Refuting the fiction of functionalism

[Ouroboros]

Wrote this on my blog; printing it here in case there might be some Malinowski fans here to irritate.

_____

Stories that relate that the sun is really a boat traversing the sky, or that the world was made from the bones of a giant, don’t serve any scientific purpose, nor at base do they serve the purpose of Malinowski’s functionalism (to which Meletinsky seems strongly allied). While myth-stories may eventually be used to support a given culture’s social order, no teller of tales thinks to himself, “Hmm, I think I’ll make up a story about that ball of light in the sky so that this generation and those that follow will have a sense of societal unity.” Nor would any audience listen to such stories for any reason save that imaginative sojourns give them pleasure. One of those pleasures includes the listeners imagining that the mysterious non-human world is at least tinged with human sentiments and priorities—and that may be the base origin of all of the tropes of art and religion, which may precede those stories we moderns would term “myths.”

 

[Emily L]

Ouroboros, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are saying (highly probable), but I think our assigning such characteristics to natural things wasn't a deliberate conscious decision but evolved as humans evolved. For example, since early humans found comfort in body heat (huddling together for feelings of security), then perhaps they grew to assume that the sun was giving out security, as well. And since its heat was greater than our own, then perhaps the security it gives out is greater also. The result (as we evolved) was that we began to see the sun as something greater than ourselves, i.e., a god.

Of course, I was just making that up, but my point is that such feelings evolved over so many years that it might be impossible for us to analyze it as if it were from a single mind, a single moment of inspiration, for a particular purpose.

 

[Ouroboros]

Those are valid points, though I think I can account for them with some expansion of my position.

It’s axiomatic that art only works if a lot of the audience responds to common images and tropes. So if a tale teller makes up a story about the sun, he probably does so because he knows most of his audience will be personally interested in the topic.

I can imagine at least one art form that probably came about from a societal gestalt, and that’s music. Assuming that early sapients didn’t have any instinctive music tendencies, the way songbirds do, then music probably developed slowly, and probably from groups of people gradually how to grunt in rhythm. Some scholars think music preceded human language.

Storytelling doesn’t proceed from groups as easily as music. Let’s supose the earliest stories are rambling narratives of crude fantasies, not unlike the South American stories preserved by Levi-Strauss. I think even such stories need a powerful narrator, and I’m arguing that neither the storyteller or the listeners are invested in the story because it serves to produce social unity. I’m sure early people figured out that stories could be used to manipulate listeners. But that was not the PRIMARY purpose, as functionalists argue.

 

[Jonsa]

Those are valid points, though I think I can account for them with some expansion of my position.

It’s axiomatic that art only works if a lot of the audience responds to common images and tropes. So if a tale teller makes up a story about the sun, he probably does so because he knows most of his audience will be personally interested in the topic.

I can imagine at least one art form that probably came about from a societal gestalt, and that’s music. Assuming that early sapients didn’t have any instinctive music tendencies, the way songbirds do, then music probably developed slowly, and probably from groups of people gradually how to grunt in rhythm. Some scholars think music preceded human language.

Storytelling doesn’t proceed from groups as easily as music. Let’s supose the earliest stories are rambling narratives of crude fantasies, not unlike the South American stories preserved by Levi-Strauss. I think even such stories need a powerful narrator, and I’m arguing that neither the storyteller or the listeners are invested in the story because it serves to produce social unity. I’m sure early people figured out that stories could be used to manipulate listeners. But that was not the PRIMARY purpose, as functionalists argue.

early humans were surrounded by natures music. There is a rhythm to the land from the beat of hooves to the melodies of song birds to the grunts and roars of the beasts.

 

[Ouroboros]

Sure, i can imagine early humans imitating all sorts of natural phenomena, though it’s easiest to imagine the direct inspiration coming from songbirds. That said, birds were evolving too, so there’s probably no way to be sure what if any songbirds existed when the first men climbed down from the trees.

 

[Jonsa]

Sure, i can imagine early humans imitating all sorts of natural phenomena, though it’s easiest to imagine the direct inspiration coming from songbirds. That said, birds were evolving too, so there’s probably no way to be sure what if any songbirds existed when the first men climbed down from the trees.

given the role that vocalization has in surviving and thriving and considering that homo sapiens have only been around for about 250,000 years, it is a given that "song birds" existed.

Mimicking nature's songs and rhythms was an integral component of paleolithic culture. Sitting around the campfire sharing tales of the hunt and knowledge of their world and its dangers and delights.