- Introduction
- Edmund Leach: An Introduction
- Structuralism of Edmund Leach
- Myth and Religion: Base of Structuralism
- Claude Levi-Strauss: A Brief Introduction
- Structuralism of Levi Strauss
- Structuralism in Kinship
- Structuralist Approach to Myths
Introduction
Structuralism posits that the meaning and value of particular elements are not inherent but rather contingent upon their relationships with other elements. It suggests that understanding arises from studying the interconnectedness within a system rather than from isolating individual components. According to this view, elements only gain significance when viewed within the context of a larger structure.
Human cognition operates on the basis of discerning differences, or “oppositions,” between various elements. Meaning, therefore, emerges from the comparison and contrast of these oppositions rather than from any inherent qualities of the elements themselves. For instance, concepts like “hot” only acquire meaning in relation to their opposite, “cold.” Similarly, the concept of “good” gains significance through its juxtaposition with “evil.” This process of defining differences is fundamental to how we perceive and categorize the world around us.
Moreover, the act of selecting and delineating these significant differences is what allows us to construct a coherent understanding of reality. For example, the distinction between “native” and “foreign” shapes our perception of identity and belonging, while the differentiation between individuals forms the basis of our concept of personhood.
In summary, structuralism proposes that meaning is derived from the relationships and distinctions within a system rather than from the intrinsic qualities of its constituent elements. This perspective provides a framework for understanding how human cognition operates and how we make sense of the world around us.
Edmund Leach: An Introduction
Sir Edmund Ronald Leach, a notable British social anthropologist, was born on November 7, 1910, in Sidmouth, Devon, England. His academic journey commenced with studies in mathematics and engineering at Cambridge University, culminating in his graduation in 1932.
Following his time at Cambridge, Leach embarked on a diverse professional path. Initially, he worked as a commercial assistant for Butterfield and Swire in Shanghai, all the while utilizing his holidays for extensive travels throughout China. In 1938, he engaged in anthropological field research on Botel Tobago (Orchid Island, Taiwan) before pursuing further studies under Malinowski at the London School of Economics (LSE). Subsequently, he conducted additional research in Kurdistan. Leach’s academic pursuits were briefly interrupted by his service as an army officer stationed in Burma from 1939 to 1945, during which he continued his fieldwork. In 1940, he married Celia Joyce Buckmaster, with whom he had a daughter named Louisa.
After the war, Leach resumed his studies at LSE, completing his PhD. He then briefly ventured to Borneo before returning to academia as a lecturer, later ascending to the position of Reader in Social Anthropology. In 1953, he transitioned to the Faculty of Archaeology and Anthropology at Cambridge University, initially as a lecturer and later as a reader, ultimately earning his own chair in 1972. His final fieldwork expedition took place in 1954-55 in Ceylon (Sri Lanka), where he focused on studying the village of Pul Eliya.
Leach’s distinguished career began with his appointment as a Fellow of King’s College in 1960, followed by his ascension to the position of Provost in 1966. His academic pursuits extended beyond Cambridge University, as evidenced by his tenure as a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in Behavioural Sciences at Stanford University in 1961, and his membership in the Social Science Research Council in 1968. Leach also held prestigious roles such as Vice President and subsequently President of the Royal Anthropological Institute from 1964 to 1966 and from 1968 to 1970 respectively. Additionally, he was recognized as an Honorary Fellow of the School of Oriental and African Studies.
Throughout his career, Leach received several accolades, including the Curl Essay Prize in 1951 and 1957, and the Rivers Medal in 1958. Notably, he delivered a series of Reith Lectures in 1968, which sparked controversy and stimulated intellectual discourse.
In 1978, Leach concluded his tenure as Provost and relocated to Barrington. His legacy endures, as he is remembered as a profoundly influential figure in the field of social anthropology, following in the footsteps of his esteemed mentor, Malinowski. Leach passed away on January 6, 1989, in Cambridge, England, at the age of 78.
Structuralism of Edmund Leach
Throughout his career, Leach transitioned his focus from tribal kinship studies to embracing structuralism, notably influenced by Claude Lévi-Strauss. Renowned as a social anthropologist, he delved into technical examinations of kinship, marriage, ritual, and myth, traversing diverse subjects with agility.
