SOC1016A-LectureSOC1016A-Lecture

Modes of ThoughtModes of Thought

Last timeLast time

Witchcraft among the Azande

1. Functional explanations

2. Symbolic dimension. Making sense of life

A different logic?

Witchcraft among the Azande

1. Functional explanations

2. Symbolic dimension. Making sense of life

A different logic?

More on alternative rationalitiesMore on alternative rationalities

How can we make sense of the acts and emotions of distant peoples (in space, in time)? Is it possible? Is it right?

1. Cannibalism

2. The killing of Captain James Cook

How can we make sense of the acts and emotions of distant peoples (in space, in time)? Is it possible? Is it right?

1. Cannibalism

2. The killing of Captain James Cook

CannibalismCannibalism

The discourse of cannibalism in the ancient world (Strabo) and in early modern Europe (early colonialism).

The discourse of cannibalism in the ancient world (Strabo) and in early modern Europe (early colonialism).

William Arens, The man-eating myth: anthropology and anthropophagy (1979)

Evidence of cannibalism as a custom is scarce, and arguments in favour of its existence unusually sloppy.

Universal attribution of cannibalism to different/enemy peoples.

“Cannibalism” accompanied the colonial expansion of the Western powers.

William Arens, The man-eating myth: anthropology and anthropophagy (1979)

Evidence of cannibalism as a custom is scarce, and arguments in favour of its existence unusually sloppy.

Universal attribution of cannibalism to different/enemy peoples.

“Cannibalism” accompanied the colonial expansion of the Western powers.

Arens criticised:

1. Ecological explanations (e.g. lack of proteins)

2. Symbolic explanations (Atzec rituals)

What is interesting is our fascination with cannibalism, and its continuous presence in anthropological writings. In other words, its ideological use.

Arens criticised:

1. Ecological explanations (e.g. lack of proteins)

2. Symbolic explanations (Atzec rituals)

What is interesting is our fascination with cannibalism, and its continuous presence in anthropological writings. In other words, its ideological use.

A case-study: the “kuru”A case-study: the “kuru”

Deadly neurological disorder.Recorded in Papua New Guinea.

How is the infection transmitted?

Cannibalism seems an obvious explanation (Gajdusek, Nobel Prize in 1976).

Deadly neurological disorder.Recorded in Papua New Guinea.

How is the infection transmitted?

Cannibalism seems an obvious explanation (Gajdusek, Nobel Prize in 1976).

ConclusionsConclusionsUniversal phenomenon: idea of others as cannibals

(i.e. non-human)

Uses of the discourse of cannibalism in order to establish form of cultural/political hegemony.

Today? See articles in the Guardian

Anthropologists needed anthropophagy to mark a radical difference.

(Disagreement on this point: see Keesing on the Atzec and kuru).

Universal phenomenon: idea of others as cannibals (i.e. non-human)

Uses of the discourse of cannibalism in order to establish form of cultural/political hegemony.

Today? See articles in the Guardian

Anthropologists needed anthropophagy to mark a radical difference.

(Disagreement on this point: see Keesing on the Atzec and kuru).

The killing of Captain CookThe killing of Captain Cook

Opposite ways of assessing cultural difference:

1. Marshall Sahlins2. Gananath Obeyesekere

Opposite ways of assessing cultural difference:

1. Marshall Sahlins2. Gananath Obeyesekere

Sahlins’ interpretationSahlins’ interpretation

There are 2 distinct cultural systems at work here. We need to refer to them to make sense of actions.

Cook arrives at the time of Makahiki ceremony. He is believed to be the god Lono.

He has entered a specific web of ideas and practices. His final move breaks the pattern and creates a cosmological disorder/political upheaval. He is killed to keep the structure intact.

There are 2 distinct cultural systems at work here. We need to refer to them to make sense of actions.

Cook arrives at the time of Makahiki ceremony. He is believed to be the god Lono.

He has entered a specific web of ideas and practices. His final move breaks the pattern and creates a cosmological disorder/political upheaval. He is killed to keep the structure intact.

Obeyesekere’s interpretationObeyesekere’s interpretation

The deification of Cook is a Western myth, a myth of conquest and imperialism.

Hawaiians were acting out of a universal “practical rationality” (≠ Bloor and Winch).

There were pragmatic, intelligible reasons (internal politics)

Political motivations: Sri Lankan / Polynesians

The deification of Cook is a Western myth, a myth of conquest and imperialism.

Hawaiians were acting out of a universal “practical rationality” (≠ Bloor and Winch).

There were pragmatic, intelligible reasons (internal politics)

Political motivations: Sri Lankan / Polynesians

Sahlins’ responseSahlins’ response

Obeyesekere is the real imperialist here, as he attributes Hawaiians a Western way of reasoning.

He is denying the Hawaiians the right to speak for themselves.

He shares the same presuppositions as Levy-Bruhl (“primitive mentality”).

Obeyesekere is the real imperialist here, as he attributes Hawaiians a Western way of reasoning.

He is denying the Hawaiians the right to speak for themselves.

He shares the same presuppositions as Levy-Bruhl (“primitive mentality”).

ConclusionsConclusions

What divides them is not matters of fact but the way in which we should understand cultural difference:

1. Substantial phenomenon (Sahlins)

2. Superficial phenomenon (Obeyesekere)

Which takes us to where we started today: the nature of cultural difference, how to understand it and the moral / political implications of this task.

What divides them is not matters of fact but the way in which we should understand cultural difference:

1. Substantial phenomenon (Sahlins)

2. Superficial phenomenon (Obeyesekere)

Which takes us to where we started today: the nature of cultural difference, how to understand it and the moral / political implications of this task.

Review by C. Geertz in The New York Review of Books (30 Nov. 1995)

Review by C. Geertz in The New York Review of Books (30 Nov. 1995)