http://zbiory.cyfrowaetnografia.pl/public/6071.pdf
Media
Part of The Symbol in Ethnography/ Polska Sztuka Ludowa - Konteksty 2014 Special Issue
- extracted text
-
reader to the term: “sign”. A lthough the word: “sym
bol” as such appears many times on the pages of this
book in assorted combinations, variants, and contexts
(e.g. in entries on “symbolic culture”, “myth“, “ sac
rum - profanum"), and although the authors in vari
ous places stress the part performed by the symbol in
culture, as in the case of Zofia Sokolewicz in the entry:
’’anthropology of comm unication” - (...) It is argued
(S. K. Langer) that the terms like “sign”, “m eaning” in all
ZBIGNIEW
BENEDYKTOWICZ
The Symbol in
Ethnography
theirs variants are the dominating terms in our times, and
that the sign, the symbol, the processes of signifying and
communicating belong to our current cultural resources.
Since the 1960s at the latest these terms are being intro
duced into ethnological sciences - we would look in vain
for reference to “symbol” or “symbolism” as one of the
numerous trends listed by the author and which con
sider studying the symbol.5 T o put it in more graphic
terms, in this contemporary compendium of knowl
edge about ethnological terms the “’symbol” collapsed
and concealed itself amidst numerous entries merged
with “sign” . If, however, one takes a closer look at
the entry: ”sign” then one could say that it had been
placed there by force or, to put in gentler terms: “in
serted” . Despite the fact that we read: Symbols might
be regarded as a special group of symbolic signs, and it is
m entioned (with reference only to E. Cassirer and S.
K. Langer) that: The concept of the symbol occurs often
I
t is unnecessary to explain why a consensus regarding
the meaning of the word “symbol” could be of value for
all sorts of studies on art or literature, M arcin Czer
wiński wrote in Symbol dzisiaj, 1 published in “Polska
Sztuka Ludowa” . Regardless of the answer to the posed
question: Is such an agreement possible? each attem pt at
a presentation of assorted stands concerning the com
prehension of the nature of the symbol appears to be
equally valuable.
Num erous emergent studies dealing time and
again with reflections about the symbol confirm and
reflect this need for rendering precise both the term
“symbol” and the need for constantly delving into its
meaning. Although such inquiries are undertaken in
assorted fields of research, and formulated in vari
ous languages, it is possible to find numerous tangent
points, similar intuitions, concurrent lines of reflec
tion, shared motifs, and alike problems. It would be
thus needless to explain the benefits of such investi
gations for representatives of ethnography, ethnology,
and the anthropology of culture - domains that have
made such a considerable contribution, and continue
to do so, to research dealing with the symbol.
In the cited article M arcin Czerwiński frequently
drew attention to science’s enmity towards the sym
bol, the distance and even antagonism between the
two: Science behaves towards primary language only part-
within a wider conception of man comprehended as animal
symbolicum, only half a column out of a total of nine
devoted to the entry on the sign had been intended
for the symbol.6 In this manner, so to speak, the sign
swallowed the symbol.
M eanwhile, different authors, such as P. Ricouer,
M. Bakhtin, S. A vierintsev, Y. Lotm an and others
accentuated in their characteristics of the symbol the
differences between the sign and the symbol. In his
eidetic analysis Ricoeur considered the specificity of
the symbol contrasted with the sign, the allegory, and
the myth: symbols are signs (...) but not every sign is a
symbol. 7 In a similar vein, A vierintsev, while writing
about the symbol as a universal category o f aesthet
ics added that it can be best discussed via an opposi
tion to adjoining categories: on the one hand, the
image, and on the other hand, the sign.8 Is, however,
a dictionary of contem porary (or rather: yesterday’s)
science, depicted by M arcin Czerwiński and oriented
exclusively on “ejecting am biguities” , familiar with
only one way of enunciation: a discourse meeting the
sharpened criteria of explicitivity, a science protecting
itself against the wavering of meaning, capable of ac
cepting and including such “im precise” and uncom
pleted sequences as those that we may come across
am ong tireless researchers dealing with the symbol,
which, in my opinion, can best bring us closer to its
essence:
ly as an opponent, but in relation to the symbol it maintains
total opposition (...). 2. He went on: True, in the course of
centuries the role of discursive statements incessantly grew
in multiple if not all domains of social life. Science, in the
form in which we see it today (or rather in which it was
seen still yesterday), has questioned the rank of symbolic
statements. 3
In the case of ethnography and its attitude towards
the symbol the situation remained more complicated
from the very onset, and generally speaking did not
deviate from the general model of science. The most
vivid evidence is the absence of the entry: “symbol” in
the contemporary Słownik etnologiczny. (Ethnological
Dictionary) 4 In the suitable spot the authors refer the
6
Zbigniew Benedyktowicz • THE SYMBOL IN ETHNOGRAPHY
The word and the image — (an object, an ethnog
rapher could add at this point - Z. B.) — are symbolic
when they contain something more than that, which
can be recognised at first glance (C. G. Jung).9
tradiction between the truth contained in the material
and his interpretation.
