424
PARTISAN REVIEW
economic and historical determinism, increasing polarization, and revolu–
tion. (Sartre, and Lefebvre , of course, also have their own versions of
Marxism.)
Like Marx, Levi-Strauss assumes that economic production arises from
human needs , though he often stands Marx on his "side" when, by impli–
cation , he perceives exchange ofgoods as well as thoughts, persons , and culture
as the superstructure. But he does defend his own reading of Marx when he
insists that ' 'dialectic materialism should always be able
to
proceed by trans–
formation , from economic or social structure to the structure of law , art, or
religion .. . [and that] these transformations were dialectic, and [that] in
some cases Marx went to great lengths to discover the crucial transformations
which at first sight seemed to defy analysis." And though, like Marx , his
"dialectic springs directly from the customs and the philosophy of the group ,
from whom the individual learns his lesson . .. and [from] his belief in
guardian spirits," and from the fact that "society as a whole teaches its
members that their only hope of salvation within the established social order
lies in an absurd and despairing attempt to get free from that order," he
cannot draw Marx's conclusions about an impending revolution . Of course,
part ofLevi-Strauss's problem is the difficulty of applying Marxism to primi–
tive cultures. Besides, his rather Durkheimian vision of personal freedom
sidesteps, or ignores , such basic concepts of Marx's as false consciousness as
well as revolution . These omissions leave his "Marxism" open to attack by
" Marxists.' ,
And one of his most vociferous critics is Sartre-the "real" Marxist.
Actually their battle revolves around a much larger issue: the intellectual
leadership ofFrance , where esoteric and marginal thinkers can become charis–
matic leaders of a wide range of intellectuals . So, surely, Levi-Strauss's ascent
to the position of number one thinker is not impeded when he dismisses
phenomenology and existentialism as novel ways of justifying metaphysics
and insists that his own method is the only truly scientific one. He is the first
anthropologist who dared challenge the philosopher's intellectual supremacy ,
but , then, he also had the advantage of a philosophic training which
permits him to cope with Sanre in his own terms. By now, the intellectual
mudslinging, which reached its peak in Sartre's
Cn"tique de fa Raison Dia–
fectique
and in
The Savage Mind,
has become a global polemic.
But aside from the rhetoric of the argument, the basic difference
between Levi-Strauss and Sartre is on the question of history . Essentially ,
Levi-Strauss interprets the oral traditions of primitive societies in an ahistorical
fashion . His is a history of the moment that is forever reconstituted in his
forever veiled structures; history is brought up to date each time a myth is
retold , and in each human mind . And the history of a society instead of being
