texte seminar antropologie

8/19/2019 Texte Seminar Antropologie

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/texte-seminar-antropologie 1/61

Raluca

Moise

Seminar NTROPOLOGIE ULTURALA

Anul

II

Temede

scminar

9r

texte

propuseprea fi dezbitute:

1. Ehtografie, etnolagie,

antropologie. Antropologia

calturali.

-obiect

;i

metodd.

Textepropuse:

A.

,,Antropologie

ulturali

-

Gabriel

Troc

Antropoloqiaulturultr

n contextul

tiintelor ociale

Tema :

Antropologia

ulturali ln

contextul

tiin €lor

sociale

Disciplintrelativdntrril, xistentantropologieiulturale B

i

camp

articnlar ecunoaltereudep?l$e$teu

multun secoi.

Putemocaliz:r

emporal pari{ia isciplinei

pre faiTiiiit

secolului

IX, iarln ceea e

prive$le

ecunoagterea

iin

Romania,cestucrus-a

petrecut

oar

n urmtr u cateva

decenii,

i

n modsemnificativ

oarduptr

990. rce

parte

dintre

stiinfeie

gcide,

u?nsilntr-un

mod ipsitde

ombiguitate:itulatura

i trimite alnrudid

dintre elem4i

diverse: ntropologje

ociali, ociologie,tnografie,

tudii

culturale

vom

imr.rrioate

ceste

nrudiri).Duptr1990,

n

i

in cazul ltordomenii,

n Rominia

-a ncercat

recuperarea"

ilcesleiiscipline,eer e rimitea ecuperxreae}'telor

[undan]enlale.metodologiilor

e

pritcticirre

ei,adifelirelor

curente

i

tradi iide

gandirc are

-au ezvoltrtn inleriorul

disciplinei,

"Recupemrea"amintitdrimite n

primul

and a

o

perspectivi

istorici.

$i

in cadrul cestui urs om

proceda

storic,

urmirindevolugia

iverselorurenten spaliile

tiinlifice

europene

i

americane,

u deosebiren

celenglez, ord-

american

i

fmrcez.Comparandele rei spalii

tiinfifice,

apare

primddificultate e

ine

de erminologie.

n Statele



Unite

xntropologia ulturaldesteparte

dintr un ansrmblu

de

disciplinemtropologicemai vastcare

ncludeantaopologia

cnlturali alituri de arheologie,antropologie ingvistici,

antropologie izici

Si

antropologieaplicatl.

Si le

considerim

pe

fiecare:

Alblpl9 Lat

).

nclttdcn

primrrl

inJ vxrirnrc

lusici i ecxre

o cunoir$tem

i

noi,

Si

care

presupune

ombinarea

zvoarclor

de arhivi

cu

celemateriale,

fovenite

din€xcaviri

deosebirca

fald de arheologia

storici

[ine

n primul

randde "adancimea"

trecutuluipe care-lare n

vedere,

n

cazuiarhcologiei

alrtropologiceizandu-se

u

predileclie

fecutul

eceDt.

).

Arheologia ndustriall

cc vizcazd

ntreprindcrile

e acest ip,

specifice iferitelorperioacle:isteme le rigalii, tehnologii e

construclie

tc. c). Aiheologia

protectio

stir,ce vlzeaz\

evcluarcfl actodlor

clemediucarealtereazll

itusurile storice

sau

preistorice: e a

pe;teripdnl

la

oraqemedievale.

Antropolo :ia izicl

ptesupune:

). Primitologia,

s:t studiul

vielii

fi

biologiei

prinatelor

0naimule

n

speci{l);b).

Paleontologia mantr

au dentificarea

li

studiereu

osilelor

umane au

pre-umane;

). Antropologia

egali sau

amura

carg

nvestighcazil

ictimelecrimelor

qi

uccidentelor

ti

cafe

stxbileite

patelnitAtea

mantr

rin

inteflnediul

anllizelor

genetice9i, n fine, d). genctica opulaliilor, arestudiazl

r l i ferenlele

reditnrcn cadntl

opuhliei

mane,

A ttoooloqiainqvistic.\.

i

aoest

omeniu ste

onsti tuit in

mai mulle subrarruri:

a). Lingvislica

storictr:

econstituie

origini le imbajului

i

a diferi teloramil i i

de irnbi;

).

Lingvisticadescriptiviestcceacarestudiazil rnmatica

fi

sintrxa

diferitelor

imbi

ii

d.

Socio[lgvistica,

cares diazd

uti l izareaimbajului ln ompo amentul

omunicativ

l

viel i i

cotidiene.

. Aptropoloqia ulturalf, ste a randulei irlcituiti din

rnnitoarele subramuri: ). Etnognlia,

saustudiul

culturilor

lnr

x

societi l i lor:

ezi cl :rr i f icdri le

e mri josl

conrempor:rnc:

b). Antropologiamedicali ce studiaztractorji

biologici

i

culturali

n relaliecu stureir e sinitate,

boal5

i

vindecare; ).

Antropologia

rband tudiaziviala

orasului,n

special

"pirtolrrgir ' '

rban5

i

dr. Antropologi3

dezvoltirii, are

econcentleaztrsupm

auzelor

subdezvoltirii

i

aprocesului ezvoltdrii

irilor

din

Lumea Treia.

QI



AutroDolosia

Dl icJt i e\ le

rcmurn

ce

Dune

:r ur ' f l r I

s(nsUl

actiunii, ractic;i,ezolviriideproblem€oncreten

comunitili

determinate

e

seamaezultatelorroduse

n

campul ercet:rri

coretice ai susam;ntite.

foxle

cc,lc Jrnuri

onstiluicecirecmericunii

urnesc

"cntropologia

eneralit"

ii

care stizieste

efinilI ca

cercetare

loballl, oulparctivd,imu idimetlsionald

umanitdfii.

O scurti

pa.antezdinegtrturl

u olosirea

ermenului e

"culturi" n loc de

celd€

"societate":

n

antropologieste

problemil euccent,ntropologiireferandecjrcumscrie

grlrpurile mane

asocietdliau,maiadesea,aloitl

cercettrriinor

grupuri

mici

precis

ircumscrise

palial, 0

rnicrosociettrli

are

nrplfttr$escculturtrelativ

mogen

distribuitl,si

nifoon

nteriorizatl

ermeniie

culturi"

i

"socictate"uIt utilizali,

rilr

unnffe, n

foartemulte azui,

casinonimi.

Reveninda

clasificiirile

nirlionale"

mintitemxi

sus,

rebltie

prccizat

tr n t{xdi ir

rancez[ tudiul ulturilor

ste locata

dou:t

isciplinenrudite,

orlsideratensd

ntr-osubordonare

ierarhictr:tnografiriietnologia.Etnografia,c e Claude

Levi-Strauss,

onsttr

Dobservarea

i

analiza

rupurilor

umane,onsiderrte

n

particuladt0tea

or,

urnrlrind estituire

cil

mxi

iJel:l t l

putinli l

viel i i

iecdreiaintre

le".n cc

pfivefte t ologia,

nceastn

olose$teu

modcomparativ

documentele

rezentateeciifre tnograf'-

Vom

evcni

ulteliorasupra cestei

diviziuni

muncii"

ecercetirre

i

r

semnificaliei

i mdi

generalecntnr 'rctica

tiinlificii

i

anrfopologie.l

'Iradilia

englez?|,

c

de

alt[

piute,

locir

tudi

crlturii

"antropologieiociale". ceasta ste onceputiaparte au

subdivizilrne

unei

sociologii

enerale

iisi

concenffeazi

demersurile

ecercetare

supra nsamblului

ietiiunui

grup

uman

nn perspectivaiferitelor

nstjtutii au istemeale

subintind

st ucturuociall":

istenrul

e udenie,

rgaDizare

politice, irualurj,raditii,

utume rivite

a

nstitutii

structumte

u

uncliispecificeare onstituiempreuni

unitateaielii

sociale

g.upului

au omunitltii.

in filre,

n Germa

a

($i

prin

nfluenti

gcrman5

n celemai

rnulte

in

irile

Euiopei

Central

i

de

Est), tudiul ulturii



vizcazi

cu

prepondercnli

ultura

populartrWolfsktntle

inleleasi

ca expresie

"spiritului poporului"stu

a naliunii,

inir-o tradiliede cunoaltere cult rii cecoboaride aHerder'

kaditie

ce asumi

cd iecare

popor-nxliune

e

mmifesdl

culturalintr-un

mod

unic

ar

ridicinile

iLcestei

anifest[ri

se

regisesc

n forma

cea

mai

puri in cultura

arhajci/populari

Ca

urirare,

nvestigarea

ulturij

trimite

a acliunea e

culegere

folclorlrlui,

a

tezaurizarca

i

muzeificnrea

cestuia

Moiivalia

acestei ptiuni,

n

contextul

procesuluistoric

de constituire

statelor-nirliu11i,

ste

videnti.l

Epuizind

aceastd

tasificirre,

recizsz i in curs'rl

de fa(ii

i$ordarea

irre

prin)eazi

este

ceaa

tradiliei rnglo-saxone

are

:$unrilcir:

.

ADtropologia

ulturali

sdusocialii

iTeazd tudiLrl

sruourilor

sociale

rin

p{],smn

rdliliilor

Si

llstitLliilor

ior'cukurale

nyelese

dJorntu

le acliule

unal1d

itrplicate

n

procesul

le

reptud cere

^ocialcit

rielii'

.

:'iulturii"

lnei

poPttl^ii

PPrcz,itltd tsanrhhl

ideilor,

coMep$ilor,

crclitelol

ritualurilo\ illstitl4iil

or

et'

c(ie

csle storic

$i

colltextull

eletmi

at,

$i

care

este

dcopotrivd

rahs

h

de 4 o

Eener1lie

a

qlla

i

recre

t

de cdtvlic&re

Senetutlie

tz

Pa

".

. Tcrmenulde "antropologie" coPeriateto persPectivl

de

nterogare

grupurilorsooiale

N culturale

at

i

rczuttatele

ccsteia

ex:

expresia

sludii de

dntropologie").

racticd

au

proo€sul e

cercetale

efectivI

pourttr

umele

de

"etrografic",care

D acellsttr

rradilic

se

confundl

i

cu metodl de

cercelare

metodl

etnogralici,

cercetale

tnografici,

uneo textul

in'rl

este

i

acesta

untit

"etnografie"l.

n

plrrs, rr

antropologia

nclicani'

dupl

c$n s-a

vdzut

D

clllsilicarca

nterioad{

tnografi

.1mai esle'in eleastr

ir

fiind

unadintre

amurile

artropologiei

ulturale'

. Cerceturexultunlor rcqufune.a rri t lcipiu

orienti\li\,

pri

cipiul

relcttivismulLti

ttltural

Diferitele

cLlno

,

sub

acesr

mPeratir,

sl,/,,lt

tizula a

lot ularca

notlalitdli

dislincte

le

,tlelegere

llunii.

Nr

purcm

nici

si

le erarhizim

nici si o

reducem

e una a

alta

Umanit^tea

pare

n acelagi

imp ca'pluraiI

i

unicf,:

toate

enomenele

ulturale

sunt

lteligibile

Vocalia

Lrnivelstllisti

anhopologiei

oarecum

aradoxali:

aceastaincearci

d nlelgagi

toate ormele

de

soc'etate

existente

au

recute,

ntr-un

neclintit

espect

ald de

relativisnlul

ultunl.



ObiectulantroDologieiulturalc

Din

punctde

vedere

storic,

obiectul

antroPologieiulturide

-

a constituit

n

juml

studiultti

societililor

"pritnitive" sau

a

societ:rtjlor

firi

istorie"

ori limbd

scrisi care

din epoca

1narilor

escopedri

eogralicencoace

au ost opusentr-un

fel sau

attul societdlilor

civilizate",

ie ci

eravorbade

diferite

civilizalii

aDtice

au

premoderne'

ie

in raport

u

civilizalia

moderni

occidentali.

Acestea

in urmi erau

alocate

istoriei,

avAnd

semnificatie

articulariin Welttuschautltl 1-

ul occidental,

i

fiind

parte

din

teoretizirile

asuprastoriei

din

filozofia i istoriamoderne.n raportcu Acestea,ocietilile

' 'primitivc'

u fost

privi le a

populal i i escnrnifical ive

enlru

''lstorir

cu sens ca

clterjtcteil

bsoluti' ori

ca ultim rcper

pe

scaru

ivilizirii.

in acest

ens

opulaliile

primitive

au

ost

aduse

n

aten[ie

ie

cAelemente

e contrast

entru

umanitatea

civilizatl

fie ca

deal

romdntic

al omului neatins

e

neaiunsurile

ivilizatiei

(incepand

u J.J.Rousseau)

e-abia

in

sicolul

XIX,

si

ca

urmare

a colonialismului,

ntercsul

pcntruaceste

opulalii

nu mai

esteunul diletant' ndmplllto.

si

adesea

necdotic

i devine

unul

sistematic,

tiinlific.

Vom

reveni

pe

arg

a acest

prim moment n

cursurile iitoare).

Interesul entrusttldiulsocietilii sedivideca rrmareaacestei

vizjuni

dualiste,

ociologia

rat^nd

societllilecomplexe

sau

moderne)

n timp

ce antropologia

eva ocllpade societtrlile

traditionate,

ncepend

u sferiitul

secolului

lX, interesLrl

pLnlru opuhli i le $a-zis

rinl i l i \e

s'c

concentrl ln cdtevJ

rri i ,

nrrciure

ele

m.ri

dens

opulrte c Intropol,rgi

fosl

cu

precldere

nsulele

lin

sudulOceanului

acific,A stralia,

insulele

ndoneziei,

Aliica

CentrAlt"

estul

R.4ziliei

5i

esl

Canaclei.

Care

este nsl

obiectul

antropologiei

ulturaleastizi, ntr-un

moment n cdrecultura raditionaliestepecalede dispad je

in cele

mai multe

plrli ale

umii,

iar

de

populalii iri istorie

sau

primitive"

e din

ce n

ce md

greu

s[ discutlm?

Firi

indoialI

c[,

in condiliile

globalizirii,

este

greu

sdmai

vorbim

de culturi

zolate

i

autosuficienle

are li

peapctueaza

nealterate

raditiile,

obiceiurile

i

instituliile. n aceste

conditii,

obiectul

antropologiei

ulturale, $a um

a fost el

defiDit

n

perioada e

formare

qi

n ceaclasici' devine

inopemnt

entru

definirea

disciplinei.

O datdcu ie$irea

in

izolare

a

populatiilor

erotice",

dar

i

ca ufmarea unor

Drocese olitice

u

o semnificatje

parte

entru

destinul



anlropologiei,n special far$itul

olonialismului

i

formirfea

ultimelor

state0ationale, nfropologii

i-au eevaluat

opfiunile.Putemsp ne ctr, ntr-unanumitsens, fartitul

perioadei

lasice a careei au

contribuit

hiar lri voia

or

-

a

in\emnal entnr

ntropologieopotrivi

n mpas

)i

o iefire

fecundi. mpasul

provenea,

vident,

in disolulia

obiectului

tradifional

fapt

va]abil

i

pentru

ernografi

i

folcloristi).

Parlea untra lucrurilors-aaritirtinsi

o dati

cu observatia

i

perspectiva

olositdde citre mtropologi

aceea

e a considera

culturile n

particularism

lor

impreuni

crl

metoda

pecificd

antropologieicercetareatnografici

constituie

n ansamblu

de nvestigalie

tijn[ifici

care

poate

i utilizat

cu

succes

odundealtedtatea e ace viT,ibili,.

rin

collsideratea

a te itdlii defifiit.i il tenneni culturuli, c^ f\rnd,:merltal

inlerogirliei

c tip ilntropologic. ntropologifl

onremporanj

cJigurd

continuitaleu r ropologia

lasici.

n celem.ri

multe

privinle,

nstr,antropologia

oltemporani

este

o

disciplinl noul: definirea

alterittrtii

u mai

estearat

de

univocl ca

$i

n cazul

"cllltufllorexotice".

Sensurile

onferite

altcritdliidevin mai difuze,

$i

nu se

mai

rcferddotr

la

populalii

ne-occidentale,i trimit

la

alteritatel

cginditi

chiAr

in sanul

societilii

proprii

cercettrtorului.

nteresul

e cercetare

de tip antropologic

unoaite

prin

urmare

n

proces

e

rceyalua\rc:

rezitd

ut1 ntcrct

de cunoattere

de tip

otllropologicoficafe dintrcgrupurilesociulea cdvi.lelinirc

tnten

eni de alteritateeste.fecundd

e

truinlelegerea

neconismelor

sociale

prin

cure

acesta

se reprothrce

ca grup.

Ca urmare, ntropologia e dzi

intrtrputernicpe

vechiul

eren

.l :ociologiei.

e accer i tevx

delimilr ir i

e mpun.

Delimitare.r ntropolosiei ultu|.ale

nttrde

socioloqie

.

Chiar dactrnu

estc

cel mai

mportant

actor,

revendicareae a doutr

radilii

difedte

de cunoastere

tfebuie

amintiti: daci sociologii

onsideri

ntre

figudlc intelectuale roeminenteareau ntemeiat

disciplinagAnditori recum

AugusteComte,

Emile

Durkheim,Karl Marx, Max

Weber,

ant.opologii

e

revendici

de Ia Montesquieu,

dward

Tylor, Henry

Morgan,James

Fraser tc.

Aceaste

cvendicare

rimite,

desigur,

i

la un orizont

conceptual

ii

problematic

relativ

specilic,careeste

nsu$it

e citre

cei care

devin

cercetito lntriuna dintre

cele

doutr

discipline,

Si

care'

esteulterior eprodus rin

citiri,

referinte,

ibljografii,

etc.

.

Un al doi lea actor,

: i

poate

elmri

irnporlant.

sre



metodologia

tilizattr

de celedoui

discipline: Pre

deosebire-de

ociologie,

arecel

mai adesea

referd

utilizarea

metodelor

antitative,

rin

care

se eufesie

evaluarea

tatistich

unor

poputatii ntins€,

anlropologia

eJelineste

n

modcsenli ir lprin

rlrcl ici l

cercetlrii

de

teren.Metoda

sa

principali metoda

ernograficr.

r incrre

se ecl ize17i

cscrieri

i

interpredri

minulioase

e

sedma bservatiei

nemijlocile

n telen

esteo

metodd alitativtrpin

care

antrcpologii

peri

si

poati

evalua

deopotriviaspecte

ce

tin

de

viata

comunitard

aintreg

$i

aspecte e

in

de

individ

$i

de felul

ln

careocestanteriorizeazl

ormele

comunitifii

in

viala sa

de zi ctt zi.

Daci sociologia,

el

pulin nt.-o

varianti

"standlrd",

urmirefte

regularitlli

ripologice

indivizi

depersonalizali),

nnoFologia

culturall

este

nteresattr

e rapofiol

dintreculturl

$i

perionxlitxle n senslll

urmtrririi

unorcrzwi

indivicl*rle

cu

istoria

or

personald, u traseulor

de

viatd,

cu

trlirile

lor de

natur[

psihologicla anumitor

evenimente

omunitare

e dauseama

e coduri

cultlrrale

recise e

ghideitz:I

omportamentul.

AntropologiA

racticatlin societatea

rop.ie indesi

se

orienteze

ltre

acele

grupuri,

de obiceimarginale,

care$lnt

greu

de

nvestigat

rin

ancheta itusondajul

de tip sociologic:

gnrpuri

marginale

in punctde

vedcre

omportamental,

conomic,

tnic:bande au

ganguri

urbane,

minoritltli

sociale e tipul ftomd?is,

homosexuali.

rogtli.

secle eligioilse.

ruprri

ce

pmcrictr

ctivi l l l i

setni legl le.

e ipuleconomiei

iubterane

au

ascunse,

inoritili

etnicedefavorizate

(nomi/ igdni)etc,

Trebuieamintit otufi ci acestl

direclie

a

fost

practicattro\SUA in sociologie

ca

"sociologie

devianlei",

de

membri

Scolii

ditr

Chicngo).

Antropologia

ubliniazi

Programatic

amcterul

"striin",

"indepirtat",al giuprrilor pe care e

cerceteazi,

i

urmire$te

i aduciin

"centrul

socialuhri"

eprezentiri,

onceplii,

ompo.tamente

considerate

e simlul

comunca

"reziduale", eviante,

atipice

giinceurci

sd aci acest ucru

abordlnd

aceste

viziuni

n

mod

sinlpatetic,

in interiorsau

din

pu0q1 l

de

vedere"

l

grupurilor

espective

Genul

scriiturii:

Antropologia

edistingedc

asemenea

pri[ tipul

de text

pe

care

celmai adeseal

Prodlce

este

vorba

despre

monografia tnogmfica,

n

gencare

istoric

vorbind

a consacnt

antropologia

n mport

cu



celeldte

tiinle

sociale.n

antropologie,

onografia

rcprezintdrn tip de textualizare,

undamentat

e

experienla e terena cercetitorului, icarepresupune

acoperireuntegraltr aspectelor

iefii

unei comunitdti.

Cr gen

sri inti l ic edi\l inge rin

permisivirulc

.rt i ,te

di tr i te mij loice

t

i \t ce

;i

rctorice.

mbri l isrnri

rtur

genul

narativ narttiLtni

e viatl,

ale storiei

orale,

dcscrieri

1i

reproduceri

e texte

olclorice

cet

si

vi

: l le orme lc

gcnului

t i int;f ic.

e

genul

qe

ui.

tratatlrlui, naliza e text,

samd.

O alttrdiferenli fala de

sociologie

ine

de raporrulpe

careccle douddiscipline

l iDtrctin

lt

teoria n pract icil

ftiinlifictr:

n timp ce n

sociologie

eporne$te

e la o

pfoblend itiinlifici, pentru aresociologul dunil

materialul e carcaronevoiepdr

tehnicide genul

chestjonarului au nterviului

ori prin

ap€lul

il

statistioi

ublice,

$i

nterpretlnd

aceste

itte,iloar

pentru

a cladficasAua rezolva

problema

eoreticll

propusil,

n antropologie

e

pleacl

nu

de h o problentl

(prAci icd

au

eorel ici),

i de

I o

situal ie

de

viatd],

e

circ trebuie l deaseama

n totalitatc,

eeir e

inseamntr ao lnr€gistrezc,

i o clasificc,

I o cornpAre

cu altelesimilare

ji

sl o

explice.

n cercrirarea

e

op

etnografic

roblemele

eoretice

par

mult

dupl

inceperea ercetilrii...

Sociologia lege ubiecrele

uptr

n

proiect

meliorist,

fiind

plrocupirtil

n spccial

e survenirea

odemitilii

ii

de

problenele

apdrute

dali

cu aceastir;

antropologia rmeazl

proicctul

cartografi

rii culturalc

a lumii.

Din aceastii

erspectivir

emersurile

elor

doni discipl ine u ost,

ani

spre

nii

?0

ai secolului

trecul,

mti degrabii puse,

ociologia

valuend

t_enomcnelc

e survincu mode

izarea

i vizind

:lneliorareaacestora,'in

imp

ce aDtropologia

lintea

cdtre umeacdres-a

pierdut

saueste e

cale

strse

piardi o dati cu modernizarea.O sepirmreefericirii:

ann'opologiadcind

o distinclieprel

neti intre

Occjdent

qi

"resrul

umii",

n rimp

ce sociologia

indca

si ignoreceeace segiseain

afara

ocietilji

moderne.)

In f ine, muncaantropologului

resupune

rrcrorL

individual

li

privaliuni

egate

e munca

e reren

cu

car€sociologii

se ntalnesc

mult mai

mr.

Este

a fel de adevirat nstr

cir, ecent, enurile

e

intrepltrund,astlel

incet

azi

o cercetare

ociologici

intinsi nu se

poate

ipsi decolaborarea

u antropologij

pentru

oblinerea nor "studii

de

comunitate',,

a

fel

0t



cLrm

ntropologii

peleazi

neori

cantitativ-statistice.

Iosondrje

imctode

AntroDolosia

ult

ft il si

Am

amintit

ainceputtrl

ursului

I antropologia

a

i ftiin tr

socialdifi

are

nceputul

n

a douajumitate

secolului

Ix

Proiectul

ntropologiei

a

9i

gtiinli

generaltr

omului

stensi

mult

mai

vechi.

Filosofii

luminigti

-au

dczlollat n mod

aparte

ncercind

d idenlifice

cele onst

nte le n.rttr,ii

lmdlrs

cre

ac

posibil l iziune plimisttr

lsuprirmeniti l i i

caintregr

atiuneaa i pentru celtia,notiunea-cheie'

considerarea

cesteia

:r

undiunent

entru cliune

araotenct

Dosibilitateainsu$irii

niversale

normelor

rojectului

ilunrinist

esocietate

viziune

ptimisti

e

carco nlpirtlijjm

ii

azi).

Antropologia

ui

Kant,

deexemplu,

ste nzr ptimisti,

fundattr

e

nofiunea

e

progres. rogres l manjtllii

cdtre

pace

niversal[,

um

vroioKant, -ar

atora ispozitiilor

;Aturalc

leonlului,

are

mprimx

miictrrii anumjttr

ireclie

Pus n

fatl

diferenfelor

mane,

ant c dentificd

in

spirjtul

timpului xu) adiferenlee asl; ntrebareaare pare entru

Kanteste

rmitoarea:

acl

existlmaimulte

ase rmeazii

d

irdmitem

au

mai

multe

mliuni

n egallmtrsur[

ndrcpttrtite'

sau

o singurl

aliung

Kirnt

Afirmi, umerA

ircsc

pentru

intreaga

a

desfir$urare

ilosotictr,

nitateapecifictr

i,

deci,

fillionalir

omul

i,

gxplicAnd

asele avarietlli

ereditarc

e

descind

intr-o

ingurl

ulpintr.

Arietatea

aselor stc

explic:rti

rindispozilia

atumltre

adoptare

specieiir otte

zonele

limaterice.

Itlealismul

efmanrdus

m-ai

epane rojechll nei

antropologiiniversaliste.ntre eprczentanliiui sedistinge,

la

sfer$itul

ccolului

IX,

filosoful

erman.Maxcheler'

Pentru

cheler

ispunsul

a n[ebarca

ceeste mul?"

oate

Drimi

un

rdspuns

decvat

oarin

misura larificdrii

;eiiniliilor

sru

concepliilor

ominante

ecarcomul

e-a

construit

e-a

ungt|i

storiei.

cestea

r i duPiMax

Schel€r

urmtrtoarele:

).

Imaginea

udeo-cregtini

edefinegte

mul

ca

fiinti

cizuttr

lin

tare

aradisiacnaurmare

ptrcatului

originar;

).

maginea

recilor ntici

gi

a luninismului

espre

orn

x

i

fi inld

ali tcl iv

iferilSecelell lte

iin(e

rin arul

raliunii;

).Conceplir

l i inlif ic-modernd

omului r

nefiind



altceva

ccatun_animal

flatpe

treapta

eamai nalti

a

evolutiei;4). Viziunea ui Nietzsche

i

Klagescareafirmi

ci

omul esteo fiinli epuizafid;npunctde vedcrebiologic,

vitalitatea a iiDd niuuiti de

"spirit",

Stiin tr

i

tehnologie;

).

Tot Nietzsche

firmi insi ci o dadreliberat

e sub

utela

sufocantia

diviniti'rlii, muliti

poatc

ua destinulin pfopriile

maini

gi poatcascede itre o st:re

supelioari, ea

a

sllpr|romLlluj.

obse

ixn europocentrisnul

cestei

numeriri;

do:u nragi ile omului occidental oflIexzipertru

Scheier.]n

opi0ia

hi Scheler denlificarea cestormagiii

esre

mpo anti

pentruci diferiteconcepliiasupra

muluidnu naitere

il

corceplii difcritc asupra

storici

$i

nfluenlcirzl

direct lctiunea

unlim[. Ca

u.marc,scopulantropologiei

ilosofice

aa i tce]a

deu rcconstaui"istorie coDsti inteiesine omului", eea

ce

nseanrnd islorie | modurilor n care

omul s-aconceput e

sincatit

ca iin tr biologicl cit

ii

ca iint:l

rl ioDal:r.Aceasti

cuDoa$tere

e sinear asiguru, redeScheler,

lrDdal]tentele

peDtt' tr

t i inlclc

oci ir le,

stol ice

i

psihologice.

'Iradilia

nratcriirlis*l

rei:l

i

rlccasta

e'rA Lrnei ntropologii

generale.

udwig Feuerblch

a

aseza feocupiirilc

alede

cfitictr ilosoficir, ndreptrtir

n

specialntpotl'ivil

cligici,

sub

nuInclede

"ilntropologie".

euerbachfirnrtr

il omenirii

se

deschido

iimsil

noutr, e fericire,

prin

em|nciparea

e

religie.Criticasa $upm rcligieiple0cii lc a asumplid tr

n1|luraste undarDcntul

i

principiulei

nsei i i .

ivinitate{

u

af [i altccvadcctt nctLrfir

e

ctre

omulin spiratiA

r sprc

absolut

o

ipostazi{zi n difefite fonnc

supriuutumle.

Criticii

rci igieii urnreazi i

r i t icn istetnului

cgeli :rn,

euerbach

acuzindu-l

c

IIcgcl

ci deme$uri leale

unt t l ]se

hiar in

puncLLrl

eofiginc, cesi0

reftrand

iincci lpi i

emefsul

fi losofic u de

Inexisteolaeali ,ci dc

lt notiunea

eexistenti i ,

de a exislen a bslrrctii.

A

porni

n

filosoflre

de la exislenlil

rcalilinseanni

pentru

Feuerbach reforma

ilosofia,

u o

nou:Lilosofle uebuie

si pomellsci

de a

omul concret,

sensibi l ,r leles n inrcgul ui (biologic,sihic, al ional) A

bazi

pentrua explica enomenele,umea

piritului."Filosofia

rou:l

scrieFeuerbach stedizolvarea

ompleti, absolutil,

necontradictorie

teologiei n antropologie,

ici

ca este

dizolvarea

cesleia u numaiasemenea

ilosofiei vechi

n

raliune,dar

i

in inimi,

pe scurt,

n fiinta ntreagtr,

eali a

omului." Ceea e

propune, a urmare,

euerbach

steo

filosofie care'intelegind

n omul n primul

rendca

parte

a

naturii cdefineQtesenlx

umarii lceod

oc

unui orizontde

acliune

penuu

oameni

are

nu md este

nterDrediat

au

condilionatde factorisupraumani.