In his seminal work, “Political Systems of Highland Burma,” Leach delved into verbal categories, presenting a contextual structuralism grounded in empirical observation rather than abstract theorizing prevalent in Europe. He scrutinized how humans employ categories to delineate distinctions between self, culture and nature, challenging the typological constructions advocated by Radcliffe Brown and his followers, instead extracting social laws directly from ethnographic data.
A proponent of French structuralism in Britain, Leach avidly promoted Lévi-Strauss’s ideas to a wider audience. However, he later emerged as a prominent critic of Lévi-Strauss’s structuralism, earning the label of a Neo-Structuralist for his reformulations. Leach’s contributions, notably his empirical approach, reshaped structuralist thought, with his studies among the Kachins of Burma standing as a testament to his enduring influence.
He authored a book titled “Political Systems of Highland Burma” in 1954, aiming to delve into Burma’s political framework through the lens of three distinct models: Gumlao, Shan, and Gumsa. While Gumlao epitomized an egalitarian and democratic structure, Shan represented a hierarchical and autocratic system, with Gumsa serving as an intermediary between the two extremes.
In contrast to Lévi-Strauss’s structuralism, which primarily focused on binary oppositions, Leach’s approach introduced a nuanced understanding with the inclusion of an intermediary model. These models were derived from empirical observations rather than solely relying on the rational constructs of structuralism, as endorsed by Leach to capture the dynamic nature of Burma’s political landscape over time.
Leach emphasized the importance of historical context, a dimension overlooked in Lévi-Straussian structuralism, in comprehending Burma’s political dynamics. He cautioned against oversimplification by viewing Burma’s political system solely through the lens of Gumlao and Shan, advocating for recognition of the nuanced amalgamation represented by the Gumsa model, which could only be discerned through meticulous empirical analysis.
Leach suggests that studying historical data spanning 100 to 150 years offers valuable insights for constructing societal models. By analyzing historical records of the Burmese political system, we uncovered the existence of a third model, Gumlao. Leach emphasizes the importance of empirically grounded data in shaping underlying structures or models. He introduces the concept of dynamic structure, challenging the notion of static structures proposed by Lévi-Strauss, suggesting that structures evolve over time. Unlike Lévi-Strauss, who discussed universal structures, Leach focuses on local structures, exemplified by the Burmese political system.
Myth and Religion: Base of Structuralism
During the 1960s, Leach embraced Claude Lévi-Strauss’s structuralism, influenced in part by his background in mathematics. However, he later critiqued structuralism for neglecting the actual behaviours of individuals. Leach found merit in Lévi-Strauss’s concept of “sauvage” as the inherent human order, transcending notions of exoticism and promoting a holistic understanding of diversity across realms such as myth, art, and totemism. While structuralism focused on interpreting myths to understand the human psyche, Leach’s emphasis on ritual highlighted his theoretical stance, which stressed the integration of thought and action.
Leach suggests that rituals should not be viewed as contrasting belief systems. Instead, both myths and rituals should be regarded as equivalent entities and experienced in action. Leach categorizes these actions into three types:
- Rational-Technical Action: This type of action is goal-oriented and adheres to standards of verification.
- Communicative Action: This behaviour adheres to culturally defined codes of communication.
- Magical Action: This type of behaviour possesses inherent potency but lacks rational-technical justification.
Furthermore, Leach encompasses communicative and magical actions within the concept of “ritual action.” Thus, rituals involve behaviours that encompass both communicative and magical aspects.
In his personal life, Leach embraced Humanism, and this perspective permeated his academic endeavours. By around 1959, he gravitated toward the structuralist or symbolist interpretation of myth. Throughout the 1960s and 1980s, Leach delved into structuralist analyses of Biblical narratives and Christian doctrine, with “The Legitimacy of Solomon” standing out as particularly intricate. Here, he approaches Jewish scriptures as myth, sidestepping concerns of biblical criticism, theology, and history, and instead focuses on identifying recurring binary patterns such as incest, murder/sacrifice, endogamy/exogamy, descent and inheritance. Leach highlights how the authors of these narratives consciously or subconsciously introduced mediating agents to resolve narrative dilemmas.
