Week 1 Blog Post Alex Pollack
Zborowski and Herzog’s “Life is With People” explores the fragility of traditional cultures. The authors offer a meticulous account of the “shtetl”, a Jewish community structured by family and religion, where communal bonds shaped daily existence. Each person had a defined role, and individual wellbeing was heavily tied with that of the community as a whole. However, the authors are keenly aware that this world no longer exists in its original form. The “shtetl” was largely destroyed by the Holocaust, and survivors either assimilated into modern society or migrated, largely dispersing the once-close-knit communities. The sense of loss permeates their work, giving it a mournful undertone as Zborowski and Herzog attempt to preserve in detail what has been erased from living memory. They undertake a cultural preservation project marked by the realization that what they document is already gone and can never fully return in its original form.
Levi-Strauss, in “Tristes Tropiques”, engages with very similar themes surrounding cultural fragility but takes a more critical approach to the anthropological process itself. While Zborowski and Herzog focus on preserving memories of the “shtetl”, Levi-Strauss questions the very practice of preserving cultures through anthropology. He observes indigenous societies that, like the “shtetl”, are based in traditions and social bonds, but is aware of how modernity hastens their decline. Levi-Strauss critiques Western anthropologists and notes the paradox that the act of observation often contributes to the very cultural change that anthropologists seek to prevent. In his view, outsiders including himself often accelerate the transformation of these societies in a plethora of ways, inevitably pulling them into globalized modernity. His reflection is therefore more philosophical, dealing not just with the loss of communal ways of life but with the ethical dilemmas present within anthropological studies.
Despite differences in what they examine, both texts detail the fragility of traditional societies in the face of external pressures. In Zborowski and Herzog’s case, the “shtetl” was undone by the Holocaust, which decimated the vibrant Jewish communities of Eastern Europe. In contrast, Levi-Strauss examines indigenous societies that are still in the process of transformation but are equally vulnerable to the forces of modernity, colonialism, and globalization. While Zborowski and Herzog look backward towards what has been lost, Levi-Strauss looks at ongoing changes and critiques anthropology for hastening these cultural shifts.
Ultimately, both “Life is With People” and “Tristes Tropiques” serve as reminders of traditional societies’ fragility and the limits of pristine cultural preservation. While Zborowski and Herzog document the “shtetl” as a world that once was, Levi-Strauss interrogates the ongoing process of cultural change and the role of anthropology in shaping that process. Both texts reflect on the vulnerability of these structures and raise important questions about the ethics of documenting cultures that are either lost or in the process of disappearing.
I like how you compared both readings from this past week, as both “Life is With People” and “Tristes Tropiques” deal with the study of a culture and traditional societies, yet they differ in that “Life is With People” seems to capture the Jewish shtetl frozen in a moment in time, while Strauss discusses the various implications and consequences of studying a culture in stages of transformation. He also details his experiences traveling and studying other cultures with a more philosophical take on the field of anthropological work. The idea of a culture’s fragility is really interesting to think about, and a question I have is, in what ways does the fragility of certain cultures highlight the ethical responsibilities of anthropologists; and, how should this influence the approach to studying and representing these cultures?
Your blog post offers a great comparison between the two pieces, and I appreciate the fact that you tied the theme of cultural fragility into both. You mention this in your piece, but the difference in how the authors of both works write was particularly interesting. I understood Zborowski and Herzog’s piece to have more of a hopeful undertone; it appeared as if they aimed to preserve and honor the image of the “shtetl” as it once was without also acknowledging its later undoing. In contrast, Levi-Strauss’s “Triestes Tropiques” is more analytical, focusing on how human cultures are built on underlying structures that shape and organize social life. His work, therefore, seems more open to the idea of change and is more focused on how societies will continue to alter.
As Alex mentioned, both texts highlight the loss of traditional cultures, albeit due to different causes. How does the comparison of these losses illustrate the idea that culture is a dynamic and evolving entity? Specifically, how have various external factors contributed to the erasure of Jewish identity and culture, as evidenced in the destruction of the “shtetl” and the broader challenges faced by Jewish communities?
Thank you for exploring the theme of cultural fragility and anthropological approaches to it. The pieces each expose flaws in salvage anthropology in different ways. Levi Strauss directly addresses the way that an anthropologist may affect the way the culture operates and that culture is not capturable as it is ever-changing. I found that Zborowski and Herzog show the way that culture is not static because their work feels somewhat disconnected from reality. It captures a moment that does not exist in time. Culture does not exist in a vacuum and our perspectives, biases, and desires impact the way a culture is ‘preserved’ in anthropology. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
Adding onto what everyone has said so far, I think it is just as important to be critical of anthropological texts, especially earlier anthropological works. For instance, in addition to what Levi-Strauss has said in “Tristes Tropiques” regarding salvage anthropology, one might suggest that salvage anthropology tended to see cultures of “others” (and by “other” I do refer to the old subjects of anthropology; non-Western, non-European, non-White societies/cultures, etc.) as relics to be preserved and captured. The practice of salvage anthropology might render cultures of the subjects of salvage anthropology as nothing more than objects in a museum, left to be frozen in time. Another critique one may have is that Zborowski and Herzog’s work on the shtetl is that it is a form of armchair anthropology.