@,



lvlai aproape e timpuaile

noastre,ilosoful gernan

Ernst

Crssirer n

cearcd

gi el

si

clarificeproblema

senlei

mului,

dincolode diferen ele

e

rasi, culturi

iicivilizalie.

Ceea el

separi

pe om n mod fundamental

e

alteorganisme ii este,

credeCassirer,

apacitateae simbolizare, apacitate

n care

omulseudirpleazi

a rneJiu

inventirnd

noui dinlensiune

rcalitilii. Spre

deosebire

c toate

elelalteiinte vii,

omul nu

tfiieste

ntr-un univers

pur fizic, ci

intr-unulsimbolic un

universalcitrit

din

pirfi

jnterdependente

cum sunt imbajul,

arta,mitul, religia,

Stijn a.

Ceea e

propune

Cassirer rin

accasti potezi este

o llrgire a detlnilieiclasice

omului:

ornul a.nimrl

rcl ional.

r l ioncl i tctea

u rlacterizexzdorte

acliunileumane,

e aceea

entru

0 da seama e

om

n intregul

lui,ceea

einseamni

explicAliempidcd naturi iumane,

analiza

mod.littrfilor

de simbolizare r

exprimamai bine

sarcina nei

antropologii

losofice

omprehensive.

Preocuptrrileegate

de antropologiailosoficll

$i

de esenla

omrlui, st0udesigur

n centrul nterogaliei e tip f ilosofic

lntre cei care

rimit explicit a ele fiiDdneccsar

ii amintim

i

doarin

treaclt

pe

Heidegger

i

Habermas,

e deosebire

ftrndamentaltr

xistI

insd ntre antropologia

ilosofic[

$i

antropologia

ulturall? Concis pus,antropologiai osofictr

areca scop

clarificare manitilii omului dincolode situaliile

particularen carcoamenii

ieluiesc.

Dupi cum este

binecunoscut,

ilosolia

vizeaztr n rnng

nalt de

generalitate

n

ceea c

prive tecondiliile

n cnre Omul"

se nseleazl

reAlitate. a

dspunde a ntreburea:

um

estecu

putinld

ciir

dincolo

lc

difcr 'cnlele

ene lespan:_r vern

aolmeni

perceptii,dei,

gAlduri etc..fonrrrl deltice?

Tot antropologil

filosoficit

dre n atenlie

nndamenteleauprincipiilepe

ca 'e

lnlelesudlenoastre

espEumanitatea muiui

se

ntemeiazi.

In line, antropologia

ilosofici

esle

aceaamurtra fllosofiei

carcasigurd

aza

pentru

amuri

cum

sunt ilosotitrvalorilor,

filosofiaculturii, etici, csteticietc.

Antropologia ulturali

seafli intr-o

pozilie

ambigui

fald de

acest

rciect ilosofic. Despdnsdn secoluiXIX, asemeni

altor

tiinte

sociale, in

filosofle,antropologix

ulturali asuml

sarcina

e nvestigore

omului c proicct

ti inl i l ic.

eerce

presupune:

l. Investigatia

mp;rici exhrustivi, faptce trimite a

"cartogiafierda"uturor

culturilorvii,

cu acred

p€

culturile

exolice,

necunoaaute,are

ac

cel mai

problematic

abloul

@



unei

umanititi

unitare

Cea

ce

ntereseazi

n aceastv'l

ireclie

e\rcJiferenla.

l leri tctei.

nrial ia

ormel 'r

eexpresle

iuiiur"tl 5l a" org"ni,aresocirltr AceasliJirec iex xsumll

ca

r"r.i" l

i"t"git,t**

*i turi lor '

r irualuri lor ' .prrcl ici lof

agice'

iruuuAlot,

,""t"tiito.

a" ru'lenie'

emihiztrrii

ocixle'

elc intr-o

.""",4

"lt

t"^i

nd"t'"

9i

variath,

a

i

explicarea

cestoririn

contextele

or

determlnate

2.

Prod.t""r.o

unoa

"orji

care

si

gtrseascir

egularitit

de

ege

inrre

"ptele

ultlrr:r le

bservl le

Je

e\emflu:

dcpendenla

"t,i*ii,i i i

o*"*i""

^,ctli lui

cli

de

iude

existenlr

nei

;tarii

p;ivilegiate

nrre

epot

i

irtelc

mamci)

au

rre

i

iJenriti""

ctri ',,rten1e

nlre

orme

ulturule

rnifeslirte

n

*-u.i" i , i

t iruu,.

n

,"giurri

eoglxfice

ilerite

exemplu:

rittlrilede ecere).

Prradoxul

n care

-lt

g?tsit

nlropologir

ulturlll'

lijl

i*.ounoif"

.i.

1in"

"iLlrn)nre

de

urmirircr

lcestei

uhle

inte:

o" allo

p*"

int.git,tarea

uialiei

culturlle'

Pe

de

cecltlti

i*rir,ir"n -

rno;i"nitd

c

ir ruclilia

manisttr

ccidcnlxlf,

"rlr-r"

*iiitii

".rr"i

oincoto

e

dilerenle

n

proiectul

i

initiat

rntropologia

vrut

sli

ispundtr

a

doui

cerinle

nu

-fo';rrte

usor

de

conciliul:

i

fie

o

gliinltr

igurodsi'

upi

*oa"-fuiii;lnpfo,

n"urii.

ii

s[

dea

n

xcelaii

imp

trspunsui

eenerrliz.rbile

espre

rn

5i

condilic

aculruralii'

trspunsun

e

in maimultde ilosofie rude tiintele

msne ntreDdrlle

a

ioti

"nrtopofug;,

o

"iuiilt

tisPunsuri

u

ost:

eestc

mul'J

e

it Jr"i"nri"tni"

t"t,ul

lunrii

vii

ltin

cure

-a

dcsprins'

"'.iuin,ta,ia

iot"li

tl-i

ne

pflrte

onstittltivl?

are

ste

emeiul

,niiaiii

u*onirniilr

"*isti

o

nottrrl

umann

niverstl[?

um

se

i*rfi"l

aiu"ttltor"o

""traordinari

a modurilol

mane

e

riilior"itr',*

"f"

,"r,ftatul

unor

predeterminirri

enetioe

au

,rle on<litionxrii

ulturale'l

ceste

ntrebiiri

u

ost

puse'

.t".ri*t',r.i

in

"tr"

a;t"ipline'

nsi

antropologin

ncercat

i

lc

;;;;

;;*

**

ti nu

poxid

i

inlifmat

e

cazul

reunci

s;tLratii

aiticulare lecind

e

t studiul

um:Initililor

i"i"r-iti.t"" t-otrrnLit

conslruired

nui

ablou

et

mai

conrplet

l

umanititii

n

genele'

Ce

el

de

$tiin 5

ste

zi

antroPologid

ulturall?

Ca

Si

n

^lte

sdinte

ocirle

si

n

antropologie

xistd

seirmi

e

ir..n-ltOi"i.

g*io,

*ci

care

firmd

i

o dattr

u disP:rrilia

socieliti lor

xolice

obieclului

i

0il ial

antropologra

r-11.

incheili

misiunel.

aminind

pricticd

uni

penlru

nllciro

l

"r-rsiozi

ae

muze..

nt1ii,

dimpotriv['

firmd

i

metodologia

i^"^ia

p"

.""""

a"

tlren,

ci

9i

generaliztrrile

e are

e



produce

lccdnd

de a o baztr

rlpi.icd largi, o califici

pentru

a scrvide modelsi altorStjinle

sociale. n ce

pdvelte

stat

tul

ei

Stiinlific,

pulin anfopo]ogi

o rnai considedo

qtiinti

riguroasi

care oriuleazd

legi

i

carestabile$teorclatii

necesare.

ul i

o

considerl

chiar a celllalt

pol,

ca o

practici

de

c noa$tere

ermeneutici,

arennalizeaziln detalii

practici

culturale

intre

cele

mai diverse,

esc indule

i

interpretandu-le

n

forma

unor

lficliuni

verosimile".

in

concluzie

ntropologi:r

ulturali s-ir ormat n conditiilc

istorice

ale

ntelnirii

diotre

omul occidental

Si

"celilalt

cr,..,t ic",

lcfinirrdu-se

tunci c

l i inl i

i r :1\cminir i lor

i

deosebidlor,

um

spuneaClyde

Klockholm Mareleei merit

l

fost

acelade

a clemonstla

i

a fi diferit nu nseamnil fi

inferior,

$i

cd dilereDta

red,ept corclativ rtemdnurer intre

onntenl.

Bibl ioqrafle

Cassirct,

fist

-

EseualesPr?

r?,Humanitas, ucure$ti,

1994

Fe

erbach,

.

-

fez?

preliminre

pentrn

eibnllJilosoliei,

lpud

A..Mrrt1

,

hltl"oducere

n

ilosttJia

contentytnrnd,

Polirom,

a$i,

2002

Florian,

Mjrcea -,asloritt

ilosofrei

Molenle,Tip^ tl

Universitar,

Bucureiiti,

938

Cdraud,Maiie-Odilc,

Olivicr

Lesenoisicr,Richird

Poltier

Noliunile-cheie

le etnc'lo.giei,

olirom' a;i, 2001

Flarris,

Malvin -

C/rlrrlr.i

Alltl|ropolo8l, H

per Collins

Collcge

Publishers,

ew

York'

199-s

Honderich,

ed

(ed)

-'the

Oibrd Cotnprnion

o Pltilttsophl"

Oxford

University

Press,Oxfbrd

& New York, 1995

Marghescu,

eorgeta

txrod cerc ht

qnlropologia

ulturtrld'

Editura

Fundaliei

Rom^nia

de Miine, Bucure$ti, 999

Murdock,

Peter Crltrr,?

rr .l.toc iel], Univercityof

Pittsburgh

ress,

1965

B. Okely,

Judith

-

"Fieldwork

in

the Home

Counties.

Double

vision

and

dismantleddentity",

Royal

Anthropological

nstituteNews 61,

1984,

p. 4-6;



2. Conceptul de culturd- Camctefisticile

cultarii. Rsportul naturd-cuharL Cuhurd

qi

con

portament.

Texte

propuse

A. Elias, Norbert, 1973

-

,,La

formation de I'antithdse

culture civilisation en

Allemagne",,,La formation du concept de civilisation en France", n Za

cirilisatiandesmoears,

p.

1l-73, Paris:Poche;

B.

Mihu,

Achim,2002,

,Antropologia

ulturald", d. Dacia,

Cluj-Napoca;

Obiective:

a)

Identificarea

i

clarificarea

iferenlelor emanticele ermenului

,culturd".

b) Evolulia storic[ a conceptului

,culturd"

n discursul

ntropologieiulturale.

c) Riscurile unei analize

strict culturale: studiile culturale

gi

reduclionismul or in

antropologia ulturala.

3.

DescoperireaCeluilah saa constitubea dnbopologiei ca

stiin(d,

Texte

propuse

Mih6ilescu,

intild,

2007,< Antropologie. inci ntroduceri , Polirom, aqi,

cap.2

Obiective:

a) Analizaetapei onstitutive antropologieiulturale aStiinpsocialA.

b) Altul

9i

Celdlalt doui

prezente

ulturalen discursul

i

erenul ntropologic.

c) Inceputurile

racticii

antropologice.

4"$coli

gi

curente tn antropologia culturald de la stdrSitul secolului XIX

gi

inceputul

secolulai XX: evolulio

nismul, difuzionismul,

unc(ionalismaL

Texte propuse

A.,,Quolation

"Scientific

rogress

s

at imes

most urthered

y

workingalong

a distinct ntellectualine,withoutbeing

temptedo divefge

tom

the

mainobject o what iesbeyond,n howeverntimate

onnexion.... y taskhas

beenherenot to discussReligion n all its bearings, ut to

pofiray

in outline he

great

doctrine

of

Animism,

as

found n ra;hat

colceive

to

be

ts

earliest

stages mong he ower races

of mankind,and o show ts

hansmissionlong he inesofreligious hought."

-

ftom E. B. Tylor, Religion n Primitive Culture

(1873)

1t



E. B,

\lor

and

the Anthropologyof Religion

ln light ofthe

retrospectivehemeofthis Amual Meeting,

t is frtting

that

we pay

homage o Edward

Bumett

Tylor

(1832-1917).

is appoiltment

sReadern Anthropology t Oxford n 1884was he iIst academic

appointment fan anthropologist

ua

anthropologistn the English-speaking orld. And in his two

volume

classtc, rimitiveCultrre

(1871),

ylor,asKroeber ndKluckhohn

1952:150-151)

bserve,

was

delib€rately

establishing

science y defining ts subiect

matter."

Yet althoughTylor is not far removed

rom us n time, and while he writes n a language ery similar to our

own,we mightnevertheless

akenoteofLesleyHartley'sines,

The

past

s a breig country;heydo hings

difTerentlyhere"

P,'ologue,

heGo-Beh,eea,

953).Despite ylo/s

pleasing

ndseeminglyucid

prose,

is

concems, ensitivities,rd insensitivitieso

not ully matchouls. f we

are

o improve

ur scholarly

undemtanding nd appreciation fhis

elTorls,we must ly to leam as bestwe can what Tylor was againstas well

aswhatheadvocated,ndwhathe hoped o achieve ithin lrecontext fthe intellectual mbiance

n

which

he

operated.

'lhus,

for €xample,

ylor's

heorizing

wasmotivatedll sigrifioautmeasure y hisdisagreementsith

degcnerationist

heories fthe religiomofso-callcd

savages."

le hoped o replace uch iewswith an

evolutionary,rogressivisteNpectiven hedevelopmentf hcrmaneligiosity. ct whilc we can ecognizehe

importanceo Victorians farguments

boutwhether r not some ontempor.lryeligionsweredegenerations

fiom

so

called

higher"

ormsofreligiosity,we cannot, tlrink" athcct uchargumertso the same xtelt, or in

th€ sameways, hat Tylor did,

Tylo/s evolutionary ccount, s s well known,

argely ealswith the

dcvelopmentfwhat heoalls

the

inlellectual..,sidefreligion"

(1958

11873,

87ll,ll:444-445),o theexpLicitly onfessedear-neglectfother

important spectsfreligiol. Hejustifies hisby declaringhat

Scientific

rogress

s at imesmost

'urthered

y working

alonga distinct ntellectualine,

withoutbeing

empted

to divergerom hemainobjeat 0

what iesbeyond,n howeverntimate onnexion,..,My

ask

has

been

erenot

to discuss eligion n all its beadngs, ut o portrayn outline hegreat ocrineof Animism.as bund n what

conceive

o

be ts earliest tages mong he ower aces fmankind,and o show ts ransmissionlong he iDes

of

religious houghl

1958,

I:445).

BLrtn attemptingo

Dofiray

the

great

octrine f Animism"

and

to

show

ts

transmission,"ylor does

ar

morc hanoutlinea theoryofthe

evolution freligion.As hiswork unfolds. . Samuel reus bserves,

we see hatTylor

s

writing he

history :fthe mind.Rcpeatedly.e refers o his

project

sdescribing

the

course

ofmentalhistory," he

"laws

ofintellectualmovement,"he history f lawsofmind," he

"history

ofopinion,"

"intellectual

istory," nd oon.

1987i133).

MarvinHads (1968:202)pineshat thebasicpointof P,'imilireCrlt#e seemso be hat hehumanmindhas

theability o

perlbct

tselfby hinkingmoreclearly."

And

George tocking

1987:192)

aggishlyemarkshat

in Tylor's

prcsentation,

lt

was as hough

primitive

man, n an attempt o

createscience, ad accidentallycreated

religion instead,and

mankind

had

spent he rest of evolutionary ime trying to rectil'y he enor."

But

beyond

reating he evolution ofreligion as window on the devclopment fmind and culture,Tylor suggests

an evenmoreambitious genda. esearch

nto

he

history

and

pre-history

fhumankind nd

the

doctrine fthe

world-long volution fcivilization,"

hewrites, ave hefu

practical

ide, sa source

fpower

destinedo

influence

he

course fthodetn

deas ndactlors"

1958

l: 529,emphasisdded).t is

"the

practical

fTice f

ethno$aphy, Tylor decla.es,

12



to makeknown to all whom it may concem he tenrre of opjnions n the

public

mind, to showwhat s received

on its own direct evidence,what

is

ruder

ancientdochine reshapedo

answermodemends,and what is but

time-honoured

uperstition

n the

garb

of modem nowledge"

1958

I: 531).

Appositeo Tylor'ssense f"the

practical

fice ofethnography"s his concept f"sun'ivals."He

oorceptualiz€shese sculturalelements r

complexes

"adhesions")

hatoncemadea cefiain ense ithin he

contexts

n which they were developed, ut that have ingeredon beyond

heir time and are out of intellectual

harmonywith later cultual settings.Thesestultirying elenents, Tylor declares,

need o bc identified so that hey

mightbe eliminated. Ieconcludesisgreatwork with thisringing and adical - declaration:

It is

a

harsher,

ndat inres ven

painful

olIce of ethnographyo €xposehe emailsof crude ld cultureswhich

Inve

passed

nto hamful superslition.

and o mark theseout for deshuction.Y,.t this work, if less

genial,ls

notless wf<entb) eedl l

for

the

good

oJ

mankind.Thus, activeat once n

aiding

progress

l1d n removinghindrance"

he scienceofcuhure is esxentiolly

a rqfbtmer's cience.

1958

I:539,enphasis dded).

II

In'fylor's view,

asA.l.

Hallowcllwa-sond

ofpointingout

n lectwcs,

ltr ancientorebears eremovedby

cu osity.Puzzled y theirexperiencesf dreams ndof visions.

nddesirous fachieving satisl]iru account

ofdeath, heydedved ndmeldediom theirexperieDcesotions boutanimating linciples

nd

ghoslsouls.

'lhen,

by

a

process

hat

we

call stirnulus

eneralization.heyextended

he deaofindividualsouls ut rom

Ilumanityo thenon-hunanworld.By a furtherextensionheydevelopeddeas

bout ndependentlyxisting

spiritsofvarioussorts. hey hus

propounded

he wo complementary

ads

of"tho

grcat

doctrine f Animism,"

belicfin soulsandbclicf n otherspiritual cings..

'lylor

supposeshat

he

heory

ofanimism

s the irst

great

heory

n human islory.Not only hat,

but

t is

so

powerf'ul

ndappealinghat t has ontinued n n a varietyofelaborated

ndnodilied fbrnrs. ndmaybe

discerned

n

theChristianity fhis own imc,

'[

he bcfiefs ndpracticcs f savagccligion,"Tyloralfirms ll the irstvolumoof Prir?l/iveOulttre,arc at ftom

being

a

rubbish eap fmiscellaneousolly." Rather.heyaxe

collsistent

nd ogical n so higha degree s o

begin, ssoonaseven oughly lassitied,o display he

principles

ftheir fomlation

rd developmenl"

1958

:

23).Yet while

"these

rinciples rove

o beessentiallyational," hey

work among

savages"

in

a mental

condition f intense nd nvcteratcgnorance"

1958

23). ndeed,he

gleat

doctrine f animisms foundod n

iladequate bservation

nd

childlike nl'ercnce,

hough

he

product

fmtionalninds.

Animism,Tylor

suggcsts,llustrat€s ot only hemtional

et

error-proneature fhuman houghl,

ut alsoa

hunan

propensity,

speciallye11marked mong o-called

savages,"

o restunderstandingslosely n

experiences.

fylor,

asRobelt ,owie

points

out

(1948

1924]:109),

edves he heoryofanimism

very

argely

not rom ratiocinal io[ boutobserved

henomenon

ut fiom the nmediatc

sensoryestimony ldream ife."

Two fudher observations boutTylor's

peNpective

an be uselully

entercdat this

uncture.

One s abouthis

views

on whatothe6have alled

the

psychic

nity of huna*ind." Theother

has o do with the mplications f

his heory

ofhunrarr cligiosity or thc relig;ons f his imc

--

andours.

Both n his te,iear.cre,rnto heE.vly Histot)tof Mankind

1865) Stocking

987:160) nd n PlimitiveCulture,

Tylor

supportshe deaofthe

psychic

nityofhumankind. hough e does ot

employ hatexpressionn his

theorizing bout eligion, he

concept

s

crucial

or his application

f thecomparalilemethod. s Preus

1987:

138) otes,

13



Tylor's confidence hat he canunderstand

he savagemind becauset is essentially ational s the basis or his

conviction hat he

can understandhe continuity ofhuman relieiousnessrom the earliest imes n which it

affords

glimpse

fitself

In the matterof the mplicationsof

'l'ylor's

theory respecting elilions in modemsociety,suffice t to summarize

the conclusions

eached

y

two major contemporary cholars.The ogical thmst of P,'inith,e Culture, Stocking

w tes

1987:195),

s

"clearly

o reduceChristianityo the same ategory f'mythology'with whichTylor

pref'aced

is discussionfthe developmentf animistic eliefl"

And Preus

maintainshatwe mayconclude

fromTylor'sgreatworkthat"religion tselfisa surviral" 1987.139.emphasisdded).

uI

Tylor's heoryofr€ligionhascome n for strong nd

diverse

riticisms.

hus,

or example, vans-Pritchard

dismissesylor'sspeculationsbout hc origins

fsoul andspiritconceptsshaving

the

quality

ofajust-so

story"

1965:25);

urkheim ejectshe

possibility

hat eligion,an endu ng

phenomenon,

ouldbe ounded n

an

llusioq andMalinowski,Radcliffe-Brown,nd

Margaret-Iodgen

nter heirvaxious riticisms fTylor's

"doctrine

f survivals."

Overall,maoyc tics note hat

Tylor

slights

he

social

ndemotional imensions

freligion.

Later

anthropologists,fcourse,

mphasizedeligion's ocial spects ndconsequences,ith such egularity nd

redundancy,ndeed,hat n 1966CliffordGeetz

(1966:l-2)

complainedhatstill morecases ddressedo the

same 'unctionalist

oints

mightwell convince

eople

within andwithoutour

prof€ssion

that

anthropologists

are,

ike

theologians,

irmly dedicatedo

proving

he ndubitable." heemotional imension freligiosity.

however, asnot beelr eveloped ilh thesam€ntensity ndcogency, espite]e effoflsofsomea.nalysts.

Sudieshus ar undertakelr,owever, uggest

hatafl'ectivity an

play

havocwith lylor's

"doctrine

fsuNivals,"

for,

asSpiro

1984;338)

uccinctly

uts

t.

"Many

apparentlyrbitrary ultural

nrpositions

akesenscn le ns

of cmotions."

Wrile

manyofthe specilics fTylor's heorizing re nacc€ptableo us oday,we mightneverthelessppreciate

hisreformer's

mpr-rlses.

hose,

fcoMse,

were

grounded

n, and ocused n, Victorian ntellectual

controversies.ut f wc abstract is mpulsesiom that :'oreigoou[trywhich s ho

past,

we mightsay hat

'fylor's

approacho religioncanbebroadly

escribeds

"criticism."

n analogy

0

contenpoftuyilerary

criticism.

Such riticism, espite number ffiercelycompetingheories boutwhat t should c andwhatwe

rnighthopeofit,

genemlly

tlcmpls interprel,to siluqte,and o uppropriateor some

urpose. ylor

did not

talk about

religious

dticism"assuch.

But his effective ffofis n thatdir€ction, think,

are

of

grca1er

nterest

and elevanceo anthropologists

han hose fHarold Bloom.

Bloomdoes alk about eligious riticism,

whichhedescribess

"a

modeo1'description,

nalysis,

nd

udgment

thalseekso b ng LtS loser o dreworldngs fthe rcligiousmagination"1992:21). et while hatsoturds

promising,

loomsoon ellsus hatjustas he iterary riticism hathe earnedo

practice

relies

inallyuponan

neducibly aesthetic imension,"eligious riticisln

nalogomly

must

seek or the rredvcibly piritudl

dimensionn rcligiousmatters r

phenomenaf anykind"

(1992:21).

alLofan ineducible piritual imension,

however,eminds s of MirceaEliadeandotherswhoassert nconvincinglyhat eligion ests n something

irreducibly eligious, uchas

"the

sacred" r

"the

ranscendent,"

nd

hat eligion

s therefore

autonomous"

nd

While

Tylor held

hat

eligionuniversallyesls n animism, ewas ar iom claiming hat eligion s

autonomous nd sui

gerer*l^r.

ather, n his view it arose rom a welter of sensoryand

psychological

actors.

Although he animisrn flower tribes,"Tylor holds,

s

"self'-contained

ndself-supporting,"or it is maintained

14



"in

close

connexionwith the

direct evidenceofthe

senses n which it appears

o be originally based,"and so

seemso explain

tself

1958

I:84), t

is not ounded n some

reducible eligious isposition.

he ackof such

foundation s fifther

attestedo by the

development f

mind and he evolution of culture.The

"doctrines

and

ritesofthe higher

aces," ylor writes,

show

survival fthe old

in themidstofthe new,"and, ndeed,

"abandonment

fthe

old becauset it

no ongetcompatible

ith the elt"

(1958

I:84,emphasis

dded).

For

ourknowledge

fow ownhistory,"

Tylor muses,

it is deeply

nleresting hat thcre should

emain ude

races

yet

living under he

philosophy

which

we haveso far

passedrom,sincePhysics, hemisty,Biology, ave eized holeprovinccsromancient nimism.setting

force

for de ar'd

aw for t//

(1958 I:269,emphasisdded).

Finally,

or those fus who

mightaspireo the broad

ense fcriticism

given

earlier, ndwho

do so rom a

secular tance,

Iylor

send s a messagerom

he

past.

secularism,edcclares,

the

belingand magination

which n the

religiousworldarebound

o theological cliel

have o attachhemselveso a

positive

atural

philosophy, nd o a

positivemorality"

1958 l:536).11is ere, suspect,hatow contemporary

hropology

ofreligion s

most

deticie[t,

especially s

potentially

ignificant riticism.We

avenot reallyagreed mong

ou.sclv€s bout

he arger

urposes

nd

commitmentsfcontemporary

esearch,nd hatweakens s

asa

scholarly

ommunity. havcelsewhere

rguedhat

oonsiderationsfpurpose ught o shape ur analytical

categoriesSaler1993), nd hat

pragmatic

rgumert

anbeextended,think, o out

professiolal

dentities.f

thatmilangeofstadling

ightsald disconcerting

hadowshatsome

all postmodernismasconvinccd s of

anything,t ought o have onvinced

s hat herc

s no such hingas hedisinterested

usuit

oftruth.

But \\,hat,

then, are oru

interests?

Roferences

ited

1. Bloom,

larold 1992.TheAwerican

Religion;ThcEmergencel

thc

'ost-Chrixtittn

ali.rr.New York:

Simon& Schusler,

2. Evans-Prjtchard,

.E.1965.

l'heotics

d

PrimilivcReligion.Oxford:Clarendon

ress.

3. I{anis.MaNiD 1968.The

Ririe

l

AnthrcpologitulTheory.

ew Yolkr

Crowell.

4. Kroeber, llied A, andClydeKluckhohngs2.Culturc:ACrilical Revier,t (l,ncepl.'an.lDeliniliohs.

Cambidge.

MA: Ihc PcabodyMuser.tm.

5. Lowie.

Robert . 1948119241.fimiti|e

Rcllgor. New Yorki LiverighlPublishing

ory.

6. Preus,f.Samuel

98"1ErylainingReligion:Ctilici,rm

nd Theory

i'on

llodin u Frcrd

New Havenl

Yale

University

Press.

7. Saler,

BcnsoD 993.Conceplualizi

Religi.)n:

mtndnenl txthtopologisls,fttn"cendenl .ttiws,

und

Unbounded atepoties.

eidenrE.J.

Brill.

8. Spiro,Melford

E. 1984.SomeRellections

n CultulalDeterminism ndRelativism ith

Special

referenceo Emotion nd

Reason.n Richard

A.

Shweder

ndRobertA. Levile. eds..Crlturc Thcorv.

Essays nMind,SeU,

ndEmotion.323-346.

ambridge: amb dgeUniversity ress.

9.

Stocking.

eorgeW., Jt.

I 987.Viclorilh Anthropologi,.

ew York: TheFreePress.

10.Tylor,Edward s.195811873,87ll.I'he Originsol Cultryeei,'td eligiok n rimitire (:ulture.\olltmes

I and Tofthe

1873 ditionofPrlnritfie Cullurc.New

York: Halper& Brothers."

Obiective:

a) Identificarea

rdseturilor definitorii

ale evolulionismului,difuzionismului

9i

funcl ional ismului

n

5Li in1d.

b) Influenla

celor rei curente

n antropologie.

c)

Reprezentanfi

i

punctele e nteres.

d) Rupturi

qi

continuitatecu vechea

paradigmd.

t5



8. Orientiri scluale in antropologia cultursld.

A. Rabinow, Paul, 1984,

,,Representations

re Social Facts: Modemity

and Post-

Modemity n Anthropology",n ed. by

JamesClifford, GeorgeE. Marcus ,,Writing

Culture. The Poeticsand Politics of Ethnography",

University of California Press,

Berkely;

B.

Watson,Graham,1991,

,Rewriting

Culture"

Workingn thePresent,

p.73-92,

Santa e,NM:

Obiective:

in

(R.

Fox, ed.) Recapturing

Anthropologt.

School

of American

Research;

a) Noi orientAri;

b) Paliere,segmentemultiple miuoanaliza;

c) Rolul

antropologiei

n

sooietateaontemporanA;

9. Antropologia literaru

Si

antmpologia ecturii.

Texte

propuse

A.

