Chinese, Mandarin

Spanish

English

Hindi

Arabic

Portuguese

Bengali

Russian

Japanese

Punjabi

German

Javanese

Malay

Telugu

Vietnamese

Korean

French

Marathi

Tamil

Urdu

Turkish

Italian

Chinese, Yue / Cantonese

Thai

Gujarati

Chinese, Jin

Chinese, Min Nan

Persian, Dari

Persian, Western

Polish

Pashto

Kannada

Chinese, Xiang

Malayalam

Sundanese

Hausa

Odia

Burmese

Chinese, Hakka

Ukrainian

Bihari, Bhojpuri

Tagalog

Yoruba

Bihari, Maithili

Uzbek

Sindhi

Amharic

Fula

Romanian

Oromo

Igbo

Azerbaijani

Chinese, Gan

Dutch

Kurdish, Central

Kurdish, Northern

Kurdish, Southern

Malagasy

Lahnda, Saraiki

Nepali

Sinhalese

Chittagonian

Zhuang

Khmer

Turkmen

Assamese

Madurese

Somali

Marwari

Bihari, Magahi

Haryanvi

Hungarian

Chhattisgarhi

Greek, Modern

Chewa

Dakhini

Akan, Twi

Akan, Fante

Kazakh

Chinese, Min Bei

Sylheti

Zulu

Czech

Kinyarwanda

Marwari, Dhundhari

Haitian Creole

Chinese, Min Dong

Ilocano

Quechua

Kirundi

Swedish

Hmong

Shona

Uyghur

Hiligaynon

Mossi

Xhosa

Belarusian

Balochi

Anthropology

<OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00001" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/527b851cb448fddd6f0a8308dabbf1b2c55ea1e2" alt="Contemporary photograph of an elderly man wearing large glasses and a black suit jacket." mediaType="image/jpeg" width="800" height="531" />
<OpenstaxFigureText width="800">
	<strong>Figure 13.10</strong> Anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908–2009) collected and analyzed myths as a way of studying culture. (credit: Michel Ravassard, UNESCO/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 3.0)
</OpenstaxFigureText>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Anthropologist Claude <OpenstaxTerm>Lévi-Strauss</OpenstaxTerm> saw myths as containing both universal messages about shared human experiences and concerns and particular messages about the cultures with which they are associated. His approach to understanding myth is part of the theory of <OpenstaxTerm>structuralism</OpenstaxTerm>, and it separates myth into its component parts in order to understand the underlying form—the structure. Lévi-Strauss believed that mythic structure was the same across all cultures. He argued that the concerns of all cultures, expressed within their myths, are very similar. Structural analysis can be very complicated. At each step, as the myth is gradually “stripped down,” the information it reveals is more enlightening. There are approaches to structuralism that can be applied more quickly, however, allowing a more penetrating look at the “real story” within the myth.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	A brief version of a structural analysis will have at least three major components: <OpenstaxTerm>binary oppositions</OpenstaxTerm>, which are two contrasting concepts; <OpenstaxTerm>mythemes</OpenstaxTerm>, which are the stripped-down minimal units, or story components, that form the structure of the myth; and the <OpenstaxTerm>primary messages</OpenstaxTerm> of the myth, which are universal. Let’s look at a version of structuralism in action by analyzing a myth from the Tsimshian people of the Pacific Northwest coast of North America, collected by Franz Boas in 1916.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>The Myth</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	“The Bear Who Married a Woman,” collected by anthropologist Franz Boas (1916, 192):
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxOl>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		Once upon a time there lived a widow of the tribe of the G·i-spa-x-lâ′°ts. Many men tried to marry her daughter, but she declined them all. The mother said, “When a man comes to marry you, feel of the palms of his hands. If they are soft, decline him; if they are rough, accept him.” She meant that she wanted to have for a son-in-law a man skillful in building canoes.
	</OpenstaxLi>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		Her daughter obeyed her commands, and refused the wooings of all young men. One night a youth came to her bed. The palms of his hands were very rough, and therefore she accepted his suit. Early in the morning, however, he had suddenly disappeared, even before she had seen him.
	</OpenstaxLi>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		When her mother arose early in the morning and went out, she found a halibut on the beach in front of the house, although it was midwinter. The following evening the young man came back, but disappeared again before the dawn of the day. In the morning the widow found a seal in front of the house. Thus they lived for some time. The young woman never saw the face of her husband; but every morning she found an animal on the beach, every day a larger one. Thus the widow came to be very rich.
	</OpenstaxLi>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		She was anxious to see her son-in-law, and one day she waited until he arrived. Suddenly she saw a red bear . . . emerge from the water. He carried a whale on each side, and put them down on the beach. As soon as he noticed that he was observed, he was transformed into a rock, which may be seen up to this day. He was a supernatural being of the sea.
	</OpenstaxLi>
</OpenstaxOl>
<OpenstaxH3>The Binary Oppositions</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	In order to find binary oppositions, one must identity the important points within the myth—what exactly is asserted in the story. The opposite of each of these points, which may or may not be openly expressed in the myth, is the primary term’s opposition. The oppositions form the structure of the myth because they identify what is important. Below are the binary oppositions in the first paragraph of the myth (1). Note that the specific words are not always critical, and sometimes there is more than one version of the quality that can be expressed.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxBlockquote>
	 
