From a structural functionalist's point of view,
observation--an integral facet of anthropological fieldwork--never reveals the
isolated performance of a single societal mechanism, but rather the complex
interaction between a multitude of mental cogwheels. It is this system of
interlocking gears, each of which is defined in one way or another by the
mind's tendency to compartmentalize environmental data, that spins in harmony to
create a template for one's culture. In this sense, each of a society's
individuals develop a unique (yet largely similar) interpretation of how the
system is to run, and consequently how to respond to certain stimuli.
What then is an observer to do when thrust into an alien
landscape and culture? The observer enters foreign systems with a preconceived
notion of how each gear is to interact, but imagine his or her surprise to
realize this new system of gears differ in shape, color, and size! The
inhabitants of this novel land have redefined the very building blocks of
culture itself, and it is the task of the observer to document, in excruciating
detail, the nuances of this strange people and place.
As the observer settles into the new system, he or she is
introduced to the people's core belief system. It is this particular gear that
acts as a system-wide lubricant--ensuring the culture as a whole remains both socially intact and efficient. But what is the observer to do when this belief system
does not match up with the laws governing the observer's world? How can one
digest without bias an explanation for life that fails to meet, for example,
the laws of physics? These are the types of myths Levi-Strauss recounts in Structuralism
and Ecology--the kind that not only failed to meet his own belief system, but
also appeared to contradict the very systems they were meant to ensure. Native
accounts of mystical creatures and impossible actions--the likes of which
Strauss no doubt could convey to a child/grandchild as fairy tales before
bedtime--appeared baffling on the surface. That is, until Levi-Strauss took
them in the context of adjacent systems. While these adjacent systems belonged to entirely
different cultures, they more often than not featured an attachment to the
same myth.
Having donned my "structuralist" hat, I
would like to propose the analysis of the Flood Myth through the lens
of both Christianity and Mesopotamian lore. Without delving into
explicit detail, the Bible recounts an Earth-engulfing flood occurring in the
book of Genesis due to God's anger with humanity's general behavior. Sparing a
man named Noah, his family, and an array of animals, God then unleashes a
torrent of water upon the land--utterly destroying all life and leaving his
chosen to repopulate the land.
When taken at face value, it is easy to discount this tale
as pure, unadulterated fantasy. After all, we know that in no way could a pair
of animals repopulate an entire species, and no empirical research yields even
an inkling of evidence that at any time since the Earth's inception did a flood
ever overtake continent-level land swaths instantaneously. How then would
Levi-Strauss, a staunch believer in the underlying relevancy of all myths, go
about analyzing the biblical flood? No doubt, his studies would inevitably take
him into the Epic of Gilgamesh. Dated
to approximately 2700 BCE, the Epic of Gilgamesh
too features a section in which Gilgamesh’s grandfather constructs at the behest of the gods “a boat of 120 cubits,” boards it with a select company, and survives a seven day
flood of immense proportions.
The obvious parallels running between the biblical
flood and the one encountered in Gilgamesh
have manifested themselves time and time again throughout cultural history.
From the lore of the K’iche’ and Mayan people of Central America, to the Hindu
text Satapatha Brahmana, the flood myth motif is a structural functionalist’s field
day, as it reveals much about the basic structuring of human mental structures—specifically,
our fascination with the cycle of destruction/cleansing and renewal via the
authority of a divine being.
Levi-Strauss argues that the process of dichotomizing
environmental stimuli is integral to human survivability, as we function more
efficiently knowing without hesitation what is and is not beneficial. I would
argue that the widespread use of flood narratives across early cultures acts as a
dichotomization of behavior in relation to divine will--that is, leading a “bad”
life increases society’s chance of destruction by the divine. While what
defines a “bad” life is left up to cultural interpretation, each flood story is
centered upon punishing the impure, evil members of society, while the divine’s
chosen (more often than not portrayed as a noble, inherently “good” figure)
emerges from the devastation unscathed. In this sense, the flood myth acts as a both a creation story (i.e. everything alive today has descended from God's chosen survivors) and a potent forewarning against a life contrary to divine will.
Gracefully crafted post! The Flood is well-suited to a Levi-Straussian interpretation because it is so all-or-nothing. Is there possibly a hint of the capacity of culture (boat-making, social organization, religion) surviving nature here as well? In paragraph four you say you have donned a "structural-functionalist" hat, when you mean "structuralist." Might want to edit this to avoid confusion.
ReplyDeleteGracefully crafted post! The Flood is well-suited to a Levi-Straussian interpretation because it is so all-or-nothing. Is there possibly a hint of the capacity of culture (boat-making, social organization, religion) surviving nature here as well? In paragraph four you say you have donned a "structural-functionalist" hat, when you mean "structuralist." Might want to edit this to avoid confusion.
