An Interview with Claude Lvi-Strauss, 30 June 1982 Author(s): Bernadette Bucher and Claude Lvi-Strauss Source: American Ethnologist,

Vol. 12, No. 2 (May, 1985), pp. 360-368 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/644225 Accessed: 11/02/2009 18:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Ethnologist.

http://www.jstor.org

comments and reflections

an interview with Claude Levi-Strauss, 30 June 1982

BERNADETTE BUCHER-Fordham University

Bernadette Bucher: Originally, my intention was to ask you about your work as you may see it now, with some distance, to judge it, so to speak, both retrospectively and in terms of its prospects and heritage. But I know-you told me so again a few days ago-it does not interest you, it never did, to go back to what you already wrote. However, there is in you a sort of paradox from this point of view and this is where, if you agree, I would like to start.There is on the one hand a will to always go forward, never to turn back; but on the other, each one of your books tries to show a continuity with what precedes, between The Savage Mind and Totemism Today, or between the different volumes of the Mythologiques for instance, one senses a deep need for continuing with a past which never seems to disappear, is never abolished, a will to build up a unified work, as an architect, careful that each piece he separately built at different periods of time become only one whole complex. This entails a constant presence of the past, an intense attention to it. It has a whole Proustianaspect. . .1 Claude Levi-Strauss:That is what I was going to say. It is a Recherche Du Temps Perdu, but it is because time is lost. This returnto the past is more obvious in Naked Man, by the way. Ithink there is a character trait here and an effort to rationalize it. The fact is that I do obliterate my past. The older members of my family are always amazed that I should not remember anything of my childhood or adolescence. Likewise, when I was a student I was actively involved in a political movement called "constructive revolution," within the socialist party, then named SFIO. Itjust happened that young Ph.D. candidates got interested in it for their dissertations. So they came to see me, as I am one of the raresurvivorsof this movement. I do my best to answer their questions. But they constantly tell me, "No, this is not possible. It is not right. Here are the dates. This is the way things happened." So then: a certain amount of personal deficiency. But, moreover, I have an acute feeling that the books I write, the lectures I give are events passing through me and, once out, they leave me stranded, if I may say so. I am only the passageway, the transit-roadof a certain number of things which, I admit, have been elaborated within me, but once gone, leave me empty. BB: Maybe, then, we are touching a break between the unconscious, the affective part and the intellectual aspect in you, because what is striking in your work is this link with the past. CLS:Probably because the past escapes me, hence this obsession to recuperate it. BB: Since we are on this problem of forgetfulness, obliteration of the self, when in your work, on a different level, from an epistemological point of view, you evoke the effacement du sujet, the "illusions of subjectivity," is it that . ..

Association ? 1985 by the American Anthropological Copyright

0094-0496/85/020360-09$ 1.40/1

360

american ethnologist

Becausethis is the way I experiencemyself.I have absolutelyno feelingof my personal CLS: identity. I recentlybecame BB:This is strange.Itmightexplainyour relationship with psychoanalysis. in the relationship interested one may see-or not see-between the unconsciousas you describe it throughmyths,and the individual,the Freudian unconscious.I know that you discussedthatproblemseveraltimes. Butmanypointsstillremainunanswered. Forinstance,are the laws which, accordingto Freud,governthe individual unconsciouscompletelyheterogewith those you discoverin the mythsof certainsocietiesor in otherculneous, incompatible turalphenomena? Thisis certainly a big problem. Thediscoveryof Freud's CLS: Indeed.First of all, I certainlydo not eliminateFreud. workhas been essentialto me fromthe time Iwas in myteens. I happenedto havea schoolfriend whose father was a psychiatrist andveryclose to MarieBonaparte. me So, thissmallgroupintroduced to Freudin its own indirectway, rather earlierthanmostpeople at the time. Freud alwaysappearedessentialto me in that he discovered(this is what will survivefor a long time, if not thatthinkingprocesseswhich may appeartotallyirrational hide a formof rationality forever) and are understandable. Thisis a fundamental rulein the humansciences. We areconfronted with a wealth of thinkingmodes. Our role is to discoverwhat may lie behindas rationality. towardpsychoanalysis are twofold: Thisseems to me a definiteasset. Now, my reservations to Freud's theoreticalconfirstof all, I am not at all convinced thatthis discovery,pertaining can reallyhave any practicalapplication.Inotherwords, I am not convinced psytribution, choanalysisever curedanyone. BB:Did you ever tryto be analyzed? CLS:Never. Never, but in the society we live in, we are constantlysurrounded, girdedwith This is a first people who have been or are being analyzedand that'sa field of observation. the theoretical work, in what remainsof it, I would clearlydistinguish point. So, in Freud's Iam skeptical thatthereareany.On the otherhand,froma methaspectfromthe applications. commontendodological pointof view, I have felt the need to reactstrongly againsta rather on a problem,it turnsto ency in the humansciences wherebywhenevera disciplinestumbles the nextto fill in the gaps.Anthropologists do it each timetheyturnto psychoanalysis andvice versa.This holds true also for otherdisciplines.So, I am willingto admita thirdresponseto whatyou said. I am readyto concede thatwhat psychoanalysts and anthropologists do is, to a that psychoanalysts work on individualpsychologyand ancertainextent, complementary; on collectivephenomena; thatin certainrespects, manner; thropologists theyworkin a parallel fill in butitwould be disastrous both of them to to the for try gaps each disciplineby borrowing fromeach otherandthattheirrelations can be all the morefruitful iftheyalwaysremain clearly separated. BB:Thereis stillsomethingleftunanswered in my question,if I may ...
CLS:Surely.

