Anthropology
Jon Ferguson's The Anthropologist
Review
M.C. Gardner
Jon Ferguson’s The Anthropologist is splendid anthropology
and a masterful follow
up to Farley’s Jewel. In Jewel Ferguson’s Professor Larry
Farley was in search of Being. More prosaically, Ferguson’s Anthropologist,
Professor Leonard Fuller is in search of Leonard Fuller:
He wants to go back to the beginning, to the first moment
Leonard Fuller remembers being Leonard Fuller... He doesn’t know what it
was. Was it a what or was it a when? Do all whens become whats
as soon as the moment passes? Are there no whens? Is temporality one of man’s
lamer inventions? Is When I was a kid always What I remember about
being a kid?
Farley, Fuller, and Ferguson are aging 'boomers.' They
are each aware of their palpable decline and have the good sense not to morn
their losses:
Fuller noticed that eye contact and age were inversely
proportional: the older you became the less people looked at you... He knew
his body was no longer appetizing.... he was certain, couldn’t stand up to
other bodies she could find on the market. He was old meat; the expiation
date on his label had expired...
As does the author, Fuller enjoys music:
He has a shelf full of records that he bought during and
shortly after his college years and since he has been living alone they
are his principal company. As he puts it, "I have a shit load of
great friends and they only talk when I want to listen."
Fuller lost his 2nd wife in traffic accident:
They, wife and minivan, hit a tree - a tree hit them - one
night while they were coming home from her aerobics class. A patch of ice
was deemed responsible for bringing the three together. So the police
said, anyway. Fuller had been devastated at the moment, but later realized
that maybe people over fifty are better off living alone.
With his first wife he sired twin daughters. She left him for
a psychiatrist with whom she had an affair.
Fuller couldn’t have been happier. His wife had
somebody to talk to and the psychiatrist had somebody to screw. Every now
and then it was the other way around. So Dolores said anyway.
Leonard Fuller is reminiscent of Joseph Heller’s Bob
Slocum. Both regard their lives and the world through an ironic glass, darkly.
The Anthropologist is Ferguson’s 2nd novel in English.
Something Happened was Heller’s long awaited follow up to Catch 22.
Slocum and Fuller are at times painfully cynical--but never less than acutely
honest:
Everything’s already been said, but since nobody
listens, it doesn’t hurt to repeat things from time to time...
Fuller’s Anthropology is his minor hope for his students.
In the very least he might make one or two question the unquestioned
superiority of their own culture:
the only way Americans would stop thinking they were
the center of the universe was by showing them from a very small age that
their culture and values were but one possibility in a vast multi-colored
world.
Beyond this he knows that teaching is a fool’s errand. He
is happy to award an A+ to any student who has the temerity to simply complete
his assignments. Teaching is not the challenge it once was. Looking for
engagement of any type he discovers something between his sheets that ought
not to be there...
He smelled nothing unusual but he did find a strange
foot-long reddish-brown hair near the pillow on the side of the bed he
didn’t sleep on.... He hadn’t had anybody in that bed for months. And
the last person, Sarah Fletcher, a student from years before who was now a
divorced graduate assistant, had short blond locks.
The anthropologist Leonard Fuller now becomes Detective
Leonard Fuller. His secretary, Sharon Juppit becomes his Dr. Watson or
perhaps, "his girl Friday." The mystery of the mysterious red head
and her adventures in Fuller’s bed provides the first of two narrative
threads that wind their way through the maze of the Anthropologist’s many
musings.
Sharon is the most likable character in the book and
grounds the ethereal Fuller to the terra firm of the campus quad.
She was sixty-four years old, weighed way more than a
tenth of a ton, looked to be descended from every shade of chimpanzee (as
Fuller once said to her when she asked him what to put down on an
application form under RACE, "Look Sharon, figure it this way: your
mother and father each had two parents who each had two parents who each
had two parents...and we’re only back to 1850. Try going back about
ninety million years - and that’s a low number. Good luck on trying to
figure out what race you are.... After Sharon had worked in the the
Anthropology Department for a few years, Fuller asked:
"So Sharon, who’s the finest professor on
campus?"