Ethnographer:
As we already partially know, not only the features (e.g.
The memory of a symbol is always older than the memo
ry of its non-symbolic textual surrounding (Y. Lotm an).10
hardness, sharpness...) but even the functions (...) of certain
objects (...) are comprehended by the primitive and unen
lightened mind in such a way as if they comprised - speaking
in our language —something akin to condensed matter or en
ergy embedded in those objects or even tantamount to them.
Consequently, each such object can be and is interpreted by
the uncivilised mind from two or even several sides. A stone
or a piece of metal are, i.a. an ordinary stone or piece of
metal, but apart from that they can be also something that
we may describe as condensed might, hardness, resilience;
a thorn is a thorn, but apart from that it can be condensed
sharpness or the function of piercing; a lock is undoubtedly
a lock, but it is also a condensed function of closing; an egg
is, i.a. condensed life in statu nascendi, and a double nut or
an ear of grain, etc. is, i.a. a condensed gain, i.e. potential,
fruitfulness (and thus also happiness). And so on.
N ot only do we live in a world of symbols, but the
world of symbols lives in us (J. Chevalier).11
Finally, a contemporary science dictionary could
include sentences whose veracity, in the existential
experience, could be confirmed by many; the m ean
ing of such sentences appears to be particularly legible
and important as regards studies on the still unclear
processes of artistic creativity (regardless whether we
encounter it within the range of primitive folk art or
high art).
We do not embellish our experiences with symbols but
it is they, which cooperate with our experience via proc
esses of affiliation, which we understand only partially. To
symbolize means to arrange those particles and elements of
a flowing stream of experiences, which, once united, create
luminescence, temporary or permanent rays, in which a
part of the cosmos, a corner of our habitat or some dark
subterranean labyrinth lightens up.
(...) At any rate, the first syntax of the defined, embod
ied spirit is that of symbols.12
M. Eliade:
By way of example, whenever the "cult of stones" is
mentioned not all stones are regarded as holy. We always
encounter only certain stones worshipped due to their
shape, size or ritual affiliations. The heart of the matter is
not the cult of stones, but the fact that those stones were
worshipped as long as they were not ordinary stones, but
hierophanies and thus something more than commonplace
"objects”. (...) A certain object becomes sacral as long as it
embodies (i.e. reveals) something else, something different.
At this stage, it is meaningless whether this "difference”
should be ascribed to an original shape, effectiveness, or
simply "might”, or whether it originates from the partici
pation of that object in some sort of symbolism or is the
outcome of a consecration rite or the voluntary or imposed
situating of the object in a sphere suffused with sanctity (a
holiday, holy time, some sort of an “event": lightening...,
etc.).13
A s has been said, the attitude of ethnography to
wards the symbol has been complicated from the very
beginning. On the one hand, ethnography as a science
emulated and realised this general model of science
opposing the symbol, while on the other hand, ow
ing to the object and scope of its interest, it not only
docum ented but also adapted for one-sidedly oriented
European civilisation the world of mythical thought
and imagination, the "products of the primeval mind”,
the language of the myth and the symbol. It rediscov
ered them, with time increasingly consciously and
thoroughly, identifying their cognitive value, diversity,
and depth. In order to demonstrate more clearly this
complex attitude of ethnography towards the symbol I
would like to resort to a comparison of two extensive
quotations. The first is taken from a classical ethno
graphic work and the second comes from Treatise on
the History of Religions by M ircea Eliade. By means of
this contrast I would like to show how close the author
of a classical ethnographic text is to Eliade’s descrip
tion and comprehension of the symbol, and how many
years prior to Eliade he described that, which the
author of Treatise called "hierophany”. Then I shall
return to the first quotation revealing the authorethnographer and a further sequence of his arguments
in order to demonstrate how in accordance with the
accepted scientific convention these opinions turn
against the symbol and how the convention accepted
by the ethnographer led him towards a profound con
Let us return to the first quotation borrowed
(as could be surmised right away) from Kazimierz
Moszyński’s Kultura Ludowa Słowian (The Folk C ul
ture of the Slavs), since he is also the author of this
fragment, so close and affiliated to the spirit of the
text by M. Eliade ... and we shall see how many sur
prising and contradictory conclusions can be drawn.