BB: Let'stake, for instance,the modes of thinkingexpressedin myth.Of course, mythsare collective. They belong to specific culturalgroups,to a society;but these groupsor societies are made of individuals.In your opinion, can the mechanisms,for instance,the systemsof transformations whose laws you define for myths,be entirelydifferent fromthose which operateotherwise,withinthe individuals forwhom these mythsare meaningful? Takedreams,forexample.When I readTheInterpretation CLS: of Dreamsforthe firsttime, it was a revelationto me for the reasonsmentionedbefore.Whatstrikesme now is that Freud examinedonly a very special case of dreams,not the generalcase. What is most generalin

comments and reflections

361

whole out dreamsis thatthe mindtriesas well as it can to makea moreor less well organized which invadethe unconsciousduringsleep. Thesestimulations of a massof stimulations may be of the kindFreud exclusivelyrecognizes,thatis, unconsciousdesires.ButIthinktheremay of physiosort.Theymaycome fromthe vague perception also be manyof a totallydifferent or more simplyfromthe externalworld.Theremay be manyothersources. logical disorders At any rate,the problemis for the mindto makea coherentwhole out of it. So, to go backto yourquestion,I would say yes, I thinkthatin this case the mindworksin the same way as-I I will tell you why in a minute-let's say in do not like the expression"collectivethinking," it receivesfromoutside, fromsociety: all the questions relationto the mass of stimulations raisedby the universe,by cosmology,economics,social rules,and so on. becausethereis no doubtthatoriginally Idon't likethe term"collectivethinking" mythswere One mustsupposethatas farbackas we can go, theremusthave been createdby individuals. who told a storyforthe firsttime. Butthisstoryis notyet a myth.Itwill become one individual so only when it has been accepted by a certaincollective group,indeed made of individual minds,buttheywill convergeto repeatandeliminatecertainaspectsof the storyonly by obeyandfunctionOne of themstemsfromthe factthatthe brainstructure ingthe sameconstraints. On the other the same amongall men. That'sa commondenominator. ing are fundamentally withthe natural kindsof relationships world, hand,men live in a particular society,havecertain was a dream,or something a mythfromwhatoriginally and all these constraints will transform to social life. close to a dream,intoa tool subservient not relatesto biology?At some point is the anthropologist BB:Isthis not where anthropology forcedto yield to the biologist? Atthe moment,thereis,no way it can be so. There CLS: This,I would say, is wishfulthinking. is a chasm betweenthe two fields.We are too faroff the markand the biologistsand neurowill tell you they have not advancedfarenoughto claim havinga theoryof inphysiologists of the tellectualactivity.All we can say is thatthe greatadvancesmade in neurophysiology a convergencewill occur. braincan let us hope thatin the long run,in decadesor centuries, and turntowardhistory.Hereagain I know you BB:Let'sleave biology and psychoanalysis betweenanthropology, have writtena lot on the relationship anthropolespeciallystructural All I want is to certain and to do try filling gaps. ogy, history.
CLS:Fine.