(

Notes

on

the Balinese

ockfight

bv

Clifford

eertz

The

Raid

EarlynAprilof 1958,mywife

and

arrived, alarial

nddiffident,n a Balineseillage

e ntended,

as

anthropologists,o study.A small

place,

about ive hundred

eople,

nd relativelyemote,t was ts

ownworld.

We

were ntruders,

rofessional

nes,and he villagers

ealtwith us as Balinese eem

always o dealwith

people

not

part

of their ifewho

yet press

hemselves pon hem:

as thoughwe

were

not here.For hem,and o a degree or ourselves e were

nonpersons,pecters,nvisible

men.

We moved ntoan extendedamilycompound

that

had

beenarranged efore

hrough he

provincial

government)elongingo oneof the our major actions n village ife.Butexcept or our andlord nd

the village

hief,

whose

cousinand brother-in-lawe was,everyonegnored

s in a wayonlya

Balinese an do. As we wandered round, ncertain, istful,

ager o

please, eople

eemed o look

right hroughus witha

gaze

ocused everal

ards

behind

us on somemoreactual

stoneor tree.

Almost

nobody

reeted

us; but nobody cowled r saidanything

npleasanto us either,whichwould

havebeenalmostas satisfactory.f we ventured

o approach omeone

something

ne s

powerfully

inhibitedrom

doing n suchan atmosphere),e moved,negligently

ut definitively,way. f,

seatedor

leaning gainst wall,we had

him rapped, esaidnothing t all,

or

mumbled

hat or heBalineses

the ultimate onwordJ'yes."he ndifference,

f course,was studied;

he

villagers

werewatching

everymovewe madeand hey hadan enormous mount

f

quite

accuratenformation

boutwhowe

17



wereandwhatwe

were

going

o

be

doing.

But heyactedas if we simplydid not exist,which, n fact,

as this

behavior as designedo informus,

we

did

not,

or anyway

not

yet.

Mywife and I werestillverymuch

n the

gust

of windstage,a most rustrating, nd even,as

you

soon

begin o doubt

whether

ou

are really ealafterall, unnerving ne,when, en daysor so afterour

arrival,

largecockfight as held n he

public

quare o raisemoney or a newschool.

Now,a

few special ccasions side,cockfights re

llegal n

Baliunder he Republic

as,

or not

altogether nrelated

easons,

hey

were under he Dutch),argely

s a

result

of the

pretensions

o

puritanism

adical ationalismends o bringwith t. The elite,which s not tself o very

puritan,

worries

bout he

poor,

gnorant

easant ambling

ll

his

moneyaway,aboutwhat oreigners ill

think,about he

waste

of time befter

devoted o building p he country.t sees

cockfighting

s

"primitive,"

backward,"unprogressive,"

nd

generally

nbecomingn ambitiousation. nd,as with

thoseotherembarrassmentsopium moking, egging, r uncovered reasts-it eeks, ather

unsystematically,o

put

a stop o it.

As

a

result, he ights

are

usually eld n a secluded ornerof a village n semisecrecy, factwhich

tends o slow he actiona little-not erymuch,but he Balinese o not care o have t slowedat all. In

this case,however, erhaps ecause heywere raisingmoneyor a school hat hegovernment as

unable o

give

hem,

perhaps

ecause aidshadbeen ew recently,

erhaps,

s I

gathered

rom

subsequent iscussion,herewas a notion hat he necessary ribeshadbeen

paid,

hey hought

theycould akea chanceon the central

quareanddraw

a

larger

and moreenthusiasticrowd

without

atkacting

he attention f the aw.

Theywerewrong. n the midstof the hirdmatch,withhundreds f

people,

ncluding, till

ransparent,

myselfand my wife, used ntoa singlebodyaround he ring,a superorganismn the iteral ense,a

truck ull of

policemen

rmed

with machine

uns

oared

up.

Amid

great

screeching riesof "pulisi

pulisi "

rom he crowd, he

policemen

umped

out,and,springingnto he center

of

the ring,began

o

swing heir

guns

around ike

gangsters

n a motion

picture,

houghnot

going

so far as actuallyo fire

them.The superorganismame nstantly partas its componentscatteredn all directions. eople

raced

down

he road,disappeared ead irstoverwalls,scrambled nder

platforms,

olded

themselves ehindwickerscreens, cuttled p coconut rees.Cocksarmedwithsteelspurssharp

enough o cut off a finger

or run

a

hole hrougha footwere running

wildlyaround.Everything as dust

and

panic.

On heestablishednthropological

rinciple,

hen n Rome,my

wifeand decided, nly lightlyess

instantaneously

han

everyone lse, hat he thing o do was run

oo.

We ran

down he mainvillage

street,northward, way romwherewe were iving, or we wereon thatsideof the ring.Abouthalf-

way

downanother

ugitive

uckedsuddenly

ntoa compound-his

wn, t turnedout-andwe, seeing

nothing headof us but rice ields,opencountry, nd a veryhighvolcano,ollowed im.As the three

of us came umblingnto he courtyard, iswife,who hadapparently een hrough his sortof thing

before,whipped ut a tiable, tablecloth,

hreechairs,and

hreecupsof tea,andwe all,withoutany

explicit ommunication hatsoever,at down,commencedo sjp tea,

andsought o compose

ourseNes.

A

few moments

ater,

one of the

policemen

marchedmportantlynto

he

yard,

ooking or the village

chief.

The

chief

had not

only

beenat the fight,he hadarrangedt. When

he truckdroveup he ran o

the river,stripped ff his sarong, nd

plunged

n so he couldsay,whenat length hey oundhim

sitting here

pouring

wateroverhis head, hat

he had

beenawaybathingwhen he wholeaffairhad

occurred nd

was gnorant

f it.

Theydid not believe im and ined

him hreehundred upiah,which

the village aised ollectively.) eeingmy wifeand ,

"White

Men," here n

the

yard,

he

policeman



performed

classic ouble ake.

Whenhe oundhis voice

againhe asked,

approximately,

hat n

the

devildid we thinkwe weredoing here.Our hostot five minutes eaped

nstantlyo ouf defense,

producing

n impassionedescription f who andwhatwe were,

so detailed nd so accuratehat t

was my urn,havingbarely ommunicated itha tivinghuman

beingsavemy andlord nd he village

chief or more han a week, o be astonished.We hada

perfect

ight

o be there,he said, ooking he

Javanese pstart

n

the eye.We wereAmerican

rofessors;

he

government

adclearedus;we were

there o study

culture;

we were

going

o

write

a book o tell Americans boutBali.

And we had all

been heredrinking

ea

and alkingaboutculturalmatters

ll afternoon nddid not know

anything

aboutany cockfight.Moreover, e had not seen he village hiefall day, he musthavegone o town.

The

policeman

etreatedn rather

otaldisarray.

nd,

aftera decent nterval,

ewildered ut relieved

to havesurvived nd stayedout ofjail, so didwe.

The

nextmorning he villagewas a completely ifferentworld or

us. Notonlywerewe no longer

invisible, e were

suddenlyhe centerof all attention,he object

of a

great

outpouring f warmth,

inlerest, nd,mostespecially, musement. veryonen

the village newwe had led

ikeeveryone

else.Theyaskedus about t againand again

l

musthave

old he story,smalldetailby

smalldetail,

fifty imes

by

the

end of the day),

gently,

affectionately,ut

quite

nsistently

easingus:"Whydidn't

you

ust

stand hereand ell

he

police

who

you

were?" Whydidn't

you

ust

say

you

wereonly

watching nd not betting?"Were

you

reallyafraidof those ittleguns?"As always, inesthetically

minded

and,evenwhen leeing or their ives

or,

as happened

ighl

years

ater,surrendering

hem),

the world'smost

poisedpeople,

hey

gleefully

mimicked,

lsooverand

overagain,our

graceless

tyle

of

running

ndwhat heyclaimedwereour

panic-stricken

acial

expressions. ut

aboveall, everyone

was

extremely

leased

ndevenmoresurprisedhatwe had not

simply

pulled

out

our

papers"

they

knewabout hose oo) andasserted

ur

Distinguished

isitor tatus,

but had nstead emonstrated

our solidarity ithwhatwerenow our covillagers.

What

we hadactually

emonstrated as our

cowardice,

ut here s fellowshipn that oo.)Even he Brahmana

riest,

an old,

grave,

half-way-to-

Heaven ypewho because

f

its

associations ith he underworld ould

neverbe involved, ven

distantly,n a cockfight, ndwas difficult

o

approach

ven o otherBalinese,

ad us called ntohis

courtyard

o ask us aboutwhat hadhappened, huckling appily

t the sheerextraordinariness

f it

4f i .

In

Bali,

o be teased s to be accepted.t was

he turning

point

so far as

our

relationship

o the

communityasconcerned,

ndwe were

quite

iterally

in."

The

whole illage pened p

o

us,

probably

more han t everwould

haveotherwise

l

mightactually ever

have

gotten

o that

priest

and

our accidental

ostbecame ne of my best nformants),nd

certainly erymuch aster.

Getting

caught, r almost

aught, n a vice aid s

perhaps

ot a very

generalizable

ecipe or achieving

hat

mysterious ecessity f anthropologicalield

work, apport, ut or me

it worked erywell. t led o

a

sudden

and unusually omplete cceptancentoa sociely

extremely ifficultor

outsiderso

penetrate.

t

gave

me

the

kind

of immediate,nside iew

grasp

of an aspectof

"peasant

mentality"

hat

anthropologistsot ortunate nough o flee headlong

jth heirsubjectsrom

armedauthorities

normally o notget.And,perhapsmost mportant f all, orthe other hingsmighthavecome n other

ways, t

put

me very

quickly

on to a combination motional xplosion,

tatuswar, and

philosophical

dramaof central ignificanceo the societywhose nner

nature desired

o understand. y he time

left

hadspentaboutas much ime ooking ntocockfights

s intowitchcraft,

rrigation, aste,or

marriage.

Of

Cocks

and Men

As

muchof America urfacesn a ball

park,

on a

golf

inks,

at a race rack,

or arounda

poker

able,

much

of

Bali

surfacesn a cock ing.For t is onlyapparently

ocks hat are ighting

here.Actually,t

rsmen.



To anyonewho has been n Baliany engthof time, he deep

psychological

dentificationf Balinese

menwilh

heircocks

s unmistakable.he doubleentendre ere s

deliberate.

t

works n exactly he

sameway n Balinese s it does n English, ven o

producing

he same ired

okes,

strained

uns,

and uninventive bscenities.

ateson nd Meadhaveevensuggested

hat, n linewith he Balinese

conception

f the bodyas a set of separately nimated

arts,

ocks

areviewedas detachable, elf-

operating

enises,

mbulant

enitals

witha lifeof theirown.And while

do

not have

he kindof

unconscious aterial ither o confirm r disconfirmhis ntriguing otion, he fact hat

hey

are

masculine ymbols

ar

excellence

s aboutas ndubitable,

nd o the Balinese boutas evident, s

the fact hatwater unsdownhill.

The anguage f everydaymoralisms shot hrough, n the malesideof it, with roosterishmagery.

Sabung, he

word or

cock

and

one

which

appears

n inscriptions

s earlyas A.D. 922

),

is used

metaphoricallyo mean

hero," warrior,"champion,"man

of

parts,"

political andidate,"

bachelor,"

"dandy," lady-killer,"r "tough

guy."

A

pompous

manwhosebehavior

resumes

bovehis station s

comparedo a

tailless ock

who

struts

about

as

thoughhe

hada large, pectacular

ne.

A

desperate

manwho makesa last, rrational ffort o extricate imselfrom

an

impossible

ituations likened o a

dyingcockwho makesone inal ungeat his ormentoro draghim

along o a common estruction.

stingy

man,

who

promises

much,

gives

ittle,and begrudgeshat s comparedo

a cockwhich,heldby

the tail, eapsat anotherwithout n factengaging im.A marriageableoungmanstillshywith he

opposite ex or someonen a new

ob

anxious o makea

good

mpression

s called a fighting ock

caged or the irst

ime."Court rials,wars,

political

ontests,nheritance

isputes, nd street

arguments re all comparedo cockfights. ven he very sland

tself s

perceived

rom ts shape

as a

small,

proud

cock,

poised,

eckextended, ack aut, ail raised, n

eternal hallengeo large, eckless,

shapelessava.

But he ntimacy f menwith heircocks s more

han

metaphorical.

alinesemen,

or anway a large

majority

f

Balinese

men,spendan enormous mountof timewith

heir avorites,

rooming

hem,

feeding

hem,discussinghem, rying hemoul against neanother, rjust

gazing

at themwith a

mixture f raptadmiration nddreamy elf-absorption. henever

ou

see a

group

of

Balinesemen

squattingdly n the council hedor along he road n theirhipsdown,shouldersorward, neesup

fashion,

halfor

more

of themwill havea rooster

n

his hands,holdingt

between is highs,bouncing

it

gently

up anddown o strengthents egs, ufflingts

eatherswithabstract ensuality,

ushing

t out

against neighbor'soostero rouse ts spirit,withdrawingt

towardhis oins o calm t againNowand

then, o

get

a feelfor another

ird,

a

manwill

iddle

hiswaywithsomeone

lse'scock or a while,but

usually

y moving round o squat n

place

behind t, rather

han

ust

having t

passed

across

o him

as

hough t w6remerely n animal.

In the houseyard,

he high-walled nclosures here he

people

ive, ighting

ocksare kept n wicker

cages,moved requently boutso as to maintainhe optimum

alance f sun and shade.They

are

fed a special

iet,

which

variessomewhat ccordingo individualheories

utwhich s mostlymaize,

sifted or impurities ith ar morecare han t is whenmerehumans regoing o eat t andoffered o

the animalkernelby kernel.Red

pepper

s stuffed own heir

beaksand up heiranuses o

give

hem

spirit.Theyare bathed n the sameceremonial

reparation

f tepidwater,medicinal erbs, lowers,

andonions n which nfants re bathed, nd

or

a

prize

cock

ust

aboutas

often.Theircombsare

cropped,heir

plumage

ressed,heirspurs rimmed,heir egs

massaged, nd hey

are

nspected

or

flawswith

he squinted oncenlrationf a diamondmerchant. man

who hasa Dassionor cocks.an

enthusiastn he literal enseof the erm.can

spendmostof his

ife

with

hem.andeven hose. he

overwhelming ajority,whose

passion

hough ntense as

not entirely unawaywith

hem,can and

do

spendwhatseemsnot only o an outsider, ut also o

themselves n inordinate mountof

time

with hem.

l am

cock

crazy,"my andlord,

quite

ordinary fficionado

y Balinese tandards, sed o

20



moan

as

he

went o moveanother age,

give

another ath,or conduct

nother eeding.

We're

all

cockcrazy."

The madness assome essvisible

imensions, owever, ecause

lthought is true

hatcocksare

symbolic xpressions r magnificationsf their

owner's elf, he narcissistic

aleego writ

out

n

Aesopianems,

theyare alsoexpressions-nd ralhermore

mmediate nes-of

what he Balinese

regardas the direct nversion,

esthetically, orally, nd metaphysically,

f human

tatus:animality.

The Balinese evulsion gainst ny behavior s animal-lik€ anhardlybe overstressed.abiesare

not allowed

o crawl or that reason. ncest,

houghhardlyapproved,s

a much esshorrifying

rime

than bestiality.

The

appropriate

unishment

or the second

s deathby drowning,

or the irst being

forced o live ike

an animal.)Mostdemons

re

represented-in

culpture,

ance, itual,myth-in

ome

realor fantastic

nimal orm.The main

puberty

ite

consistsn filing

he child's eethso theywill

not

look

ikeanimal angs.Not

onlydefecation ut eating s regarded

s a disgusting,

lmostobscene

activity,

o be conducted urriedly nd

privately,

ecause f its association

ith animality.

ven alling

downor any orm

of clumsinesss consideredo

be bad or these easons.

side romcocks

and a

few

domestic nimals-oxen,ucks-of

o emotional ignificance,

he Balinese

re aversiveo animals

and

reat heir argenumber f dogsnot

merely allously ut with

a

phobic

ruelty. n identifying ith

his cock, he Balinese

man s identifying ot

ust

with

his dealself,

or evenhis

penis,

but

also,andat

the same ime,withwhathe most ears,hates,and ambivalenceeingwhat t is, s fascinated y-The

Powers

f Darkness.

The connection

f cocksand cocKighting ilh

suchPowers,with

he animalistic

emons hat hreaten

constantlyo invade

he small, leared ff space n which

he Balinese

aveso carefully

uilt heir

lives

and devour ts nhabitants,

s

quite

explicit. cockfight,

ny cockfight,

s in the first nstance

blood

sacrifice ffered,with he appropriate

hantsand oblations,

o the demons

n order o

pacify

their avenous,

annibal unger.No temple estival

houldbe conducted

ntilone s

made.

lf

it is

omilted omeonewill nevitably

all ntoa tranceand command

with he voice

of an angered pirit

hat

the overight

be immediatelyorrected.)

ollectiveesponses

o natural vils-illness,

rop ailure,

volcanic ruptions-almost

lways nvolve hem.And

hat amousholiday

n Bali,The Day

of Silence

(Njepi),wheneveryone itssilentand mmobile ll day ong n order o avoidcontactwitha sudden

influx

of demons hasedmomentarily

ut of hell, s

preceded

he

previous

ay

by

arge-scale

cockfights

in

hiscase egal) n almost

every

village

on the sland.

In

the cockfight,manand beast,

good

and evil,ego and

d, he creative

ower

of arousedmasculinity

and he

destructive

ower

of loosened

nimalityuse n a bloody

dramaof

hatred, ruelty, iolence,

anddeath. t is

liftlewonder hatwhen,as is

the nvariableule,

he ownerof the winning

ock akes

the carcass f the oser-

often orn imb rom imbby ts

enraged wner-home

o eat,

he

does

so with

a mixture

f socialembarrassment, oral

satisfaction,esthetic

isgust, ndcannibal

oy.

The Fight

Cockfights

tetadjen;

abungan

are held n a ringabout

ifty eet square.

Usuallyhey begin

oward

lateafternoon

nd run hreeor four

hoursuntilsunset.About

nineor ten separale

matches

sehet)

comprise

program.

Eachmatch s

precisely

ike

he others n

general attern:

here

s

no main

match,no connection

etweenndividualmatches,

o variationn

their ormat,and each s

arranged

on a completely

d hoc basjs.After

a

fight

hasendedand

he emotional ebris s

cleaned way-the

bets

paid,

he

curses ursed, he carcasses

ossessed-

even,

eight,

perhaps

vena dozenmen slip

negligently

nto he ringwith

a cockand seek o find

herea logical

pponentor it. This

process,

which arely

akes ess han

en minutes, ndoftena

good

deal onger, s

conductedn a very

subdued,

blique, vendissemblinganner

hose o t mmediately

nvolved

ive

t at bestbut

21



disguised, idelong ttention;hose

who,embarrassedly,re,attempt

o

pretend

omehowhat he

whole hing s not eally appening.

A matchmade, he otherhopefuls

etirewith he same

deliberatendifference,nd he seiected ocks

have heirspurs

tadji)

affixed-

azorsharp,

pointed

teelswords, our

or five nches ong.This s a

delicate

ob

whichonlya small

proportion

f men,a half-dozen r so in mostvillages,

nowhow o do

properly.

he manwho attacheshe spursalso

provides

hem,and f the rooster e

assists

wins ts

ownerawardshim he spur-leg f the victim.

The spurs

are affixedby winding long engthof string

around he ootof the spurand he eg of the cock.For reasons shallcome o, it is donesomewhat

differentlyromcase o case,and s an obsessivelyeliberate ffair.The oreaboutspurs s

extensive-theyre sharpened nlyat eclipses

nd he

darkof the moon,shouldbe keptout of the

sightof women,andso forth.And heyare handled, oth n use

andout,with he samecurious

combination f fussiness nd sensualityhe Balinese irect oward itualobjects

enerally.

The spurs

affixed,he

two cocksare

placed

by theirhandlers

who

mayor maynot be theirowners)

facingone anothern the centerof the ring.A coconut

ierced

with

a smallhole s

placed

n a

pail

of

water, n which t takesabout wenty-one econdso sink,a

period

nownas a

tjengand

marked

t

beginning ndend by the beating f a slit

gong.

During

hese wenty-one econdshe handlers

(pengangkeb)re notpermittedo touch heir oosters.f, as sometimes appens,he animals ave

not oughtduring his ime, hey are

picked

up, luffed,

ulled,prodded,

ndotherwisensulted, nd

put

back n

the centerof the ringand he

process

eginsagain.Sometimeshey efuse

o

fightat all,

or one keeps unning way, n whichcase heyare mprisoned

ogether ndera wicker age,which

usually

ets

hemengaged.

Mostof the time, n any case, he cocks ly almost mmediatelyt one

another

n

a wing-beating,

head-thrusting,eg-kicking

xplosion f animal

ury

so

pure,

so absolute, nd n its

own

way

so

beautiful, s to be almostabstract, Platonic oncept f hate.Within

moments ne or the otherdrives

home

a solidblowwith his spur.The handlerwhosecockhas delivered

he blow mmediately

icks

t

up so that t will nol

get

a

returnblow, or if he does not

he match s likely o end n a mutuallymortal

tie as the wo birdswildlyhackeachother o pieces. his s particularlyrue f, as oftenhappens,he

spursticks n its victim's ody, or then he aggressors at the mercyof his

wounded oe,

With

he birdsagain n the handsof theirhandlers,he coconuts nowsunk

hree imesafterwhich

the cockwhichhas anded he blowmustbe set down o show

hat he is firm,a facl he demonstrates

by wandering

dlyaround he rink or a coconut ink.The coconuts

then

sunk

wicemoreand he

fightmusl recommence.

During his nterval, lightly ver wo minutes,he handler f the

wounded ockhas beenworking

frantically

ver

t, like

a trainer

patching

mauledboxerbetu/eenounds,

o

get

l in

shape or a last,

desperatery or victory.He blows n its mouth,

putting

he whole

chickenhead n his own mouthand

sucking nd blowing,luffs t, stuffs ts woundswithvarious ortsof medicines,ndgenerallyries

anything e

can hink of to arouse he

ast

ounceof spiritwhichmaybe hidden

omewhere ithin t.

By he timehe is forced

o

put

t

backdown

he is

usually renchedn chickenblood,

but,as

in

prize

fighting,

good

handlers worthhisweight n

gold.

Someof them

canvirtuallymake he deadwalk,at

least

ongenough or the secondand inal round.

In the climactic attle

if

here s

one;

sometimes

he

wounded

ocksimplyexpires

n the

handler's

handsor immediatelys it is

placed

downagain), he cockwho anded

he irst blowusually

roceeds

to

finish

off hisweakened pponent. ut his s far froman inevitable

utcome,or if a cockcan walk

he can ight,

and

f

he can

ight,he

can

kill,

and

what

counts s whichcock

expires irst. f the

22



wounded necan

get

a stab

n and stagger n until he otherdrops,he is the officialwinner,even

f

he himself

opples

overan instant ater.

Surrounding ll his melodrama

which he crowd

packed

ightaround he ring ollows n nearsilence,

moving heirbodies

n kinesthetic ympathy ith he movement f the animals, heeringheir

champions n

withwordless andmotions, hiftings fthe shoulders,urnings fthe head,

alling

back

en masseas the cockwith he murderous

purscareens

owardone sideof the

ring

it

is said

thatspectators ometimesoseeyesand

ingers rombeing oo attentive), urging oMard againas

theyglanceoff owardanother is a vast bodyof extraordinarilylaborate ndprecisely etailed

rules.

These ules, ogether

with

he developed

oreof cocksandcockfighting hlchaccompanieshem,are

wdttendown n

palm

eafmanuscripts

lontar;

ontal)

passed

n from

generation

o

generalion

s

part

of the

general

egalandcultural radition f the

villages. t a fight,

he umpire

saja

konong;

juru

kembar) the man

who manages

he

coconut is in chargeof theirapplication nd his authoritys

absolute.

haveneverseenan umpire's

udgment

uestioned

n any subject, venby the more

despondentosers, or have ever

heard,even n

private,

charge

of unfairness irected gainst

one,or, or that matter, omplaints bout

umpiresn

general.

Onlyexceptionally ell-trusted,olid,

and,

given

he complexity

f the code,knowledgeableitizens

erform

his

ob,

and n fact menwill

bring heircocksonly o fights

presided

verby such

men.

t

is

also he umpire o whomaccusations

of cheating, hich, hough are

n

the extreme,

ccasionallyrise,are referred;

nd

t is he who n

the

not nfrequent aseswhere he cocksexpire irtuallyogether ecideswhich

if

either, or, hough he

Balinese o not care or suchan outcome,herecan be ies)went irst.Likenedo a

judge,

a king,a

priest,

anda

policeman,

e s all of these,and

underhis assured

hectionhe animal

passion

f the

fight

proceeds

within

he civic

certainty fthe law. n the dozensof cockfights

saw

n Bali, never

oncesawan altercation bout ules. ndeed,

never

sawan openaltercation. ther han hose

between ocks,at all.

Thiscrosswise oubleness f an event

which, akenas a fact of nature, s rage

unlrammeled nd,

takenas a fact of culture, s formperfected,efines he cockfight s a sociological ntity.A cockfight

is what,searchingor a name or something ot

vertebrate

nough o be calleda

group

and not

structurelessnough o be calleda crowd,

ErvingGoffman as

calleda "focused

athering"-a

et

of

persons

ngrossed

n a common lowof activity nd relatingo oneanother n termsof that low.Such

gatherings

meetanddisperse;he

participants

n

them

luctuate;

he activityhat ocuses hem

s

discreet-a

articulale

rocess

hat reoccurs ather hana continuous ne hatendures.

hey

ake

their orm rom he situationhat evokes hem, he

loor

on which heyare

placed,

s Goffman

uts

t;

but t is a form,and an articulate ne,nonetheless. or he situation,he floor s itselfcreated,n

ury

deliberations,urgical perations, lockmeetings,

itins, ockfights, y

the cultural

reoccupations-

here,as we shallsee, he celebration f status ivalry-whichot onlyspecify he focusbut,

assembling ctorsandarranging cenery,

ring t actuallyntobeing.

In

classicaltimes

that

s to

say,

priorto

he Dutch nvasion f

'1908)

hen

here

were no bureaucrats

around

o improve

opular

morality,he staging f a cockfight as an explicitly ocietalmatter.

Bringing cock o an importantightwas, or an adultmale,a compulsory utyof citizenship;axation

of fights,whichwere usually

eldon marketday,was a majorsource

of

public

evenue;

atronage

f

the ad was a stated esponsibilityf

princes;

nd he cock ing,or wantilan, tood n the centerof the

villagenear hoseothermonuments f Balinese

ivility-the

ouncilhouse,he origin emple, he

marketplace,he signal ower,and he banyan ree.Today,a few special icasionsaside, he newer

rectitudemakes o opena statement f the connection etween he excitements f collectiveife and

thoseof bloodsport mpossible, ut,

essdirectly xpressed,he

connectiontself emainsntimate

and ntact.To expose

t, however,t is necessaryo turn o the aspectof

cocKighting round

which

all

23



the others

pivot,

and hroughwhich heyexerciseheir

orce,

an aspect have hus ar studiously

ignored.

mean,

f course,he

gambling.

Odda and

Even Money

The Balinese everdo anythingn a simpleway hat hey can contriveo do in a complicated ne,

and o this

generalization

ockfight

agerings no exception.

In thefirstplace,hereare wo sortsof bets,or toh.There s the singleaxialbet n the centerbetween

the

principals

toh

ketengah), nd here s the cloudof

peripheral

nesaround he ringbetween

members f the audience

toh

kesasi

.

The irst s typicallyarge;

he second ypically mall.The irst

is collective,nvolving oalitions f bettors lustering round he owner;

he second

s individual, an

to man.The irst s a matterof deliberate, ery

quiet,

almost urtivearrangement y the

coalition

members nd he umpirehuddledikeconspirators

n

the centerof the ring; he second s a matterof

impulsive houting,

ublic

offers,

and

public

acceptances y the excited

hrongaround ts edges.And

mostcuriously, nd as we shallsee most evealingly, here he irst s always,without

exception,

evenmoney, he second, qually

withoutexception,s never

uch.What s a fair coin n the center s

a biased neon he

side.

The centerbet s the official ne, hedged n againwitha webwork f rules,and s madebetweenhe

two cockowners,with he umpireas overseer nd

public

witness. hisbet,which,

as

I

say,

s

always

relatively

nd sometimes

ery arge, s never aised implyby

the owner n whosename t is made,

but by him ogetherwith our or five,sometimes evenor eight,allies- in,village

mates,neighbors,

close riends.He may, f he is not especially ell-to-do, otevenbe the majorcontributor,

hough, f

only o show hat he is not nvolved

n

any chicanery,

e

mustbe a significant ne.

Of the fifty-sevenmatchesor which haveexactand reliable ataon

the centerbet, he range s from

fifteen inggits

o five hundred,

ith

a meanat eighty-five ndwith he distribution

eing

ather

noticeably

dmodal: mall

ights

15

ringgits ither ide

of 35

)

accountingor about45

per

centof the

totalnumber;medium nes

20

ringgits ithersideof 70) or about25 percent;and arge 75 ringgits

eithersideof 175) or about20

per

cent,witha

few

verysmallandvery argeonesout

at the

extremes.n

a

societywhere

he normal

ailywageof a

manual aborer a brickmaker, n ordinary

farmworker, market

porter

was about hree inggits day,and considering

he fact hat ightswere

heldon the average boutevery wo-and -halfdays n the mmediale rea studied,

his s

clearly

serious

ambling,

ven f the betsare

pooled

ather han ndividual

fforts.

The sidebetsare, however, omething isealtogether. ather han

he

solemn,

egalistic

actmaking

of the center,wageringakes

place

ather n the ashion n which he stockexchange

sed o

work

when t was out on the curb.There s a fixedand knownodds

paradigm

hich uns n a continuous

series rom en-to-nine t the shortend o two-to-one n the ong;10-9,

9-8,8-7,

7-6,

6-5, 5-4,4-3, 3-

2, 2-1.Themanwhowants heunderdogock houtsheshort-sideumberndicatingheoddshe

wants o be

given.

