In
1966, a relatively unknown author published a story known as "Shakespeare
in the Bush." This short essay is one of Laura Bohannan’s best known works
and is often studied in educational settings because of its varying
interpretations. Bohannan’s point of
view is stated very early within the essay when she states that, “I protested
that human nature is pretty much the same the whole world over.” This sets the
essay up for debate because it wouldn’t be difficult to find flaws in such a
statement, so she covers up that statement with a rebuttal that says, “Some
details of customs might have to be explained and difficulties of translation
might produce other slight changes.” Yet, in the end, she established that
there was only one possible understanding of Hamlet and it was universally
known. However, as it may be, Laura Bohannan hypothesized that the meaning of
Hamlet is straightforward to everyone who reads or hears it; many could argue
that the Tiv tribe demonstrated that this was an incorrect assumption because
of the differing aspects of how people comprehend the world.
The
first aspect that needs to be addressed is how differing cultures treat and
understand the supernatural world, such as omens, witches, ghosts, and zombies.
From the start of the Hamlet story being told to the Tiv people there is
already a clear objection starting to take shape. As it stands, the Tiv people
do not believe that omens can talk, that there is survival after death of any
individual part of the personality, yet they do believe that “zombis” are real
and can walk around. This is demonstrated in quotes such as, “dead men can’t
walk,” (pg. 30) or “one can touch zombis” (pg. 30). The culture of the Tiv
people varies differently from that of Shakespeare’s generation or that of the
western world. Cultures are interesting because they are passed down the
generations with only slight change from generation to generation. Yet, this is
not to say that the cultures are identical worldwide. The supernatural example
of the Tiv is great because it demonstrates to the reader that what they know
about the supernatural world most likely does not match with that of the Tiv
people. Something to point out is that most of the world’s beliefs of the
supernatural is based on religion, something that it would appear that the Tiv
people lack. It would be a fair assumption to say that the supernatural aspect
greatly changed the story of Hamlet. Suddenly, there were added supernatural
aspects to the story of Hamlet which many cultures would argue do not belong.
Madness
is a small focal point of the story, yet important enough to discuss. The Tiv
people would not know much about modern medicine and how certain factors can
affect the human body. Similar to many primitive communities, for lack of a
better word, they try to understand what they do not understand. This of course
could apply to the supernatural aspect as well. However, supernatural is
different because even the so called “advanced” societies and cultures cannot
agree on what is real and what isn’t. What is clear is that the Tiv do not
demonstrate an understanding of western medicine. This is not to imply that
they lack their own form of medicine knowledge that is based on nonsensicality.
The Tiv people no doubt believe that only witchcraft or seeing “beings that
lurk” (pg. 31) is a cause for madness because this is what they were taught in
their culture and like most of what they know it is passed down from a past
generation and it’s what they believe. So, this changes the story of Hamlet more
and steers Bohannan’s understanding more off and even has her starting to question
the story. (pg. 31)
Family
is an aspect that offers the highest debate because it is the factor that
offers the greatest variance. When it comes to differing families the culture
boundaries getting a little fuzzier because as a culture there may be one
overall belief that most, if not all believe, such as independence in the
United States, whereas specific families may have a completely different belief
and culture because that is what they were taught; such as a terrorist trying
to destroy independence. There is a part where a great chief remarks that in
terms of family Europeans are like us (pg. 29). This is an important statement
because for the first time it offers a link between the Tiv people and where
Bohannan is from, something that sort of brings the family aspect of cultures
together between the two. This also makes the reader question if in fact
cultures are the whole story as well or is it something else that makes
understanding things different. The difficulties also stem on the idea that the
Tiv were a verbalized community and did not rely on paper to tell such stories.
Which could have confuse the Tiv community in a sense, but thinking about it,
it actually most likely made no difference. Also, Bohannan throughout the story
telling is modifying the story into the Tiv’s culture and changing aspects to
make it fit into what they know which passively changes the story without her
even trying to change the meaning, because word choice ends up drastically
changing a story.
Some
other Tiv culture qualities is that fathers should not lie to sons, which most
likely means that family in general should not lie to each other, which is a
pretty common belief worldwide( pg. 31). Also the Tiv do not believe in a widow
waiting, whereas, they do believe in polygamy (pg. 30). Which in terms of their
culture makes sense because a wife where they live needed a husband to do work
and the chief needed many wives and sons because it made things easier and
better for them. To an outsider this may seem preposterous, but to them it was
custom. They also believe that a man should not scold his mother and family
should not fight, which is something that is common worldwide as well. Respect
in the family is important to the Tiv and changed the story of Hamlet because
they were not able to understand and look outside the box to see it was a
story.
It
is easy to suggest that the Tiv were not educated and even laughable to say the
least that they believed drowning not real (pg. 33). Yet, this is the culture
that the Tiv people know, and to them they do not know any better and to say
that there culture is any less would be wrong because they are surviving just
as well. On the flipside is it right for the Tiv people to change Hamlet to a
new story just because it is not fitting into their culture, couldn’t they have
just sat back and listened and not interrupted. Actually, no, because their
culture does not think about the outside world as other parts of the world
does.
To add to the confusion, an old man actually
argues that while he sees many differences between the two cultures, he
believes “people are the same everywhere,” which is exactly what she believed
in the beginning of the essay. The final paragraph is where the icing is put on
the cake that states:
You must tell us
some more stories of your country. We, who are elders, will instruct
you in their true
meaning, so that when you return to your own land your elders will
see
that you have not
been sitting in the bush, but among those who know things and who
have taught you
wisdom. (pg. 33)
There
is a parallel that forms between the beginning of this essay and the ending
because at the start is was Bohannan that claimed she knew the true meaning
that was known universally, whereas in the ending it’s the elders who believe
they have the true meaning. So in the end it is fair to say that differing
aspects of comprehending the world demonstrated that she failed to prove her
theory that everyone who read Hamlet would get the same meaning out of it. Thus
she has actually managed to prove with the help of the Tiv people that Hamlet
or any other story for that matter is in fact differing for all who read Hamlet
or any other source of reading.
Bibliographical references
BOHANNAN,
Laura, 1966. “Shakespeare in the Bush”. Natural History, Aug/Sept.
No comments:
Post a Comment