Professional Documents
Culture Documents
19-29
Special Issue – English Edition
Between the
Anthropology of
Literature and Literary
Anthropology.
Anna Łebkowska
Przeł. Jan Pytalski
http://rcin.org.pl
Anna LEBKOWSKA
Between the Anthropology of Literature
and Literary Anthropology
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 re’s 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 “ethnography’s 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),
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 one’s 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
Ibid, 333.
28 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.
31 Owen, A. “L iterature and the Study of M an” in Literature and Anthropology (1989), 41.
32
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, lo
http://rcin.org.pl
R. Nych, Cracow: U niversitas, 2007.
Anthropology in Literary Studies
not resign from professional specialization. On the contrary, it depends upon it. It creates
possibilities for “constituting a new research field.” Such an opportunity helps to avoid
the hermetic and purifying isolation of the two disciplines, but also allows for the removal
of two kinds of inter-disciplinarity: one based on clear borders, which at times can be
crossed and connected with the idea of transposing existing (terminological) structures,
and a second one, associated with the blurring of boundaries and based on a full, but un
fortunately often unproductive, freedom. The concept of trans-disciplinarity, on the other
hand, “is concerned, as the prefix ‘trans’ suggests, with what is between the disciplines,
what goes through them, and is at the same time outside of them .”34Trans-disciplinarity
is not about blurring the distinctions and specificities of particular disciplines, even if
they call themselves borderline (as is the case with anthropology).
One can speak at the same tim e of a symbiosis visible in th e dissem ination of
anthropological term s over literary studies (for exam ple, T u rn er’s concept of lim i-
nal ritu al).35 We cannot om it the fact th at, w hen speaking of benefits th a t literary
studies enjoy thanks to its cooperation w ith anthropology, we can nam e term s and
categories that - seem ingly surprisingly - have initially been an object of study
for literary studies. A nd after expanding, reform ulating, an d being enriched by
anthropology - they come back to the literary studies, surrounded by an aura of
cognitive attractiveness. T he m ost prom inent exam ple in this case w ould be the
category of narration.
At this point, it is im portant to move on and approach the fascinating question of
w hat proposed perspectives of descriptions (we have already becom e accustom ed to
the plural form here) are available. D uring the last several decades we have observed
the development of the analysis of anthropological traits in literature. L iterary worlds
are the prim ary targets of such research (worlds from novels or dram as). T hese are
w orlds b u ilt on the borders betw een different cultures, w ith different types of p ro
tagonist constructs and points of view - m oving from the verbal sphere to w hat is
non-verbal: gestures and senses.36 In the very center, we can find systems of m eaning
of a given culture breaking through the work or reflected by it.
A m ong m any different tendencies we can distinguish one th a t connects w ith
the analysis of realism in the novel. It is dom inated by the representative-cognitive
approach to literature. In th a t vein: “L iterature is a beacon of light for culture. Even
a poorly w ritten novel can be a fascinating po rtrait of a specific culture and its docu
m entary value will grow unquestionably as the years go by.”37 A nd further: “From
early epics to contem porary novels, m ultiple varieties of literary realism th a t could
be distilled can be system atically researched as invaluable, and som etim es the only
34 Z eidler-Janiszew ska, A. “T he D irections of Iconic C h a n g e ^ ”
35 O n the im portance of Victor T urner for literary studies com pare Victor Turner and the
Construction o f Cultural Criticism: Between Literature and Anthropology, edited by K.M.
Ashley, Indiana: Indiana U niversity Press, 1990.
36 T his is the kind of approach proposed by F. Poyatos in “L iterary Anthropology.
Toward a New In terdisciplinary A rea” in Literary Anthropology. Royatos finds hope in
the analysis of non-verbal cultural systems surfacing in literature.
37
http://rcin.org.pl
Royatos, F. “Introduction”, in Ibid XV.
tebkowska Between the Anthropology of Literature^
Sim ilarly to the anthropologist of literature beginning h is/h er w ork on the outskirts, at
the cracks of the texts by noticing subtle and discrete, often insignificant, factors such as
smells, places, sounds, postures, and gestures - all to reach such fundam ental cultural
dim ensions like tim e and space - w orks the protagonist of an avant-garde autobiography
in his attem pts to define him self, while constantly moving, holding to m ethods of the
review and inventory.42
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, auto-
ethnographic, 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
Ibid. XII.
39 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.
40 Poyatos, F. “Introduction”, XVI. Com pare Th.G. W inner in Literary Anthropology
41 Boelhower, W. “A vant-G arde A utobiography: D econstructing the M odernist H a b ita t”,
in Literary Anthropology.
Ibid., 273.
43 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.
44
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
http://rcin.org.pl
Vergleichender Literatur und Kulturwissenschaft, Bonn 1992.
Anthropology in Literary Studies
u nder consideration include the relations betw een authors, or n arrato rs and, at the
same tim e, ethnographers, poets, anthropologists, etc. However, m ore th a n the sub
jective dim ension is being brought to light. T he genealogical dim ension is equally
as im portant: in particular, the ethnographic novel seems to play an im p o rtan t role.
