Re: Is Levi-Strauss essential? was It still works? Avoid it anyway.
Dan Goodman (firstname.lastname@example.org)
16 Jan 1997 01:49:57 GMT
In article <email@example.com>,
Mike Chary <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Julia E Smith <email@example.com> wrote:
>>Mike Chary <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>Largely. It's certainly true that Levi-Strauss's brand of structural
>>>anthropology is pretty pervasive. OTOH, you still have other viewpoints,
>>>and finding an anthropologist to disagree with another anthropologist about
>>>something doesn't require a search party or even a lunch break :)
>>I wouldn't call structural anthropology of *any* sort pervasive at this
>>point. Important historically, clearly. Vital that any anthropologist be
>>familiar with what he said, assuredly. However, I think there's a lot of
>>more recent, more interesting work out there. Most intellectual
>>descendants of Levi-Strauss would identify themselves as
>>post-structuralists, or structural Marxists. I doubt you could find an
>>unmodified structuralist out there anymore.
>Semantics, I think. Which is not to dismiss your point, but rather to say
>it isn't addressing mine really. I didn't say "dominant." I said
>"pervasive." Sort of like the ecological approaches of Rappaport or
>Steward. If you can't get out of graduate school with an anthro degree
>without knowing them, they are pretty well sunk in. Heck, you can't get
>an undergrad degree without knowing Rappaport these days.
Going back in the comment chain: Is it necessary for a science fiction or
fantasy writer to know about Levi-Strauss's work in order to construct
And -- what anthropological literature IS useful to science fiction and
I've been recommending T.N Luhrmann's Persuasions of the Witch's Craft.
Whatever you wish for me, may you have twice as much.