Myth and Meaning

1. How does Lévi-Strauss characterise the separation between 'scientific' and

'mythical' modes of thought? In what way did science benefit from this?
A: According to Claude Lévi-Strauss, the crucial separation between ‘scientific’ and
‘mythical’ modes of thought took place during the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries. In this transitional period men of rational and scientific temper such as
Francis Bacon, René Descartes and Sir Isaac Newton believed it was necessary for
science to adopt an evolutionary trajectory which opposed the mystical and mythical
traditions of the past. It was widely argued that science could meaningfully develop
only though such an oppositional relation. There was a feeling that the world we
experienced through our senses was delusive or illusionary and the real world was a
space of mathematical properties. This world could be understood only by the
intellect, which conflicted with the idea of the world created by the senses. Lévi-
Strauss opines that this separation was beneficial to science because science got
clearly defined and delineated in the process. This naturally led to giant leaps in
science. He, however, does not consider the dichotomy science/myth absolute and
logical; for him it is only a convenient label with which new perceptions can be
generated.

2. What does Lévi-Strauss say about the current position of science vis-à-vis myths
and similar beliefs?
A: Claude Lévi-Strauss feels that modern science, unlike in the past, is trying to
integrate mythical and related modes of thought into its purview. In other words
contemporary science is tending to overcome the rigid separation between scientific
and mythical paradigms which occurred in the 17th and 18th centuries. As a result we
get a chance to analyse and understand social phenomena, practices, institutions,
customs and beliefs within the rigorous and objective methodological frameworks of
science. Lévi-Strauss cites the case of smells and the age old conflict between two
conceptions about the human mind to drive his point home. In the past we used to
consider smells as purely subjective sensations which lay outside the scope of

1|Page
scientific inquiries. But now chemists are in a position to tell us that smells are
produced by particular combinations of elements, and that they can be understood
rationally and scientifically. So is the case of the opposition between the conception
of mind as a tabula rasa and as the locus of Ideas. These days neurophysiology
assures us that these positions are not contradictory but can actually be reconciled by
understanding the structural features of our visual apparatus.

3. Lévi-Strauss says: "My position in relation to science is thus not a negative one."
What might have necessitated the statement?
A: There is a widespread feeling that anthropology and science are two circles of
knowledge which never intersect. Science is considered as rigorously following an
empirical approach. Structural anthropology, on the contrary, attaches great
importance to rational method and is in many respects regarded as a critique of
science. Claude Lévi-Strauss disagrees with this entrenched popular idea. He says
that he reads science journals to keep himself abreast of what is happening around
him, especially in science and technology. More importantly he does not consider
science and anthropology as antithetical. On the contrary he feels that modern
science, unlike in the past, is trying to integrate mythical and related modes of
thought into its purview. In other words, contemporary science is tending to
overcome the rigid separation between scientific and mythical paradigms which
occurred in the 17th and 18th centuries. As a result we get a chance to analyse and
understand social phenomena, practices, institutions, customs and beliefs within the
rigorous and objective methodological frameworks of science.

4. Lévi-Strauss refers to two conflicting theories of mind and hints at a solution.

Which are the theories and what is the solution?
A: Claude Lévi-Strauss refers to two conflicting classical theories of mind and
cognition. According to the first one the mind is a tabula rasa. That means we are all
born with a blank mind and everything comes to it through experiences. Thus, for
example, we see a lot of round objects none of which are perfect; but from these
experiences we produce an idea of the perfect circle. In other words we form the

2|Page
idea of perfect circularity through own experiences, perceptions and encounters. The
second classical theory goes back to Plato. He maintained that our ideas about
shapes are born with us. We create and understand objects by projecting these innate
ideas onto raw materials. Therefore all the objects we create and see around are
imperfect imitations of ideal objects. But contemporary researchers on the
neurophysiology of vision offer a way out these contradictory theories. According to
modern studies these theoretical positions are not contradictory but can actually be
reconciled by understanding the structural features of our visual apparatus. The
nervous cells in the retina and other parts behind it are specialized: specific cells are
sensitive only to specific shapes and orientations. In this way the problem of
experience versus mind seems to have a solution in the structure of the nervous
system. Lévi-Strauss uses this example to show that in order to properly solve
puzzles including myths and social customs, we need to adopt a structural
approach. We have to look for underlying relations, rather than the visible objects of
study themselves.

5. What is the target of the structuralist approach? Please quote from the text
A: According to Claude Lévi-Strauss structuralism is all about trying to find out
constant elements and invisible underlying structures in apparently different
phenomena. In his own words “there is nothing more than that in the structuralist
approach; it is the quest for the invariant, or for the invariant elements among
superficial differences.”

6. It is wrong to consider structuralism new and revolutionary. Why?

A: According to Claude Lévi-Strauss there is a widespread tendency to consider
structuralism as entirely new and revolutionary. He rejects this belief as wrong
because of two reasons. One is that structuralism is not at all new in the field of
humanities: in fact the streak of structuralist sensibility can be traced way back to the
Renaissance and then through the nineteenth century to the present age. The second
reason is that structuralism in linguistics or anthropology is actually a weak
imitation of the methods in hard sciences such as physics and chemistry. Here the

3|Page
thrust is to identify and demonstrate deep structures which are invisible to the
observer.

7. Describe the two approaches in science.

A: Claude Lévi-Strauss suggests that scientific knowledge is produced through two
approaches: reductionist or structuralist. Scientists follow the first approach when
they find it possible to reduce or break down complex phenomena into simpler
phenomena. Here the large phenomenon is considered the sum total of smaller
phenomena. For instance, many puzzles of nature can be reduced to physico-
chemical processes, which explain a part but not all. The structuralist approach is
necessary when the phenomena we study are too complex to be broken down into
phenomena of a simpler and lower order. In such a situation we look for the
underlying relationships of the system. That is, we try to identify and demonstrate
the rules (which are abstract and of course invisible) on the basis of which the
elements of a phenomenon are organized. Here we try to understand the original
system they make up. This is exactly what we have been trying to do in linguistics,
anthropology and many other fields.

