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.
Comments:
Post a Comment
