3 Thoughts on a Lazy Day

A lonely squirrel

On carpet of autumn leaves

Latent dead and cold.

Sleeping on the floor

Cold winter in the city

A shivering child

Lazy summer day

I hear the Sunday prayer

Sleeping in the Church

Shakespeare in the Bush: Bohannan's view of cultural interpretations

Are all cultures basically same or can humans be so different that there is no point of comprehension among them? Perhaps Laura Bohannan’s essay Shakespeare in the Bush might be helpful to answer this intriguing question. The essay is an intriguing account of an experience of the author with the Tiv tribesmen of Nigeria which confirms that different sophisticated cultures can comprehend the stories of the other though their interpretations might be completely different.

Before the incident in the bush, Bohannan was convinced that there could be only one interpretation of a classic story like Hamlet. She refused to agree to a friend who believed that different cultures are prone to re and easily misinterpret universal by misinterpreting the particular. However once she started telling the story of Hamlet to the Tiv tribesmen, it was clear they had a completely different way of thinking and interpreting the story.

’While studying Hamlet in the West African bush where as anthropologist was studying the culture and beliefs of the Tiv, Bohannan was invited to drink beer and share a story with a small group of elders of a homestead. Convinced that there could only be one interpretation of the classic tragedy, Bohannan started telling the story by changing the characters and settings so that the Tiv could more relate to it. The kingdom of Denmark became a homestead and the king became a chief. Horatio became a man “who knew things”, and the school mates became the “age mates”.

Despite all these modifications, the cognition of the story was completely altered by the interpretation of the culturally unique listeners. Throughout her narration she was continuously interrupted by the elders who interpreted the story in terms of the prejudices and traditions which their cultural upbringing projected unconsciously. Hamlet, considered by the Hellenistic world as a classic example of confused heroism, is refuted and its themes questioned by the Tiv.

The essay shows how some thing which might be considered unaccepted in one culture might be the norm in the other. Tiv found nothing wrong in Claudius marrying his dead brother’s wife. Whereas in the west, where individualism is prioritized and avenging father’s murder is considered sole responsibility of the hero, Tiv who give more priority to the group than the individual consider it the matter of the elders of the society to decide how to punish the criminal. Another interesting example is how the Tiv find nothing wrong in Hamlet, as a future chief, marrying Ophelia, for the west the complex nature of marrying an authority was obvious.

However, there were points of similarities as well. Tivs like a modern western reader, seem to alternate in their conclusions on the matter of Hamlet’s heroism. On occasion they think Hamlet to be crude and villainous. They find it unacceptable of him to brew hatred for his new father. For them Hamlet’s mother marrying so “quick” was natural, and the two-year-mourning was too long. However, as the story of the play progresses, their disdain for the character seems to lessen and they decide that he is not as bad as they initially believed, but that he has instead been afflicted with some form of madness.

The Tiv also sometimes show astute thinking while interpreting the story. Near the end of the story, the poison, they argue was not for the consumption by the Hamlet in case he won, but for the consumption by whoever the winner is. This appears logically possible, and makes Bohanan ponder at this very plausible interpretation.

It is very interesting to note that their radical interpretation does not mean that the Tiv are in any way inferior to the English culture, and they have no caliber to understand the events. They find the story full of flaws, but they agree that the story was very good indeed. Bohannan is told several times to check with her elders at home to get the real meaning of Hamlet. They feel that she probably misunderstood the essence of the story. They even at a point tell that they found the story very relatable. “I told you that if we knew more about Europeans, we would find they really were very like us”, one of the elder says during the course of the event. The interpretation is different only because the Tiv due to the simple nature of their culture comprehend the story set in a complex and power hungry society in a radically different way.

This is not to mean that the Tiv are the paradigm of idealism, and they have no jealousy, war, reveng and selfishness that contaminates our society. They still can relate to the fact that Hamlet feared to tell what he heard to the elders probably because the chief was too powerful for the elders to judge without prejudice. They even acknowledge the criminal’s tendency to erase all the proofs as evidenced by their suggestion that the King would kill whoever wins between Laertus and Hamlet by poisoning him.

The essay also shades light on some interesting beliefs and culture of the Tiv. The Tiv like the people of medieval England, believe in witches and sorcery. But they do not believe in afterlife and reject the suggestion that dead could speak. They believe that mental diseases are caused by the witchcraft, and that the mad men are not accountable for the crimes they do. This idea of unaccountability is very much similar to the modern idea of insanity. Their chief usually has many wives, but this is not because of lack of morality in their society, but because of the necessity of the chief to have a large working force to feed people of his homestead. One interesting aspect of their politics is that they believe that a good chief gives much more to his people than take from him, and therefore they hate the western concept of taxation. Contrary to the assumption of many people in the west, these simple people have complex social and political theories and hierarchy.

Of course all these uniqueness of their culture impacted in the way they interpreted story. The essay makes a good point that often what are generally thought of as universal truths are nothing more than a variable perspective of the observer’s psychology. Bohannan finally realized that different cultures are prone to and easily misinterpret universal by misinterpreting the particular. However their misinterpretations can not be rejected as wrong, but can be equally right in their own ways.