I intentionally repeat parts of a fragment already fa
miliar to us, so as to faithfully render this link with
the next paragraph containing conclusions in order to
faithfully render the whole drama of the contradiction
contained therein.
...A stone or a piece of metal are, i.a. an ordinary stone
or a piece of metal, but apart from that they can be also
something that we may describe as condensed might, hard
ness, resilience; (...) an egg is, i.a. condensed life in statu
nascendi, and a double nut or an ear of grain, etc. are, i.a.
a condensed gain, i.e. potential, fruitfulness (and thus also
7
Zbigniew Benedyktowicz • THE SYMBOL IN ETHNOGRAPHY
happiness). And so on. Absolutely undisputed and simul
taneously innumerable examples of similar concepts are
preserved among all the unenlightened peoples on Earth.
One of the most vivid mistakes in ethnology is to dispose of
the discussed products of the primitive mind by using the
term: s y m b o l; I do not know in ethnology a more naive
view that the one claiming that, in its day, in folk magic a
double ear of grain played the role of a fertility symbol, and
an egg - that of a symbol of life, etc.14
overly refined intellectual creativity. In other words,
Moszyński’s enmity towards the term: “symbol”, his
postulated turn towards empiric research and descrip
tion of those concepts and “psychic products”, so char
acteristic for all unenlightened peoples and the world
of folk culture whose examples he had just described,
could resemble identical hostility and be modelled on
the critical attitude towards symbolism that appeared
in the poetry and aesthetics of Die N eue Sachlichkeit,
among representatives of Acm eism or the sort we en
counter in the case of Osip M andelstam , returning to
classical sources of the comprehension of the symbol
and describing literary and poetical symbolism outright
as faux-symbolism.17 Quite possibly, this resentment
towards the symbol in the case of Moszyński, with a
simultaneous postulate of a factual description of the
m atter of those primary concepts, could have the same
source and in praxis is caused not so much by animos
ity towards the symbol in general as by enmity towards
interpretations posing a threat to ethnology. However
deep we would delve into the intentions of the au
thor of Kultura ludowa Słowian or explain his aversion
towards the term: “symbol”, facts remain facts. D e
spite the fact that in his introductory reflections about
spiritual culture 18 Moszyński with great caution and
numerous reservations accepted the premise that it is
impossible to speak about progress in religion and art
(at least in the meaning of progress mentioned in the
preceding volume, in reference to material culture),
the cited fragment, whenever there is mention of the
symbol, and the whole opus reveal a distinct division
into the world of primeval man, an unenlightened and
primitive mind, and the world of m an of the culture of
writing and developed civilisation, a world to which
the contemporary researcher belongs. Between those
two worlds there yawns a chasm. Naturally, it would
be superfluous to recall that in this conception the
former world is devoid of symbolic thinking and the
symbol of the sort that may appear in the latter world.
In an even more vivid presentation of this question,
and posing a possibly caricature question: Can a peas
It does not suffice to merely quote yet another ex
ample of the opposition of science vis a vis the symbol,
which at times assumes outright the shape of an anti
symbolic manifesto. I try to delve into the intentions
of such astonishingly contradictory conclusions. W hat
do they conceal? W hat forbids Moszyński to recognise
the symbolic dimensions he had just described as sym
bols? First and foremost, we are dealing here with a
certain already anachronistic understanding of the
symbol. Defending ethnography against the symbol
Moszyński presumably secured it against the loom
ing danger of excessive poetisation, an invasion of su
perfluous literariness, and a flood of aestheticisation.
Moszyński warned against the tem ptation of treating
those beliefs or, as he put it, those “products of the
primitive mind” as metaphors, and against the appli
cation in relation to them of some sort of allegorical
interpretations. Remember that the author of Kultura
Ludowa Słowian wrote the book, or rather those parts
relating to spiritual culture, at a time of ever strong
and increasingly lively disputes about the symbolic
or “imaginary” nature of the construction of Wesele
(Wedding) by Stanisław Wyspiański, when assorted
symbolic interpretations of the spectacle tended to
multiply, and when a publication of the unequalled
study by Stanisław Pigon: Goście z zaświata na Wese
lu (The Guests from the Other W orld at W edding),
which contains a reference to ethnography and the
world of folk culture, was still far off. 15 Finally, in his
capacity as an active poet 16 the author of Kultura Lu
dowa Słowian must have been familiar with the most
varied fate and adventures of symbolism in poetry,
including the extreme degeneration attained by sym
bolism in Russian poetry (if only in the works of A.
