Professional Documents
Culture Documents
19-29
Special Issue English Edition
Between the
Anthropology of
Literature and Literary
Anthropology.
Anna ebkowska
Prze. Jan
Pytalski
http://rcin.org.pl
Anna LEBKOWSKA
Between the Anthropology of Literature
and Literary Anthropology
1
2
http://rcin.org.pl
tebkowska
th ought in p o ststructuralism and in the new social history and postm odernism .3
In terp retative anthropology com es to th e forefront, based on the aw areness of the
creation and fictionalization, as well as constructivist or figurative character of cul
tu ral representations. It is th is particu lar anthropology therefore, w hich is defined
by various turns, such as the ethical-narratological tu rn , aim ing at the com m union
of its discourse w ith literature and thereby shaping its contem porary character.4
T he act of a literary scholar w riting about the literary dim ension of anthropology
is not w ithout its pleasures, principally because it com bines an act of w riting - ac
tio n th at has a therapeutic effect - and, for certain reasons, is not necessarily that
difficult. T his is so, because this particu lar dim ension is often discussed and, most
im portantly, prom oted by the anthropologists them selves.5 N ot only do they keep
explaining w hy literary discourse6 is close to th eir hearts, b u t they also point to m o
m ents of intersection and kinship between the two. One can learn (from Brady) about
the poetics of anthropology study, or the poetics of culture (Greenblatt). L iterature is
usually placed on a pedestal and its abilities are described as lim itless. T h e reasons
for th is fascination were established, w ith m uch accuracy, in the texts of Clifford
G eertz and other scholars, including M arcus, Tyler, Clifford, and m any m ore (on
Polish turf, we are likely to first encounter these reasons in the books of Burszta).
F eatures pointed to m ost often are figurativeness, fictionality, an d its fabulistic
character, along w ith creativity and th e role of im agination. L ite ra tu res apology
in contrast w ith scientific discourses, or the cognitive dispositions is characteristic
of our tim es, starting w ith R orty and ending w ith the narrativ ists (Taylor G iddens
an d B runer W hite). M entioned on m ultiple occasions, there are several varying
topoi, including the anthropologist as author, or as w riter, the anthropologist
as p o et - or in a m ore focused rendition - surrealism as ethnographys quiet ally
(Clifford7). Likewise, there have been suggestions of tu rn in g anthropology in the
direction of a m ore literary, n arrative, usage of m etaphors and synecdoche (Geertz),
http://rcin.org.pl
11
http://rcin.org.pl
tebkowska
14
15
16
18
19
http://rcin.org.pl
23
25
26
Literature and Anthropology, edited by J. H all, A. Abbas, H ong Kong: H ong Kong
U niversity Press, 1986.
Literary Anthropology: A New Interdisciplinary Approach to People, Signs and Literature.
Symposium: 11th International Congress o f Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences.
Papers, A m sterdam -Philadelphia: J. Benjam ins Publishing, 1988.
W inner, Th.G., L iterature as a Source for A nthropological Research: The Case of
Jaroslav H aseks Good Soldier Sveik, in Ibid.
Literature and Anthropology, edited by P.A. D ennis, W. Aycock, Texas: Texas U niversity
Press, 1989.
Q uestions, w hich are posed in such m anner are usually ironic to an extent. Com pare
A. Owen A ldridge L iterature and the Study o f M an in Literature and Anthropology,
41. For the scholar, the way to reach the anthropology o f literature w ould be through
num erous tem plates found by the anthropologists and extracted w ith literature.
Sym posium on L iterary Anthropology. T ranscript of the C losing D iscussion in
Literary Anthropology 1983: 335.
Ibid, 331.
http://rcin.org.pl
tebkowska
rath e r th an literary theory,27 the approach affirm s the sym biotic relationship and
reconfiguration of both sciences th a t seems to prevail and still dom inates. T his is
challenged by the approach rooting for change by following the claim th a t there is
no theory, there is only anthropology.
Let m e explain. A m ongst the m any options th a t we can point to in this field,
I am m uch m ore inclined tow ard a position th a t speaks about relocation, and not (as
some fear could be the case) one concerned w ith b u ild in g a new order on the rubble
of the previous. A nother inaccurate charge, that can be heard every now and again,
is an accusation of sw apping the tools of ones field w ith those of anthropology.
A nd the tru th is th a t anthropological research in literary studies does not require
such actions, as it oftentim es encourages using the tools an d in stru m en ts of the
literary realm , w ithout forcing a com plete resignation from scientific language. But
full hom ogenization is not the goal here. It is enough to rem in d ourselves th at the
concept of a dense description by G eertz is im plem ented not only by G reenblatt28,
b u t also proposed by Elaine Showalter, for the cultural in terp retatio n of the w omen
literature (recom m ended for the gynocriticism, but precisely in its cultural version.)29
T he anthropology of literatu re should be connected m ore w ith the reform ulation of
literary studies, rath er th an w ith narrowly defined scientific m ethod. In other words,
it should be identified w ith the anthropologization of literary studies.
Questions posed in texts, ones that bring together literature and anthropology, often
times seek mutual support, asking not only what literary studies can do for anthropology,30
but also examining the reverse: how an anthropologist can assist in the study of literature.