In another piece, “Virgin Birth,” Leach explores how Christians reconcile the belief in Jesus as both supernaturally conceived and the human messiah, tracing his lineage to David through Joseph. He depicts Jesus and Mary as intermediaries between the earthly and the divine realms. Moreover, Leach employs this analysis to challenge certain anthropological assertions suggesting that certain primitive tribes lack an understanding of the connection between copulation and conception.
It can be argued that Leach adeptly connects myths, religious beliefs, and religion to gain insights into indigenous and tribal cultures, largely building upon the ideas of earlier scholars.
Political Systems of Highland Burma
Leach gained notable recognition for his work, particularly in his seminal piece, “Political Systems of Highland Burma: A Study of Kachin Social Structure.” Similar to Malinowski’s unexpected immersion in the Trobriand Islands during World War I, Leach’s military service in Burma during World War II inadvertently led him to deviate from the traditional anthropological approach of intensive fieldwork within a single community, which yielded limited generalizations about larger social structures. Throughout the war, Leach extensively traversed Kachin territory, providing him with a unique perspective on the diverse intra-cultural variations, especially concerning the Shan valley peoples.
Moreover, his field notes were lost on two occasions, compelling him to rely on memory and subsequent archival research for his ethnography. This circumstance pushed Leach to produce a work that was more sociological, historical, and theoretical than initially anticipated. In his research, Leach delineated two contrasting ideal models of political organization, known as gumlao and gumsa, which historically oscillated between egalitarian and hierarchical systems, resembling the swing of a pendulum. By employing this approach alongside traditional participant-observation fieldwork within a single community, Leach demonstrated the potential for anthropologists to transcend mere ethnographic study.
Pul Eliya: A Village in Ceylon (Sri Lanka)
In “Pul Eliya: A Village in Ceylon,” Leach meticulously documented land tenure holdings and their relation to kinship systems. He analyzed extensive statistical data to understand the underlying social structures and strategies of individuals and kin groups. Leach’s work contributed to shifting social theory from focusing solely on descent groups to also considering alliance theory. By examining the quantitative patterns, he revealed insights into the socio-religious feudal structure of the Kandyan kingdom and its caste hierarchy.
This book stands out as one of Leach’s most empirical and detailed works, reflecting his ongoing interest in how cultural members shape their cognitive frameworks. Additionally, Leach played a crucial role in interpreting Claude Levi-Strauss’s structuralism for British audiences. He critiqued Levi-Strauss’s analysis of Burmese kinship data and advocated for an empirical foundation for structuralist theories. Leach emphasized the importance of understanding similarities across cultures within their ethnographic contexts rather than relying solely on universal properties of the human mind or species biology.
Claude Levi-Strauss: A Brief Introduction
Claude Levi-Strauss, a French social anthropologist renowned for his contributions to structuralism, is often hailed as a key figure in modern anthropology. He reshaped the landscape of social anthropology by integrating the structuralist analytical methods pioneered by Saussure into the study of cultural dynamics.
Born in Brussels, Belgium in 1908 to French parents, Levi-Strauss spent his formative years in Paris. He pursued studies in philosophy and law at the University of Paris before embarking on a career as a secondary school educator. His academic journey led him to a professorship in sociology at the University of São Paulo, Brazil in 1934, where he conducted groundbreaking field research among indigenous communities. Levi-Strauss also shared his expertise through teaching roles at institutions such as the New School in New York, the University of Paris, and the Collège de France.
It was during his tenure at the New School for Social Research in the 1940s that Levi-Strauss was introduced to the works of Ferdinand de Saussure, the eminent Swiss linguist, by the notable Russian formalist Roman Jakobson. Recognizing the significance of semiology in cultural analysis, Levi-Strauss delved into the intricacies of coded social interactions and their symbolic underpinnings.
He began his scholarly journey with the publication of “The Elementary Structures of Kinship” in 1949, a seminal work in anthropology focusing on kinship. This was followed by his renowned autobiographical piece, “Tristes Tropiques,” in 1955, recounting his extensive travels, particularly in Brazil.
Levi-Strauss posited that language played a pivotal role in shaping human culture, evident in the intricate “symbolic order” permeating religious rituals, social norms, and aesthetics. He contended that cultural patterns were shaped by the deep-seated and universal structures of the human mind, lying within the realm of the unconscious.