That s, f he shouts

gasal,

five,"

he wants

he underdog t five-to-four

or,

or him,

four-to-five);f he shouts four,"he wants t at four-to-three

again,

e

putting

p the "three"),f "nine"

at nine-to-eight,nd so on. A man backinghe

avorite,

nd husconsidering

iving

odds f he can

get

themshortenough, ndicates

he

fact by cryingout he

color-type f that cock

"brown," speckled,"

r

whatever.

Almost

alwaysoddscalling tartsoff oward he the ongend of the range five{o-four

or

four-to-

three-and henmoves oward he shorter nd

with

greater

or lessspeedand o

a

greater

nd

esser

degree.Mencrying

five"

and inding

hemselves

nswered

nlywith criesof

"brown"

tartcrying

"six."

f

the change s madeand

partnerc

restillscarce, he

procedure

s repeatedn

a

move

o



"seven," ndso

on. Occasionally,

f the cocksare clearly

mismatched,heremaybe no upward

movement t all, or even

movement own he

scale o four-to-three,hree-to-wo,

very,very arely o

two-to-one, shiftwhich

s accompanied

y a declining umberof betsas a shiftupward

s

accompanied

y an

increasing umber.But he

general attern

s for the betting o movea shorter

or

longerdistance p he

scale oward he,

or sidebets, onexistent

ole

of evenmoney,

with he

overwhelming

ajority f bets

alling n the our-to{hreeo eight-to-seven

ange.

The higher he

centerbet, he more

ikely he matchwill n actual act be an even

one. n a large-bet

fight hepressureo make he matcha genuinelyifty-fifty ropositions enormous, nd s consciously

felt as such.

Formedium ights he

pressure

s somewhatess,and or smallones ess

yet,

hough

there

s alwaysan efiort o make hings

at leastapproximatelyqual,

or

even

at fifteen inggits

five

dayswork)no one

wants o makean even

moneybet n a clearlyunfavorableituation. nd, again,

whatstatistics

have end o bear his out.

n my ifty-sevenmatches,he avoritewon hirty-three

times

over-all,he underdogwenty-four,

1.4 o 1 ratio.But

f

one splits he

iguresat sixty inggits

centerbets, he ratios urn

out o be 1.1 o

'l

(lwelve

avorites, levenundedogs) or thoseabove his

line,and

1 6

o

1

(twenty-one

nd hirteen)

or thosebelow t. Or, f

you

ake he extremes,

or very

large ights, hosewith centerbets

overa hundred inggitshe

ratio s 1 to 1

(seven

nd seven); or

verysmall ights,hose nderforty

inggits,t s 1.9 o

1

(nineteen

nd

en).

The

paradox

f

fair coin n the middle, iased

oinon the outside s thusa merely pparent ne.

The

two

betting ystems,hough ormally

ncongruent,re not really ontradictoryo one another,

ut

part

of a single

arger

ystem

n which he centerbet

s, so to speak, he

"center

of

gravity,"

rawing,he

larger t is the

moreso, he outside ets oward

he short-odds nd of the scale.The centerbet hus

"makes

he

game,"

or

perhaps

etter,

efines t, signalswhat, ollowing notionof Jeremy

Bentham's,

lam

going

o call ts depth."

The Balinese ttempto

createan interesting,

f

you

will,

deep,"

matchby making he centerbet as

large

as

possible

o that he cocks

matchedwill be as equaland as fine as

possible,

nd he

outcome,hus,as unpredictable

s

possible.

heydo not always ucceed.Nearlyhalf he

matches

are relativelyrivial, elatively ninteresting-iny borrowederminology,shallow"- ffairs.But hat

fact no morearguesagainstmy

nterpretationhan he act hat most

painters, oets,

and

playwrights

are mediocre rguesagainst he

view hat artistic ffort s directedoward

profundity

nd,

witha

certain requency, pproximates

t. The mage

of artistic

echnique

s indeed xact: he centerbet s a

means,

a device, or creating interesting,"

deep"

matches, ot he reason, r at leaslnot

he

main

reason,why heyare

nteresting,he sourceof their

ascination,he substance f

their

depth.The

question

why suchmatches re nteresting-indeed,

or the Balinese, xquisitely bsorbing{akes s

out of the

realmof formalconcerns

ntomorebroadly ociological ndsociafpsychologicalnes,

and

to a less

purely

economic

deaof what

"depth"

n

gaming

amountso.

Bentham's oncept

of

"deep

play"

s

found n his The Theoryof Legislation. y it he means

play

n

which he stakesare so high hat t is, from his utilitarian tandpoint,rrationalor men o engage n it

at all.

This, muststress

mmediately,s not to say

hat he moneydoes not matter,or that he Balineses

no more concernedabout losing

ive hundred inggits han fifteen. Such a conclusionwould be

absurd. t is because

money

does,

n this hardlyunmaterialisticociety,

matter

and

matter ery much

that the

moreof it one risks he more

of a lot of other hings,suchas one's

pride,

one's

poise,

one's

dispassion,ne'smasculinity,

nealso isks, gain nlymomentarilyut dgain

ery

publicly

s

well.

ln deepcocKights n owner

and his collaborators,nd,as we shallsee, o a lesserbut still

quite

eal

extentalso heirbackers

n the outside,

ut

heir

moneywhere

heirstatus

s.

25



It is in large

part

because he

marginal

isutility

f loss s so

great

at the

higher evels

of betting

hat

o

engage

n

such

betting s to lay one's

public

self,allusively nd metaphorically,hrough he medium f

one's cock, on the line. And though to a

Benthamite

his might seem merely o increase he

irrationality f the

enterprise hat much further, o the Balinesewhat it mainly ncreases s

the

meaningfulnessf it all. And as

(to

ollowWeber

ather

han Bentham)he imposition f meaning n

life s the majorend and

primary

ondition

f humanexistence,

hat accessof significance ore han

compensates

or

the economic

osts nvolved.Actually,

iven

he even-money

uality

of the larger

matches, mportant hanges n material ortuneamong hosewho regularly

articipate

n

them seem

virtually onexistent,ecausemattersmoreor lessevenout over he long un.

This

graduated

orrelation f "status

gambling"

with deeper ights

and, nversely, money

gambling"

with shallower nes s in fact

quitegeneral.

Bettors hemselvesorm

a sociomoral ierarchyn these

terms.As notedearlier,at most cockfightshereare, around he veryedges

of the cockfight rea,a

largenumberof mindless, heer-chanceype

gambling ames

roulette,

ice hrow,coin-spin,

ea-

under-the-shell)perated y concessionaires.nlywomen,children,

dolescents, nd variousother

sorts of

people

who do not

(or

not

yet)

fight cocks the extremely

oor,

he sociallydespised,

he

personally

diosyncratic

play

at these

games,

at,

of

course,

penny

ante levels.Cockfightingmen

wouldbe

ashamed

o

go

anywhere ear hem.Slightly bove

hese

people

n standing re hosewho,

though hey do not hemselvesightcocks,bet on the smallermatches round he edges.Next, here

are hose

who

ightcocks

n

small,or occasionally

edium

matches, ut havenot he status o

oin

n

the large ones, hough hey may bet from time to time on

the side n those.And finally, here are

those, he reallysubstantialmembersof the community,he solid

citizenryaroundwhom ocal ife

revolves,

ho ighl n the arger lghtsand bet on themaround he side.The ocusing

lement n these

focused

gatherings,

hesemen

generally

ominate nd define

he sportas they dominate nd define

the society.When a Balinesemale alks, n that almostvenerative ay,

about the rue cockfighter,"

the bebatoh

"bettor"

)

or djurukurung

"cage

keeper"),t is this sort of

person,

not

thosewho bring

the mentality f the

pea-and-shellame

nto he

quite

different,

nappropriateontext f the cockfight,

the driven

gambler potet,

a word which has the secondarymeaning

of thief or reprobate), nd the

wistfulhanger-on,

hat

they

mean.For sucha man,what s really

going

on in a match s

something

rathercloser o an affaired'honneur though,with he Balinesealent or practicalantasy, he blood

that is spilled s only figuratively uman) han to the stupid, mechanical

rank of a slot machine

(....Continued...)

What makesBalinese ocKighting eep s thus not money n itself,

but what, he more of it that is

involved

he moreso, moneycauses o happen:he migration f the Balinese

tatushierarchynto he

body of the cockfight.Psychologically n Aesopian

representation f the ideal/demonic,ather

narcissistic, ale self,sociologicallyt is an equallyAesopian epresentation

f the complex ieldsof

tensionset up by the controlled,muled,ceremonial, ut for all that deeply elt,

interaction f those

selves n the contextof everyday ife. The cocks may be

surrogatesor their owners'

personalities,

animalmirrorsof

psychic

orm, but the cockfights

-

or more exactly,

deliberatelys made o be

-

a

simulation f the social matrix, he involvedsystemof crosscutting, verlapping, ighlycorporate

groups

-villages,

kingroups, rrigationsocieties, emple congregations,

castes"

-

in which its

devoteesive.And as

prestige,

he necessityo affirm t, defend t,

celebratet,

ustify

t, and

ust

plain

bask in it

(but

not

given

he stronglyascriptive haracterof Balinese

tratification,o seek it),

is

perhaps

he central

driving

orce n the society, o

also - ambulant

penises,

blood sacrifices,

nd

monetary

xchanges side is it of the cocKight.This apparent musemenl

nd seeming port s, o

takeanother

hrase

rom

ErvingGoffman, a

status

bloodbath."

The easiestway

to

make

his clear,and at

least

o somedegree o demonstrateet, is

to invoke he

villagewhosecockfighting ctivities observed he closest

the one n which he raid occurred nd

fromwhich

mv statistical ataare aken.

26



Consider,

hen,as support f the

general

hesis hat he cockfight, nd especiallyhe deepcocKight,

is fundamentally dramatization

f statusconcerns,he oilowingacts:

1. A

man virtually everbetsagainst

cockownedby a member f his own kingroup.Usually e

will eel obliged o bet for

it,

he

moreso the closer he kin ie and he deeper he fight. f he is

certain n his mind hat

t will not win, he may

ust

not bet at all,

particularly

f it is onlya second

cousin's irdor

if the fight s a shallowone.

But

as a

rule

he

will

eel he mustsupport

t

and,

n

deep

games,

nearlyalwaysdoes.

Thus

he

great

majority

f the

people

cailing

five"

or

"spes

the greatmajorityof the peoplecalling"five" r "speckled" o demonstrativelyre expressing

their

allegiance o their kinsman,not their evaluationof his bird, their understanding

f

probability

heory,or even heir

hopesof unearnedncome.

2. This

principle

s

extended

ogically.f

your

kin

group

s not nvolved

ou

willsupport n allied

kingroup

against

an unalliedone in the same way, and so on through he very

involved

networks f allianceswhich,as

I

say,

makeup this,as any other,Balinese illage.

3. So, oo, or the villageas

a whole. f an outsider ock s fighting ny cock rom

your

village

ou

will

tend

to support he local one. lf, what

s

a rarercircumstance ut occursevery

now

and

then, a cock rom outside

your

cockfight

ircuit s fightingone inside t

you

will also tend to

suooorthe"home ird."

4. Cockswhich come rom any distanceare almostalways avorites, or the theory s the man

wouldnol havedared o bring t if it was

not

a

good

cock, he moreso the

urtherhe has

come.

His ollowers re, of course,

bliged o support im,and when he more

grand-scale

egal

cocKights re

held

on

holidays nd so on) the

people

of the village ake what hey regard o

be the

bestcocks n the village, egardless f ownership, nd

go

off to support hem,although

they will almostcertainly

ave o

give

odds on themand to make arge

bets

o show hat hey

are

not

a cheapskate

illage.Actually, uch "away

games,"

hough nfrequent,end to mend

the rupturesbetweenvillagemembers hat the constantly ccurring home

games,"

where

village actions re opposed

ather han united, xacerbate.

5, Almostall matches

re sociologicallyelevant.You seldom

get

two outsider

ocks

ighting,or

two cockswith no

particular roup

backing, r with

group

backingwhich s mutually

unrelated

in any clearway.Whenyoudo getthem, hegame s veryshallow,betting eryslow,and he

whole hing

erydull,withno onesave he mmediate

rincipals

ndan addict

ambler

r two

at all interested.

6. By the same oken,

you

rarely

get

two

cocks rom

he same

group,

even more rarely

rom

he

same sub{action, nd virtuallynever rom the same sub-subfaction

which

would be in most

cases one extended amily)

ighting.Similarly, n

outside

village

ights wo members

of the

villagewill

rarely

ight against

one another, ven hough,as

bitter

ivals, hey woulddo so with

enthusiasm

n heirhome

rounds.

7. On

he

ndividualevel,

eople

nvolved

n

an institutionalizedostilityelationship,alled

uik,

in

which hey

do not

speak

or otherwise aveanythingo do witheachother

the

causesof this

formal breaking of relations are many: wife-capture, nheritancearguments,

political

differences) ill bet very heavily, ometimes lmostmaniacally,gainstone anothern what s

a frank and direct attack

on the very masculinity,he ultimate

ground

of his status,of the

opponenl.

8. The centerbet coalitions, in all but he shallowest

ames,

alwaysmadeup by structural llies

-

no

"outside

money" s involved.What s "outside" ependsupon he context,of course,but

given

t, no outsidemoney s mixed

n with he main

bet; f the

principals

annot aise t, t is not

made.The centerbet, again

especiallyn deeper

games,

s thus

the

most

direct

and open

expression f socialopposition, hich s one of the reasonswhy both t and matchmakingare

surrounded y suchan air of unease,

urtiveness,

mbarrassment,ndso on.

L The rule about borrowingmoney

that

you

may borrow or

a bet but

not in

one -

stems

and

the Balineseare

quite

conscious

of this) from similarconsiderations:

ou

are never

at

the

2'1



economic

mercyof

your

enemy hat way. Gamblingdebts,which can

get quite

arge on a

rather hort-term asis,are always o friends,

ever

o enemies, tructurallypeaking.

10.When wo cocksare structurally

rrelevant r neutral o far

as

you

are concerned

though,

s

mentioned,hey almostneverare to each other)

you

do not even ask a relativeor a friend

whom he is bettingon, because

f

you

know how he is

bettingand he knows

you

know,and

you go

the

other

way, t will lead o strain.This rule s explicitand rigid; airly

elaborate, ven

rather

artificial

recautions

re taken o avoid breaking t. At the very east

you

must

pretend

not o noticewhathe is doing,and he what

you

are doing.

11.There s a specialword or bettingagainst he grain,which s also he word or "pardonme"

(mpura).

t is considered bad hing o do, though f the centerbet s

small

t is

sometimes ll

rightas longas

you

do not do it too often.

But

he

arger

he bet and he more requently

ou

do

it.

the

more he

"Dardon

me" ackwill ead o socialdisruDtion.

'l2.ln

fact, he institutionalizedostility elation,

uik,

s often ormally nitiated

though

ts causes

always ie elsewhere) y sucha "pardon

me"

bet

n

a deep ight,

putting

he symbolic at in the

fire.

Similarly,

he

end

of

such

a relationship nd resumption

f normalsocial ntercourses

often signalized

but,

again, not actuallybroughtabout)by one

or the other of the enemies

supportinghe other's ird.

13.

n sticky,cross-loyaltyituations, f

which n

this extraordinarilyomplex ocialsystem here

are of course many,where a man is caught between wo more

or less equally balanced

loyalties, e tends o wanderoff for a cup of coffeeor somethingo avoid

having o bet,

a form

of behavior

eminiscent

f thatof

American oters n

similar ituations.

14.The

eople

nvolvedn the center et are,especiallyn

deep

ights,

irtually lways eading

membersof their

group-kinship,

illage,or whatever.Further,

hose who bet on the side

(including

hese

people)

re,as

I have

already

emarked,

he moreestablished embers f the

village

the

solidcitizens.Cockfightings for thosewho

are nvolvedn the everyday

olitics

f

prestige

s well,not or

youth,

women, ubordinates,nd so forth.

15.So far

as money is concerned, he explicitlyexpressedattitude oward it is

that

it is

a

secondarymatter. t is not, as I have said,of no importance;

alinese re no happier o lose

severalweeks' ncome han anyoneelse.But hey mainly ookon

the

monetary

spectsof the

cockfight s self-balancing, matterof ustmovingmoneyaround, irculatingt amonga fairly

well-defined

roup

of seriouscockfighters. he really mportant

wins and lossesare seen

mostly n other erms,and he

general

ttitude owardwagerings

not any hopeof cleaning p,

of

making

a killing

addict

gamblers

gainexcepted),

ut that of the horseplayer's

rayer:

Oh,

God,

please

et me breakeven." n

prestige

erms,however,

ou

do not want o breakeven,

bul,

in

a momentary,

unctuate

ort of

way,win

utterly. he alk

(which

goes

on

all

the time)

s

about ightsagainst uch-and-such cock of

So-and-So hich

your

cock demolished, ot

on

how much

you

won, a fact

people,

even or largebets, arely emember

or any engthof time,

though heywill rememberhe day heydid

in

Pan Loh's inestcock or

years.

16.You mustbet on cocksof

your

own

group

aside rom mere

oyalty onsiderations,or if

you

do

not

peoplegenerally

will say,

"What

s he too

proud

or the ikes

of us?

Does

he have o

go

to

Java or Den Pasar the capital own] o bet, he is such an importantman?"Thus there s a

general

pressure

o bet not only o show hat

you

are

mportantocally, ut that

you

are not so

importanthat

you

ookdownon everyone lse as unfiteven o

be

rivals.

Similarly, ome eam

people

mustbel against utside ocksor the outsiders ill accuse t

-

a serious harge

ofjust

collecting ntry ees and not really being nterestedn

cocKighting, s well as again being

arrogant nd nsulting.

17.Finally,

he Balinese

easants

hemselves re

quite

awareof all his and

can and,at

least

o an

ethnographer,o state most of it in approximately

he same ermsas I have.Fighting ocks,

almosteveryBalinese haveever discussedhe subjectwith

has said, s like

playing

with ire

only not

getting

burned.You activate illageand kingroup ivalries nd hostilities,

ut in "play"

form,

coming dangerously nd entrancingly lose to the expression

of open and direct



interpersonalnd ntergroup ggression

something

hich,again,almostneverhappensn the

normal ourseof ordinary

ife),but not

quite,

because, fterall, t is "onlya cocKight."

More observations

f this sort couldbe advanced, ut

perhaps

he

general

point

s, if not made,at

least well-delineated,nd the whole aqument

thus far can be usefullysummarized n a formal

paradqm:

THEMORE MATCHS , , ,

Between earstatusequals

and/or

ersonal

nemies)

Between ighstatus ndividuals

THEDEEPER HEMATCH.

THEDEEPER

HEMATCHO/OO

1.

The

closer

he identification f cock and

man

(or:

more

properly,

he deeper he match he

more he manwill advance is best,

mostclosely-identified-withock).

2. The iner he cocks nvolved nd hemoreexactly heywill be matched.

3.

The

greater

he emotionhatwill be involved nd he more he

general

bsorptionn the match.

4. The higher he individual etscenterand outside, he shorter he outsidebet odds

will

end o

be, and he morebetting here

will be over-all.

5,

The less

an economic

and the more a "status"view of

gaming

will be involved,and the

"solider"

hecitizens howillbe

gaming.

Inverse rguments old or the shallowerhe

fight,culminating,n

a

feversed-signs

ense,

n

the

coin-

spinningand dice-throwingmusements.

or deep ights here are no absoluteupper imits, hough

there are of course

practical

nes,and hereare a

great

many egend-likealesof

great

Duel-in-the-

Suncombats etweenordsand

princes

n

classical

imes

for

cockfighting

as

alwaysbeenas much

an eliteconcern s a popular ne), ar deeper han anything nyone, ven aristocrats, ouldproduce

loday

anwhere in Bali.

lndeed,one of the

great

cultureheroes

of Bali s a

prince,

alledafterhis

passion

or

the sport, The

Cockfighter," ho

happenedo be awayat a very deepcockfightwith a neighboring

rince

when he

whole of

his

family-father, rothers,wives,sislers-were ssassinated y commonerusurpers. hus

spared, he returned o dispatch he

upstarts, egain he throne, reconstitutehe Balinesehigh

tradition, nd build

ts most

powerful, lorious,

nd

prosperous

tate.Alongwith everything lse hat

the Balinesesee in fighting cocks{hemselves,

heir

social order, abstract hatred, masculinity,

demonic

power-they

lso see he

archetype f statusvirtue, he arrogant, esolute, onor-mad

layer

with

real

ire.

he

ksatria

rince.

Conclusion

What sets the cockfightapart rom the ordinary

course

of life,

ifrs

it from the realm of everyday

practical

ffairs, nd surroundst

withan auraof enlargedmportances not,

as

functionalistociology

would have t, that it reinforces tatusdiscriminations

such

reinforcements hardlynecessaryn a

societywhere every act

proclaims

hem), but

that it

provides

a metasocial ommentary pon the

whole matterof assorting

uman

beings

nto ixed hierarchicalanksand then

organizing

he major

part

of collectiveexistence

around that assortment. ts function, f

you

want to call it that, is

interpretive:t is a Balinese eadingof Balineseexperience; story they tell themselvesabout

themselves.

1.

2.

)9



What he cockfight ays t says n a vocabulary f sentiment-thehrillof risk, he despairof

loss,

he

pleasure

of triumph.Yet

what it

says

s not merely hat risk is excitjng, oss depressing, r triumph

gratifying,

anal autologies

f affect,but that t is of theseemotions,hus exampled,hat society s

builtand ndividuals

ut

ogether.

Attending ocKights nd

participating

n

them

s, or

the

Balinese,

kind of sentimental ducation.

What he learns here is what his culture'selhos and his

private

sensibility

or,

anway, certainaspectsof them)

ook ike

when spelledout externallyn a collective

text; hat the two are nearenoughalike o be articulated

n

the symbolics f a singlesuch ext; and-

the disquieting

art-that

he text n

which

his

revelations

accomplishedonsists f a chicken acking

another

mjndlesslyo bits.

Every

people,

he

proverb

has it, loves its own form of violence,The cockfight s the Balinese

reflection n theirs:on its

look, ts

uses,

ts force, ts fascination.

Drawing n almostevery evel of

Balinese

experience,

t

brings

together themes-animal avagery, male narcissism,

opponent

gambling,

tatus ivalry,massexcitement, loodsacrifice-whose ainconnections their nvolvement

with rageand he fear of rage,and, binding hem

nto a set

of

rules

whichat once containshemand

allows hem

play,

buildsa symbolic

tructuren which,over and over again,

he

reality

of their

nner

affiliation an be intelligiblyelt. f, to

quote

Northrop ryeagain,we

go

to see Macbetho learnwhata

man eels ike after he has

gained

a kingdom nd

ost

his soul, Balinese

o

to cockfightso f ind out

whata man,usuallycomposed, loof,almostobsessively elf-absorbed, kind of moralautocosm,

feels ikewhen,attacked,ormented, hailenged,nsulted, nd driven n result o the

extremes

f fury,

he has otally riumphed r beenbrought otally

ow."

Obiective

a) Temele ecurente leantropologiei

iterare.

b) Lectura n antropologie ipostaze

i

demersnterdisciplinar.

c) Practica ntropologici: econfigurare,anguage

urn.

10. A ntopolo gia cogn tivd.,

Texte

propuse:

A. Sperber,

Dan, 1995, <How do we communicate >, In

John Brockman& Katinka

Matson

eds)

lou, things

are: A

science

oolkit

or

themind.

New

York: Monow, 1995)

l9 l-199)

".HOW

DO

WE COMMUNICATE?

DAN SPERBER

Conmunicate. We humansdo it all the time, and most of the time we do it as

a matter of course,without

thinkingabout t. We talk,we listen,

we

write,

we read asyou

aredoilg now

-

or we draw,we mimic,we nod,

we

point,

we shrug,

aild, somehow,

we manage o makeour thoughtsknown

to one another.Of couse, thereare

times when we view communicationas somethingdifficult or even mpossible o achieve.Yet, comparcd

o

other

iving

kinds,we ale amazingly

good

at

it. Other

species,f they communicate t all, have a narow

repertoireof signals hat they

use

o conveyagainand agail things ike:

"this

is my tellitory,"

"danger,

nm " or

"ready

or sex."

30



To

communicate

s 10 attempt o

get

someoneo share

your

thoughts well, at least sorre of them.

But how

can

thoughtsbe sharcd?Thoughtsaren't h;ngs

out therc n the open, o be sliced ike cales or usedcollectively like

buses.They are strictly

private

affairs,

Thoughtsarebom, live, and die inside our brains.They never ruly come

out

of our heads

althoLrgh

e talk as

f thcy did, but this is

just

a

metaphor). he

only thing that

is

ever

produced

by one

person or

another

p€$on to seeor hear s behaviorand he traces t leavesbehind:movement,

noise, broken

twigs, ink spots, etc. These hings aren't thoughts, hey don't

"contain"

thoughts

(that

is

just

another

metaphor).nd

yet

some fthesebehaviors r

traoes

eryeo convey houghts.

How is such conrmuication possible?There is an old story

-

it dates back at least to the ancient Greek

philosopher

dstotle and

no

doubt

you

haveheardt many imes.Whatmakes

ommunication

ossible,

o

he

stor]

goes,

s a common anguage.A language ucbas English s a kind of code n which soundsare associated

to meanings ndmeaningso sounds. o,

f

Jill

wants o communicate

ome

neaning

o .lack, he ooksup in

her mental

gramrnar

of English the sound

associatedo that

padicular

meaning,

and

produces

hat sound or

Jack o

hear.

lack

hen ooks up in,4is mental

gammar

the meaningassociated ith that

padicular

soul1d.n thal

manner,Jack finds out what Jill had in mind. Of coursc, all this

"looking'up"

is automaticand rmconscious

(exceptwhen you

cant find

your words,and

become

ainfully

aware

of searchingor them).Thanks o this

double onversionthe encoding fmeaning nto sound, nd he decoding fsound nto meaning Jill andJack

arenow shaxing thought.Well,

"sharing"

may still be a metaphor,but at leastwe krow now how to make

good

sense fit. Or do we?

Tlre

old

'we-communicate-lhanks-to-an-common-language'

tory s cleverand

simple.

t would makea

great

explanationf only it

were

rue.Actually,somcsuchstory s true of most animalcon'ununication.eesalld

monkeys ave hoir own rudimgntary odes, nd

whatever

heycommunicate,heydo so hrough ncoding nd

decoding. ot so with ushumans.

Irue,

we haveour rich anguagesndmanyminorcodes

oo,but

-

and his s

where he old storybreaks own we manageo communicate uchmorc hanwe

gncode

nddecode, ndnot

just

occasionally,ut all the ime.So,our

having anguages,

at best, mere

part

ofthe truestory.

Let mc llustrate.magiue

ou

arc

killing

timeat

an airport.Therc s

a

woman

landiug earby nd

you

overirear

hersay o hercompanion,

it's

ate."You haveheard ndevenutteredhese ery samewordsmany irnes.Do

you know what heymean?Of course, ut do you knowwhat he womanmeant n uttering hcsewords ighl

now?

Think

about

t.

Shemighl

lave

been

alkingabout

a

plane

andmeaning hat 1 would arrive or maybe

depart late.Shemayaswell havebeen alkingabouta lettershewasexpecting.

r about pdngbeing

ate.She

need ot havebeeDalkingaboutanythingn

particrLlar;

hemightjustmean bat t's ate n the

afternoon,

r in

the day.

or

in her ife. Moreover

late"

s always elatjve o someschedule,

r expeclatiou:t might be ate

br

lunchand

yet

early or supper. oshemusthavemeantate

elative

o something,ut

what?

I could

go

on, but the

point

shouldbe clear:although

ou

know

perfcctly

well wlnt the words he woman

uttered

mean, ou

don't

know

what

rfte meant.Strangely nough, er

companion oesnot seem

puzzled.

le

seems o have unde$tood her. And come o think of it, on the maDyoccasionswhen

you

were

the

person

old

"it's

atc,"you

knewwhat he speakermeant.

ou

didn't

have

o think about he manymeaningshat

"it's

ate"

mightsenreo convey.s this sentence special ase? ot at all. Any English or french,or Swahili sentence

may conveydifferent meanings n different occasions, nd might have served o illustate

the same

point.

Because f such acts, inguistshave ourd it necessaryo distinguish

sentence

eaning" rom

"speaker's

meaning."

Only

linguists

are

interestedn sentence eaning br its

own sake.For the rcst of us, seDtence

meaning s somethingwe are

generally

unawareof. lt is somethingwe use unconsciously, s a rnean owards

our rueend,which s to understand

eople,

nd o

make

ourselvesnderstood.peaker's eaning thestuffwe

care bout always

oes

eyond entence eaning:t is lessambiguous

although

t

mayhaveambiguities f irs

own); t is more

precise

n someways,andoffen ess

precise

n otherwaysi t has

ich

nlplicit

contcnt. entence

meaning s but a sketch.We arive at speake/smeaningby filling in this sketch.

31



How do we

go

from sentence

meaning o speakerrsmeaning?How do we flesh

out the skeloh?

n the

past

twenty

years

or so. it has becomeobvious thal, in order to

gmsp

a speakedsmeaning we make use of of

inference.

Inference"

s

just

the

psychologisls'

erm

for

what we ordinarily call

"reasoning."

Like reasolfng, t

consisls

n

starting

tom some nitial assumptions nd

n

aniving throtrgha series

of steps

at

someconclusion,

Psychologistsowever renot

ust

being

preteotiousn

usinga rarerword:whenmostofus talk of reasoning,

we think of an occasional,onscious,

ifficult, and ather low mental

activity.Whatmodern

sychology

as

shown

s that

something

ike re.rsoning

oes

on all the time

-

unconsciously.

aiDlessly,

nd fast. When

psychologists

alk

of

inference, hey are refering fiIst a1ld oremost o this ever

present

meltal

activity. I{ere,

then, s how today's inguists andpsychologistsunderstand ow one personunderstandswhat anotherperson

says.

