Study the passages below and answer the following questions: a) what is the specificity of the “extraordinary event” described by Claude Lévi-Strauss? b) what conclusions does Jacques Derrida come to when commenting on this “extraordinary event”?

Claude Lévi-Strauss, “The Sad Tropics”: “Their unfriendliness, the chief's apparent irritation, indicated that we had put too much pressure on them. Neither we nor the Indians felt at ease; the night promised to be cold, and as there was not a tree around, we, like the Indians, had to go to bed directly on the ground. But no one slept: the night passed in polite observation of each other. It was hardly worth while to prolong this risky venture. I persuaded the chief that we should proceed at once to the exchanges. And then an extraordinary incident occurred, which requires a little account of what preceded it. It is considered undeniable that the Nambikwara have no writing or even drawing skills, except to draw dotted or zigzag lines on their kalebasa. Like the Kaduweo, however, I handed out sheets of paper and pencils to them. At first they didn't know what to do with them, but one day I saw them drawing some wavy horizontal lines on the paper. What did that mean? Apparently they were writing, or rather trying to use a pencil as well as I was, because they didn't know what to do with it, and I hadn't yet had time to amuse them with my drawings. For most of them that was the end of it, but the tribal chief was more far-sighted. He was the only one who undoubtedly understood the purpose of writing.”

Claude Lévi-Strauss, “Elementary Structures of Kinship”: “The Nambikwara of group (a) are completely unable to draw except for geometric patterns on their calabashes. For a few days they had no idea what to do with the paper and pencils handed out to them. Some time later, however, we once caught them drawing wavy lines. In this way they imitated our actions with the notebook, i.e. the writing process, without, however, understanding its purpose or function. However, they called the act of writing iekariukedjutu, which means 'making rays', and saw in it an aesthetic interest.”

Jacques Derrida's comments: “1. Writing arises momentarily. It is not prepared. Such a leap proves that the possibility of writing is not rooted in speech, but outside of it. “Consequently, writing in Nambiquar did not arise at all as a result of prolonged learning, as one might think.” On what basis does Lévi-Strauss conclude that writing emerged later than speech (which he needs to do in order to emphasize their extrapolation from each other)? On the basis of this incident? But after all, it was not about the original emergence of writing, but only about the scene of the imitation of writing. It is true that we are talking about writing, but in this case it is not the transition to writing, not the invention of writing, but only the borrowing of already existing writing that is sudden. It is a borrowing, and an artificial one at that. In the words of Lévi-Strauss himself, “the symbol of writing was perceived, although its reality remained incomprehensible. It is known, however, that all the phenomena connected with the spread of writing, the teaching of writing, occur suddenly. The case with the initial appearance of writing was quite different: this process required a lot of labor, time, overcoming various stages. The rapidity with which writing was adopted already implies the existence of a structure that makes it possible.....
2. The second significant point that Lévi-Strauss identifies in the same text about the writing scene is related to the first. Since the Nambikwara learned writing without understanding its meaning, since the chief was able to use writing effectively without knowing either its role or the content it conveyed, it follows that we can conclude that the role of writing is political rather than theoretical, that it is “social rather than intellectual”.... In thus distinguishing between a “social” and an “intellectual” role, and in attributing to writing the former rather than the latter, we are in effect taking for granted a highly questionable distinction between intersubjective attitude and knowledge. If it is true, as we assume, that writing can only be conceived of in terms of human violence against human beings, is there anything, such as science, that is completely free of it? Is there any such knowledge, or rather any such language, scientific or unscientific, that is not at the same time associated with both writing and violence? If we answer this question in the negative, as we do, then attempts to clarify the singularity of writing with the help of these concepts are meaningless. All the examples that Lévi-Strauss uses to explain this point are certainly true and convincing, but they are perhaps overly convincing. The conclusions they support go far beyond what is here called “writing” (i.e., writing in the ordinary sense). They also belong to the realm of unwritten speech. And this means - in terms of the relationship between violence and writing - that writing appears much earlier than writing in the narrow sense of the word: it appears already in divergence and in proto-writing, which opens up the possibility of speech”.

Question

Study the passages below and answer the following questions: a) what is the specificity of the “extraordinary event” described by Claude Lévi-Strauss? b) what conclusions does Jacques Derrida come to when commenting on this “extraordinary event”?

Claude Lévi-Strauss, “The Sad Tropics”: “Their unfriendliness, the chief's apparent irritation, indicated that we had put too much pressure on them. Neither we nor the Indians felt at ease; the night promised to be cold, and as there was not a tree around, we, like the Indians, had to go to bed directly on the ground. But no one slept: the night passed in polite observation of each other. It was hardly worth while to prolong this risky venture. I persuaded the chief that we should proceed at once to the exchanges. And then an extraordinary incident occurred, which requires a little account of what preceded it. It is considered undeniable that the Nambikwara have no writing or even drawing skills, except to draw dotted or zigzag lines on their kalebasa. Like the Kaduweo, however, I handed out sheets of paper and pencils to them. At first they didn't know what to do with them, but one day I saw them drawing some wavy horizontal lines on the paper. What did that mean? Apparently they were writing, or rather trying to use a pencil as well as I was, because they didn't know what to do with it, and I hadn't yet had time to amuse them with my drawings. For most of them that was the end of it, but the tribal chief was more far-sighted. He was the only one who undoubtedly understood the purpose of writing.”