in areaswhich in the past were researchproliferate BB: Rightnow we see anthropological in regions which rural societies,urban anthropology European territory: mostlythe sociologist's historical case, archives,oftengoing veryfarback in time. Inthis particular possessimportant and historical data?Inotherwords,is it how do you envisagethe relationbetween fieldwork situto thistype of fieldwork anthropology possiblein yourview to applya formof structural exists? documentation historical ationwhere important which occurredin the last Itseems to me thatone of the most important CLS: developments Fora long time, we and historians. between anthropologists few years is the rapprochement took care of important were living in a situationwhere historians thingsand anthropologists how Iwill alwaysremember to historians. to be of interest took care of trivia,too insignificant Today,"held in New Yorkin 1952, I duringa discussionat the greatmeeting"Anthropology and were collectingwhat histoof history" were likethe "ragpickers saidthatanthropologists rianswould put in theirgarbagecan, in theirdumps.Thistotallypoisonedthe restof the disMeadtold me: "Youknow,therearewordsthataretoo emotionally on Margaret cussion.Later forone." Shewas quiteright.ButIthinkthe idea itself loadedto be ever pronounced: 'garbage'

362

american ethnologist

have learnedthatall these smalldetailsthey was correct.Inthe last20 or 30 yearshistorians and they now includethem in their ignored,scorned,totallyoverlooked,were very important This is an important own historicalresearch. step. The otheraspect,which one may consider arewillingto become, so to speak,the ethnographers is thatif historians inversely symmetrical, whatthey fromit. Before, themselvescan profit of pastsocieties, anthropologists considerably examined,the datathey could gather,dealtwith societiescoexistingin space. Now, thanksto new perspectives, the historians' they can add to it anotherdimension,thatis to say, different our research momentsof societies coming in a temporalsequence.Thisincreases possibilities soin almostgeometricalproportion. As a result,we realizethatbetweenso-called"primitive thanone cieties"andthe former timesof large-scale societies,therearemanymoresimilarities may have supposedand for that reasonresearchin each field can fertilizethe other. Forinstance, in the lastfew years in the course of my workon cognaticsocieties, I was constantly documentscan be bridgedand solved, if awarethat manygaps and puzzles in ethnographic noteasily,at leastto a certainextent,by lookingintowhatwas goingon in MedievalEuropean, and a preamble to your main or FarEastern societies. Thatis a greatrapprochement Eastern, do in contemquestion:Whatcan the anthropologist, especiallya structural anthropologist, to bracket of all, he or she cannotafford We shouldnever societies?First away history. porary societies in the present,it is not becausethereis forgetthatwhen we studyso-calledprimitive an inherentvirtueto synchrony;it is simplybecause the diachronicdimensionis missing,at least for the most part.Eachtime we can avail ourselvesof this diachronicdimension,each timewe have a chance to use history, we mustlookat it in the firstplace.Thereis, in myview, more the that prevailed(not any more),with Anglo-Saxon than attitude nothing pernicious which one had to tacklethe studyof a society,a village,or a group to functionalism, according in a stateof intellectual and was not thatcould supposedto introduce virginity any information havealteredthe observer's candorand spontaneity. Start withhistory, this is the firstpoint.The second is to keep constantlyin mindthatthereis no singlefundamental structure in a society, thateverythingin it is not structural. Thereare structural or structurable islandsand these islandsor islets bathe in an ocean of randomphenomenanot amenableto structural analysis. domain,becausehis roleis to tell us how thingshappened.HowTheybelongto the historian's ever,thereis in my view no groundto say thatbecausethingshappenedin a certainway, they hadto happenthisway by some internal, hiddennecessity. Thehistorian's domainis essentially as Prigogine would say, contingent.Butin this ocean of contingency,of dispersedstructures, "thereare islandswhich spontaneously structure themselves."The role of the structural anis to spot them and studythem, but in no way can he claim to eliminatethe histhropologist torian'sspecific role. He muston the contrary be constantly awareof the limitsand necessary to the ocean of uncertainty, whereonly historical method modestyof his procedurein relation can operate. BB:Inwhatyou justsaid, itseemsto me you implicitly freedom. acceptthe ideaof some human Ifthere is no internalnecessitythatthingshappenedthe way they did, by meansof some dedoes it not implythatthereareareas. . . terminism, CLS: to talkaboutunpredictability or uncertainty does not meanfreedomat all. When Listen, I say, "Inany historical processwe cannotforeseehow thingswill happen,"it does not mean at all thatthingshappenthisway by a conscioushumandecision.Takean exampleIoftengive aboutthe originof agriculture in the New World.We knowthatone of the oldest cultivated plantsto be found there is a species of squashcalled Lagenaria. Theyare not Americanbut come fromAfrica.It meansthe beginningsof agriculture, or if not the beginnings(Ioversimin the New World,which to a certain plify),at least some of the earliestformsof agriculture extentshapedthingsto come, dependuponthe factthata certainplantwentwith itsseedsfrom

