Re: Is Levi-Strauss essential? was It still works? Avoid it anyway.

rmd (
Wed, 15 Jan 1997 00:42:12 GMT

In article <5bhhs8$>, (Dan Goodman) wrote:

> In article <>,
> rmd <> wrote:
> >Can't speak for anthropology, but can for a related discipline:
> >comparative religion. In these parts L-S is rather out-of-date, and has
> >mostly been discarded in favor of more flexible (and less overtly
> >dogmatic) theories of culture. There are still a few ardent
> >structuralists out there, but they're increasingly isolated from the
> >mainstream. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but there's an
> >answer to your question.
> Can you give any pointers to the current mainstream?
> Most of what I've found easily available on comparative religion has been
> of the "Isn't it wonderful that Shintoism and Confucianism have the same
> ideals as Christianity?" sort. I suspect this is not the leading edge of
> the discipline.

No, you're right -- that's popular press stuff. What I would identify as
the current mainstream includes symbolist work building on Clifford
Geertz's work in anthropology, ritualism studies drawing on Catherine
Bell, Pierre Bourdieu, and Victor Turner, and ideology studies best
characterized by the work of Bruce Lincoln.


a .sig-free zone