Levi-Strauss, the Myth of Asdiwal and Structuralism — 2024 Paper I
How does Levi-Strauss look at the Tsimshian myth of Asdiwal? Critically discuss Levi-Strauss' theory of structuralism in the light of his study of mythologies.
Model Answer
VAID ICSIntroduction
Claude Lévi-Strauss developed the structural analysis of mythology in “The Structural Study of Myth” (1955) and demonstrated it through the Tsimshian myth in La Geste d’Asdiwal (1958), later translated as “The Story of Asdiwal.”
Influenced by Saussure and Roman Jakobson, he argued that a myth’s significance lies not merely in its narrative content but in the underlying relations through which the human mind organises reality. Mythical thought, therefore, is logical rather than primitive or irrational.
Structural Method of Myth Analysis
Lévi-Strauss divided myths into basic units of relationship, commonly called mythemes. These become meaningful only when arranged as “bundles of relations.”
A myth is read at two levels:
- Horizontally: the chronological sequence of events;
- Vertically: recurring relationships and binary oppositions.
All versions of a myth must be studied together because each version is a transformation of the same underlying structure. Myth moves from an awareness of contradictions towards their attempted mediation.
Tsimshian Myth of Asdiwal
The myth begins during a famine involving a mother and daughter. Asdiwal, born through supernatural intervention, becomes an exceptionally successful hunter. His journeys take him across mountains, river valleys, coastal regions, heaven and the subterranean sea. He contracts successive marriages, faces conflict with affinal relatives and finally becomes trapped on a mountain and turns into stone.
Lévi-Strauss analyses the myth through four interconnected codes.
Geographical Code
Asdiwal’s journeys reproduce the Tsimshian landscape and seasonal movements:
- east and west;
- north and south;
- inland and coast;
- mountain and sea.
Geographical movement is thus also a movement between opposed cultural categories.
Economic Code
The narrative moves through:
- famine and abundance;
- hunting and fishing;
- mountain game and marine resources;
- candlefish and salmon seasons.
The myth converts the seasonal subsistence cycle of the Tsimshian into a symbolic structure.
Sociological Code
Asdiwal’s marriages express contradictions involving:
- endogamy and exogamy;
- consanguineal and affinal relations;
- matrilocal and patrilocal residence;
- husband, wife and brothers-in-law.
His repeated inability to establish stable marital and affinal relations reveals tensions within social organisation.
Cosmological Code
The narrative contrasts:
- heaven and earth;
- upper and lower worlds;
- land and water;
- mobility and immobility.
Asdiwal crosses these boundaries but cannot permanently reconcile them.
Myth as Failed Mediation
The myth does not simply solve social contradictions. Asdiwal repeatedly attempts to mediate land/sea, high/low, hunting/fishing and alternative residence rules, but every mediation remains incomplete.
His final transformation into stone is structurally significant: the constantly travelling hero becomes permanently immobile. It symbolises the impossibility of fully resolving the contradictions represented in the myth.
Thus, myth provides a logical model through which a society can think about contradictions that cannot be solved in actual life.
Contribution of Lévi-Strauss’s Structuralism
Recognition of the logic of myth
Myths are not meaningless fantasies; they are organised systems of classification.
Relational approach
The meaning of an element depends upon its relationship with other elements, not upon its isolated content.
Integration of cultural domains
The Asdiwal analysis connects geography, subsistence, kinship, residence and cosmology within a common structure.
Transformation of variants
Contradictory versions are analytically valuable because they reveal transformations of the same structure.
Psychic unity of humankind
Recurring binary organisation reflects shared cognitive capacities rather than differences between “primitive” and “civilised” minds.
Critical Evaluation
Selective use of evidence
L.L. Thomas, J.Z. Kronenfeld and D.B. Kronenfeld, in “Asdiwal Crumbles” (1976), argued that Lévi-Strauss selected and rearranged ethnographic details to fit his proposed structure.
Reductionism
Complex social realities may be reduced to neat binary oppositions. Some oppositions may arise from the anthropologist’s analysis rather than indigenous thought.
Neglect of history
Structuralism treats myths as relatively timeless systems and gives inadequate attention to migration, colonialism and historical change.
Neglect of performance and agency
It focuses on myth as a text while overlooking the narrator, audience, occasion, emotion and changing political purpose of narration.
Difficulty of verification
Several different structures may be constructed from the same narrative, making structural interpretation difficult to test objectively.
Neglect of power and gender
The approach emphasises mental classification more than inequality, gender relations and the interests served by a particular version of a myth.
Conclusion
The Asdiwal study demonstrates Lévi-Strauss’s major achievement: revealing a common logic beneath apparently unrelated domains of culture. It shows how myths symbolically organise and attempt to mediate contradictions embedded in ecology, economy and kinship.
Yet structural analysis becomes incomplete when detached from history, performance, agency and power. Its greatest value lies not as a total explanation of mythology, but as a powerful method for uncovering the relational and transformational organisation of mythical thought.
Want feedback on your answer?
Join the Anthropology workshop or get structured answer-writing guidance from VAID ICS.