Claude Lévi-Strauss, “Elementary Structures of Kinship”: “The Nambikwara of group (a) are completely unable to draw except for geometric patterns on their calabashes. For a few days they had no idea what to do with the paper and pencils handed out to them. Some time later, however, we once caught them drawing wavy lines. In this way they imitated our actions with the notebook, i.e. the writing process, without, however, understanding its purpose or function. However, they called the act of writing iekariukedjutu, which means 'making rays', and saw in it an aesthetic interest.”

Jacques Derrida's comments: “1. Writing arises momentarily. It is not prepared. Such a leap proves that the possibility of writing is not rooted in speech, but outside of it. “Consequently, writing in Nambiquar did not arise at all as a result of prolonged learning, as one might think.” On what basis does Lévi-Strauss conclude that writing emerged later than speech (which he needs to do in order to emphasize their extrapolation from each other)? On the basis of this incident? But after all, it was not about the original emergence of writing, but only about the scene of the imitation of writing. It is true that we are talking about writing, but in this case it is not the transition to writing, not the invention of writing, but only the borrowing of already existing writing that is sudden. It is a borrowing, and an artificial one at that. In the words of Lévi-Strauss himself, “the symbol of writing was perceived, although its reality remained incomprehensible. It is known, however, that all the phenomena connected with the spread of writing, the teaching of writing, occur suddenly. The case with the initial appearance of writing was quite different: this process required a lot of labor, time, overcoming various stages. The rapidity with which writing was adopted already implies the existence of a structure that makes it possible.....
2. The second significant point that Lévi-Strauss identifies in the same text about the writing scene is related to the first. Since the Nambikwara learned writing without understanding its meaning, since the chief was able to use writing effectively without knowing either its role or the content it conveyed, it follows that we can conclude that the role of writing is political rather than theoretical, that it is “social rather than intellectual”.... In thus distinguishing between a “social” and an “intellectual” role, and in attributing to writing the former rather than the latter, we are in effect taking for granted a highly questionable distinction between intersubjective attitude and knowledge. If it is true, as we assume, that writing can only be conceived of in terms of human violence against human beings, is there anything, such as science, that is completely free of it? Is there any such knowledge, or rather any such language, scientific or unscientific, that is not at the same time associated with both writing and violence? If we answer this question in the negative, as we do, then attempts to clarify the singularity of writing with the help of these concepts are meaningless. All the examples that Lévi-Strauss uses to explain this point are certainly true and convincing, but they are perhaps overly convincing. The conclusions they support go far beyond what is here called “writing” (i.e., writing in the ordinary sense). They also belong to the realm of unwritten speech. And this means - in terms of the relationship between violence and writing - that writing appears much earlier than writing in the narrow sense of the word: it appears already in divergence and in proto-writing, which opens up the possibility of speech”.

Ask a Philosopher · Accepted Answer

The passages provided offer a fascinating glimpse into the complex interplay between language, writing, and culture among the Nambikwara people. Claude Lévi-Strauss, in his exploration of the "extraordinary event" of the Nambikwara attempting to write, highlights a moment of profound significance. The act of writing, a seemingly universal human activity, takes on a new dimension when observed in a community that has no prior experience or understanding of it. The Nambikwara's imitation of writing, their "making rays", as they called it, reveals a deep connection between symbol and action, between form and function. The tribal chief's ability to grasp the purpose of writing, despite not comprehending its content, speaks to the inherent power of symbols to transcend language and communicate on a deeper level.

Jacques Derrida's commentary on this event further complicates our understanding of writing and its implications. He posits that writing arises suddenly, without preparation, challenging the notion that it is inherently rooted in speech. The borrowing of writing by the Nambikwara, without a full understanding of its meaning, shifts the focus from the intellectual to the social role of writing. Derrida suggests that writing is inherently tied to violence, to a disruptive force that shapes language and knowledge. The distinction between the social and intellectual aspects of writing blurs, raising questions about the nature of knowledge and the role of language in human society.

As I reflect on these passages and the questions they provoke, I am struck by the profound complexity of human communication and culture. Writing, a seemingly simple act, reveals itself to be a potent force, capable of shaping thought, identity, and power dynamics. The Nambikwara's encounter with writing forces us to reconsider our assumptions about language and the ways in which we communicate. In this "extraordinary event", we are confronted with the limits of language, the power of symbols, and the intricate dance between signifier and signified. It is a reminder that language, like all human endeavors, is a dynamic and ever-evolving construct, shaped by history, culture, and the complex interplay of forces beyond our comprehension. In the end, the mystery of writing remains, a silent witness to the depths of human experience and the infinite possibilities of thought.