I was wondering how Dr. Saito viewed anthropocentric myths where the gods created things for human beings rather than in themselves so I emailed her at Rhode Island School of Design. Here's her response:
"Good question! My view will be the paragraph before the conclusion section where I want to distinguish between those creation narratives which do not attend to the specific features of natural objects and landscapes and those which do, as bioregional narratives. The Judeo-Christian account will be the former where the narrative covers nature as a whole (created by God for the benefit for humans) which does not help explain why this particular mountain is the way it is or why a particular animal looks and behaves in a certain way. Nor is its anthropocentric framework informed by the specific features of natural objects and landscapes. It seems to me that such a narrative kind of has an overarching scheme to begin with, rather than a narrative created based upon close and careful observations of specific aspects of nature (which in the olden times would have to be confined to what their eyes and ears can sense, hence local). I have not studied Native American stories, so I can't give a fair response, but, perhaps in addition to a large creation story like the one you mention, my understanding is that there are also region-specific stories that are associated with specific landscape, weather condition, fauna and flora. Sometimes the naming of a place reflects their understanding of the specific feature of the land (e.g., where the river forks into two directions, etc.). So, my view is that the more the story is based upon observation of specific features of the objects and landscapes the more appropriate the appreciation is. I think it's more a matter of degree than clear distinction."
I'm not sure this answers my question as she seems to take a more regional vs. universal perspective than a "for human use" vs. "in itself" perspective. It appears Dr. Saito's largest distinction is whether close observation was involved.
It was interesting to hear her response though.
(Blog 5)
I think it's cool that you actually got a response to your question from her. I agree that she didn't quite pinpoint exactly what you were asking for, but maybe it's her way of saying that it's all based on your own views or personal perception. Sounds like your questions about her article are deep enough that you could write a response to it.
ReplyDeleteA fascinating exchange. Very kind of Professor Saito to respond in such detail. It might be interesting to look at some specific myths/legends in light of this discussion. I agree with Adriana that you could probably turn this into a paper/article. Nice work!
ReplyDelete