Pierre Clastres (1934–1977)

> Babelio : https://www.babelio.com/livres/Clastres-Le-grand-parler--Mythes-et-chants-sacres...
> Esprit : rel="nofollow" target="_top">https://esprit.presse.fr/article/germain-gabriel/pierre-Clastres-le-grand-parler...

> Haubert Maxime. Clastres (Pierre). — Le grand parler. Mythes et chants sacrés des Indiens Guarani.
In: Archives de sciences sociales des religions, n°43/2, 1977. pp. 234-235. … ; (en ligne),
URL : https://www.persee.fr/doc/assr_0335-5985_1977_num_43_2_2120_t1_0234_0000_2

> LE GRAND PARLER Mythes et chants sacrés des Indiens Guaranis, de Pierre Clastres, (Seuil éd.) — Le sens du sacré, les Indiens Guarani du Paraguay et du Brésil ne l'ont jamais perdu. Ils en vivent littéralement et c'est la base de leur ethos tribal. C'est d'ailleurs ce qui fait qu'ils ont pu survivre en tant que tribu jusqu'à aujourd'hui ; c'est en tant que communauté religieuse qu'ils ont pu opposer un refus hautain aux entreprises rusées ou brutales des missionnaires. Aujourd'hui ils ne sont plus que 5 ou 6,000, mais leur souci de conserver intact leur univers religieux est toujours aussi fort.
Le corpus mythologique des Guarani se compose de trois grands mythes : le mythe des Jumeaux, le mythe d'origine du feu et le mythe du Déluge universel. Ce qui est surprenant Le corpus mythologique des Guarani se compose de trois grands mythes: le mythe des Jumeaux, le mythe d'origine du feu et le mythe du Déluge universel. Ce qui est surprenant, c'est qu'en l'absence de toute influence chrétienne, certains de ces mythes s'apparentent aux grands mythes chrétiens (déluge, Job, Noé) et à quelques uns des mythes grecs de la cosmogenèse (L'oeuf, Phanès, la Nuit, Ouranos, Zeus…) Mais surtout c'est la haute idée de ce qu'ils sont et de leur origine qui frappe chez les Guarani : ils sont des humains non point comme choses du monde, mais comme parties du divin. Et le garant de cela, c'est Ayvu, la Parole de Namandu-père-premier-véritable. La Parole au sens de l'évangile chrétien. Car Ayvu, c'est aussi le langage humain. Ayvu, c'est donc la substance à la fois du divin et de l'humain. Et c'est de cette certitude, qui fait que les Guarani ne peuvent agir qu'en fonction de leur "nature divine", qu'ils tirent leur aspiration à l'état de perfection, de complétude achevée, à l'aguyje, cet état de grâce qui permet d'accéder à Ywy mara ey, la Terre-sans-Mal où demeurent les dieux. Et ce grand parler, ces Belles Paroles, ce sont les mots de ces chants, de ces hymnes qu'ils adressent aux divins. Et l'âme humaine, Ne'e, est une parcelle de l'Ayvu. Donc tout, les hommes, leurs paroles, leur âme, les dieux, est isomorphe. Il y aurait encore beaucoup à dire sur la profondeur du mysticisme guarani et sur l'excellente traduction (autant qu'on en puisse juger) des Belles Paroles. Terminons sur l'avertissement d'un ancien prophète guarani, qui résume la philosophie de vivre des Guaranis et fait un bon sujet de méditation pour nous: " Dansez! car tout va aller très mal sur la terre !… Maintenant, vous ne devez plus travailler ! ” (CHRISTIAN).
—Mainmise, mai 1975… (lisätietoja)

A fascinating account of the relationship between war and primitive society, primarily in South America. It is a series of essays that all approach the topic from a slightly different angle. Clastres´ main premise here is that war is not just a part of these primitive societies, it is inseparable from their existence. He separates societies into undivided and divided societies. The former are "primitive," even though this implies that they need to progress to "civilized." Civilized societies, on the other hand, have allowed themselves to become divided into a ruling class of some type and the class that allow (even desire) themselves to be ruled. This inherently results in a ruling class dominating a ruled class, however mildly it may be. Every society from the "primitive" kingships of Africa to the most totalitarian Nazi Reich (including our democracies) have been this "divided" society, a society with a State, where people voluntarily give up their freedom. True egalitarianism, Clastres posits, can only be found in so-called primitive societies, where even the chiefs do not have power to rule but can only advise as the society already wishes.