The answers, however, are usually concerned with the intersection of both discourses. It
is said that a com munity can be created by the study of m an31 - the most broadly un
derstood branch of the humanities, combining anthropology and literature.32 T he most
convincing element in this particular arrangement is not a concept of interdisciplinary
character, greatly insufficient in this case, but rather a more appropriate reflection of the
current situation, the idea of trans-disciplinary framework.33 Trans-disciplinarity does
28
31
32
Ibid, 333.
C om pare G reenblatt, S. Poetics o f Culture, as well as his The Touch of the R eal in
The Fate o f Culture. Geertz and Beyond, edited by S.B. O rtner, Berkeley: C alifornia
U niversity Press, 1999.
Showalter, E. Fem inist C ritique of the Beaten Track in Contemporary Theory o f
Literary Studies Abroad vol. 4, edited by H. M arkiewicz, Cracow: W L, 1996.
R ichards, D. Literature and Anthropology: The Relationship o f Literature to
Anthropological Data and Theory, with Special Reference to the Works o f Sir Walter Scott,
WB Yeats and Wole Soyinka, C am bridge: U niversity of C am bridge, 1982.
Owen, A. L iterature and the Study of M an in Literature and Anthropology (1989), 41.
For exam ple, anthropology is treated as science about how m an lives, philosophy - as
study of how he thinks, history - of how he operates, and literature as com bination
all of these, and using both fictitious and non-fictitious characters and situations.
Z eidler-Janiszew ska, A. T he D irections of Iconic Change in C ulture Studies in
Second Texts, vol. 4, 2006: 10-11. Nycz, R. C u ltu ra l N ature, W eak Professionalism in
Cultural Theory o f Literature. M ain Concepts and Questions, edited by M .P. M arkow ski,
R. Nych, Cracow: U niversitas, 2007.
http://rcin.org.pl
lo
36
37
http://rcin.org.pl
tebkowska
Speaking of homology, betw een the subject and th e city (also in th e Polish
context) we deal w ith forma urbis and for^ mentis visible in the construction of the
narration. T he attention of scholars is draw n to, am ongst other topics, crim e nov
els, constructed in a way w here the m ain protagonist (a detective) is situated at the
m eeting point of cultures, creating the necessity for analyzing constantly intertw ined
cu ltu ral perspectives.43 At the same tim e, the appeal of literary-ethnographic, autoethnographic, or auto-exotic44 perspectives are being discovered. T h e prim acy of
place is undoubtedly assigned to cases th a t present cultural otherness. T h e them es
39
40
41
43
44
Ibid. XII.
Also w orks presented in the m agazine Culture and Society X-XII, no.4 (vol. XLIX):
Anthropology and A rt, 2005 tend to go in this particu lar direction: for exam ple, the
essay by M. Rygielska A nthropology of L iterature, L iterary Anthropology, or one by
E. Kosowska O n Some of the Reasons for Practicing A nthropology of L ite ratu re , in
Narration and Identity.
Poyatos, F. Introduction, XVI. Com pare Th.G. W inner in Literary Anthropology
Boelhower, W. A vant-G arde A utobiography: D econstructing the M odernist H a b ita t,
in Literary Anthropology.
Ibid., 273.
A rticle by Jam es C. Pierson, en titled M ystery L iterature and E thnography:Fictional
D etectives as A nthropologists in Literature and Anthropology (1989) is dedicated to
these questions.
U nderstood as identification of the subject w ith the cultural exoticism th a t is
ascribed to him /her. C om pare J. Th. Leersen Identity and Self Image: G erm an A uto
Exoticism as Escape From H istory in Komparatistik und Europaforschung. Perspektiven
Vergleichender Literatur und Kulturwissenschaft, Bonn 1992.
http://rcin.org.pl
46
47
48
00
49
For exam ple in the book Between Anthropology and L iterature^ see articles The
E thnographic Novel. Finding the Inside Voice by J. T allm an and M .C esareos
A nthropology and L iterature. O f Bedfellows an Illegitim ate O ffspring
C om pare de Angelis or V T urner From the R itual to the Theater. The Seriousness o f Play,
W arsaw 2005.
C om pare C.A. D aniels T he Poet as A nthropologist, in Literature and Anthropology,
Texas 1989.
Yet, we hear critical voices accusing J. Clifford, for exam ple, lack of appreciation for
the fem inist studies. F.E. M ascia-Lees, P. Sharpe and C.B. C ohen w rite about it in
T he Postm odernist Turn in Anthropology: C autions From a F em inist Perspective
in Anthropology and Literature (1993).
O n this subject one can find com m ents in Between Anthropology and L iterature^,
also com pare M .Schm elings Story about C onfrontation and O ther in the
http://rcin.org.pl
tebkowska
All of this does not entail full harm ony or lack points of disagreem ent. Rredictably, reality is otherwise. I will cite two such issues, w hich cannot be ignored.
T he first concerns the fact th a t if the anthropology of literatu re is supposed to
be treated as an interdisciplinary field of research (although it m ay h ap p en th at it is
aim ed at researching exclusively its own culture50), and if it is to be built on the cross
roads of m any cultures, th en the very notion of literatu re needs to be reform ulated.