When

you

are

old

something,or instance

it's

ate." irst

you

decode

he sentence eaning, nd hen,

you

i42r the speaker's eaning. ll this, however, akes

place

so fast and so easily hat it seemsmmediate

nd

effortless.

l_low,

hen,should

we revise

ur understanding

fhuman

communication?he irst rcsponses 1() ta) asclose

as

possible

o the old coding-decodingheory. The updatedstory might go

like this. What makes

communication

ossible

s the

possession

f a common arguage, s we always

aid.

However,

iven

human

intelligence,

ou

don'tneed o encode ll

your

neaning,or to encode

t exactly.n order o be understood.ou

can rust

your

audience

o infer

your

full meaning rom their knowledge

f the situation,aken ogelherwith

what

you

actually aid.Why indeed ay,

"The

plane

on

which your

molher s coming s late,so late

hat we

oannotwait for her any Jonger, told

you,

we should

have

stayed t home."whensaying

it's

ate " ,,,ith

he

right toneof voicecanconveyall this

and

more.The ole of inference

n communications thatof an optional

add-on. 11hat s reallyneededor comrrunications a commonangrLage,ut nfercnce

rovides

ast outines

andshortcutshataie oo cftbctive o do without.

Many

psychologists

nd jnguists ccepthis updated ersion

fthe old story.Others or't. Trying1(] nderstand

the killd ofinferencenvolved n conmunication as ed some f us1() urn he

old storyupsjde own.We now

think

that

human

commuricalion

s fil.st

and

ofemost

matterof i

'erence

and hat anquases the add-on,

Here s the newstory.

A millionyears go,Jetrs ssume, ur ancestorsadno anguage t all. Oneofouf ancestors,allhim .lack,was

watching n ancesfess call her lill

-

picking

berries,Whatdid Jackunderstandf what lill

was doing?

He

miglrthaveseen erbehavior sa meresequencefbodily movernents,

r he mighthaveseen t as he carrying

oLlt of an intelltior,

perhaps

he intention o

gather

berries or eatitg.

Understandinghe behaviorof an

intelliged animalas he

canyjngout of an

rtention s, n geDelal,

uchmore nsightf'ul nduseful hanseeing

it asmeremovement. ut,wereour ancestorsapable frecognizingntentions

n oneamother'sehavior?

You have o be doubly ntelligento see hc ntelligencen others. ou need

heability o representn

your

own

mind he mental eprcsentatjonsf othercreatures.

ou

need, hat s, the ability o el11e

in

representations

f

representations.

hat.

in our

jargon,

we call

"meta-represeDtations."

ost animals have no meta-

representationalapacitywhatsoever.n the world as heysee t, thereareno ninds,

only bodics.Chimpanzees

andotherclose elativ€s f oursseem o havesome udimeDtary eta-representationalapacity. s for Jack,

bet he did

perceive

Jill's intention,

aild

not

ust

her movemenls. n f'act,

he was

probably gifted

enough o infer

from herbehavior otjust her ntention. ut alsoore ofher beliefs: hat hose

erieswcreedible.

If you

areable o

infer

other

people's

eliefs

rom

their behavior,

ou

can benelit iom

their

knowledge

nd

discover actsol'which

you yourself

haveno dircct expe ence. ack

miglrtnot haveknown hat hese erlies

wereedible, ut secing ill

pick

them

gave

him Evenwithout he use

of

language

r of communication,t may

be

possible

o

discover ther

people's

houghts

nd o make hem

one's wn.

Now, Jill was

ust

as

smart

asJack.She

hadnoticed hat

Jackwaswatching er,andsheknewwhat

he would

infer from her behavior. She rnay have liked Jack aM felt

glad

that her

picking

berries would serve

two

32



puq)oses

nsteadofone:

providing

her with

food, and

providing

Jack with information. n faot,

it

could

be that

Jill didn't

really need he beries. alld

that her main

purpose

n

picki|g

them was o

let Jackknow thal they were

good

to eat. Mind

you,

it could also

be that she hated Jack, and,

knowing

thal

these

parlicular

berries were

poisonous,

he

was tJing 10mislead

him We are comingcloser o true conmunication

with its tricks, but

la.nguages not

yet

in the

picture. There is another big difference between Jill's

attempt a1 nlbrming or

misinforming Jack and

ordinary human communication.

Ordilary col nunication s

pursued

openly. I-lere,on

the otherhand,Jack

s not meant o realize hat Jill

is hfing to alter his thoughts.

What fJack understandshatJill's ue intcnlion n pickingberriess to makehim believe hat hey areedjble?

If he rusts ill, hewill bclieve

er; fhe doesn't, ewon't.Now what f Jill understandshatJack

grasps

er eal

purpose'l

Wcll then,

o andbehold,a world of

possibilities pensl f Jack s capable 1'understandinghat her

pu$ose is to inform him. shemight as

well be openabout t. Jill doesnot have o actually

pick

the berries

anymore.

A11 he nust do is show Jack

hat shewantshim to k11owhat they areedjblc. Shemay,

for

that,

resort

to symbolicmeans.

.lill

might, or instance,tare t heberies and

henmovehermouth,or shemightmimic eating hebenios. lack

would ask himselt

why doesshe do that?ODce

he recognized

hal shewas cloing

hat for his berefit, he

wouldnt find it hard

o infer her ntention, r, in otherwords,

her

meaning.

his s true

overt

commLmication,

although till without anguage. ll Jili doess

give

evidence fher intention, ndall Jackdoes s ilfer whal

her

intentions liom the evidcnoc hc

has

given

him.Noneofthat evidences linguistic r even odelikc.

For creaturesapable f commrnlicating

t't hjs nferelrtialmanner, language ould b€ tr€mendoulsy

seful.

Wordsare

even

betler

hanmimicry or

puttitrg deasn

people's

rind. fJill had

been

blc o utter

ust "eat,"

or

"good."

Jackcouldhave nferred er ntcntion,

er 'ull meaning,rom her verbalbehavior s easilyas he did

tiom her miming. With a

ricber anguage, ill would have been able to

give

evidence [ more conplex

mearlings. clually, in those days our ancestors

id not

speak, -lowevcr, heir capacity

or inf'erential

communicationreated r environment

n

whioh

anguage ould comcasa nrajoradvantage.ndsureenolrgh,

a eapacityor

anguagcvolvcdn rhchumuu p.'cles.

Thenew story, hen, s that humanoommunications a by-producl f hunan meta-represenLationalapacjties,

The

ability

o

pedbrm

sophisticatednf'erencesbout

cachothcr's 1a1es

l'mind

evolved n our ancestorss a

means d understandingnd

predicting

ach

other's ehavior. his in tuflr

gave

isc to the

possibility

f acling

openlyso

as o

revealone's

houghtso others.As

consequence,he

condilionswerecreatedo(

the evolulion

of

language.

anguagemade nt'erelrtial

onmlunicationmmenselymore effeclive. t did not chalgc its

character. ll human

ommrmication,inguisticor nonlinguistic, s cssentiallynfcrential.Whetherwe

give

evidence f our

houghts y

picking

bcrries. y

rninicry,

by speaking, r by writing

-

as

have

ust

done

,

we

rcly first and oremost n our audience'sbility

1o nfer ourmeaning."

Obiective

a) Demersul ognitivist

principii,

deologie, outate.

b) Elemente efinitorii.

c) Ce aduce ou

$i

caresunt

punctele

entrale

33



lI. Antropologia

emo(iilor

Si

a sensibilitdtjlor

Texte

propuse

A.

"Le

corps, es sentiments t leurs repr6sentations

Nicolas oumet. c ierces umaines. o 6/2004

La symbolique

u oorpset desdmotions uvreur champ

d'6tudes

ui permet

d'accdder ux

normes t aux

pratiques

essoci6t6s.

Depuis

ne rentaine 'aDndes,n assiste unemontde

e 'intdrot

ou{

'dtude omparde

es h6ories e a vie

inlddeureet de la

persome

chez es ethrologues. ux

Etats-Unis, et iDt6ret

rest ristallisd

utourd'une

anthropologieesemotions

ont escnjeux hdoriquesnt

portd

successivement

ur es imitesde a nature

e a

culture,

uis

sur esBpportsentreexpression

t communicationans

a ma dredont

sontvdcus t congus, ans

des soci€tds ifferent€s, es

sentiments,es humeurs, es

imotions.

Cette

probl€matique

'est vue alols

directementnformde

pzLr

e

d€veloppernent,

aralldle,

des

approches ognitives

de la culture et

de la

philosophie

c I'esprit.

En France.es ravaux

nt

port6

de

prdl'drence

ur e

ddveloppemente 'heritage

e MarcelMauss

A

ravers es

articles Les echniques

u corps , 1936. t

(

La notionde

personne

, 1938),

travers,dtude es

conceptions

de I'identit€

persorulelle,

es composantes

c la

personne,

t

donc de celle du

corps,de ses dldments

t

fonctions.

Deux

h6matiques

our

un territoir€

nouveau

En €ppelaflt

es

points

d'histoire, hilippeDescola

t Frangoise

6ritier. out en

opdrant'ouverture u colloque

(

Corpset

affects

D, e[u

au Colldge e Francees 20,

2l et 22 novembrg

erniers..nontraielt quelpoint

ces

deux hdmatiquesvaient vantage se encontrer. on pasqu'ilexiste, ujourd'hui, nebaseh€oriqueeme

capable

e es soutenir,mais

qu'elles

eprdsententn territoifenouveau,

ordd

par

un horizoncommun relier

entreelles esdonl€es

qui

reldvent c a vie corporelle

t alt'ective es

peuples

t esstructlres

ongues e eur

vie sociale.

'dclairage ppoftd

ar

Jean-Didier incentesquissait

n cadre

eurobiologique

ertinent our

une

telle approche

ar 'opposd es \ues compulalionnistes.ui

tendent

d abstraire,esp

des ddterminismes

corporels,a neuropsychologie

endauiourd'hui lclure

les Ctats u corps,

esaffects,es6notions

et Ia

pensie

symbolique

ansur continuum

d'interactioDs,omme

s'il n'y avait

pas

de

rupture ondamentale

ntre es

mdcanismes

u

<

ressentir ,du

(

comaitrcD

et de

(

I'agi )).

Une approche ymboliqueet

sociale u corpset des

sens

Lestravauxexposds I'appui

de ces

perspectives,

ssusen

bonne

patie

du

s6minaire enu depuis

rois a.ns

ar

F.

H€

tier,

portaient

ur

un corollaire nthropologiquee

cette

proposition,

savoir a maniire

dont e corps ses

parties,

es iquides, es

propddtds,

essens, esaffects

est cultuellement

onguet mis en

oeuvrcdans a

rep€sentation

esEpportssociaux, ans a

reproduction,ans es

appofis nfe les

sexes, ans a ddfinition

de

la

personne

travers

diffdrentsexemples.

Pouren

citer

quelques-uns,

orinne

Follier montrait omment.

ans a socidtd

maure

Mau

tarie), coexistent

des rdgles

d'€vitementudsstrictes

entre es sexes,et des

conditions

articulidres

ans esquelles

e d6sir

masculin, onQu

omme n6pressible,

ouvait

se satisfaire uprds

u corpsdes emmes

ivorcdes_ean-piere

Goulardexposait a manidre

dont, chez es Tikunas

d'Amazonie,'appafienance

laniquedes

personnes

st

objectivdesous la fome de compofiements -"*:

"0"

saveurs,de couleurs empruntdesd la nature, bref



consistaiten un systdmed'attributs corporels.Cristina Figueircdoexposait

une thdorie de l'espdt touvde chez

les Touaregs allada-r

elon

aquelle 'individuhdritait,

d tavers le lait et le

sangde la mOrc, 'affects t de

peN6e

consciente. ais recevail

e$

qualit€s

'intelligencct de bon

ugemenl

de sa ignde

paleinclle.

Saskia

Walentowitz

oursuivait

n montrant omment, hez esTouaregs

u

Niger.

es

qualitds

obles e a personne

pouvaient

etle ddmultiplides

pa.r

e biais de a

parentd

de ait,

compldmentaire la

parentd

<

du dos r>masculine.

Salvatore 'Onoftio aisait6tat,dans a traditionde 'Italie

du Sud,d'une onception

e 'allaitement istinguant

entreun

(

lait du coeur> fdminin,

peu

substantiel, t un

(

lait

de 1'6paule , masculin,

acteurde bome

croissancee 'enfant. nfin,etpour llustrer a diversitd es erraiDsbordds, arikaMoisseel'fd6vcloppaitne

analyse es dcitsmodernes e

science-fictioneployant n imaginaire e dissociation

adicale ntre es usages

sexuelsdu corps fdminin immaturcet stdrile,e1 es mdcanismes

e la reproduction,ejetds

du c6t6 de

l'animalitd.

Cet maginaire erait-ilcelui de la nodernitd

?

Bi€n

d'autresmat6riaux,

u'on

oc

peut

ous

prdselter,

taient

mobilisds

I'appui 'me approcheymbolique t sociale u corps,

essens, n

particulier

nce

qu'ils

oucheDt

la

place

ndgale es

sexes ans

es

socidtds umaines,hdmes ont 'inspiration remidre

dt€ddvelopp€e

ans

les ravaux eF. Hdrilier,et

qui

trouvent ans e colloquematidre

de

phs

anrples

6veloppements."

B.,,R6flexionsur uneanthropologie

es6motions

VincentCrapanzano

Uneanlhropologieesdrnolions st-elle

ossible

Depuis

a

publication

e Knowledge nd P(tssion llongol

Notbns

of Sef and&).ial Lilit de MichelleRosaldo

1980),

n s'est ngagd 1Amdriquc

ans ettedircction n

insistant ur le r6lc des

motions dans a collstruction u soi. C)n

peul

m6mc

parlcr

d'une

cole. ou

plus

exactemenl

rune rientation, ilibdtdment onslructiviste,

etleentreprisc 'estpas

sans

ricident:

cn France,

par

exemple, vec

,dvy-Bruhlet sanotionde <

pensde rimilive

, en Angleterre.

vecRadclifl'e-Brownt sa

thdoriedes sentiments

(qu'il

att bue

d'ailleurs

Durkbeim). rx

Etats-l,lnis,veo 'dcoledite

Cultureand

Personality,

assemblant uth Benedict,MargarelMeadet

bjen d'autres. a

rdflexionanthropologiqueur es

inrotions eflCte ue attitude

'anrbivalenceis-d-visdesaffects aractiristiquc

e la

pens6€

ulopdenne. n

lrouvccetteattitude hezDurkheimorsqu'il

avance

'iddequc

a raison

edigagc

progressivement

e

a

sphdrc

des motions

dans

e

ddveloppemente a civilisation. a raison

civilisde , c'est-i-dire

a raison uropdenne,

serait

purilide

des dnotions qui

(

temissent

)

la

pensde

auvage...

aurait-ildans a manidre

dont nous

concevonscs

dmotions'h]?olhese

u'elles rdvaLrdraient

I'origine, t. dans

notre hdoriede I'dvolution,

u

progrds,

n essai 'dvacuationesaffects

Il es1 lair

qu'on

ne peutpas

s'interrogerur es dmotions ans

isposer 'uneddlinition

de la catdgorienCme

d'dfrotionainsi

que

sur sesconnotations

at'fectives). t,'ethnologiexige,

ci commeailleuN.une

critiquede

sor propreapparcil onceptuel, ne critiquequi ne saurait trc otalementucidepuisqu'on e peut amais

selonWittgenstein

constmirc ne anguede coDmentaire

Lll'te

mitalangue)otalementndipendante

e la

languc-objet.i rdside,me semble-t-il,'un

dcs

grands

dangers e I'ethnologie

chez soi >i: elle risquc

de

perdre

e

point

de vue critique,

lus

acile

pr6server

orsqu'elle

tudie esautres

ocidtds,elles u rnoinsqui

parlent

une langue

distinctede la n6tle. Pour crderun < vrai

I regardethnographique

otreanthropologie

europdanistee doit-elle

pas

rccourird une

midiatjon,

celle de l'expdrience

e I'ahddt6.

qui

passe ar

les

rccherches,cs

lectules. es

prejugds

ulttuels,1esengagementsenonnels,

es

fantasmes Ces mddialions,

toujous ar a limite

du non-conscient,ne sorte de condensation,

mprdgnde

'dmolion, dsultantde nos

rencontes

vec 'alt6ritd, onlcetainemenl armi es

acteurs dcisifs

e toutes es recherches

ur

es

affects.

Une

ocaLisation

ou mieux

peut-Ctre,

ne

projection

sur esdmotions

'unAute.

qui

opdrc ogiquement

la

faQon

'un

iers,

nous

permet

erepdrcresdmotions e ceuxque

nousdtudions

ils

sontalors< ibdrds de nos

35



projections

affectives), de distinguer le climat aflectif des relations

que

nous entlelenonsavec eux, fajt de

distance,de rupture.

Dal1s intoduction de eur collection

Zarguageand he Politics oJEmotion. CatherineL\tz et Lila Abu-Lughod

soulignenl

es liens dtroits entre e discours

populaire

et le discourssavantsur es 6motions

(

Intimement ides

i la

parole

ur e soimaisconsiddriesomme

ldmentsnf'drieurse celui-cj

du ait

qu'elles

ouveot

place

dans

le coes,

les

dmotions

estent

nvisagdes

e cette agoD 6sobligealteans e discours

n*ropologique,

ises

d

part quelques

xceptions

outes dcentes. lles sont donc reprdsentdesomme a dimension e I'erpdrience

humainea moinscont616e,a moinsconstruite,a moinsapprised'oilsonuniversalitd),a moinspublique t,

du m€mecoup,

a

moinssusceptible

'Ctre

oumise

r 'analyse n

temes de soci6t6 t de culture

> (1990:

1,

traduction e a.ddaction).

Pourtant,es rechercheses

plus

riccntcs,notamment

elles

pdsentdcs

ans ettecollection, oulignent, elon

elles, a

richesse

es nterpr€tations

n temes de socidtd t de cultue. Elles

mettcnten

questio[pricisdment

l'idde egue elon aquellees

(

6motions eraient e 'ordre e 'intfuiodtd, e 'irrationnel, e a nature

(1990

2. notle raduction).

Cetteapproche

oserait

ussi esbascsh€oriques

oLu

ne

histoircdcs

motionssusceptiblee rendre ompte

des

changements

ans 'economie

assionnelle

'une soci6t6.des rddvaluationsorceptuelles,moralcs

et

esthdtiqueses6tats ffectifs, insiquede 'apparition t de a dispaxit ionesdmotions omme 'ac6dieJackson

1985),e transpoft

Nahoun-Grappe

rapro) t

la melancolie.l faut

encore ignaler '61udeocio-histodquee

l'almout, iebe rls Passiotl. ue d NiklausLuhmann, 'odentationonctionnaliste

t

qui

tend A

natualiser

es

dmotions,VdroniqueNahoum-Crappe ous rappelle es dtroiles elationsentre I'expressionittifaire du

tmnsport ux xvllc et

xvttlc

sidcles t

lcs

coDnaissances

idicales

de I'dpoque.es mages, a figurationdes

symptomes.

es

changements

ans a description u lrarsportsont-ils iis

d

fivolution

du discours

mddical

Assiste-t-onr a disparition 'unsymptdme omologue celuidu ranspoft

Dansnombred'dtudes, otamme en anlhrcpologie

sychologique

t

psychanalytique,

ais aussi

dans

celle

d'orientalion

hdnomdnologique,

es motionssolrt onsiddrdesotnneLtldvefselles;

lles

pourmient

ertes tIe

ddclenchdes

ar

divers acteurs ociauxet culturelsmais elles resteraientemblables our l'esselltiel, 'une

socidtd uneautre. -espsychologuesommeP. Ekman, oujours nquCte 'expressionsorporellescsaffects

(Iaciales) ui

seraient

pancultulelles

),essaient e distinguer

es

dmotions

ldmentaires

la

coldre. a

peur,

a

tristesse,e degoirtet le bonheu) et des dmotions eoondaircs

l'amour,

a nostalgie),Daos une entative

(naturalisante)

'insdreres motionsdans a hdorie

e

'dvolution, es

psychologucsdans

a

pluspure

radition

darwinienne)

herchent

ans

es animaux esanalogics vec 'expressiones

allects

humaiDs pax

exemple,

c

froncenrent e nez ct la rdtraction c la ldvre supdrieureans c ddgott

(Rozrn

et al. 1993).Ces approches

universalistesontsouvent ccompagndes

'd

prloli

sur 'existence

e besoins motionnels,nndset ndcessaires

(le

besoin 'aimer, elui

d'eheain€) ainsi

que

d'une ociopsychologie:nctionnaliste.

es ites

rt

es

pratiqucs

th&apeutiquesveilleraient,

ar

exenple, esaffects epoussis ans a

psychd ui

cherchent lors s'exprimer

(abr€action,

atharsis).

Cathe ne Lutz et Lila Abu-Lughod constatelt

que

cetto dimarche tend

d masquer es rappons entre la vie

affectiveet soncontexte ocialet culturel.

Elles dafhnnent our eur part

a ndcessitd'dtudieres dmotions

d'un

point

de vue comparatil ron

(

natualiste en ce

qu'il

montre eur variabilitdet souligne es relations

qu'elles

ntretienne avec e contexte. ourelles,on doit considdreres€motions

ornme esconstructions

ui,

tout d la fois,€pondenta ccrtaines onditions ocioculturellest

ouent

un rdle determinantans a fbrmation,

ou tout au

moins

dans

a

ddfinition, de ce

contexte.Autrement

dit,

les

dmotionsont un effet

pragmatique

dans

divers discourset, en signalantun contexte,elle

peuventjusqu'd

un certain

point

contribuer le faire naitre.

Plusieurs uteus dansce num6rode Te ain choisissent 'dtudieres dmotions n tant que

discours;mais

commeLutz, Abu-Lughodet d'aubeschercheusde

eur

orientation, ls emploientcettenotion de discours,

dans

36



la signifrcation

que ui a dotu16Michel Foucault,

avec me semble-t-il un mCmemanquede dgue et sans

se

pencher

sur sa

dimension

politique. Lulz et Abu-Lughod,

quant

elles,

parlent

des discou$ sur

les dmotionset

des discours

qui provoquent

es imotions.

mais ne cherchent

pas

d diff6rencier entre

e

discours

qui parle

des

affectset

le

discours

qui

les exprime;

de

plus,

elles ne

prennentpas

en compte es intenctions entre

rcprdsentation

t expression es motions.

Mais

peut-Cte

aut-il commencq

par poser

a

question:y

a-t-il desdiscours, esenoncds, es

parcles peu

impofie ci la distinction)

ui

ne soient

as

dmotionnels

Il

estdvident

ue

oute€nonciation

st ourded'une

dimension ffcctive< portdeDpar e style.EllcpeutCtre oulignee,gnorde,masqude u ni6ed'emblde ar es

conventions

u discours u encorc

ar un choix conscient u inconscient

celui-ci

estant epondant

oujours,

m6medans edernier as,

assujetti ux dgles iscursives).

I-'ideememe

de discours motionnel oit €tre

considdrdeoinme onstitutive e la thdode

ou

de I'iddologie)

desdmotious I'intdrieur 'une ocidtd

t, d mon avis,elle

y participe

onnne

participent

cs affccts

ommds t

attribuds, u reprdscntds

l'amour,

a coldre, 'eovie)

dans 'organisation

onceptuelle

es

passions

e cette

socidtd.

es cal€gories

dndriques

6motion.

ffect,sentiment,

assion)

t leurssous-catdgories

amour,

oldrc,

d6go0t,envie) lbnctionnent omme

des reprdsentationse l'€tat

physiologiclue

u mental

(e m'enfonce

indvitablementci en thisant

ommesi

'admettais

a

possibilite

e

localiser

t de repr€senter

es dmotions) t

comme es

ocutions ontextualisa[tesu

performatives.

ette lldo e de a localisation t de a repr6sentation

des affects opdre aussi d un niveau

mdtapragmatiqueelle nous fou

'ft

la notion meme d'iruotion

(l'dmotio[aliti).

c'cst-d-dire

a

possibilitd

e sdpaicr ntrc

<

motion > ct des motions,de

les

situer

dansun

champde rdfdrelces t de es nsdrcr ans

esprocessus

ragmaliques.

lle nousoffre de

plus

a

possibilitd

e

les< ire >, de es noorporer ans ng

visjondu monde.

Je le

peuxpas

d6velopper ot argument

ans es imitesde ce conrmenlaire, ais

e

tiensA nsislersur son

impoltancc.Mitapragmaliquernent,

e

pouvoir

au

scns

argc)

sc rnanilcsto ans ous

cs

discoufs,

comptis

ceux

qui

sc disent dmotiomrels). Toutes es

tudes connues e moi

sur

es

dmotions

t

qui

s'intdressellt

u

discours e s'adressent

u'aux

fltts du

pouvoir

esdiscours motionDelst nonauxmdcanismes

ar

esquelsls

obtiennent e

pouvoir.

llles nc srint6ressent

as

noD

plus

aux mdganismes

u

travers

desquels es

discours

contribuonti dissimulereur lbrce, eur < nldgration dans es relations nstitutionnalisdcse pouvoir.Cc

faisant, llesooutribuent

cette mystificatiorl.

Dans

son

tr"rde esdmotiolls n G|dcc gicnne.

EvlhymiosPapalaxiarcltis

cl.

tupra) oriliquece

qu'il

appelle

(

une ormemodirie de constructivisme

; c'estA-dire

u'il

c tiqueune

position

onstructivistc

ui,

supposant

quo

cs ddes ontconstfuites

partirde

quelque

hose

riexistant

t nc sont

pas,

de cc fait, de

pures

et simples

constructions,

istingue dmotions

prdculturelles

de

(

sentiments ulhrels . Il remarque un

certaill

essentialisme

eut

imprigner lcs arguments nti-essentialistes.

1 aut lire,

d ce

propos,

'essai out.i fait

remarquablce )anicl Rosenberg

1990)

dans a collection e Lutz et Abu-Lughod. osenbergonstatc

ue a

manidre ont

MichelleRosaldo

1980)

et JohnKirkpalrick

1985)

extrayaicnt t commentaien[

ubslro :led

n.l

g/osse{

lesnomsdes dmotiorls a

permis

'dlablir

eur

place

et donc a

possibilil6

e eur

(

existence

)

dans a vic quotidjenne. n soulignant ar exemplec temc qui ddsigreune dmotiondansune angue ui ne

s'oriente

asgrammaticalement

utour e a nominalisation,D

isque

c fabriqucr hezautli uneautre

ttitLde

l'ace ux6mo1ions,'imposer cetauhuiure autre

sychologie.

n

peut

certes nvisagerne

psychologiesi

on

peut

memeemployer e mot)

qui rdsisterait louteddlimitationerminologiquees 6tats nlerieurs

. ll

faut

analyseresconversationsoncrdtes.

elonRosenberg,

our

dicouvrir es oyersd'interct ndigdn€s

endus

ar

le exique t a syntaxe.ls sontaccentuds,

monavis,

par

es< thdories)ddrivdes

e

a stfuctureinguistique 1

solltarticul6s, oit directement,oit

ndirectement

mdtaphoquement ar

exemple), n tennes

sychologiques

(Crapanzano

992).

Les langueseurcpdennes nt en commun

(malgrd ceflainesvariantes)une

grammaire

de

nominalisation,ou du

moins

qui

focalisesul les cat6gories elimitdes

1ddlimitables

voir

nos sysldmes e classification t leur

37



valorisation scientifique); elles

pounaient

donc nous rendre aveugles ace aux aufes

champs

inguistiques

(6pist6nes)

dans esquelsce

que

nousd6signons

ar

(

dmodon

)

est d€ploydet dvalu6.ConrmePapataniarchis,

on

peut

critiquer une optiquen6ocartdsienne

ui postule

un objet

((

une dmotior

preculturelle

>) auquelune de

nos catdgories ffectivesse r€Gre, mais l faut admettre

que

cettecritique restedans es limites

de

note

systime

linguistique

ui

donne, omme

Michael

Silverstein

1976)

e

souligne,a

prioritd

d la fonction dfdrentielle

ar

rapportaux fonctions angagid.es

pragmatiques, odtiques).

Peut-on ns6rercette

critique

dansune argumentation eaucoup

lus

vastesur a stucture de a signihcation,sur

la relalion entre e mot et son r6f6rent(reel ou mental), et par extension

sur la nature de I'imitation ? Cette

approche

ous permet.me

semble-t-il, e

considdrer ote

th6orisation es dmotions ommeune sorte

de

(

thdatralisation de nos obsessions pistdmologiques1 de nous interoger

sul les relationsentre ces

obsessions eul thdatralisationet escooditions ociales ans

etpar)

esquelles

llesse

pfoduisent.

I1 aut

se

appeler u'd

cdtddecettc hdorisation

l existe

nednormeitt6rature escriptive

t

dramaturgique

es

6mo1ions,

ui

bascule ymptomatiquementntre e rdelet e fictif

-

une ittdrature ui

a doftrd ieu d desddbats

morauxd'une

gravitdparlbis

mofielle.Les

paramdtres

e cesddbats n changd

u coursdessidcles,mais ls

s'afliculentrdssouvent

utour e

a relation

nfe

le contenunoral et,par

consdquent

l'1'ectif)

'une

uvre et

les 6tats

assionnelsu'elle

uscite. ans< Le voile d'hometetd

t

la

contagion es

passions

, CeciliaGallotti

nousmontreque a

(

querelle w la moralitd u theatre de a deuxidmemoitiddu xvrf sidcle rangais une

pdriode

narqu€e ar la

transition t theatrummundian theAtedes

passions

s'est onstitude

€ cette

agon.

Lesaccusateurs,es

ansdnistes

t lesoratoriens,esontmoins ntdressd

u contenu

u'au

onctionnenent e a

communicationhdatrale, oinsd une

passioDarticuliCre

u'd

a concupiscence

ommune touteses

passions.