8. What is the significance of the reference to genetics in the context of

structuralism?
A: It is to exemplify how structuralism operates in biological phenomena that
Claude Lévi-Strauss makes a pointed reference to the genetic code. According to him
structuralist approach becomes necessary when the phenomena we study are too
complex to be broken down into phenomena of a simpler and lower order. In such a
situation we look for the underlying relationships of the system. That is, we try to
identify and demonstrate the rules (which are abstract and of course invisible) on the
basis of which the elements of a phenomenon are organized. The number of
individual objects (just like the alphabet of a language) in nature is finite but their
combinations and configurations are infinite. So geneticists describe the complex
structure of the gene in the language of linguistics. The differences between
individuals and ethnic groups are amazing. But the basic genetic makeup is the same

4|Page
everywhere. What cause the differences are the differences in combination just like
we combine words into any number of sentences by using a set of rules and
regulations called grammar.

9. Enumerate the three problems that Lévi-Strauss found in anthropology?

A: Claude Lévi-Strauss mentions three problems that he faced as a young scholar in
the field of anthropology. One is that there were many rules of marriage all over the
world which looked absolutely meaningless. Two: he reasoned that if all those rules
were meaningless and completely arbitrary, there should be separate rules for
territorial, cultural and ethnic groups of people; but he found that the number of
rules was more or less finite. Three: this contradiction implied that the apparently
infinite and absurd rules of marriage had an internal logic—an underlying
structure— which no one had tried to discover and demonstrate.

10. What made Lévi-Strauss feel that "this was something which was not
absolutely absurd" in the context of marriage rules?
A: Claude Lévi-Strauss initially faced three inexplicable but interconnected
stumbling blocks the field of anthropology. One: he found that there were many
rules of marriage all over the world which looked absolutely meaningless. Two: he
reasoned that if all those rules were meaningless and completely arbitrary, there
should be separate rules for territorial, cultural and ethnic groups of people; but he
found that the number of rules was more or less finite. Three: this contradiction
implied that the apparently infinite and absurd rules of marriage had an internal
logic—an underlying structure— which no one had tried to discover and
demonstrate. From these he came to the conclusion that “this was something which
was not absolutely absurd” because if it were so there would not be repetition.

5|Page
11. Mention the problem that Lévi-Strauss found in mythology and how did he
respond to it?
A: As a novice in the field of anthropology, Claude Lévi-Strauss found that there
were little or no attempts to find order behind the conspicuous disorder and
illogicality of mythology. Generally mythical stories are regarded as arbitrary,
meaningless and absurd. But he had a new and different way of looking at things.
He reasoned that a purely fanciful and arbitrary creation of the human mind in one
cultural milieu would be unique—you would not find the same creation in a
completely different place. But in reality the same mythical story, with minor or
negligible alterations, could be found in many places. This discovery made him
think anew and prompted him to find analytical tools with which he hoped to find
an underlying logic behind the apparently illogical mythical stories. In other words,
he was evolving a structuralist school in anthropology. It would change the nature
of anthropology forever and heavily impact on almost all disciplines that go under
the title of ‘humanities.’

12. What is Lévi-Strauss's theoretical justification in finding order behind

apparent disorder in the case of marriage rules and mythical stories?
A: Claude Lévi-Strauss found a strange similarity between marriage rules and
mythical stories: both were numerous and appeared to be arbitrary, meaningless and
absurd. But he also found that these differences were minor, negligible, superficial or
deceptive. In this context he reasoned that a purely fanciful and arbitrary creation of
the human mind in one cultural milieu would be unique—you would not find the
same creation in a completely different place. However, contrary to this truism,
marriage rules and mythical stories could be found in many places in slightly
different and disguised forms. From this realization, he came to the conclusion that it
was necessary to evolve tools which could locate order behind apparent disorder.
Eventually he identified a limited number of elements in marriage rules and
mythical stories. He found that they were combined and configured differently on
the basis of certain rules and regulations.

6|Page
13. What is the most important precondition for meaning?
A: According to Claude Lévi-Strauss order is the most important precondition for
meaning.

14. How does Lévi-Strauss describe 'meaning' and 'translation' in relation to rules
and order?
A: According to Claude Lévi-Strauss order is the most important precondition for
meaning. In his view production of meaning is based on our ability to translate data
from one language to another. It should be remembered that Lévi-Strauss does not
mean a different language like French or German, but different words on a different
level. For example this sort of translation happens in a dictionary. We get the
meaning of an unknown word through known words. There are two levels at play
here. This kind of translation is also impossible without rules. We cannot replace
any word by any other word or any sentence by any other sentence arbitrarily. If we
do so, no one else will understand us. Language, as we know, is a huge social
network which functions on the basis of a tacit understanding between its users.

15. "To speak of rules and to speak of meaning is to speak of the same thing".
Why?
Claude Lévi-Strauss emphatically suggests that “to speak of rules and to speak of
meaning is to speak of the same thing. “ In his view order is the most important
precondition for meaning. He suggests that production of meaning is based on our
ability to translate data from one language to another. It should be remembered that
Lévi-Strauss does not mean a different language like French or German, but different
words on a different level. For example this sort of translation happens in a
dictionary. We get the meaning of an unknown word through known words. There
are two levels at play here. This kind of translation is also impossible without rules.
We cannot replace any word by any other word or any sentence by any other
sentence arbitrarily. If we do so, no one else will understand us. Language, as we
know, is a huge social network which functions on the basis of a tacit understanding

7|Page
between its users. The presence of order can be identified in all the forms recorded
knowledge produced by mankind. So there is a basic need for order in the human
mind. This happens because human mind is only a part of the universe which is very
much based on orders like gravity and forces controlling planetary motion. Without
them the universe will be a chaos. Similarly absence of rules will lead to the collapse
of human mind, culture and civilization.