Bely, a theoretician of this m ovem ent and the author
of Simvolizm, 1910).
One may thus suspect and deduce that whenever
Moszyński used the word “symbol” he treated it as a
synonym of a poetical metaphor and even allegory. A t
any rate, from this viewpoint the symbol appears to
be not something embedded in an ethnographic con
crete, abstract, arbitrary, and dependent exclusively
on man, creator or interpreter of the symbol and ar
bitrarily evoked by him. In this approach the symbol
seems to be predominantly something distant from
the world of primitive culture, something literary and
devised, as if exclusively reserved for sophisticated or
ant (a person living in the primeval world) think symboli
cally?, Moszyński proposed both in this fragment and
in many others an unambiguous answer: He cannot.
Nothing resembling a symbol exists in the primitive mind.
Several verses after the cited fragment rejecting
the possibility of symbolic interpretations in ethnog
raphy Moszyński disclosed the chasm separating the
world of primitive, primal man and that of civilised,
contemporary man:
It is impossible to precisely describe the essence of the
psychic creatures with which we become acquainted at
this moment. Their completely elementary and sponta
neous simplicity cannot be embraced in our concise con
cepts. At any rate, they do not belong to a world ruled
by clear-cut views and sober thoughts but to a totally
8
Zbigniew Benedyktowicz • THE SYMBOL IN ETHNOGRAPHY
different world, whose roots, trunks, and branches are
“primitive” man and that of contemporary m an (the
embedded in the subconscious while we see only their
world of the researcher), is still preserved, although
tops. 19
in a slightly altered form. This modification consists
of a certain shift. In the case of Moszyński the sym
This time, in the light of the above-cited words,
the “symbol”, rejected a short while ago, deprived of
bol exists only and exclusively in a world of high cul
ture or within the range of complicated contemporary
the right to exist in the world of primeval man, and
feasible only in the world of high culture and sophis
culture, and is absent in folk culture. Such division
ticated activity pursued by the intellect, appears to be
reflects the conception launched by Levy-Bruhl and
his partition into the world of the primitive, infantile
a synonym if not of a precise, lucid, and unambiguous
m an at the stage of pre-logical thought and the world
concept then certainly of one that is endowed with
of civilised man. For the present-day researcher, and
concise contents and thoughts. Upon numerous oc
in particular for the empirically oriented ethnographer
casions Moszyński, describing those products of the
primitive mind, so different and distant from the world
for whom ethnography starts and ends in its research
of the researcher, drew attention to the characteristic
domains (provided, depending on the given village,
absence of conceptual distinctness, the variability and
region or theme, with a suitable footnote referring to
nineteenth-century collections of ethnographic m ate
fluidity of their contents, the numerous cases of an ab
rial, “Lud”, Kolberg, Fischer, etc.), and often for the
sence of consistency in ascribing those products of the
scholar representing other disciplines dealing with the
primitive mind to a great variety of often contradic
tory meanings in accompanying folk interpretations.
culture of contemporary man, the symbol in its eth
nological dimension, assuming that it actually existed,
Summing up: the symbol as understood by
took place only in the folk culture of yore (straight out
Moszyński seems to be, on the one hand, abstract, un
of Moszyński or Kolberg) or the culture of the archaic
real, distant, and detached from the concrete and, on
m an of the past, and today is no longer. A ccording to
the other hand, approaching the unambiguity char
Moszyński the symbol in folk culture has not yet come
acteristic for intellectual concepts. In both cases, the
into being, assumed shape or appeared; numerous
symbol remains somewhat intellectual. It does not ap
researchers dealing with contemporaneity claim that
pear in the reality of the culture of the primeval man,
or at least not in this role or in the same manner as in
the symbol a l r e a d y does not exist. Following the
example of Moszyński, solutions and answers to the
the culture of m an belonging to a developed civilisa
question whether the peasant (or contemporary man)
tion. Elsewhere, the symbol in Moszyhski’s work oc
is capable of thinking symbolically are still sought in
curs as a synonym of the sign or in reflections concern
empirical field research with a foreseeable outcome,
ing embellishment.
