Durkheim and Strauss

Engineer and Bricoleur, Religion and Mythical Thinking
In his text The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Emile Durkheim is primarily interested in the functionalism of religion within society. Durkheim does not limit himself to religion; he also focuses on society’s structure and its preservation. In The Savage Mind, Claude Lévi-Strauss focuses on the theory of mythical thinking. Strauss analyzes and discusses society and how its structure is a result of mythical thinking. Strauss spends a lot of time focusing on two particular forms of thinking, “bricoleur” thinking and engineer thinking. According to Strauss’ definition of an engineer and a bricoleur, I would argue that Durkheim’s theory only favors the thinking of an engineer where as Strauss’ theory favors the thinking of a bricoleur.
In The Savage Mind, Lévi-Strauss makes the distinction between an engineer and a bricoleur. Strauss best compares the two when he says, “It might be said that the engineer questions the universe, while the ‘bricoleur’ addresses himself to a collection of oddments left over from human endeavours, that is, only a sub-set of the culture.” (Strauss 19) Strauss describes an engineer as one who does not let the constraints of a particular civilization inhibit him. An engineer is a scientist who is always looking for other messages that have not been heard of or been answered before. Strauss defines a bricoleur as someone who is constrained by existing boundaries or restraints. Strauss uses the bricoleur to compare it with mythical thought. Strauss claims that mythical thought is the same as a bricoleur, except that mythical thought is constrained by restraints within a society. Strauss describes the constraints from society as, “The elements which the ‘bricoleur’ collects and uses are ‘pre-constrained’ like the constitutive units of myth, the possible combinations of which are restricted by the fact that they are drawn from the language where they already posses a sense which sets a limit on their freedom.” (Strauss 19) The bricoleur limits himself to the pre-existing, established values and/or myths that have already shaped civilization. The bricoleur is always looking within the constraints and questioning the depth of a concept or symbol. He tries to re-organize and reconfigure what is already constructed or destructed. The definition provided by Strauss of an engineer and a bricoleur help to conceptualize the arguments Durkheim and Strauss make for society, most especially the progression of society.
In the conclusion of The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Emile Durkheim uses the knowledge he acquired from studying Totemism and applies it to the mechanics of a society. As Durkheim analyzes the progression of society, his beliefs tend to favor the thinking of an engineer. Durkheim starts off his argument by making an inference about how society seems to be at a stand still and has grown bored by things that used to be appealing to those before them. But, no one yet has created anything new. For Durkheim, he believes that ingenuity is what ultimately causes progress. “A day will come when our societies once again will know hours of creative effervescence during which new ideals will again spring forth and new formulas emerge to guide humanity for a time.” (Durkheim 429) This quote shows that Durkheim believes that creative thinking is what is needed to guide civilization into a progressive future. Durkheim’s beliefs expressed in this quote prove that his ideas resemble those of an engineer because it is from the restraints of an unappealing society that creative thinkers must break through in order to have a prosperous future.
Durkheim introduces a thought process, which he refers to as logical thought, and it is a more specific form of thinking that he believes can propel a civilization’s progress. Durkheim believes that the development and progress of religion came from those who utilized logical thought. Logical thinking consists of the innovative, creative ideas that go beyond the representations present in society. From this definition one can argue that logical thought is the same as engineer thinking. Durkheim makes a point of the usefulness of logical thought when he says, “History shows, furthermore, that it took centuries to emerge and take shape. In our Western world, only with the great thinkers of Greece did logical life for the first time become clearly conscious of itself and of the consequences it implies. And when the discovery came, it provoked wonderment, which Plato expressed in magnificent language.” (Durkheim 438) History shows that the engineer thinking exhibited by the great thinkers of Greece proves that innovative thinking is the key to society’s progress. Once again, Durkheim’s argument for a society’s progress follows the engineer ways of thinking.
In contradiction of Strauss’s work, Durkheim addresses his negating thoughts towards brincoleur thinking. There is a specific quote in which Durkheim refutes brincoleur thought and actually calls it detrimental to society. “The scientist finds himself in the same position vis-à-vis the special terminology used by the science to which he is committed, and consequently vis-à-vis the special system of concepts to which the terminology corresponds. He may innovate, of course, but his innovations always do a certain violence to established ways of thinking.” According to Durkheim, those who are limited by boundaries established by a society potentially can hurt a society rather than help it. One can infer from this quote and argument that because religion is associated with the sacred and magic and mythical thinking is associated with the profane that bricoleur thinking would have negative affects on society.
In The Savage Mind, Lévi-Strauss makes several arguments for bricoleur thinking by comparing it with mythical thought. Mythical thought expresses itself by means of a mixture of repertoires that can be expansive but are still limited. Mythical thought has to use things within its repertoire because it does not have any other resources to use. According to Strauss’s definition of a bricoleur and the definition just given for mythical thought, they are both inhibited by restraints imposed on them. In this quote Strauss defines what mythical thought is in relation to bricoleur thinking. In the same quote, he provides evidence for the power mythical thought has in the development of societies.
“It too works by analogies and comparisons even though its creations, like those of the ‘bricoleur’, always really consist of a new arrangement of elements, the nature of which is unaffected by whether they figure in the instrumental set or in the final arrangement (these being the same, apart from the internal disposition of their parts): ‘it would seem that mythological worlds have been built up, only to be shattered again, and that new worlds were built from the fragments’ (Boas I, p.18).” (Strauss 21)
This quote proves that mythical thought and bricoleur thinking are the same. As well as, show his opinion that mythical thought and bricoleur thinking can help a society progress. It is obvious to see that Strauss believes more in bricoleur thinking by the way Strauss uses the method of relating bricoleur thinking and mythical thought to help conceptualize his argument that mythical thought is what helps a society progress. A great example of this is when Strauss states, “Like ‘bricolage’ on the technical plane, mythical reflection can reach brilliant unforeseen results on the intellectual plane.” (Strauss 17) Strauss believes that mythical thought enriches the intellectuality of a civilization. One can infer that he favors the ways mythical thinking and bricoleur thinking work within the established restraints and can reinvent or reorganize what is no longer working or favorable. To go along with the idea of reorganization, Strauss argues that the similarities within mythical thought and bricolage show that they both are able to build a language that is structured by the remains of what is left from previous events or societies. In conclusion, Strauss thinks that a bricoleur’s and a mythical thinker’s ability to recreate and restructure what used to be is what ultimately can lead to the progression and development of a society.
It only makes sense that Durkheim and Strauss would have conflicting views on a society’s progress because of the conflicting research topics of religion and mythical thinking. According to Durkheim’s work, religion gave meaning and structure to societies and was a language that gave reasoning to phenomena. Where as in Strauss’s opinion, mythical logic is what ultimately gave structure, purpose, and meaning to societies.