Derrida, Levi-Strauss' Story of the Nambikwara Cheif, Helen Keller, and the Wolf Boy from France

In Structuralism and Poststructuralism For Beginners (illustrated, of course), which I once again consulted for the arduous task of making sense of Derrida, Donald D. Palmer writes “Derrida gives a careful reading of Levi-Strauss’ ‘The Writing Lesson’ in Tristes Tropiques and shows that ‘writing’ already existed among the Nambikwara long before the arrival of the guilty anthropologist. The whole of Nambikwara culture is already based on signs—with all of the attendant Saussurean implications—and therefore it already has its own hierarchy of rank and manipulation of power” (132). As was discussed in class today, Derrida sees both literacy and orality as being the same system of signs. Using these concepts I would like again to discuss Levi-Strauss and the power structures involved in his observations of the Nambikwara tribe. Levi-Strauss writes that the chief is the first to notice the use of literacy as a tool to control others. Although this leads to Levi-Strauss’ view of literacy as a tool of enslavement, he does not take into account the Chief’s authoritarian status already established within the tribe—a status attained through orality, not literacy. If one is to assume that orality and literacy are of the same system, then is it possible to extend Levi-Strauss’ theories of written communication as tool of enslavement to all of language, including oral? In the example of the Nambikwara, the chief obtained his power through orality and it is only natural to see his seizing of written language for authoritarian purposes as an extension of his already existent power over the tribe. This also leads me to questions of the authoritarian nature of language itself. It was also discussed in class today that Derrida sees language as being intertwined with thought—one cannot think without language. Does this mean that when one begins thinking, one enters into the realm of language and is therefore subject to manipulation by power? Does this mean in order to think we must make ourselves subject to authority? The concept of the absence of thinking prior to language was also discussed in class with reference to the “wolf boys” of France. To use a film as an example, in The Wild Child (Truffaut, 1970)—to which Professor Zemka alluded in class—a doctor picks up a boy raised by wolves, and teaches him to become “civilized.” In order for the boy to become civilized, he must give himself to the authority of the doctor, who teaches him language. At one point in the film the boy rebels and escapes back to the countryside to live his life as he did—without language—prior to capture, only to return later. The boy's rebellion to authority is significant in that he is free to do as he pleases without language. The comforts the doctor gives the boy, however, outweigh this freedom, and he decides to subject himself to the doctor's authority for this gift. The authoritarian aspect of language can also be seen in the life of Helen Keller, of which, I am ashamed to say, I only know through the film The Miracle Worker (Penn, 1962). SPOILER: At the end of the film, in a glorious Hollywood ending, Keller learns the word “water” through sign language, thus beginning her entrance into “civilization” and the world outside her secluded home. Another effect of this, however, is Keller’s change of behavior. One of the primary reasons for Anne Sullivan’s (Anne Bancroft) consultation was to “tame” Keller and end her violent tantrums. In this sense, Keller's entrance to language is also an entrance to the world of authority. Ignorance is no longer an excuse for her wild behavior.