Christopher's response (re)post to "The Violence of the Letter":

Enthnocentrism v. Anti-enthnocentrism (cont...)

I found one of the most interesting themes of Derrida's "Violence of the Letter" was his critique of Lévi-Strauss's ethnographic view of 'primitive' culture as enthnocentric disguised as anti-enthnocentric. Ethnocentrism is defined as understanding another culture through one's own cultural lens, or "judging other cultures by the standards of your own, which you believe to be superior"(according to OSU).

In this case, Lévi-Strauss (LS) tried to integrate into the Nambikwara culture to study and observe behavior as an unbiased social scientist. Ethnocentrism had been defined and discouraged by the Anthropological community at the time of "Writing Lesson" and undoubtedly, LS saw his ethnographic view as anti-ethnocentric.

As we discussed, and what becomes apparent through Derrida's critique, is that LS came to the Brazilian rainforest carrying the baggage of enthnocentrism disguised as anti-ethnocentrism. His educated, western worldview placed non-western "primitive" cultures in a Utopian light. Academics in the social sciences were no doubt sympathetic toward the "untouched" cultures that still existed in the world during this post-colonialist, post-WWII period (Tristes Tropiques, 1955). Derrida touches on the guilt that western anthropologists placed on themselves, perhaps because of the colonial past and the growing empirialism, the increase of technology, industry, population growth, etc. These are the burdens that LS carried with him as he entered the rainforest. Although he may not have seen his own culture as "superior", he is in the position of power (and notes this throughout his travelogue), he blames himself for inciting violence among the Nambikwara people (as Derrida explains so well using LS's writing lesson), and he constructs the Nambikwara people as the "noble savages". 

Derrida critiques LS's ethnography an as ethnocentric work (among other things). I tend to agree with one reservation - how does an anthropologist escape their own biases? We are all subject to our environmental and cultural influences. Is it possible to escape ethnocentrism? If not, is there a way to speak to that fact to construct a more accurate or honest ethnography?