8/8/2019 rponse a de heusch

1/3

MYTH AS SCIENCE FICTION, A REPLY TO DE HEUSCH

Walter E.A, van BeekUniversity of Utrecht

Luc De Heusch's reaction to my article on the restudy of Griaule brought out some interestingpoints, that do deserve further attention and discussion. It also shows an intensity of emotionalinvolvementon his part that does blur some relevant arguments. Knowing th deep loyalties hivolvedaround Griaule, both by his close collaborators (Dieterlen), his kinspeople (Calame-Griaule) and hisdisciples (such as De Heusch) and after reading Meillassoux's comment on French acadmie culture,such a reaction is to be expected. Still, a few a priori corrections are called for. De Heusch treats anacadmie discussion as a trial, with me claiming to be judge, jury and hangman. On the other handhe calls me 'Reverend', maybe trying to discrdit me as an anthropologist. I am not a reverend, nora theologian, but a professional anthropologist, trained as such. The wholejudicial terminology is outof order. My aim in th restudy is and has been to open a discussion about a topic that too long hasbeen closed: th ethnographie validity of th Griaule publications. I hve waited sometime beforedoing so, because of th emotional tensions that would be generated. Still, science is a discourse,

even when it is sensitive; I feit I could not remain silent till a less hurtful date. Throughout th article I expressed my respect for th pioneering contributions of Griaule. While criticizing him onethnographiegrounds, I think I didhim more justice in th rle he reallyexcelled in (and wished toexcel in): as an adventurer and above ail as a writer. So, ifGriaule's intellectual progeny finds myanalysis uncomfortable,it may be because adventure has seeped out of the discipline and goodwriters are scarce. For th Heusch th literary style of Dieu d'Eau (DE) detracts from itsethnographie value. Though I concur with De Heusch in his critique of DE, I do think Griaule'sstyle is more than a device; it is at th heart of his ethnographie endeavour. His ami was to write astory and so he did, very well. When th diffrence between his subsquent books (and of course LeRenard Pale (RP) is for a considrable part th work of Dieterlen) had to be explained, th notionof initiatory stages was created, which is not recognizable for th Dogon.

De Heusch's main argument hinges on th notion of hidden myth, and th possibility of animmanentcosmology.Th e Dogon are, also for De Heusch, 'exceptional', if only because their Systemof classification is 'so meticulous'. He compares this with Pierre Smith's description of Rwandaproscriptions, covering all aspects of social life. Many other similar examples could be given, withintricate classifications, tied in to a variety ofsocial parameters; Victor Turner's and Mary Douglas'works are fll of those. There are, however, some crucial diffrences between thse Systemsand thatas described by Griaule in DE and RP. First, th latter classifications do not, in fact, correspondwith social parameters, and if correspondences are indicated, mainly in DE, they hveno empiricalfoundation.Secondly, in their detailed and seamlesscoverage, th DE and RP classifications are stillunmatched in ethnographie literature. Even within the field ofsymbolics they are an anomaly.

Th e issue of immanence is pertinent. Turner's analysis of hidden myth is important, and oftenrelevant inAfrica. But not for thDogon m aterial, asGriaule does not use anythingother than mythitself as a primai source. He definitely does not start with a description and analysis of ritual, nor doritual lments feature in hisanalysis or his production of th myth. In fact, if Griaule would hvededucted the mythsfrom the rituals, he would hve wound up with a totally diffrent - and in myview definitely non-cosmological - set of interprtations; this is just what I try to do in myanalysis, asany anthropologist who interpretsritual. Th e bits and pices Griaule (and Dieterlen) worked withare not the rituals, nor are they the 'notes, sketches or fragments' Turner mentions; on the contrary,the building blocks of Griaule's analysis were created during hisinterviews, tailor-made for him. Th eclearest example is th grand majority of th drawings which were produced for th occasion (andtherefore later forgotten in their explanation by informants). So the absence of a storyline in thGriaule mythologyindeed is a problem, andGriaule and Dieterlen should not only have noted theabsence bu t recognized it as a major obstacle.