comments and reflections

363

Africa to America.How did it get there? We have no idea. Maybepirogues carrying provisions fromAfrica shoresor, moresimply,squashfloatedacrossthe Atlantic, got loston the American on the current. We do not know.Atany rate,it is a random Ithappened; drifting phenomenon. them.Theycould have igmay not have happened.Men spottedthese plantsand cultivated noredthem. BB:I still keep in mindthe criticism so oftenreiterated at leastyourform againststructuralism, of structuralism, namely,thatit reducesmanandeventuallynegateshim.Inwhatyou justsaid about history,I sense a sortof ambiguity. One could see, as I did first,and you contradicted me, a certaindenial, but... CLS: The critiqueis absurd.ButI do not see any valorization of man in saying:in humansothatis to say particles cieties,thingshappen,like,let'ssay, Brownian movements, (represented or societies),constantlymove in variousdirections which nothingin theirpreby individuals vious positionscan allow us to predict. BB:So, does the idea of a "humanfreedom"in the sense used by Sartre, for instance,or even in itscurrent meaning,seem to you, in thiscase too, an illusion,of the sametypeas the illusions of "subjectivity"? even if thereareformsof cultural .. . determinism Or, on the contrary, CLS: I would say: neitherone nor the other. It is a concept which is operational at a certain level of observation and which ceases to be so at anotherlevel. Iwould repeata comparison I oftenused. Ifyou lookat a dropof waterin a microscope withdifferent levelsof magnification, at the lowest level you will see a multitude of littlecreatures busyeatingeach other,making love or what not. At the next level, you will no longersee them butthe cells theirbodies are madeof. One stepfurther andyou will see moleculesand ifyou stillincrease the magnification, where you see individuals, you will eventuallysee atoms.At a certainlevel of observation, thathavevariousrelations towardeach other,I am willingto acceptthatthe notion organisms of freedommaybe operational, we wouldhavethe highfor, ifwe governthese littlecreatures, est interestin persuading them they are responsible fortheiractionsand therefore free. Itwill be the bestway to controltheiractivities.Butit losesanysortof meaning whenwe areno longer butonly withthe cells theirbodiesaremadeof orwiththe atomsinside dealingwith individuals the cells' molecules. In brief,there is no privilegedlevel. The factthatthis type of discussion in my view, thatthey are not shouldever takeplace withinthe humansciences demonstrates, It in what is in sciences. is called "hard inconceivable sciences."A molecular really English will never that what a does is and biologist question zoologist interesting vice versa. BB:Then, let us remainwithinthe classification of sciences to which you devotedseveralarticles. This is a problemwhich becomes more and more important, especially in the States wheremulti-and interdisciplinary (Iteach in one of them)and reshufflings programs proliferate Atany rate,thereis a renewedinterest in this of departmental are morefrequent. organization issue.Canyou, atthe moment,in spiteof whatyoujustsaid,see a centralroleforanthropology? CLS: If I were to say a centralrole, I would contradict myself.Let'sput it this way: framesof thanothersat certainperiods.Theychangewith time. For referencebecome more profitable instance,there is no doubtthatin the pastfew years,molecularbiologyhas been a veryprofitableframeof referencein lifesciences. Inthe pasthalfcentury, hasbeen, Ithink, anthropology a particularly thatway forever. one, but it does not mean it will remain profitable BB:InStructural of Anthropology you said thatin orderto establisha consistentclassification of each science. To with ansciences, one shouldfirstmakean epistemological critique begin of anthropology, how do you envisagea criticalhismorespecificallythe history thropology, thatwould not fall intothe trapsof evolutionism, for instance? toryof anthropology