I
devoted so much attention and place tobecause if the word “symbol” is not m entioned in the
“authentic” statem ent and interpretation (and this is
Moszyhski’s deliberations not only to indicate the
rather the case) then this means that it is absent. This
source of the deep contradiction between what he ob
is the way in which the chasm between archaic and
tained in material descriptions of folk magic-religious
contemporary man, the peasant of the past and his
beliefs and the conclusions he drew in his book, and
present-day counterpart is retained. The whole strat
not merely to show how certain a priori accepted his
egy of such contemporary empirical investigations,
torical conditions and a limited comprehension of the
symbol made it impossible for him to use the term
based solely on convictions (beliefs, opinions) ob
tained in an interview and expressed explicitly, often
“symbol” in reference to those beliefs and phenomena
loses that dimension of symbolic legacy and compels
belonging to the spiritual heritage of folk culture. I re
to treat it, often a priori, as a moribund Skansen, and
called his thoughts also because Moszyhski’s compre
is ready only to capture that, which is different, origi
hension of the symbol, despite the fact that I described
nal, and individual. It is not surprising, therefore, that
it as anachronistic, has left a distinct imprint upon the
from this perspective the symbol and symbolic inter
attitude of ethnography towards the symbol and is
pretations - as in the case of Moszyński — still appear
continued up to this day in various statements. D e
to be something given, abstract, unreal, and literary.
spite the m ultifaceted development of contemporary
More, this lifeless Skansen is treated as thoroughly ex
research into the myth and the symbol it is still pos
amined. The symbol is still - as it was for Moszyński
sible to observe in ethnography a dislike and reserva
(from the perspective of “empirical”, anecdotic eth
tion towards the symbol and symbolic interpretations.
The symbol and symbolism continue to be treated as
nography that does not transcend the world of the
village of N . and informer X) - something provided a
something unreal, abstract, arbitrary, and distant from
the world of “authentic” folk culture. The fundam en priori by the interpreter.
tal premise assumed by Moszyński and discernible
This is why the greatest accomplishment of M ircea
in his comprehension of the symbol mentioning the
Eliade is, in my opinion, the fact that his studies abol
ish the division between primitive and civilised man,
basic difference between the world of the primeval,
9
Zbigniew Benedyktowicz • THE SYMBOL IN ETHNOGRAPHY
cussed the sui generis ambiguous structure of the sym
bol (in the strict meaning of the word: "am biguous”);
this structure does not possess a single meaning but
presents a bundle of assorted m eanings.25
Such a cluster of meanings entails references of one
meaning to another and calls for interpretation (...);
regardless what word we use to express it, this task
is imposed by the very nature of the symbol, which is
a tangle of meaning of sorts, composed of meanings
enclosed within each other... .26
In Existence and Hermeneutics Ricoeur described
four fundam ental figures o f com prehending the sym
bol via a symbol.27 The first consists of extracting and
com paring numerous values of the same symbol. The
second figure of com prehension entails understand
ing a given symbol via another symbol and will thus
encom pass an increasingly large range of remaining
symbols dem onstrating an affiliation with the given
symbol (water, stone, etc.). In the third figure, the
given symbol will be com prehended via some sort of
ritual and myths, and thus via other symptoms of the
sacrum . M oreover, it is possible to dem onstrate - and
this is the fourth figure of com prehension - how in
the same symbol num erous spheres of experience un
dergo a process of merging. This perspective shows
how the symbol integrates assorted levels - cosmic,
theological, anthropological, existential - binding all
the levels, but not m elting it into a single unity. Such
an understanding of the symbol and such decipher
ing of symbolic m eanings refer to a type of herm e
neutics known under various names: “amplifying
herm eneutics” (from the Latin: amplificare), which
expands the symbol, allowing itself to be lifted by the
force of its integration,28 the herm eneutics of a “re
turn to sources” (Eliade), “a return to things” , “the
herm eneutics of listening”29 (Heidegger), and “the
herm eneutics of reconstruction” (Gerardus van der
Leeuw). Gilbert Durand, a French researcher dealing
with symbolic im agination, encom passed this cur
rent within a single name by including, alongside the
above-m entioned authors, also the works of B ach e
lard, and proposed: “the herm eneutics of remythization” ; remythization m eans the concentration of
m eaning gathered in the m anner of grapes during a
grape harvest (...).30 Here, D urand referred directly