(

Le th€atlene

peut

Ctre 'objctd'unemoralisatjon

quelque

soit e s{et

qu'il

met

en scdne,irt-il le

plus

moral,

il libire une dnergie

passionnellear

essence ontraire la morale,

et comme elle non rdlbrmable. Les

dangers duoncdsisent e corys, esdtats

hysiologiques.

a contagion es

dmotions,e transpofi orsde soi...

Un siCcle

lus

dt, au emps u concile e'l'rente,esPdres e 'Eglise,

ui

s'inquidtaiente 'ell'et e a musique

nouvclle

ar,r

nola)

sur

escdldbrants,

sdrent 'une

argumentation

emblable.

elle-ci

rouve

sesorigines hez

saintAugustin t Platon. Go0ter a mdlodie outeDsLrscitanta dCvotion .

remarque enisLaborde,ellc dtait

la aonlradiction rdsoudre ar l'auto td ecclisjastique. Il convientde se mdiierpar principedes motions

qdune

ealisatiormusicale st

s$sceptible

'dveiller n nous ce peut

etre a

porte

ouverte to

s

lesabus.Mais

en m6mc cmps.d condition

qu'elles

oicntmaitrisdes

ar

I'auto

t6 religieuse. e tellcs motionsne

peuvent

qu'embellir

a

pridre...

Et les Pdres ssaydrenle maltriser esdmotions n conl'erart

es iglcs

prdcises

u stylemusical.

Nous nous

trouvons n

pr6scnce

'unediscipline esdmotions

ui

rappellea

discipline c la sexualjtdmiseen dvidence

par

Foucault.l faut souligner'obietde cette dglenentationle style, e registre

xpressif

ui portc

esaffects

-

et a ruptue entre e

support esemotions t sa

perceplion.

ll estcefiaincment

lus

acilede rdglementere style

que

d'imposer n rdgime

6motionnel un individu.Mais

lotons I'existenceen Eurcpe d€ toute une industrie (religieuse,pddagogique, sychothdrapeutiqu

chimiothdrapeulique)

ui

vise

d une

telle imposition.

Elle m6 te 1'6tude.Dans

plusieurs

modes de

psychothdrapie, par

exemple, on rcgarde le

patienl

comme

une sofie de

(

contenetu ) d'dmotiols

pathologiquement

ndigudes

ui

doiventohe relachdes afiiculdes. xprim6es,

iarliculdes ahn d'obtenira

gudrison.

'est

gdn6ralement

a

parole

qui

ddclenche

es

€motions t les soumel

L

une

articulation isciplin6c.

Le silenceest toujourssuspect crestun symptdme e r6sistance,

e refor ement,d'oubli. Les victimes

d'agressionencontrdes

ar

DominjqueDray

prdfdrent

souvent e silence

d

la

parolequi

rcnvoie d leul entourage

qui

(

parle

trop . DominiqueDray s'estoblig6ed se taire

et a appris e

pouvoir

communicatif

u silence.

(

Toute

'intense ctivitddeveloppde

ar

esvictimes t eut

entourage

our

essayer e retouver Lrn

rdre,alors

que

oe

retour

d l'6tatantdrieur st mpossible

(sapra).

Victimes,elles

csterontouiours, t comme elles

en

Ita



marge du

grcupe

sooial

(en

France du moins).

< La

peur

enldve une

partie

de vorrs-meme

,

dit Andrde, une

femme gressde.

On

voit ioi

que

e r61ede la

parole n'est

pas

seLementde d6clencheret d'ordonner

es dmotions.ElI noDmant

les affects,elle

peut

aussi

prot6gerceux

qui

6coutent

de I'expdrience es dmotionsddsigilees. a reprdsentation

desdmotions ert

ainsid imposer r ordre

d I'dmotivitd

ui

est oujou$ d la limite du contr61e.e silence,

me

semble-t-il,

oit Ctrecompdsdanscette

perspective.

l

peut

ouer

un r61e ransgressif ans

'organisalion

affective

d'unesocidt€ d'oi sonef'ficacitd

hetoriqueet thdrapeutique.

II est remarquable

ue les trait€s de rhdtodquedu

xvlf

siecle

ne

comparent

pas I'omteurd l'acteur alors meme

quc,

chacunr

leurmanidre,ls dveillcnt ous

deux es

passions

u

public.

La rh€torique

assait

meme

pour

etre

supdriewe l'art dramatique.

'estcertainement

i6 d ce

que

'on estime trede 'ordrede la vddt€ainsi

qu'd

l'6valuation onventionnelle

e la moraliti des

praliciens.

la diffdrence u comddie4€crit CeciliaGallotti,

I'orateur

doit

(

eprouver rdellementet

exprimer sincdrementes

passions

>. [n situant e sidge des

dmotions

dans e corps, u dans

'6me,

n

cr€e a brdche nte

les

peftrbations

physiologiques

u

psychiques

ppeldeses

(

dmotions et

euf expression. ette rCche,

uj

doit Ctre onsiderdeuniveau onceptuelommeunedom6e

variable elon a culture,

ermet

ous

esddbats ur a condition u comddien

faut-i1

prouver u dissimuler

es

dmotionsde son

personnage

), sl"tl

'dtat moral

(hypocrite

ou sincdrc)d'un acteursocial, et sur

la transparence

ou l'opacitd e l'ame.Peut-on onsiddrer os descriptions

uasi

obsessionnellesesdtats

passio

els dans a

littdrature,

a

philosophie,

a

psychologio

omme

une dponse la teneurde 'inconnu

ui peut

otredoartic

par

I'att butiond l'autre 'unedmotion

dfinie, itude ans e trdfonds e celui

qui

vous ait face?

Les approches esdiscours

motionnelse

patagent

en dcux. l

y

a d'abord e lles

qui

regafdent

e discours

commeune sortc

de monologue la notionde

discours 'est

qu'un

substitut

our

es notions otalisanlese

< cnlture> ou de ll/eltanschauungel

il

y

a celles

ui

le considdrent

lus

dynamiquementomme n dispositif

interlocutoire.a

premidre

pproche

tendalrce isoler 'dmotion e sonconlexte ocialen

a

cantonnant

ans

I'individu. ,a

seconde

eut

a localiserdans

e

ieu

entre es interloculeurs

u

elle

-

son expression. on

attribution

peut

ddtenniner

pragmatiqucnrcnt)

a <llinition u coDtexte'6nonciation,'dvaluationu contenu

de 'interlocutiont

a caract6risationes nterlocuteursleurs

positions

'tm vis-d-vis e 'autre,

Cette pproche

sorLlignea dimcDsionoliliquede out discou$Cmotif, compris cluide a rdsistanccu'ondoit conrprcndre

dans n sens eaucoup

lus

actil'el

plus

crdatifquecsethnologuesmdricainse e fon1.

ll cst fod

possible u'au

nivear

t-h6orique,

ar

son nsistanceur a localisation 'un affect

quelque a

dans

l'individu,

a

premidre

pproche,

uc

nous considdrons

ci idiologiquement ommeLm

sympt6me

,onotre

individualismc, ontribued masquer

e r6le rhdto

que

de I'expression t de l'attibution des dmotions:

autrement it, elle dissimule

a

(micro-)politiquc

d€s€motions.l se

peut que

dars d'autres

ullures

qui

ne

partagentas

notre ndividualisme,ette

olitique

qlre

nous

lons

dissimulons ans os

propos

ur esdmotions

se€vdle

par

exemple ans es discnssionsur

a nomativitd des elatiolssociales

Howel1

981).Livrant a

valeur

p€gmatiqu€

de

I'dmo1ivit6. n

pounait mdme

dire

quril y

a touiours un€ compdtition

entre les

irlerlocrteurs d

qui

appartient ne motion ?

(voi

mon essai. Glossing motions, dtJ]sHermes'Dilemma).

Rappelons-nousesconv€rcationi friquentes ansnoscomddies eboulevard, t dansnosvies ( - Je 'aime.

-Non,

c'est

noi qui t'aime.

Tu

ne m'aimes

as,pas

vraiment,

as

commemoi.

Pas

comme

oi ? Comment

peux-tu

e dire ?

Que

sais-t$

de moi ? Ne te fAche

pas,

e

t'er

prie.

-Je

ne

suis

pas

6chd.

Mais si,

tu es u err.'(.

-Non.

c'est

ueje

'aime.>

Cettecompdtition modonnelle

st

gouvenlde ar les

conventions iscursjves, comprisdans

e fait

qu'elle

prendplace

dansun

genre

de communication

onvenable.

Quand

es femmesbddouines 'Egyptesont touchdes

au

vif

par

les connirages, elles

peuvent e

protdger

elonAbu-Lughod

ar

rrn changementramalique e

propos,

eregistre u discours.

lleschantent n

petitpodnequi

ddcritsouvent e

qu'elles

e

peuv€nt asdire

dans eurs

conversationsrdinaires, savoir eurssentiments

ntimes 'isolement,

e

regret, e vuln6rabilit6. e

fait

qu'elles

soient obligeesd'exprimer ces senliments

dans une forme litt6raire contaignante est sans doute

39



rdvelateu de eul notion de soi et de

la valeu

qu'elles

donnentd la vie affective et,

plus gdndralement,

ntdrieue

Oesoin

de conttole,

ormulation esthdtique, ttitudede stoibisme).

Dans

esvillagesde 'Alentejo, u Po{ugal,or)a tEvaille

Miguel Vale

de Almeida, es hornmes ontsoumisA

un rdgime affectif rigoureux

qui

les €mpeche

d'expriner toute une

gamme

d'6motions,

plu16t

ddpressives,

ui

sont assocides ux

femmes.Commeailleus dans e mondemediteran€en, es hommesde l'Alenteio

(

ne sont

iamais

supposds

xpdmer ibrementdes sentiments

t

des Cmotions

qui

mettent eDcause image de la force et

de

'autosuflisanceasculinesl. Mais certains

oemesdlcimax)

dcites

ans escaf6s

ermettent

uxhommes

d'exprimer es sentiments f6minins

>

-

l'amour. a trahison,a peurde la mort

-

inadmissiblesn d'auttes

circonstances.

a rdcitation e cette

podsie

eur

permet,

elonVale de Almeida, sinonde briser,du moins

d'assouplires rontidres

ui

s€parent

€mininet masculinD.

Dans es cafds gdens,selon

Papataxiarchis,es hommes ntreeu{ ont l'occasion 'exprimer ertains ffects

(comme

a borure umeur. elf

qui

sedistinguent csaffects

u'ils

cssententorsde a communaut€ asculine

(synphercn)

t

q:ri

diff6rent

lus

encore u sentiment,

ssentiellementiril,

de

'honneur

hez

es

bergers

6crits

par

JobnK. Campbell

1964)

et MichaelHeflztbld

1986).

Il

fautattirer 'attenlion ur 'imponance 'une dgdre

ivresse c'estun sujetd approfondir dans 'dvcildesdmotions.) onstatant'importancee I'identiti sexuelle

(gender)

darc l'dconomie

passionnelle

g€enne,

Papataxiarchis

oulignc e rdle dcs dmotionsdans

la

construction u moi. Pour ui, les Orecsdisposent de multiplesconceptionsu moi applicables, t donc

collstitutives

u moi, dansdill'drents ontextes. Poudantl n'est

pas

du tout cefiain

qu'une

onception u moi

soit corlslitutive u moi. Les emotions

ui

naissent

ar

exemple

e 'intdret

ersonnel ouraient

valoriser ne

relation u moi

qui

n€ rendlait

pas

cornpte u t6le de I'autre. e 'intetlocution ans

on

expressionde l,)eme,

d'autres motions omme

e

phiktimo

(l'amour

'horureur)

ounaient

ccroite e r6le.ainsi

que

Papata,\iarchis

lui-m6mee remarque,e cel autre, e cette nterlocution.

'dmotivitr eut

donc1'avorisern regard w le moi

qui

rnet en dvidence ne nd6pendance,

ne continuitd,e

gdndral

u hien un autre egard

qui

souligne. u

contraire,

a

d€pendance

I'dgardde I'autre, a discontinuitd, e

pa|ticulier.

Conlbndre e conceptuel 1 e

corlstitutif, 'est 'empecher'apprdciere

pouvoir

desdmotions aff lejeu social.

Il se

peutque

celte dflexion ritique rouve

a

source

ans e fait

que

e

vis auxEtats-Unis,

ays

oi

la

question

du moi et de 'autre eposed'une ranidre ncore luscruciale u'ailleurs. roduit 'une oci€tid'immigrisaux

originesrdsdiverces, 'un ndividualismexubduntjamais

ibird

dlur conformismexigeant, 'une dticence

toutecentralisationt d'ure culture

ontestataireoujours ux imites

de

a

violence.'anthropologiemdricaine

des dmotiors,surtoutdans

son nsistance ur les relations ntre es dmotions t le

Jell;

est ndcessairemen

marqude

ar

sesorigines.Utreanthropologie

aite

par

es

Europdensur es motions

europeennes)

oit aussi

prendre

onscience e

son enracinementfin de

pouvoirprendre

de la distanoe

ar

rapport

aux

assertions

psychologiques

t

philosophiques

allantde soi )).Une ellecritiquea besoin e mddiations. lle requiert ette

perspective

ide d la confrontat ion vec une autre hdorie

qui

pemret

a triangulation icessaire u rcgard

cthnographique)dme i

paradoxalemenl

etle

hdorie

roviert

d'une

ocidtd

ui,

malgrd adiffdrence,

artage

la m€me rigine.

_Bibliographie

Abu-Lughod L., 1986.Veilecl entiments

Ilohor and Poetry n a Bedouin

Socieq,, erkeley,Universilyof

CaliforniaPress.

Abu-Lughod L. et C, Lutz, 1990. Introduction emotion, iscou$e, nd hc

politics

of everydayife >, lr

Lutz C. €t L.

Abu-Lughod, anguage d thePoliticsof Emoliotx, ambridge,

ambridgelniversity

Press.

CampbellJ.

K., 1964.Honour,FamilyandPatronage. xford,Clarendon ress.

CrapanzanoV,, 1992.Hemes'Dilemma d Hanlet'sDesire,Cambridge, arvardUniveNityPress.

40



Darwin C.

R, 1965

(1872).

The

Expressionof the Emotions n

L'Ian

and

Animals, Chicago, University of

Chicago

ress.

Ekman P., 1992.

An argumentor basicemotions

, Cogzition ndEmotion,yi,

pp,169-200,

Hertzfeld M.,

1986. ThePoetics of Manhood

Contestand ldentity in a Creton Mountain

l/illage, Pttnceton,

Princeton niversity

ress.

Howell

S., 1981.< Rulesnot words , i, HeelasP. et A. Lock, ndigekoussychologie.r,ondon,Academic

Press.

JacksonS.W.,

1985.< Acedia he sin and

ts relationshipo sorow andmelancholia

,

itr Kleinman

A. et B.

Good,

Culture and Depression:

Studies n the

Anthtopohtgy and

Cross-Cuhural

Psychiatly of Afect and

Disorder Berkeley University

of Califomia

Press.

Kirkpetrick

J., 1985.< SomeMarquesan

nderstandilgsof action and dentity

)),

tn White G. et

J. Kirkpatrick,

Person,Selfand Experience Expbring

Pacific Ethnoptychologies, erkeloy,

University of Califomia Press,

Luhmann N., 1982.-Liebe lsPassion Zur Codierungvon Inlimilztt, Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp.

Lufz C, et L. Abu-Lughod,

1990.Language6nd the

Politics

oJ

Emotk n,

Cambridge,

CambddgeUniversity

Press.

Rosaldo M., 1980.KtlowledgeuwJ

Passion Ilongot Not,ons of Self and Social Life, Cambridge,

Cambridge

UniversityPress,

Rosenberg

D.,.1990. Languagen thediscoursefthe

emotions) txLutz

C.

et L. AbLtLnghod, p. cil.

Rozin P.,

Haidt

J.

et C. Il. Mccauley, 1993.

< Disgust , in Lewis M. et J. M. Havila.nd. ctndbook f lhe

Emotior.r,New York, Guilford Press.

SilyersteinM,, 1976.

<

Shifters,

inguisticcat€gories, nd aulturaldesoription ia Basso

K. et H. Selby,

Meqning n

Anthropolo&',,Albuqueque, University of

New Mexioo Press."

Obiective:

a) Identificarea biectului ntropologiei

motiilor.

b) Demers ntropologic iferitvizdndproblematicarezenta

4t



12. Antrop olo

gia

corpul uL

Texte

propuse

A.

Le

Breton, Davrd - 2002 < Antropologia corpului

gi

modemitatea >,Ed. Amarcord,

Timiqoara,cap.4:<Astdzi ,corpul>,pp.81-87,cap.5:<Oestezieavief i icotdiene>

pp.

89-110

B.

Jacques aliba_-

Le corpset les constructionsymboliques, in

Socio-Anthropologie

no

NoS

Mddecine t santd

Synboliques

escorps

((

La

littdrature

nthropologiquest

ichede desciptions u corps.Elle nous es

i\,.re n €s hdorisant, ettart

en valeu toute a complexitd e eursconccptions.

ais,

si

la

miseen

perspective

ndropologiclueccentuea

pertinence

u ddbatNatur€/Culture,lle

permet,

ussi,d'interoger

a dCfinition livoque

que

a civilisation

occidentale conl'drdeisto

quement

u corpset

qu'elle

a imposde, omme euls egard t discoursdgitimes.

En effet, es disciplines iologiques t mddicaies nt acquisun monopole e savoiret de gesliondu corpsd

I'exclusion e ouleautre orme,

Dans es

socidtds xotiques,

e

corps

s'exprjme travers esmythes,

€scroyancost dcs tuels hdrapeutiques

dont 'efficacitdsymbolique st ddmontrde

ar

les havauxethnologiques.es dcrnicrsmettcnt

en avant

es

aspects

ationnels,

ien

que

sp€cifiques, e

ces

trpes dc

pensCe

u de

pratique,

mernesi les tennesde

(

mentalit6

rimitive

),

pensCe

auvage

,

(

empidsme t ddterrrinisrne

ausal

)...peuvenl araitre

mbigr.rs.

Le recul anthropologique,vec e ftavail

qu'il

impose ur soi et sur es cultures,nterroge

on seule:nenta

pensde

nagique

mais arLssi a confrontatjon

vec la

pensde

echlico-scientifiqr.re.l

pennet

de mieux

comprendree sens e

ce

qui

esten.lcte,dansnossocidtis, orsque

ens6e

avante t reprCseutatiolls

rofanes

se encontrent,omme arexemple ans a relationmddecin/malade.l donne, ar i, nnedimension istorique

ir

nos nstitutions, os

croyances

t nos

pratiques

ans

€duire

a

conl'rontation

ulturelle l'opposition e deux

grands

moddles:Tradition/Modemiti,

ocidtds

oides/Sociitis haudes.

[

fait,

a modemite ccidentale,n

se

heurtant uxsocidtds ppelldes'abord

rimitives uis

exotiques,e

qucstionne

travers escult resalLtres

Il

appartient la sociologie,

onme

ar

'anthropologiet encore h.rs

la socio-anthropologie.e resituer,

ans

dessocidt6selles

que

esn6tres,e ddbat w la cultureet ses ormes

ymboliques.l s'agitdc lcur rcndre oute

lcm rationalitd, ans e lieumdmcoir dominea conceptionnatidelleet echnique

u monde,D'autant

plusque

cetteapproche nidimensionnel lees

aits

sociaux

stau coeurm€me

descrises

ui

traversentotre modemitd.

Le corps, r uaversa difiicultddes

questionsu'il pose,

n estunebonne

llustration.

Mais

qu'est-ce ue

e corps? Comment

e penser

Sous

quel egisfte

e ddfinfu Ses ormationseldvent-elles

de

'essence

ntrinseque'une chose ou obdissent-ellesu,\aspectselationnclst mdtaphoriquesnhdrents

tout socialet i toute slmbolique ?

Objet de sciences

ositives,

ommede sciences umaines,e corps, orsqu'il

est souffrant, st e centredes

th6ories

mddicales

t de eurs

pratiques. a

clinique

psychanalltique,

lle-m€me. ien

que

n'abordante corps

qu'en

ermes e signifiants, 'aumit

pas

vu lejour sans neconsfuction

u corps

ar

a sciencemodeme.C'est

le ddcriptagedes slmptdmes hystdriqueset le caractdre aumatique de la

sexualitd

qui

conduisirentFreud, en

rupture vec 'hyplose,d ses6parer e a m6decine

ourposer

'inconscient.



Le corpsse

prdsente,

insi, dansnos soci6t6s ousdiff6renles acettes.

La

question

de ses dl'drences evient

une

questioll

contempo@ine. oulant elle apparait

pamdoxale

ant domine

aujourd'hui la ddfirition naluralistedu

corps.Cett€ demidre end I'enfemrer dansun

questionnement ui pa1l

de

l'6vidence

de son apparclceavec e

prdsupposd

ccidentald'un corys-maliere, ir fonctionnement t dysfooctiomement

de sa

substance achent,en

fait,

sa

6alitd qui

est

e produit

d'une construction

istorique.

Les

ph6nomdnes

orporelsont I'objet de discours t d'intelprdtations.ls

appartiennent,insi.d cdt6de leurs

caractdresrganiques, des egistres

e

repr€s€ntation

t de langage. u

coeurdesdtuels et des croyances

magiquesou religieuses,e rapport des hommesd la souffralce est un des dldments onstitulifs,par

rationalisationl,

dcs

grandes

eligions.

4:$ gtlglq- 4_ 941i-t

4( t9ll9rl9'c-o,1ps

9

pS,u _tolrg

iqsqcid

dc rout

clr.qd

liqqclil

dan a cqllurqet Ie

langage.

l n'est

plus

possible,

ujourd'hui,

e Le

enser

n dehors e ces

dfdrenticls.Dansun contexte u se

perd

'euphorie topique

u

progds,

esapproches

n €mes do

positivisme

scieltilique et technique

rouvent eurs imites. En effet, dans e

cadrede la sdculasation

qui

est

lide

d

l'avdnemenl e a modernitd.a

Science 'estconstrujte ansunesubversion

u

paradigme

eligierLx,herchant

m€mc

d

l'6ljminer

et d r6pandre,ans 'ensemble e a culture

t des nstitutions,'esprit

desa

propre

ddmarche.

Le d€bal

actuelautou du corps ait de la

perspective

nthropologique

me des oppositiots

essentiellesr

I'imp6rialisme u scientismeechnologique. esituer

ans etu histoirel

cesdeux

positions,

'uneculturelle t

relativiste,

'aute homogdndisante1 eductrice

af

son

)?e de rationalit6,'ait

Cmergera

possibilite

'une

r€llexion ritique

oi seconfrontente

paradigme

u colps-matietet

ccluidu corps-rndtaphorique.

Los camctdresontradictoirest exclusifs

e cesdeuxoonceptioilsu corps

ne ooncernent n effet, que

nos

socidtds.

ls

nous ntroduisent une ecture riliquedenotte

cultweet bnt

apparaitrea coDstructionoci0le es

cadres nstit[tionnels

t discursifs e la rdaliti du corys.Cette

cu]tuleest,d'ailleurs,

a seuled i[tenoger a

place

de celte r6alitddans cs registrcs

ymboliques u imaginaires,

c m€me

que

a nature

cl le sensdes

symboles

u'elleproduit.

Le l'aitcorporel e

pr6sente,

ci,

de manidre xplicite,

ommeun fait

parld

et

pcnsi.

maisaussimanipuld,

aDse

rdfdrentiel

'une ulture ont e modo

d'orgar sation

n

Cglemente

a

geslion.

Il ['est

plus

contradictoire,

lors.de

questiourer,

u

point

de vue

dc a cultureet du langagc,

ette dalitdou ce

leeldu corys

qui,

outen se

pdsentant

omrDeimpies onndese a

madere, onl ravcrs6s

ar

desdiscours

ui

n'ontni lc memes1a1u1i la meme egitimitd t qui n'ob6issentasaux m6memodesde ldgitimation. ctte

interrogationu ajt corporcl

e

place

insidans nedoublc upture.

D'une

part,

l se diffdrencie e

I'approche

sychologique,

liniqueconrme

expirimentale,

ui

acoentuees

dinensionsbrmalisdes

u exptessivesu corps, elles

ui

dmarrentessens t

desdmotions.

D'autrepalt.

l se distancie 'un

abordbiologique t

physiologique,

eluide 'r:rganisme.

ui

se

prdsente

ous

desaspects

na114iques,esc

ptils

et bnctionnels.

Cesapproches

ont aussinatu?listes es unes

que

es autres.

Ellesont

pour

efflt. si cc n'est

pow

objectif,

d'( il'lstnmlentaliserle corps. l

dcvicnt, lors, orcede

production,

ource 'dnergie

u systdncd'adaptalion.

Cescadres onceptuels,ui font du corpsun objetde savoir, onditionlent amanipulationechnique. outcs

ces

probldmatiques

articipe[t,

en e1let, 'unehistoire

qui

pritend

Ctre elledu

corps del,alors

qu'elle

n'est

que

cellede

ses

conceptions. roduites

t tansmises

ar

des nstitutions,

ont a rnddecine

odeme n est e

meilleurexemple, llescherchent

distingueresdiscours fin d'en unifier

utl et de 'intdgrer

ans

e

chan'tp e

la Science,

ssayant,

ar

d, demieuxmaitriser ne echnologie

'intervettion.

Parcoltre, Iorsqu'il

est

pis

comne fait culturel, e corpsdevient

n objet anthropologique.

odeur e sens,

sans uctme isde dl6ologique,l

seconshuit traverses

pratiques

t es nstitutionsndependamment

e oute

finalitd

biologique.nqglt

qan:

lla

prlori

du

angage,

l

participe

'un fonctionrement

ollecrif.

43



Mais au-deld

du simple rejet du biologisme, 'int€tprdtation anthropologique u oorps rouve sa spdoificiteen

e

constuisantcomme ait historiqueet social.

Etabli

par

une symbolique

ollective

qui

l'intdgredans a

complexit6d'ue culture, e corpsen devient

un des6l6mentsndissociables.1 est nsdparable 'uneaperception

holistique,dont a

place

et la forme difltrent de celles

que

ui donne a d€marche

nalyique moderne.

La

pensde

'uncorps-matidfe,€tachd

e 'nme-estconsensuellement

osd

omme

n dldment onstitutif e

a

civilisationoccidentale

modeme.Mais cette demidre ntroduit en outre l'idde d'un corps ndissociable e

findividu, de

'extdrieur e

son

mageet de 'intdrieur e sonvdcu.La culturedu corpsn'est

plus,

conrme hez

les Crecsl. une igurationpour autruiqui 6volue, out au loqg des nteractions, ansune altdrit€. Elle estp1ut61.

ici, l'incorporation 'une subjectivitd

ui

se d6ploiedansune dentildstable,

onstruite

ar

identification

t

transmiseocialement.'individu accdde la modemitd

ar

ul1

processus

istorique '( autocontrainte4.

qui

socialise

iolence

t

pulsions

t

qui

e fait, ainsi,

se €aliser

ans

a

sublimadon:. a valorisalion ontemporaine

de I'dthique t de I'ethos e

a

(

maitrise e

soi > commemoddle

e comportement,ur equel epose 'ailleurs

toute

personnalisation

ncorpor€ede a domination,eo est ule boture lluslration.

Le corpsse touve alorsau centredu

phdnomdne 'individuation ui

oamct6risees soci€t€smodemes. e

suinvestissement

arcissiqueont l estactuellement'objet, sur e

plan

social, stun

des

ndicateurs ajeurs

de cette ra[]sformation.'individu devient n 6trede droit, de

ouissance

t de besoin, ef€ndant ne ntinlit€

qui

est indissociableu statutde

la

personne.

ce titre, le cotps

se donned voir d I'interstice 'espaces

juridiques,

conomjques,

sychiqucs ui

sont r l'intersectionu

public

ct

du

p

vd.

Mais

c'est

par a

scicnoe t

par

la

publicit€,

et aussi

par

e sport,

que

es

phdlomdnes

u colps bnt une entrde ans 'espace

ublicf.

ll

apparait, lom,dansun discoursmddiatisd

ui

est ouiourc n discousnormatifparlant 'hygidne, e maladie t

de santi, sous ouvertde ldgitinitd mddicale. ette

dea'iere epose

ur un calactCrcationnellementonstruit

d'dnoncds

ui

obdissent, la fois, au

principepoppdrien

e thlsiliabilildet d l'efficacitd

pectaculaire

e eurs

applicationseclmiques. a mesurc. 'exp6 mentation t I'obseryation mpirjque ont, ci, les seules etre

valorisCes,e

qui,

dansun

contexte

e

(

rationalisationu monde ,

confirme a mddecinenodeme ans e

bien-fondd e sanouvelle rientation istolique

ui

a conduit aligner es

savoirs

t

sa

pralique

ur

e moddle

de a soience.

Le fait corporel, anscetteacceptionndividuelle, st aussi |lr obiet sociologique.l peul Clre eli6 ii unc

conception

ragmatiste

e l'individu

qui

le oonstruit ansune forme

sociale 1

qui

I'inscdt dansun espace

d'interactionsz.'y ddli[ritentdes rontidres, 'ilaborenl esstratdgies,e mcttent n

place

des actiques utotr

d'images u moi et de

I'autre.

Se crdentainsides

epr6sentationsui

ddifientdes dentitds ansun contexte

d'alt6dt6.

Celte

marquendividualisdeu corps, i elle

peut

CtIesaisie omme onsciencet comme

straldgie,

nc

oelneipas

]4

pfsg

en comptede son appartenance

olistique

d un systdme

lobal,

culturellement t

histodquement

roduit.

Sa transmissiou

ommesa transformationistofique, ar

la dynamique es

groupes

'sociaux

ju ilesblaises, chappent I'ana1yse.,a dimensionantasmatique.lle-meme,

erd

de sonacuitd

au

profit

d'unesuwalorisationcs laborations ognitives.