A significant aspect of Levi-Strauss’s anthropological inquiries revolved around the distinction between “hot” and “cold” societies. He classified Western European cultures as “hot,” characterized by significant and diverse influences over time, while labelling cultures with minimal changes as “cold,” exemplified by the Amazonian Indians. He proposed that both “savage” and “civilized” minds shared a fundamental structure, suggesting universality in human characteristics across regions.
In recognition of his scholarly contributions, Levi-Strauss was appointed as a member of the Académie Française in 2008, subsequently becoming its Dean in 2009. He passed away on October 30, 2009, at the age of 100, and was laid to rest in Lignerolles, France.
Structuralism of Levi Strauss
The foundational tenets of structuralism find their clearest expression in the works of Levi-Strauss, who delves into uncovering the underlying unconscious laws or structures beneath the surface of cultural manifestations. His primary focus lies in the examination of tribal myths, notably expounded upon in his four-volume work, Mythologies, wherein he presents classification systems and myths. Levi-Strauss reduces these classification systems to binary oppositions, contending that primitive societies are abundant in imaginative richness.
Structuralism, as a theoretical framework, examines the impact of universal patterns in human thought on cultural phenomena. Rather than seeking to elucidate these cultural patterns, it portrays them as stemming from the subconscious and universal human knowledge. This connection between societal norms and the cognitive processes of the mind is so deeply ingrained within individual cultures that it forms the basis of logical thought, shaping specific actions, thoughts, and activities into conceptual frameworks. This phenomenon, known as psychic unity, asserts that despite differences in race and culture, the human species shares a fundamental psychological makeup. However, each culture still maintains its distinct cultural structure.
Levi-Strauss introduced the concept of binary oppositions, where certain pairs of ideas, such as “life vs. death” or “culture vs. nature,” are interdependent and form the basis of thought. This notion, known as the unity of opposites, suggests that these concepts cannot exist in isolation but rather rely on each other. Different cultures interpret and apply these universal ideas in their unique ways, shaping their societies accordingly.
By examining universal concepts and their cultural interpretations, societies establish structured frameworks, contributing to organized communities. This perspective aligns with linguistic anthropology, which posits that humans share a common foundation for language, enabling the development of diverse linguistic systems. Similar to phonemes—pairs of sounds that convey meaning—structuralism suggests a shared cognitive basis for diverse cultural expressions rooted in collective unconsciousness.
Levi-Strauss’ anthropological structuralism encompasses two key aspects. Firstly, he emphasizes the role of linguistic structures in analyzing anthropological phenomena. Secondly, he explores how conscious and unconscious mental processes shape these phenomena, with the underlying structure residing within the individual’s mind.
In Levi-Strauss’ view, this underlying structure is fundamental and enduring. He contends that despite apparent social changes, such as shifts in economic systems like capitalism, the underlying structure remains constant, influencing historical trajectories. Genuine societal transformation would necessitate a profound alteration in this underlying structure, a notion that diverges from contemporary structuralist trends.
Structuralism in Kinship
In the examination of kinship structures, scholars explore systems that stem from ingrained patterns of human cognition, rooted in logical distinctions between contrasting categories. For instance, one such category revolves around the distinctions between immediate family members and marriage across various cultures. Across diverse societies, there exists a near-universal prohibition against incest, wherein direct familial marriages are forbidden. This taboo underscores a fundamental logical opposition between kin and non-kin categories. While cultural norms and values surrounding marriage may vary, encompassing practices like matrilateral cross-cousin marriage or patrilateral cross-cousin marriages, direct incest remains universally prohibited. This universality underscores the core tenets of structuralism, wherein variations in societal rules and structures are observed based on cultural histories and traditions, all while maintaining a shared foundation from which culturally specific customs emerge.
Structuralist Approach to Myths
One of Levi-Strauss’s notable contributions lies in his exploration of myths. He views myth as possessing its own distinct logic, separate from conventional reasoning. Despite their apparent illogical nature, myths exhibit remarkable similarities and enduring presence across various cultures. Unlike jokes or fables, the essence of a myth transcends linguistic barriers, retaining its meaning through translation. Levi-Strauss illustrates this through the lens of structuralism, emphasizing the role of difference and relationship in myth interpretation.