to yet another definition of the sort of herm eneutics
that we find in the works of Riceour, who described
this type of approach as: “the herm eneutics of recol
lection” ; according to the m ost expressive m eaning
of the word “recollection” m eans both: to recollect
oneself, reminisce, as well as: to deliberate, to gath
er, in the m eaning used by Heidegger telling us that
legein —speech is also: legein - gathering, as in: lese in
Weinlese, the grape harvest.31
W orks by M ircea Eliade still constitute a challenge
for ethnography and for embarking upon such recollec
artificially intensified by science, without obliterating
the differences between them and indicating that sym
bolic thinking is both the domain of “primitive, prime
val m an” , a psychopath, a child, a poet, a member of a
village community, a representative of the civilisation
of the town, archaic man, and the ultimate contem
porary man: It is consubstantial with human existence, it
comes before language and discursive reason. The symbol
reveals certain aspects of reality— the deepest aspects - that
defy any other means of knowledge. Images, symbols and
myths are not irresponsible creations of the psyche; they
respond to a need and fulfil a function, that of bringing to
light the most hidden modalities of being. Consequently,
the study of them enables us to reach a better understand
ing of man - of man as he is ... .” 20
A s we saw, upon the level of empirical material
description Eliade’s reflections concur with those of
Moszyński. Nonetheless, in the case of Eliade the com
prehension of the symbol is quite different. In contrast
to Moszyński’s version, the symbol is not unreal or
abstract and is always enrooted in the concrete. One
could describe the work of Eliade and his understanding
of the symbol by resorting to words of Boris Pasternak’s
Doctor Zhivago: The idea that underlies this is that com
munion between mortals is immortal, and that the whole
of life is symbolic because it is meaningful. 21 Symbolic,
hierophanic reality is a reality “par excellence existent”
(strong, effective) just as in the case of the hierophany
of the rock (in the way it appears in folk beliefs). The
symbol is not a synonym of unambiguity. Eliade used
the concept of the symbol in a loose, unfettered, and
frequently collateral manner with the concept of the
image and the myth. Etymologically speaking, imagination/imaginatio is connected with the word: imago, im
age, emulation, and the word: imitare with: to emulate,
to recreate. The imagination, imaginatio imitates m od
els-images, recreates them, renders them topical, and
repeats them endlessly. To be imaginative means to see
the world as a whole, since the power and task of im
ages consist of showing all that evades conceptualisa
tion. 22 That, which deserved to be stressed in the first
place is the polysemantic and multi-strata nature of the
symbol: the true image is, therefore, a set of meanings
and not one of its numerous references.23
Such an approach to the symbol was further de
veloped by Paul Ricoeur in one of the chapters of
his hermeneutics relating to this essential feature of
the symbol: the symbol provides food for thought, he
wrote, adding that he would interpret the symbol in
the m ost radical sense, in the spirit of Eliade, who re
garded symbols as analogous, spontaneously shaped
and given meanings. This is the case of the meaning of
water as a threat, when mention is made of a flood, or
as purification, when mention is made of baptism. 24
Ricoeur thus expanded reflection about the multi
strata nature of the symbol elsewhere, when he dis
10
Zbigniew Benedyktowicz • THE SYMBOL IN ETHNOGRAPHY
19
20
21
22
23
24
Ibid., p. 317.
M. Eliade, Sacrum, mit, historia, Warszawa 1970, p. 33.
B. Pasternak, Doctor Zhivago, Paris 1976, p. 44.
M. Eliade, Sacrum, mit, historia, Warszawa 1970, p. 41.
Ibid., p. 36.
P Ricoeur, Symbol daje do myślenia, in: Egzystencja i her
meneutyka, op. cit., Warszawa 1975, p. 14.
25 Ibid., p. 78.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 This is the sort of hermeneutics, which opposes the
“hermeneutics of destruction”, as P Ricoeur described it
(op. cit., pp. 77-94; 80). Fundamental division into two
types of hermeneutics was mentioned also by Gilbert
Durand: generally speaking, there are two types of her
meneutics, thhe one that reduces the symbol to some
thing that is (...) only the outcome (...), the symptom,
and that which, on the contrary, expands the symbol,
making it possible for the power of integration to rise in
order to gain access to a certain type of experienced
“supra-consciousness”. Cf. G. Durand, Wyobraźnia sym
boliczna, Warszawa 1986, p. 118.
29 P Ricoeur, op. cit., p. 81.
30 G. Durand, op. cit., p. 119.
31 P Ricoeur, op. cit., p. 80.
32 On structural, semiotic, and phenomenological currents
in studies on the myth and the symbol as well as their
significance for contemporary Polish ethnography see:
Antropologia kultury w Polsce - dziedzictwo, pojęcia, inspi
racje, “Polska Sztuka Ludowa”, no. 1, 2 /1980; no.