ReplyDeleteGrant does an excellent job of explaining this theoretical point of view in a way that is easily understandable by the audience (although it lacks the ability to mock the phrasing in a French accent…). As Grant explained, it is vital to understand the complexity of the interactions between cultures. In this current era of globalization, it is more important now than ever before to understand the ways in which cultures are similar and different. Perhaps it is in returning to the Lévi-Straussian mode of unpacking myths that greater cultural competency can be understood and perceived among cultures that are located near or far geographically and culturally.
ReplyDeleteAs we were reading through Lévi-Strauss’ ideas about myths, I also recalled these two stories of floods that Grant recounts here. My father loved to tell me stories when I was a child, and we would both spend time thinking about the ways in which they were similar and different. I think most of our analysis likely came from the early elementary school version of me being unclear about which story was which, but, since these early exercises, I have always enjoyed finding the similarities and differences of different myths from different cultural and religious traditions. For this reason, I would like to further unpack the mythemes of these two ancient stories. According to Lévi-Strauss, mythemes are the essential components of a myth, the irreducible, unchanging elements that can be found in many myths across many cultures and traditions and can be bundled together to create greater meaning. By understanding that certain mythemes may be common across various works, it is possible to see the ways in which mythemes reveal important characteristics and values of different societies.
As Grant stated, some of the most visible mythemes that occur in the works are the flood, impurity, evil members of society, the divinely chosen “good” characters, a creation story, and a forewarning against a life contrary to divine will. These are some of the larger scale mythemes that occur in the work.
However, many other mythemes exist that are common between the two tales and reveal specific similarities and differences of the two cultures that have employed or continue to employ these myths. In Genesis (Noah’s Ark) and in Gilgamesh, the extent of the flood is global. The cause of the flood in both stories was due to man’s wickedness and sins. The floods were, in both cases, intended to destroy all of mankind. A higher being (God or gods) were the cause of the flood. Both Noah and Utnapishtim, the heroes of the stories, are seen as righteous characters that find out that the flood is coming and that they must prepare for it due to divine intervention (Noah finds out directly from God while Utnapishtim finds out directly from a dream). Both men were ordered to build boats and both complained about the process of building, although they both built boats several stories tall with many compartments inside and only one door through which animals and humans could enter. Both boats were covered in pitch and some form of rectangle (rectangular in Genesis and Square in Gilgamesh). All species of animals were allowed on board the ship, however, in Genesis, only family members were allowed. In the epic of Gilgamesh, family and a few others were allowed on. Both stories rely on heavy rain as the cause of the floods. A test to see if the flood was over was the release of birds to find if land had become available. A major difference between the two stories is that, in Genesis, the flood lasts more than 40 days and nights. In the epic of Gilgamesh, the flood is much shorter and only lasts 6 days and nights. 40 is an important number within the Judeo-Christian tradition, but I was unable to find if 6 carried the same importance among the Mesopotamians. Both arks landed by mountains that are geographically located relatively close to one another (about 300 miles). Both men were blessed after the flood, however the blessings they received differed. In Genesis, Noah was told to multiply and fill the earth and have dominion over the animals while Utnapishtim was granted eternal life.
ReplyDeleteExamining the specifics of both mythemes can reveal the similarities and differences within societies. For example, the location of landing shows a significant importance and is a similarity between the two stories. I am not sure of the importance of this region, but it obviously has a shared economic, political, religious, or social significance between the two cultures. In contrast, the difference in the blessings could potentially show what each culture found to be the most important – having dominion over the earth vs. having eternal life. Understanding the implications of these differences in blessing could further reveal core values of each of the societies.
The presence of so many mythemes, the history of the stories, and the large scale ways in which these stories have been passed on verbally and in written form are a testament to their importance within the cultures in which they were initially created in and within the cultures that continue to highlight these stories as important explanations of the world in which we live.
Through the understanding of the underlying elements of these myths and through the examination of the cultures that keep these myths alive, it is possible to learn a great deal about a given society. By understanding what these mythemes reflect about the cultures which employ them, it may be possible to determine new ways in which these cultures can agree and compromise in order to create a more peaceful world. Although these two stories are rather basic compared to some of the other creation myths, it is possible to imagine that completing a full mythological and Lévi-Straussian analysis of the stories of Jesus and Muhammad could allow for more common groundwork to be laid and, perhaps, provide a platform on which those who practice these religious traditions can move forwards together.
Very nice application of L-S's ideas!
ReplyDelete