16. According to Lévi-Strauss what unites human intellectual undertakings all

over the world and what is the reason behind this?
A: According to Claude Lévi-Strauss what unites human intellectual undertakings
all over the world is the presence of order. In his view order is the most important
precondition for meaning. He opines that the production of meaning is based on our
ability to translate data from one language to another. It should be remembered that
Lévi-Strauss does not mean a different language like French or German, but different
words on a different level. For example this sort of translation happens in a
dictionary. We get the meaning of an unknown word through known words. There
are two levels at play here. This kind of translation is also impossible without rules.
We cannot replace any word by any other word or any sentence by any other
sentence arbitrarily. If we do so, no one else will understand us. Language, as we
know, is a huge social network which functions on the basis of a tacit understanding
between its users. The presence of order can be identified in all the forms recorded
knowledge produced by mankind. So there is a basic need for order in the human
mind. This happens because human mind is only a part of the universe which is very
much based on orders like gravity and forces controlling planetary motion. Without
them the universe will be a chaos. Similarly absence of rules will lead to the collapse
of human mind, culture and civilization.

17. According to Lévi-Strauss what differentiates ancient peoples from modern

ones?
A: In the opinion of Claude Lévi-Strauss it is the absence of writing that separates
ancient peoples from modern ones.

8|Page
18. Briefly describe the two ways of looking at people without writing, and what
does Lévi-Strauss say about these approaches?
A: According to Claude Lévi-Strauss what distinguishes the people we usually but
wrongly call ‘primitive’ is the absence of writing. The thinking patterns and
cognitive habits among such people have been interpreted in two ways. The first
way can be called functionalism. In this method the thinking capacity of primitive
peoples is considered as coarse and inferior in relation to us. Anthropologists of this
school argue that the thought process of primitive peoples was determined by
nothing but the basic needs of life. In this explanatory model social institutions,
belief systems and myths are understood on the basis of basic necessities of life such
as food and sexual gratification. According to the next way, primitive peoples
fundamentally differ from moderns in their thinking. Representatives of this school
are of the view that the thought of ancient population was defined and determined
by emotion and mystic representations. This is a way of looking into the past in term
of emotion or affective experiences. Lévi-Strauss holds that both the ways—
functional and emotional—are equally wrong.

19. Why does Lévi-Strauss mention Malinowski and Lévy-Bruhl?

A: Claude Lévi-Strauss mentions Bronisław Malinowski and Lucien Lévy-Bruhl as
part of a discussion on how ‘primitive’ peoples differ from modern ones in terms of
thought process. Both the thinkers have exerted influence on anthropology and
ethnographic studies. According to Lévi-Strauss what distinguishes the people we
usually but wrongly call ‘primitive’ is the absence of writing. The mode of thought
among such people has been interpreted in two ways. The first way can be called
functionalism. The work Malinowski typifies this sensibility. In this method the
thinking capacity of primitive peoples is considered as coarse and inferior compared
to us. Anthropologists of this school argue that the thought process of primitive
peoples was determined by nothing but the basic needs of life. In this explanatory
model social institutions, belief systems and myths are understood on the basis of

9|Page
basic necessities of life such as food and sexual gratification. According to the next
way, primitive peoples fundamentally differ from moderns in their thinking. This
approach is exemplified by the work of Lucien Lévy-Bruhl. Representatives of this
school are of the view that the thought of ancient population was defined and
determined by emotion and mystic representations. This is a way of looking into the
past in term of emotion or affective experiences. Lévi-Strauss holds that both the
ways—functional and emotional—are equally wrong.

20. What is the "basic hypothesis" of Lévi-Strauss?

A: The basic hypothesis of Claude Lévi-Strauss is that people whom we usually but
wrong call ‘primitive’ are capable of disinterested thinking just like modern human
beings. Such people are also moved by a need or a desire to understand the world
around them, its nature and their society. According to Lévi-Strauss such people
use intellectual means employed by a philosopher, or even to some extent a scientist,
to achieve their goal. In other words, contrary to popular perception, primitive
peoples are not simply subservient to subsistent survival in harsh material
conditions. This is the argument that he put forward in Totemism and in The Savage
Mind both of which were published in 1962.

21. Mention the most important aspect in which ancient disinterested thinking
differs from scientific thinking.
A: According to Claude Lévi-Strauss, the people whom we wrongly describe as
‘primitive’ are capable of disinterested and intellectual thinking. But it is not the
same as scientific thinking. There are two key differences between them. One:
ancient thinking tries to provide comprehensive and soothing answers to
phenomena by the shortest possible understanding. That is, it is a cognitive model in
which the participants do not understand or explain anything, but still presents a
complete picture. Its orientation is mythical. Two: this desire for comprehensive
answers does not succeed. Scientific thinking is entirely different. It proceeds step by
step, breaks phenomena into small manageable units, and meticulously explains
every facet of the problem, however small it is. Naturally science has been able to

10 | P a g e
explain and answer things better. As result modern human beings have, to a great
extent, achieved mastery over elements of nature. But myth—through which ancient
people sought to understand phenomena—is unsuccessful in giving humans
additional material power and leverage over the environment.