His primary focus lies in uncovering the underlying structures inherent within myths themselves, akin to a language. Levi-Strauss posits that myths possess a synchronous structure, enabling the articulation of specific narratives within a mythic framework. While the specifics of individual myths may vary, their underlying structures remain consistent.
Echoing his anthropological theories, Levi-Strauss conceptualizes myths as a form of discourse through which language can be discerned. His structuralist theory of mythology seeks to elucidate the universal elements within seemingly fantastical tales found across cultures. Rejecting the notion of a singular, authentic version of a myth, Levi-Strauss instead identifies them as manifestations of a shared language, aiming to distill the fundamental units of myth, known as the “mytheme.”
Lévi-Strauss dissected each rendition of a myth into individual sentences, each articulating a relationship between a function and a subject. These sentences sharing identical functions were assigned corresponding numbers and grouped together, termed as mythemes. Through his analysis, Lévi-Strauss uncovered a pattern: myths are composed of interconnected binary oppositions.
Influenced by Hegel’s philosophy, Lévi-Strauss posited that the human mind inherently operates within these binary oppositions and their synthesis, forming the basis of meaning. Moreover, he proposed that myths serve the purpose of reconciling irreconcilable binary oppositions by dispelling illusion and establishing belief.
Lévi-Strauss identified a fundamental paradox in the study of myth. On one hand, mythical narratives appear fantastical and arbitrary, with content seemingly devoid of pattern. Yet, on the other hand, myths across diverse cultures exhibit striking resemblances. While myths seemingly allow for boundless creativity, this apparent randomness is contradicted by the remarkable uniformity observed among myths from disparate regions. This leads to the question: if myth content is contingent, how do we account for the widespread similarities among myths worldwide?
Lévi-Strauss posited the existence of universal laws governing mythical thought, which reconcile the apparent diversity of myths across cultures. Despite their apparent uniqueness, each myth, he suggested, is an expression of a broader universal principle underlying human cognition. His aim in studying myths was to discern patterns within what may seem arbitrary, revealing a hidden order and a sense of inevitability beneath the veneer of freedom.
Central to Lévi-Strauss’s framework is the idea that mythical thought progresses from recognizing opposing elements to reconciling them. In essence, myths comprise conflicting elements alongside mediatory ones that resolve these conflicts.
This structural understanding of myth aligns with Lévi-Strauss’s broader theory of human cognition, which posits that universal laws govern all aspects of human thought. He suggests that myths, despite their seemingly fantastical and unpredictable nature, are rooted in the fundamental rules governing human consciousness. Thus, if even mythical thought adheres to universal laws, then all human thought, including societal structures, must likewise be subject to these laws.
Conclusion: The examination above suggests that Leach and Strauss provided a fresh perspective on structuralism, enriching anthropological and sociological research. Their contributions remain highly regarded, underscoring their status as seminal thinkers. Structuralism, as they elucidated, endeavours to unveil and decipher the deep-seated structures of meaning embedded in human behaviour, such as language, ritual, and attire. It posits that the human mind operates on binary oppositions, wherein phenomena are perceived in terms of contrasting forces, like night and day.
These binary oppositions vary across cultures, with each society defining them in a manner coherent to its members. For instance, shoes are deemed “good” when worn outside but “bad” when placed on a table. Anthropologists aim to comprehend these cultural norms to interpret societal practices. Claude Levi-Strauss played a pivotal role in shaping structuralist principles by highlighting the interconnectedness of cultural systems and their mutual relationships. He argued that social and cultural phenomena could be elucidated by an underlying unconscious reality, distinct from the perceived order of life.
Levi-Strauss further advanced the notion that totemism stemmed from a universal human classification system, forging parallels between the natural and cultural realms. He underscored that the significance lay not in the individual totem’s connection to a specific clan but in how the relationships between totems mirrored broader social group dynamics.
References and Readings:
Sociological Theory, by Ritzer G, https://amzn.to/3Da3pcm
Structural Anthropology, by Claude Levi-strauss (Author)
Rethinking Anthropology, by E R Leach, https://amzn.to/4hq9W0l