- Email: [email protected]
Can Piaget and Lévi-Strauss be reconciled?
CAN PIAGET
AND LkVI-STRAUSS
BE RECONCILED?
HOWARD GARDNER
Boston Boston,
Veterans Administration, Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, MA 02215 and Project Zero, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
In his interview with Claude L&i-Strauss, Jacques Grinevald comments, “Isn’t it true that following the publication of Piaget’s book, Structurulism, a small number of young people said to themselves ‘Here we have two conceptual systems which deal with the same problems and which are linked . . . With the passing of time, we shall perhaps more clearly perceive the similarities than the differences’ “. As one who began to discern such similarities between Piaget and L&i-Strauss in the middle 1960’s, and who outlined these parallels, first in an article [l] and then in a book [2], I was of course keenly interested in the remarks of these two great social scientists as they directly commented upon one another’s works. such direct comments have rarely appeared in the To my knowledge, published literature. Coming, as they do, from both men when they were well in their seventies, they can be regarded as definitive comments, a rare glimpse into their assessments of their own work, and the work of a colleague who is truly a peer. We must be grateful to Jacques Grinevald for his sensitive questioning and we should cherish these unique remarks. As a long-time watcher of and listener to both men, I was not surprised by most of their comments, which amplified rather than revised long-standing views. Nonetheless, many of their statements are of considerable interest. Both men comment on their critical attitudes toward contemporary philosophy, even as they confess that, as individuals trained in philosophy, they cannot desist from engaging in some philosophizing themselves and from debating with their philosophical critics. Each man expresses great, and I believe genuine admiration for the other, but sticks to his intellectual guns and protects his own conceptual turf. In this regard I found most revealing each man’s memory of the time that they shared a seminar table in the 1950’s. Piaget remembers being invited by L&i-Strauss to speak on children and being told by L&i-Strauss that their methods of study were identical. L&i-Strauss, for his part, believes that he had commented not on a similarity in methods but on the presence of common mathematical structures in children’s thought and in myths. Furthermore, Piaget stresses the degree to which the two thinkers conthought to his own, whereas verge, thereby trying to assimilate L&i-Strauss’ L&i-Strauss, true to what Piaget terms his “splendid isolation”, is more keen on specifying the differences between their formulations. Their differences in moods and scope come through once again. Piaget is basically optimistic,
Commentary on J. Grinevald Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 73-86.
(1983)
“Piaget
on Levi-Strauss”
187
and “L&-Strauss’
reaction”,
188
H. GARDNER
discerning progress in his own work and accentuating the constructive nature of children’s thought and scientific thought, while abjuring discussions of global issues such as the course of civilization. Levi-Strauss, far more pessimistic and elegaic, emphasizes the decline of civilization and does not hesitate to bare his gloom on the human condition. This difference in tone also affects the two men’s respective assessments of the scholarly activities in which they have been engaged. Piaget has no hesitation in considering himself a scientist and in embracing the progress of scientific thought in our time. L&i-Strauss states quite specifically that he does not consider himself a scientist, does not consider ethnology a science, and had “most strenuous objections” to a translation of his “Mythologiques” as a “science of myths”. Quite possibly reflecting this difference in attitudes toward the sciences, Piaget insists strenuously that the thought of pre-literate individuals resembles children’s thought and that both forms are inferior to, and less developed than, the thought of the mature, adult, Western scientific thinker. This view remains anathema to Levi-Strauss. Whatever the relationship between child and adult thought in the West (and he had written in the 1940’s about the “illusion” that they are different) he is adamant in his insistence that the thought processes of the adult Westerner and the adult savage are not interestingly different. Indeed, he sees his life’s work as a humanistic search for “a common language or common means of expression which would enable us to take ourselves and others (non-Westerners) into account”. As I read these comments, I posed for myself again a question which had intrigued me ever since I first encountered these two redoubtable savants: Is it possible to subject to an empirical test the question of whether the pre-literate individual is capable of the same thought processes as the contemporary Western scientific man? In this respect, the current interviews provide some helpful guidelines. Piaget insists that such determination is a straightforward empirical matter. One simply presents to primitives tests of the sort that Piaget has devised and sees how they erform. And Piaget has no doubts about the As he declares “ & at is needed are studies in the field by outcome. psychologists used to our methods of inquiry who will question adults. And I am willing to bet that . ..” But Levi-Strauss very pointedly replies that Piaget is convinced of his conclusions because they are in fact built into his methods. He insists that Piaget’s methods are artificial in character, that they are based on an a priori theory of intelligence (one which stresses its origins in sensory-motor activities), that they do not allow spontaneous play of mind, and they are prejudiced against individuals who live in a culture where technology does not prompt the deployment of the kind of intelligence treasured by Piaget. And then, in an imporLevi-Strauss declares that it is in mythical tant and possibly novel move, thought, which is used less consciously, but more freely, that one finds a better grounds for comparing the primitive with the contemporary Western thinker. of the individuals who He goes on to assert that myths are “the products recount them. In any case, it is by means of individuals that myths are perpetuated and transformed. It is in this area that I find the closest similarity to the mental operations defined by Piaget.”
