| Chapter 1: | Myth and Theory |
|
|
phonemes, can only have meaning if contextualised by any given specific culture: just as there is nothing essentially doggy about the word dog, so too all mythic snakes are not necessarily phallic.
Lévi-Strauss described this by means of the analogy of the ancient philosophers who, he imagined, tried in vain to uncover the relationship between sounds and meaning, as they were unable to grasp (without Saussure’s aid) the paradox that the same sounds can exist in different cultures and yet express distinct things (1963, 208). Thus, Straussian analysis must be aware of the culturally specific nature of the symbols that it encounters. This need to culturally contextualise data is clearly expressed in the overture of The Raw and the Cooked, where Lévi-Strauss stated, ‘[F]rom the outset we [must] place ourselves…in the heart of a community or a group of communities…[for] without [ethnographic understanding] the study of myths is ineffectual’ (Lévi–Strauss 1994, 1–3). Unfortunately, this admirable intent was not always followed by Lévi-Strauss, yet at his best, he was able to draw excellently on ethnographic knowledge to justify his conclusions, and it is at these times that his analysis is most impressive.18
1.3. Lévi-STRAUSS’ VIEW OF UNDERLYING STRUCTURE
Although the analysis must be aware of the cultural context of the mythemes, it must also be wary of mistaking the narrative material for mythemes, focusing purely on analysing the narrative structure as a literary analysis would. This is another area where many structuralist analysts, either deliberately or due to a lack of comprehension, have drifted away from the analysis system outlined by Lévi-Strauss. Lévi-Strauss’ analysis was not concerned with conscious cohesion at the narrative level so much as it was with the structural interrelation at underlying levels. The narrative is the highest level and is extremely culturally specific and consciously ordered. Lévi-Strauss demonstrated that the material of the narrative is constructed from whatever is readily available (1963, 207). It is important that this conscious construction is not confused with the subconscious process of bricolage,19 for, the structure of the myth