PAUL RADIN – PRIMITIVE MAN AS PHILOSOPHER - 1957
This book is both essential and
at the same time representative of its time, which means limited on some
important points.
It is essential because it
refuses the easy but race-minded not to say openly racist or racialist dominant
ideas of his time, the 1920s and 1930s, in anthropology, for instance those of
Lucien Lévy Bruhl. According to these thinkers “primitive” man is limited in
intellectual means and does not think logically. Yet these anthropologists had
accumulated a lot of knowledge, stories, mythological tales or constructions,
descriptions of languages, beliefs and religious ideas or concepts. But they
only accumulated this knowledge and never really stepped back to consider
things with the necessary distance to make them objective. I will not insist on
that point. It is not the object of this book or its review.
THE MISTAKES NOT TO MAKE
Paul Radin is careful not to make
the same mistakes as the people he criticizes and these are essentially first
of all pure speculation on material collected without any critical distance,
and second a systematic questioning but without discriminating the people who
are questioned. Paul Radin considers the first mistake leads to pure
subjectivity entirely under the control of western ideology, hence a vision
that is not in phase with the real thinking of these “primitive” people.
Strangely enough Paul Radin keeps the word “primitive” which is pejorative. I
by far would prefer speaking of primeval civilizations. Most of them do not
practice writing, though this is more and more obsolete because colonization
has widely spread writing among all peoples in the world, and some of the old
civilizations like the Mayas, the Incas, the Aztecs and some others in America
had writing systems of their own. This leads to the simple question: what does
primitive mean? Today such peoples are practically inexistent as such. There
are probably some pockets in Amazonia and some in New
Guinea, maybe Africa,
but most people now are reached by civilization and the problem is for them not
to be destroyed physically, linguistically or even, and especially, culturally.
Some ancient cultures can be recaptured and reconstructed but the culture of
Australian Aborigines today may have the proper forms but does not have any more
the proper meaning and utility, purpose as before the arrival of Europeans,
because these depend on the context, and that one has changed tremendously over
the last century, let alone the last fifty years.
The second mistake has two
levels. For one, questioning is always leading. There is no absolutely
unobtrusive and neutral questioning, but that can be reduced to as little as
possible and be set under control. But the second level is a lot more
important: you cannot consider everyone equal or identical by principle in such
questioning procedures. Paul Radin has an important point here: these people
are all different but some categories can be seen such as those Radin puts
forward: men of action on one hand and thinkers on the other hand. I am not sure
those two categories are enough, but these two categories are essential. Paul
Radin describes and qualifies both very carefully. The thinkers for him are the
few people (and there are only a few in all societies even western societies)
who try to understand and explain the reality of the world in which they live.
Most of them will come to and suggest constructions that are mythical or
mythological in the form of stories about the gods, the spirits, the creation
of the world, the acquisition of language and knowledge, etc. They often
officiate as priests of sorts responsible for the various religious or
spiritual rituals; as doctors and scientists responsible for the welfare and
healing of the members of the community and also for the spreading of traditional
and accumulated knowledge necessary for the survival of the community and its
members; or as poets, bards, story-tellers who develop their memory in order to
keep the collective knowledge of the past and the cultural elements of the
community.
NO PHYLOGENIC THINKING
Paul Radin though makes a mistake
of his own here. He does not consider these categories with which he deals in
any phylogenic way. The stories he analyzes are taken as first of all rather
stable in their content, second as having always existed like that, and third
as not having been influenced by colonization. He even considers that stability
as one trait or distinctive feature of the thinkers of these societies. He
quotes North American Indians a lot, the Winnebagos very often, but he works
with the stories he collected in the 1920s mostly, still remembered at the time
by the surviving Winnebago Indians, after four centuries of brutal genocidal
colonization and at least two or three if not more centuries of compulsory
Christianization. Many of the formal characteristics of these stories are
strikingly similar to some of the Hebrew-based religions, particularly
Christianity. That’s part of the phylogenic approach I think should be
implemented in this case in two directions: can we in anyway understand how
these stories developed before the arrival of Europeans; and can we actually
pinpoint the impact of the brutal colonization and Christianization of the
concerned Indian population? Maybe the answer is no, but we cannot neglect
these questions and draw the conclusion that what we see is what we should see.
What we can get from the Maya inscriptions in their stone temples is at least
absolutely free of any Christian and Western influence. What these inscriptions
are telling us, if we can decipher them, is then authentic, whereas what we can
get from the memory of some living descendants cannot in any way be said and
guaranteed as authentic. Too much time, too much violence, too much damage done
by western colonization. What you get is not what you should see.
