Levi-Strauss, 1952
Levi-Strauss, 1952
We thus surely find ourselves faced with a curious paradox.
Taking the terms in the sense in which we have been using
them above, we have seen that all cultural progress depends
on a coalition of cultures. The essence of such a coalition is
the pooling (conscious or unconscious, voluntary or invo-
luntary, deliberate or accidental, on their own initiative or
under compulsion) of the w^ins which each culture has scored
in the course of its historical development. Lastly, we have
recognized, that, the greater the diversity between the cultures
concerned, the more fruitful such a coalition will be. If this
is admitted, we seem to have two conditions which are
mutually contradictory. For the inevitable consequence of the
practice of playing as a syndicate, which is the source of all
progress, is, sooner or later, to make the character of each
player's resources uniform. If, therefore, one of the first
requisites is diversity, it must be recognized that the chances
of winning become progressively less as the game goes on.
There are, it would seem, two possibilities of remedying this
inevitable development. The first would be for each player
deliberately to introduce differences in his own game; this
is possible, because each society (the "player" in our
hypothetical illustration) consists of a coalition of denomi-
national, professional and economic groups, and because the
society's stake is the sum total of the stakes of all these con-
stituent groups. Social inequalities are the most striking
instance of this solution. The great revolutions we have chosen
to illustrate our argument — the neolithic and the industrial —
were accompanied not only by the introduction of diversity
into the body of society, as Spencer perceived, but by the
introduction of differences in status between the several groups,
particularly from the economic point of view. It was noted
a long time ago that the discoveries of the neolithic age rapidly
brought about social differentiation, as the great cities of
ancient times grew up in the East, and States, castes and
classes appeared on the scene. The same applies to the indus-
trial revolution, which was conditioned by the emergence of
46
a proletariat and is leading on to new and more elaborate
forms of exploiting human labour. Hitherto, the tendency has
been to treat these social changes as the consequence of the
technical changes, the relation of the latter to the former
being that of cause and effect. If we are right in our inter-
pretation, this causality (and the succession in time which
it implies) must be rejected — as, incidentally, is the general
trend in modern science — in favour of a functional correlation
between the two phenomena. We may note in passing that
recognition of the fact that the historical concomitant of
technical progress has been the development of the exploi-
tation of man by man may somewhat temper the pride we
are so apt to take in the first of these developments.
The second remedy is very largely modelled on the first:
it is to bring into the coalition, whether they will or no, new
partners from outside, whose "stakes" are very different from
those of the parties to the original coalition. This solution has
also been tried and, while the first may roughly be identified
with capitalism, the second may well be illustrated by the
history of imperialism and colonialism. The colonial expansion
of the nineteenth century gave industrial Europe a fresh
impetus (which admittedly benefited other parts of the world
as well) whereas, but for the introduction of the colonial
peoples, the momentum might have been lost much sooner.
It will be apparent that, in both ca-ses, the remedy consists
in broadening the coalition, either by increasing internal
diversity or by admitting new partners; in fact, the problem
is always to increase the number of players or, in other words,
to restore the complexity and diversity of the original situation.
It is also apparent, however, that these remedies can only
temporarily retard the process. Exploitation is possible only
within a coalition; there is contact and interchange between
the major and the minor parties. They, in turn, in spite of
the apparently unilateral relationship between them, are
bound, consciously or unconsciously, to pool their stakes and,
as time goes by, the differences between them will tend to
diminish. This process is illustrated by the social improve-
ments that are being brought about and the gradual attainment
of independence by the colonial peoples; although we have
still far to go in both these directions, we must know that
the trend of developments is inevitable. It may be that the
emergence of antagonistic political and social systems should,
in fact, be regarded as a third solution; conceivably, by a
constant shifting of the grounds of diversity, it may be
47
possible to maintain indefinitely, in varying forms which will
constantly take men unawares, that state of disequilibrium
which is necessary for the biological and cultural survival of
mankind.
However this may be, it is difficult to conceive as other
than contradictory a process which may be sximmed up as
follows: if men are to progress, they must collaborate; and,
in the course of their collaboration, the differences in their
contributions will gradually be evened out, although col-
laboration was originally necessary and advantageous simply
because of those differences.
Even if there is no solution, however, it is the sacred duty
of mankind to bear these two contradictory facts in mind,
and never to lose sight of the one through an exclusive con-
cern with the other; man must, no doubt, guard against the
blind particularism which would restrict the dignity of
humankind to a single race, culture or society; but he must
never forget, on the other hand, that no section of humanity
has succeeded in finding universally applicable formulae, and
that it is impossible to imagine mankind pursuing a single way
of life for, in such a case, mankind would be ossified.
From this point of view our international institutions have
a tremendous task before them and bear a very heavy res-
ponsibility. Both task and responsibility are more complex
than is thought. For our international institutions have a
double part to play; they have firstly, to wind up the past and,
secondly to issue a summons to fresh activity: In the first
place, they have to assist mankind to get rid, with as little
discomfort and danger as possible, of those diversities now
serving no useful purpose, the abortive remnants of forms of
collaboration whose putrefying vestiges represent a constant
risk of infection to the body of international society. They
will have to cut them out, resorting to amputation where
necessary, and foster the development of other forms of
adaptation.
At the same time, they must never for a moment lose sight
of the fact that, if these new forms are to have the same
functional value as the earlier forms, they cannot be merely
copied or modelled on the same pattern; if they were, they
would gradually lose their efficacy, until in the end they
would be of no use at all. International institutions must be
aware, on the contrary, that mankind is rich in unexpected
resources, each of which, on first appearance, will always
amaze men; that progress is not a comfortable "bettering of
48
what we have", in which we might look for an indolent
repose, but is a succession of adventures, partings of the way,
and constant shocks. Humanity is forever involved in two
conflicting currents, the one tending towards unification, and
the other towards the maintenance or restoration of diversity.
As a result of the position of each period or culture in the
system, as a result of the way it is facing, each thinks that
only one of these two currents represents an advance, while
the other appears to be the negation of the first. But we
should be purblind if we said, as we might be tempted to do,
that humanity is constantly unmaking what it makes. For,
in different spheres and at different levels, both currents are
in truth two aspects of the same process.
The need to preserve the diversity of cultures in a world
which is threatened by monotony and uniformity has surely
not escaped our international institutions. They must also be
aware that it is not enough to nurture local traditions and
to save the past for a short period longer. It is diversity itself
which must be saved, not the outward and visible form in
which each period has clothed that diversity, and which can
never be preserved beyond the period which gave it birth.
We must therefore hearken for the stirrings of new life, foster
latent potentialities, and encourage every natural inclination
for collaboration which the future history of the world may
hold; we must also be prepared to view without surprise,
repugnance or revolt whatever may strike us as strange in the
many new forms of social expression. Tolerance is not a
contemplative attitude, dispensing indulgence to what has
been or what is still in being. It is a dynamic attitude, con-
sisting in the anticipation, understanding and promotion of
what is struggling into being. We can see the diversity of
human cultures behind us, around us, and before us. The
only demand that we can justly make (entailing corresponding
duties for every individual) is that all the forms this diversity
may take may be so many contributions to the fullness of
all the others.
49
++++++++++++
リンク
文献
その他の情報
Copyleft, CC, Mitzub'ixi Quq Chi'j, 2018
Do not paste, but
[Re]Think our message for all undergraduate
students!!!