SOCIOLOGICAL THINKERS-1 (SEMESTER-5) LEVI STRAUSS- Myths

Claude Levi Strauss promulgated as ‘father of modern anthropology’, pioneered structuralism, which he developed through linguistics, and contributed to sociology in enormous ways.  Amongst one of his most salient work is his study of Myths, in which he applied structuralism, and refuted the predominant homology between myth and ritual, through examples of rites and myths from North American tribes. In addition, he attempts to establish a dialectic relation between myth and ritual.

By employing the method used by Roman Jakobson in structural linguistics on analyzing the Pawnee Indian traditions described by G.A.Dorsey, levi strauss analyses the relationship between myth and rituals practiced among the tribes. This method stresses the importance of considering the structure of the society being studied.

For his analysis, the author uses the myth of a pregnant boy. It is a story of a young boy with magical powers to cure diseases and treat people who are visited frequently by an old jealous medicine man accompanied by his wife to learn the secrets of his powers. When the medicine man discovers that he would not obtain any information about the boy’s magic, he eventually tricks the boy to become pregnant by serving some medicinal herbs. The boy, ashamed of being pregnant, leaves the village to a forest to end his life. There, he is pitied by the wild animals that help him by extracting the foetus and teach him their magical powers. Later, the boy comes back with those learned magic powers to kill the evil medicine man and becomes a man of repute in the field of medicine in his village.

The author quotes the oppositions of elements in the myth proposed in Dorsey’s work. The major differences are based on age and sex differentiation. For example, the boy being young represents fertility whereas the medicine man represents sterility given his old age.  Also, differences in magic – whether innate or acquired as well as whether of plant or animal origin – have been made.

Many sociologist and anthropologist have considered the inter-relation  between the myth and the ritual to be mutually redundant. Some see the 

purpose of the myth being to provide a foundation for the rite. Others  consider rituals as the dramatised illustration of the myth. Regardless of the  above, they both replicate each other and in other words a human logic.  Using the Pawnees example, Strauss goes on to show that there is no  corresponding homology. Even if there are some correspondences between  myth and rituals they are few in number. The homological relation cannot be  seen in majority of cases thereby comparison across the tribes cannot be  possible. Hence this homology cannot be claimed as a universal  phenomenal. 

Strauss further shows that the Pawnee myth does not correspond to one of  their rituals but is performed by their neighbours the Mandan, the Hidatsa  other plane groups which is the asymmetrical opposite of the Pawnee myth  which is based on innate power. Moreover the Pawnee myth which talks  about the shamanistic powers does not reflect in their society but is there  but is rather seen in the tribes nearby. The shamanistic societies are the  inverse of those of the Pawnee where entry is by payment and organisation  is as per age grade and the relationship between the seller and the buyer is  conceived as the relationship between father and son when the son is  accompanied by his wife whom he offers for ritual intercourse to his father.  Here we find again all the oppositions which have been analysed at the level  of myth with inversion of all the values attributed to each couple: the initiated  and the non-initiated as father to son instead of as enemies; the non-initiated  and initiated, whereas in the myth he is the better shaman. In the ritual of the  plains it is the son who is accompanied by his wife whereas in the myth it is  the old man. Here the wife plays a significant role sterilised by the father and  conceive the son she does represents the bisexuality which the Pawnee  myth ascribed to the son. The shamanistic values are the same but changed  in relation to the symbols which express them. The Pawnee myth exposes a  ritual system which is the reverse not of that prevailing among the Pawnee 

but a system which do not employ and which exists among related tribes  whose ritual organisation is exactly opposite of that of Pawnee. Levistrauss  traces a relationship of same type but of complex order between the Pawnee  myth and a ritual named Hako.  

Hako it's an alliance ritual between two groups. These groups may freely  choose one another placing themselves in a father-son relationship that also  defines the stable relationship between conservative age grade in Hidatsa  and Mandan. Strauss argues that the last phase of the Hako ritual invested  with the sacred character which offers a series of remarkable analogies with  the myth of the pregnant boy.  

Strauss argues that in the myth as well as the ritual all three protagonist son,  father and wife are in triadic relationship with each other. While the two  protagonists are identified with respect to sex, the son or the child is left  unidentified. In the myth the lack of identification of the son enables him to  be half-man and half-woman, in the ritual he becomes fully man and fully  woman. The ambiguity as to the sex of one of protagonists is constantly  emphasised regardless of the context. 

Strauss lays out the genetic model of the myth, which generates it and gives  it its structure and consists of the application of four functions of three  symbols. The four functions are defined by the two fold opposition elder:  younger, male: female from which stem the father-mother, son and daughter  functions. Father and mother each use different symbol and the functions of  son and daughter are merged under the third available symbol the child. 

Thus, through the given examples of rites and rituals practiced by the Pawnee Indians as well as the tribes closely located or related to them, the author has established the importance of structural components of the groups in establishing the relationship between myth and rituals. The relationship between myth and ritual is therefore dialectical and is more  complex than a relation of homology. This relation it is not enough to  compare the myths with the ritual practice found in a given society. They must be compared with the believes and practises occurring in the  neighbouring societies. Strauss, to conclude, thus developed the structure of myth , which is in mind.

Strauss is and was well respected by his peers. However, there were his critics. He was often blamed to state all events in his own structure i.e. being staunch about it. In some of his later works, he almost reasoned the sequences in his structural understanding which seemed unnatural. Moreover, Structuralism has often been criticized for being ahistorical and for favouring deterministic structural forces over the ability of people to act.

But these criticisms should not be conceived as an attack on his intellect, rather, the evolution of his idea and taking these ideas as a base for further studies. And the importance of Levi Strauss’s work can be seen in influencing multiple theories post his theorization such as- structural Marxism, post structuralism etc.