22. Explain the context and implications of the expression "totalitarian ambition of
the savage mind."
A: According to Claude Lévi-Strauss, the “totalitarian ambition of the savage mind”
is the grand attempt of ancient people to provide comprehensive and soothing
answers to phenomena by the shortest possible understanding. That is, it is a way of
thinking in which people do not understand or explain anything. Still it presents a
complete picture the world and its puzzling events. In this mode what counts is the
internal coherence and narrative logic of the myths, not the extent to which they
reflect external reality. Naturally myth is unsuccessful in giving humans additional
material power and leverage over the environment. But modern human beings,
because of scientific thinking, have greatly achieved mastery over elements of
nature. However, mythical thinking gives us the illusion that we can and do
understand the universe. Needless to say, it is only an illusion.

23. "Notwithstanding the cultural differences between the several parts of

mankind, the human mind is everywhere one and the same and. . . it has the same
capacities." Explain with reference to the context.
A: According to Claude Lévi-Strauss, myth is unsuccessful in giving humans
additional material power and leverage over the environment whereas modern
human beings, because of scientific thinking, have greatly achieved mastery over
elements of nature. But he adds that as scientific thinkers, we use a very limited
amount of our mental power: in a world of specialization we only those mental
faculties which are demanded by our profession, social imperatives, or our
immediate circumstances. In the past our mental faculties were used differently,
holistically and intensively. The mental capacity of people whom we wrongly call
‘primitive’ was also different. Lévi-Strauss opines that we use considerably less of

11 | P a g e
our sensory perceptions these days. For example there were people in the past who
could see the planet Venus in full daylight and who possessed surprisingly
thoroughgoing knowledge of plants or animals around them. We have none of these
abilities. But that is not a shortcoming. We have excelled in other areas. For example
we have made astounding progress in fields like transportation and communication.
The position of Lévi-Strauss is that our mental faculties are honed, optimized and
perfected depending on our cultural milieu and physical surroundings. Ancient
peoples developed their mind as a response to specific conditions and compulsions;
so do we. This makes Lévi-Strauss conclude that despite the “cultural differences
between the several parts of mankind, the human mind is everywhere one and the
same and that it has the same capacities”. This position is generally accepted and
endorsed by everyone including anthropologists.

24. How, according to Lévi-Strauss, did differences arise between human groups?
A: According to Claude Lévi-Strauss, the bewildering differences between
cultural/ethnic groups were not created deliberately. They were born during the
long period in which human population was tiny and small groups were living in
mutual isolation. Under such circumstances it was only natural that they developed
characteristics of their own and became different from each other.

25. In what way are cultural differences fecund?

A: According to Claude Lévi-Strauss, the bewildering differences between
cultural/ethnic groups were born during the long period in which human
population was tiny and small groups were living in mutual isolation. He feels that
differences are extremely fecund and that progress has been made only through
differences. In order for a culture to be autonomous and productive, the culture and
its members must be convinced of their originality and even, to some extent, of their
superiority over the others. Lévi-Strauss fears that in the present age we are
experiencing “overcommunication”. That is, because of the advancements in
communication technology, we are in position to understand what is happening in
other parts of the world, often in real time. Similarly, as customers, we are able to

12 | P a g e
consume anything from any part of the world and from every culture. But in the
process cultures are losing their originality. Lévi-Strauss holds that it is only under
conditions of “undercommunication” that a culture can produce anything
substantial and durable.

26. What dialectical operation prevents a homogenous human population?

A: According to Claude Lévi-Strauss, the bewildering differences between
cultural/ethnic groups were born during the long period in which human
population was tiny and small groups were living in mutual isolation. He feels that
differences are extremely fecund and that progress has been made only through
differences. Lévi-Strauss fears that in the present age of advanced communication
cultures are losing their originality. In such a situation it is tempting think of a world
with only one culture and one civilization. Lévi-Strauss, however, does not believe
that the world is going to be monocultural. History tells us that there are dialectical
forces at work all the time: one centrifugal and the other centripetal. One seeks to
homogenize culture while the other to differentiate. The more a civilization becomes
homogenized, the more powerful are the internal lines of separation. So what is
gained on one level is immediately lost on another. As a result human beings will
continue to be different. He feels that humankind cannot live without some internal
diversity.

27. What is the myth of the skate that Lévi-Strauss describes?

A: Claude Lévi-Strauss records a myth from western Canada about the skate
successfully mastering or dominating the South Wind. It is a story of a time before
mankind. During this age animals and humans were not really distinct: all the
beings were half-human and half-animal. All were extremely bothered by the winds.
The winds, especially the bad winds, were blowing all the time. As a result the
beings were unable to fish and to gather shellfish on the beaches. So they collectively
decided to fight the winds and compel them to behave more decently. There took
place an expedition, in which several human- animals or animal-humans took part,
including the skate. This creature played an important role in capturing the South

13 | P a g e
Wind. The South Wind was liberated only after he promised not to blow all the time,
but only from time to time, or at certain periods. Since that time, it is only at certain
periods of the year, or only on alternate days, that the South Wind blows. During the
rest of the time, mankind can carry out its activities peacefully.

28. According to Lévi-Strauss what traits of the skate have made it part of the
above myth?
A: Claude Lévi-Strauss records a myth from western Canada about the skate
successfully mastering or dominating the South Wind. He knows that such an event
has never happened. But instead of dismissing it as plainly absurd or just a fanciful
creation of a fertile mind, he intends to investigate the narrative logic that binds the
skate and the South Wind together within the same myth. According to him the
skate is there because of two characteristics. One: it is a fish like all flat fish, slippery
underneath and rough on its back. Two: it is very large when seen from above and
below, but extremely thin when seen from the side. This trait allows the skate to
escape successfully when it has to fight off enemies. For example, a hunter may
think that it is very easy to shoot an arrow and kill the skate because it is so large.
But just as the arrow is being aimed, the skate can suddenly turn or flip and show
only its profile, which is impossible to aim at because of its thinness. Lévi-Strauss
thinks that the skate was integrated into the myth because of this dual nature. It is
capable of two states which are discontinuous, one of which is positive and the other
negative.