Apart from that we can consider
some of the ideas put forward by Paul Radin who always tried to get the
philosophical constructions or reconstructions of the philosophy of these
people from their thinkers and thus what he says represents what he has
understood from and in what these thinkers told him. In what language by the
way? Their original language or English or another European language? If it was
collected in English or Spanish or French that means the informers have
translated their own culture into these European languages and we should wonder
about their ability at translating and their command of the European language
they used. And if it was collected in their original languages, it has been
translated by some European translator, and there I am afraid translation is
necessarily high treason. He never gives the stories in bilingual presentation
and hardly gives any information about how the poems or rituals he comments
upon sound or look in their original languages. From what I know about the native
languages of Polynesia or Northern America and Africa,
the least we can say is that many of these languages are NOT easily
translatable into French, English, Spanish or German, if any translation from
one language to another can in any way be 100% faithful, and I doubt that very
much.
NO CAUSE-EFFECT
Paul Radin particularly
criticizes western influence in what is being said and propagated about these
civilizations. First of all he considers there is no real cause-effect thinking
in these cultures. He is right but does not argue the point enough. There is no
cause-effect thinking because the world is not cut up into small elements and
the world is not thought as a necessarily causal chain of action or evolution.
These civilizations understand the world and daily experience as being a
tremendous amount of simultaneous elements that have to be captured in one
single vision, and from these elements when they are fulfilled or when they
reach a certain level of fulfillment some new phenomenon or element will
emerge, not caused by anything but rather let free to emerge, or not emerge eventually.
That’s where the original languages would be important. In Prakrit languages
for example they have a special verbal form, the preterit participle, that expresses
exactly that phenomenon: now this element has been fulfilled, now this second
element has also been fulfilled, a certain action can eventually be performed,
or a certain phenomenon can appear, or even may appear, and develop, not caused
by it though it can or may develop only when these actions have been fulfilled.
This is the basic way of thinking of Buddhism: now I have
finally learned what I had to learn, now I have assimilated this learning, now
I have made up my mind, I may decide to start doing some more advanced action
like entering some meditative state to move towards enlightenment. It is not
learning the Dhammapada by heart and reciting it every day that will enlighten
me. In fact I may get on the way to enlightenment even if I have not read the
Dhammapada and even if I can’t recite one single verse. But I will have to have
reached a certain level of knowledge and resolve in a way or another to be able
to decide to get on that way. And what I did not learn before I will learn
along the way. That way of thinking and behaving is contained in the very
syntax of Prakrit languages, and Sanskrit even, and that goes back to the
development of these languages some ten thousand years ago, if not even more.
Strangely enough we can even follow such syntactic forms in the other branch of
the Indo-Iranian languages, the Indo European branch and see how these
syntactic forms have been dropped (they were common to the two Indo-European
and Indo-Aryan branches because they must have been in the common basis on the
Iranian plateau before the two branches migrated down west or east), or rather
transformed, shifted in meaning in the Indo-European languages of today.
That’s what I mean by a
phylogenic approach and that is absent from Paul Radin.
WESTERN INDIVIDUALISTIC VISION
Another example is the way he
considers the West has centered its philosophical and social development on an
individualistic approach thus neglecting the group, or even at times rejecting
any group approach. On the other side the civilizations Paul Radin is studying
are capturing the individual as necessarily part of the community. The
individual does not determine what he or she is going to do by himself or
herself but what they decide to do is largely dependant on the way they
articulate themselves onto that community that is identifying for them. The
West has even invented a word for that: it is called “communitarianism,”
meaning the individual can only develop within the closed limits of his or her
community, but the western approach as carried by this word is critical if not
hostile. In fact this approach in these communities means that the individual,
when he has reached the full sense of belonging to his community, when he has
fully concentrated his intellectual and ethical means onto the fulfilling of
the common objectives of himself or herself and of their community, hence when
the individual has fully integrated in his or her stance the vision and
perspective of his or her community, then he or she will “naturally” come to
doing what he or she has to do. Integration in the identifying community of the
individual is the condition for the individual to be successful, for the
individual to reach prestige and a heightened sense of existence. But this is
fundamentally conveyed in ALL languages in the world by the personal pronoun
systems. And Paul Radin once again does not consider language.
COMMUNITARIANISM IN LANGUAGE
These personal pronouns may
change in many ways but they are basically founded on a three-tiered distance
hierarchy.
First “I” necessarily and from
the very start captured simultaneously as twinned to “YOU” and this couple
“I-YOU” is simultaneously captured as differentiated from the third level
“OTHER” that will lead to the third person. We have to understand that “I-YOU”
is basically captured as “WE.” That’s the first community, the nurturing family.