R elations betw een the scientific and literary approaches, visible in novels of this
kind, are p articularly revealing. A nother distinct variety is co n stitu ted by the genre
of travel fiction. T he ethnographic novel is the m ost com m only cited exam ple w hen
analyzing factors connecting anthropology and literatu re.45 U ndoubtedly, interest
in epic prose dom inates the field, b u t dram a plays a significant role in th is k ind
of research (particularly w ith respect to clarifying relations betw een ritu a l and
perform ing arts)46 or lyrical poetry.47 L iterary figures of th e im m igrant, traveler,
detective, the fictitious anthropologist, and finally, the w riter an d the poet are
extrem ely inviting. T hey m ay all be analyzed throu g h the prism of th eir attitudes,
points of view and cultural masks. Prim ary categories in th is case usually include:
a person, narration, m im esis, and gender,48 as well as senses, em otions, etc. T h is is
how the situation presently appears. However, this does not preclude new sites of
interest from em erging.
It w ould be h ard to m iss th e obvious preferences, at least so far, th at have gath
ered researchers around certain works of realism , historical novels, travel novels,
alongside autobiographical, and ethnographic w ritings - rath e r th a n extrem ely
avant-garde or experim ental works. A lthough, these do appear from tim e to tim e.
One can fin d far m ore scholarly texts concerned w ith works of literatu re playing
w ith different genres and form s of cultural representation, th em atizin g it in m any
different ways, th a n w ith works th a t disregard norm s an d trad itio n s an d actively
tu rn away from them . In order to establish relations betw een discourses of literatu re
and anthropology, one som etim es seeks to anchor research in term inology. T his is
an area th a t brought the term hybridity its fam e w ith in the field. A nd so, genre
varieties w hich are treated precisely as hybrid cases will be the p rim ary choice for
scholars, and th e hybrid character of the texts u nd er discussion will be repeatedly
highlighted. Moreover, the hybridity is set forth as th e foundation for relations
betw een literatu re and anthropology.49
45 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 esareo’s “
A nthropology and L iterature. O f Bedfellows an Illegitim ate O ffspring”
46 C om pare de Angelis or V T urner From the R itual to the Theater. The Seriousness o f Play,
W arsaw 2005.
47 C om pare C.A. D aniels “T he Poet as A nthropologist”, in Literature and Anthropology,
Texas 1989.
48 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).
00 49 O n this subject one can find com m ents in Between Anthropology and L iterature^,
http://rcin.org.pl
also com pare M .Schm eling’s “Story about C onfrontation” and “O ther in the
tebkowska Between the Anthropology of Literature^
All of this does not entail full harm ony or lack points of disagreem ent. Rredict-
ably, 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).
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.
50 C om pare E. Kosowska Negotiations and Compromise. Anthropology o f Being Polish in
http://rcin.org.pl
Henryk Sienkiewicz’s Work, Katowice: US Press, 2002.
Anthropology in Literary Studies
“T he goals of th e poet and anthropologist are the sam e”51 - such views, usually
perceived as an apotheosis of literatu re’s uniqueness, can evoke unrest. In short,
the m ost significant danger is th a t literatu re is absorbed or d ilu ted in other cultural
systems. In w hich case, these systems could potentially utilize literatu re solely in
order to find its own reflection, or lim it its m ission to a reference function.
Proof of the acute aw areness of these dangers is provided by the fact th a t there
is a constant need to use argum ents, w hich deflect accusations of literatu re being
treated like the source of objective knowledge about the w orld.52 Some highlight the
uselessness of such perspectives, and others prom ote them . T here are voices claim ing
th a t literatu re is m erely a cognitive tool in th e context of ostensive know ledge of the
w orld, th a t it is “the richest [in other places: the invaluable] source of docum enta
tion f o r ^ th e analysis of h u m an behavior53 One can hear opinions - than k fu lly rare
- stating th a t w hen the w ork of literatu re becom es dom inated by aesthetic elem ents
(according to Jakobson’s u n derstanding of aesthetics) it becom es less interesting
from the perspective of anthropology.54
I try to extract this p articu lar k ind of statem ents on purpose, even though I
do not approve of them . It needs to be underlin ed th at such statem ents are tru ly
m arginal. T he anthropology of literature could (and indeed it does) look different.
I raise them only to justify the need to ask such questions, as well as to point to
the fact th a t sim ilar questions and accusations are being vocalized w ithin the field.
Moreover, our academ ic environm ent also attem pts to p u t a set of such assum ptions
in place for the anthropology of culture.
On the other hand, some explanations from scholars studying literatu re from (as
they claim ) an anthropological perspective, b u t situ atin g them selves on the other
end of the spectrum - one of the adm irers of literatu re’s uniqueness - are som etim es
a little too obvious. Yet, it is hard not to agree w ith them . H ere is an example:
W riters are not obliged to strictly stick w ith the code of descriptive honesty. Novels and
other exam ples of fictive w riting are not designed by th eir respective authors as descriptive
ethnographies o f actual, real societies. Realism can be the goal of some fiction w riters, but
it never equals the descriptive accuracy. B ut this kind of accuracy should be a standard for
all ethnographies. It is not a praise of ethnography, nor a critique o f literature - it is m erely
an observation of the fact th at they are both separate disciplines w ith th eir own, respec
tive histories, aim s and techniques. W hat is lite ratu re ’s strength could be ethnography’s
weakness, and vice versa.55
How far can we go w hen using literature in order to arrive at a clear im age of a society
and its culture? How does literature shed light over the structure of our society and the
accom panying b lu ep rin t of its behavior? How is literatu re com pleting, containing, or
negating cultural assum ptions? How is literature docum enting historical developm ent
of both sensual and intellectual aspects of the society, as well as th eir m utual relations?57
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). Iser’s64findings, 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. Iser’s
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.
Translation: Ja n Pytalski
http://rcin.org.pl