29. Consider the myth of the skate as illustrating the idea of structural analysis.
A: Claude Lévi-Strauss records a myth from western Canada about the skate
successfully mastering or dominating the South Wind. It is a story of a time before
mankind. During this age animals and humans were not really distinct: all the
beings were half-human and half-animal. All were extremely bothered by the winds.
The winds, especially the bad winds, were blowing all the time. As a result the
beings were unable to fish and to gather shellfish on the beaches. So they collectively

14 | P a g e
decided to fight the winds and compel them to behave more decently. There took
place an expedition, in which several human- animals or animal-humans took part,
including the skate. This creature played an important role in capturing the South
Wind. The South Wind was liberated only after he promised not to blow all the time,
but only from time to time, or at certain periods. Since that time, it is only at certain
periods of the year, or only on alternate days, that the South Wind blows. During the
rest of the time, mankind can carry out its activities peacefully.
He very well knows that such an event has never happened. But instead of
dismissing it as plainly absurd or just a fanciful creation of a fertile mind, he intends
to investigate the narrative logic that binds the skate and the South Wind together
within the same myth. According to him the skate is there because of two
characteristics. One: it is a fish like all flat fish, slippery underneath and rough on its
back. Two: it is very large when seen from above and below, but extremely thin
when seen from the side. This trait allows the skate to escape successfully when it
has to fight off enemies. For example a hunter may think that it is very easy to shoot
an arrow and kill the skate because it is so large. But just as the arrow is being aimed,
the skate can suddenly turn or flip and show only its profile, which is impossible to
aim at because of its thinness. Lévi-Strauss thinks that the skate was integrated into
the myth because of this dual nature. It is capable of two states which are
discontinuous, one of which is positive and the other negative.
As we know it is impossible for a fish to fight the wind or any element of
nature. This is a scientific and empirical way of looking at things. But the myth has
an internal logic which explains the presence of the skate. In this viewpoint we can
understand why images borrowed from experience can be put to use. This is the
originality of mythical thinking. It plays the part of conceptual thinking. An animal
like skate, as we have seen, has a dual nature; logically it can have a relationship
with a problem which too has a dual or binary nature. The South Wind belongs to
this category. It blows only on alternate days. We can say that it is present (‘Yes’) one
day and absent (‘No’) the next day. In this way a kind of compromise becomes
possible between the needs of mankind and the conditions prevailing in the natural
world.

15 | P a g e
Thus, from a logical point of view, there is an affinity between an animal like
the skate and the kind of problem which the myth is trying to solve. The story is not
true from a scientific point of view. But we can understand the dual or binary
property of the myth only on the basis of modern scientific ideas. So, according to
Lévi-Straus, there is no real divorce between mythology and science. It is only the
present state of scientific thought that gives us the ability to understand what is in
this myth. For a long time we remained completely blind to the structural features
and content of the myth until the idea of binary operations was introduced by
science. In short, by discussing the myth of the skate Lévi-Straus is demonstrating
how myths can be analysed using the tools and techniques of structuralism.

30. Differentiate between empirical point of view and logical point of view.
A: Empirical point of view does not admit any event that cannot actually happen.
Thus a mythical story does not come under its purview. If we try to make sense of a
myth using an empirical perspective, it is bound to prove futile. The case of logical
point of view is different. Here we are looking for internal coherence and contextual
connections that make a given narrative plausible. The investigator is not bothered
about facticity but is concerned with how the constituent elements of a narrative are
logically connected and configured. Even if we know an event will never take place
in life, the importance of logical point of view does not diminish. It is with the help
of such a view—which is actually a conceptual category—that we can meaningfully
analyse and interpret myths, legends and social customs.

31. What according to Lévi-Strauss is the final outcome of the analytical model
that he proposes?
A: Claude Lévi-Strauss proposes an analytical model and a conceptual category
based on logical point of view, which is crucially different from an empirical
perspective. He hopes that within such a framework we can meaningfully analyse
and interpret myths, legends, cultural habits, rituals, and social customs. The final
outcome of such inquires is the realization that what takes place in our mind is not
substantially or fundamentally different from the basic phenomenon of life itself. In

16 | P a g e
other words, individual performances, religious rituals and cultural practices are
part of larger structures. They are the local articulations or microscopic
manifestations of universal systems. So it is most productive to approach them as
constituent parts of larger wholes and as configurations defined by specific rules and
regulations. In this way we can form a holistic idea of the world and we will grow
wiser. Science, on its part, has started to provide tools to examine social phenomena
which are qualitative in nature.

32. What is the puzzling custom recorded by a priest in Peru?

A: Claude Lévi-Strauss mentions a puzzling custom recorded by the Spanish
missionary Father P.J. de Arriaga in Peru. This took place at the end of the sixteenth
century. The missionary noted that during periods of bitter cold in a certain part of
Peru, the indigenous priest would call in all the inhabitants who were born feet
first, or who had a harelip, or who were twins. Then they would be accused of being
responsible for the cold. The rationale behind the strange custom was that according
legend such persons had eaten salt and peppers, and thus caused extreme weather
conditions. Naturally they were held guilty and were ordered to repent and to
confess their sins.

33. What does Lévi-Strauss say about twins all over the world and what does he
propose to explore?
A: According to Claude Lévi-Strauss, the belief that twins are connected with
atmospheric disorder is universal. For example among the Indians on the coast of
British Columbia, twins were supposed to have special powers to bring good
weather and to dispel storms. His project is not to document similar instances from
other cultures but to explain why people with harelips and twins are considered to
be similar in some respect. He feels that the crux of the problem is to find out what
logic puts harelips and twins together as part of the same myth.