364

american ethnologist

I have not thoughtof it. Youcatch me unaware. CLS: BB: I was mainlythinkingof your paperon Rousseau,which is splendid,but insofaras you presenthim as the founderof the HumanSciencesand the 18thcenturyas a periodof fundathisas an evolutionist view of the history of anmentalchange, one could somehow interpret Harris MonItis paradoxical. Thisis whatMarvin claims,amongothers.Rereading thropology. de Sebonde,"which in my view is crucialin the "Apologyfor Raymond taigne, particularly the history of anthropological breakhad already thought,it seems to me thatthisfundamental and certainly occurredin the 16thcentury,with Montaigne others,like Bodinfor instance. . . Or Rabelais. CLS: has been overlooked forso long.Everyone BB:Yes. Iwonderwhy thisaspectof Montaigne has readMontaigne.Rousseauread him; everyone in the 18th centuryread him and plundered him. In spite of this, historians of anthropology continueto place in the 18th centurya break like which, in my view, was alreadyaccomplishedin the 16th centuryby certainindividuals and maybeothers. Montaigne Or Rabelais, CLS: too. BB:Yes, Rabelais.So I am tryingto understand the historians' mistake,and I was wondering whetheryou would have an opinionon this. CLS:I don't. I don't believe I have an evolutionistattitudeon this point. I rather see abrupt which occurredat a certaintime and whose glow fadedaway untilanotherscinscintillations tillationappeared.Youarequiterightto say thatwith Montaigne, and moregenerally the 16th to findout why: it is becauseof the discoveryof America), there century(it is not verydifficult has been a sortof explosion,the firstfirework of ethnologicalthought.Thenit dwindledand, in the 18th, anotherone took place. I don't want to recantwhat I said. Afterall, this text on Rousseauis a speech I deliveredin Genevaforthe 250th, if I am not mistaken, of anniversary his birth.So what I had to show, was Rousseau'simportance. I did not have to show MonIf I had talkedaboutMontaigne,I would have shown Montaigne's role. taigne'simportance. What remainsto be said, is that anthropology has two aspects:fieldworkdata (you know it better thananyoneelse as a specialistinJeande Lery andothersin the 16thcentury) andcritical Thisis quiteessentialin Montaigne's reflection. and Rabelais's works.Inthe 18thcentury, these two aspectsare alwayspresent.Voyagesbecome morefrequent, andwiththem,ethnographic data collecting, while moraland criticalreflectioncome to the forefront with Rousseau,Diand Rousseau'sworks, derot, and others. But there is something more in Montesquieu's and which, it seems to me, namely,hypotheseswhich I would call scientificor prescientific are moredirectlyat the base of our presentthinking. Takean example.Throughout the 19th the invention of agriculture andanimalhusbandry was believedto havecreateda food century, which in turnallowed populationincrease.Nowadays,all good specialists takean opsurplus made it impossible to positestand.Itis populationincreasewhich, they say,whereoccurring, surviveon hunting and gathering andthusimposedagriculture andanimalhusbandry. Thishas been shown in a verypreciseway. InNew Guinea,forinstance,one can establishcorrelations betweendifferent and detypes of agriculture (fromthe mostextensiveto the most intensive) It has also been shown in otherparts of the world.Theauthors who do this mographic density. in a very rigorousand empiricalway do not realizethat it is one of Rousseau's intuitions to have said in the clearestway that populationincreaseimposedthe inventionof agriculture. we havea number of quitedazzlingintuitions Thus,with Rousseau (Ido notsaythatit hadany scientificor objectivefoundation) with which we agree. BB:MayI askyou now whatyou are interested in at the present?

comments and reflections

365

I don'tknow.Stage-setting. CLS: Once I hada chanceto makestagesets,and I neverhadsuch fun in my life as when I was workingon the stage, not only with carpenters and painters but techniciansas well, settingthe lightingsand thatsortof thing.I have a kindof repressed vocation for manualworkand if I could . . . Anyway,I am too old now and there is no chance of the kindwill come up, so I will remainan anthropologist to the end of my life. anything BB:Apartfromthis, you brieflyspoke to me aboutyour new interestin Japan.Whatdo you findor are you lookingforthere? I finda society as different CLS: fromoursas those anthropologists studyin SouthAmericaor and reflection Melanesia,butat the sametime it providesus withall the meansof investigation we may have in our own and even moreso, since 11th-and 12th-century Japaneseliterature offersa wealth of precise information. One has to wait untilSaint-Simon's Memoires to find at home. anything comparable BB:How does yourinterest materialize? studies? through trips? readings? once to Korea. I am goingbackto Japan CLS:I went twice to Japan, nextyear.So, firstthrough travels.I alwaysset as a conditionforgoingthere,in exchangeforwhateverI am requested to do (usuallygive one or severallectures), to havethe possibility of traveling inlandand staying in villages.So I am able to see moreclosely how people live, at leastas faras not knowingthe languagedoes not completelyblock any ethnologicalperspective. AlthoughI learnedsome a few yearsago, withoutany success . . . Japanese BB:Did you startagain?
CLS:Yes, I did.

