Zuni World View, on the Beautiful and the Dangerous

In Signs from the Ancestors, a study of Zuni cultural symbolism and perceptions in rock art, M. Jane Young cites the "dialectics of the beautiful and the dangerous" noted by Barbara Tedlock[1] and states that "Tedlock posits an underlying aesthetic framework that informs cosmology, whereas I posit an underlying cosmological principle that informs aesthetics"[2].  From the perspective of this paper and its conclusions it would appear that Young is perhaps partially correct in her ascertainment although the confluence of the two principles makes it difficult to discern logical priority in either the beautiful (tso'ya) or the dangerous (attanni), for the multireferential finds manifestation of beauty in the "aesthetic of accumulation, an elaborate redundancy of symbolism in Zuni sacred and secular environments"[3] and informs cosmological principles of the preconditions of the rational, while aesthetic license premises pragmatics where proper interpretation of context ensures that rational thought of the "perspective-taker" attains objectivity as a "personal accomplishment" in the success of "reciprocal public intentions".[4] This is because the principle of the "base metaphor" cited by Young is inclusive of a body of conceptual presuppositions which include the notion of an interrelatedness of all things, which is seen here as a cosmological precept akin to notions of identity and individuation, and the notion of a predetermined harmony as indicative of the aesthetic.  Young notes that the "very generality of the metaphor lends its ambiguity--an ambiguity quite characteristic of the Zuni view of the world.  Zuni ritual symbols, whether expressed verbally or visually, are frequently multivalent or multireferential, standing for both themselves and something else at the same time; yet all of the meanings are bound together, so that the Zunis say, as do the Mescalero Apache: "They're all the same thing" "[5].

The implications and ambiguity of the base metaphor are immediately evident.  If all things are the same then what constitutes an identity and how are names used to refer to specific things or images?  Ambiguity is a consequence of the very tentativeness of life itself as perceived by an agriculturally based community situated in a desert environment; as ambiguous as the timing of the next planting season, crop yield, and rainfall.  While it may be seen as a method of increasing well-being[6] most ritual is directed toward a perpetuation of the status quo, i.e. the rising of the morning sun or the repetition of the turn of the sun at the winter's solstice.  Sameness as things standing for themselves is a prerequisite to success in ritual logic and there can be no tolerance for deviance, especially in utterance.  As Redfield noted, "memorizers and depositors" of tradition may fulfill the role of preserving tradition, but this is not the concept of a thinker in the sense of building upon basic principles leading to variant conclusions[7].  Anthropologists have noted the mechanistic tendency of most aspects of Zuni ceremonialism and that prayer must be "repeated verbatim to be effectual"[8].  "The efficacy of prayer depends in no small measure on its correct rendition" and "is more nearly a repetition of magical formulae"[9].

In this it appears that an effective rendering of a prayer in ritual would be dependent upon a specificity between words and images where a name must adequately show the identity of that which it is naming, that is, the same name usage is imperative as a reliable identifier and if the name is to refer to something else at the same time then that image must, a propos, display the same relation with a reliable identifier (name).  Thus, it would seem that the individuating function is objectively well defined.  As Bunzel also notes elaboration is allowed in individual prayer, but in regard to the common good the "ceremonious collectivism that characterizes social activities is the essence of religious participation" and the "supernatural conceived always as a collectivity" is "approved by the collective force of the people"[10].

Young notes interpretations that reflect individual interests related to "diverse artistic pursuits" and a "strong thread of individualism" as "idiosyncratic interpretation" in the categorization of visual images[11].  The results of a card sorting experiment showed "that certain visual images evoked similar and sometimes formulaic responses"[12] while some were categorized as "images that go on pottery" or as images "that seem to go together"[13] and concluded that while the "Zunis may recognize designs on pottery, religious paraphernalia, or rock art, they have no culturally consistent terminology to apply to such designs-there may be no tradition of naming these designs"[14].

Bunzel in contrast noted, "At Zuni, where the style is generally uniform, individual differences are shown mainly in the mastery of technique"[15] in the more professional artisans but was "unable to find any noticeable difference in style"[16].  While Bunzel did find design names that evoked an image such as the "deer", most design names could not evoke an image.  From this she concluded that there is no design terminology at Zuni.  Bunzel also pursued this to the point of stating that the lack of linguistic designation would indicate that the image was experienced as sensual rather than intellectually and that an experience for which there is not a linguistic expression cannot be the object of rational thought[17].  Bunzel states that the importance the Zuni attach to the purely aesthetic aspects of pottery design is greater than assumed[18].  Principles of design are clearly recognized, for religious ideas are clearly associated with designs, but this does not strengthen the intellectual aspect at the "expense of the more purely aesthetic"[19].  In this remark in is evident that aesthetics informs Zuni cosmology but it also displays tentativeness on Bunzel's behalf to relegate the phenomenon to the rational.

Young reiterates religious associations in regard to the analysis of "clusters" (image groupings by individuals) which displayed an "inclination to relate rock art to the important concerns of daily life"[20] and to the "various facets of their religious practice and/or to the myths describing the emergence of the Zuni people into this world"[21], but Young also indicated the rational aspect of a polemic relation between the "strictly memorized texts of ritual prayers" and the identification of rock art images characterized by "the organization of diversity"[22].  Examples of organization is where human figures were grouped according to form (round, stick, etc.) but were included in the unknown groupings, while known images were grouped by their content[23].  Here Young is positing a formal, conceptual basis of presuppositions that appears to inform individual interpretation where referential distinction is made in relation to function yet inhibited in regard to specific terms.

                                                                                                                         Next Page>>>

Notes