17 | P a g e
34. On what grounds have many people reproached Lévi-Strauss? What is the
widely accepted understanding of myths?
A: The project of Claude Lévi-Strauss is to locate and demonstrate the underlying
logic that holds apparently disparate elements as stable parts of a given myth. In
order to achieve this, he intends to study myths from different parts of the world.
For example he hopes myths from North America will help him understand myths
from South America. But many people have reproached him for this methodology.
In their view myths of a given population or place can only be interpreted and
understood in the framework of the surrounding cultural milieu. In other words, in
popular imagination myths are highly embedded and thus need to be studied in
situ.

35. Mention the rationale behind using the myths of South America to understand
those of North America.
A: The project of Claude Lévi-Strauss is to locate and demonstrate the underlying
logic that holds apparently disparate elements as stable parts of a given myth. In
order to achieve this, he intends to study myths from different parts of the world.
For example he hopes that myths from North America will help him understand
myths from South America. But many people have reproached him for this
methodology. In their view myths of a given population or place can only be
interpreted and understood in the framework of the surrounding cultural milieu. In
other words, in popular imagination myths are highly embedded and thus need to
be studied in situ. Lévi-Strauss, however, is convinced that his orientation is both
rational and tenable. He holds that the population of the Americas before Chistopher
Columbus (that is, before European colonisation) was much larger than it had been
conventionally supposed to be. Since it was so large, ethnic groups had contact with
one another. As a result beliefs, practices, and customs moved from one culture to
another. Any group was always, to some extent, aware of what was going on in the
other population. Moreover the myths he proposes to study do not exist in isolated
forms in Peru on the one hand and in Canada on the other. On the contrary we find
them over and over again between these countries. It is more appropriate to call

18 | P a g e
them pan-American myths, rather than scattered myths in different parts of the
continent.

36. What is a basic character of myths in South America? Explain with examples.
A: The project of Claude Lévi-Strauss is to locate and demonstrate the underlying
logic that holds apparently disparate elements as stable and organic parts of a given
myth. In order to achieve this, he intends to study myths from North and South
Americas. He justifies his methodology on the grounds that the population of the
Americas before Chistopher Columbus (that is, before European colonisation) was
much larger than it had been conventionally supposed to be. Since it was so large,
ethnic groups had contact with one another. As a result beliefs, practices, and
customs moved from one culture to another. Any group was always, to some extent,
aware of what was going on in the other population. Moreover the myths he
proposes to study do not exist in isolated forms in Peru on the one hand and in
Canada on the other. On the contrary we find them over and over again between
these countries. It is more appropriate to call them pan-American myths, rather than
scattered myths in different parts of the continent.
According to Claude Lévi-Strauss the eventual division or separation between
two individuals who are originally presented as twins (either real twins or
equivalents to twins) is a basic characteristic of all the myths in South and North
America. It is thorough a series of adventures that the twins become individual and
autonomous entities. He cites a few examples to demonstrate the extent to which
such myths share the same structural and generative features.
The Tupinambas are an ethnic group found in Brazil. Among them and the
Indians of Peru, there was a myth concerning a woman, whom a poor individual
deviously seduced. The best known version explains that the seduced woman gave
birth to twins, one of them born from the legitimate husband, and the other from the
seducer, who is the Trickster. The woman was going to meet the god who would be
her husband, and while on her way the Trickster intervenes and makes her believe
that he is the god. So, she conceives from the Trickster. When she later finds the
legitimate husband-to-be, she conceives from him also and later gives birth to twins.

19 | P a g e
Since these twins had different fathers, they have antithetical features too. One is
brave, the other a coward. One is the protector of the Indians while the other
protects the white people. One gives goods to the Indians, while the other one is
responsible for many unfortunate happenings.
Quite interestingly we find the very same myth in North America, especially
in the northwest of the United States and Canada. However, in comparison with
South American versions, those coming from the Canadian area show two important
differences. For instance, among the Kootenay people there is only one fecundation
leading to the birth of twins. One of them later on becomes the sun and the other the
moon. Among some other Indians of British Columbia there is a myth of two sisters
who are tricked by two apparently distinct individuals. Each of them gives birth to a
son. They are not really twins because they were born from different mothers. But
since they were born in exactly the same kind of circumstances, at least from a moral
and a psychological point of view, they are to that extent similar to twins.
Such versions are crucial in Lévi-Strauss’s project of identifying underlying
rules and larger structures of myth. For example the last version weakens the twin
character of the hero because the twins are not brothers—they are only cousins. It is
only the circumstances of their birth which are closely parallel—they are both born
thanks to a trick. Nevertheless, the basic structure and intention remain the same.
The two heroes are not really twins in any version of the myth because they are born
from distinct fathers and they have opposed characters. These features are shown in
their conduct and in the behaviour of their descendants too.

37. Summarize how Lévi-Strauss theorises and explains the relation between
twins, people born feet first and people with harelips.
Claude Lévi-Strauss explains the hidden structural relation between twins, people
born feet first and people with harelips by closely analysing their stories with a view
to finding the internal logics that bind them together as organic part of the same
myth. He treats them as the elements of a cultural configuration determined by
certain universal rules and regulations. He finds that twins are connected with
animals with split-lip like the rabbit and that the children born with feet first are

