A Structuralist Reading of Homers Odyssey - Literature review Example

A Structuralist Reading of Homer’s Odyssey Claude Lévi-Strauss, in the chapter on ‘‘Primitive’ Thinking and the ‘Civilized’ Mind’ of his book Myth and Meaning, speaks of the ‘totalitarian ambition of the savage mind’ (Lévi-Strauss 1979, 17) – by which he refers to societies that exist without the practice of writing and their attempt at making sense of the world. By ‘totalitarian ambition’, Lévi-Strauss means that in this way of thinking there is the search for a theory that explains everything, failing to do which it is discarded. Lévi-Strauss claims that unlike the scientific mode of thinking which attempts to break down problems into different stages and proceeds by explaining each stage before moving on to the next, this mode of thinking of the ‘savage mind’ will necessarily not succeed since it does not give humans actual mastery over the environment but an ‘illusion’ of understanding it. But he also goes on to state that the ‘savage minds’ could sensorily perceive much more of the environment around them than ‘civilized’ people or scientists. Lévi-Strauss gives the example of a tribe he comes across while writing Mythologiques who could apparently see the planet Venus even in full daylight. Finding it difficult to believe, he looks up an ancient treatise on navigation and finds to his surprise that ‘sailors of old were perfectly able to see the planet in full daylight’ (Lévi-Strauss 1979, 18). His basic thesis in this regard is that the human mind is capable of transforming or using only a ‘small sector’ of itself and the nature of this sector differs from culture to culture. While people in societies without writing may have keen sensitivity and perception with regard to nature, people living in ‘modern’ societies may have abilities like operating machinery instead. Another important assertion by Lévi-Strauss in his book is that the human mind is essentially the same across cultures. On the other hand, he also believes that differences between cultures are fertile sources of innovation and in fact, for a culture to thrive there should be a certain degree of ‘undercommunication’ (Lévi-Strauss 1979, 20). Lévi-Strauss goes on to use the logic of cybernetics to explain how facets of mythology which may appear arbitrary and irrational actually have a logic of their own. Lévi-Strauss gives the example of a Canadian myth in which the South Wind is tamed by some skate fish. Now while the choice of skate fish may seem to be random, if one were to pay attention to its physical attributes, one would find that the skate fish has, on the one hand, a very thin body and at the same time, its upper surface is rough while its underneath is slippery and smooth. These qualities of the fish make it in some sense a ‘logical’ choice for the story (Lévi-Strauss 1979, 22). A bulky or slow animal, for instance, would not perhaps be incorporated into the folktale quite so easily. Let us now consider Homer’s epic The Odyssey in the light of these arguments proposed by Lévi-Strauss. It is generally accepted that The Odyssey was initially an oral text meant to be performed and heard rather than read. The epic was later set down in writing and divided into the 24 sections that we see today. If this is true then The Odyssey can be considered a product of the ‘savage’ society as defined by Claude Lévi-Strauss. Lévi-Strauss argues against the functionalist theory of Bronislaw Malinowski which states that ‘primitive’ societies are motivated solely by their need for survival. Lévi-Strauss argues that even in ‘primitive’ societies that predate writing, people were capable of ‘disinterested’ thinking (Lévi-Strauss 1979, 16). In The Odyssey, the protagonist Odysseus is a descendant of the God Hermes who is largely viewed as a trickster figure in the Greco-Roman pantheon. Odysseus himself is often referred to as ‘Odysseus the Cunning’ and is known for his metis or intelligence. In The Odyssey itself, which begins by describing Odysseus as ‘that ingenious hero’ (Butler 1900, 13), there are several events that describe the cunning intelligence of Odysseus. For instance, his outwitting of the Cyclops, Polyphemus, where he tells Polyphemus that his name is ‘nobody’. Odysseus then proceeds to blind the drunken Polyphemus who shouts for help. But when the other Cyclopes ask him what the matter is, he can only say: ‘Noman is killing me by fraud; no man is killing me by force’ (Butler 1900, 155). The Cyclopes consequently do not help him and Odysseus escapes. This kind of trickery is quite complex when compared to the thinking required for activities like hunting or gathering. Lévi-Strauss’s idea then, that even without possessing the art of writing, ‘savage’ minds were capable of disinterested thought, seems to be proved by this incident. However, one must remember that at this point of the narrative, Odysseus’s life is under genuine threat. His trickery then may be interpreted as motivated by the sheer instinct of survival – this will be more in keeping with Malinowski’s utilitarian concept of anthropology. Another important character in The Odyssey is Odysseus’s