Read ტოტემიზმი დღეს by Claude Lévi-Strauss Online

ტოტემიზმი დღეს

ცნობილმა ფრანგმა ეთნოლოგმა და ანთროპოლოგმა, კლოდ ლევი-სტროსმა გასული საუკუნის მეორე ნახევარში დიდი როლი ითამაშა ჰუმანიტარულ და სოციალურ მეცნიერებათა განვითარებაში. ეთნოგრაფია, მითოლოგია, ნათესაობის პრობლემატიკა, ტოტემიზმი – ეს ის სფეროებია, რომელთაც ფრანგი მეცნიერი იკვლევდა. კლოდ ლევი-სტროსს სტრუქტურული თეორიის ერთ-ერთ ფუძემდებლად მიიჩნევენ.პირველი სამეცნიერო შრომები ბრაზიცნობილმა ფრანგმა ეთნოლოგმა და ანთროპოლოგმა, კლოდ ლევი-სტროსმა გასული საუკუნის მეორე ნახევარში დიდი როლი ითამაშა ჰუმანიტარულ და სოციალურ მეცნიერებათა განვითარებაში. ეთნოგრაფია, მითოლოგია, ნათესაობის პრობლემატიკა, ტოტემიზმი – ეს ის სფეროებია, რომელთაც ფრანგი მეცნიერი იკვლევდა. კლოდ ლევი-სტროსს სტრუქტურული თეორიის ერთ-ერთ ფუძემდებლად მიიჩნევენ.პირველი სამეცნიერო შრომები ბრაზილიის ინდიელებს ეხებოდა, რომელთა ცხოვრებაც 1935-1939 წლებში შეისწავლა. კვლევების საფუძველზე დაწერა “ნათესაობის ელემენტარული სტრუქტურები,” რომელიც 1949 წელს გამოქვეყნდა. “ტოტემიზმი დღეს” 1962 წელს გამოიცა და მასში ამ თემატიკასთან დაკავშირებული არაერთი საინტერესო საკითხია მიმოხილული.კლოდ ლევი-სტროსი კიდევ რამდენიმე საინტერესო კვლევის ავტორია, რომლებიც კლასიკური სამეცნიერო ნაშრომებს სცილდება და საკითხავ ლიტერატურას უახლოვდება. მათ შორისაა, “სევდიანი ტროპიკები,” რომელმაც ავტორს ფართო აღიარება მოუტანა; ფუნდამენტურ კვლევათაგან აღსანიშნავია “ნათესაობის ელემენტარული სტრუქტურები,” “მოდგმა და ისტორია” და სხვა.თანამედროვე ანთროპოლოგიის “მამად” წოდებული ლევი-სტოსი 2009 წელს ასი წლის ასაკში გარდაიცვალა....

Title : ტოტემიზმი დღეს
Author :
Rating :
ISBN : 9789941910340
Format Type : Paperback
Number of Pages : 189 Pages
Status : Available For Download
Last checked : 21 Minutes ago!

ტოტემიზმი დღეს Reviews

  • Conor
    2019-01-11 09:46

    Unless you've done some reading on Totemism, this probably won't be an enjoyable read. Unlike some of his other stuff, where he starts fresh and brings in other works much later, this one is deep in the texts of early 1900s Anthropology. Expect to need to be familiar with Durkheim, "Papa" Boaz, Evans Prichard, and a host of members from the colorful cast that was the British school of Structuralism.Hell, I was prone to like liking this as a fan of Levi-Strauss, but I didn't really get friendly with the book until C. L-S. dropped in Daddy D's and little Mauss' Primitive Classification, which is a gem, but needed a bit of the ol' critical sandblasting from a master like Levi-Strauss.So...though I enjoyed it, I can't really recommend it to anyone who's not researching pre-vs-post-structuralism. There's so much textual background one needs before it starts making sense...and even then, you'll maybe be like me: loving the language but knowing that someone a decade later, in another field, would not only surpass the point, but absolutely blow right by it, and that the whole thing, though well argued, is just part of an abandoned wayside relic.In short: If you're looking for something to read by this guy, check somewhere else, unless you've already been there.