I agreed with your analysis of both pieces but especially the Levi-Strauss writing and your comment about the paradox of observation contributing to cultural change. While reading Levi-Strauss, I found his reflections on how he and anthropologists as a profession view the adventure or travel that comes with their research. His description of travel on the very first page made me wonder how that time in transit affects the mood in which anthropologists enter the place they plan to study, and whether that would in turn impact their views of the places the study and the way they interact with those places or cause them to change.
I think you did a great job of analyzing these two readings and putting them in conversation with one another. It is interesting to hear Levi-Strauss’ argument that preserving a society/culture through anthropology can speed up its decline. I appreciated Zborowski and Herzog’s attempt to preserve and share the lost history of the shtetl, but I can certainly understand Levi-Strauss’ perspective on it.
Your post touches on some of the key conflicts within anthropology about the “othering” of a population or altering it in the attempt to preserve it. Yet, I think that the one thing that could be expanded upon in the “Life is With People” comment is on the mournful tone. While “Life is with People” is reflective of the past, it is trying to reconstruct a narrative that feels true to Jewish life. This is particularly important in the context of our Sartre reading, because it is going on in a time period of systemic othering of Jewish people. “Life is with People” is almost insulated against the politics at large. What are the ethical concerns in doing this, and how does it effect the way the culture is portrayed?
I enjoyed your overview/summary of both texts as I found them very informative and captured the overall messages both texts aimed to share. I found it interesting you chose to describe the societies described in both readings as “fragile”. I do completely agree that these societies were not permanent by any means. I disagree with the word choice of fragile. Societies such as the “shtetl” were indeed very traditional, and although they were not able to preserve their culture in a set location for generations to come does not inherently make them fragile. These people, traditions, cultures, and even societies remain today, the only thing that changed is their location and added history. There are many limits to cultural and historical preservation but that does not make the cultures written about “fragile”, it just makes them complex and layered. I wonder if you have a more specific definition of culture fragility?
I am appreciating the work of these scholars who approach the work on philosophically different ways but who investigated and observed communities in pursuit of understanding the human condition. For me the difference seems to be in Levi-Strauss’s own evolution and the way he questions the value of his own fieldwork. In the case of Zborowski and Herzog, they seem want to present shtetl communities in order to bear witness to the past and learn from it but also perhaps to understand culturally what it means to have a shtetl mentality even now—that it comes from this maybe sad and scary and true place. It’s useful to consider how and also if an outsider should immerse in a culture even if we are glad they did it.
The introduction of Lévi Strauss’s book,“Tristes Tropiques” operates as an ethnography and autobiography that recounts Strauss’s journey and encounters as a traveler. Like Zborowski, Strauss is focused on the personal experiences of individuals in order to get a deeper sense of their culture. In “Life with the People”, Zborowski help to preserve the cultural heritage of Jews in 19th century Eastern Europe by documenting the practices and traditions of members of the shtetl. Both readings focus on preserving memories and culture, but Lèvi Strauss achieves this in more of an anthropological way because he actively questions the practice of preserving culture while he is aboard the ship. Overall, I agree with the points Alex made, and I enjoyed pairing “Life is With People” with “Tristes Tropiques” because, although they focus on two different groups of people (Jews in the shtetl and indigenous people), they both offer insights into communities that are undergoing external pressure and influences.
I think you did a really good job analyzing both of these works, but I think what you said in relation to Levi Strauss’s work is fascinating. I think by defining Strauss’s assessment/writings as almost “philosophical,” you hit the nail on the head. Furthermore, I think, unlike other anthropologists who might attempt to legitimize their work by erring on the side of science and research, Strauss chooses to write in a more conversational tone or like you state it in a ‘philosophical’ way. I also thought it was interesting the way Strauss stated to us, the readers, that he grappled with writing about ‘trivial circumstances and insignificant happenings.’ In my mind, this really set the tone of the work, showing that he wasn’t super secure about his work and, more specifically, about the practice of anthropology as a whole. In my opinion, this made his writing easier to digest and more understandable/honest because anthropological work is ethically (in my opinion) a gray area, and works like Levi Strauss’s “Tristes Tropiques” remind us of that.
I think you did a really good job analyzing both of these works, but I think what you said in relation to Levi Strauss’s work is fascinating. I think by defining Strauss’s assessment/writings as almost “philosophical,” you hit the nail on the head. Furthermore, I think, unlike other anthropologists who might attempt to legitimize their work by erring on the side of science and research Strauss choose to write in a more conversational tone or like you state a ‘philosophical’ way. I also thought it was interesting the way Strauss states to us, the readers that he grappled with writing about ‘trivial circumstances and insignificant happenings.’ In my mind this really set the tone of the work showing that he wasn’t super secure about his work and more specifically about the practice of anthropology as a whole. I my opinion this made his writing easier to digest and understandable/honest because anthropologic work is ethically (in my opinion) a grey area and works like Levi Strauss’s “Tristes Tropiques” remind us of that.