Figure 13.10 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) Anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss 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 structuralism, 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. A brief version of a structural analysis will have at least three major components: binary oppositions, which are two contrasting concepts; mythemes, which are the stripped-down minimal units, or story components, that form the structure of the myth; and the primary messages 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. The Myth “The Bear Who Married a Woman,” collected by anthropologist Franz Boas (1916, 192): 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. 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. 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. 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. The Binary Oppositions 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. Once upon a time there lived a widow of the tribe of the G·i-spa-x-lâ′ts. (then vs. now, live vs. die, male vs. female, married vs. widowed, together vs. alone, member of the tribe v. nonmember or belong vs. not belong) Many men tried to marry her daughter, but she declined them all. (many vs. few, men vs. women, marry vs. not marry, daughter vs. son, child vs. childless, accept vs. decline, all vs. none) The mother said, “When a man comes to marry you, feel the palms of his hands.” (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 or test vs. not test or do vs. not do, palms of his hands vs. another body part) “If they are soft, decline him; if they are rough, accept him.” (soft vs. rough, decline vs. accept, rough vs. soft, accept vs. decline) She meant that she wanted to have for a son-in-law a man skillful in building canoes. (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) 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. The Mythemes 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: (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. (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. (second retelling) A widowed mother told her daughter to get a husband with rough hands. She wanted a hardworking son-in-law. 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. The Primary Messages 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: Be careful what you wish for. (There may be unforeseen consequences to what you think you want.) Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth. (Don’t find fault with things that are good.) Family matters. (Kinship is important.)

You've reached your AI usage limit