Shakespeare in the Bush Critique Example

Shakespeare in the Bush is about an American author and anthropologist named Laura Bohannan, who travels to a tribe in West Africa to test the legitimacy of Hamlets plot throughout the world. Before she leaves, a friend argues that she won’t agree with the villager’s message interpretation of the story. This is because they have been arguing over whether human nature is universal and if it would affect the story based on culture. This was our authors’ main point. She had no supporting arguments/ details in the article, however. The Author, Laura Bohannan’s argument is roughly that, human nature is more or less universal around the world, so the people of the Tiv tribe in Africa will have a similar interpretation of Shakespeare’s Literature. This is rebuttal to her friend who ended up being right later-on. Apparently, an understanding of English literature is needed (Bohnnan:1). A classic example of ethnocentrism in play.

I’d say culture plays a big role in story telling and any kind of communication. For example, one of her first opening statements: the chief that died in the story, was a huge shock and incomprehensible to these people. They said its impossible and that it can’t be his “ghost” approaching the three men. This was just the intro. They continue this attitude later on in the story. This is because they don’t know what ghosts are. They have a concept of black magic, and omen that neatly fits the role in some ways, however. (Bohannan 1996:Pg. 4 Line 1). Laura is caught off guard by their ideas. The omen was sent by a witch says the chief.

Our next contradiction/disagreement is in the realm of family connections. Hamlets main drive for poisoning his mother is something that the Tiv tribe don’t relate to. When somebody marries a sibling’s partner directly after they have passed, we see it as very devious in the western and European world. This is not the case in this remote village. It’s also custom to marry your siblings’ partner after their passing in that area explained by the men as they drank booze. In western and European countries this is act of betrayal and so on, especially since it’s so close to the day of death. Its better to marry as soon as possible in this tribe however, as explained by the “younger” wife of the head chief. Laura try’s saying that the son (Hamlet) will inherit these responsibilities. This doesn’t blow over well and isn’t received well by them at all. These are all customs. “2 years is too long who will how e your farm for u and such). (Bohannan 1996: Page 5) has a wife role disagreement all over. Apparently, the chief should even have many wives. Furthermore, the guy should have went to the age mates of the father instead of taking revenge into his own hands(Bohannan 1996: Page 10). The author basically loses her mother point, and the hamlet justification is out the window. 

She said that people from that area would have completely different in interpretation. Which they were. the Shakespeare in the Bush book does require a culture to stand on in order to interpret it. Otherwise, these words and meanings have no power. For example, me, looking at this chief role. This role is closest related to head of the house, or maybe an owner, ruler or boss. This reverts us back to why the writer has no legs to stand on. The supporting points are none. Extremely flawed. She simply doesn’t explain why human nature would be universal, or why that would even help her case. Or even in what way. 

The article relates to our Lectures in the sense of a European settler looking down on primitive villagers and not even trying to understand them. Thinking they must be purged with their more “civilised” culture. The topic of the week (Sep 22) is colonialism, and we’ve covered aspects of ethnocentrism, and cultural relativism in videos, and articles from prior weeks. The Nacirema, for example is a parody of American racism essentially. We’ve also seen an album based on European twists on village like music, and more. Even more key terms would be Colonialism, ethnography, racism, superiority, human rights violations and many more. As for my questions I would ask this writer: I would ask what kind of tribe is the Tiv tribe. Are they totally isolated etc.? How many people are like that around the world? I would urge the author do be more genuine and accurate with the experiment as well. There’s lots of nuisances in human behaviour that we pick up that would have helped her explain the story better. More importantly, she even skipped the poison part and hamlet’s soliloquy on hamlets part. This was to directly change their result and reaction. My guess is that this would have made them absolutely even more appalled by Hamlet’s decision. 

This alone gives great insight to colonial mindset and how these operations take place. Why they justify such behaviour in the first place. Do we see outdated tones of ethnography here? Yes, older approaches of ethnography include the racist undertones of other tribes. The inclusiveness makes me wonder. The ones that aren’t included are the opinions and voices of some citizens I believe. She also says that these people will surely hate hamlet for poisoning which is very judgmental. Overall, it is an accurate portrayal of these people because she is at least quoting them word for word. What we don’t know, however is the not eligible things and obviously what the author didn’t tell us. I wonder if I can ask her: When u ask the chief and the people did u translate the story accurately and account for social norms? How has the tone in the people changed? Do you now see how u were wrong and at what point? All in all, cultural relativism rings true here again and again. 

My closing final statements remarks are this. There seems to be a general moral and ethic code in consensus. Even in West Africa. This however doesn’t put detail into the specific framework of such code. Hence what we saw here. Finally, I add that she persists with this “us vs them” theme as many other anthropologists in the field have pointed out. Especially in newer, fresh, recent times. A similar comparison is made in Jason antrosios critique of such article. It is like stating Clifford Geertz position in anthropology but with no backup evidence whatsoever (Antrosio, Jason. 2011).

It is a little sickening, to me personally, that she fails to regard them as one of a whole, regardless of her interpretation of hamlet to be false in their eyes. Surely their grand human nature is caught in and under the umbrella of Universal Humanity that she so claimed exists. It just doesn’t exist in the way she proposed it to be.