1/1981; here also an extensive biography of M. Eliade
and his works together with a bibliography.
In Polish ethnography I have in mind works that embar
ked upon the effort of such a reinterpretation of ethno
graphic sources and material, often referring to studies
by M. Eliade: Joanna i Ryszard Tomiccy, Drzewo życia,
Warszawa 1976; and the structuralistic works by Ludwik
Stomma, Słońce rodzi się 13 grudnia, Warszawa 1981;
idem, Antropologia kultury wsi polskiej XIX w., Warszawa
1980; second edition containing selected essays, Łódź
2002; Jerzy Sławomir Wasilewski, Podróże do piekieł,
Warszawa 1979; idem, Symbolika ruchu obrotowego i rytu
alnej inwersji, Warszawa 1978, “Etnografia Polska”, vol.
XXII, fasc. 1; idem, Tabu a paradygmaty etnologii,
Warszawa 1989. At this stage it is difficult not to express
astonishment that L. Stomma's Magia Alkmeny (issued
in different publications, cf., i.a. Słońce rodzi się 13 grud
nia, op. cit., pp. 24-45) - one of the breakthrough works
in Polish ethnography as regards interpretations not only
of the symbolic of bonds but also a presentation of the
function of the myth, integrating assorted domains of
human experiences, as well as methodological consequ
ences and the importance of his study for an interpreta
tion of folk tradition relating to beliefs about time,
space, folk demonology, etc. - has been totally ignored in
the above-cited Słownik terminów etnologicznych (cf. op.
cit., 1987); these works by Stomma are not mentioned
in bibliographies under: Magic, or in the general biblio
graphy.
o n references to publications and reflections by M. Eliade
and the application of “the hermeneutics of recollections'”
in an interpretation of the symbolic structure of beliefs and
folk tradition cf. also later works: Danuta Benedyktowicz,
Zbigniew Benedyktowicz, Dom w tradycji ludowej,
Encyklopedia Kultury Polskiej XX wieku, Studia i materia-
tions. Today, in view of the development of numerous
studies on the myth and the symbol, conducted from
different points of view— structuralistic, semiotic, and
phenomenological 32, as well as in assorted domains,
such as humanistic folkloristic 33, in the wake of stud
ies making the effort of reinterpreting the material,
ethnography cannot be protected by hiding its head in
empirical sand. “Empirical” ethnography is compelled
to acknowledge that there also exist the empiricism of
the symbol.
*Bibliographic note: This is a slightly altered and
brought up to date version of an article opening an issue
of “Polska Sztuka Ludowa” on the symbol, prepared as an
homage for the oeuvre of Mircea Eliade [cf. “Polska Sztuka
Ludowa” no. 3/1988].
Endnotes
1
M. Czerwiński, Symbol dzisiaj, “Polska Sztuka Ludowa”
1987, no.1-4, p. 100.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid. p. 104.
4 Słownik etnologiczny, terminy ogólne, ed. Zofia Staszczak,
Warszawa, Poznań 1987.
5 Ibid., pp. 26-27.
6 Ibid., p. 386.
7 P Ricoeur, Egzystencja i hermeneutyka, selected, prep. and
afterword Stanisław Cichowicz, Warszawa 1975, p. 11.
8 S. S. Avierintsev, Simvol, in: Kratkaya litieraturnaya entsiklopediya, Moscow 1971, vol. 7, p. 826; Polish transla
tion in: “Polska Sztuka Ludowa”, no. 3/1988, pp. 149
150.
9 Quoted after: Gerd Heinz Mohr, Lexikon der Symbole,
Bilder und Zeichen der christlichen Kunst, Düsseldorf, Köln
1972, p. 2.
10 Yuri Lotman, Symbol w systemie kultury, transl. Bogusław
Żyłko, “Polska Sztuka Ludowa”, no. 3/1988, p. 151,
based on the original text: Y. Lotman, Simvol v sistieme
kulturi, in: Trudy po znakovim sistemam, vol. 21, 1987, pp.
10-21.
11 Quoted after: Gerd Heinz Mohr, Lexikon der Symbole,
Bilder und Zeichen der christlichen Kunst, Düsseldorf, Köln
1972, p. 2.
12 R. R. Niebhur, “Harvard Divinity Bulletin”, OctoberNovember 1989, p. 3.
13 M. Eliade, Traktat o historii religii, transl. Jan WieruszKowalski, Warszawa 1966, p. 19.
14 K. Moszyński, Kultura Ludowa Słowian, Warszawa 1967,
vol. 2, part 1, p. 316.