20 | P a g e
structurally similar to a mythical rabbit which indecently commented about the
private parts of a woman.
According to Claude Lévi-Strauss, the belief that twins are correlated with
atmospheric disorder is universal. He holds that the eventual division or separation
between two individuals who are originally presented as twins (either real twins or
equivalents to twins) is a basic characteristic of all the myths in South America or
North America.
Among the Tupinambas the Indians of Peru, there was a myth concerning a
woman, whom a poor individual deviously seduced. The seduced woman gave birth
to twins, one of them born from the legitimate husband, and the other from the
seducer, who is the Trickster. Since these twins had different fathers, they have
antithetical features too.
Quite interestingly we find the very same myth in North America, especially
in the northwest of the United States and Canada. However, in comparison with
South American versions, those coming from the Canadian area show two important
differences. For instance, among some Indians of British Columbia, there is a myth
two sisters who are cunningly impregnated by two distinct individuals. Each of
them gives birth to a son. They are not really twins because they were born from
different mothers. But since they were born in exactly the same kind of
circumstances they are structurally similar to twins. In this myth the hare looks up
from under a long, sees the genitals of the elder sister and makes an inappropriate
joke. Infuriated, the girl strikes him with her cane and splits his nose. In other words,
she splits the body of the animal. If this split were carried out to the end she would
turn an individual into twins, who are exactly similar because they are both a part of
a whole. In this context Lévi-Strauss found the American Indian belief that twins
result from an internal splitting of the body fluids.
There is also a myth from the Kwakiutl Indians of Vancouver Island. It tells of
a small girl whom everybody hates because she has a harelip. Once an ogress stole
all the children including this small girl. The ogress puts them all in her basket but
the small girl, who was taken first and thus is at the bottom of the basket, succeeds
in splitting it open. The basket is on the back of the ogress, and the girl is able to

21 | P a g e
drop out and run away first. She drops out feet first. This position of the hare-lipped
girl is symmetrical to the position of the hare in the previously mentioned myth: he
in the same position as if he had been born from the elder sister and delivered feet
first. So we can see that there is an actual relationship between twins and people
who were born feet first.
It is clear that the project of Claude Lévi-Strauss is to locate and demonstrate
the underlying logic that holds disparate elements as stable parts of a given myth. In
order to achieve this, he closely examines myths from different parts of the world.
But many people have reproached him for this methodology. In their view myths of
a given population or place can only be interpreted and understood in the
framework of the surrounding cultural milieu. Lévi-Strauss, however, is convinced
that his orientation is both rational and tenable because what really matters is not the
individual elements of a myth (or any system) but the abstract rules that configure
them as an organic whole.

38. Why were twins and children born feet first were killed by many tribes?
A: According to Claude Lévi-Strauss the practice of killing twins and children born
with their feet first can be best understood and explained on the basis of an
underlying structural belief. It is believed that twins fight inside the womb to earn
the privilege of being born first and that the bad twin takes a short cut: he splits up
the body of the mother to escape from it. He is born feet first. In the process he is
very likely to kill the mother.

39. How does Lévi-Strauss explain the ambiguous/contradictory character of the

hare in Algonkian mythology?
A: Algonkian Indians are one of the most widespread and populous ethnic groups in
North America. In their mythology the hare has ambiguous and contradictory
character. Sometimes the hare is a wise deity who is in charge of putting the
universe in order, but at other times he is a ridiculous clown who goes from mishap
to mishap. According to Claude Lévi-Strauss this happens because the larger
mythological structures of the Americas consider the hare as a creature positioned

22 | P a g e
between two levels of existence. The hare is not twins, but his split-lip is associated
with twins in mythology. By extension the hare is simultaneously both a) a single
deity beneficent to mankind and (b) twins, one of whom is good and the other bad.
His character becomes a problem becomes he does not belong to any of these sates
completely. He is one and many at the same time.

40. What are the two broad categories of published myths?

A: According to Claude Lévi-Strauss published myths can be divided into two broad
categories. One: myths collected by anthropologists. They look more or less like
shreds and patches. They are disconnected stories put one after the other without
any clear relationship between them. Two: very coherent mythological stories. Here
all of them are clearly divided into chapters following each other in a quite logical
order.

41. Describe the two problems that the anthropologist faces in collecting native
myths?
A: According to Claude Lévi-Strauss anthropologists face two problems in collecting
native myths. One is a consequential theoretical problem. It pertains to the nature
and definition of collection. Some of the myths collected and published by
anthropologists are disconnected while others have a logical interconnection. This
phenomenon can be theorised and explained in two antithetical ways. In the first
theoretical model, myths were originally coherent and cogent, but became disjointed
and meaningless when recorded and compiled by foreign anthropologists. In the
second model, myths were originally disconnected but they achieved coherence and
order because of anthropological interventions. The second problem is more
practical than theoretical. It concerns with the sense and sensibility of the persons
who collect myths. In the past mythological material was collected mostly by
anthropologists. It is true that some of their assistants were from the people they
studied. But these native assistants were trained and supervised by anthropologists.
So we cannot say that they shared the worldview and belief system of the
communities studied.

23 | P a g e
42. What are the two goals of Native Americans in collecting and publishing their
own myths and traditions?
A: Native Americans collect and publish their own myths and traditions with two
clear goals in mind. One: they want to ensure that their language and mythology are
taught in elementary schools for Indian children. Two: they want to use legendary
tradition to validate territorial and political claims against the white people.

43. It is important to discuss the differential traditions of Native Americans

collected by themselves and outsiders like anthropologists. Why?
A: Claude Lévi-Strauss writes that Native Americans collect and publish their own
myths and traditions with two clear goals in mind. One: they want to ensure that
their language and mythologies are taught in elementary schools for Indian children.
Two: they want to use legendary tradition to validate territorial and political claims
against the white people. Given the political undercurrents and cultural interests
behind the project, it is important to find out if there is any difference between
traditions collected from the outside (that is, by anthropologists) and on the inside
(that is, by the Native Americans themselves). If there a difference, it is important to
understand it closely and critically to gain more meaningful insights into the
discipline of anthropology.

