Speaking of Anthropology...

[Steerpike]

I picked up Structural Anthropology, by Claude Levi-Strauss. I'd read a few of his papers before and found them interesting. I also have a copy of The Raw and the Cooked laying around somewhere. One thing I don't know, since I am not involved in this field, is how well Levi-Strauss' ideas are received today, and whether they represent a substantial viewpoint or a very small one.

Thoughts?

 

[Shockley]

One thing I've discovered, just as a historian-in-training, is how whacked out every other anthropologist is. Levi-Strauss is one of those guys (he basically ignores actual history when it conflicts with structuralism), but he's still incredibly influential and he's no intellectual slouch.

 

[Steerpike]

One thing I've discovered, just as a historian-in-training, is how whacked out every other anthropologist is. Levi-Strauss is one of those guys (he basically ignores actual history when it conflicts with structuralism), but he's still incredibly influential and he's no intellectual slouch.

Interesting. From what little I've read of his work, he seems to go in expecting to find the dichotomy he's looking for, and then finds it. But I'm not educated enough in the field to really say much about it beyond that. I've found his papers interesting, but his books take a while for me to get through (as opposed to, say, Joseph Campbell, who as I understand it was not trained as an Anthropologist, but had some interesting thoughts that he relayed in a manner anyone can readily understand). Even in the case of Campbell, I don't know enough about the subject matter in general to know when he's on-target and when he's on thin ice.

 

[Shockley]

Campbell walks that fine line between anthropologist, mythologist and whacko, but I still love him and his work. I'd divide Campbell into three slots:

- Medieval mythology: This is his best and most scholarly work.
- Native American mythology: He explains this the best and he's very passionate about this. It's good work, but he's doing more cataloging than analysis, and that's perfectly legitimate.
- East Asian mythology: Here's where we go off the rails a bit.

 

[Jabrosky]

Shockley, can you explain what your problem with anthropology is?

 

[Shockley]

I have no problem with anthropology as a soft science.

I do have a problem with a certain kind of person who gets an anthropological degree and uses that as the basis for all sorts of wild assumptions about the human condition. Some anthropologists I really respect, like Franz Boas. Most of them, however, are prone to generalizations, seeing patterns where none exist, etc.

Broadly speaking, they're the rabid fundamentalists of the soft science religion.

 

[RDelaval]

I'm an anthropologist (a paleopathologist to be exact). To answer the OP, anthropologists tend to view Levi Strauss the same way biologists view Charles Darwin: great man, great ideas, thanks for kickstarting it *pat on the head* now, aren't you sweet. When I studied his works in college, there was a certain condescension to the lectures specifically because he always seemed to find exactly what he was looking for. No science - soft or hard - works that way.

To Shockley: Anthropology is a soft science, absolutely. It's psychology from the outside in, essentially. The human condition has so many variations on a few solid themes that you can find just about anything you want to find if you connect enough dots. The key is knowing when to stop drawing lines in the first place. It's why I drifted towards medical and forensic anthropology rather than cultural or linguistic.