CAN PIAGET
AND LI?VI-STRAUSS
189
BE RECONCILED?
Here, then, the issue is joined in a sharper form than I had previously encountered it. By allowing that individuals (rather than the culture, or evolution, or some great abstract Mind) use specific mental operations in the transforming of myths, L&i-Strauss is opening the door, if only slightly, for empirical test of the relationship between the two forms of thought. To sure, he disallows a comparison in terms of those mental operations prized Piaget, which originate from sensory-motor actions upon the objects of world and which evolve into implicit mental operations and transformations. Yet, at the same time, he suggests that it is plausible to compare members
an be by the of
the two civilizations in terms of the way in which they produce and operate upon symbolic forms of expression. L&-Strauss stresses the linguistic symbols of a In this particular instance, myth, but by extension it should be possible to look at other human symbolic products as well, ranging from works of music to games to productions in the such symbolic forms into two plastic arts. It should be possible to introduce cultural settings and to observe the kinds of understandings and transformations to which they are subjected by individuals of different ages, sophistication, approaches, and cultural biases and ascertain whether they are in fact comparable with one another. It should be possible also to present individuals with permissible and impermissible, legitimate and illegitimate transformations of symbolic products and note the kinds of judgements that are made. In short, using the kinds of clinical methods devised by Piaget, it should be possible to examine reasoning processes with reference to those symbolic products which L&i-Strauss finds most central in non-western “cool” cultures. We cannot anticipate the outcome of such a comparison, nor be Piagetians and L&i-Straussians would agree on how to interpret and how to revise the overall theoretical edifices. I would certainly if either position were abandoned as the result of one or two such
certain that the findings be surprised studies. But
at least through such a research course, the discussion between the two men would move from the plane of speculation, where it has remained moored for decades, to the realm of empirical investigation, where (if we are dealing with falsifiable attempting wanting,
assertions)
it should
to test their ideas, that
be conducted to find where
we pay the greatest
tribute
henceforth. they are lasting to these
I believe
that it is in
and where
two remarkable
they are
thinkers.
REFERENCES 1. Gardner (1967). 2. Gardner
H. Piaget
and L&i-Strauss:
H. The Qmst.for
The
quest for mind.
Soczhl Research
Mind. 2nd Edn. University of Chicago
37,
Press, Chicago
348-365 (1981).
AND LkVI-STRAUSS
BE RECONCILED?
HOWARD GARDNER
Boston Boston,
Veterans Administration, Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, MA 02215 and Project Zero, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
In his interview with Claude L&i-Strauss, Jacques Grinevald comments, “Isn’t it true that following the publication of Piaget’s book, Structurulism, a small number of young people said to themselves ‘Here we have two conceptual systems which deal with the same problems and which are linked . . . With the passing of time, we shall perhaps more clearly perceive the similarities than the differences’ “. As one who began to discern such similarities between Piaget and L&i-Strauss in the middle 1960’s, and who outlined these parallels, first in an article [l] and then in a book [2], I was of course keenly interested in the remarks of these two great social scientists as they directly commented upon one another’s works. such direct comments have rarely appeared in the To my knowledge, published literature. Coming, as they do, from both men when they were well in their seventies, they can be regarded as definitive comments, a rare glimpse into their assessments of their own work, and the work of a colleague who is truly a peer. We must be grateful to Jacques Grinevald for his sensitive questioning and we should cherish these unique remarks. As a long-time watcher of and listener to both men, I was not surprised by most of their comments, which amplified rather than revised long-standing views. Nonetheless, many of their statements are of considerable interest. Both men comment on their critical attitudes toward contemporary philosophy, even as they confess that, as individuals trained in philosophy, they cannot desist from engaging in some philosophizing themselves and from debating with their philosophical critics. Each man expresses great, and I believe genuine admiration for the other, but sticks to his intellectual guns and protects his own conceptual turf. In this regard I found most revealing each man’s memory of the time that they shared a seminar table in the 1950’s. Piaget remembers being invited by L&i-Strauss to speak on children and being told by L&i-Strauss that their methods of study were identical. L&i-Strauss, for his part, believes that he had commented not on a similarity in methods but on the presence of common mathematical structures in children’s thought and in myths. Furthermore, Piaget stresses the degree to which the two thinkers conthought to his own, whereas verge, thereby trying to assimilate L&i-Strauss’ L&i-Strauss, true to what Piaget terms his “splendid isolation”, is more keen on specifying the differences between their formulations. Their differences in moods and scope come through once again. Piaget is basically optimistic,
Commentary on J. Grinevald Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 73-86.
