1964 Rethinking the Concept "Primitive". Current Anthropology 5(3):169-178.
While reading this article, it was important for me to keep in mind that it was written in 1964. I feel that the problems Hsu presents in his paper have been solved, or at least do not seem to be an issue anymore. This could be because I'm younger and many these days are obsessed with political correctness. I almost never hear the primitive vs. civilized dichotomy bandied around, except for in reference to the history of anthropological thought. I do hear various ideas contrasted against the ideals of the west, and it was never with allusions to the western ideals being the superior ones (at least not in my anthropology courses, history, political science and geography on the other hand...)
Hsu begins by discussing the early history of Anthropological thought, and the evolution of the usage of ‘primitive’. Naturally, he goes through Taylor’s unilineal evolution of savagery, barbarism and civilization. He mentions Alexander Goldenweiser’s Early Civilization (1922:117-18) where he says that white man should be ashamed for having failed to either leave the ‘primitives’ alone, or to bring them up to his own level. That is such a ridiculous statement. Basically, the label of primitive has always had a negative connotation, it goes hand in hand with notions of inferiority, backwardness, lack of sophistication and simplicity; just to name a few.
Primitive vs. Civilized has been a theme in use for a very long time, though there have been other attempts to classify that do not have such a horrible connotation. Hsu discusses a few, such as Sapir’s genuine vs. spurious; Redfield’s folk vs. urban; and Herskovits’ non-literate vs. literate. Herskovits prefers that system of categorization because it has a specific data point connected to it. The others are much more subjective. It also is ‘colorless’ as he puts it. I suppose that means it sounds less offensive and racist.
As any logical and reasonable person can tell you, these labels are using a pretty large brush to paint the picture of humanity. They are seriously lacking in detail and specificity. For example, there is more diversity among those that had been labeled ‘primitive’ than in the ‘civilized’ world.
Hsu did “a survey of 30 basic books in anthropology written during the last 10 years” and found that the term ‘primitive’ was still in wide use at the time (remember, 1964), and was incredibly vague, variable and imprecise. Mostly, the word was used in an inferior way. It has no intellectual or analytical advantage. He says that it lends nothing to our ability to theory build, and it is setting us back.
It is also illogical! He explains that in ‘civilized’ America, we have a simple kinship system, while those ‘primitive’ Aboriginals in Australia have perhaps the most complicated kinship structure in the world. He lists several other situations like this. He says another problem is that we like to look at ourselves with rose colored glasses. Anthropologists will discuss problems in other societies, but when asked about themselves, they say that the west is far too complex and has far too long of a history to get into. Mead’s work abroad is super famous, but how many times have I ever heard about And Keep Your Powder Dry (1942), which is about the United States? None that I can remember! (My apologies to any professors who may have mentioned it to me…)
Speaking of a long history, Hsu discusses how societies with long histories tended (prior to the 60s) to be ignored. It is a problem of methodology: too much to read. Hsu says suck it up! Get over it! We are not doing ourselves any favors by ignoring half of the planet.
Back in the day, Anthropologists could label any of the marginalized groups primitive, basically without any fear of repercussions. Those they wrote about either didn’t read English/ French/ German, they were in a place where they most likely could not get their hands on a copy, or they were not politically in a position to raise a stink. Fortunately the world has changed since then. When Hsu was writing this article, the situation had already changed quite a bit. In 1958, Herskovits wrote about the idea of cultural relativism (I apologize to Herskovits and everyone for not having the citation) which is basically the notion of not judging one society by the standards of another. This is pretty significant.
Basically, primitive vs. civilized is bad science. By labeling a group as primitive, we are setting ourselves to miss details. We have already stuck them into a box, so we will manipulate the date to fit the box. Hsu calls for a new system, and a flexibility too. Whatever we go with, it will not work 100% of the time, so we must be able to adapt.
Hsu concludes by warning us that if we keep using the primitive vs. civilized dichotomy, we will “block our paths to progress”.
No comments:
Post a Comment