An example of a symbol that resonates for people of my background is from the move Forrest Gump, in which the hero reflects "life is like a box of chocolates". But unlike this example, most symbolism is extremely subtle and usually escapes our attention.
In this blog, I reflect on symbolism in culture, starting with an example taken from my blog "Circumcision Ceremony".
On Home Island, in the context of circumcision at least, the same word for the boy's foreskin is used for the back part (stern) of a sailing boat, the konek. I am not sure which usage came first, my guess is that the boat part was named after the private part.
 |
| Back end (stern) of sailing boat (jukung). The konek is circled in red. |
Humans as Red Parakeets
Levy-Bruhl (1857-1939) was a philosopher/sociologist/ethnologist. He drew on the work of a man called von de Steinen to describe a kind of paradox:
The Bororo...boast that they are red araras (parakeets). This does not merely signify that after their death they become araras, nor that araras are metamorphosed Bororos, and must be treated as such. It is something entirely different. "The Bororos" says von de Steinen, who would not believe it but eventually had to give in to their explicit affirmations, "give one rigidly to understand that they are araras at the present time, just as if a caterpillar declared itself to be a butterfly". It is not a name they give to themselves, nor a relationship that they claim. What they desire to express by it is actual identity (1966,62).
So the problem here is, what did the Bororos mean when they say the are parrots? Levy-Bruhl described it as pre-logical. This provoked a famous exchange between Evans-Pritchard and Levy-Bruhl, in which Evans-Pritchard took issue with the term 'pre-logical'.
Many different interpretations of what a Bororo actually means have been proffered, and not only from anthropologists. The difference between some seem to hinge on unclear notions of what is "literal", "metaphorical', "meaning" and so on. Nevertheless, the general outline of interpretations are predictable. These include that Levy-Bruhl was:
Many different interpretations of what a Bororo actually means have been proffered, and not only from anthropologists. The difference between some seem to hinge on unclear notions of what is "literal", "metaphorical', "meaning" and so on. Nevertheless, the general outline of interpretations are predictable. These include that Levy-Bruhl was:
- mistaken, the Bororo don't really think they are parakeets. (e.g. Smith says Levy-Bruhl has got it wrong. What the Borroro mean, according to Smith, is they will become parakeets when they die; like Christians believe they will go to heaven; like a caterpillar 'dies' and becomes a butterfly.)
- was right, but such thinking is not 'primitive', we all think this way. (Like when I say "my" team the Richmond Tigers are going well and "we" need to lift our game, even though I don't play on the team)
- was right, but such thinking is not 'primitive', it is however indicative of a fundamentally different way of thinking of the world. (e.g. Vivieros de Castro writes that Amerindians tend to believe in the reality of the soul but think that the physical/material world is dubious--they are not really sure if a bear is actually an old man in disguise etc.)
A recent publication by Greenwood takes this second line. Greenwood argues that, an outcome of Evans-Pritchard and Levy-Bruhl exchange was that "All human beings think in similar ways'. In Western and non-Western societies we sometimes think like the Bororo who says he is a parakeet. We could characterise this as a kind of thinking which "Utilizes an altered state of consciousness, Employs a language of holism, Uses a metaphorical mode, Engages with an inspirited world view, Draws us in to a mythological realm expressed through stories' (31). Then other times we think in more sceintific and individualistic ways.