Even that community is questioned by the West. But the various civilizations of
the world vary a lot as for their understanding of the “OTHER.” There is the
first “OTHER” that provides the “WE” with some identity. It is the “OTHER” the
“WE” belongs to. In some languages and their societies the pronouns change
according to the sex of the person speaking, implying the male or female
community is the identity of the male or female individual. In some other
languages and civilizations the pronouns vary according to the social class or
social caste the individual belongs to: when an individual from a lower class
speaks to a person of a higher class, or vice versa, the pronouns vary and become
specific. We thus have complex networks of communities and memberships
according to how a civilization defines the “OTHER.” But we must be clear here
it is never seen as homogeneous. Yet recent events have shown that even in some
advanced and developed western countries there exist some referential groups defining
the identity of their members and the way they are supposed to behave. The
French are probably the clearest community defining the French community as
having to be republican and to adopt and defend what they call “republican
values” which include the rejection of any religious reference as identifying
and imply any member of this French republican community has the right in the
whole world to debunk any religious beliefs, except – of course, would hey say
– the Jews. Hence it boils down to the Christians (in fact only the Catholics)
and the Muslims. Some people are being brought to court, tried, convicted and
sentenced even to prison terms for questioning such “values”: they are accused
of advocating terrorism.
That’s where Paul Radin is wrong.
He is right to insist on such communitariasnism but he is wrong to consider
they are typical of “primitive” civilizations.
EVOLUTION OR NOT
In the same way he accuses the
West of making it compulsory to think in evolutionistic terms. He considers
“primitive” civilizations are refusing to see the world in such evolutionistic
terms. He is right as long as he considers what he is studying is frozen into
some stability. But he is wrong because it is the collecting of what he is
studying that is freezing these materials into some kind of stable unchanging
essence. These stories have been produced in multiple versions in oral
societies over millennia. Since colonization started (without colonization we
would never have been interested in these civilizations) they have been under
heavy influence from the West and Christianity. Furthermore when we deal with Africa we don’t consider that another influence was felt
some ten centuries before colonization: Islam. What was the impact of Islam on
African cultures? And we find the same blocking attitude in Europe
concerning the Christianization of the old Indo-European cultures that existed
before the arrival of Christianity. It took six to eight centuries for that Christianization
to be completed. Luckily we can now start following that process in some basic
myths or legends of Europe like Tristan and
Isolde.
THE ROLE OF LANGUAGE
Another important element is the
role of language in his approach. He is very keen on insisting on the role of
the “word” and particularly the “written word” in the stabilizing of cultures
and civilizations. He seems to attribute this fact to the West again. Here it
is quite acceptable to say that writing has had a very strict impact on the stabilizing
of culture and thinking. But he should question language and not reduce it to
words.
The linguistic ability is the
constructed result of the implementation of another capability of the brain,
the capability to discriminate patterns in what the senses capture and then to
conceptualize these patterns in order to recognize them. Homo Sapiens by giving
names to these patterns developed their linguistic capability. Keep in mind
this phenomenological chain:
DISCRIMINATE PATTERNS – IDENTIFY / RECOGNIZE THEM – NAME THEM
And you may understand what conceptualization is. Any human
group or individual who has a language at their disposal has that capability.
Paul Radin should have met Vygotsky to see that since conceptualization has a
psychogenetic development in children, it must have had a phylogenic
development in Homo Sapiens. What was the role of the phylogeny of language in
the emergence of Homo Sapiens? And what was the role of conceptualization in
that phylogeny? That would have led him to a hierarchy of the human
conceptualizing capability. Any human who speaks a human language has developed
a certain level of conceptualization. We can then wonder if these languages and
their communities have developed more or less abstract conceptualization.
Then the “conditions to success”
that he lists page 82, with an addition page 95, show how powerful
conceptualizing is. To succeed an individual within a community has to
demonstrate:
1-
a definite inward purification
2-
a reverend and a humble spirit
3-
persistent effort
4-
strength of character
5-
the saving grace of the sense of life’s
realities
6-
a knowledge of oneself
7-
restraint
This is not primitive at all: it
implies a tremendous level of education, training and conceptualized
understanding on one hand; then it could be said of any person in any world and
civilization. The specificity in the civilizations he studies is the fact that
this cannot be understood and grasped without the full articulation of an
individual on his or her community. But as I have said before that is not
typical of these “primitive” societies. Communitarianism is extremely present
in western societies and can be seen as a force that can question and even
challenge the national communitarianism of some countries who refuse to
recognize and acknowledge the existence of such communities within what they
call the national community.
