What do you think?
Rate this book
??????? ?????
???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? "????????": "??? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???"? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????????. ????????????? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ????? 1908? ?????? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??????. ???? ???? ????? ?????? "?????? ?????" ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???????? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????.
"??????? ?????" ???? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ??? "??????????" ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???????? ???????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???????. ???? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ??? 1955? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ???????. ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ??????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? "????? ??????" ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??????. ??? ??? ??? ??????? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? "???????" ???? ???????? ???? ????? "?????????" ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?? ???????????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? "??????? ???????" ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????.
??? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? "?????? ????????"? ???? ???? "??????? ???????????"? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ??? ???????? ???????? ????? ????????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ????????? ???? ??????? ????????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ???????? ????????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????? ?????????? ????? "??????? ??????" ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ???????? ??? ?? ????? ?? "????" ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ???????? ???????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??????? -????? ???????: ?????? ?? ???????? ????????.
????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?"???? ?????" ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? "??????? ???????" ????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ????? ??? ??????? ??????? ??? ??????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ?????.
"??????? ?????" ???? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ??? "??????????" ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???????? ???????? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???????. ???? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ??? 1955? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ???????? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???????? ???????. ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ??????? ??????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? "????? ??????" ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?????? ??????. ??? ??? ??? ??????? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? "???????" ???? ???????? ???? ????? "?????????" ?????? ??????? ??????? ??? ?? ???????????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? "??????? ???????" ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????.
??? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? "?????? ????????"? ???? ???? "??????? ???????????"? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ??? ???????? ???????? ????? ????????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ????????? ???? ??????? ????????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ???????? ????????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ???????? ?????????? ????? "??????? ??????" ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ???????? ??? ?? ????? ?? "????" ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? ???????? ???????? ??????? ???? ??????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ??????? -????? ???????: ?????? ?? ???????? ????????.
????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?"???? ?????" ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? ?????????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? "??????? ???????" ????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ????? ??? ??????? ??????? ??? ??????? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ?????.
508 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1955
725 people are currently reading
13100 people want to read
About the author
Claude Lévi-Strauss
230?books831?followersClaude Lévi-Strauss was a French anthropologist, well-known for his development of structural anthropology. He was born in Belgium to French parents who were living in Brussels at the time, but he grew up in Paris. His father was an artist, and a member of an intellectual French Jewish family. Lévi-Strauss studied at the University of Paris. From 1935-9 he was Professor at the University of Sao Paulo making several expeditions to central Brazil. Between 1942-1945 he was Professor at the New School for Social Research. In 1950 he became Director of Studies at the Ecole Practique des Hautes Etudes. In 1959 Lévi-Strauss assumed the Chair of Social Anthroplogy at the College de France. His books include The Raw and the Cooked, The Savage Mind, Structural Anthropology and Totemism (Encyclopedia of World Biography).
Some of the reasons for his popularity are in his rejection of history and humanism, in his refusal to see Western civilization as privileged and unique, in his emphasis on form over content and in his insistence that the savage mind is equal to the civilized mind.
Lévi-Strauss did many things in his life including studying Law and Philosophy. He also did considerable reading among literary masterpieces, and was deeply immersed in classical and contemporary music.
Lévi-Strauss was awarded the Wenner-Gren Foundation's Viking Fund Medal for 1966 and the Erasmus Prize in 1975. He was also awarded four honorary degrees from Oxford, Yale, Havard and Columbia. Strauss held several memberships in institutions including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy and Institute of Arts and Letters, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society (Encyclopedia of World Biography).
Some of the reasons for his popularity are in his rejection of history and humanism, in his refusal to see Western civilization as privileged and unique, in his emphasis on form over content and in his insistence that the savage mind is equal to the civilized mind.
Lévi-Strauss did many things in his life including studying Law and Philosophy. He also did considerable reading among literary masterpieces, and was deeply immersed in classical and contemporary music.
Lévi-Strauss was awarded the Wenner-Gren Foundation's Viking Fund Medal for 1966 and the Erasmus Prize in 1975. He was also awarded four honorary degrees from Oxford, Yale, Havard and Columbia. Strauss held several memberships in institutions including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy and Institute of Arts and Letters, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society (Encyclopedia of World Biography).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 296 reviews
Want to read
July 13, 2018This is like Holden Caulfield does anthropology. Immediately bitchy.
March 14, 2024
Add a review? What a funny idea! All the people said almost everything. It will, therefore, be more of a personal remark (which is more or less my specialty in this section; I do not tell the books I read but rather the effect they have had on me).
This book had been gathering dust on a shelf for years and scared the crap out of me. It is a big book for a lover of novels and haikus. A photo of an Amazonian Indian on a white background challenging to interpret: hostility, exoticism? Perhaps I was waiting to have visited, if not the Indians, at least Brazil, before embarking on this adventure. Because in my head, this book dealt with the Indians of Brazil and nothing else. Monumental error. I have read a lot but very few books that sell so masterfully and often "in passing" (Is that how geniuses are?) a multitude of fascinating questions. The relationship between geology and psychoanalysis, the hidden links between sea, mountain, and forest, urban planning and land management, language, writing and civilization, connections between the old and new world, men and women, groups and hierarchy, and invaders. Fabulous. It is an enriching read (because it makes you want to deepen many points) and simultaneously entertaining, full of surprises and strewn with details (the menu of the Indians and the author!) and stories alongside which many novels appear even blundering. That's to read urgently as a brain-degreasing cure for lovers of Brazil, India, or Pakistan. Or for all those fascinated by sprawling, erudite, and (almost) without prejudice, logic, and full of contradictions, all written in a classical language. A big posthumous thank you!
This book had been gathering dust on a shelf for years and scared the crap out of me. It is a big book for a lover of novels and haikus. A photo of an Amazonian Indian on a white background challenging to interpret: hostility, exoticism? Perhaps I was waiting to have visited, if not the Indians, at least Brazil, before embarking on this adventure. Because in my head, this book dealt with the Indians of Brazil and nothing else. Monumental error. I have read a lot but very few books that sell so masterfully and often "in passing" (Is that how geniuses are?) a multitude of fascinating questions. The relationship between geology and psychoanalysis, the hidden links between sea, mountain, and forest, urban planning and land management, language, writing and civilization, connections between the old and new world, men and women, groups and hierarchy, and invaders. Fabulous. It is an enriching read (because it makes you want to deepen many points) and simultaneously entertaining, full of surprises and strewn with details (the menu of the Indians and the author!) and stories alongside which many novels appear even blundering. That's to read urgently as a brain-degreasing cure for lovers of Brazil, India, or Pakistan. Or for all those fascinated by sprawling, erudite, and (almost) without prejudice, logic, and full of contradictions, all written in a classical language. A big posthumous thank you!
April 21, 2023
'La liberté n'est ni une invention juridique ni un trésor philosophique, propriété chérie de civilisations plus dignes que d'autres parce qu'elles seules sauraient la produire ou la préserver. Elle résulte d'une relation objective entre l'individu et l'espace qu'il occupe, entre le consommateur et les ressources dont il dispose.
Cet essai de l'ethnographe fran?ais Claude Lévi-Strauss porte sur son étude de peuples indigènes, du Brésil en particulier. Plus généralement, il se donne pour objet de définir les conditions d'exercice, les ambitions et les limites de l'anthropologie, son domaine d'étude.
Peintures corporelles symétriques et asymétriques d'une femme caduveo (fin 19e siècle)
Points faibles (à mon avis) :
Une écriture par moments excessivement chargée.
Points forts (toujours à mon avis) :
L'attention portée aux menus accidents et aux 'épiphénomènes' qui entourent l'étude et la prise de notes sur les comportements des populations observées par Levi-Strauss.
Son étude des Caduveo, des Bororo et des Nambikwara en particulier.
La lucidité du regard qu'il porte sur sa propre discipline et ses aspirations personnelles.
Du reste, Claude Lévi-Strauss porte un point de vue foncièrement pessimiste, qui n'aura pas l'heur de plaire à tous, sur le devenir des sociétés humaines : surpopulation, pollution, uniformisation des modes de vie, injustice, formalisme abstrait et anachronisme de certaines formes sociales (il cite la société fran?aise et l'islam), amoindrissement universel de la liberté.
-------
Quelques citations ?
'Aujourd'hui où des ?les polynésiennes noyées de béton se transforment en porte-avions pesamment ancrés au fond des mers du Sud, où l'Asie toute entière prend visage d'une zone maladive, où les bidonvilles rongent l'Afrique, où l'aviation commerciale et militaire flétrit la grandeur de la forêt américaine [...] avant même d'en pouvoir détruire la virginité, comment la prétendue évasion du voyage pourrait-elle réussir autre chose que nous confronter aux formes les plus malheureuses de notre existence historique ?'
'Je comprends alors la passion, la folie, la duperie des récits de voyage. Ils apportent l'illusion de ce qui n'existe plus et qui devrait être encore, pour que nous échappions à l'accablante évidence que vingt mille ans d'histoire sont joués. Il n'y a plus rien à faire : la civilisation n'est plus cette fleur fragile qu'on préservait, qu'on développait à grand-peine dans quelques coins habités d'un terroir riche en espèces rustiques, mena?antes sans doute par leur vivacité, mais qui permettaient aussi de varier et de revigorer les semis. L'humanité s'installe dans la monoculture; elle s'apprête à produire la civilisation en masse, comme la betterave. Son ordinaire ne comportera plus que ce plat.'
------
'La liberté n'est ni une invention juridique ni un trésor philosophique, propriété chérie de civilisations plus dignes que d'autres parce qu'elles seules sauraient la produire ou la préserver. Elle résulte d'une relation objective entre l'individu et l'espace qu'il occupe, entre le consommateur et les ressources dont il dispose. Encore n'est-il pas s?r que ceci compense cela, et qu'une société riche mais trop dense ne s'empoisonne pas de cette densité, comme ces parasites de la farine qui réussissent à s'exterminer à distance par leurs toxines, avant même que la matière nutritive ne fasse défaut.'
'Il faut beaucoup de na?veté ou de mauvaise foi pour penser que les hommes choisissent leurs croyances indépendamment de leur condition. Loin que les systèmes politiques déterminent la forme d'existence sociale, ce sont les formes d'existence qui donnent un sens aux idéologies qui les expriment [...]. En ce moment, le malentendu entre l'Occident et l'Orient est d'abord sémantique : les formules que nous colportons impliquent des signifiés absents ou différents.'
'Par delà les remèdes politiques et économiques convenables, le problème posé par la confrontation de l'Asie et de l'Amérique tropicale reste celui de la multiplication humaine sur un espace limité. Comment oublier qu'à cet égard l'Europe occupe une position intermédiaire, entre les deux mondes ? Ce problème du nombre, l'Inde s'y est attaquée il y a quelque trois mille ans en cherchant, avec le système des castes, un moyen de transformer la quantité en qualité, c'est-à-dire de différencier les groupements humains pour leur permettre de vivre c?te à c?te. Elle avait même con?u le problème en termes plus vastes : l'élargissant, au-delà de l'homme, à toutes les formes de la vie. La règle végétarienne s'inspire du même souci que le régime des castes, à savoir d'empêcher les groupements sociaux et les espèces animales d'empiéter les uns sur les autres, de réserver à chacun une liberté qui lui soit propre gr?ce au renoncement par les autres de l'exercice d'une liberté antagoniste. Il est tragique pour l'homme que cette grande expérience ait échoué, je veux dire qu'au cours de l'histoire les castes n'aient pas réussi à atteindre un état où elles seraient demeurées égales parce que différentes - égales en ce sens qu'elles eussent été incommensurables - et que se soit introduite parmi elles cette dose perfide d'homogénéité qui permettait comparaison, et donc la création d'une hiérarchie. Car si les hommes peuvent parvenir à coexister à condition de se reconna?tre tous autant hommes, mais autrement, ils le peuvent aussi en se refusant les uns aux autres un degré comparable d'humanité, et donc en se subordonnant.
