Thursday, January 29, 2004
Levi-Strauss versus Said: or backward learning?
I found out today that my education in postcolonial theory hadn't started at the beginning. I have a history with Said's Orientalism, which was the first text along these lines that i ever read. Basically, I had to read it for something each year as a undergrad. Year 2 being the bonanza -when i bought my own copy- with it being set for two modules.
But recently i had to read Levi-Strauss' Race and History. He refers to the concept of ethnocentrism, defining it as the repudiation of those cultures which are furthest removed from one's own. Here, i could see the germ of ideas Said develops. But i couldn't help being disappointed with Race and History in comparison to Orientalism.
The reason? Power. While Levi-Strauss does refer to the talent of Western cvilisation (damn! overtype problems!) in imposing itself on others, he doesn't refer to implicit power dynamics of which a reading of Said indicates the existence.
I know, this is because Said comes later and (i think: need to re-read it) makes just such a criticism of Levi-Strauss. So maybe if i'd read them in chronological order, i'd have been less disappointed, and maybe just seen a historical progression. Or thought 'something's off here' then had it confirmed by Said.
Just a thought.
I found out today that my education in postcolonial theory hadn't started at the beginning. I have a history with Said's Orientalism, which was the first text along these lines that i ever read. Basically, I had to read it for something each year as a undergrad. Year 2 being the bonanza -when i bought my own copy- with it being set for two modules.
But recently i had to read Levi-Strauss' Race and History. He refers to the concept of ethnocentrism, defining it as the repudiation of those cultures which are furthest removed from one's own. Here, i could see the germ of ideas Said develops. But i couldn't help being disappointed with Race and History in comparison to Orientalism.
The reason? Power. While Levi-Strauss does refer to the talent of Western cvilisation (damn! overtype problems!) in imposing itself on others, he doesn't refer to implicit power dynamics of which a reading of Said indicates the existence.
I know, this is because Said comes later and (i think: need to re-read it) makes just such a criticism of Levi-Strauss. So maybe if i'd read them in chronological order, i'd have been less disappointed, and maybe just seen a historical progression. Or thought 'something's off here' then had it confirmed by Said.
Just a thought.
Hi. I'm Nel and this is (going to be) an outlet for my ramblings that somehow don't belong on my main blog and aren't polished enough for my homepage or DeviantART site. Which is quite a lot really. I don't aim to produce a definitive statement on life, the universe and everything, so if you snap at me for doing that i'll snap back. I do, however, hope to get comments up and running before long. In the meantime, if you want to discuss anything, you are welcome to email me.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