WORD – SYNTAX – DISCOURSE
One example of this linguistic
conceptualizing power working in association with the connection between the
individual and the community is given as a sign of abstract thought. Right but Paul
Radin doesn’t exploit his own idea enough: he does not consider the language
itself.
Words first conceptualize
identified and isolated items, static or dynamic, spatial (nouns) or temporal
(verbs). Paul Radin has probably understood this. Then the syntax of the
language (and there are several different types). The syntax is based on the
conceptualization of relations between items. Ergative and non-ergative
languages both conceptualize the relation between the agent, the patient and
the verbal connection between them, but they do it differently with a direct
impact on the way people think, even at the lowest imaginable level of
abstraction. The third level of conceptualization is the discourse in which the
language is used meaning the relation between the speaker, the interlocutor, their
community and the language itself. Every single element in that complex network
of relations has to be conceptualized through education, training and
experience to be dealt with properly. If we consider the following aphorism
“Stones will rot but words never rot,” we have to understand the words, then
the syntax, but then consider the discursive context without which the aphorism
has no meaning. The meaning provided by Paul Radin, “Anything may be forgiven
but offensive words,” is one possible meaning in one possible discursive
situation, maybe the common meaning, but definitely not the only one. For
aphorisms to really work as general statements they have to be in the third
person otherwise they are projected into the discursive context of the speaker and/or
interlocutor.
That’s where we come to a
fundamental remark when Paul Radin speaks of “simulacra.”
“The parts of the body, the
physiological functions of the organs, like the material form taken by objects
in nature, are mere symbols, simulacra,
of the essential psychical-spiritual entity that lies behind them.” (274)
Paul Radin could not know that
Jean Baudrillard was going to develop a whole theory of simulacra in modern
society. For Baudrillard carrots have the only value our appetite, our need to
eat to survive, give them. That’s for him their real natural value. By setting
a price on this value when entering market economy, the market value is a
simulacrum of the “natural” value. If we pay with metal money (gold, silver,
copper) this money is a simulacrum of the market value. Using paper money, it is
a simulacrum of metal money and of market value. If we pay with a check or a
credit card or a telephone, each time we go up one rung on the ladder of
simulacra, one rung away from the only real natural value of the carrots, i.e.
my hunger and my desire to eat in order to survive.
PAUL RADIN AND SIMULACRA
Paul Radin is on a completely
different line. He explains that the real material items are the simulacra of
the psychical-spiritual entities. We must expand the quotation:
“It is clearly manifest that the
dynamic principle is here fundamental. The static principle is definitely only
the temporary shell, the body, doomed to early extinction and decay. Also,
there is the inability to express the psychical in terms of the body; the
psychical must be projected upon the external world. The Ego, in other words,
cannot contain within itself both subject and object, although the object is
definitely conditioned by and exists within the perceiving self. Thus we have
an Ego consisting of subject-object, with the object only intelligible in terms
of the external world and of other Egos. This does not in any sense, of course,
interfere with the essential dualism of primitive thought but it does imply a
tie between the Ego and the phenomenal world foreign to that which we assume.
And this connection is very important, for it takes the form of an attraction,
a compulsion. Nature cannot resist man, man cannot resist nature. A purely
mechanistic conception of life is thus unthinkable. The parts of the body, the
physiological functions of the organs, like the material form taken by objects
in nature, are mere symbols, simulacra,
for the essential psychical-spiritual entity that lies behind them.” (273-274)
A body condemned to get extinct
and decay cannot be seen as anything static. It is by essence non-static since
it is born, grows, withers, dies and decays. What he is trying to say is that
the conceptualized world we reach by getting over the ever changing material
world is dynamic but that has nothing to do with ever-changing. It is dynamic
because it can make us go beyond appearances, because it builds and activates
our mental powers. He is right to say we cannot model the psychical reality of
our Ego in terms of the body, but he is wrong to say that the body is there for
nothing. He might be following some of the formulations he found in the
cultures he studies and his remark might be right within these limits but he is
wrong because he does not capture the mental level of the individual, a
construct that realizes, expands and develops the capabilities contained in the
very structure and architecture of our central nervous system. Then he is right
to say that the world cannot exist in our consciousness without being captured,
analyzed, modeled and virtualized by this central nervous system into the model
we will retain in our mind. The world will be in our consciousness only through
this mental model that can be modified but that is the indispensible filter for
us to capture the world and even act onto it. That leads him to a very
mysterious sentence: “Nature cannot resist man, man cannot resist nature.” In our
mental line it is clear, but the words do not express that mental approach.
