EDITH KURZWEIL
419
The last volume of
Mythologiques, L 'Homme Nu,
just like all the pre–
vious ones , promises the answer to this puzzle . Essentially , Levi-Strauss holds
our attention because he maintains , all along , that the analysis of more and
more myths in relation
to
their cultures , and the elaborations of the particular
functions of these myths , would "show" how the universality of nature's
contrasts , beauties, and moods parallels the universality of culture and of
myth , and would ultimately uncover universal structures . Levi-Strauss uses
musical themes and variations to persuade and entrance; and his fascinating
mythological symphonies frequently obfuscate the fact that the unconscious
structures still remain hidden . And all the examples of oppositions and of
transformations of the raw and the cooked, of fire and ashes, of honey and
table manners in the structural analysis of myth , only pretend
to
explain how
the author chose the ingredients (myths) of his structuralist " stew."
Although he carefully justifies and explains his selections with analogies and
diagrams , it is somewhat difficult
to
agree , for instance , that because in two
Bororo myths the advent of culture is dependent upon the massacre of a
community , the transition from " nature"
to
" culture " always corresponds ,
in native thought, to the transition from the "continuous "
to
the " discon–
tinuous ." Or, that proof of such oppositions in all of his 813 myths will
confirm structuralism as a "science." In any event, the claim to science will
remain a myth until these elusive-and so far unconscious-structures have
been uncovered, or brought to the surface . And because Levi-Strauss keeps
assuring us that all reality is based on these structures , all true' 'believers" in
structuralism continue
to
search for them: they're the optimists who hope
that this mythological map might eventually provide not just a coordination
of knowledge but nothing less than a new explication of the universe .
But faith, be it in the powers of Weber's charismatic leader, in Marx's
revolution, in Freud's unconscious, in Comte 's positivist religion , or in
Parson 's system, has led
to
the downfall as well as the acceptance of all
"scientific Grand Theories ." It seems that the more grandiose the theory the
more faith it demands ; and ironically, its claims are most strongly challenged
by competing thinkers who have their own big theories to sell. In such an
ideological contest , structuralism with its "hidden" and " undiscovered"
components is particularly vulnerable to criticism and therefore more easily
discredited.
What then are the major disagreements with structuralism, if it can be
thought of as a sort of "systems theory"? And
to
what extent, we must ask ,
does structuralism serve as a new territory for academic and intellectual busy–
work? Is it more valid in some areas than in others? And if so, how do the
isolated structuralist "disciplines" hold up , even if the Grand Theory has
crumbled? These are only some of the questions
to
which we haven't had
the answers.