Une telle

probldmatique

cculte

ce

qui

reldvedu Slljet au

profrt

d'uo individu-acteur

tudi6d tlaversdes

logiques 'aclion.Ce demier,soit en statdge8,oriente ationnellementa conduite, e fixe des objectil's t

analysedes situations, oit, au contraire,est ddflni comrne un Ctre ddtemin69,

produit par

des

jeux

d'intemctions u des systdmes

ui

l'alidnenten le

positionnant.

'autressociologues nt 6tudi6 e corys r

tlavers 'usagesociallQ

qui

le fagorme n le socialisant des contraintes

e consommationu de travail.

D'autes encoree

posent

ans n a

priod

de a d€temination iologique.ls recherchentans 'hdr6dit6,

lutdt

que

dans

'hdritage,'explication

e

'action.L'acteest, ci,

ddfinicomme 6ponse une

poussde

nerg6tiquee

l'organisme t non comme raduction 'ru1 dsir.La capacitd 'adaplation

evient nevaleurvitale.Fllleest e

Foduit

d'ure silection

qui

obiit aux ois de

'6volution.

Ces h6ories ociales e onfrontent des

paradigmes

behavioristesu

sociobiologiques,

ommed'autres. onctionnalistes,ejettent

es thdses tilitaristes, nalyses

qui

sontd l'oeuvre mplicitement ans es conceptionsiologisantesu corpset qui

en

dgitiment

a

gestion

u

le contrdle.

44



logique du fantasme t d celle du don

pris, ici, dansson acceptiond'6change.Comment dsoudre, e la manidre

1a

lus

ationnelle

ossible,e probldme

e

a

penurie

esorganesr

greffer

? La rdponse stcherch6e u c6t6de

la rationalisation

ar

'€conomique,

'organisatiofilel,oire e marketing.

Enlre,ainsi,

dans institutionm6dicale,

eapproprid

ar

esm6decins. I'exclusion e out

discous

concruaent,

en

particulier

religieux,

les

pathologies

ou les dysfonctionnements u corps deviennentmatidre

premidre

d'un

tavail de natule

professionnelle.

Dans son champ, et d I'exclusive de toute inteNention extd eure, se

d€finissent es

savoir-faire, e transmettentes

pratiques

t s'enseignentes connaissancesh€oriques. es

competenceseldvent e positions tatutairest hi&archiques ui ddlimitentdes dentit€s t des espaces e

qualification

t de

reglementation.oute

prise

en charge nstitutionnelle bdil d un

principe

de sdpaxation

Bdicale

avec d'un cdtd e mondedes soignants

ui produit

ses

propres

ignesde

distinctionet

de

I'aute

1'univers essoign6s.

En s'inscrivant insi

darlsurl champ

professiomel,

a m€decinemodemes'approprie'autorite €gitimede

d61inLescriteres u nonnalet du

pathologique,e '6tatde sant€ t de maladie. lle d€chargea famille.

Seule

I'auto t6

professionnelle

u mddecin

eut

dgitimerune

personne

ansun

statut

de malade.ui donnant es

droits

et

des

devoirs.Contairement la manidre ontelle est aitde da.nsessocidtdsraditioflnelles,a maladie

deviertune enlit€spdcifique

ui

sediffircncic de

l'ensemble

es nfortunes, lle seule

ustific,

d'ailleurs, es

inteNentionsm6dicales

n matiCrehdrapeulique.outeaulxe orme de soufliance u de malheur

qui

l1'entre

pas

dars ce

cadre rationnel-l€gal ne reldve

pas

de cette dgitimitdmddicale. outeune symptomatologie,

excluede ce champ hdrapeutique.e tourne

vers les

mddecines

opulaires

t

paralldles,

el6gudes ans a

marginalitd unomde 'exercicc

lldgalde a mddecine.

Quelle

place

a

psychanalyse

ccupe-t-elleans e mouvement e

(

rationalisationu monde> ? S'yreconnait-

elle

une

iliation? Y inscrit-elle ne upture

Nde dans 'Europe

positiviste

u XIX" siCcle,a

psychanalysc

,

poul particularitd,

'interroger e manidre

qitique

la science, e ddfinir e statutde son

discours t de travailler 'origiltaljtd

e sa

pralique.

,ide d la

mddecine,

ar

ses

originoset

ses

effets hirupeutiques,lle en rdcuse on apparteoance,

rdnant,

la suitcdc

Frewl,la <,,aienanulys?. Ddtachde e 'hypnose-12,llerdorienteapraxisautour u langage t de a culture,

qu'elle

se dapproprie

parth

d'un

processus

e ddconstruction,ecolmaissad

ar

ir sonaftiniti avgc

a

langue

po6tique..,

Sc

plagant

orsdu charnp e la science,

out en dtalt

partieprenante

e sesddbals pisldmologiques,

ejetant

ndanmoinse

posilivisme.

a

psychanalyse

e attache-t-elle

our

autant la

pensde

ythologique u A cellede

la <

pensde

auvage ?

Quels

peuvent

tre ses apports vec a cure rnagique'lAutant d'interogatioDs

ui

posent,

omme

pour

a mddecine,

a

question

es iliations.mais

qui

ne

peuvent

Ctreapprdhenddes

ue

dans

I'( historialDd'unecultlue.

D'autrescontextes,

ar

leur exotisme,

osent e

corpsdansun registe discursifet institutionnel iffdrent.

Cornme e montre ldrodote, e recoursAL'enq$Cte,hez espquples u'il appelle< Barbares , est une autre

maniCred'dclairer

es

discours

et les colrtumeset de mettre ainsi

en

relief leur

pluralitd.

Plus tard.

l'antltopologiehira 'apologie ecette dmarchet s'imposeravec e relativisme.

Se rdfdrcrd desobservationse tenain ethnologique

I'avantage

e mette au

premierplan

es dimensions

culturelles u corpset de le

presenter, e maniere xpliciteet empirique,

ornme

roduit

d'uneconstruction

sociale.

La forctionnalitd non naturalistede I'enveloppecolporelle et de ses organes

petlt

ainsi Ctremise ell

€vidence t th6o sde.Cesexetnples limentert

a rdflexion

ur

'enjeuque

eprdsentee fait corporel orsqu'il

entre ans e discours ocial t

portent a vue a

place u'il

occupe ans 'imaginairendividuel

u collectif.

46



En effet, outesescultures onnues.

I'exceplion esn6tes, bnt

du corps ne

partie

ntdgrante u social.l est

au coeurdes

pratiques

agiques t thdrapeutiquesomme escroyanceseligieuses

u des

m)thologies.I

est

inclu dansdes systdmes e reprdsentation il se n€lent imaginairescollectifs, observations

mpiriques,savoir-

faire

et

interpretations.Dans oute

(

pens€e

auvage )

qui

est aussiune pensde

u double,diffdrents niveaux de

la rdalitd, ntinomiques

orr

nous, ontappr6hend6sans nem6me ohdrence'ensemble.

La critiquedu

primat

de I'explication rganiciste st a condition

pour

construire 'obiet

et

fonder

'intdrCt

heuristique e la ddmarche t de sesdsultats.Position

amais

acquise,ant e recorus La

preuve

bioiogique

rejoint,dansnos ypcsde sociitis, rur maginaire ussibien ndividuelquecollectif.Ce demierddldgue la

science, LlI le mode de la < bi >, un

pouvoir

ldgitime de validation

s'appuyant ur des

procddures

d'expdrirrentationu de ormalisation,e

mesure

mpirique u de

pragmatisme

t d'observation. celles-ci e

confronte

n

autre yped€

pensde,

elui

de dominds u d'exclus,

ui

se rouvca1i6n6srmeautre otalitd, elle

de la croyancemagique t de sesmisesen scdnes, molionnellest expressives,

u corpsct dcs

nfortunes.

Dissocid,

ar

n6gation u

par

ddfaut,de la

parole

ct de sa capacitd 'dlaboration,eur corpsne

pcut

s'inscrire

dans

une

histoire,

elle

du

sujet,et

etre positionnd insi

dansun contcxteavec ses ogiques, ulturelles t

langagidres,e elation.

Comment endrc compted'une

probldmatique

u corps

qui

puisse

associe.'organisation

iologiqued un

principe

eclassificationonorganique,arsymbolique t angagier

Paradigmeubversif I'igardde a

pensde ositive.

mais

qui permet

'articuler

es

polaritds

u corps, a droite

e1 a

gauche,

'intddeuret I'ext€deur,e corps-matidret l'esprit..., une

polariti

socialc oDctionnelle 1

organisatrice'uDordre ntellectuol omposd 'aff'ects. ette

polarilC

ejointcellede a division

Sacre/Profane,

Pur/Impur.Construite

ar

de

(

l'IntcrditD.elle se retlouveau coeurmelll€

de la structuration u langage, c

I'incolrcientet de a cultere.Elle rdinteroge a technique t la science u

c0tC c scsorigines, e ses iliatjons

e1de

ses

effcts et la

conflontcd d'autres

heminerrents.llle

donnesa mesurc r la violence t au modede

domination

ue

ecdle'imposition e oule dgitinlite

ui

ne repose

uc

sur unevdritd otalisante,pAque scs

dldrnenlst I sa ogique econstruction

Notesde basdepflge umdriques

M.

Webe\

Le

udalNne

unlique,Paris,

Plon,1970.

2

N'est-cc

as

a tache 'un avail de

g6nialogie

uqucl ous onvieMiclrel

Foucault

3

J.-P,Vernanl,

'rrdividu,

d morL 'arrcar,

Paris,

Gallimard,

989.

4

J.-J.Coutine,

(

Les stakhalovistesu narcissisme.ody building

et

puritanismc

stentatoireans a culture

amdricaincu corps r,

:ommunicalion\

6,1993.

5

N. Elias,

a ciyiir'Mlion el moeurs, aris,Calmanrl-Ldvy,

973.

0J.

Habemas,L'espace

ublique,

orchlologie

de la

publiciv

comme onstitutiwde la socitti bourgcoise,

I'aris,Payot,1978.

7E,

Goffmln,Stiguate.

es

usuges ociaux es

handicuTts,Pwl,s,

inuit, 1975.

I

Cf,

par

exemple.es rava[xdeM. Crozier t deR. Boudon.

P.Bourdicumctpafticuliircment'accent ur a ddterminationbjective essujets ociaux tde sesef'fets, ur

leurconduite,

ar

a mddiation c a subjectiviti.

0

L. Boltanski, Lesusagesociaux u cotps>.Annales,l,

anvier-fdvrier

971.

LlM.

Douglas, e /a ouillure,eitsaisut esnotions e

pollulioh

et le abou,Pais,Maspero, 971.

f

H. Ellenberger,lstoire de a dicout'crte e 'inconscient, ad,s, ayard, 994.

Bibliographie

Boltanski

.

<

Lesusagcs ociaux u corps

), 1rr?a/s. ,,

anvier-

ivrier 1971.

Bourdieu . e

ser?sraliaae.

Pa-ris. inuit. 1980.

4'7



Bo$\ier

P,

Socio-anthtopologie

u contempo,'air.Pads,Galild€,

1995.

Coutine J.-J.

(

Lqs

stakhanovistes

u narcissisme.

Body

building et

pudtanisme

ostentatoireda.ns a culhue

amddcaine u corls > Communication,

6, 1993

DouglasM. De /a so?illure,

essais ur les notionsde

pollution

et de tabou. Pwis,Masperc,791l.

EhrenbergA.

/

'rrdividu

ikceftain. Paxis,Calman-L€vy,1995.

Elias N. La cililisdtion clesmoeurs.Paxis,Calmann-Levy,

1973.

EllenbergerH. lliJtoil e de q ddcowefte de 'ihcofiscient

Palis, Fayard,

994.

FoucaultM. lfa,i,rarcede q cli

ique.Psis,PUF,1963.

Goff'';.€nE,Stigmqte.

es

usages

ociata deshawlicaps.Paris,Minuit, 1975.

Haherrflas . L'espoce

ublique.

Arch4obgie de

lq

publicitd

comtkecohstituth'ede la soci'ft boutgeoise.

Paf:.f,

Payot, 978.

Parcons , Evments

pour

unesociologie

de I

'aclion,

Puis, Plon, 1"954.

Verrrar\t

.-P.

L'indi' du, a mort, 'amour.Pads,Gallima.rd,989.

WeberM. Le

udaisme

ntlque.Puis,Plon,1970."

Obiective;

a)

Corpul

-

obiect al studiului istoriei reprezentbrilor olective

qi

al

antropologiei:iferente,

semdniri.

b) Corpulsocial

$i

cultural

identit5li

ontemporanele omuluide ast6zi.

13. Antrop o o

gia

comunicdrii.

Texte

propuse

A. sub dir. Yves Winkin

- 1996 < La

NouvelleCommunication, Ed. de Seuil,cap.2 :

< Textes.Recherchesur 'interaction",EdwardT. Hall

-

,Broxemique",

p.

1.9I 223,

Erving Goffman

,,Engagement",

p

267

284i

Obiective:

a) Caresunt emeleantropologiei

comunicdrii?

b) Identificarea

procesului

comunicirii in diverse nstitulii sociale familia, interac.tiunea.

Logiciqi strategii leactorilor ociali.

48



74. Antropologia contuctelor intercultarale.

Texte

propuse

A.

"Ethnocentrisme

t relativisme ulturel

Chaque culture est l'expressiond'une forme d'adaptationsp6cifique d un milieu naturel. Cet argument est

primordial puisque

il

pemet

de constater

que

toute forme

d'adaptatiol est satislilisa[te

pour

la

socidtd

correspondante.onc

on

peut

dire av€c eftitude

u'il

n'y a

pas

de bonne u mauvaise

r tureet bienentendul

n'y a

pas

non

plus

decultures updrieuresu nfdrieures.

Une cultureen totaled6sintegration

ourrait

dventuellement

tre

qualifide

d'inl'6rieure, ais oujours

cette

situation eraitdue d une brutale nteNent ionextemeet non vouluecomme

dansdes cas de colonialisme.

d'exploitation,

'esclavagc,edorriDation,tc.

Maintenantl nous 'aut appeler ertains

onsequenoes

e 'autoreproduclion

e a crlture.Tel

que

nous 'avons

d6javu, tout ndividu,de sa naissance la vie adulteest mprdgnd

ar

la cultue de sa soci6td. insi chaque

personne

stmodelde niformdmentommeesautrcsodividus e a meme

ocidtd t tousagissentJaisonnent.

pensent,

e la m€me 'aqon,

'est-d-dirc

u'ils

ont

tous

exaoternenta memeoulturc

ct solrt compldtement

idenfilids elle.A ohaque ccasion

u'un

ndividua desoontacts

vecd'autres ultures,e choc

qu'il

va

scrtir

facoaux

nroeurs u couturnes es auftes 'estautrechose

ue

sa eldance

d

les

traduirc,d les expliquer r'r

lbnctionde sa

propre

ulture.Etant

donnd

ue

ous es ndividus

onl mbusde gurs

propres

otmes l valeurs

culturellesls sontainsi ncapables

e

comprendrea culture

desautes sociaes.Non seulementes ndividus

ont unc tendaoce l c

pas

conpreldre es autresmais,en

plus,

ls vont

affirmer

que

eur

prcpre

cultureest

mcillcurc

quc

toutcs

cs

aufcs . Ccs attitudes

uc

(Ious

venons

e ddcrire onstitucnl n comportementue

I'althropologie omme thnocentrisme

l,es manifestationsesplusooura.ntese I'ethnoceulrisnee retrouvent ansdesattitudes llanl des sintplcs

moqucrics u riresau refus

des

appofls

vecd'auhesndividusde diffdrentes ultures.

,e

tout

peut

afiiver a

ddvelopperes dics de mipris d I'igarddcsautres. cllcs

que

soutenir

ue

es autres ont nf6rieurs, oleurs,

sales.

tc.

L'ethnocentrismestpropre

toutes

es

cultures

uisqu'il

stbel et bisn un

rdsullat e

'appreotissagc

d'une ulture.Pourcette aison, 'ethnocentrismestuniversel.l lbut

signaler

ue,

malgrd on uni\rersalitd,e

oomportementthnocentrique'estabsolument

as

avorable I'acceptation

t la comprdhcnsionesautres; t

ce,

sutout dansdessocidtds dveloppdest rnodern€s

ui

ont une endance exprimer

€ur ethnocentlisme

haversdes attitudes e supdriorild t de domination. ans

cet contextc es cons6quences

ont

g6n6ralement

tldsaslreusesour c<

ocii l is

nondcvcloppicq.

Lorsqu'une

ulture

prend

ontact vecuneou

plusieurs

ulres ultues l n'y

pas

de ruisons alables

our

aire

des comparaisonsastidieusest pour dmettre es ugements e valeurs.Tout ce qu'on peutconclure ans

probldme

est

que

es culturessont differcrtes et

que

cesdifllrences n'ont pas

d'ich€lle hidrarchique. a situation

prdcddente

st

uneattitude 'esprit cientifique

ue 'anthropologie

dsigne ous e nom

de

relativisme

ulturel.

Cefiainement

que

si on se sert du relalivisme culturel on

peut

diminuer considdrablement 1rndme

eliminer

l'ctlrnocentrisme.

Il

y

a un

dsque

avec

e relativisme

ulturel: eluide ransfomrere relativisme

ulturelen ddologje xtreme. e

relativisme ulturelcornme ddologie

permis

d certains nlhropologues

e soutenir 'idJe

qu'il

ne faut

Fas

intervenir dans certainescultues afin

qu'ellespuissentgafder

eur

originalit6 d I'dtat

pur.

Ceci veut dire

qu'ils

prdtendent

oonservercertainessocidtdscomme de vdritables

"musdes

ivants".

Cette endance, eueusement

peu

idquente,est d'une absurdit6

ompldte

Les contacts ntercultuels

sont aujourd'hui ndvitables,

et c'estune

49



inesponsabilitdde ne

pas

ouver les

moyensaddquats

our que

ces contactssoient e

plus

favorable

possible

ct

se assent ans ouleversements

rdpambles."

ttp://$MN.ethnociel.qc

B.

.,Le

enversement u ciel

De 'Empire evenu nenation, t de

a

pertinence

e a compr6hension6ciproque

our

a Chine

Wang Mingming

Lotque le

grand

oiseau,Peng,vena

la Tefte d'etxha t, cotnme ousaulres vryofi le ciel de

pal

efi dessous,l

cesseld e

gtilcyer t com encela rolel Nerse sud.

ZhuangZI

Il existeun

phenomdneue

nousappelons

6sormais l'anthopologie€ciproque

.

Notredefinition ommune

de ce

phdnomdne

st elle

que

celui-ci ait

partie

d'un

projetplus

argede restucturation e I'espace ntre a

culture esautres t a

"

ndtre

-

la

"

n6tre"ddsignant

ci la

possibilitd our

des

Europdens

u

pour

desChinois

ou d'autres e aireallusion leur our d " nos" contrepadiesltemativesespectives.n tantquecomposantes

humaines anscette

nouvelle ntreprisentellectuelle,ousemployonse terme a.nthropologiedciproque

(appellation ui

n'existe

ue

depuis rledizained'anndes)

our

signifietune

vision

du mondeet une

pratique

ahematives.onsistar']t

rincipalement

reconnaltrea signification ntologique

e

a

conjonction

essystdmes

de culture

et

desdchanges

ntreeux,ainsi

q

d respecter€selfortsvisantA crderune dispositioniciproque

ou

'i

co-prdsence

parmi

es different€sultures umaines

le

Pichon,1995),Cette ,ome d'antluopologie et

I'accent ul e concept e a

"

rdciprocild

,

d savoir a ftciprocitdentre iff'drentes

agons

e

percavoir

e monde.

Mds

peut-on letendte u'il

s'agit d dtrne

quele

novaticede a connaissancet des elationsnterculturelles

lendant

prcsque

out le XXe sidcle, es anthropologuesnt cherchd

percevoir

e soi

"

i travers 'autre

.

A

parlir

de leursobservatioDs,es anthropologues,onsid6railt l€s contrastesullurelscommeun moyende

connaissance(Sahlins, 000),ont cherchd rexplorer es diverses istes ultuellesafin de rdfldchirsur'leur

propre

connaissanceocale

(Geeftz"

983 voir aussiWolker,

1993).

Parmicesanthropologuestructurels,

nous

pourrions

iter desauteurs xemplaires

els

que

-evi.Strauss,

ui

a

fonddses hdories ur a

"

thdode

de

I'alliance

et

su|

la nolion de contraires omplimentaires,out en soulignante schdmanconscient

ui

sous-

tend

a

comnunication

rans-cultuelle ans I'esprit

rimitif

".

D'autres ntlrropologues

arlent

de mystiques

hostiles u march6

Sahlios,

972).

e tribuset de castes pposdes l'irdividualisme Dumont.1q86)- 'Etats

d'op6rettepposds

"

l'Etatsubstantiel

(Geetz,

1980), t de biend'autles ntagonismesompl6mentairesn

tant

que

dimensions e notreco-preseuce

dflexive.Plus

p|es

de nous,

es

anthropologues

ost-coloniaux

u

r6flexifsont cherchC

rdinterprdteres dcilsdesanthropologues

ui

sont

partis

de chezeux.en Europe, fin de

"

classer 'humanitd

on-euop6ennee telle manidre

quc

leur interprdtationoit en accordavcc e m)'the

europ6en u hiomphedu

progrds

(Asad,

1990).Ces chercheurs,uoiqueparfois

cn d6saccord vec

es

approches tructuralistes t interprdlativesantd eues, sont en train de produiredes dtudes [tdressantes ui se

mpprochentussi e a

"

disposition6ciproque

.

Pour ure rddvaluation e I'anthropologie

Cependant, ce constat

ne nous amCne

pas

A renoncer A nos efforts. Dans la foulde des tladitiol]s

anthropologiques odemeet

post-modeme,

'anthropologie 6ciproqueexige cefiaines ormesde ftciprocit€

qui

ne sontexpdmdes

ue

de fagon rnplicite hez

es anthJopologues

ntdrieurs. n a suggdri

que

nousdewions

lier nos recherches la Dotionbakhtirienne de

"

I'imagination

dialogique

",

ainsi

qu'd

un chronotopeou d une

"

perceptionparticulidredu temps,en relation avec espace,

qui

se ddveloppedans es sc6na os humainset

qui

lui attribue un caractere

particulier

"

(Femandez,1995).

S'inspirant

peut-etrepeu

ou

prou

de la

"

prestation

50



totale

"

de Marcel Mauss,une aute

prcposition

avance

que

nous

devrions rdaliserun

principe

d6coulantd'un

postulat qui

"

pdsuppose

une approcheengageantdeux sujets ou deux

cultures dans un

processus

6gal de

connaissance€ciproque

(le

Pichon, 1995).Les deux

propositions

soulignent e

fait

qu'uoe

nouvelle orme de

connaissance,elle

qu'elle

st

proposee,

'estconcevable

ue

si l1ous'abordons

omme ne

pratique

lternative

impliquant ure r€dvaluation

de

la formation

disciplinaire de I'anthropologie.Mais

comment distinguer cette

rddvaluationdes ddvaluations hlcturaliste, nterpr6tativeet

post-coloniale

?

La base e a r6ponse

eut

sembler

uelque eu

contradictoire.

arrse domaine ulturologique,

'anthropologie

rdciproquepeut6tre consid6r6e omme apparent6e rrx approchesntorprdtatives es dcits etlmographiqucs,t

surtoutd I'anthropologient€rprdtative

u

point

de

\ue

des auttes

ou

des rdigdnes)

ex.

Geertz,1973).

Nianmoins, ette echerchentellectuelle insiddfinieenglobe

ussi a

possibilitd

e relalionsransoultuelles.

Elle s'intdgre

ans

a

protestation

ntellectuelleontre a divisiondu monde

en

"

l'Occident t

puis

€ reste

("

the West and the rest

"),

Ainsi,

devons-oous dmettre

ue

nos efforts

nous coofiontentd tme situation

ambivalente.'un cdtd, 'anthopologie6oiproqueelle

que

nous 'avons

dfinieencouragees

anthropologues

estimer

que

es

differencesculturellesdes autres

par

rappofl ,r

"

nous

"

constituentLrnsystdme e valeurc

et de

connaissanceout A fait distinct.

De l'autre.e suiet ui-mCme sl ellementi6

d la r€lutation e cettedivision

anthropologiqueodeme u monde et de

"

l'identitdemporelle ("

coevalnessl'time

",

voir Fabian, 983)

althropologique ui

en ddcoule

qu'elle

'odenle ercunecritique

de a

pratique

e

"

l'alterit€

("

othering

)

dans 'anlhropologie oderne. e probldmc-cld ui

doit retenir ci notreattentionest de savoir comment

l'anthropologie

iciproq$e

eut

assurera continuitdntellectuelle

t ontologique

u seindu conhadictoire.

La notion

enthousiasmantee corespondance dveloppde

ar

le

Pichon selor laquellc

"

l'observation t

l'aDalyse e l\rn correspondent I'observatjon

t I'analyse e I'autre

(lc

Pichon,

1995)apporte ne solution

partielle

au

probldme.

Par-deld e concept e la correspondance,

l

propose

gaLement

ue

nous cherchions

commentes

diffdrentesultuessevoie[t lesures esautres

ans eurs ol-rtextesistoriques.

la suitcdecette

proposition,

l me

semble

que, pour

crder e type de co espondance

dsird,nous devonsd'abord viter la

rdduotionraditionnelle e I'anthropologie6ciproque

une vocationeuro-centriquc,

e veux dire

par

ld

que

nousavons

besoin e communicat ion ultila t6rale u lieu

de

la

tenlative abituelle e la

Dartde la

"

culture

occidentalc de rdaliser

es

propres

dentitiset d'acqudrir esconnaissances

son

proprc

sujet

tentative ui

aboutix ouvent des distinctionsiflexives) out en instituantes 6changesouhaitds dgalitdentreculture

occidentale t cultures

non-occidentales. nres

yeux.

I'un dcs prohlemes

vec c node

de

pe$6e

latdral

siugulier 'est

que

"

l'dgalitd

es

dcharges

a souveqt td haitdecomme

une critiquounilatiraledes

d6fauts

inhirents

au raitement urocentriqueidrarchiquee I'Autre,

c'est-a-dire'Autreel1

ant

qu'objet

'une haute

culture scientilique

t miroir iDversidu

"

progris

"

et de l'expansion

ccidentale

Wa11ers1ei4

997 voir

l'argument

ansSahlins. 000).

D6passer

a

podtique

e 'innocence

C'est

un bit

que

'anthropologieccidentaleraditionnelle.

ui

respecte

lesnobles auvages

.

par

sinciritdou

parpolitesse.

souventini par

ouvrir

a

voie d

fimp6rialisrne.

insi,

dans

e

contexte e r6ciprccit6

ui

est e

n6tre,aut-il econnaitreescont butions esanthropologuesost-coloniauxla critiquedisctnsivc u discours

anthropologique.outefois,dans e domainede l'dpist6mologie

ommedans celui

de

l'ontologie,

e

que

l'anthropologiedciproque

herche

promouvoir

'est

qu'une

inple remise

en

queslion

e la

"

cosmologie

native

de I'Occident. ouI nous.

elle constitue ne

rddvaluationlus

ef'l'ective,ui

cherche esquisser ne

nouvelle

pptoche

uclque eu

semblable cellede

"

l'tmiversitd

mmulde

,

selon aquellee

savoir niversel

y

compris e ddterminisme

u

pouvoir

et 1'6conomie

olitique

marxiste propose

un systdme

ulturelde

significationout aussiethnocentrique

Sahlins,

996).

Ceci constitue'expression

isto

que

et tansculturelle

d'un

"

langagem6ta'scientifiquearfait

,

de mome

qu'un

etour

d

I'ordre

sdmiotique u langage husivement

intelprdtd onlrne utant

e

"

symboles veugles

(Eco,

1995).Ceci mpliqueque

a comprdhensiondciproque

doit

peImettle

desdchanges

lus

larges,desEchanges ntre

r

cettecosmologie-ci

et

les

autresmodes ld-bas

"

de connaitrc

et de

repr6senter

e mondeaux hommes,modes

qui,

pour

moi, compreiment'dchange

ntre

"

vos

"

5l



probldmes

occidenlauxet

"

nos

"

probldmes

on-occidentaux.

Qui

plus

est, a hnalitd desdchanges €td ddfinie

d€

faQon rds dilferente

par

mpport aux

perspectives ritiques

de

1a

modemite coloniale

(et

du sidcle

des

Lumidres).Nots cherchonsd reddcoul.rirun domaine

inguistique et sdmiotique

panni

nous-mCmes, t entre

nous-nomeset

les

autres.

Nous sommes orl ddsireux

de

comprendrees

points

d'incomprdhension

utuelle qui

nuisenl notre co-prdsenceransculturelle

et A 'existence

paisible

de dif}'drentes uhuresdans un

"

monde en

voie de mondialisation

(Eco,

2000).En un mot, il n'est

pas

dansnotre ntentiond'apporter e simples

rectifications

olitiques ux

politiques

ruo-centrdesonddes ur e socio-6conomiquet sur a dynamique u

pouvoir,

elle,

par

exemple

u fameux systdme ondialmoderne

.

Il a €t6

posluld ue

"

I'harmonie u seinde difftrences

(ge

er bu ong),pour

employer €s emes

chinois

qui

ont 'avantage '€tre

lus rappants,eprdsentee thdme ental de note symphonie

Yue

et Le Pichon, 000

Fei,2000).Pourtant,es

polyphonies

onstitudeses

dflexions dciproques

ur es incomprdhensions

evaut

€tre issdes ans a s)mphonie e a compr€hension

ont r rechercher

vec

encore

lus

d'urgence

rc

ce hdme

fuluologique. es

polyphoniesmpliquent neapproche on-occidenlale.ar es h6ories e a

post-modemitd

ont appo(6

A beaucoup 'intellectuelson-occidentaux

'espoir

d'un renouveau ultwel,

y

compriscelui du

vieux concept hinoisde tongou

"

unit6

".