wife, Penelope. Penelope, though not on a perilous voyage like her husband, suffers a great deal of stress from the several suitors present at their residence, pressurizing her into marrying one of them. Under this duress, Penelope comes up with different ways of assuaging the suitors and delaying the event of her having to marry one of them, in the hope that Odysseus will one day return to her. For instance, Penelope asks her suitors now to force her to get married before she finishes weaving a shroud for her ageing father-in-law, Laertes. However, as Penelope reveals to the still disguised Odysseus: I used to keep working at my great web all day long, but at night I would unpick the stitches again by torch light. I fooled them in this way for three years without their finding it out (Butler 1900, 318). Penelope later declares a kind of tournament in which the suitors would have to string the bow of Odysseus and shoot their arrows through ‘twelve arrows’ set up around the house. Although, at this juncture, Penelope appears defeated as she is finally giving up and deciding to marry one of the suitors, it may also be argued that by this point in the conversation with the disguised Odysseus, Penelope has perhaps guessed that her husband has indeed returned and is therefore using this as yet another tactic to stall the event of her remarriage and also give Odysseus a chance to reveal himself. In fact, after she reveals her plans, the beggar/Odysseus comforts her by saying that she need not worry as her husband would return before the tournament. This is yet another instance of action that is inspired by thought more complex than those required for mere subsistence. Penelope’s enduring fidelity is not essential to her survival or even the fulfillment of her most basic needs. Here again, Lévi-Strauss’s theory of ‘disinterested’ thought holds true. Another one of Lévi-Strauss’s assertions speak of cultural differences. In The Odyssey, there are numerous instances of cultural differences faced by Odysseus and his crew: the Lotus-Eaters, the cannibalistic Laestrygonians, and the Cyclopes, among others. Lévi-Strauss argues that cultural difference is the basis of innovation and we find this true in the epic as well. It is the terrible difference between Cyclopes and Odysseus’s men that pushes him into finding a unique solution and saving his life. It is also the alien nature of life on the continent of Circe that brings divine intervention in the form of Hermes who protects Odysseus from turning into a pig by giving him a drug called moly. This idea of divine intervention or the deus ex machina brings us back to the beginning of this paper where Lévi-Strauss’s idea of the ‘totalitarian ambition’ of ‘savage’ thought was mentioned. In Greco-Roman mythology, the device of deus ex machina plays a very important role. The Odyssey is no exception to this rule. Throughout the narrative of this epic, gods and goddesses intervene at various junctures to solve crises that the plot may otherwise not have resolved. For instance, it is Athena who spurs on Telemachus to begin his voyage in search of Odysseus; as mentioned in the last paragraph, Hermes intervenes and saves Odysseus from Circes, while later on it is the divine intervention of Zeus that leads Calypso to release Odysseus after seven years. These entrances of the inexplicable and uncontrollable forces of the gods in The Odyssey proves how pre-writing societies often resorted to irrational or unrealistic ways of thinking to explain the world. Unlike Lévi-Strauss’s idea of scientific thinking that proceeds step-by-step, ‘savage’ thinking is characterized by this kind of all-or-nothing approach in which a convenient mode is found to explain everything, whether or not it holds up to reason. The enduring co-existence of immortals and mortals in Greek mythology proves this idea that people in pre-modern societies found it necessary to adopt an umbrella theory rather than leave room for doubt or unknowing. We see therefore that it is in many ways instructive and revealing to read The Odyssey through the lens provided by Lévi-Strauss in his book Myth and Meaning. However, there are several aspects that this kind of structuralist approach misses out on. This broad approach tends to make characters one-dimensional and does not explore character development, especially in terms of psychological impulses and experiences. The structuralist approach is also one of generalization so that instances of the writer’s or poet’s creativity are taken to be mere reflections of social norms and the collective imagination. This tends to undermine the individual craft of storytellers who often go to great lengths to distinguish their work from others in the same profession. The structuralist approach therefore can help in making crucial inferences about how people imagine and think on a macroscopic level, but fails to fully explore the minutiae revealed in different works of art and literature. Bibliography Butler, Samuel. The Odyssey by Homer. (Planet Ebook.Com, [1900]). Claude Lévi-Strauss, ‘‘Primitive’ Thinking and the ‘Civilized’ Mind’, in Myth and Meaning. (New York: Schocken Books, 1979), 15 – 24. Read More