15 Stanisław Pigoń, Goście z zaświata na Weselu, in: idem,
Poprzez stulecia. Studia z dziejów literatury i kultury,
Warszawa 1985, pp. 442-478.
16 Apart from writing poetry Moszyński also studied at the
Cracow Academy of Fine Arts in the studio of Józef
Mehoffer; cf. Wiktor Stoczkowski, Uczony - postać faustyczna, in: Szkice i próby etnologiczne, ”Studenckie
Zeszyty Naukowe UJ”, Kraków 1985; cf. also. XY,
Życiorys II, “Nauka Polska”, vol. 9, 1928.
17 Cf. S. S. Avierintsev, op. cit., p. 830; cf. Osip Mandelstam,
Słowo I kultura, Warszawa 1972.
18 K. Moszyński, op. cit., p. 15.
11
Zbigniew Benedyktowicz • THE SYMBOL IN ETHNOGRAPHY
ły, Wrocław 1992. On the symbol in ethnography: Zbigniew
Benedyktowicz, Stereotyp-obraz-symbol- o możliwościach
nowego spojrzenia na stereotyp, in: Zeszyty Naukowe
Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prace Etnograficzne, fasc.
24, 1988, pp. 7-35 and idem, Portrety ’obcego. Od stereotypu
dosymbolu, Kraków 2000. See also: Zbigniew Benedyktowicz,
Danuta Benedyktowicz, The Home - the Way of Being. The
Home in Folk Tradition, Częstochowa, 2009
33 Works by Jerzy Bartmiński are fundamentally important
for the interpretation of the symbol in ethnography. Cf.
Słownik stereotypów i symboli ludowych, conception and
ed. Jerzy Bartmiński, vice-editor Stanisława
Niebrzegowska, vol. 1. Cosmos, [part] 1, Niebo. Światła
niebieskie. Ogień. Kamienie, Lublin: Wydaw. UMCS
1996, 439 pp., part 2. Ziemia. Woda. Podziemie, Lublin:
Wydaw. UMCS 1999, 481 pp.
The authors invariably retained the specific methodology
of the description of the entry devised for Słownik...,
which reviewers regarded as an original and successful
solution. This fact was stressed after the publication of
fasc. 1 of Słownik... by Władysław Kupiszewski, Anna
Tatarkiewicz, Marian Pilot, Jacek Banaszkiewicz, and
Roch Sulima in a discusssion published in: “Regiony”
1997, no. 3, pp. 2-11; Czesław Hernas, Krzysztof
Wrocławski, Anna Dąbrowska, Jan Miodek, Jolanta
Ługowska, Roch Sulima, Iwona Smolka, and Piotr
Matywiecki in a discusssion published in: “Literatura
Ludowa” 1998, no. 6, pp. 51-71; Barbara Boniecka in:
“Twórczość Ludowa” 1997, no. 4, pp. 43-45; positive
assessments were formulated by foreign researchers:
Svetlana M. Tolstaya (in: “Zhivaja Starina”, Moskva
1997, no. 4, pp. 52-53), Alexei Yudin (“Slavynovedeniye”
1998, no. 5, pp. 98-100 and “Narodoznavchi Zoshiti”
1997, no. 6, pp. 400-403) and Kasanovic Bogdan
(“Slavistika” IV, Belgrade 2000, pp. 277-278). According
to Jerzy Bartmiński: It is based on a conception of “cognitive
definition” built of stereotype motifs arranged into uniform and
semantically cohesive sets resolving questions about the place
of the given entry (object) in the system of inner relations
(collections, oppositions), its appearance, origin, application,
etc. The principle of building entries in the Lublin Słownik is
the division of explication and documentation; in the latter,
contexts are grouped according to genres that can be discove
red also in traditional folklore. The purpose of thus created
entries is the reconstruction of particular fragments of the folk
image of the world seen by a carrier of traditional folk culture.
Work on Słownik... is being continued; starting with issue
no.1. 2007, the quarterly “Konteksty. Polska Sztuka
Ludowa”, published at the Institute of Art at the Polish
Academy of Art, proposes successively selected entries
prepared for consecutive volumes of Słownik... (cf. Jerzy
Bartmiński, Słownik stereotypów i symboli ludowych; Dorota
Piekarczyk, Joanna Szadura, [entry] Chaber; as well as
Czesław Robotycki, Przeciwko Kopalińskiemu w stronę
Bartmińskiego - o Słowniku stereotypów i symboli ludowych,
“Konteksty Polska Sztuka Ludowa” no. 1/2007).
12