It seems separation by place and time was not enough to satisfy his need for 'otherness'; he has also journeyed to the roots of thought, invention, and spirit to suggest there are fathomless differences between the functions of "the savage mind" and those of his own society.
In answer to Daniela's last question, I do not agree with placement of the artist in the engineer and bricoleur dichotomy, as I do not agree with the premise.
The distinction between engineer and bricoleur itself strikes me as rather arbitrary.
Engineers also work within the constraints of the physical world; he or she does not "change the world" (p. 22) so much as restructure it. Even artificial intelligence is arrived at by way of manipulating materials and laws of the natural world.
Similarly, bricoleurs rely on scientific principles to understand the fusion and use of materials. What is "mythical" about this process remains unclear to me.
Levi-Strauss seems to have observed a cosmetic difference--perhaps in varying types of 'labor'--and spun a mythology of his own.
Remembering Derrida's earlier critique, I also suggest Levi-Strauss is at his most ethnocentric in the moment he is claiming not to be.
Even though the chapter does include some equalizing language, his entire approach is that of the scientist: deconstructing, categorizing, and labeling, while writing of these two disciplines as if he is not engaged in one.
I would also argue this tendency in the west--to divide up disciplines into distinct zones, and then shuttle students between 'art' and 'history' and 'science' class--is not a very productive enterprise, and leads to a limited understanding of the interconnectedness of all practices.
And so I wish Levi-Strauss had stayed on the categorization of fruit, which I can see as having some practical benefit; drawing lines between 'bricoleur,' 'scientist,' and 'artist' I do not.
- posted by Maureen
No comments:
Post a Comment