Geertz also supports the second reading, but instead of 'participation' he thinks the term 'religious perspective' is more appropriate. That is to say, Geertz thinks the Bororo who identifies with red parakeets is taking religious perspective on life. When a common-sensical view of reality seems superficial to us--when we become interested in what lies behind appearances--we take a religious perspective. So Geertz, in his "Religion as a Cultural System", argues that a Bororo person only sees himself as a parakeet when he's looking at the world from a religious perspective. He is not being mystical, mythical, or illogical. Actually, he's being religious. If us outsiders look at this way, it gives us a better understanding of:
Geertz also supports the second reading, but instead of 'participation' he thinks the term 'religious perspective' is more appropriate. That is to say, Geertz thinks the Bororo who identifies with red parakeets is taking religious perspective on life. When a common-sensical view of reality seems superficial to us--when we become interested in what lies behind appearances--we take a religious perspective. So Geertz, in his "Religion as a Cultural System", argues that a Bororo person only sees himself as a parakeet when he's looking at the world from a religious perspective. He is not being mystical, mythical, or illogical. Actually, he's being religious. If us outsiders look at this way, it gives us a better understanding of:
what a Bororo means when he says "I am a parakeet," or a Christian when he says "I am a sinner," ... it is unsatisfactory to say either that the Bororo thinks he is literally a parakeet (for he does not try to mate with other parakeets), that his statement is false or nonsense...or yet again that it is false scientifically but true mythically .... More coherently it would seem to be necessary to see the sentence [as taking the] religious perspective and [not the] the common-sensical. In the religious, our Bororo is "really" a "parakeet," and given the proper ritual context might well "mate" with other "parakeets"--with metaphysical ones like himself, not commonplace ones such as those which fly bodily about in ordinary trees. In the common-sensical perspective he is a parakeet in...that he belongs to a clan whose members regard the parakeet as their totem, a membership from which, given the fundamental nature of reality as the religious perspective reveals it... A man who says he is a parakeet is...saying that...he is shot through with parakeetness and that this religious fact has some crucial social implications--we parakeets must stick together, not marry one another, not eat mundane parakeets, and so on, for to do otherwise is to act against the grain of the whole universe.
Hence, a Christian sees human beings around him, but beneath the surfaces he sees sinners, saints and other such beings. A Bororo sees human beings around him, but beneath the surface he sees a parakeet quality, a 'parakeetness'.
In any case, we need not be stuck to the Bororo example. It has just become convention, while other instances abound of what anthropologists sometimes (and somewhat controversially) call totemism.
In “The form and meaning of magical acts: a
point of view” Tambiah argues that what he calls 'traditional' and 'modern' thinking
are different. Traditional thinking incorporates magic; while modern thinking
incorporates science. Both magic and science use analogy, but use analogy in
different ways.
In science, we use analogy is a way of
predicting the unknown. For example, if we find a fossilised skeleton with some
parts missing, we use a complete skeleton to guess what the missing parts would
look like. In magic, we use analogy to persuade. For
example, while sticking pins in a doll we say “May your body suffer as this doll
does”. Magical acts are not to be judged as true or false. The main point is
whether they are performed correctly or not. They provide a method for acting
upon the world. They are not intended to generate new hypotheses.
In any case, we need not be stuck to the Bororo example. It has just become convention, while other instances abound of what anthropologists sometimes (and somewhat controversially) call totemism.
Totemism
Totemism occurs when a group of people form a clan and associate the clan with (typically, but not always) an animal. Among central Australian Aboriginal groups, it makes perfect sense to say "I am kangaroo". According to Durkheim, we can explain this in the following way. There was once a super-human ancestor who could, at will, transform himself into kangaroo and human shapes. All his human descendants have a kangaroo quality; they belong to the kangaroo clan. All kangaroos also are descended from him; they also have that kangaroo quality. The places the ancestor visited, touched, changed, or transformed himself into, have that quality as well; let's call it "kangaroo-ness". In addition, sacred objects such as boards of wood, things that whistle in the wind when you swing them on a long string (i.e. bull roarer) have this kangaroo quality. All the things; the ancestor, the clan, the animal, the parts of land the ancestor formed or created, the sacred objects, have this same kangaroo-quality. They are all, in a sense, kangaroo.
Symbolism
From an outsider's perspective, what seems to be going on here is that one thing is related or equated with another; a foreskin with a part of a boat; a human with a bird; a human with a sinner or a saint; a human with a kangaroo. We could just call this "symbolism". If you're interested in the broad outlines of how anthropologists study symbolism, have a look at my YouTube presentation, Symbol: 25 Concepts in Anthropology or listen to The Symbols of Christmas in my iTunesU podcasts.
Further Reading
...on animism (the idea that spirits or souls inhabit not only humans but animals, trees, rocks etc.)
Hallowel, Al. (Read this author on the Ojibwa, an Amerindian group)
..on Aboriginal Australia:
Durkheim, Emile. (Just get any selection from his Elementary forms of Religious Life")
Munn, Nancy. "The transformation of subjects into objects in Walbiri and Pitjantjatjara myth"
Peterson, Nicolas. "Is the Aboriginal Landscape Sentient? Animism, the New Animism and the Warlpiri"
...on Amerindian culture.
No comments:
Post a Comment