On Centrism and Dualism - Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

CENTRISM AND DUALISM
concept represents the means to unify elements of analytical categories to prove their
relationship and thus their comparability. Her overall conclusion is that everything seems to
be a transformation of everything in island Southeast Asia. In the course of her argument
ERRINGTON identifies marriage systems, siblingship, and houses as the primary contexts of
comparison. This choice of contexts, together with her emphasis on transformation as a
heuristic devise, proves the ‘structuralist’ influence that characterizes her work. 19 The
essential paradigms of her ‘structuralist’ background will be discussed in the following
chapter.
II.1.1.1.
Theoretical Starting Points
Structure can be defined as the internal relationship through which constituent elements of a whole
are organized. Structural analysis thus consists of the discovery of significant elements and their
order. (MARANDA/MARANDA 1971: 16)
In his survey of structural anthropology, Michael OPPITZ (1975) gives a principle definition of
the concept of structure, which he perceives as the totality of elements related in such a way
that the modification of one element or one relation brings about a modification of the other
elements or relations. This definition is based on the concept of totality, which includes the
idea of interdependence between its constitutive elements (ibid.: 19), implying at the same
time that the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
OPPITZ claims that LÉVI-STRAUSS’ conception of transformation was derived from the work
of the British biologist D’Arcy Wentworth THOMPSON. 20 Inspired by the THOMPSON’S ideas,
LÉVI-STRAUSS coupled the concept of transformation with that of structure, with this
relationship becoming an essential aspect of his structuralism (ibid.: 215). 21
Now the notion of transformation is inherent in structural analysis. I would even say that all errors,
all the abuses committed through the notion of structure are a result of the fact that their authors
have not understood that it is impossible to conceive of structure separate from the notion of
transformation (LÉVI-STRAUSS 1994: 427 [1991: 113]).
19 In addition to these ‘structuralist’ concepts, ERRINGTON’S study is deeply influenced by the work and ideas of
Clifford GEERTZ and Benedict ANDERSON. Their impact becomes especially apparent in ERRINGTON’S idea of
the ‘Indic State’, which in many aspects resembles GEERTZ’S discussion of the Balinese polity (cf. GEERTZ
1980) and directly derived from ANDERSON’S study of the Javanese conception of ‘power’ (cf. ANDERSON 1972:
3). A second major influence is GEERTZ’S interpretative paradigm and his concept of ‘thick description’ as
identified by James FOX (Fox 1991: 988). Nevertheless, her explicit sympathy for ‘structuralist’ ideas makes her
study “a fairly non-dogmatic example of the “interpretation of meaning” school of anthropology (BABCOCK
1991: 135)”, which is in itself at times equated with postmodernist anthropology (cf. BOROFSKY 1994: 25).
20 This is, in fact, acknowledged by LÉVI-STRAUSS himself, who states that Wentworth THOMPSON’S
interpretation of the visible differences between species as transformations was an illumination for him that
deeply affected his conception of structure (cf. LÉVI-STRAUSS 1994: 427 [1991: 113].
21 “A very close relationship exists between the concept of transformation and that of structure, which occupies
such a large place in our work (LÉVI-STRAUSS 1976a: 18).”
14