Ce grand échec de l'Inde apporte un enseignement : en devenant trop nombreuse et malgré le génie de ses penseurs, une société ne se perpétue qu'en sécrétant la servitude. Lorsque les hommes commencent à se sentir à l'étroit dans leurs espaces géographique, social et mental, une solution simple risque de les séduire : celle qui consiste à refuser la qualité humaine à une partie de l'espèce. Pour quelques dizaines d'années, les autres retrouveront les coudées franches. Ensuite il faudra procéder à une nouvelle expulsion.'
------
'Il faudra admettre que, dans la gamme des possibilités offertes aux sociétés humaines, chacune a fait un certain choix et que ces choix sont incomparables entre eux : ils se valent. Mais alors surgit un nouveau problème : car si dans le premier cas nous étions menacés d'obscurantisme par un refus aveugle de ce qui n'est pas n?tre, nous risquons maintenant de céder à un éclectisme qui, d'une culture quelconque, nous interdit de rien répudier : f?t-ce la cruauté, l'injustice et la misère contre lesquelles proteste parfois cette société même, qui les subit. [...]
Aucune société n'est parfaite. Toutes comportent par nature une impureté incompatible avec les normes qu'elles proclament, et qui se traduit concrètement par une certaine dose d'injustice, d'insensibilité, de cruauté. [...] On découvre alors qu'aucune n'est foncièrement bonne; mais aucune n'est absolument mauvaise. Toutes offrent certains avantages à leurs membres, compte tenu d'un résidu d'iniquité dont l'importance para?t approximativement constante, et qui correspond peut-être à une inertie spécifique qui s'impose, sur le plan de la vie sociale, aux efforts d'organisation. [...]
? mieux [conna?tre les autres sociétés], nous gagnons pourtant un moyen de nous détacher de la n?tre, non point que celle-ci soit absolument ou seule mauvaise, mais parce que c'est la seule dont nous devions nous affranchir : nous le sommes par état des autres. Nous nous mettons ainsi en mesure d'aborder la deuxième étape qui consiste, sans rien retenir d'aucune société, à les utiliser toutes pour dégager ces principes de la vie sociale qu'il nous sera possible d'appliquer à la réforme de nos propres m?urs, et non de celles des sociétés étrangères : en raison d'un privilège inverse du précédent, c'est la société seule à laquelle nous appartenons que nous sommes en position de transformer sans risquer de la détruire; car ces changements viennent aussi d'elle, que nous y introduisons.'
Références voisines
Cosmologie, mythologie grecque :
Grammaire et vision du monde portée par les langues :
Interpénétration des systèmes philosophiques et religieux, étude du bouddhisme Mahayana en particulier, que Lévi-Strauss évoque aussi dans la neuvième et dernière partie de Tristes tropiques :
Le bouddhisme Mahayana vu par Shigekuni Honda dans Le Temple de l'Aube, en bref :
Le rêve uchronique d'un mariage de l'orient et de l'occident, ou du moins de relations plus étroites, sur le modèle des emprunts et inspirations orientales dans la pensée mythologique, philosophique et technique grecque de l'époque hellénique (Sagesses barbares - Arnaldo Momigliani).
Quête des anomalies urbaines, recherche de l'aleph, incarnation de l'identité d'une ville dans son espace et dans sa temporalité :
Colonisation, décolonisation. Rapport des anciennes colonies aux anciennes métropoles.
Devenir des sociétés humaines :
Paradoxes de la société japonaise :
Bande son:
Cet essai de l'ethnographe fran?ais Claude Lévi-Strauss porte sur son étude de peuples indigènes, du Brésil en particulier. Plus généralement, il se donne pour objet de définir les conditions d'exercice, les ambitions et les limites de l'anthropologie, son domaine d'étude.
Peintures corporelles symétriques et asymétriques d'une femme caduveo (fin 19e siècle)
Points faibles (à mon avis) :
Une écriture par moments excessivement chargée.
Points forts (toujours à mon avis) :
L'attention portée aux menus accidents et aux 'épiphénomènes' qui entourent l'étude et la prise de notes sur les comportements des populations observées par Levi-Strauss.
Son étude des Caduveo, des Bororo et des Nambikwara en particulier.
La lucidité du regard qu'il porte sur sa propre discipline et ses aspirations personnelles.
Du reste, Claude Lévi-Strauss porte un point de vue foncièrement pessimiste, qui n'aura pas l'heur de plaire à tous, sur le devenir des sociétés humaines : surpopulation, pollution, uniformisation des modes de vie, injustice, formalisme abstrait et anachronisme de certaines formes sociales (il cite la société fran?aise et l'islam), amoindrissement universel de la liberté.
-------
Quelques citations ?
'Aujourd'hui où des ?les polynésiennes noyées de béton se transforment en porte-avions pesamment ancrés au fond des mers du Sud, où l'Asie toute entière prend visage d'une zone maladive, où les bidonvilles rongent l'Afrique, où l'aviation commerciale et militaire flétrit la grandeur de la forêt américaine [...] avant même d'en pouvoir détruire la virginité, comment la prétendue évasion du voyage pourrait-elle réussir autre chose que nous confronter aux formes les plus malheureuses de notre existence historique ?'
'Je comprends alors la passion, la folie, la duperie des récits de voyage. Ils apportent l'illusion de ce qui n'existe plus et qui devrait être encore, pour que nous échappions à l'accablante évidence que vingt mille ans d'histoire sont joués. Il n'y a plus rien à faire : la civilisation n'est plus cette fleur fragile qu'on préservait, qu'on développait à grand-peine dans quelques coins habités d'un terroir riche en espèces rustiques, mena?antes sans doute par leur vivacité, mais qui permettaient aussi de varier et de revigorer les semis. L'humanité s'installe dans la monoculture; elle s'apprête à produire la civilisation en masse, comme la betterave. Son ordinaire ne comportera plus que ce plat.'
------
'La liberté n'est ni une invention juridique ni un trésor philosophique, propriété chérie de civilisations plus dignes que d'autres parce qu'elles seules sauraient la produire ou la préserver. Elle résulte d'une relation objective entre l'individu et l'espace qu'il occupe, entre le consommateur et les ressources dont il dispose. Encore n'est-il pas s?r que ceci compense cela, et qu'une société riche mais trop dense ne s'empoisonne pas de cette densité, comme ces parasites de la farine qui réussissent à s'exterminer à distance par leurs toxines, avant même que la matière nutritive ne fasse défaut.'
'Il faut beaucoup de na?veté ou de mauvaise foi pour penser que les hommes choisissent leurs croyances indépendamment de leur condition. Loin que les systèmes politiques déterminent la forme d'existence sociale, ce sont les formes d'existence qui donnent un sens aux idéologies qui les expriment [...]. En ce moment, le malentendu entre l'Occident et l'Orient est d'abord sémantique : les formules que nous colportons impliquent des signifiés absents ou différents.'
'Par delà les remèdes politiques et économiques convenables, le problème posé par la confrontation de l'Asie et de l'Amérique tropicale reste celui de la multiplication humaine sur un espace limité. Comment oublier qu'à cet égard l'Europe occupe une position intermédiaire, entre les deux mondes ? Ce problème du nombre, l'Inde s'y est attaquée il y a quelque trois mille ans en cherchant, avec le système des castes, un moyen de transformer la quantité en qualité, c'est-à-dire de différencier les groupements humains pour leur permettre de vivre c?te à c?te. Elle avait même con?u le problème en termes plus vastes : l'élargissant, au-delà de l'homme, à toutes les formes de la vie. La règle végétarienne s'inspire du même souci que le régime des castes, à savoir d'empêcher les groupements sociaux et les espèces animales d'empiéter les uns sur les autres, de réserver à chacun une liberté qui lui soit propre gr?ce au renoncement par les autres de l'exercice d'une liberté antagoniste. Il est tragique pour l'homme que cette grande expérience ait échoué, je veux dire qu'au cours de l'histoire les castes n'aient pas réussi à atteindre un état où elles seraient demeurées égales parce que différentes - égales en ce sens qu'elles eussent été incommensurables - et que se soit introduite parmi elles cette dose perfide d'homogénéité qui permettait comparaison, et donc la création d'une hiérarchie. Car si les hommes peuvent parvenir à coexister à condition de se reconna?tre tous autant hommes, mais autrement, ils le peuvent aussi en se refusant les uns aux autres un degré comparable d'humanité, et donc en se subordonnant.
Ce grand échec de l'Inde apporte un enseignement : en devenant trop nombreuse et malgré le génie de ses penseurs, une société ne se perpétue qu'en sécrétant la servitude. Lorsque les hommes commencent à se sentir à l'étroit dans leurs espaces géographique, social et mental, une solution simple risque de les séduire : celle qui consiste à refuser la qualité humaine à une partie de l'espèce. Pour quelques dizaines d'années, les autres retrouveront les coudées franches. Ensuite il faudra procéder à une nouvelle expulsion.'
------
'Il faudra admettre que, dans la gamme des possibilités offertes aux sociétés humaines, chacune a fait un certain choix et que ces choix sont incomparables entre eux : ils se valent. Mais alors surgit un nouveau problème : car si dans le premier cas nous étions menacés d'obscurantisme par un refus aveugle de ce qui n'est pas n?tre, nous risquons maintenant de céder à un éclectisme qui, d'une culture quelconque, nous interdit de rien répudier : f?t-ce la cruauté, l'injustice et la misère contre lesquelles proteste parfois cette société même, qui les subit. [...]
Aucune société n'est parfaite. Toutes comportent par nature une impureté incompatible avec les normes qu'elles proclament, et qui se traduit concrètement par une certaine dose d'injustice, d'insensibilité, de cruauté. [...] On découvre alors qu'aucune n'est foncièrement bonne; mais aucune n'est absolument mauvaise. Toutes offrent certains avantages à leurs membres, compte tenu d'un résidu d'iniquité dont l'importance para?t approximativement constante, et qui correspond peut-être à une inertie spécifique qui s'impose, sur le plan de la vie sociale, aux efforts d'organisation. [...]
? mieux [conna?tre les autres sociétés], nous gagnons pourtant un moyen de nous détacher de la n?tre, non point que celle-ci soit absolument ou seule mauvaise, mais parce que c'est la seule dont nous devions nous affranchir : nous le sommes par état des autres. Nous nous mettons ainsi en mesure d'aborder la deuxième étape qui consiste, sans rien retenir d'aucune société, à les utiliser toutes pour dégager ces principes de la vie sociale qu'il nous sera possible d'appliquer à la réforme de nos propres m?urs, et non de celles des sociétés étrangères : en raison d'un privilège inverse du précédent, c'est la société seule à laquelle nous appartenons que nous sommes en position de transformer sans risquer de la détruire; car ces changements viennent aussi d'elle, que nous y introduisons.'
