What Is A Symbol
Nedum Aniemeka
SOSC 12100
February 17th 2014
Collective Thought vs. Individual Thought: Discussing the Categories of Understanding
When discussing the use of symbols in both Durkheim and Strauss’ works, it is important for us to look at how both thinkers talk about the categories of understanding. In Elementary Forms, Durkheim believes the categories of understanding are grounded in the social, using Australian totemism to explain how the primitive mind used symbols derived from collective thought to create the ways in which we categorize ideas in society today. In saying this, he was adopting both an empiricist and a priori approach in explaining the categories. He states that the categories are inherent to human nature, but only exercised through the experiences of the social. On the contrary, Strauss’ approach to explaining symbols and the categories of understanding is purely a priori. According to his writings in The Savage Mind, similarities in myths and mythical structures point us to the conclusion that all human minds are wired the same –this is the only way that we could see the same structures come up in myths all over the world. Thus, Durkheim uses a reductionist breakdown to explain the development of symbols and consequently the categories of thought since primitive times, whereas Strauss uses a structuralist analysis to flesh out the relationships between symbols of different times and cultures.
Durkheim defines what he believes a symbol is when discussing Australian totemism. As described on Pg. 208, “the totem is above all a symbol, a tangible expression of something else.” In totemism, it is not the object that the clan members worship that is important, but the meaning that the members attach to that object. For example, the churinga, one of the objects that clan members used in totemic rituals, is in itself simply a piece of wood or a stone (Pg. 121). However, once the totemic mark of a clan is drawn onto it, it takes on a new meaning of the
SOSC 12100
February 17th 2014
Collective Thought vs. Individual Thought: Discussing the Categories of Understanding
When discussing the use of symbols in both Durkheim and Strauss’ works, it is important for us to look at how both thinkers talk about the categories of understanding. In Elementary Forms, Durkheim believes the categories of understanding are grounded in the social, using Australian totemism to explain how the primitive mind used symbols derived from collective thought to create the ways in which we categorize ideas in society today. In saying this, he was adopting both an empiricist and a priori approach in explaining the categories. He states that the categories are inherent to human nature, but only exercised through the experiences of the social. On the contrary, Strauss’ approach to explaining symbols and the categories of understanding is purely a priori. According to his writings in The Savage Mind, similarities in myths and mythical structures point us to the conclusion that all human minds are wired the same –this is the only way that we could see the same structures come up in myths all over the world. Thus, Durkheim uses a reductionist breakdown to explain the development of symbols and consequently the categories of thought since primitive times, whereas Strauss uses a structuralist analysis to flesh out the relationships between symbols of different times and cultures.
Durkheim defines what he believes a symbol is when discussing Australian totemism. As described on Pg. 208, “the totem is above all a symbol, a tangible expression of something else.” In totemism, it is not the object that the clan members worship that is important, but the meaning that the members attach to that object. For example, the churinga, one of the objects that clan members used in totemic rituals, is in itself simply a piece of wood or a stone (Pg. 121). However, once the totemic mark of a clan is drawn onto it, it takes on a new meaning of the