"You are."
"Why’s that?"
"Because you’re the only one who knows how full
of shit he is.")
That knowledge frees Fuller to occasionally celebrate the
heroes of his chosen discipline:
Mircea Eliade was a wonderful man... I had the pleasure
of taking a class from him in Chicago before he retired... He says we all
have things that are sacred to us and other things that are profane, that
is, that are not sacred. What is sacred for one person can be profane for
another and vice versa. What is sacred for one culture is profane for
another... For some of you, it might be the label on your jeans. The ‘Tommy
Whatever-his-name-is" brand might be the only one you’ll wear. Or
maybe it’s Calvin Klein or Reebok or Nike. In any case, those jeans have
special meaning to you. Not only the jeans, but how you wear them - low,
below your underpants. Maybe your underpants are sacred too. You know
something is sacred for you if you wonder where you’d be without it.
Without your jeans would your self-image suffer? Would you feel you were a
lost sheep? Would you feel less than whole...
So what does all this mean... to be human is to have a
sacred side. Eliade found it everywhere he looked. To understand this is
to begin to understand other cultures and other civilizations. Look at
what is sacred. Respect it. Don’t think only your culture is special....
People will give their lives when what is sacred to
them is being threatened. Just look at the Middle East today. Look at all
religious conflicts. Maybe if politicians understood what Eliade was
saying, they would approach conflicts differently. Maybe they’d get to
the real reason people tie dynamite around their waists...
Then as a grace note to the futility of his efforts he
adds:
I suggest you all read Eliade’s book. It’s on your
semester reading list. It’s short. And like I said, he didn’t
complicate things. Next week we’ll have a look at Edmund Leach. Any
questions?"
No questions.
His instruction to his daughters was delivered with as much
dispassion:
They had no religious upbringing other than Fuller’s
stories about what people believe all over the world. They got tastes of
Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Shinto, Navajo,
shamanism, Unitarianism, Darwinism, Marxism, Nietzschism, Capitalism, Walt
Disneyism, and a few glimpses at local African and Polynesian metaphysical
inklings. Fuller laid a few samples out on the table and neither girl
wanted the whole meal.
The 2nd narrative strand concerns one of his secretary’s
sons. Fuller confesses his egoism for never asking after him and then asks
after him:
"Not bad. The kid that was in jail is out now on
good behavior.
He’s back in Albuquerque with his girlfriend."
"Which one was that?"
"Rufus, the oldest."
"How could one of your kids end up in jail?"
"You’re the anthropologist..."
"As long as he’s not robbing liquor stores..."
"The problem is, the rap stars don’t need to rob
the liquor stores, but kids like my son do so they can wear the white hats
and fur coats, drive the shiny cars, catch the fast women... make that
shiny women and fast cars. I don’t hear any politicians talking about
that."
The red hair and delinquent son are two pegs on which
Ferguson hangs his plot. But the plot is not the point. Early in the novel he
contemplates the use of memory. His girl friend had suggested that fish have a
four second memory. A fish bowl is less boring for a fish if after four
seconds it always appears new.
We all only remember what we remember. No matter who we
are we don’t remember what we have forgotten.
In Farley’s Jewel, Ferguson had linguistically
experimented with consciousness by invoking his mother’s Alzheimer’s. In The
Anthropologist he plays with the instinctual similarities between man and
fish:
But fish are born knowing how to swim. They have a
memory that goes back to...back to...back to...just like we do...an
instinctual memory...how to suck...how to chew...how to swallow...how to
defecate...and then the cultural memory...the symbol...the flag...the
word...the Tommy Hilfucker jeans...the star...the cross...the stop
sign...the bowed head...blood...the Super Bowl...the Rose Bowl...the fish
bowl...values...birth rituals...baptismals...school...mating
rituals...death rituals...the collective memory that says this is sacred
and that is profane.