As for th importance of th symbolic dimension, I do not belittle its importance (nor its rle infuture anthropology). But I doclaim that symbolicdimensions should be studied in relation tohistorical, political and sociological parameters, which in fact has been the mainstay of anthropologysince long. This is exactlywhat Griaule did not do; forGriaule th myth served as th explanans,not

8/8/2019 rponse a de heusch

2/3

the explanandum.In Dieterlen'sanalysis ofmasks the same strategy surfaces (Dieterlen, 1989): themyths find expression in the details of the masquerade, withoutany sociological, ecological orpolitical rfrence. Infact, De Heusch concurs on this, as hwrites that 'myths are not the keystonein the Dogon social structure, as Griaule and Dieterlen havesometimesimprudentlyimplied'. Moreoften than 'sometimes'.

This, of course,bears on the concept ofmyth itself. Somehow de Heusch seems to havegained theimpression that for me myths should be unchanging, time-honoured tales, fully authentic anduntouched byforeign hands. Not at all so, as I didmake clear hi the article. I consider the searchfor an authentic mythas the quest for the Holy Grail: an unattainable goal leading into anunproductive pursuit. M yth s do repr esent social changes, political influences,individual goals andsometimesreflect history, and I fully recognize - and relish - their crative andadaptive dimensions.Th e very first article I wrote on theDogon treats this aspect (Van Beek1981). Th e shoe is on theother foot,in fact. Frst of all, as with many oral traditions, the Dogon in their crucial notion of tem(tradition , 'thatwhat is found') implyjust such an authentic,unchangeable base. Even in the case ofevident adaptations, 'tradition' invokes authenticity and absence of change. This, as said, is noexception at all. However,Griaule and Dieterlen identify with this emic Dogon dfinition of mythand tradition, and implicitlyas well as explicitly define the myths as authentic, fully and whollyDogon, disregardingany influences fromoutside on the Dogon. In effect, ifany similarities between,say, Dogon and Bambara are invidence, they explain these by referring to agenera! old Sudanese

culture, of which the Dogon are one of themore faithful reprsentatives. So it is the French Dogonethnography who is questing for the Holy Grail; if not, they would have easily recognized manyinfluences from e.g. biblical sources. For methere is no 'true Dogon' myth or religion, andmyopening agreementwith tene ts ofheuristic anthropology should have been clearenough.Therefore,I stated the problem of ethnographievalidity in term sof recognizabilityand I still think that is whereit rsides. Griaule's talesare unrecognizable forDogon informants, evenin Sanga. So, even if thereare no 'true Dogon tales', some talesare definitely not Dogon.

At the end ofhis comment, de Heusch mentions thecomplicated character of Dogon rituals, andtries to reduce my remarks on them to some ethnographiesimplicities. This is not relevant: Inowhere underestimated the complexities of, say, the mask rituals; the bush - village distinction,though highly relevant, doesnot exhaustthe polysemyof the dama at all. But, again, that polysem ycannot be honoured in an article,especially not in a discussion article; it has to be the subject of amonograph,as Douglas rightly insisted.

De Heusch accusesme of doing away with a grt bodyof ethnographie material, in order to makesens in a chaos of contradiction.No, myinformantsdid away with th myths,and when acquaintedwith th Griaule myths, pointedout the contradictions in them, explaining them away asconstructions(or simply 'lies'). Not only informantsfrom Tireli, bu t also inform antsfrom Sanga, andamong the m also informants whohve worked and were stillworkingwith Dieterlen. The latter oneswere particularly keen in pointing out the contradictions in th data. In explaining awayth texts,they referredto th crative abilities of the individualswho had instructedor translated for Griauleat the time.Anyway, De Heuschhre wants to eat his cake and hve it: on the one hand h dfendsboth th DE and RP texts,while on th other hand he dismisses DE as an 'enigma', possibly ablack-smith version. The latter suggestion, thoughinteresting,cannot be validated. Ogotemelli wasnot a blacksmith, while there are blacksmiths among th RPinformant-circle.Moreover, th spcifieblacksmiths traditions thatcan be traced, hve no bearing on cration, just on migration historis

and on technical and ritual knowledge1

. So, De Heusch m akes a similar distinction as I do, e.g.dismisses one text as 'enigmatic, problematicand trouble some'in order to save another one.