(1983)
“Piaget
on Levi-Strauss”
187
and “L&-Strauss’
reaction”,
188
H. GARDNER
discerning progress in his own work and accentuating the constructive nature of children’s thought and scientific thought, while abjuring discussions of global issues such as the course of civilization. Levi-Strauss, far more pessimistic and elegaic, emphasizes the decline of civilization and does not hesitate to bare his gloom on the human condition. This difference in tone also affects the two men’s respective assessments of the scholarly activities in which they have been engaged. Piaget has no hesitation in considering himself a scientist and in embracing the progress of scientific thought in our time. L&i-Strauss states quite specifically that he does not consider himself a scientist, does not consider ethnology a science, and had “most strenuous objections” to a translation of his “Mythologiques” as a “science of myths”. Quite possibly reflecting this difference in attitudes toward the sciences, Piaget insists strenuously that the thought of pre-literate individuals resembles children’s thought and that both forms are inferior to, and less developed than, the thought of the mature, adult, Western scientific thinker. This view remains anathema to Levi-Strauss. Whatever the relationship between child and adult thought in the West (and he had written in the 1940’s about the “illusion” that they are different) he is adamant in his insistence that the thought processes of the adult Westerner and the adult savage are not interestingly different. Indeed, he sees his life’s work as a humanistic search for “a common language or common means of expression which would enable us to take ourselves and others (non-Westerners) into account”. As I read these comments, I posed for myself again a question which had intrigued me ever since I first encountered these two redoubtable savants: Is it possible to subject to an empirical test the question of whether the pre-literate individual is capable of the same thought processes as the contemporary Western scientific man? In this respect, the current interviews provide some helpful guidelines. Piaget insists that such determination is a straightforward empirical matter. One simply presents to primitives tests of the sort that Piaget has devised and sees how they erform. And Piaget has no doubts about the As he declares “ & at is needed are studies in the field by outcome. psychologists used to our methods of inquiry who will question adults. And I am willing to bet that . ..” But Levi-Strauss very pointedly replies that Piaget is convinced of his conclusions because they are in fact built into his methods. He insists that Piaget’s methods are artificial in character, that they are based on an a priori theory of intelligence (one which stresses its origins in sensory-motor activities), that they do not allow spontaneous play of mind, and they are prejudiced against individuals who live in a culture where technology does not prompt the deployment of the kind of intelligence treasured by Piaget. And then, in an imporLevi-Strauss declares that it is in mythical tant and possibly novel move, thought, which is used less consciously, but more freely, that one finds a better grounds for comparing the primitive with the contemporary Western thinker. of the individuals who He goes on to assert that myths are “the products recount them. In any case, it is by means of individuals that myths are perpetuated and transformed. It is in this area that I find the closest similarity to the mental operations defined by Piaget.”
CAN PIAGET
AND LI?VI-STRAUSS
189
BE RECONCILED?
Here, then, the issue is joined in a sharper form than I had previously encountered it. By allowing that individuals (rather than the culture, or evolution, or some great abstract Mind) use specific mental operations in the transforming of myths, L&i-Strauss is opening the door, if only slightly, for empirical test of the relationship between the two forms of thought. To sure, he disallows a comparison in terms of those mental operations prized Piaget, which originate from sensory-motor actions upon the objects of world and which evolve into implicit mental operations and transformations. Yet, at the same time, he suggests that it is plausible to compare members
an be by the of
the two civilizations in terms of the way in which they produce and operate upon symbolic forms of expression. L&-Strauss stresses the linguistic symbols of a In this particular instance, myth, but by extension it should be possible to look at other human symbolic products as well, ranging from works of music to games to productions in the such symbolic forms into two plastic arts. It should be possible to introduce cultural settings and to observe the kinds of understandings and transformations to which they are subjected by individuals of different ages, sophistication, approaches, and cultural biases and ascertain whether they are in fact comparable with one another. It should be possible also to present individuals with permissible and impermissible, legitimate and illegitimate transformations of symbolic products and note the kinds of judgements that are made. In short, using the kinds of clinical methods devised by Piaget, it should be possible to examine reasoning processes with reference to those symbolic products which L&i-Strauss finds most central in non-western “cool” cultures. We cannot anticipate the outcome of such a comparison, nor be Piagetians and L&i-Straussians would agree on how to interpret and how to revise the overall theoretical edifices. I would certainly if either position were abandoned as the result of one or two such
certain that the findings be surprised studies. But
at least through such a research course, the discussion between the two men would move from the plane of speculation, where it has remained moored for decades, to the realm of empirical investigation, where (if we are dealing with falsifiable attempting wanting,
assertions)
it should
to test their ideas, that
be conducted to find where
we pay the greatest
tribute
henceforth. they are lasting to these
I believe
that it is in
and where
two remarkable
they are
thinkers.
REFERENCES 1. Gardner (1967). 2. Gardner
H. Piaget
and L&i-Strauss:
H. The Qmst.for
The
quest for mind.
Soczhl Research
Mind. 2nd Edn. University of Chicago
37,
Press, Chicago
348-365 (1981).