Some of the more memorable essays are: the first, a first-person account of Clastres visit with Jacques Lizot to the Yanomami tribes of Venezuela; the second, a review of a biography of a Brazilian girl who was kidnapped by a tribe and lived with them for 22 years before returning to "civilization;" the fourth, a fascinating treatise on the term "ethnocide," the killing of a culture; then comes a fabulous treatise on Etienne La Boetie, the man who was writing 200 years before Rousseau on the nature of power, liberty and the social contract; the penultimate (and titular) work, a comprehensive summary of the entire process of war, and how it transforms itself into the method of maintaining societal autonomy while preventing the rise of a State; and finally, an essay on the less common "warrior societies" along with the harrowing plight of the privileged/cursed warrior, a "being-for-death."

Lest this sound like a ridiculous romanticization of primitive life, as has become popular lately, I gladly contradict the notion. Clastres does indeed come across as defensive of these societies, but he is defending them against the academic arrogance that allows people to consider them "pre-civilized," when in reality their societies seem to be almost as sophisticated, just in another direction. If anything, Clastres´ position is one of deflection and enlightenment, trying to shift the paradigm of how we consider these people -- not heathens to be "civilized," but rather a completely alien society that have developed distinct methods over thousands of years and can be respected in their own right, without being compared to us.

Indeed, just reading the book will disarm you of any illusions of romanticism. The picture he describes of a permanent state of war is distinctly unappealing as a modern reader. Too much tension and uncertainty, and he never even comes close to suggesting that we should return to such a way of life. His questions are more concerned with origin: Assuming all societies began this way, how did the first divided society arise? How and why did people voluntarily give up their liberty? His perspective is so interesting because he considers our divided society as the anomaly, not theirs.

It results that the essays gradually divulge more on the topic, and build on what you've already read, so you feel like their order is a logical progression, even though each was published several years apart during the 70s and early 80s. I can only suppose that´s a result of excellent editing. Sometimes the ideas get a little repetitive, but overall there is enough freshness in each essay that they are able to captivate you.
… (lisätietoja)

Having read Clastres´ later [b:Archeology of Violence|927436|Archeology of Violence|Pierre Clastres|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1179520452s/927436.jpg|912438], I was prepared to be blown away by this one (after all, the production/jacket is much higher end stuff, which means it's better, right?). But I was instead disappointed. He says essentially similar things, but in more theoretical ways than he does in the other book. This made it harder for me to stay interested. Additionally, there were a couple of spots where he seemed to romanticize the indigenous people, giving them way more credit for creating a sophisticated political safeguard than they must have deserved. Theirs struck me as a system that surely evolved much more organically than he continuously intimated. For example, from page 44:

. . . it is as though these societies formed their political sphere in terms of an intuition which for them would take the place of a rule: namely, that power is essentially coercion. . . these societies astonish us by the subtlety with which they have posed and settled the question. They had a very early premonition that power's transcendence conceals a mortal risk for the group, that the principle of an authority which is external and the creator of its own legality is a challenge to culture itself. It is the intuition of this threat that determined the depth of their political philosophy.

Now, call me cynical and "culture-ist" if you will, but to refer to the organization of primitive societies and tribes as a deep political philosophy seems a little ridiculous.

Clastres' preaching aside, he continues to raise some good points about the common modern view of "primitives." He points out the paradox of the stereotype that the primitive lived in a subsistence economy, but is also invariably considered lazy. Either he worked all day for his food, or he didn't work it all, it can't be both. Also, there is a brilliant essay ("Elements of Amerindian Demography") where he neatly debunks the low estimates for pre-Columbian population in the Americas, convincingly arriving at a significantly higher estimate, including a shocking 90% mortality rate in the 100 years after the white arrival.

Ultimately, though, Clastres left me wanting more. In the titular essay at the end of the book, he poses some fascinating questions: All civilized people were first primitives, and the State is impossible in primitive society, so what made the State cease to be impossible? Why did some people cease to be primitives? What event allowed the Despot to emerge? "Where does political power come from?" These are all the questions that I expected to get answered when I picked up the book. Instead, Clastres immediately follows them with a disclaimer about the impossibility of answering, followed by a weak hypothesis about the emergence of spiritual prophets who could have provided the seed for political power.

For those who haven´t read "Archaeology" and already have this one instead, I would definitely recommend it as an introduction to Clastres. Otherwise, "Archaeology" is far more interesting -- an anthropological masterpiece.… (lisätietoja)