Références voisines
Cosmologie, mythologie grecque :
Grammaire et vision du monde portée par les langues :
Interpénétration des systèmes philosophiques et religieux, étude du bouddhisme Mahayana en particulier, que Lévi-Strauss évoque aussi dans la neuvième et dernière partie de Tristes tropiques :
Le bouddhisme Mahayana vu par Shigekuni Honda dans Le Temple de l'Aube, en bref :
Le rêve uchronique d'un mariage de l'orient et de l'occident, ou du moins de relations plus étroites, sur le modèle des emprunts et inspirations orientales dans la pensée mythologique, philosophique et technique grecque de l'époque hellénique (Sagesses barbares - Arnaldo Momigliani).
Quête des anomalies urbaines, recherche de l'aleph, incarnation de l'identité d'une ville dans son espace et dans sa temporalité :
Colonisation, décolonisation. Rapport des anciennes colonies aux anciennes métropoles.
Devenir des sociétés humaines :
Paradoxes de la société japonaise :
Bande son:
Read
May 14, 2020Tu?ni tropi su jedinstvena knjiga i svakako jedan od najva?nijih putopisa dvadesetog veka; ne zbog etnografskog materijala koji je Levi-Stros sabirao i prera?ivao u drugim delima ve? zbog toga ?to ovde na mnogo pristupa?niji na?in on opisuje i svoje iskustvo putovanja i susreta s Drugim i saznanja i spoznaje do kojih je na tom putu dospeo. A istovremeno pokazuje da ume da pi?e sjajno, britko i zavodljivo - i ne koriste?i matemati?ke formule (?to mi je mnogo zna?ilo, kao nekom ko se godinama probijao kroz Mitologike).
Ve? od prve re?enice (a kakva je to prva re?enica!) jasno je da ?e ovo biti rolerkoster od knjige. I jeste. Levi-Stros ide u vremenski cik-cak i opisuje najpre malo mladost, pa malo bekstvo iz okupirane Francuske, pa tek onda putovanja iz sredine tridesetih godina koja zauzimaju najve?i deo teksta. I neverovatno je kako se prividno bez ?avova smenjuju i te?ki udarci sudbine i lirski opisi oblaka nad okeanom i sasvim prizemne i konkretne pripreme za ekspediciju. Taman kad pomislite da ste uhvatili ritam i smer pripovedanja, dobijete sasvim druga?ije poglavlje koje vas povede u drugom smeru. A po?to Levi-Stros nije za d?abe najuticajniji antropolog dvadesetog veka (jer je uticao na mnogo ?ire humanisti?ko polje), svako malo dobijete neki uvid ili saznanje koje bi neko drugi pre?vakavao kroz celu knjigu (a ?esto i jesu) i o kome vredi razmi?ljati par dana pre nego ?to se nastavi s ?itanjem. Ti uvidi se posebno zgu?njavaju u poslednjem, zaklju?nom delu Tu?nih tropa koji ne predstavlja nekakav zaokru?en zaklju?ak, ne, nego odmah sedam ili osam raznorodnih a dalekose?nih zaklju?aka, ?to o pojedinim kulturama, ?to o njihovim odnosima, ?to o samom autoru i njegovom odnosu prema etnologiji i prema sopstvenom identitetu, a kona?no i o svetskim religijama i smislu ?ivota (i opet, kakva mo?na poslednja re?enica! Kako bi lako bilo da se pretvori u glup motivacioni citat, a kako je skupo pla?en put do nje!).
Kona?no. ?itanje se oteglo jer je zahtevalo pauze i malo sabiranja izme?u pojedinih delova koji su umeli ba? da udare i na emocije i na intelekt. Onda postaje primetno da i u samom pripovedanju postoje pauze, prekidi, ?utanja koja mo?e da prepozna samo neko upu?eniji od mene. (Ali tako, na primer, na strani 238. Levi-Stros pomene da je njegova ?ena dobila gadnu infekciju oka i da su morali da je vrate u civilizaciju a ?italac se zapanji: ?ena? tad si bio o?enjen? vodio si ?enu u pra?umu? Gde je bila prethodnih 237 strana? E pa, ?itao?e, i?li su zajedno, i ona je bila etnolog, samo su se posle razveli pa je nema u knjizi.) I to sve vu?e na neko novo i ?ire ?itanje; samo, ?ini mi se, ?ta god da uzmem posle ovoga delova?e sitno i bezna?ajno.
Ve? od prve re?enice (a kakva je to prva re?enica!) jasno je da ?e ovo biti rolerkoster od knjige. I jeste. Levi-Stros ide u vremenski cik-cak i opisuje najpre malo mladost, pa malo bekstvo iz okupirane Francuske, pa tek onda putovanja iz sredine tridesetih godina koja zauzimaju najve?i deo teksta. I neverovatno je kako se prividno bez ?avova smenjuju i te?ki udarci sudbine i lirski opisi oblaka nad okeanom i sasvim prizemne i konkretne pripreme za ekspediciju. Taman kad pomislite da ste uhvatili ritam i smer pripovedanja, dobijete sasvim druga?ije poglavlje koje vas povede u drugom smeru. A po?to Levi-Stros nije za d?abe najuticajniji antropolog dvadesetog veka (jer je uticao na mnogo ?ire humanisti?ko polje), svako malo dobijete neki uvid ili saznanje koje bi neko drugi pre?vakavao kroz celu knjigu (a ?esto i jesu) i o kome vredi razmi?ljati par dana pre nego ?to se nastavi s ?itanjem. Ti uvidi se posebno zgu?njavaju u poslednjem, zaklju?nom delu Tu?nih tropa koji ne predstavlja nekakav zaokru?en zaklju?ak, ne, nego odmah sedam ili osam raznorodnih a dalekose?nih zaklju?aka, ?to o pojedinim kulturama, ?to o njihovim odnosima, ?to o samom autoru i njegovom odnosu prema etnologiji i prema sopstvenom identitetu, a kona?no i o svetskim religijama i smislu ?ivota (i opet, kakva mo?na poslednja re?enica! Kako bi lako bilo da se pretvori u glup motivacioni citat, a kako je skupo pla?en put do nje!).
Kona?no. ?itanje se oteglo jer je zahtevalo pauze i malo sabiranja izme?u pojedinih delova koji su umeli ba? da udare i na emocije i na intelekt. Onda postaje primetno da i u samom pripovedanju postoje pauze, prekidi, ?utanja koja mo?e da prepozna samo neko upu?eniji od mene. (Ali tako, na primer, na strani 238. Levi-Stros pomene da je njegova ?ena dobila gadnu infekciju oka i da su morali da je vrate u civilizaciju a ?italac se zapanji: ?ena? tad si bio o?enjen? vodio si ?enu u pra?umu? Gde je bila prethodnih 237 strana? E pa, ?itao?e, i?li su zajedno, i ona je bila etnolog, samo su se posle razveli pa je nema u knjizi.) I to sve vu?e na neko novo i ?ire ?itanje; samo, ?ini mi se, ?ta god da uzmem posle ovoga delova?e sitno i bezna?ajno.
June 1, 2016
"Every effort to understand destroys the object studied...
in favor of another object of a different nature;
this second object requires from us a new effort...
which destroys it in favor of a third,
and so on and so forth until we reach the one lasting presence,
the point at which the distinction between meaning and the absence of meaning disappears:
the same point from which we began."
in favor of another object of a different nature;
this second object requires from us a new effort...
which destroys it in favor of a third,
and so on and so forth until we reach the one lasting presence,
the point at which the distinction between meaning and the absence of meaning disappears:
the same point from which we began."
December 21, 2012
?? ?? ?????? ? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ?????? ? ??? ????????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ????????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????? ????? ????????? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???????? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ????????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ???????? ????????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ????? ? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? "?????" ????? ??????? ? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? "????????"?
??????? ? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ? ?????? ? ?????? ??????? ?????? ??????????? (? ?? ???? ????? ???????? ??????? ??????? ? ????? ???? ??? ??) ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ? ?????? ????? ??????? ?????? ? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ? ?????? ??????...0
?????? ??? ???? ????? ? ??? ?????? ????????? ???????? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????... ? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ????????? ? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ???????? ???????... ??? ???? ?? ??????????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ? ??? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ????????? ?? ?????? ???????? ??????? ????? ? ?????? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ?????????? ? ?? ??? ???? ??????...0
"???????? ????????? ??????? ? ????????? ??????? ? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ???????. ?? ?? ??????? ???? ???????? ??????? ???? ????? ???." 0
?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ???????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ?????... ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???????? ?????? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ?????? ? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ? ?????? ?????? ?? ???... ??? ??? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????? ? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???...0
???? ????? ???????? ???????:0
??? ???? ??????? ? ??????????? ? ????? ????? ?????? ??????. ? ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????! ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ???? ???? ? ????? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ? ?????? ????? ?? ?? ???. ????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???????? ??????? ? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ????
? ????? ??
???? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ? ????????? ???? ... ??? ??????? ????? ?? ???? [?? ???????]? ? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ????? ? ???? ???????: ?? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ??????: ? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ? ??????? ? ???????? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ???????? ??????? ?? ???.0
???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ??????... ?? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???... ?? ????? ??? ??????? ????... ????:0
??????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ???????? ? ????? ??????? ?????????? ? ????? ????? ?????? ? ????? ??????? ??????? ?????. ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ???????? ?????? ? ?? ????? ???????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ??????. 0
?? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ???????? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ? ????? ???...0
----
??? ????? ?????? ? ??? ?????? ??? ? ????? ??????? ??????? ??? ???... ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??????... ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ? ??????... ?????? ???? ?????? ? ???????? ? ????? ??????... 0
??????? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ???????!! ? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ??????? ? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????! ?????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?????! ? ??? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???... ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ??????? ? ?????? ? ??? ? ????? ?? ??????? ? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ? ??????? ? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??????... ??????? ??????????? ??????? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??????...0
????? ??? ???? ??????? ????????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ???????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ????? ??????? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ???????? ????????
??? ??????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??????. ????? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ???????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ???????? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ??? (???? ????) ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???. ??????? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ???. * 0
? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ???... ???? ???? ???? ? ???? ????? ??? ? ??? ? ???? ?? ???????? ???????? ? ?????? ???????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ? ????? ??????????? ???????? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?? "?????????" ???????? ? ??? ????? ?????????? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???????...0
? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??????... ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ??????... ? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?????... ??????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ??????? ? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??????... ????? ??????? ? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ??? ???????? ????? ?????? ??? ??????? ? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ? ???????... 0
?????? ??????? ?? ?????: ??????? ????????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ????? ??????: ?????? ???.0
February 14, 2009
I don't think I can say it any better than SS:
"Tristes Tropiques is one of the great books of our century. It is rigorous, subtle, and bold in thought. It is beautifully written. And, like all great books, it bears an absolutely personal stamp; it speaks with a human voice."