And then, as if to belie the relativity of Eliade’s
dichotomy, Ferguson gives us a hint of his own feeling of the sacred in two
beautiful meditations:
Is the four second memory a guarantee against suicide?
If you forget everything after four seconds is there never enough time to
decide that life is no longer worth living? Does a goldfish ever
knowingly, willingly, leap out of its bowl...her bowl...his bowl...to put
an end to this swimming, eating, defecating party? For it is a party to
which no one is invited but everyone comes. Everyone we know of, that is.
Leaving the party is another story. Hemingway wasn’t invited but he knew
when to leave. With a four second memory he no doubt would have kept
swimming up and down the cool rippled stream. But he remembered what it
was like when he had whatever he knew he would never have again. Or maybe
he didn’t want it anymore. Maybe he no longer wanted what he remembered
having and could think of nothing new worth having. Maybe he had pain.
Maybe the only new thing was pain and the memory of painlessness was such
that pain had to go and the only way of kissing it goodbye was blowing the
brains around the riverbank in Ketchem.
This first meditation on the author of For Whom the Bell
Tolls is the precursor of a second which I believe to be the heart
of The Anthropologist. The Hemingway title is taken, of course, from
Donne’s famous poem. We all know for whom the bell tolls. It is at the
bell's behest that we discover the common ground of our humanity At this
juncture in the book Ferguson introduces us to a campus gardener, Juan José
Carlos Rodriguez. Fuller often speaks to him on his way to and from class.
"I had intended to talk to you today about Edmund
Leach, the famous English anthropologist... But as I was walking to campus
this morning, I decided to talk about somebody else who, contrary to
Leach, is never discussed in academic circles. His name is Juan José
Carlos Rodriguez. He is a gardener here on campus. Yesterday he was
planting pansies along the walkway outside the building you’re sitting
in. I decided to talk about him instead of Sir Edmund Leach because he has
been more of an influence on my thinking than Leach has. I don’t say
this to diminish the importance of Leach, but to amplify the life of Juan
José Carlos Rodriguez.
This is the beginning of the 'Rodriquez Mediation.' It
appears at the beginning of chapter eight approximately midway through the
book. Fuller will employ Rodriguez in the denouement of the mystery of the red
hair in the book's final pages. That denouement is a delightfully absurdist
conclusion to a fine novel. I will leave it to the reader to discover it and
the second half of the book on his own. It is as abundantly rich as the first
and concerns itself with second narrative strand to which I earlier alluded. The 'Rodriquez Mediation' takes up the whole
of chapter eight and is among the finest half dozen pages that the author has
penned. Initially it is simply one man’s story. But no matter how simple the man no
man’s story is simple. Rodriguez’s story is one of tragedy and
strength--it is a tale of the earth by a tender of the soil. Fuller narrates
it as it was narrated to him some twenty years before. Its force and
loveliness is one not diminished by time. In these xenophobic days it is
always useful to remember that the enemy at our gate is also our neighbor. I
can think of no finer encomium than concluding with Ferguson’s own prose at
the conclusion to this pivotal chapter of a most remarkable novel.
The first reason I tell you about Juan José is to get
you to respect the campus gardeners, most of whom have similar stories.
When I was your age, a gardener was an invisible man. He was ‘a gardener’
and nothing more. He had no life attached to his gardening. I saw him
outside of time like one sees the desk one is sitting at or the hamburger
one eats at McDonald’s. One does not see or feel the tree that was
chopped and the logger that chopped it and the factory workers that cut
the wood or the designer who designed the desk and so on. One does not see
the cow that was slaughtered to make the meat patty or the tomatoes that
were harvested for the ketchup or the wheat that waved in the field to
make the flour for the burger bun or the workers who picked the tomatoes
or swept the floor in the bun factory. Every person you see and each thing
you touch has a history, an infinitely complicated and unfathomable
history. No one asked to be born in Juarez, Mexico into dirt poverty. No
one asks to be born who they are and where they are born and into
the circumstances they are born into. Nobody, not queens, not presidents,
not ditch diggers, not priests, not prostitutes, not pretzel makers, not
professors. Every creature on the face of the earth has their own story to
tell. I ask you to respect that story. You don’t have to agree with it
or like it, but at least respect it and understand its complexity.