  • Rich
    2018-12-26 11:34

    Everything I'm going to say in this review would be picked apart by Levi Strauss because he's very sharp. What I'm saying in this review wouldn't satisfy him or an expert on him so take it all with skepticism. This review is also an unedited mess.Most of this book is a critique of other philosophers and anthropologists who study totemism. Most of the basis of what Levi Stauss says comes from an iteration of what someone else said. It is important to realize that Levi Strauss wrote this book with an enormous amount data, which he and others collected. Some of the concepts he describes are better understood with charts than with prose. If you want to fully understand what he's trying to convey, understanding the charts is important. Levi Strauss shies away, himself, from defining totemism. Totemism to him, it seems, is not just one thing. He even goes so far as to compare how Yin and Yang is loosely similar to connecting humans to how we conceptualize even the most abstract and metaphysical organizational structures in nature. He even raises how Scandinavians created Loki as a mischievous god and compares him to how a particular animal is seen in another culture. So first and foremost, I think his point is that totemism is a broad range of behavior that allegorically connects humans to animals, and structures human society around these allegories, to different degrees, like with patrilineal and matrilineal societies, prohibitions on diet, and other societal structures. Human interaction and observation, not just on a physical level, with what Levi Strauss calls the spiritual aspect of nature is most important to totemism. To us, the way humans who are very totemic view animals and their spirits is a very complicated and highly structured, multi-step process. That is part of what makes it so hard to define. While he tacitly asserts that everyone is totemic in some way, he mostly exemplifies totemism with cultures in which totemism pervasively occupies most parts of societal structure. There are layers of totemism and each society may or may not have a certain layer, and each layer in each society is different on some level.Levi Strauss barely touches on why the human mind thinks this way, in the circumstances people who use totemism do. He does not call totemism an old way of thinking. He thinks it's just a way of thinking that people like me do not have. Through other philosophers and anthropologists, he suggests that it's a social, emotional, and evolutionary response to perhaps several human problems. The way totemism's potential purpose in our minds is described is similar to the way people sometimes describe why religion and superstition has a place in our minds. I'd draw criticism for using the words modern to describe why we do not identify ourselves as totemic, because there are people in modern times who still have this practice. I'd draw criticism for using the word civilized to describe those who do not use totemism, because people would think this is offensive to the people he's studying, but he calls them "savage" in another book, and also, it could be argued that modern and civilized people still have some aspects of totemic thought. Levi Strauss still finds a shred of totemism in modern and civilized society. People use semiotics to structure themselves. They find auspices based on symbols they associate themselves with. They change their behavior based on superstition associated with symbols. One, and I think it's the one and only, example he uses is a unit in WWI that called themselves Rainbows. They said "I am a Rainbow" like a savage person would have said "I am a potato." It's like when you compare your friends to animals. "He's like a dog. She's like a cat. Actually she and her friend are both like cats. They are similar." That's totemism at some level. I think totemism is something the occupies the superstitious slot in peoples' brain.If you want to understand totemism better and receive the full impact of this book, you can research things like an Ogala Sioux Buffalo Dance, or something like that. They even have videos of it from the early 1900's. This book is begging for supplementary exposure to totemism, and not just through other thinkers. It would really help to have some familiarity with things like a few mythical stories from totemic cultures, which Levi Strauss also recants in the book. He also presupposes that the reader has some familiarity with other anthropologists. He does not help the reader much in explaining what other anthropologists thought. This is not a criticism because the book can be read on its own. It's just better with an exploration of its extensive bibliography.My one huge criticism is that he, or the translator, makes a serious mistake in introducing a term for a particular type of totemism, on a couple of occasions. He uses the term "individual totemism" a few times, and each time, it means something different. He shouldn't introduce a term like this and use it later when it means something very different. It's a problem because each type of totemism is so different to begin with and he makes it seem, at first, like there is a particular category or common form of totemism he's identified, but there isn't. Terminology is very important in this book, but when terms are introduced as being fastened to some form of totemism, and then used more broadly when referring to how totemism takes form in another culture, it's very confusing. This makes a lot of what Levi Strauss says evanescent.Totemism, and I mean the field and the book, is a terminological nightmare. The word itself comes from an Ojibwa word, so that's already a setback. It has a very specific meaning in that culture and it's been bastardized from the start. How can you expect anthropologists to start assigning terms to aspects of totemism if they can't even agree on what they're looking at? Levi Strauss and other anthropologists often deny the existences of observations of earlier totemic experts."The Savage Mind", also by Levi Strauss, was maybe the best non-fiction I've ever read. Totemism was good but not nearly as good as The Savage Mind, which I think encompasses a lot of what he says in this book, and more. Again, this book talks about thinkers ranging from J.J. Rousseau, who had some commentary on totemism, without calling it that, to Radcliffe-Brown. You could even read some of what Immanuel Kant said in "Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals" and form your own ideas on what totemism is. Levi Strauss draws from many sources to describe this way of thinking, which, in the end, seems to be too elusive to specifically define. What Levi Strauss has done, is identify it as a societal structure. I am convinced of this after reading The Savage Mind and Totemism.