_______________________________________
Only forty pages in and I already sense that this will be one of the best books I've read in the last five years:
I wished I had lived in the days of real journeys, when it was still possible to see the full splendor of a spectacle that had not yet been blighted, polluted and spoiled; I wished I had not trodden that ground as myself, but as Bernier, Tavernier, or Manucci did.... In short, I have only two possibilities: either I can be like some traveller of the olden days, who was faced with a stupendous spectacle, all, or almost all, of which eluded him, or worse still, filled him with scorn and disgust; or I can be a modern traveller, chasing after the vestiges of a vanished reality. I lose on both counts,...for, while I complain of being able to glimpse no more than the shadow of the past, I may be insensitive to reality as it is taking shape at this very moment, since I have not reached the stage of development at which I would be capable of perceiving it. A few hundred years hence, in this same place, another traveler, as despairing as myself, will mourn the disappearance of what I might have seen, but failed to see. I am subject to a double infirmity: all that I perceive offends me, and I constantly reproach myself for not seeing as much as I should.
"Tristes Tropiques is one of the great books of our century. It is rigorous, subtle, and bold in thought. It is beautifully written. And, like all great books, it bears an absolutely personal stamp; it speaks with a human voice."
_______________________________________
Only forty pages in and I already sense that this will be one of the best books I've read in the last five years:
I wished I had lived in the days of real journeys, when it was still possible to see the full splendor of a spectacle that had not yet been blighted, polluted and spoiled; I wished I had not trodden that ground as myself, but as Bernier, Tavernier, or Manucci did.... In short, I have only two possibilities: either I can be like some traveller of the olden days, who was faced with a stupendous spectacle, all, or almost all, of which eluded him, or worse still, filled him with scorn and disgust; or I can be a modern traveller, chasing after the vestiges of a vanished reality. I lose on both counts,...for, while I complain of being able to glimpse no more than the shadow of the past, I may be insensitive to reality as it is taking shape at this very moment, since I have not reached the stage of development at which I would be capable of perceiving it. A few hundred years hence, in this same place, another traveler, as despairing as myself, will mourn the disappearance of what I might have seen, but failed to see. I am subject to a double infirmity: all that I perceive offends me, and I constantly reproach myself for not seeing as much as I should.
November 5, 2013
Hadrian has written a nice review of this fascinating book, and I will simply refer the reader to his comments (/review/show...).
I add only that this is not an academic book, but a memoir and reflexion - a work that will appeal primarily to the literary reader -- a hymn to Rousseau's bon sauvage (a phrase, btw, that J.-J. never actually uses), and a nostalgic ode to the vanishing simplicity and goodness of Man...a Man, not as yet corrupted by corrosiveness of civilization.
Of course, for Lévi-Strauss, the "primitive" tribes of Brazil are not actually "pure" -- they are but the shattered remnanats of a once vibrant paleolithic culture, now living like scavengers on the margins of the industrialized world. Indeed, as the translators point out, regarding the title of this work: "The possible English versions, such as 'Sad Tropics', 'The Sadness of the Tropics', 'Tragic Tropics', etc. do not quite correspond either in meaning or in implication to 'Tristes Tropiques', which is at once ironical and poetic, because of the alliteration, the taut rhythm ( - u u - u ), and the suggestion of 'Alas, for the Tropics!'"
It is this last that most of often infuses this charming and rambling book.
I add only that this is not an academic book, but a memoir and reflexion - a work that will appeal primarily to the literary reader -- a hymn to Rousseau's bon sauvage (a phrase, btw, that J.-J. never actually uses), and a nostalgic ode to the vanishing simplicity and goodness of Man...a Man, not as yet corrupted by corrosiveness of civilization.
Of course, for Lévi-Strauss, the "primitive" tribes of Brazil are not actually "pure" -- they are but the shattered remnanats of a once vibrant paleolithic culture, now living like scavengers on the margins of the industrialized world. Indeed, as the translators point out, regarding the title of this work: "The possible English versions, such as 'Sad Tropics', 'The Sadness of the Tropics', 'Tragic Tropics', etc. do not quite correspond either in meaning or in implication to 'Tristes Tropiques', which is at once ironical and poetic, because of the alliteration, the taut rhythm ( - u u - u ), and the suggestion of 'Alas, for the Tropics!'"
It is this last that most of often infuses this charming and rambling book.
December 15, 2016
Nice combination of travel memoir, anthropology and confession.
March 8, 2025
Ein au?erordentliches Buch, das sich für mich wie ein Krimi des Geistes las.
Levi Strauss denkt gegen sich selbst - seine strukturalistische Analyse, das System auf dem er sein Denken begründet k?mpft verzweifelt mit dem was er vorfindet und dem welche R?ume seine poetische bewegende Sprache ?ffnen.
Er glaubt an wiederkehrende Muster, an eine Ordnung die ordnet - eine Struktur, die nicht nur Beschreibung ist, sondern auch die Prinzipien festlegt, nach denen Gesellschaften sich formen. Er glaubt an Struktur als universelles Merkmal. Er glaubt an eine gewisse Objektivit?t die au?erhalb kultureller und sozialer Mechanismen existieren k?nnte und ger?t in ein furchtbares Paradox.
Wenn er sagt, dass ?jede menschliche Gesellschaft unter den ihr offenstehenden M?glichkeiten eine bestimmte Wahl getroffen hat“, dann klingt das so, als g?be es eine kollektive Entscheidungsinstanz, die aktiv und bewusst agiert. Kontingenz scheint ihm fremd zu sein.
Er gelangt zum ?u?ersten Punkt der Wildheit, um festzustellen, sie ist zu Wild um sie über den Strukturalismus analysieren zu k?nnen. Ein Volk das fragil, immer kurz vor der Aufl?sung im Imagin?ren lebt. Kriegerisch. Unverst?ndlich.
Die Welt die er erforscht entzieht sich immer wieder seiner Ordnung.
Doch statt mir eine neue Welt zu er?ffnen, Gab mir mein abenteuerliches Leben Ein seltsames Paradox- ehr die Alte zurück, W?hrend mir jene andere, Der ich nachgestrebt hatte, Zwischen den Fingern zerrann, In dem Ma?e, in dem die Menschen und Landschaften, Die zu erobern ich ausgezogen war, Die erhoffte Bedeutung verloren, Sobald ich sie vor mir sah, Traten an die Stelle dieser entt?uschenden, Wie auch immer pr?senten Bilder, Andere, die meine Vergangenheit vorr?tig hielt, Denen ich keinerlei Wert beigemessen hatte, Solange sie noch zu der Realit?t geh?rten, Die mich umgab.
Auf den letzten 30 Seiten zerbricht etwas in ihm. Sein Strukturalismus zerbricht an seiner eigenen Erkenntnis: dass alles, was er beschreibt, letztlich nur Entropie produziert.
Levi Strauss denkt gegen sich selbst - seine strukturalistische Analyse, das System auf dem er sein Denken begründet k?mpft verzweifelt mit dem was er vorfindet und dem welche R?ume seine poetische bewegende Sprache ?ffnen.
Er glaubt an wiederkehrende Muster, an eine Ordnung die ordnet - eine Struktur, die nicht nur Beschreibung ist, sondern auch die Prinzipien festlegt, nach denen Gesellschaften sich formen. Er glaubt an Struktur als universelles Merkmal. Er glaubt an eine gewisse Objektivit?t die au?erhalb kultureller und sozialer Mechanismen existieren k?nnte und ger?t in ein furchtbares Paradox.
Wenn er sagt, dass ?jede menschliche Gesellschaft unter den ihr offenstehenden M?glichkeiten eine bestimmte Wahl getroffen hat“, dann klingt das so, als g?be es eine kollektive Entscheidungsinstanz, die aktiv und bewusst agiert. Kontingenz scheint ihm fremd zu sein.
Er gelangt zum ?u?ersten Punkt der Wildheit, um festzustellen, sie ist zu Wild um sie über den Strukturalismus analysieren zu k?nnen. Ein Volk das fragil, immer kurz vor der Aufl?sung im Imagin?ren lebt. Kriegerisch. Unverst?ndlich.
Die Welt die er erforscht entzieht sich immer wieder seiner Ordnung.
Doch statt mir eine neue Welt zu er?ffnen, Gab mir mein abenteuerliches Leben Ein seltsames Paradox- ehr die Alte zurück, W?hrend mir jene andere, Der ich nachgestrebt hatte, Zwischen den Fingern zerrann, In dem Ma?e, in dem die Menschen und Landschaften, Die zu erobern ich ausgezogen war, Die erhoffte Bedeutung verloren, Sobald ich sie vor mir sah, Traten an die Stelle dieser entt?uschenden, Wie auch immer pr?senten Bilder, Andere, die meine Vergangenheit vorr?tig hielt, Denen ich keinerlei Wert beigemessen hatte, Solange sie noch zu der Realit?t geh?rten, Die mich umgab.
Auf den letzten 30 Seiten zerbricht etwas in ihm. Sein Strukturalismus zerbricht an seiner eigenen Erkenntnis: dass alles, was er beschreibt, letztlich nur Entropie produziert.
July 15, 2021
Тешко би било жанровски одредити ову к?игу. Мало путопис, мало мемоари, антрополошко-етнолошка студи?а, есе?, све ?е то стало овде и – одлично ?е! Уосталом, зашто би нешто и морало да има жанровску етикету.
Леви-Строс као млади, тек свршени, етнолог одлази у Бразил како би проучавао ?див?а“ племена и домороце амазонске прашуме. Схвати?е убрзо да су од племена остали само малобро?ни припадници, сатирани годинама лошим условима живота, али пре свега истреб?ени у додиру са народима Европе ко?и су им ?доносили цивилизаци?у“. Педантно бележи све што се око ?ега дешава, проучава хи?ерархи?у односа, структуру насеобина, систем верова?а итд, све оно што се и очеку?е од ?едног етнолога. Али, испису?у?и све то, он говори и о нама, ?цивилизованим“ народима; веома ?е интересантно видети да се живот ?див?ака“ суштински не разлику?е од живота било ког ?удског створе?а. Леви-Строс ?е, дакле, прониц?иви посматрач, а успут и одличан путописац, каткад веома духовит. ?ако заним?иво искуство.
И да, прва реченица ?е апсолутно М А Е С Т Р А Л Н А.
Леви-Строс као млади, тек свршени, етнолог одлази у Бразил како би проучавао ?див?а“ племена и домороце амазонске прашуме. Схвати?е убрзо да су од племена остали само малобро?ни припадници, сатирани годинама лошим условима живота, али пре свега истреб?ени у додиру са народима Европе ко?и су им ?доносили цивилизаци?у“. Педантно бележи све што се око ?ега дешава, проучава хи?ерархи?у односа, структуру насеобина, систем верова?а итд, све оно што се и очеку?е од ?едног етнолога. Али, испису?у?и све то, он говори и о нама, ?цивилизованим“ народима; веома ?е интересантно видети да се живот ?див?ака“ суштински не разлику?е од живота било ког ?удског створе?а. Леви-Строс ?е, дакле, прониц?иви посматрач, а успут и одличан путописац, каткад веома духовит. ?ако заним?иво искуство.
И да, прва реченица ?е апсолутно М А Е С Т Р А Л Н А.