Nature cannot resist man because the mental model man has in his mind is only
man’s own creation, yet nature can defeat actions based on this model if the
model is unrealistic. In the same way man cannot resist nature because in the
end nature will have the last word, except if man is able to change nature. But
will nature accept to be changed? That’s a question that is not asked.
THE PSYCHICAL-SPIRITUAL
Then we understand why he speaks
of the “psychical spiritual’ though it is not entirely clear in the word used.
Psychical refers to the functioning of the central nervous system at the level
of the behavior of the individual and its motivations. But spiritual refers to
a cultural element entirely mentally built by man on the basis of what the
individual captures in the world. It has little to do with psychical. Psychical
remains at the level of the functioning of the central nervous system.
Spiritual is at the level of the functioning of the mind, that virtual
construct of man confronting his central nervous system to the world and his
desire to capture it and survive. Psychical is connected to the body. Spiritual
is entirely disconnected from the body. The mind manages the psychical
dimension of man’s behavior. The mind conceptualizes all its managed experience
into the virtual cultural spiritual model of the individual’s existential and
circumstantial experience.
Strangely enough that is in phase
with what Marshall McLuhan is developing in the 1950s and 1960s but Paul Radin
did not know about it.
For Marshall McLuhan the body is
the basis of all further development of man. You can identify his various
organs and functions and every invention is the expansion and extension of one
particular organ or function. Take the examples of “feet” as a real
experiential organ that enables us to walk or run. Then conceptualize this
walking-running capability. Then you can manage that walking and running: adapt
it to the terrain or the objective, to a road or a forest, an uphill slope or a
downhill slope. You have to conceptualize (more or less according to the
people) this capability to be effective. Go one step further and “surrogate”
the capability with some machine or device, surrogate foot-walking or
foot-running with a device enabling us to transport ourselves without using our
feet. Then invent the wheel and the cart, the car, the bicycle, etc. The wheel
is the surrogate of our feet. It expands and extends our feet in their
walking-running capability. This shows the real material natural world when we conceptualize
some functions can be surrogated as for these functions with artificial devices
pre-conceptualized in a design, realized in the material device itself that surrogates
the initial function conceptualized from the real material natural world. The
first conceptualization is virtual and is constructed in our mind by our
central nervous system (in connection with the real world outside and inside
our own body). Then the second conceptualization designing a device that will
surrogate the function we have previously conceptualized is also constructed in
our mind. It can then eventually be materialized as a drawing, or a model. Then
the device is produced and we reach the third conceptualization of its function.
We have the following chain:
FEET – WALKING-RUNNING – WHEEL –
CART-CAR-ETC
REAL MATERIAL WORLD –
– 1ST VIRTUAL MENTAL CONCEPTUALIZATION
– “walking/running” capability
– 2ND VIRTUAL MENTAL CONCEPTUALIZATION
– “wheel”
– 3RD VIRTUAL MENTAL CONCEPTUALIZATION
– “(means of) transportation”
SURROGATES ARE POSITIVE
Marshall McLuhan cannot consider
that the virtual surrogates have in any way the negative dimension Jean
Baudrillard would give them. At the same time Marshall McLuhan is perfectly in
phase with Paul Radin. The very projection of the virtual conceptualizations
onto the body enables us to expand-extend that body into surrogate devices.
These devices are real material man-made surrogates of the basic real material
physical capabilities of our body. We can consider the conceptualizations
themselves and their concepts are surrogates and then they would be virtual and
in many ways immaterial, though materiality should not mean touchable.
We could conclude with a short
note on, what Paul Radin says on monotheism. He seems to refuse any
evolutionary approach of monotheism but at the same time he takes for granted
that monotheism was basically invented by the three Hebraic religions (Judaism,
Christianity and Islam). In fact he is mistaken about these three religions.
Judaism has a binary vision:
check Genesis and look for “God and his spirit.”
Christianity has a ternary
vision: the Trinity, the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Islam has a binary vision:
unitary as for God but binary as for the Quran, God and His Prophet.
We could of course think of all
the “primitive” mythologies in which God is never alone, be he the main one or
the only one because he has a Transformer, a Trickster of a type or another to
bring to man the divine knowledge man is stated as not able to produce. Without
in anyway wishing to be blasphemous, we could wonder if that Transformer, or
that Trickster, or whatever other intermediary used by God to enlighten man is
not similar to the Spirit of God or Archangel Gabriel, Jesus, and Mahomet. God
in these three monotheistic religions always has a helper somewhere and
somehow. In fact the only one of these three religions that does not take such
a helper among men is Judaism, though we could discuss Moses as the deliverer
of the Covenant.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 7:05 AM