17.11.2012 Views

4 from ritual to theater and back: the efficacy ... - AAAARG.ORG

4 from ritual to theater and back: the efficacy ... - AAAARG.ORG

4 from ritual to theater and back: the efficacy ... - AAAARG.ORG

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Hindsight discredits Hoffman as a predic<strong>to</strong>r of political trends in <strong>the</strong><br />

USA. But he is an accurate reporter of <strong>the</strong> phatic sense of things circa<br />

Woods<strong>to</strong>ck 1969. And <strong>the</strong> “concept of <strong>the</strong> ‘we’ ” he describes may<br />

not be limited <strong>to</strong> humans. In chapter 5 I discussed <strong>the</strong> chimpanzee<br />

“carnivals” V. <strong>and</strong> F. Reynolds observed in <strong>the</strong> Bundongo Forest of<br />

Ug<strong>and</strong>a. These<br />

“carnivals” consisted of prolonged noise for periods of hours . . .<br />

stamping <strong>and</strong> fast-running feet . . . howling outbursts <strong>and</strong> prolonged<br />

rolls of drums (as many as 13 rapid beats) shaking <strong>the</strong> ground. . . .<br />

Although it was not possible <strong>to</strong> know <strong>the</strong> reason for this unusual<br />

behavior, twice it seemed <strong>to</strong> be associated with <strong>the</strong> meeting at a common<br />

food source of b<strong>and</strong>s that may have been relatively unfamiliar <strong>to</strong><br />

each o<strong>the</strong>r.<br />

(Reynolds <strong>and</strong> Reynolds 1965: 409)<br />

The meeting of b<strong>and</strong>s at a time when <strong>the</strong>re is an abundance of fruit fits<br />

nicely with Woods<strong>to</strong>ck <strong>and</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r human celebrations: <strong><strong>the</strong>ater</strong> so often<br />

occurs when divergent groups assemble <strong>to</strong> share food.<br />

LYING AND PRETENDING<br />

ethology <strong>and</strong> <strong><strong>the</strong>ater</strong> 257<br />

A great difference between human <strong>and</strong> non-human performers is <strong>the</strong><br />

ability of humans <strong>to</strong> lie <strong>and</strong> pretend. There is plenty of deception in<br />

<strong>the</strong> animal world: mimicry, camouflage, <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> like. But most, if not<br />

all, of <strong>the</strong>se body modifications <strong>and</strong> behaviors are hard-wired, genetically<br />

determined. A chameleon can’t choose not <strong>to</strong> change colors<br />

anymore than a parrot can decide not <strong>to</strong> mimic certain sounds. What<br />

marks human behavior is its lability, its unfinishedness. People can<br />

choose <strong>to</strong> do, or not do; <strong>to</strong> adorn or transform <strong>the</strong>ir bodies, or not<br />

<strong>to</strong>; <strong>to</strong> wear masks, or <strong>to</strong> go bare-faced. Hamlet’s very basic “<strong>to</strong> be or<br />

not <strong>to</strong> be” is a question only humans can ask – <strong>and</strong> answer in <strong>the</strong><br />

negative if a person so decides. But lability does not equal liberty.<br />

Often enough people get drawn deeply in<strong>to</strong> schemes of <strong>the</strong>ir own<br />

construction. There probably isn’t any over-riding human destiny;<br />

each person, mostly unconsciously, constructs a destiny for her/<br />

himself. Take Quesalid, a Kwakiutl whose s<strong>to</strong>ry Claude Lévi-Strauss

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!