Now while the choice of skate fish may seem to be random, if one were to pay attention to its physical attributes, one would find that the skate fish has, on the one hand, a very thin body and at the same time, its upper surface is rough while its underneath is slippery and smooth. These qualities of the fish make it in some sense a ‘logical’ choice for the story (Lévi-Strauss 1979, 22). A bulky or slow animal, for instance, would not perhaps be incorporated into the folktale quite so easily.

Let us now consider Homer’s epic The Odyssey in the light of these arguments proposed by Lévi-Strauss. It is generally accepted that The Odyssey was initially an oral text meant to be performed and heard rather than read. The epic was later set down in writing and divided into the 24 sections that we see today. If this is true then The Odyssey can be considered a product of the ‘savage’ society as defined by Claude Lévi-Strauss. Lévi-Strauss argues against the functionalist theory of Bronislaw Malinowski which states that ‘primitive’ societies are motivated solely by their need for survival.

Lévi-Strauss argues that even in ‘primitive’ societies that predate writing, people were capable of ‘disinterested’ thinking (Lévi-Strauss 1979, 16). In The Odyssey, the protagonist Odysseus is a descendant of the God Hermes who is largely viewed as a trickster figure in the Greco-Roman pantheon. Odysseus himself is often referred to as ‘Odysseus the Cunning’ and is known for his metis or intelligence. In The Odyssey itself, which begins by describing Odysseus as ‘that ingenious hero’ (Butler 1900, 13), there are several events that describe the cunning intelligence of Odysseus.

For instance, his outwitting of the Cyclops, Polyphemus, where he tells Polyphemus that his name is ‘nobody’. Odysseus then proceeds to blind the drunken Polyphemus who shouts for help. But when the other Cyclopes ask him what the matter is, he can only say: ‘Noman is killing me by fraud; no man is killing me by force’ (Butler 1900, 155). The Cyclopes consequently do not help him and Odysseus escapes. This kind of trickery is quite complex when compared to the thinking required for activities like hunting or gathering.

Lévi-Strauss’s idea then, that even without possessing the art of writing, ‘savage’ minds were capable of disinterested thought, seems to be proved by this incident. However, one must remember that at this point of the narrative, Odysseus’s life is under genuine threat. His trickery then may be interpreted as motivated by the sheer instinct of survival – this will be more in keeping with Malinowski’s utilitarian concept of anthropology. Another important character in The Odyssey is Odysseus’s wife, Penelope.

Penelope, though not on a perilous voyage like her husband, suffers a great deal of stress from the several suitors present at their residence, pressurizing her into marrying one of them. Under this duress, Penelope comes up with different ways of assuaging the suitors and delaying the event of her having to marry one of them, in the hope that Odysseus will one day return to her. For instance, Penelope asks her suitors now to force her to get married before she finishes weaving a shroud for her ageing father-in-law, Laertes.

However, as Penelope reveals to the still disguised Odysseus: I used to keep working at my great web all day long, but at night I would unpick the stitches again by torch light. I fooled them in this way for three years without their finding it out (Butler 1900, 318). Penelope later declares a kind of tournament in which the suitors would have to string the bow of Odysseus and shoot their arrows through ‘twelve arrows’ set up around the house. Although, at this juncture, Penelope appears defeated as she is finally giving up and deciding to marry one of the suitors, it may also be argued that by this point in the conversation with the disguised Odysseus, Penelope has perhaps guessed that her husband has indeed returned and is therefore using this as yet another tactic to stall the event of her remarriage and also give Odysseus a chance to reveal himself.

Read More