January 4, 2020
A obra de Lévi-Strauss é uma preciosa pedra de roseta da nossa civiliza??o. A escrita é transparente e leve, a viagem com o autor é inevitável!
? engra?ado que o homem que dizia detestar "as viagens e os exploradores" fosse capaz de proporcionar-nos tais viagens com a sua escrita.
Este livro é um importante documento histórico que une palavras e umas magníficas fotografias tiradas pelo seu autor. Este livro n?o fala só do Homem visto pelo antropólogo ( esse Homem que no passado era catalogado como nada mais do que um macaquinho feio e pretensioso) mas a vis?o clara e generosa do estudioso que estudou o Homem por dentro.
? um livro que nos enobrece e que encerra um maravilhoso património histórico. Uma viagem pelo Brasil indígena e por um modo de vida que ainda pode fazer sentido.
?
"O mundo come?ou sem o Homem e acabará sem ele."
? engra?ado que o homem que dizia detestar "as viagens e os exploradores" fosse capaz de proporcionar-nos tais viagens com a sua escrita.
Este livro é um importante documento histórico que une palavras e umas magníficas fotografias tiradas pelo seu autor. Este livro n?o fala só do Homem visto pelo antropólogo ( esse Homem que no passado era catalogado como nada mais do que um macaquinho feio e pretensioso) mas a vis?o clara e generosa do estudioso que estudou o Homem por dentro.
? um livro que nos enobrece e que encerra um maravilhoso património histórico. Uma viagem pelo Brasil indígena e por um modo de vida que ainda pode fazer sentido.
?
"O mundo come?ou sem o Homem e acabará sem ele."
July 26, 2019
Tristes Tropiques is an excellent book. M. Lévi-Strauss' work is part ethnography, part travelogue, part autobiography and part history. As I'm now reading the journals of Lewis and Clark, I wondered what his observations would have been of that epic trek. For me, this is an important warning against my default ethnocentrism.
M. Lévi-Strauss left us with a few important kernels, among them:
This is worthwhile reading, of a landscape and peoples now sadly, though predictably, vanished, from a man who, through great fortune, avoided the German camps of WWII and reprehensible betrayals of his countrymen, and lived to write this book with apparent equanimity.
M. Lévi-Strauss left us with a few important kernels, among them:
We have to admit that human societies can choose among a gamut of possibilities. These choices cannot be compared with each other: one is as good as another. But then there arises a new problem; for if, in the first instance, we are threatened by obscurantism, in the form of a blind rejection of anything that is not our own, there is also an alternative danger: that of an eclecticism which bids us reject nothing at all, when faced with an alien culture. Even if that society should itself protest against the cruelty, the injustice, and the poverty which characterize it, we must not pass judgment. But as these abuses also exist among ourselves, how shall we have the right to fight them at home if, when they appear elsewhere, we make no move to protest?
The man who takes action in his own country cannot hope to understand the world outside: the man who takes all knowledge for his ambition must give up the idea of ever changing anything at home.
No society is perfect. Each has within itself, by nature, an impurity incompatible with the norms to which it lays claim: this impurity finds outlet in elements of injustice, cruelty, and insensitivity. How are we to evaluate those elements? Anthropological enquiry can provide the answer. For while the comparison of a small number of societies will make them seem very different from one another, these differences will seem smaller and smaller as the field of investigation is enlarged. It will eventually become plain that no human society is fundamentally good: but neither is any of them fundamentally bad; all offer their members certain advantages, though we must bear in mind a residue of iniquity, apparently more or less constant in its importance, which may correspond to a specific inertia which offers resistance, on the level of social life, to all attempts at organization.
For what, after all, have I learnt from the masters I have listened to, the philosophers I have read, the societies I have investigated, and that very Science in which the West takes such a pride? Simply a fragmentary lesson or two which, if laid end to end, would reconstitute the meditations of the Sage at the foot of his tree. When we make an effort to understand, we destroy the object of our attachment, substituting another whose nature is quite different. That other object requires of us another effort, which in its turn destroys the second object and substitutes a third – and so on until we reach the only enduring Presence, which is that in which all distinction between meaning and the absence of meaning disappears: and it is from that Presence that we started in the first place. It is now two thousand five hundred years since men discovered and formulated these truths. Since then we have discovered nothing new – unless it be that whenever we investigated what seemed to be a way out, we met with a further proof of the conclusions from which we had tried to escape.
This is worthwhile reading, of a landscape and peoples now sadly, though predictably, vanished, from a man who, through great fortune, avoided the German camps of WWII and reprehensible betrayals of his countrymen, and lived to write this book with apparent equanimity.
August 22, 2013
M?t cu?n sách du hành - kh?o c?u nh?ng l?i ???c vi?t b?ng nh?ng c?u v?n thu?c hàng ??p nh?t mà m?t nhà v?n th?c s? có th? vi?t ra ???c. M?t cu?n sách có th? ??c ?? hi?u bi?t v? nh?ng x? h?i khác nh?ng c?ng có th? ??n gi?n ??c ?? th??ng v?n.
October 13, 2018
Ok so let me first say, for a book that starts with the line “I hate travelling and explorers,” Tristes Tropiques gave me this intense, restless urge to travel, to see everything that’s mentioned: the 365 churches of Bahia, the slopes of the Corcovado, Jehangir’s tomb in Lahore, the Taj Mahal, the markets of Calcutta, New Delhi, Karachi, Dacca; the Pantanal, the largest swamp in the world. An urge to learn as much as I can about the creation myths of every culture in the world, their beliefs about the afterlife, their music, their food, their concepts of value and exchange, their languages, their ways of adapting (to) the environment, etc.
But even though this urge is real (I feel it so concretely, and I’m sure Levi-Strauss did too), one of the main themes of Tristes Tropiques is a skepticism towards the value of travel, in all forms. Anthropology is one of those forms. Why do we travel, why do we want to learn about other cultures more than our own?
So Levi-Strauss sets out on his mission to find humans at their most basal state. He thinks that if he can find a group of people that has never made contact with Western culture, he can find the ~~secrets underlying human nature~~ and maybe develop some sort of universal theory. But I think it is a grand error to see the Nambikwara, for example, as an example of the most elementary social structure. How could it be “elementary” if they have their own independently developed language, system of myths, rituals, taboos, etc. that have gone through thousands of years of evolution just like any other culture we see today? It just seems elementary because it is adapted for something different, their evolution was oriented toward goals very different from those of the west.
Over and over again, throughout his journey to the interior of Brazil, Levi-Strauss laments not being able to access “real” culture, but rather one that was already “tainted” by Western influence. The places he visits only carry “vestiges of a vanished reality”. But is this not reality itself? What makes one place more real than another? Sometimes reality isn’t as exotic as you thought it might be. This doesn’t make it any less real, but maybe it makes it less valuable to you according to your expectations. “I wished I had lived in the days of real journeys,” he says, “When it was possible to see the full splendour of a spectacle that had not yet been blighted, polluted, and spoilt.” I mean, I do too. It sucks that these cultures are disappearing so that I can’t enjoy them in all their authentic, different-than-me glory. But is every “other” really just another “spectacle”? Is anthropology just another form of tourism? “When was the best time to see India?” Levi-Strauss asks, as if it is the aurora borealis or the dolphin show at SeaWorld.
He sees travelling to these pristine places as a form of “escapism” (from what? The unreality of the west?). Unfortunately for him, he is disappointed everywhere he goes. Polynesia is covered in concrete, Sao Paolo looks like a movie set, the Taj Mahal is full of British newlyweds on their honeymoons, shanty-towns have spread across Africa..... wah :-( He laments this cultural loss because now nothing is left for him to take (in the form of anthropological study). He never laments the sociopolitical conditions that forced people to live in these ”monocultures” in the first place! Sometimes not even the most basic needs are met, and people are dying from hunger and all sorts of diseases. But hey I guess that’s not his job to be political, he’s supposed to be an ~Objective Observer~.
Here is the crux: anthropologists are trained to be objective towards the cultures that they study, yet it’s perfectly acceptable to be subjective about one’s own culture. They’re trained to look at cannibalism, pestilence, etc. as objective features of a particular society without making any value judgement. But why should we be objective about these things, if people are suffering? I’m not saying that I have a one-size-fits all solution that is applicable to every case, nor should we impose a particular western ideal of wellbeing onto other cultures. But why are some cultures OK to criticize and others no?
Levi-Strauss takes a stand on this question:
This throws Levi-Strauss into an existential hole in the final chapters:
~~~
Anyways, I’m giving this book 5 stars, because:
- Even though there are lots of things I disagree with, that disagreement is productive
- Levi-Strauss writes beautifully. Tristes Tropiques is much more like literary nonfiction than “legit anthropology”, whatever that is. He has a profound appreciation of the sublime, making detailed observations about mountains, jungles, plant ecosystems, etc, some passages reminiscent of the final chapter of Darwin’s Origin of Species. He even has a whole chapter just about sunsets and their characteristics. Levi-Strauss really just makes me want to learn and experience as much as I can before I die.
But even though this urge is real (I feel it so concretely, and I’m sure Levi-Strauss did too), one of the main themes of Tristes Tropiques is a skepticism towards the value of travel, in all forms. Anthropology is one of those forms. Why do we travel, why do we want to learn about other cultures more than our own?
So Levi-Strauss sets out on his mission to find humans at their most basal state. He thinks that if he can find a group of people that has never made contact with Western culture, he can find the ~~secrets underlying human nature~~ and maybe develop some sort of universal theory. But I think it is a grand error to see the Nambikwara, for example, as an example of the most elementary social structure. How could it be “elementary” if they have their own independently developed language, system of myths, rituals, taboos, etc. that have gone through thousands of years of evolution just like any other culture we see today? It just seems elementary because it is adapted for something different, their evolution was oriented toward goals very different from those of the west.
Over and over again, throughout his journey to the interior of Brazil, Levi-Strauss laments not being able to access “real” culture, but rather one that was already “tainted” by Western influence. The places he visits only carry “vestiges of a vanished reality”. But is this not reality itself? What makes one place more real than another? Sometimes reality isn’t as exotic as you thought it might be. This doesn’t make it any less real, but maybe it makes it less valuable to you according to your expectations. “I wished I had lived in the days of real journeys,” he says, “When it was possible to see the full splendour of a spectacle that had not yet been blighted, polluted, and spoilt.” I mean, I do too. It sucks that these cultures are disappearing so that I can’t enjoy them in all their authentic, different-than-me glory. But is every “other” really just another “spectacle”? Is anthropology just another form of tourism? “When was the best time to see India?” Levi-Strauss asks, as if it is the aurora borealis or the dolphin show at SeaWorld.
He sees travelling to these pristine places as a form of “escapism” (from what? The unreality of the west?). Unfortunately for him, he is disappointed everywhere he goes. Polynesia is covered in concrete, Sao Paolo looks like a movie set, the Taj Mahal is full of British newlyweds on their honeymoons, shanty-towns have spread across Africa..... wah :-( He laments this cultural loss because now nothing is left for him to take (in the form of anthropological study). He never laments the sociopolitical conditions that forced people to live in these ”monocultures” in the first place! Sometimes not even the most basic needs are met, and people are dying from hunger and all sorts of diseases. But hey I guess that’s not his job to be political, he’s supposed to be an ~Objective Observer~.