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		<OpenstaxEm>Once upon a time there lived a widow of the tribe of the G·i-spa-x-lâ′ts.</OpenstaxEm> (then vs. now, live vs. die, male vs. female, married vs. widowed, together vs. alone, member of the tribe v. nonmember <OpenstaxEm>or</OpenstaxEm> belong vs. not belong)
	</OpenstaxParagraph> 
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		<OpenstaxEm>Many men tried to marry her daughter, but she declined them all.</OpenstaxEm> (many vs. few, men vs. women, marry vs. not marry, daughter vs. son, child vs. childless, accept vs. decline, all vs. none)
	</OpenstaxParagraph> 
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		<OpenstaxEm>The mother said, “When a man comes to marry you, feel the palms of his hands.”</OpenstaxEm> (female vs. male, mother vs. father, say vs. not say, man vs. woman, come vs. not come, marry vs. not marry, feel vs. not feel <OpenstaxEm>or</OpenstaxEm> test vs. not test <OpenstaxEm>or</OpenstaxEm> do vs. not do, palms of his hands vs. another body part)
	</OpenstaxParagraph> 
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		<OpenstaxEm>“If they are soft, decline him; if they are rough, accept him.”</OpenstaxEm> (soft vs. rough, decline vs. accept, rough vs. soft, accept vs. decline)
	</OpenstaxParagraph> 
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		<OpenstaxEm>She meant that she wanted to have for a son-in-law a man skillful in building canoes.</OpenstaxEm> (female vs. male, want vs. not want, have a son-in-law vs. not have a son-in-law, man vs. woman, skillful vs. inept)
	</OpenstaxParagraph> 
</OpenstaxBlockquote>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Even this cursory analysis reveals certain qualities that come up again and again: male versus female, married versus unmarried, belonging versus not belonging (expressed also as accepted versus declined). The emphases seem to be on sex, family, and legitimacy.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>The Mythemes</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	In the “light” version of structuralism, the mythemes are best revealed by retelling the story in shorter and shorter versions, each time with fewer particular details. Using the first paragraph, again:
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxBlockquote>
	 
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		(original) Once upon a time there lived a widow of the tribe of the G·i-spa-x-lâ′°ts. Many men tried to marry her daughter, but she declined them all. The mother said, “When a man comes to marry you, feel of the palms of his hands. If they are soft, decline him; if they are rough, accept him.” She meant that she wanted to have for a son-in-law a man skillful in building canoes.
	</OpenstaxParagraph> 
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		(first retelling) Once upon a time there was a widow. Many men tried to marry her daughter, but she declined them all. The mother said, “Feel the palms of his hands, and if they are rough, accept him.” She wanted a son-in-law who was skillful in building canoes.
	</OpenstaxParagraph> 
	<OpenstaxParagraph>
		(second retelling) A widowed mother told her daughter to get a husband with rough hands. She wanted a hardworking son-in-law.
	</OpenstaxParagraph> 
</OpenstaxBlockquote>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Note how the second version of the story has only mythemes of action and consequence. The information left in the mythemes is the critical information, the major points, of the myth. Lévi-Strauss argued that mythemes reveal universal cross-cultural concerns. All specific “local” information is removed. Considering the myth as a whole, the tribe and the characteristics to avoid can be omitted.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>The Primary Messages</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	In this version of structuralism, the specific ways in which the messages are written are less important than what they are generally saying. The general messages are extracted from the emphasis within the binary oppositions. How much emphasis is put on something such as kinship? Sharing? There are several possible ways to say each of the following, but the central messages in this myth seem to be the following:
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxUl>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		Be careful what you wish for. (There may be unforeseen consequences to what you think you want.)
	</OpenstaxLi>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. (Don’t find fault with things that are good.)
	</OpenstaxLi>
	<OpenstaxLi>
		Family matters. (Kinship is important.)
	</OpenstaxLi>
</OpenstaxUl>