BB:Canyou speakit at all? of my knowledgeis aboutten sentences.Judgeforyourself. CLS:I can: the lengthand breadth I can readthe syllabaria, what I am reading,I am no betteroff for but since I don't understand it.As for ideograms, I learnthemveryassiduously, butsince Iam too old, Iforgetthemas soon as I learnthem. No, I am starting too late, and as, fortunately, the ancienttexts of Japanese or French literature become moreand moreaccessible in excellentEnglish there translations, scientists have is an incredible massof ethnographic andsociologicaldocumentation. Japanese in mined it a but it not have been looked at a lot, comparative already sufficiently permay I get a lot from spective in the lightof the last20 or 30 years'advancesmade in anthropology. it. to complex BB:These lastfew yearsyou have devotedyourcourseat the Collegede France work.I heard(since I am not to yourfirstresearch Thisis no doubta return kinshipstructures. As the course in Franceduringthe year)thatyou focusedon the notionof "house"(maison). has not yet been published,2 may I askyou whatyou meanby thatterm? thathad no place in anthropological I would say thatit is a formof institution CLS: taxonomy. to preexisting We are used to reducingeverything categories.Thus,we knowof clans, Gens, testimonies of eminent by the converging lineages,families,and so on. ButI have been struck thatthey can'tfindanytermin stating writingaboutAmericaas well as Africa, anthropologists whattheyobserve.Boassaid it longago aboutthe Kwakfordescribing literature ethnographic in almostthe sametermsaboutthe Nuer,andso on. So Iaskedmyself: iutland Evans-Pritchard So formsthatcannotfit in any traditional whatare these institutional ethnologicalcategories? me is Whatstrikes and history. betweenanthropology herewe are backto the rapprochement thatthis unknownwhich ethnologistsstumbledupon-historians have knownwell for years and have a noun for it-the "house,"in the sense of a noble house.Thereis no need to go as

366

american ethnologist

faras ancienthistory.Reflections on noble houseswere goingon amongthose concernedway 9th century.Ifyou look intothe availablememoirsby nobles,you will find up into the mid-1 this notion,once neededto fill in a gap in ethnographic literature (thefamousKwakiutl Numay for which Boas could not in the fit traditional instance, Ma, typology),is preciselythe "house" as it was understood in MedievalEurope and up to the 19thcentury. BB: Butwhat made you come back to kinshipand social organization and complete a full to morecomplex kinshipsystems? circle, as it were, fromelementary Areyou resuming your initialprojectstated in the Elementary of Kinship Structures where you say that, in orderto reallyhavea genuinekinship theory,one shouldalsodiscoverand includecomplexstructures? Yes. CLS: BB:Is it whatyou are aimingat, in going backto it?Areyou hoping... CLS:No, I don't, for the good reasonthat alreadyin the Elementary Structures and in later works,such as the prefaceto the second edition, I was fullyawareof the difficultyinvolved and of the methodsto be used to completethe task.I could foreseethatone could not manage it withoutthe help of computerscience and this is a program which is now admirably well handledby Francoise Heritier.3 Shehas precisely the competencein thisfield Icompletelylack and have no betterchance to acquireat my age thanJapanese. So, this is a field I have completely handedover to my successors,who alone are well equippedto tackle the problem. Whattook me backto it is much simplerand down to earth.Whensomeone spends22 years atthe Collegede France as Idid,withthe marvelous freedom whichreigns there,butthe terrible servitude of havingto teach a courseon a completelynew topic every year, I would say that for the first10 or 12 years, it is no problem.One is full of new topics and ideas. Buttowards theend, all this is exhaustedandone is forcedthento broachsubjects one hasno ideaor notion about.As Ihadcompletelyleftasidethe semi-complex (Iwould notsaycomplex)kinship structuresandan enormousliterature hadpiledupon the subject(whileIwas writing TheStructures, no one realizedthe considerable of cognaticsocietiesin the world.Everybody proportion was a bitobsessedwith unilinealsystems), so Itold myself:thereis all thisIdon'tknowand Ishould get to know it. I made up these lastcoursesnot at all to bringsomething to my readers, butto fill in a gap in my knowledge. BB:Couldwe go back now to the time when you were in New York? You were at the New Schoolfor Social Research duringand afterthe war,wasn'tit? CLS: No. I had been at the New School since I arrived in New York, thatis in 1941 untilI was called back to Franceby the government, that is to say duringthe rightafterParis'liberation, '44-'45 winter.ActuallyI leftthe New School at the end of '44 and arrived in Paris early'45. I went back to New Yorkas culturalcounselorat the FrenchEmbassy and had thereforeno morelinkwith the New School. BB:Was it at thattime you were introduced to and became interested in communication theory? CLS: Well, I got interestedin it when Shannon's4 and Wiener's5 workappeared.The curious thingis that,duringseveralyears,between'41 and'45, ClaudeShannon and I livedin the same houseat 51 West 11th Street.Itwas a smallbrownstone who rented belongingto an old Italian studios.Shannonwas in one and I in another. BB:Withoutever meeting? CLS: Withoutever meeting,except thatwe hada commonfriendin the buildingand I remembershe told me once: "Iknowsomeone in ourhousewho workson artificial brains." Itseemed to me quitestrange,but I did not takenote of it.