Here is the crux: anthropologists are trained to be objective towards the cultures that they study, yet it’s perfectly acceptable to be subjective about one’s own culture. They’re trained to look at cannibalism, pestilence, etc. as objective features of a particular society without making any value judgement. But why should we be objective about these things, if people are suffering? I’m not saying that I have a one-size-fits all solution that is applicable to every case, nor should we impose a particular western ideal of wellbeing onto other cultures. But why are some cultures OK to criticize and others no?
Levi-Strauss takes a stand on this question:
“The society we belong to is the only society we are in a position to transform without any risk of destroying it, since the changes, introduced by us, are coming from within the society itself,”But idk about this at all! First of all, it maintains the assumption that societies are these discrete, immutable units, and furthermore that individuals only ever belong to one society. Finally, it assumes that transforming a culture is destroying it, and that this is a risk which must be avoided. But culture is not a static thing, it is always in a process of change. So what makes one culture better than another? I think this is the Unanswerable Question, because anyone answering it will always already be imbued with a particular social background. Also, is there any inherent value in preserving the traditions, authenticity, or “reality” of a culture in the face of constant change? For the western anthropologist, yes. But for the individuals belonging to the constantly shifting cultures themselves??
This throws Levi-Strauss into an existential hole in the final chapters:
“Why did I come here? Was it a trick on my part, a clever diversion, which would allow me to resume my career with additional advantages for which I would be given credit? Or did my decision express a deep-seated incompatibility with my social setting so that, whatever happened, I would inevitably live in a state of ever greater estrangement from it?... The value that the anthropologist attaches to foreign societies has no independent foundation; it is a function of his disdain for the customs prevailing in his native setting.”
~~~
Anyways, I’m giving this book 5 stars, because:
- Even though there are lots of things I disagree with, that disagreement is productive
- Levi-Strauss writes beautifully. Tristes Tropiques is much more like literary nonfiction than “legit anthropology”, whatever that is. He has a profound appreciation of the sublime, making detailed observations about mountains, jungles, plant ecosystems, etc, some passages reminiscent of the final chapter of Darwin’s Origin of Species. He even has a whole chapter just about sunsets and their characteristics. Levi-Strauss really just makes me want to learn and experience as much as I can before I die.
November 12, 2020
Pre nego za?ete u brazilsku amazoniju, pre nego otvorite vrata do tada netaknutih preostalih domoroda?kih plemena i njihovih poluarhai?nih obi?aja, umetnosti i svakodnevice, autor ?e vam postepeno isisavati povr?nost kojom ste mo?da pristupili ?itanju, bacaju?i vas ?irokim pojasom tropskog arhipelaga, iz ameri?kog ka jugoazijskom, iznenadno, usred poglavlja, povezuju?i dru?tvene i istorijske okolnosti naizgled nedodirljive i nepovezive, stvaraju?i ?itav koncept ?ivota u tropima a du? obala Pacifika. Autor ?e vas naterati da se uklju?ite, bez obzira na predznanja, postepeno vam otvaraju?i o?i nenaviknute na dubine, nenaviknute na smisao van vizuelnih prikaza i slikovitih predela, autor ?e vam prezreti i na smetli?te baciti onu naj?e??u popularnu putopisnu knj?evnost, na kraju ?ete shvatiti sa koliko samopouzdanja, razloga i topline ?e to u?initi. Autor ?e vam ponuditi viziju sveta iz ugla vrhunskog etnografa, nau?nika i pustolova. Autor ?e vam dati vi?e nego ?to ste mogli i pomisliti.
Read
December 30, 2015Kh?ng mu?n b??c ch?n vào l?nh v?c d?n t?c h?c, nh?n ch?ng h?c, t?i ch? tình c? nhìn th?y quy?n sách này trên m?t hi?u sách ? Nguy?n Xí khi ?ang ?i cùng m?t c? gái nh?ng ngày tr??c khi t?i ?i du h?c. C? ?y mu?n t?ng t?i m?t quy?n sách, và t?i ch?n quy?n này, có l? vì cái tên c?a nó, g?i ??n x? ? Vi?t Nam quê h??ng mình, c?ng có th? vì tác gi? c?a nó, m?t nhà d?n t?c h?c r?t n?i ti?ng mà trong nh?ng n?m tháng h?c ti?ng Pháp t?i ?? ???c bi?t ??n tên ?ng. ??i khi ta ti?m c?n 1 quy?n sách c?ng ch? vì duyên m?nh, h?n là vì ta ?? l?a ch?n và ?? ? ??n t? tr??c. T?i mang nó sang Pháp ?? ??c, ?? qu? tr?ng m?t món quà, và ?? nh? v? ??t n??c mình. V?y mà t?i làm m?t. Th?t t?, t?i ?? v?t v? ngh? v? nó trong su?t nh?ng ngày tháng t?i kh?ng th? tìm th?y nó ? ??u, t?i h?i ng??i này ng??i kia, lên c? di?n ?àn ?? h?i xem nó th?t l?c ??u ?ó hay kh?ng, nh?ng kh?ng có m?t tín hi?u gì kh? d? giúp t?i tìm l?i. T?i bu?n. ?n ??i bu?n, ch?c v?y. Và r?i, l?i v?n là cái duyên, m?t c?m m?n, yêu hay ch?a yêu, có r?t nhi?u tình c?m v?i m?t c? gái. C? ?y l?i h?i t?i thích gì, t?i l?i nói em có th? tìm mua cho anh Nhi?t ??i Bu?n kh?ng, và t?i k? c?u chuy?n t?i ?? k? v?i các b?n ? trên. V?y là c? ?y mua cho t?i, g?i cho t?i, v?i t?t c? s? yêu th??ng, và c? m?t n?i bu?n l?n lao vì ngay sau ?ó chúng t?i chia tay nhau. Nh? th? s? m?nh b?t t?i g?n ch?t v?i quy?n sách này b?ng nh?ng n?i bu?n c?a ki?p s?ng v?n kh?ng bao gi? có quá nhi?u ni?m vui ??i v?i t?i. T?i nh? c? ?y m?i khi t?i c?m quy?n sách và ??c. Nh?ng t?i ch?ng bao gi? dám nói gì, t?i ch? ngh?, t?i s? tr?n tr?ng quy?n sách này, nh? tr?n tr?ng m?t c? gái ?? yêu t?i h?t m?c, và t?i, ch? là k? vi?n du vào nh?ng mi?n ??t c?a chính t?m trí mình, mà b? l?i sau l?ng nh?ng m?i tình c?m kh?ng th? nào quên.
"T?i v?n ghét các chuy?n vi?n du và nh?ng nhà thám hi?m" - Levis ?? b?t ??u quy?n sách nh? v?y. M?t c?u nói quá n?i ti?ng ??n n?i ai khi b?t ??u ??c ??u nh?p t?m nó nh? m?t ??nh h??ng ?? bám vào khi ?i ti?p cùng Levis Strauss trong cu?c hành trình c?a ?ng ??n T?n Th? Gi?i, g?p g? con ng?oi khác, d?n t?c khác, kh?o c?u và k? chuy?n. Quy?n sách là s? gi?n d? và ch?n thành, m?t d?ng k? chuy?n ??a ng??i ta vào mi?n vi?n du n?i mà ta kh?ng có kh? n?ng ??n nh?ng có th? hình dung nh? th? chính m?t mình nhìn th?y, và qua ?ó, ta c?ng bi?t ???c cách Levis ti?p c?n v?n ?? ?? nghiên c?u v? d?n t?c h?c, ?i?u mà c? quy?n sách này mu?n nói ??n.
T?i c?ng ghét nh?ng th? lo?i sách du kí, nó h?i h?t và n?ng c?n, nó kh?ng ?? kh? n?ng ch?m s?u vào c?t l?i c?a m?t vùng ??t, nó ch? là hình th?c k? chuy?n thu?n tu?, mà ta ??u có th? tìm th?y trên google. Nó kh?ng ph?i ki?u d?ng nh? m?t anh chàng lang thang và th? h?n mình ?? h?n mình quy?n vào h?n thành ph?, và nghe th?y trái tim c?a nó th?, trái tim c?a con ng??i, vùng ??t và s? s?u kín ?n gi?u bên d??i mà ??i m?t kh?ng ?? s?c khám phá. Tr??c khi ?i Pháp, m?t ng??i anh ?? nói v?i t?i r?ng, em ch?u khó s?ng cùng ng??i Pháp ?? sau này có th? vi?t m?t tác ph?m gì ?ó th?t s?u s?c v? nh?ng gì em ?? ?i qua. Nh?ng t?i ngh?, t?i kh?ng c?m nh?n nh? v?y ???c, t?i v?n ghét sách du kí, t?i c?ng kh?ng ngh? t?i nên k? cu?c s?ng c?a t?i ? ??y th? nào, ??i khi nó t? ng?t và nhàm chán. Nh?ng ?n ??i Bu?n, bu?n thi?t cho nh?ng k? tha h??ng. Và nh? x? s? Nhi?t ??i bu?n b? mà Levis ?? tr?i qua m?t mình ? ?ó, t?i mu?n và thích vi?t v? n?i bu?n, nh? m?t kh?o c?u v? nh?ng t?m trí l?c loài, xa x?, n?ng n?i và b?t an nh? t?i.
Mylalarme.
"T?i v?n ghét các chuy?n vi?n du và nh?ng nhà thám hi?m" - Levis ?? b?t ??u quy?n sách nh? v?y. M?t c?u nói quá n?i ti?ng ??n n?i ai khi b?t ??u ??c ??u nh?p t?m nó nh? m?t ??nh h??ng ?? bám vào khi ?i ti?p cùng Levis Strauss trong cu?c hành trình c?a ?ng ??n T?n Th? Gi?i, g?p g? con ng?oi khác, d?n t?c khác, kh?o c?u và k? chuy?n. Quy?n sách là s? gi?n d? và ch?n thành, m?t d?ng k? chuy?n ??a ng??i ta vào mi?n vi?n du n?i mà ta kh?ng có kh? n?ng ??n nh?ng có th? hình dung nh? th? chính m?t mình nhìn th?y, và qua ?ó, ta c?ng bi?t ???c cách Levis ti?p c?n v?n ?? ?? nghiên c?u v? d?n t?c h?c, ?i?u mà c? quy?n sách này mu?n nói ??n.