  • Anthony Buckley
    2019-01-03 07:39

    A seminal work. The topic is ostensibly totemism, but more profoundly, Levi-Strauss unveils an entire methodology, showing, inter alia, how metaphor organizes social organization.

  • Oéb Uêis
    2019-01-04 05:37

    I always love you, love, love, love, love....

  • Matt
    2019-01-01 06:34

    It's funny the kinds of things you turn up when you dig through your physical bookshelves-- this is a book I bought, it's probably close to twenty years ago now, and never read. But since I read Freud's Totem and Taboo, I thought I'd give this one a shot.For me, it's primarily interesting as a way to set up Derrida's argument in his "Structure and Sign" essay. The argument L-S is making, I think, is that totemism, which sure feels "natural" is bound up in exogamy (that is, the incest taboo) which is placed squarely in the category of culture. Levi-Strauss struggles with the nature-culture opposition (Derrida will exploit that), and how tenuous are his attempts to hold onto that, going so far in the end to bring in as bookends for his thought, Rousseau and Bergson. I was surprised, too, to see the linguistic turn at the end. I could never in my mind quite follow the line from Saussure through the structuralists, but now I can see that more clearly.I'm not a student of anthropology, and I don't mean to be mean. But this really feels like a castle built of sand, and in the process, L-S revelas a lot of theoretical weaknesses, threatens to bring down the whole edifice.

  • Michael sinkofcabbages
    2019-01-01 12:01

    no i did not have to read this for a class. I think for such a seminal Author and for how short the book is; everyone should read this book. I know that its isnt everyons cup of tea, but there are so many things to take from this. Just for a different point of sight is worth it enough. Let alone how people view in-animate objects in thier lives. Just the whole value and power of the use of "masks" can have you thinking for days on how this applies to modern cultural "masks".Give it a try, youll be happy. And if you arent; make a paper-mache mask to show your angst.

  • Данило Судин
    2019-01-11 04:38

    Книжка, яка буде цікава лише етнологам/антропологам, адже в ній автор розглядає різноманітні теорії тотемізму. Причому сама книга є лише "негативною" теорією тотемізму: автор послідовно критикує всі попередні погляди на тотемізм, але власної теорії не викладає. Це буде зроблено в іншій книгі - Myśl nieoswojona. Тому в цій книзі немає того, що можна було б очікувати: методології структуралізму до вивчення соціальних відносин (на приклад тотемізму).

  • Anna
    2019-01-08 05:39

    I can't really give it any more than three stars for the basic reason that I didn't take it all in. I read it all, but I can't remember most of it, as is the case with most of the things I have to read for uni >_>'. What I read and understand, I found interesting and enjoyed reading. But I think before I can decide whether to give it more than 3 stars or not, I'd need to re-read it, which I'm planning on doing (someday).