It includes:
·
Fragments from his own play, set in ancient
Greece, and abandoned (rightly so)
·
Outrageous anti-Islamic sentiment in a passage
inserted towards the end of the book, and unconnected with the fieldwork in
Brazil. "The bigotry permeating
Islamic moral and religious thought" ... "The whole of Islam would,
in fact, seem to be a method for creating insurmountable conflicts in the minds
of the believers"..."if one were looking for a barrack-room religion,
Islam would seem to be the ideal solution ... masculine promiscuity ... and no
women."
·
Whole sections of binary-obsessed description of
the art of the peoples he encounters, as if he cannot bear simply to write about
these people without showing off his elite French education in analysing what
he has seen.
Why then is the book so powerful? Perhaps it is unfair coming to the book as a non-anthropologist, but
Levi-Strauss writes best as a journalist, not, for me, as a theorizing
anthropologist. He writes best when he does not try to theorize too hard.
·
It has a magnificent title - alliterative,
haunting and somehow passing a judgement on the cultures he recorded without
his ever stating this verdict in the written accounts themselves. After all,
what could be sadder than the face on the French edition of 1985?
·
It records without judgement and with
sensitivity the things that he saw.
·
Its remarkable honesty, from the opening lines
onwards: "I hate travelling and explorers. Yet here I am proposing to tell
the story of my expeditions."
·
The fact that his account, although based on
diaries kept at the time, is in fact a mixture of recent investigation and much
later reflection, all jumbled together in a fascinating way.
·
The combination of fieldwork with Levi-Strauss's
other insights. His description of the initial journey to Brazil, on an almost deserted
cruise liner, with other young researchers, is a joy to read. And we haven't
even got to Brazil at this point!
"During the nineteen days at sea, all this space, which
seemed almost limitless through the absence of other people, became our
province; it was as if the boat were our appanage."
Of course, what the book doesn't answer is the huge topic of what anthropology should be. Levi-Strauss openly set out to do what most anthropological explorers had done, which was to find some people who had never encountered the modern world. Unwittingly, he reveals in this book that his observations of the modern world are sometimes as fascinating as those of the "primitive" (his word) peoples he encountered.
No comments:
Post a Comment