T?i c?ng ghét nh?ng th? lo?i sách du kí, nó h?i h?t và n?ng c?n, nó kh?ng ?? kh? n?ng ch?m s?u vào c?t l?i c?a m?t vùng ??t, nó ch? là hình th?c k? chuy?n thu?n tu?, mà ta ??u có th? tìm th?y trên google. Nó kh?ng ph?i ki?u d?ng nh? m?t anh chàng lang thang và th? h?n mình ?? h?n mình quy?n vào h?n thành ph?, và nghe th?y trái tim c?a nó th?, trái tim c?a con ng??i, vùng ??t và s? s?u kín ?n gi?u bên d??i mà ??i m?t kh?ng ?? s?c khám phá. Tr??c khi ?i Pháp, m?t ng??i anh ?? nói v?i t?i r?ng, em ch?u khó s?ng cùng ng??i Pháp ?? sau này có th? vi?t m?t tác ph?m gì ?ó th?t s?u s?c v? nh?ng gì em ?? ?i qua. Nh?ng t?i ngh?, t?i kh?ng c?m nh?n nh? v?y ???c, t?i v?n ghét sách du kí, t?i c?ng kh?ng ngh? t?i nên k? cu?c s?ng c?a t?i ? ??y th? nào, ??i khi nó t? ng?t và nhàm chán. Nh?ng ?n ??i Bu?n, bu?n thi?t cho nh?ng k? tha h??ng. Và nh? x? s? Nhi?t ??i bu?n b? mà Levis ?? tr?i qua m?t mình ? ?ó, t?i mu?n và thích vi?t v? n?i bu?n, nh? m?t kh?o c?u v? nh?ng t?m trí l?c loài, xa x?, n?ng n?i và b?t an nh? t?i.
Mylalarme.
August 6, 2009
I have been trying to get through this book for probably at least a year now, though I'm not sure. I finally finished it two days ago. I know I'm sometimes prone to fits of enthusiasm and I might change my mind about this, but I think it's one of the greatest things I've ever read. Lévi-Strauss was clearly an extraordinary thinker, extremely well-read, restless, creative, morally sensitive, funny, and painfully self-aware. The final chapter, in which he begins musing over the moral implications of his work and of what he's learned over the course of his career up to then, is staggering. Ultimately Lévi-Strauss understands that he is engaged in a quixotic enterprise, a sort of search for the fundamental meaning of humanness, which he believes is to be found in understanding how people relate to one another and to their world. But the book also has this kind of surreal quality -- he meditates not just on the social interactions of the dying tribes he encounters, but on the shapes of clouds, the taste of food, his own inability to ride a mule, academic politics, ancient Central Asian art, and so forth. He liberally mixes his memories -- even talking from time to time about his own childhood -- with his observations of South America. He never lets the reader forget the material and cultural devastation thoughtlessly wrought on these cultures by the encroachment of the West, and yet he manages somehow to maintain hope that human societies can someday learn to make better choices in a conscious and moral way. It's quite inspiring.
Read
September 17, 2011I can't say I'm a fan of Levi-Strauss' anthropological theory, by and large. I find it to be generalistic and, while it makes broad claims about innate human nature, it provides no scientific data to back these claims up. I do like his idea of bricolage, though, and it's the bricolage that really shines through.
This is because Tristes Tropiques, is, far more than an anthropological work, a memoir, dealing with a flight from the Third Reich takeover of France, the twilight of tribal society in '50s Brazil, and the general feelings of guilt and uncertainty that plague the work of the field anthropologist. It would be a great story regardless, but in addition, Levi-Strauss is a phenomenal storyteller-- self-deprecating, lyrical, passionate, and keenly observant. I daresay it's one of the most moving memoirs I've ever read.
This is because Tristes Tropiques, is, far more than an anthropological work, a memoir, dealing with a flight from the Third Reich takeover of France, the twilight of tribal society in '50s Brazil, and the general feelings of guilt and uncertainty that plague the work of the field anthropologist. It would be a great story regardless, but in addition, Levi-Strauss is a phenomenal storyteller-- self-deprecating, lyrical, passionate, and keenly observant. I daresay it's one of the most moving memoirs I've ever read.
June 15, 2018
Ogni tanto sento il bisogno di rileggerlo... Un viaggio struggente dentro culture e civiltà perdute osservate con amore, partecipazione e grandissima letteratura
March 1, 2024
Antropoloji ?al??mas? falan de?il düpedüz edebi ?aheser.
Sen yaban hayatta iktidar?n izini sürüyorsun, insan?n yeryüzüyle kurdu?u en ilkel ba?? ar?yorsun ama biraz daha u?ra?san Proust olacakm??s?n, Rilke olacakm??s?n Strauss.
Sen yaban hayatta iktidar?n izini sürüyorsun, insan?n yeryüzüyle kurdu?u en ilkel ba?? ar?yorsun ama biraz daha u?ra?san Proust olacakm??s?n, Rilke olacakm??s?n Strauss.
November 10, 2016
Este é um daqueles livros que nos engana pela sua complexidade. Apesar de ter colocado este livro na "gaveta da literatura de Viagem" é muito mais que isso.
Lévi-Strauss é um antropólogo francês que nos desconstrói completamente n?o só o estereótipo do antropólogo, como nos deflaciona a no??o de viagem. Existem a meu ver, três quest?es fundamentais neste livro:
(1) O ódio de viajar;
(2) A ideia de Viajar como um regresso;
(3) E o que é a antropologia para o nosso autor (e por isso, o conhecimento antropológico)
Nunca tive a oportunidade de realizar muitas viagens e, por isso, acho sempre que estou a perder uma frac??o importante de conhecimento. Talvez porque cresci num mundo globalizado onde existe a cren?a que quando se viaja aprende-se algo novo, n?o só sobre os sítios que se visita, como sobre nós próprios. O engra?ado e curioso é que este é o terceiro livro que me parece dizer que estas "fantasias" que tenho n?o passam disso mesmo. Que compreender um objecto, um local, uma tribo é destruí-los (Perspectiva totalmente Lévi-Straussiana) apenas porque está sempre tudo num processo de queda, de mudan?a. Que é impossível viajar numa "altura certa", que viajar n?o nos ensina nada de novo (só confirma aquilo que somos e já sabemos) e que no máximo, aprendemos é sobre o sítio de onde saímos. Ent?o viajar é t?o simples como regressarmos ao sítio que nos é fundamental. Que a chegada faz-se a "casa".
Um livro profundamente melancólico que come?a da forma mais anti-climática de sempre: "I hate travelling and explorers. Yet here I am proposing to tell the story of my expeditions.". Porém é um livro estupendo, bem estruturado, irónico, reflexivo e interessante (que possui, pelo menos esta edi??o, umas fotografias lindíssimas).
Lévi-Strauss é um antropólogo francês que nos desconstrói completamente n?o só o estereótipo do antropólogo, como nos deflaciona a no??o de viagem. Existem a meu ver, três quest?es fundamentais neste livro:
(1) O ódio de viajar;
(2) A ideia de Viajar como um regresso;
(3) E o que é a antropologia para o nosso autor (e por isso, o conhecimento antropológico)
Nunca tive a oportunidade de realizar muitas viagens e, por isso, acho sempre que estou a perder uma frac??o importante de conhecimento. Talvez porque cresci num mundo globalizado onde existe a cren?a que quando se viaja aprende-se algo novo, n?o só sobre os sítios que se visita, como sobre nós próprios. O engra?ado e curioso é que este é o terceiro livro que me parece dizer que estas "fantasias" que tenho n?o passam disso mesmo. Que compreender um objecto, um local, uma tribo é destruí-los (Perspectiva totalmente Lévi-Straussiana) apenas porque está sempre tudo num processo de queda, de mudan?a. Que é impossível viajar numa "altura certa", que viajar n?o nos ensina nada de novo (só confirma aquilo que somos e já sabemos) e que no máximo, aprendemos é sobre o sítio de onde saímos. Ent?o viajar é t?o simples como regressarmos ao sítio que nos é fundamental. Que a chegada faz-se a "casa".
Um livro profundamente melancólico que come?a da forma mais anti-climática de sempre: "I hate travelling and explorers. Yet here I am proposing to tell the story of my expeditions.". Porém é um livro estupendo, bem estruturado, irónico, reflexivo e interessante (que possui, pelo menos esta edi??o, umas fotografias lindíssimas).
May 3, 2017
Obwohl klar war, dass dieses Buch, da in meiner Bibliothek, irgendwann gelesen werden wird, so war der akute Anlass es jetzt zu tun das Sammeln von Zitaten über Feldforschung für ein Projekt. Und obwohl ich nicht unbedingt an Ethnologie im engeren Sinne (also Begebenheiten von indigenen V?lkern) interessiert war, so war das Buch dennoch ein au?erordentlich und überraschender Genuss. Man sieht wieder, was für Vorteile es hat, wenn man grunds?tzlich ohne Erwartungen durchs Leben geht :-)
Obwohl der Kern des Buches ein ethnologischer Bericht über vier indigene St?mme (von V?lkern konnte man bereits in den 1930er Jahren nicht mehr sprechen, als Lévi-Strauss die Reisen unternahm) in Brasilien — den Caduveo, den Bororo, den Namikwara und den Tupi-Kawahib —ist, so ist das Buch doch viel mehr als dass. Neben autobiographischen Details und zahlreichen historischen Anekdoten über die Reise nach Brasilien geht der Autor detailliert auf die Reisestrapazen, die Vorbereitungen, das Reisen im Land und die zahlreichen Ver?nderungen und Modernisierungen in Brasilien, etwa in Rio de Janeiro, ein. Daneben gibt es auch Erinnerungen an vergleichbare Reisen nach Südostasien — Indien, Kashmir, Burma —, die interessante Vergleiche, aber auch ?hnlichkeiten zu Tage bringen. Immer wieder reflektiert Lévi-Strauss hochinteressant über Gesellschaften nicht nur in Brasilien, sondern in ganz Amerika (inkl. den ?alterslosen“ US-amerikanischen St?dten), und neben Einblicken in sein Verst?ndnis von der Ethnologie und dem Leben des Ethnologen pl?diert er immer wieder für ein Ende des Herabsehen des Westens auf andere Teile der Welt und deren Gesellschaften. In gewisser Weise reiht er sich so in eine Tradition ein, die sp?ter mit Edward Said einen gewichtigen Fürsprecher finden wird.
Ich bin wirklich sehr positiv überrascht von der Dichte und den zahlreichen Facetten dieses Buches. Erwartet habe ich mir (für mich) langweilige Beschreibungen indigener V?lker (die dann im Buch vorhanden ganz und gar nicht langweilig waren). Bekommen habe ich Einblicke in die franz?sische Gesellschaft, in das Reisen in der ersten H?lfte des 20. Jahrhunderts, in Entbehrungen, denen zahlreiche Menschen damals noch ausgesetzt waren, aber auch in eine teils wunderbar unberührte Natur (die bereits damals stark im Schrumpfen war), in zahlreiche exotische Geschichten über Glücksritter, vor allem aber die Tatsache, dass ?Zivilisation“ nicht unbedingt etwas mit westlichem Fortschritt zu tun haben muss. ?Zivilisation“ kann auch bedeuten, ohne Schrift und in Stammesform mehrere Jahrtausende als Gemeinschaft in einer sich rasch wandelnden Welt zu überleben.
Und so bleibt man am Ende doppelt traurig zurück. Einerseits traurig darüber, dass dieses Buch heute wie eine Erinnerung an eine vergangene Welt anmutet, in der die beschriebenen Eingeborenen weltweit nahezu komplett vom ?wei?en Mann“ ihres Lebensraumes beraubt und ausgerottet wurden. Traurig aber vor allem auch mit Lévi-Strauss, der mitansehen musste, wie bereits zu seiner Zeit die Mühlen der Zeit gnadenlos arbeiteten und die Anzahl der Eingeborenen innerhalb kürzester Zeit bereits damals im Schwinden war. Lévi-Strauss selbst berichtet in dem Buch von den zahlreichen Erkrankungen, denen die Einheimischen ausgesetzt waren und die nur mehr in geringer Anzahl am Leben waren.