comments and reflections

367

BB: What about your relationship with Jakobson? You speak so much of the importance of structurallinguistics for your work. Was it really a revelation for you to read and meet Jakobson and is it afterwards, once you had read this work or even had conversations with him, that you sought to draw its consequences for anthropology or were you already ... CLS:Absolutely not. Let's put it this way: when I arrived in New York, I was already a structuralist, but like Monsieur Jourdain,without knowing it. I had never heard about structuralism, but I was at bottom a structuralist.Meeting Jakobson has been a revelation of what was in my mind in an inarticulate form, and already existed in a discipline like linguistics. What baffled me is the fact that during all these years at the Sorbonne, no one, at least among my professors, had ever said: you must read Saussure. BB: A last and more general question: Iwonder if, retrospectively, under the impact of critiques launched at you, or merely because of an internalevolution or of newly made discoveries, there are elements in your work you would like to change or, on the contrary, if it would prompt you to reinforce your positions? CLS:I think that of my theoretical positions as they have been formulated in my firstarticles, in my first books, I have absolutely nothing to change. However, many things I wrote in the beginning, I would not write now, or at least, not that way. I realize many were unwise and not sufficiently grounded in facts, certain parallels between linguistics and anthropology, for instance. Let's say that I went a bit too far or too fast. I would now express myself more carefully, but with the same basic convictions.

notes
Socialeof the was conductedat the Laboratoire Theinterview withClaudeLevi-Strauss d'Anthropologie in the Humanities Divisionat Fordham an AssociateProfessor University, Collegede France.Dr. Bucher, in Paris, as a graduate student andthenas a doctoral hasknownProfessor Levi-Strauss for20 years,initially as AssociateMember of the Laboratoire She has remained candidateunderhis supervision. d'Anthropologie Sociale,which she continuesto visitfrequently. in French. Thepresent textis mytranslation-B.B. 1Theinterview was originally tape recorded 2A summary of the coursehasjustbeen publishedin ParolesDonn6es(Levi-Strauss 1984:189-241). as Director of the Laboratoire So3Professor succeeded Professor Levi-Strauss Heritier d'Anthropologie ciale at the Collegede France. an exponentof the theoryof communication, was an early influenceon Levi-Strauss (see 4Shannon, and Weaver1950). Shannon 5SeeWiener(1948).

references cited
Claude Levi-Strauss, Plon. 1984 ParoleDonnees.Paris: Shannon, C., and W. Weaver of IllinoisPress. of Communication. Urbana: 1950 TheMathematical University Theory Wiener,N. Press. MA:M.I.T. in the Animalandthe Machine. andCommunication 1948 Cybernetics Cambridge, Received28 November1984 1985 Accepted22 January 1985 Finalversionreceived25 January

368

american ethnologist