44. How does Chief Wright differ from Chief Harris in recording verbal historical
traditions?
A: Chief Walter Wright was a Tsimshian chief of the middle Skeena River. In 1962 he
published a book titled Men of Medeek. It is supposed to be the verbatim account of
his words but in reality it was collected by an amateur white field worker. Chief
Kenneth Harris was also a Tsimshian chief. He published a similar book in 1974 by
himself. These books are not collections of different myths but the history of one
family or one clan. In both, the demarcation between myth and history is blurred.
There are similarities and differences between the works of Chief Wright and Chief
Harris. The former narrates the genesis of a disorder: the whole story tries to explain

24 | P a g e
why a particular clan, after initial success and glory, has moved to a disastrous
ending. It is an extremely pessimistic story of a downfall. Contrastingly, the work of
Chief Harris principally explains the origins of a social order. This order was created
in the past but is still embedded in the several names, titles, and privileges of a
prominent individual. So this work looks like a montage of many historical events.
The purpose of the work is the reconstitution and explanation the present state of
affairs by documenting past events. In other words Chief Harris blends diachronic
and synchronic paradigms. Inevitably it also explains why a given individual or clan
enjoys more privileges than another.

45. Why are the works of Chief Wright and Chief Harris "purely fascinating"?
A: Chief Walter Wright was a Tsimshian chief of the middle Skeena River. In 1962 he
published a book titled Men of Medeek. It is supposed to be the verbatim account of
his words but in reality it was collected by an amateur white field worker. Chief
Kenneth Harris was also a Tsimshian chief. He published a similar book in 1974 by
himself. These books are not collections of different myths but the history of one
family or one clan. In both demarcation between myth and history is blurred.
Both books are fascinating in themselves. But for the anthropologist, they
clearly illustrate the characteristics of a kind of history which is basically different
from our own. All of our historical narratives are practically based upon written
documents, archives and monuments. Predictably, the historical accounts offered by
Chiefs Wright and Harris do not depend on written documents. Both of them start
with the account of a mythical or perhaps historical time. Both explain how a
primordial big city was destroyed, how the remnants of the people went on the
move, and how they started difficult journeys along the Skeena. Claude Lévi-
Strauss identifies two interesting aspects in these clan stories.

One: Lévi-Strauss opines that this is possibly a historical event. But a closer
examination reveals that even though the event is the same, the details are different.
For instance the record a fight between two villages or two towns. It can be a fight
which originated in an adultery. But in one version a husband kills the lover of his

25 | P a g e
wife. But in another, brothers kill their sister’s lover, or a husband kills his wife
because she has a lover. Here the specifics are different but they have a common and
basic structure. In the words of Lévi-Strauss, “we have an explanatory cell.” So this
event has the property of a myth because it is transformative and generative. When
one element is transformed, then the other elements should be rearranged
accordingly.

Two: these narratives are highly repetitive. The same type of event are used
several times in order to account for different happenings. For instance, in the stories
of the particular traditions of Chiefs Wright and Harris, we find similar happenings.
But they neither take place in the same spot nor affect the same people. Very likely,
they are not exactly in the same historical period either.

46. What do you understand by the phrase "open character of history "?
A: Open character of history refers to the ability of history to integrate ever new
elements, perspectives, tools and techniques to explain the past. History is dynamic
and happening. In contrast, mythology is static and closed. We can find the same
mythical elements in different places but all of them combine only within a closed
system. Mythology thus is closed and cyclical whereas history is open and linear.

47. What is wrong with old anthropological accounts?

A: According to Claude Lévi-Strauss old anthropological accounts were repositories
of mythologies belonging to diverse and disparate social groups. Such collections are
rich and variegated but prevent the anthropologist from discerning the
fundamentally identical structures of apparently different myths and rituals. In other
words, old methods and sensibility of anthropology did not help structuralism in
any manner.

48. " We are exactly in the same situation in relation to different historical
accounts written by different historians". Explain with reference to the context.

26 | P a g e
A: It is in the context of discussing the differences and similarities between myth and
history that Claude Lévi-Strauss opines “we are exactly in the same situation in
relation to different historical accounts written by different historians. “ He says that
members of “primitive” groups are willing to accept multiple versions of a historical
account as simultaneously true. We know that strictly speaking two different
accounts of the same event cannot be true. People like Native Americans, however,
accept both versions are true in some cases; the only thing is that one account is
considered better or more accurate than the other. In other cases, the two accounts
are considered equally valid because the differences between them are not perceived
as such. Quite interestingly we also do the same. There are different, and at times
contradictory, explanations offered by present day history. But we often accept them
despite their differences. According to Lévi-Strauss we pay attention only to what is
basically similar in different narratives. We neglect the differences as the inevitable
results of the diverse tools and techniques employed by historians of diverse schools.

49. How can we more meaningfully understand the true nature of historical
science?
A: According to Claude Lévi-Strauss “we are exactly in the same situation in relation
to different historical accounts written by different historians. “ He says that
members of “primitive” groups are willing to accept multiple versions of a historical
account as simultaneously true. We know that strictly speaking two different
accounts of the same event cannot be true. People like Native Americans, however,
accept both versions are true in some cases; the only thing is that one account is
considered better or more accurate than the other. In other cases, the two accounts
are considered equally valid because the differences between them are not perceived
as such. Quite interestingly we also do the same. There are different, and at times
contradictory, explanations offered by present day history. But we often accept them
despite their differences. According to Lévi-Strauss we pay attention only to what is
basically similar in different narratives. We neglect the differences as the inevitable
results of the diverse tools and techniques employed by historians of diverse schools.

27 | P a g e
He feels that we can reach a better understanding of historical science by carefully
studying historical narratives among Native Indians. We should not regard their
accounts are mere figments of imagination. Instead we must try to establish
correspondences and connections between the by excavating village sites mentioned
I them.

50. According to Lévi-Strauss, what are the ways in which myth and music are
linked with each other? (Para 1)
A: According to Claude Lévi-Strauss two relationships—one of similarity and the
other of contiguity—and that close analysis show that these relations are actually the
same.

28 | P a g e