Abschlie?end erscheint es wie eine Ironie des Schicksals, dass Lévi-Strauss gegen Ende seiner zweiten Brasilienreise, als er am Verlassen der letzten ?berlebenden der im Buch vorgestellten Einheimischen ist, eine vier Monate alte Zeitung in die H?nde f?llt, die endgültig beweist, dass der ?wei?e Mann“ nicht zivilisierter ist als die eingeborenen ?Wilden“. Inhalt der Zeitung: Das Münchener Abkommen und die Mobilmachung.
Obwohl der Kern des Buches ein ethnologischer Bericht über vier indigene St?mme (von V?lkern konnte man bereits in den 1930er Jahren nicht mehr sprechen, als Lévi-Strauss die Reisen unternahm) in Brasilien — den Caduveo, den Bororo, den Namikwara und den Tupi-Kawahib —ist, so ist das Buch doch viel mehr als dass. Neben autobiographischen Details und zahlreichen historischen Anekdoten über die Reise nach Brasilien geht der Autor detailliert auf die Reisestrapazen, die Vorbereitungen, das Reisen im Land und die zahlreichen Ver?nderungen und Modernisierungen in Brasilien, etwa in Rio de Janeiro, ein. Daneben gibt es auch Erinnerungen an vergleichbare Reisen nach Südostasien — Indien, Kashmir, Burma —, die interessante Vergleiche, aber auch ?hnlichkeiten zu Tage bringen. Immer wieder reflektiert Lévi-Strauss hochinteressant über Gesellschaften nicht nur in Brasilien, sondern in ganz Amerika (inkl. den ?alterslosen“ US-amerikanischen St?dten), und neben Einblicken in sein Verst?ndnis von der Ethnologie und dem Leben des Ethnologen pl?diert er immer wieder für ein Ende des Herabsehen des Westens auf andere Teile der Welt und deren Gesellschaften. In gewisser Weise reiht er sich so in eine Tradition ein, die sp?ter mit Edward Said einen gewichtigen Fürsprecher finden wird.
Ich bin wirklich sehr positiv überrascht von der Dichte und den zahlreichen Facetten dieses Buches. Erwartet habe ich mir (für mich) langweilige Beschreibungen indigener V?lker (die dann im Buch vorhanden ganz und gar nicht langweilig waren). Bekommen habe ich Einblicke in die franz?sische Gesellschaft, in das Reisen in der ersten H?lfte des 20. Jahrhunderts, in Entbehrungen, denen zahlreiche Menschen damals noch ausgesetzt waren, aber auch in eine teils wunderbar unberührte Natur (die bereits damals stark im Schrumpfen war), in zahlreiche exotische Geschichten über Glücksritter, vor allem aber die Tatsache, dass ?Zivilisation“ nicht unbedingt etwas mit westlichem Fortschritt zu tun haben muss. ?Zivilisation“ kann auch bedeuten, ohne Schrift und in Stammesform mehrere Jahrtausende als Gemeinschaft in einer sich rasch wandelnden Welt zu überleben.
Und so bleibt man am Ende doppelt traurig zurück. Einerseits traurig darüber, dass dieses Buch heute wie eine Erinnerung an eine vergangene Welt anmutet, in der die beschriebenen Eingeborenen weltweit nahezu komplett vom ?wei?en Mann“ ihres Lebensraumes beraubt und ausgerottet wurden. Traurig aber vor allem auch mit Lévi-Strauss, der mitansehen musste, wie bereits zu seiner Zeit die Mühlen der Zeit gnadenlos arbeiteten und die Anzahl der Eingeborenen innerhalb kürzester Zeit bereits damals im Schwinden war. Lévi-Strauss selbst berichtet in dem Buch von den zahlreichen Erkrankungen, denen die Einheimischen ausgesetzt waren und die nur mehr in geringer Anzahl am Leben waren.
Abschlie?end erscheint es wie eine Ironie des Schicksals, dass Lévi-Strauss gegen Ende seiner zweiten Brasilienreise, als er am Verlassen der letzten ?berlebenden der im Buch vorgestellten Einheimischen ist, eine vier Monate alte Zeitung in die H?nde f?llt, die endgültig beweist, dass der ?wei?e Mann“ nicht zivilisierter ist als die eingeborenen ?Wilden“. Inhalt der Zeitung: Das Münchener Abkommen und die Mobilmachung.
October 20, 2022
不懂人类学和李维史托，好像也没什关係，因為比起一本阐述自己思想的作品，《忧鬱的热带》也是一本出色的游记，裡面记录了李维史陀在南美洲原始部落及亚洲的所见所闻、以及旅程中他身為旅行者的反思。虽然书裡的字句偶尔带着点歧视，但对於一本来自於20世纪的旅行文学来说，所达的境界可以说是经典之作。
在书的前半部反思裡，作者引了法国哲学家夏多布里昂的一句话，「每一个人，身上都繫着一个世界，由他所见过、爱过的一切所组成的世界，即使他看来是在另一个不同的世界裡旅行、生活，他仍然不停地回到与他相繫的那个时间去。」这句话就像是一整本书最佳的註解，也是我很同意的一句话。
这本书看下来，让我记忆深刻的绝对是李维史陀深入部落与他们长期生活的观察纪录，也许我们就像作者一样用着自己的有色眼光去看他们，但这种增广见闻的途径也是不无可取。比起单纯的纪录旅行，身為人类学家的李维史陀也适度的反思，字裡行句之间也能看见他引用诸多学界前辈的思想，如果不能了解，试着去探索这庞大的思想也是种乐趣。
其实，把这本书看完可以说是我的一种小成就吧，再加上没有电子书的关係，常常只能在书桌前细细品尝，这大概也是看这本书的一大乐趣。最后，想把这本书推荐给喜欢旅行文学，尤其是南美原住民的书写的读者，当然，若是你本身对人类学有兴趣，这绝对是书架上必备的作品之一。
在书的前半部反思裡，作者引了法国哲学家夏多布里昂的一句话，「每一个人，身上都繫着一个世界，由他所见过、爱过的一切所组成的世界，即使他看来是在另一个不同的世界裡旅行、生活，他仍然不停地回到与他相繫的那个时间去。」这句话就像是一整本书最佳的註解，也是我很同意的一句话。
这本书看下来，让我记忆深刻的绝对是李维史陀深入部落与他们长期生活的观察纪录，也许我们就像作者一样用着自己的有色眼光去看他们，但这种增广见闻的途径也是不无可取。比起单纯的纪录旅行，身為人类学家的李维史陀也适度的反思，字裡行句之间也能看见他引用诸多学界前辈的思想，如果不能了解，试着去探索这庞大的思想也是种乐趣。
其实，把这本书看完可以说是我的一种小成就吧，再加上没有电子书的关係，常常只能在书桌前细细品尝，这大概也是看这本书的一大乐趣。最后，想把这本书推荐给喜欢旅行文学，尤其是南美原住民的书写的读者，当然，若是你本身对人类学有兴趣，这绝对是书架上必备的作品之一。
March 22, 2012
?crit magistralement à la jonction de la littérature, de l'autobiographie, de la science et de la philosophie, ce livre compte parmi ceux que j'ai le plus apprécié.
Lévi-Strauss, c’est le type idéal de l’intellectuel écrivain du XXe siècle, dont le discours englobe en virtuose la philosophie, l’art et la science. Ce sera par le biais de l’anthropologie, science encore toute neuve qui demandait à être, et en empruntant de manière heuristique la notion de structure à la linguistique, que ce philosophe de formation exprimera son formidable talent d’expression.
Sont-ils tristes, ces ? tropiques ? (c’est-à-dire ces tribus encore plus ou moins qualifiables de ? sauvages ? à l’époque des débuts de l’anthropologie)? Pas vraiment, ou plut?t pas particulièrement plus que n’importe qu’elle autre réalité humaine. Ceci dit, le regard de Lévi-Strauss, à la fois aisément reconnaissable comme agencement de différentes influences de la civilisation occidentale (Rousseau, Marx, Saussure, Céline,…), et absolument unique en son agencement, leur donne une couleur délicatement idéalisée, propice aux reflets d’une fine mélancolie.
Lévi-Strauss, c’est le type idéal de l’intellectuel écrivain du XXe siècle, dont le discours englobe en virtuose la philosophie, l’art et la science. Ce sera par le biais de l’anthropologie, science encore toute neuve qui demandait à être, et en empruntant de manière heuristique la notion de structure à la linguistique, que ce philosophe de formation exprimera son formidable talent d’expression.
Sont-ils tristes, ces ? tropiques ? (c’est-à-dire ces tribus encore plus ou moins qualifiables de ? sauvages ? à l’époque des débuts de l’anthropologie)? Pas vraiment, ou plut?t pas particulièrement plus que n’importe qu’elle autre réalité humaine. Ceci dit, le regard de Lévi-Strauss, à la fois aisément reconnaissable comme agencement de différentes influences de la civilisation occidentale (Rousseau, Marx, Saussure, Céline,…), et absolument unique en son agencement, leur donne une couleur délicatement idéalisée, propice aux reflets d’une fine mélancolie.
January 15, 2015
Rather an important book. "A seeming gallimaufry" of anthropological excursions (delightfully short of the appallingly academic), memoirs, travel writing, philosophies, lyrical passages, eccentric digressions; all mixed together in a fine and meaty stew -- if sometimes a bit overcooked. The discussion of cultural relativism was intriguing as Levi-Strauss seems to take issue with the most extreme expressions that this has followed. The final chapters are oddly problematic -- they attempt to be simultaneously critical theory and a kind of Buddhist-nihilism that wants to transcend the nothingness of a world without meaning.
June 1, 2008
A classic work or book by Claude Levi-Strauss, one of the leading guys who studied other guys from other cultures. This book is about guys from Brazil. But really he's a master and a wonderful writer. A travel writer of sorts who is really smart. Dig?
January 10, 2018
??? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????????? ??? ?????..
??????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ?????.. ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ????????? ??? ??? ???? ?????..
??????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ?????.. ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ????????? ??? ??? ???? ?????..
July 25, 2017
???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???????? ??? ????????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ??????? - ???? ??????? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ???? ???? - ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ??????????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??????? , ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????????? ???? ???? ??????? ????????? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ??????? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????????? ?????? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ??????? .
??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ??????? , ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ???? .
??????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ??????? , ?????? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ???? .
January 5, 2021
I really struggled with this one. I was both completely repulsed by his constant patronizing, colonialist, racist and sexist attitude about everything and utterly fascinated by his ethnographies and experiences. I often felt sick to my stomach reading his commentary littered with condescending commentary and insults. I know, I know, this was written in the 50’s and he did his work in the 30’s onward but wowzie I both can’t and absolutely can believe this guy is the grandfather of anthropology. So grateful for all the work folks (primarily from the Global South) have done over the last 70 years to undue all of the damage done by guys like this. I read a very old edition so have no idea if recent editions give trigger warnings or try to explain how messed up his writing is in a post colonialist/post structural world.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 296 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.