13.3.2 A Brief Structural Analysis of a Myth

1 What Is Anthropology?

1.1 The Study of Humanity, or "Anthropology Is Vast"

1.1.1 The Heart of Anthropology: Central Narrative and Commitments

1.1.2 Central Commitment #1: Exploring Sociocultural Diversity

1.1.3 Central Commitment #2: Understanding How Societies Hold Together

1.1.4 Central Commitment #3: Examining the Interdependence of Humans and Nature

1.2 The Four-Field Approach: Four Approaches within the Guiding Narrative

1.2.1 Biological Anthropology

1.2.2 Archaeology

1.2.3 Cultural Anthropology

1.2.4 Linguistic Anthropology

1.2.5 How the Four Fields Work Together: The Example of Race

1.3 Overcoming Ethnocentrism

1.3.1 Enculturation and Ethnocentrism

1.3.2 Primitivism and Orientalism

1.4 Western Bias in Our Assumptions about Humanity

1.4.1 Primitivism and Orientalism in Popular Culture

1.4.2 The Bias of Backwardness

1.5 Holism, Anthropology’s Distinctive Approach

1.5.1 Society as an Integrated Whole

1.5.2 Sources of Contradiction, Conflict, and Change

1.6 Cross-Cultural Comparison and Cultural Relativism

1.6.1 Relativism Is Not “Anything Goes”

1.6.2 Morality, Activism, and Cultural Relativism

1.7 Reaching for an Insider’s Point of View

1.7.1 The Challenge of Representing Others

1.7.2 Collaborative Methods of Representation

1.7.3 Working across Cultures toward Common Goals

1.7.4 Suggested Readings

2 Methods: Cultural and Archaeological

2.1 Archaeological Research Methods

2.1.1 Archaeological Techniques

2.1.2 Archaeological Dating Methods

2.2 Conservation and Naturalism

2.2.1 Early Efforts

2.2.2 Salvage Anthropology

2.2.3 Museum Collections

2.2.4 Interpretation and Voice

2.3 Ethnography and Ethnology

2.3.1 The Development of Ethnography and Ethnology

2.3.2 Perspective and Interpretation in Ethnography

2.4 Participant Observation and Interviewing

2.4.1 Participant Observation

2.4.2 Interviewing Informants

2.4.3 Ethical Considerations

2.5 Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis

2.5.1 Differences between Quantitative and Qualitative Information

2.5.2 Modeling

2.5.3 The Science of Anthropology

2.6 Collections

2.6.1 Archives

2.6.2 Three-Dimensional Collections

2.6.3 Ownership

2.6.4 Suggested Readings

3 Culture Concept Theory: Theories of Cultural Change

3.1 The Homeyness of Culture

3.2 The Winkiness of Culture

3.3 The Elements of Culture

3.3.1 Culture Is What We Make

3.3.2 Culture Is What We Do

3.3.3 Culture Is What We Think

3.4 The Aggregates of Culture

3.4.1 Symbols

3.4.2 Ritual

3.4.3 Social Structure

3.5 Modes of Cultural Analysis

3.5.1 Evolution, Adaptation, and Historical Particularism

3.5.2 Functionalism

3.5.3 Structuralism

3.5.4 Ontology

3.6 The Paradoxes of Culture

3.6.1 Paradox 1: Culture Is Continuous, but It Changes

3.6.2 Paradox 2: Culture Is Bounded but Mobile

3.6.3 Paradox 3: Culture Is Consensual but Contested

3.6.4 Paradox 4: Culture Is Shared, but It Varies

3.6.5 Suggested Readings

4 Biological Evolution and Early Human Evidence

4.1 What Is Biological Anthropology?

4.1.1 Looking to the Deep Past

4.1.2 Exploring What It Means to Be Human

4.2 What’s in a Name? The Science of Taxonomy

4.2.1 Defining the Science of Taxonomy

4.2.2 Defining a Species

4.3 It’s All in the Genes! The Foundation of Evolution

4.3.1 The Units of Life

4.3.2 Gregor Mendel and the Laws of Heredity

4.3.3 Mendelian Inheritance in Humans

4.4 Evolution in Action: Past and Present

4.4.1 Early Evolutionists and the Fixity of Species

4.4.2 Charles Darwin’s Role in Changing Views of the Natural World

4.4.3 Understanding Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection

4.5 What Is a Primate?

4.5.1 What Is a Primate?

4.5.2 Primate Behavioral Variation

4.5.3 Explaining Primate Success

4.5.4 Primate Classification and Taxonomy

4.6 Origin of and Classification of Primates

4.6.1 Understanding Concepts of Time

4.6.2 Fossils and Dating Methods

Question	Answer
the stripped-down minimal and portable units that form the structure of a myth.	mythemes
the meaning of a myth, which can be applied universally.	primary messages
a theory and method focused on identifying patterns in culture; also includes mythic analysis.	structuralism