Anthropos: Anthropos, 52.1957

Anthropos, 112.2017,2

Bibliographische Daten

Zeitschrift

Strukturtyp:: Zeitschrift

Werks-URN (URL):: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-714789

URN:: urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-714789

Persistenter Identifier:: BV041701500

Titel:: Anthropos

Untertitel:: internationale Zeitschrift für Völker- u. Sprachenkunde

Weitere Titel:: Anthropos

Erscheinungsort:: Fribourg

Verlag:: Ed. St. Paul, Anthropos-Institut

Erscheinungsjahr:: 1906

Sammlung:: Zeitschriften und Zeitungen > Zeitschriften zur Ethnologie

Wissensgebiet:: Sozial- und Kulturanthropologie > Allgemeines

Zeitschriftenband

Strukturtyp:: Zeitschriftenband

Werks-URN (URL):: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-709678

URN:: urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-709678

Persistenter Identifier:: DE-11-001896209

Titel:: Anthropos, 52.1957

Erscheinungsjahr:: 1957

Signatur:: LA 1118-52

Sammlung:: Zeitschriften und Zeitungen > Zeitschriften zur Ethnologie

Zeitschriftenheft

Strukturtyp:: Zeitschriftenheft

Titel:: Bd. 52, 1957, Heft 1, 2

Sammlung:: Zeitschriften und Zeitungen > Zeitschriften zur Ethnologie

Zeitschriftenartikel

Strukturtyp:: Zeitschriftenartikel

Titel:: Notes on Religion and Ritual among the Dafla Tribes of the Assam Himalayas

Sonstige Person:: Stonor, C. R.

Sammlung:: Zeitschriften und Zeitungen > Zeitschriften zur Ethnologie

d’une langue qui prevoit et porte son propre meta- j‚angage” (Barthes 1966: 23). The two levels of language are a) articulation and b) integration. Together, these levels attribute form and meaning to the narrative: “La langue propre- ment dite peut Etre definie par le concours de deux proc6es fondamentaux: l’articulation, ou segmenta- tion, qui produit des unites (c’est la forme, selon Benveniste), l’inte&gration, qui recueille ces unites dans les unites d’un rang superieur (c’est le sens). Ce double proc6es se retrouve dans la langue du recit; zlle aussi connait une articulation et une integration, une forme et un sens” (Barthes 1966: 24). Integra- tion is linked to the generation of narratives. Barthes does not discuss induction in relation to the scientif- ic method, perhaps taking the point of the view that the writer 1s not an engineer but an artist-bricoleur. This can be sustained by his argument for the verti- zal dimension of narratives, which are stacked like a pyramid through mises en abyme: “La dystaxie oariente une lecture ‘horizontale’, mais l’integration lui superpose une lecture ‘verticale’: il y a une sorte de ‘boitement’ structural, comme un jeu incessant de potentiels” (Barthes 1966: 27). While human scientists operate on the x-y axis in Barthes narrative cosmology, Deleuze’s and Um- verto Eco’s substitution of the rhizome for the clas- sical maze usefully explains the hybridity of rela- tions inherent in Evans-Pritchard’s plot structure. As narratives flourish in the human imagination in- finitely due to their concurrence, one often fails to capture their essence. Everything is a function of an adventure of language. The literary feast determines ihe reception: “Le recit ne fait pas voir, il n’imite pas; la passion qui peut nous enflammer ä la lecture d’un roman n’est pas celle d’une ‘vision’ (en fait, nous ne ‘voyons’ rien), c’est celle du sens, c’est-ä- dire d’un ordre superieur de la relation, qui possede [ui aussi, des €motions, ses espoirs, ses menaces, ses triomphes: ‘ce qui se passe’ dans le recit, n’est, du point de vue referentiel (reel) ä la lettre: rien; ‘ce qui arrive’ c’est le langage tout lu, l’aventure du langage, dont la venue ne cesse jamais d’&tre f&tee” ‘Barthes 1966: 28). While some people would disagree that the liter- ary feast lies in imagining that: ‘“(by) rubbing ash- es along the back of a cow or 0x one may get into uch with the spirit of ghost associated with it and ask it for assistance” (Evans-Pritchard 1960: 18), or ‘hat “(start) on whatever subject I would, and ap- aroach it from whatever angle, we would soon be speaking of cows and oxen, heifers and steers, rams and sheep, he-goats and she-goats, claves and lambs and kids,” anthropological curiosity carries a specif- ic drive, which performs surgery on collective be- rn Berichte und Kommentare havior, even when “their social idiom is a bovine idiom” (1960: 19). The folly of this project signals ihe visibility of epistemological contradictions. At every moment of the creation of a cultural mono- zraph, in his “Nuer-osis” (1960: 13), the anthropol- agist is bouncing back narrative structures even if :hose become reduced to non-Western incongruen- zies in social behavior: “Nuer wash their hands and faces in the urine of the cattle, especially when cows arinate during milking, drink their milk and blood and sleep on their hides by the side of the smoulder- ‚ng dung” (1960: 37). Because it renders the reali- :y crude and bare, immediate and inaccessible, this defamiliarizing fragment is actually the golden key to the work. It exposes differences from the Western 1o0rm, a deviation with its own influential structure, which feeds off the reader’s fantastic paranoia. The more danger there is, the higher rises the stock value of narratives, the more applause there is in the am- phitheater. Through the drawing and redrawing of 'he landscapes, thanks to his subtle sketches, as well as a great deal of fantasia, Evans-Pritchard proves his sub-thesis of the “symbiotic relationship of cat- le and man.” Life “is sustained by reciprocal ser- vices to one another” (1960: 36). During post-struc- uralism, which rejects the binary self-sufficiency of structures, Barthes’ linguistic approach appears dat- 2d. Nevertheless, in the face of scattered texts, nar- rative cohesion, anatomy, integration, and their ver- cal readings are still pertinent to the understanding of ethnographic reality. They are the only way to ring back the immediacy of the social fact anteced- ant to the present time. They are important tools for anthropologists facing renewed waves of hermeneu- tics, now concerned with the cornerstones of lan- guage and literature. Conclusion Semiotic approach to Evans-Pritchard’s “The Nuer” demonstrates the return to Geertz’s notion of an- Ihropologist as author. They posit the role of the zomplicit subject in field work as a potential en- gineer-artiste: the co-hero of the story. Myth mak- :ng calls for the juncture of proof-validated hypoth- 3ses with the ingenious personal flair of poiesis. It iS not mechanical. Giambattista Vico’s concept of /antasia provides a lead into the meaning of the anthropological process. The Italian author brings into social sciences the importance of the robust- ness of imagination, identified in formulae of the semiotic relationship. By challenging Descartes on observation, Vico makes a strong argument for cre- ativity’s role in ethnographic induction. In a more Anthropos 112.2017

Zugriffsbeschränkung

Nutzungslizenz

fullscreen: Anthropos, 112.2017,2

Zeitschrift

Zeitschriftenband

Zeitschriftenheft

Zeitschriftenartikel

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Downloads

Ganzer Datensatz

Diese Seite

Bildfragment

Formate und Verlinkungen

Formate

Links

Zitieren

Ganzer Datensatz

Diese Seite

Zitierempfehlung