The second reason I have told you about Juan José
Carlos Rodriguez is so that when you study social sciences you should
never forget that you are dealing with real people. Every statistic is
made up of real people. Every cultural tradition is practiced by real
people. Every belief is believed by real people. Every god that is talked
about and every moral notion that is plastered on the planet comes out of
the mouth of a human being. Every pair of shoes that are made, every meal
that is cooked, every house that is built, every war that is fought, every
kiss, every murder, every smile, every fart, every book that is written,
every film that is made, every song that is sung, all this comes from
people.
And now, what are people? What is a person?
Anthropology is supposed to be the study of man, but what is a man? I ask
you to respect man. I ask you to remember that the social sciences are
about real human beings. But what are real human beings? Do I know? Do you
know? Does a doctor know? Does a physicist know? Does an astronomer know?
Does a biologist know? Does a chemist know? Does a priest know? Does the
Pope know? Does a policeman know? Does a judge know? Does a psychiatrist
know? A university president? A mother? A father? A senator? A terrorist?
A drug dealer? A rap singer? An opera singer? Bob Dylan? Jennifer Lopez?
Prince? Madonna? Michael Jackson? Michael Jordan? Bill Clinton? Dan
Rather? Jay Leno? God? The Devil? The anthropologist? Edmund Leach? Juan
José Carlos Rodriguez? Does anybody know what a human being really is?
My best guess is no. No, nobody really knows what a
human being is.
Why do I guess no? Because if I can teach you one
thing, if I can get you to think about one thing, it is to step back and
try to get a perspective on everything you believe, every moral value you
espouse (including the label on your jeans), everything you consider
important and true, every goal you give to yourself and the world. Ask
yourself where your ideas come from. Ask yourself why you believe what you
believe. Look around you and what do you see? If you open your eyes you
will see a lot of sheep with a lot of different colored fur. You will see
American sheep. You will see French sheep. You will see Catholic sheep.
You will see Jewish sheep. You will see leftist sheep, right wing sheep,
Christian sheep, Islamic sheep, Buddhist sheep, atheistic sheep. You will
see herbal healing sheep, sports sheep, cinematographic sheep. You will
see journalistic sheep, literary sheep, television sheep, fashion
sheep...and bhhaaa, bhhaaa, bhaaaa.
So what does this tell you? What does it tell you about
human beings? What does it tell you about ANTHRO-pology? What answers does
it give you? Does man have a soul as most religions would have us believe?
Is man a materialistic machine as most scientists would have us believe?
Is the truth somewhere in between as many compromisers would have us
believe? Or is the truth somewhere way, way, outside? Has this dichotomy
got it all wrong? Maybe there is neither soul nor matter. Maybe man is
something very other.
And did man evolve? But evolution implies evolution
toward something. Who can prove that man or the world or the universe is
evolving toward something? And why is man the measure? Why does man judge
everything from HIS point of view?
Do you know why? Because what the hell else can he do?
So when he judges his own knowledge and intelligence it is always he who
sets the rules. Maybe this is why he needs gods. To tell him if he is
right or wrong. But if they are his gods he is right back where he started
from, looking at himself in the mirror and babbling about men being this
and men being that.
So when you walk out the door today look for a
gardener. When you find one, you will see a man, a deep man, deeper than
you or I will ever know.
Then look for the sheep, the colorful various sheep.
Which color are you? Or are you a horse? Or a wild animal?
Thank you for attention. See you next week."
|