T h is reform ulation, as m ight be anticipated in the curren t situation, has already
taken place. T he concept of literatu re has been expanded th ro u g h th e attem pts to
depressurize the canon and through the introduction of new literary form s - genres,
m eans of circulation, etc. T hese changes have usually been inspired by the ethical
tu rn , connected w ith th e cannon becom ing m ore flexible and allowing space for
w orks from m arginalized and excluded cultural areas (thanks to fem inist, gender,
postcolonial or ethnographic studies, am ongst others). T h e career of ethnographic,
travel or various different form s of autobiographical, biographical an d epistolary
literatu re is not surprising. We are already aware of and accept th is cu rren t state of
affairs. But the proposed changes go even further. T here are ideas to include not only
the w orks of historians and philosophers into the realm of literatu re (which w ould
not be entirely surprising), but also texts com ing from the advertising industry. Such
an im m ense expansion of the literary field is not only far rem oved from the options
m entioned before in this text, b u t also from th e pragm atist perspective.
In some respects, the second issue is an extension of the first. T he question it
poses is as follows: Does the anthropological tu rn allow us to avoid the danger of
m ish an d ling literatu re in its uniqueness (which I also w ant to defend)? Or is it
p erhaps accelerating th is m ishandling? T his particu lar problem , w hich constitutes
the driving force b eh in d the article, could be presented in a grotesque form of alter
natives: instrum entalization v. the autonom y of literature. E ither of these variants
carries the danger of reducing or sim plifying literatu re to cu ltural exem plification,
or an exaggerated idealization.
I w ant to defend the thesis that the anthropology of literatu re encourages a con
sideration of the uniqueness of its research object. But the issue is not as sim ple
as it m ight seem at first glance, especially since scholars ten d to be on the lookout
for the exactly opposite framework. T here exists a clear divide on th e issue and
there are w arnings and concerns being voiced - prim arily, w arnings against the
reductive force th a t comes from b ringing all cultural products u nder the heading
of literature. In other words, if all cultural products are supposed to be analyzed as
literatu re, the uniqueness of the latter is potentially lost (the same issue emerges
am ong theoreticians of fiction w hen th eir subject of study escapes in the gathering
sw arm of pan-fiction).
50
C ontem porary N arratio n , in Story from the Perspective o f Comparative Research, edited
by Z. M itosek, U niversitas, Krakow 2004; there is a discussion o f hybridity of given
genre forms, etc. - for M. Cesareo hybridity w ould be a fundam ental term.
C om pare E. Kosowska Negotiations and Compromise. Anthropology o f Being Polish in
Henryk Sienkiewiczs Work, Katowice: US Press, 2002.
http://rcin.org.pl
53
54
O
55
http://rcin.org.pl
tebkowska
56
57
58
59
60
61
http://rcin.org.pl
Literature as Anthropology
If we were to agree w ith such an interp retatio n of anthropology (as literature),
m entioned previously, or in other words: if we will take anthropology in its literary
form , th en we need to agree to the reverse equivalency according to w hich literatu re
is a kin d of anthropology, or the literary author is as an anthropologist. T his is the
source of previously m entioned titles like the Poet as Anthropologist and others. We
could add to th is perspective research on the construction of such fictional worlds,
in w hich the n arrato r or a protagonist plays the role of an anthropologist, ethnog
rapher, traveler, alien, etc. In other words, projections of reality are shown through
the usage of literary fiction and cultural constructs, points of view and images of
the world. T h is is w here a chance to grasp the autonom ous character of th e literary
experience of the w orld appears.
At this point, it is im possible to forget one of the m ost interesting propositions
of literary anthropology. If we list C lifford G eertz am ong the great patrons of the
anthropology of literature, th en as a p atro n of literary anthropology we should
nam e W olfgang Iser63 (although we could point to an antecedent in the w ritings of
Ricouer, for exam ple, to w hom Iser is greatly indebted - as the role of herm eneutics
is unquestionable here). Isers64findings, p artially know n to Polish readers and con
stantly developed by th eir creator, could be sum m arized as an attem p t to identify
literatu re as one-of-a-kind type of anthropology - one th a t allows for the revelation
of cultural constructs explaining/discussing the w orld in a given epoch, or am ong
given social groups. L iterature, as a separate k ind of in terp retatio n of the world
and of m an, was inten d ed to reveal aspects that were otherw ise ungraspable. Isers
approach sanctions lite ra tu re s privileged character, allowing for the appreciation
of the fact th a t literature, in its own way, opens up the possibility of transgressing
borders, observing w orlds through their proj ections and exam ining existing cultural
tem plates from the perspective of assum ed distance.
O ne m ore issue should be m entioned here. W ith in contem porary literatu re,
anthropological self-awareness is p articularly strong - w hich does not m ean th a t it
was not before. U ndoubtedly, except for tw ists and tu rn s in the h um anities, th is is
w hat m ade the anthropological perspective of literary studies so attractive.
62
63
64
^
http://rcin.org.pl
tebkowska
http://rcin.org.pl