How indigenousare th new inventions of Griaule's informants, De Heusch's next question, is acrucial one. Delving intoth almost famous dung beetles De Heusch suggests that Griaule'sinformants followed the parametersof their own classificatory System. In a way, that is videntindeed. Their referral to certain animais and spcifiecolours are definitely Dogon: they usedth Dogon termsat their disposai. However,th point is that this did not stem - nor needed to stem -from a 'classificatory mania'at ail. Th e other Dogon, whe nconfronted with this classification, simplyroared with laughter - which is ail th more convincing in such a polite society. Though th peoplewh o had told Griaule thiswere old, thus commanding respect, thiswas too much, this was fullyridiculous. So as far as it isDogon,it is a Dogon joke.

In his next sections De Heusch, without statingas much, investigates whatcan be saved from th

8/8/2019 rponse a de heusch

3/3

ethnography. He agres that Griaule erred in presenting a breachless system and goes into someethnographie detail. On the whole Ionly have problemswith his analysis when h mixes sources.One example: Lb is important in the Hogon complex, but theidentification of Lb as a firstancestor is neither needed for explanation norrecognized as such by the inform ants (not even by theSanga-ones!). Lb is much more than an underworld counterpart of Am a -1 never said that - h isa supernatural being 'm his own right. And theecological relevance of the buro ritual is im portant inits symbolism,and quite straightforward.It is when cosmology isbrought in that the problem starts.The same holds forNomma, also an important Dogondeity. Even more thanLb he is drawn byGriaule into a grandiose, non-Dogon scheme, inwhich Christian lments gradually merge. ThatDogon lments (menstruation, twins) continue tofigure is just as evident, and does not at alldetract from the bricolage aspect the myths.Of course, the informants used Dogon lmentsin theirconstructions. But the informants werenot the only ones introducingforeign aspects. Griaule in hisanalysis removed the data evenfurther from their socio-cultural milieu. And when re-analysing themyths also De Heusch takes the Griaule mythsfrom their social and ecological context. When hinvokes the Brahmanic m odelin order to explain the Griaule tales, one is clearly out of Africa. DeHeusch'sinterprtation ofNommo'sblood in comparisonwith Christ's blood is in effect a nice piceof theology, but it brings us way out of Dogon country, beyond Dogon rcognition. Alsotheetymology h cites ofyuguru (serpent) and yurugu (fox) is not recognized at all by the informants,not even by Dieterlen's informants.

Finally, the question of genius. First,enough time elapsed between 1931 and 1954 to allow forcreative intgration of new lments, Christian orother. Then, the reworking of models - in RPdisguised as levels of knowledge - is a common human way of thinking, in fact the basis ofstructuralism! Halffictional (or pseudo-empirical) crations such as DE and RP are not beyondhuman reach. For instance many science-fiction orfantasy writers hve performe dsimilar and evenmore elaborate tales of the past andth future: Tolkien's work, from th hobbits to Silmarillion, orHeinlein's 'Future-History' bear ail th Griaule characteristics: a progressive unfolding of an evermore grandiose scheme,a widening of thcreative horizon,use of more remoteadditional sourcesand a graduai intgration ofpreviouslyunconnected players. In th best sens of the w ord, DE andRP are science-fictionand stand am ong th grtpseudo-empiricfictions of the world. No t beyondhuman reach, not beyondth reach of th Dogon or Griaule. Thse'paroles tonnantes' (a niceFrench translationfor science-fictionby the way ) should indeednot be rejected, I am adamant onthat in th article. Theyare works of intercultural art andshould be read as such.

NOTES

1. In th discussion with M ary Douglasin GutturalAnthropology32 (2) a confusion of th namesof (Meyer)Fortes and (Daryll) Forderesulted in some misunderstanding. The discussant (andfriend) of Dieterlen was Fortes, who by th way always bas been critical to Griaule'smythopoetic Dogon interprtations.

2. De Heusch's challengeto name an exampleof structural comparisonof unconnectedmyths,iseasy to meet: Lvi-Strauss's analysisof the Cinderella/Ashboymyths can serve (Lvi-Strauss,1958).

REFERENCES

Beek, W.E.A. van1981 Continuity and change in th religion of th Dogon of Mali, Religion an d Change in

Historical an d RgionalPerspective,G. B ouritius e.a. (eds.), p.110-121, Utrecht.Dieterlen, G.1989 M asks and Mythologyamong th Dogon.African Arts 23 (3): 34-43.Lvi-Strauss, Cl.1958 AnthropologieStructurele ( T ) , Paris: Pion.