Marxist Approaches in Anthropology
Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 4: 341-370 (Volume publication date October 1975)
B O’Laughlin
In lieu of an abstract, the publisher reproduces the first page of the article. (Link)

Letters to my Tutor…

Dearest Simone,

I may have just become a bit of a Bridget O’Laughlin groupie.  Her writing is so well-structured.  She gives clear definitions of terms, both directly and in context.  She writes such beautiful paragraphs that I couldn’t stop myself from taking notes.  I’m still working my way through the article.  I imagine that I will rework my notes in the background as I continue to read other articles.

As I read I am trying to decipher when, where, how certain Marxist-type thinking worked its way into my mind.  I feel my thinking is most Marx-like when I’m focused on day-to-day living, the things that I encounter as a person going through the world.  When I’m on that level where I read the newspaper or political commentary as though they were talking about real things about world, that’s the part of my thought that seems to be the most Marx-influenced.  When I’m thinking more about how the mind works and the nature of thought and the nature of existence, it seems my influences aren’t very Marx-like.

When O’Laughlin writes about Marxist views on individualism, I recognize a type of thinking that came to me by way of having read Eastern philosophies (particularly Advaita Vedanta) and American Transcendentalists at a very young age:

…people can individuate themselves only in society, and each individual is determined by a particular set of social relations. Society
cannot be understood as a population or aggregate of individuals, but only as a totality of social relations.

There’s not necessarily an exact correlation with the philosophies that I’ve read, but there is certainly a similar type of thinking about individualism.  The emphasis is on the whole, on the unity, on the Oversoul–individualism is an illusory construct best used to explore how our interactions with others can be a path to illuminating that we are actually one with the other.  I remember thinking as a teenager that rampant individualism in Western culture was having a destructive influence on the general understanding about the nature of the world and the nature of the relationship between people.

I believe that O’Lauglin’s article is one to be read slowly and savored.  And that’s not to say that the same isn’t true for other articles that I’ve read.  I just really love her writing.  Did I say that already?  Also, I feel that my ability to take good notes is coming back to me.

Many thanks for your kindness and attention,
S.

No related posts.