Maintenant

ue

es

pidges

rdsents

ans

es

sciences

umaines u

coulsde I'expansion ccidentale

e sontetlectivemert v6rds, os colldgues on-occidentauxomlrlencent

dmergerde

leur

pessimisme

l'6gard de lerus

propres

culturcs. En Chile. rm appel a 6td larcd er faveur de

"

l'auto-consciencee la culture" (wenhuazijue) co(espondant I'anthropologieuto-rdflexive u monde

occidental. otamDlent

ors

d'un

congrds ur le dialogue mnsculturel Beijing,oir dtaienl

pr€sents

edains

Occid€ntaux

par

exemple. ei, 1998). es dvdnementse ceftedemidre icennieont

proovd

ajustesse 'une

description escritiques e 'impdrialismeomme

ibouchant

nrun discous idempteur e a

qu6tc

d'identitd

de notle empire-devenu-natioo,

'une

des taches

de l'ranscultura st

ainsi de comprendre

e

processus

e

transnrission

a s esmondes

ost-modemes,

t decomprendrea ftansrnissionn ant

que

haduction 'uDmode

auto-rdl'lexil'e

production

ulturelle n auto-confirmation'un

enouveau

ulttrel.

lL se

peutqus

a transmissionansculturelle

e a connaissance'opdre

ar

des

cycles

ans

ln. Mais

pour

nous,

La 6futation

ost-coloniale

u discours t son desti[ dars des

"

situations oloniales

,

devenues utantde

"

situations ationales

,

conl]rmenl n

point

mportant, e

ne

sont

pas

seulementesEuropdens,esAm6ricai:rs,

et esJaponaispour esCorions t lesChinois) ui n'ontpas dussi comprcndrccs autrcs.Cc sontaussi cux

qui, pendant

cs

quclque

emiers idcles, e sont

nanife$es

en

tarlt

que

suietsde I'bistoricitd oloniale.Des

tenains e m6sentente,ussi ien

que

d'enteDte,

xistent hezdiversesribus

et civilisalions ouvent

xclues e

notre travail critique,

du

simple bit

que

notre rdflexioncritique ne couvresouvenl

que

Je discoursdes

grcupements

oi-disant

puissants

.

Mais,ce faisant^ 'a-t-on

as

oublii

quc

desexemples 'iucomprchcnsion

se rouventdgalement hezdes

"

peuples

ndigdnes

(d

l'exception

eut-etrc

es

Chinois

dont a socidt6 tait

tenue

our

Ctre complexe

)

considirds onnnc es enfants

nnocerts par

esantl,opologuesraditionnels

A non avis, a missior de l'antbropologieiciproque

ne

doit

pas

se imiter d la rdcitation 'une

podtique

e

l'inlocence. luscomplexe, lle doit appeler

otreattenlion ur a mise

au

point

d'un

ensemble e

mesures

ui

nouspemettrontde d6celer os sujets 'incomprdhension6ciproque

orlrpouvoir,

on I'espdre,es 6viter.Afin

de oumir un cadre isto que,e me suis oumdvers 'histoire e diversaspects e a civilisation hinoise, ont

lesschdmasosmologiquesc

a

Chineantique

t 'anthropologien ant

que

discipline ir

nous

percevons

es

dil'ficultds

emblables ceux

qui

apparaissentans es dtudes urop6ennesnodemes.2 etle6tude ouwe

plus

de deux mille ans, de 1'6poque lassiqued l'dre contempooine.Ce cl'nmp de vision dtenduseraune approche

utile du

"

point

de \,'ue des autochtones a

I'dgard des autres, meme

si un domarneaussi

vaste pose

des

probldmes

n misonmemede son mpoJtance.

L'empirc devenunation

Plus

precis6ment,

n

peut

ddcrire esuniversde

a cosmologie

hinoise n emes de ansfomration istorique

d'un

"

empire devenu

nation

".

Il s'agit, en un mot, de la transformalionde la vision cosmique

de

"

Tout ce

qui

52



est sous e Ciel

"

(tian-xia)

d 1'6poque e l'Empire, en

une sddede rdcits de la

ddemption

produits par

la nation

pendanl

e XXe

sidcle

pour

des exemples ntdrieurs,oir

aussiDuara,1995).

Jusqu'ici, ans es sciences

sociales,aussi

bien en Occident

qdailleurs,

il a 6td largement

admis

que

l'eurocentrisme

ddjd sutfisammetrt

s6viet

nui

d notle

quCte

e a connaissance.uisque on nombre

'anthropologues

ccidentaux.r savoir es

"

anthropologuesu Nord

",

semblent ttribueroutes es ddes ausses

I'esprit ccidenlal

insi

qu'd

1'6conomie

occidentale, ous sorlmesbien

placdspour

nous

poser

une

question

diff6rcnte.Pouvons-nous

implement

af'firmer

que

"

la vdrit6 existe d-bas

quelquepafl

"

parmi

les

peuples

non-occid€ntaurr

Et

pouf

les

besoinsde

nohe

enquete

ntellectuelle

t dans e contexterds

prdcis,

'approchehinoise

onsistant

poshLler

la

Chineet

les autres" - parsym6trieavec" l'Occidentet les autres"

-

est-elledifffuente de, et sup6rieure , la cosmologie

ocoidentale

ativebas6e ur e

"

systdme ondial ?

En d'autreermes,

ne

"

convention

rientale distincte

peut-elle

apporterune

solution d note rccherche 'un

"

espace e rdciprocit6

oi se touve modifid

l'ethnocentrisme

e a connaissance(...)

Que

signifient

esconsiddrationsu

point

de

lue

de I'anthropologiedndrale

Tant en Europe u'aux

Etats-

Unis, de rdoentes

tudcs,A I'int6deru t A l'ext6rieur e Ja

discipJine, nt

amene ombred,anthropologues

reviserceflainsaspects

rbitraircs 'un discours ulturelcontradictoire.

insi,

dans e travail de Marcus

et

Fischer

ur

e

"

momentexpdrimental (1986)et

danscelui de Rabinow

sw 1"' anthropologie

e la raison

,

(1997),

est-il ait appeid une

"

repat ation

de

l'anthropologie

.

Dans

cesdeur

perspectives,

'expansion u

systeme ondialoccidentalo-cenfd

u seinde

"

petites

ommunautis (xiao

shequ) e 'Autre,et 'univ€rsalitd

ou la

globalisation

e a raisonoccidentale

ontvuescomne es ormations olitico-€conomique

t discursive

de a modernitd

ui

ont enhainda disparit ion e 'Auhe.

La tAche e I'anthropologie,

elle

que

a dessinentes

de[x rdflexions, st de

sdparera discipliDe e ses ormes

spdcihquement

ssocides la rdflexion

sur la

dif}&ence

cr turelleet donc

aussi a rdflexionsur e suppos€

rogrds

niversel

c la raisonet de l'histoitc.

Cependant,a

question

esmdthodes apables e divelopper

desvisions

du mondeet

dcs

praliques

ociales

altcrnativesepuis e lointain,

ou, en tout cas,depuis 'ext€rieur

es

proprcs

ociCtdst visions

du mondedes

anthropologucs,

este e

probldme

entral

u discours dhropologiquc,

ourmoi, I'avanlage

e ,anthropologie

sw lesautres ciences

ociales t humaines c rouvc

p(dcisdmert

ans e

fait

que

cctte

discipline cujtivi dcs

L'ormesussidlabordes

c

connaissance.

'esten voyant e

Soi culturel

dans e miroir de l'Autrc.

ou, aulrement

dit, encberchant

nchumanitd otnmune

ansdes brmesde vie

plulielles,

ue

es

a hropologuesccidentaux

ont pu transcenderes cosmologies thnocentriques1 acilitcr la connaissanceransculturelledciproque

(Wang,2000).

Participant

epuis

lusieurs

nn6es ux

ddbats dversitaires n

Chine.

'ai

ddveloppd

ne consciencencam6€

"

(tihui)

dc la

prdoccupation

oale

pemranente

'une

prise

de conscience

ulturelle t de ses

progrds

fgturs

en Chine.

Pour es

partisans

e "' anthropologie

u Sud

",

le ddveloppement

ational

eprisente

eut-ehe

ne

entreprise encourager,

nealtcmative l"' anthopologie

u Nord

",

quj

se concenlre

dncipalement

ur a

rdllexivitd.

Cornmee laisse ntendre

uinlan

arlant

e a

"

recherchenlhrcpologique

ppliqude

', '

l€s

soucis

desanthropologucs

u Sudconcemant

a logiquc t la

pratique

u dCvcloppement

dbouchantur e

ptobldme

do savoircomment'axiomc

dc rdflexivit6, t la discipline

lle-m6me, euvcnt

tre ltdgrds

dans es

pratiques

desmdtiers

elevant e fing6nierie.

(Quinlan,

000)Pourmoi,

cette

prdoccupation

ocale,

qu'elle

e raduise

au niveaude 'ingdnieric, u ddveloppementational, u de 'expression,une olitiquede civilisation, dtd e

produit

de 'histoire

alticulidre

escontactsnterculturels

t des nfluences

dciproques.os

discussjonsurce

sujetdev.aient tle encouragdes,

fin decrderune

prise

de consciencel'6gard

es elations

ransculturelles

ui

n'a

pas

dtd

clairernentdfinied.rs le systdme landtaire

ontemporain.3

En

quete

'un roisidme

space

Au XXe s idcle, es

d€batsauthrcpologiquesn Occident

se sont focalisds

ur le

probleme

de I'Autre.De

diversesagons,

e

qui

estd6somais

onnusous 'appellation "'

anthropologie odeme

,a

dtdd6crit

grosso

modo cotune

un espaceou une discipline dans lesquels

des cultures

contemporaines

t coexistantes

sont

examindesen tanl

qu'dquivaleDts

u mircirs r6flexifs les

uns des autres.

DarN un tel esfJacenlellectBel.

es

5i



culnues

qui

ont

"

sulvdcu

I'

dansdifferentes

parties

du monde ont 6td vues commeun

patrimoine p€cieux

de

l'humanit6,et le travail de

l'anthropologue consistden de bonnes aductions de culturesautres

que

la sienne.

Ainsi, toute recherche nthJopologique

e

qualitd

ourre une 6chappde

ui permet

aux chercheurs

rofessionnels

de se libdrer des contraintes du

pouvoir et de 1'6conomie

politiques qui

ont entavd note

quCte

de la

connarssa]rce.

Ndalrnoins, comme

nous venonsde nous en reDdre ompte, € travail entepris

par

les antbropologues scindd

le mondeen Occident 'un c6t6,et restedu monde

de I'autre West

alld the rest).Ainsi,

pour

certains

ost-

modemistes, 'anthropologie erait a ldgitimation

de la division entre e cente (Soi) et la periphdrie l'Autre)

da.lls e systdne

mondial modeme. L'anthropologie de la r€ciFocit6 a

participd

,i la tentative

qui vise

i

transcender ettedivision. Partisa.ns e cette

approche. ous ne r6futonspas ndcessairemenl

t en bloc

le travail

de nos

prdd6cesseurs.

ependant,oussommes

rdsddsiretxde savoirsi certains espacesiers

"

existent

ue

nouspourrons

dcouvrir

et exploiter.C'est

pour

satisfaire e ddsir

que

nousavons ait entrer a civilisation

chinoise

ans e rayonde nos ntdr6ts.Mais un

probldme

emeure ar, s'il cxistedcpuis

plus

d'un sidclcdes

dtudesantbropologiquesur

la

Chine,

elles n'ont

pas

appeld 'attentionde ceux

que

lron nomme es

"

anthropologues

€ndralistes

(voir

aussiun cassemblable

our

'lnde du SuddansAppadurai, 984).Ce n'est

pasque

esanthropologues

ui

s€sont

pclrchds

ur

a

Chineont ecritdes6tudes thno$aphiqu€s

ddiocres

u

mis en

place

des cadres hdoriques

naddquats. ux

yeux

de beaucoup e thdoriciens e I'anthropologie,a

civilisationchinoisen'dtaitpasune cultue suffisamment tribale et bizarre" pour faire avancerDos"

connaissancesdciproques

(Wang,

1997).

Vue

sousun angle

plutdt

opposd. arrs 'anthropologie

e Ia

r6ciprocitd,a Chine a 6td hautenlent onsiddrde,

our

les memes aisons

qui

ont

provoqud

'€checdes

anthropologuesinologues

ccidentaux

uand

ls cherchaientL se

prisenter

comme des andropologues

gdndralistes.

otre souhait, 'est

que

a cosmologie hinoise 1

es

modeles hinoisde la

vie

sociale

uissent

proposer

n

"

troisidme space ente civilisation

uropdennet

"

mentalitd auvagg et

que,

de cettemanidre,

ils nous

ou lisscntdesoutilsefficaces

our

epenser os elatiolrs ulturelles.

Cette

uCte

'un toisidmeespace nousa amend

esquisser

lusieurs

ransfomalionsmportantesans

I'histoire e a

visior chinoise u monde t de 'humaniti.Note

projet

nitial61ai1e uaceres lajectoires

historiques

ar

csquelles

nt 6t6 ransmisesn Chine es hioriesanthropologiques,fin d'illustrer otro

argumentoncernanta comprdhensionl a cotrespondanceulturcllemuhilat6rale.'approcheosmr:rlogiquc

historique, son our,

nousa

pern1is

evoir commentm empirc-devenu-uncationa rcconstruit cs apports

avec

ui-mCme t avec esautres. n fin de

parcours,

ous

ommesmoinsd l'aiscavec 'idde ous-.iac€nte

ue

notre dflexion nthropologiqueoit 6tre

ddfinie ommee seul eflet

de

"

situatiousoloniales

.

Au contraire.

nousavons touvd

que

s'il

exisledans a cosmologiet dans a visionmondiale e a Chine

une

elationSoi-

Auhe distincte, ous

pourrons

irealo$

qu'un

el systCmee connaissancesubi eschangementsuivants

ui

ne doivent

as

6tleconsiddrdsomme

urmoddle lternatifprCt

porter

de a co-prdsencetansculturelle

-

1. Le

systeme

vu lejour

pendant

es

pdriodes

lassiquesn ant

que

systdme nglobant es isionsdu monde

diverses.elonesquelleseshidrarchiest l€sconjonctureses

humains,

eshumainsnfirieurs,et desnon-

humains, taient isposdesn accord vec

'elbnocentdsnehinois, t

dans

esrquelles

Lneclisposition

rdciproque n'dtait iscernable

ue

dans esdemeurese montagnest dans eschants .lmpagnards.

- 2. Pendantesdynastiesmpdriales ltdrieuresesTang,Song,Yuan,Minget desQing,unepercde dtd

rendue

ossible ar

e voyage-pdlerinageu

moineTangen nde maiscelle-ci rapidementddd e

pas

e une

cosmographie

as6e urun sysldmedbutaire inocentriquet dans equel 'empire hinois dfinissait ussi ien

"

le cornmercenondial et a civilisatior'r.

-

3. A

partir

du [rilieu du

XIXe

sidcle,

es

savants

hinois vaient djdcompris

u'il y

avait

eudesdquivalents

de

leur empireailleurs dans e monde.et

que

cefiains d'ente eux dtaient

plus puissants ue

e

"

royaumedu

centre

.

Alors, ls ont ait d'immensesfforts

pour evigorcreurvision

du monderaditionnelle

r6ce laquelle

ils espdraient

nsuffler,r a

Chineune

noulelle orcevitale-

-

4.

Quoique

e

darwinismesocialait

6td

pergupar

la Chine,vers a fin du XIXe sidcle,

un

peu

comme

un Aute

ve ueu\,

pendant

es ddcennies

ui

ont suivi, s'est

progressivementmpos6e

une orme d'anthropologie entrde

sur a nation

qui

n'a

pas

aissd eaucoupe

place

depuis

our

a r€alisation

'une nthropologiennsculturelle,

54



Nous avonsadopt6en

paxtie

'argumenlavancd

par

Cai Yuanpeiet d'autes

anthropologues hinois antdri€urset

nous avons

cherchd

reddcouvrires racines

fondations)

osmologiquese l'Altdritd dans es classiques

descriplionshinoises u monde u dans e

qui

dtait eprdsentd

ous 'exprcssion Tout ce

qui

estsous e Ciel

".,1

Si

I'on

compare

nos

contemporains l

nos

ancetresde l'6poque antique,

on

trouve,

d

l'dre

antique,

que

certaines epr€sentations e l'Autre ont el'fectivement u un impact

sur I'id6e

que

se faisaient es Chinois

d'eux-

mCmes.,e zonagede l'univers, es expdditionsdes Taag, Songet Yuan et les

ddcouvertes u monde,de meme

que

es voyages

es

Ming vem es

ocdans e

I'Occident

pportent es

preuves

e ce

que.Toseph

eedham

appe16

les

gdographies

nthropologiqueshinoises

lNeedham,

992).

Qui

plus

est,si noussommes 'accord

avec escritiques e imp6dalismentellectuelratiqu6 ar 'Occident,

ous

pouvons

galementjouler

que

es

g€ographies

nth.opologiqueshinoisesessemblentux epr€sentationsccidentales

e 'Autre.

Ndanmoins, ous

avonsdgalement

el€vd

que

c€s

perceptions

e l'Alt6dtd

sonl

quelque

eu

diffdrentes es

reprdsentationsccidentales. l'exception u r6cit de voyage

du moine Tang, ous es rddacleurs

'index

gdographiques

ans la Chine arilique ont cherchd,en

parlant

des

"

sauvages

,

i ddcrire une civilisation

universellet un systdme

ributaire

ui ne relevent as

de

a

"

relativitd r-rlturelle

.

On obsclvea

pr6sence

ans

les

gdographies

[thropologiqueshinoises 'un ceflainsensdu

tempsdiachlonique. ais I'opposition '6tait

pas

de

nature

traduire ne ihospectionntersubjectivei d servir 'obj

ctif

consistant

"

opposer

our

mieux

connaite

".

Au contraire, 'o entation

principale

a 6ti foumie par

un mode hibutaire

de mald aux et de

productionultuelle,ou bienparcequi,depuisesanndesuatrc-vingtans e angage e 'iddologieiformiste

du rdgirno

ctuel, iti nomm€ es

"

deuxcivilisations

(liangzhong

enming). e rdsultat long ermea dtd.

pendant

e sidcle coule,

n

manque

'intdret e

a

paft

desChinois.

our

d'autres

ultules

ue

es eurs.MCme

si I'Aliique, 'Europe,es Amdriques 1 'Oc€anie

nt

dtd es

ciblesde a

polilique

et de a

diplomatie hinoises,

elles

n'ont

pas

dtdsdrieusementtudides n ant

qu'dventuelles

ources

e

visions

alternativesu monde.Depuis

quelques

nndes,l est

vrai,

cs

ddbats ur des

probldmes

ids d 1amondialisation

t aux diftErencesulturelles

oDtdonnd ieu d desouvragesntdressantsurtoutorsque

eux-ci

uxtaposent

e Soi et l'Aute

dans c domaine

des

contacts ulturels.Ceperdalt, ls ont dtd lirnitds soit

par

la notiol'r

de

"

progrds

,

de

"

changemcnt

institutionnel

,

et de

"

rdformes

,

soit

par

'idde

'inddpendanceationale,

t cecid tel

point

que

e

probldme

n

respect esdiff'drencesulturelles, ussibiend I'intdrieur

e

a

Chine

qdavec

'extdrieur, 'a

gudre

t6 I'objet

d'dtudesdrieuses.

Cetteciractdristiqueellemertspdcifique e I'anthropologie

hinoise

eut

€tre llustrie dans

e oontexte es

anthopologies e a Chinedlabordesn Chinecommcd l'itranger.

esanthropologucs

inologuesccidenlaux

ont abordda

Chinesous esangles ivers.s ouscependantherchent ddcouvrir

ne 6gionethnographique.

Et si

peu

d'entlceux voientdans a

Chineune

"

legon

de cullure

pour

eurs

propres

ultures, ertains Dtdu

respect

nvers

es grandes

t les

petites

raditionsde la Chine en

ce

qu'elles

ettent

de la lumidresur les

institutions 1 es ddologies entr6es

n

I'Occident. 'ailleurs,

ls s'y sont

pris

cofime

draulres nlhropologucs

rdgionalistes

ui

ont dtudi6des tribus en tant

que

formations

ociales ifferentes e celles

qui

existenl

en

Occident

Beteille,

1998). e

ploblime

est

quren

mettant u

point

une

vision sino-cenft6ede a culture,es

anthropologues

inologues nt dgalement td li6s

paI

leurs

propresprdoccupations

pistimologiqueset

iddologiques.

ertaines e ces

pr6occupatiom

rouventeur origine

dans a

quCte

'un

"

langage

arfait pour

dicrire a Chine.Au cours e a quote, e nombreusesonfusionsocales nt6t6crddes, e el1emanidre u'elles

n'ont

plus

den d voir avec essujets e eurs ravaux, savoir

es Chinois

.

La

podtique

e 'hospitalit6

En

Chine, a

quCte

d'une dentitd spdcifiquement hinoise a mis

d contfibution bien des conceptsoccidentaux.

Par exemple,

un

groupe

d'anthropologucsnend

par

Wu Wenzao,a cherchd

endant

es am6es ente et

qualante

d

fonnuler

une6colechinoise e sociologie.ls dcrivaient n anglais

onrme n chinois.Ainsi, en

appliquanta

ddmarcheethnographique e Malinowski ainsi

que

sesvues sociologiques

w la communautd, e

groupement

de sociologues

hinois voulu

onder

n€dcole hinoise, aissans vouer u'il

s'agissaitn ait d'un

pot-pormi

de sociologie nglo-amdricaineodeme.l estclair

que

i

oii les anthopologuesinologues

ccidentauxont

55



'***$*hffi

"r#,:'.:ffi

ati**;i:Hditl{t?,#"'tl'

egd*r*fr

:i+$;;:

fi

*l

"1L:*t*:"1*x"J,llff"'"Jd:li:.

J:iT':Iffi

'lx$:"

*

",;ru;r::

*a:nrat:lili';l**

*r:

aq:x'?J$"'."ilil*:""

'iTJ'x

f,'*:*.llTft Tl*;::*i,ttl"l*1TfflilfiLTffi1iff"*lll'iJ'J]'devue

*'J;:x?r:i,##J;:ffi:1"ry,*i"".*iffJHX,*":Jff$["3]

ont

6te

pidgdes

ar

es

rctitutioos

*it"*ii"t

?i

p"fitiqt"t

qJi

uot

inRue

Jur

eurs

discours

Cependant'

l

ne

::TldI.'""fffiTr;il,i*"mrn:*::*"ml"lm;:61ry6

:rT[i.u1'"','ffi3ffi'"#ifut'J:B''':Tl:,TH*l"JH'

uof"utt

ato

l"q"a

"e

qui

existe

entre

e

Soi

et l'Autre

est

abordd

vec

espec

i"tou"L fu "o-p.eft"nsion

r6ciproque

evient

ne

possibilit6'

or,

e

rojete

,rnsritulllanscyrrrler;rffiJ""i::',:il',:"#

f ,1itil:::f5;i"#

:'[:"r'.Aii;llJili

un

partenadat

vec

a

Chine

ainsi

qt

"J":'r,11ilJ:*,:'';tll:1$6,;n*:lll*'"f;"J:"

outti

it."nt"

,1u"

celle

de

la

Chine,

dont

esconceptions

u

monde

ont.sl

0'.

'uuo",

u.it.,

ourni.r"nt

""'tuinJ"t''tmas

ltematili

t omott'*t"t'";1:lT:il[iJ;l[X,'iiriltfflil

i*'**:"*'rlf;il,1fi[iJ,1.,':"lj:if,,";;:,iji#1"#::i'l ffi;;,;;";De,aeon'

,

I'i$];:#l:il*;#;r,dfr*l#;i,,'

lil:*iJ'$'jflJi#:h'li::"x;*;tni*i,'"i:,';;;3;g:iil

cette

ommunication,

onsiste

out

simprement

:?:,i

::,f#"1i:?;ilJl;;-,;,;;o"

de a

domesticati

symboles

hinois

Eco,

1995).

"'

o

cosrnologique,

dellesoit

ributaire

u

natioralistc'

:;fix'.Til""*"Tff,:'JlYT"fi$,1HT:#x':H*fff;:"'lJl

;';;;i;;;'i";;1" aun, a", contextesnon_occidentauxornne

des

outils

codceptuels

naddquats

our

fu

til*ltlt*nruu;xt3'ffi

il1* ::T:fii:*

:l1;ltT;I::$fiT"ffi'"';

***,::lilk"mmg:fjj'l*'"m**::':tri"',:::t"$:ffi"

*;l#nxx*i:t,[.'ffi

it"'':"itr*ir*,tr,-;J-:"il

ffi:il;.:Y

:l'

"H':]il'

-aun,

"

-c."

esprit

uees

--*-iS:*j*::-fi-#.:

l"';il*f,3.,1i,i,:ffi1":'i'fi'""#

Quand

nous

nous

renconrerolls

i

comprdhension

dciProque.

56



Traduit de 'anglais

par

GeorgeMorgan

Bibliographie

Appadurai

A,, 1986,

"

Theory n

anthropology:

Centerand Pedphery

,

Comparative

Studies n Societyand

History, ol. 29.n' 3

AsadT., 1990, Afterwords: From the history ofcolonial anlhropology o the anthropology

of

Westem

hegemony

,

ColonialSituations, eorge tocking

d.,

pp.

314-324,

niversity f Wisconsin ress

BeteilleA., 1998, The deaofindigenous

eople

,

CtmentAnthropology. 9.2.187-92.

DuaraP., 1995,Rescuing istory torn heNation:

Questioning

anatives fModern

China,University l

Chicago ress

Dumont

L,,

1986,

ssays n

ndividualism: odern deologyn Anthropological

erspective,niversity f

ChicagoPress

EcoU., 1995,TheSearchor thePerfect anguageBlackwell

--

2000, Xunqiu

goutong

e

yuyan The

searchor the

aommunicativealguage)

.

Kuawenhua uihua

(Transcultural

iaJogues),000(4)

Fabian

., 983,Timeand he Other: low AnthopologyMakes ts Object,Columbia

University ress

Fei X.. 1998, Du

Malinowskiwenhua ongtailun huhou

After

eadingMalinowski'shesis

fdynamics f

culture hange)

,

lntemational ecturcSeries n Social ndCultural

Anthropology, nivercitd e Pikin,juin

1998.

--

2000, Zai

ershiyi hiji renleishengcun

uoji

xueshu uiyi shang ejianghua

,

lnteruational

onferencen

HumanExistencer the21stCentury

Femandez,, 1995, Introductoryemarks

,

TheConditions f Reciprocal

nderslanding,1. emandezndM.

Singer d.,

pp.

1-7,Transcultura/Centeror Intemational tudies, licago

CeedzC,, 1973, he

ntelpretation

fCultures,BasicBooks.

--

1980.

Negam:

he

Theater taten 19thCerturyBali,

Princeton

niversityPress.

-

lo8-1.-ocal nou cdge. asicBooks.

_Lemoine

J., 1989, Ethnologistsn China

,

Diogenes '33

Le PichonA., 1995a. Thesourdofthe rain:poetic eason nd eciprocalnowledge, TheConditions f

Reciprocal

nderstanding,1. 'emandez ndM. Singer d.,

pp.

348-351, ranscultua./Center

or lnternational

Studies, hicago

-

1995b, Introductoryemarks

,

ibid.,

pp.

8-11

Marcus

G. & FischerM., 1986,Anthropology sCulturalC tique,Chicago

Needham

.,

1992,

heShorter cienoe ndCivilization n China, o1.2,Cambridge

niversjty ress

Quinlan

., 2000,

"Anthropology

fthe south": he

practice

f anthrcpology

,

Critique fAnthropology, ol.

20,L" 2



RabinowP.,

1997,Essays n heAnthrcpology fReason,

p.30-58,

rinceton oiversityPress

SahlinsM.,

1972,

Culture

ndPractical eason, niversity fchicago Press.

-

1996, The sadness f sweetness:

he native anthropologyof Westemcosmology

,

Curent Antbropology,

vol.37,n'3

-

2000.

" "Sentimental

essimism"

and ethnographic

xperience; r, why culture s not a disappearing"object"

",

BiographiesfScienlificObjects,

. Dastoed.,University fchicago Press.

Wallerstein , 1997,KailangShehuiKexue OpeningheSocialSciences),dlon

-

1997b, SocialScience

nd he

Quest

or a JustSociety

,

Amerioan oumalof Sociology 02,5,

p,

24l-57

WangM., 1997,ShehuiRenleixue

,u

Zhonggnoyanjiu

Social

Anthropologyand

Sinology),

Pdkin

-

1999,Shiqude Fanrong:

Yizuo Laochengd€ Lishi RenleixueKaocha

Prospedty

hat Has Goneby: A

Historical

Anthropologyof an Old City), Zhejiang

-

2000a. Tazhede

yiyi:

renleixue

yu

xiandaixing

The

Significant Other: Antbropologyand Modemity)

",

Xiandaixing

,u

Zhongguo

Moderdty and China),Zhao Tingyanged., Guargdong

-

2000b,

"

Guoqu

shiniande wenhua

yanjiu:

laizi

neibu

de

fansi

(Cultulal

Shrdies n the Past

Decade:a Review

from the Within)

",

NanfangWentan

SouthemForum)

WolkerR,, 1993, Frcm 'homme hysiqueo I'hommemoralandback:Towards historyofEnlightenment

anlhopology

,

HistoryofHuman

Sciences,ol. 6, n" I

Yue

D.

&

Le PichonA., 2000.

"

Qianyan

Foreword)

,

Kuaweirhua

Duihua

(Dialogues

Transculturels),

o 4"

ftttp://www.t

bues.com/tribune/alliage/45/wane_45.htn)

Obiective:

a) identificarea

arilor emealeanhopologiei ontactelornterculturale.

b) Evolulia storicI a

privirii

artropologicen ceea e l

priveqte e

Altul

-"+

Celilalt.

c) Distinclii ln antropologie:global/local,mondializare/localizare,ltuliCeldlalt,

exotic/cunoscut,

uropocentrism/obiectivism.

d) Literaturadldtoriei.

texte seminar antropologie

Documents