Shakespeare in the Bush: When Universal Stories Aren’t Universal
Using Lavenda and Schultz’s Anthropology: What Does It Mean to Be Human?, this 2021 Introduction to Anthropology lecture reads Laura Bohannan’s “Shakespeare in the Bush” as a bridge between two ideas: what fieldwork actually involves, and how language shapes thought. Bohannan’s encounter with the Tiv of West Africa becomes a case study in why translation is never just word-swapping — a point that carries directly into the next class on language. For the full concept treatment, see the canonical Teaching Shakespeare in the Bush.
Key Concepts: Universal Stories and Conceptual Translation
- “Universal” stories aren’t universal. Bohannan sets out convinced that “human nature is pretty much the same the whole world over” and that Shakespeare will translate; the Tiv reading dismantles that assumption point by point.
- The universal and the particular. Her English colleague warns that Shakespeare “was a very English poet, and one can easily misinterpret the universal by misunderstanding the particular” — the field test of two opposing claims.
- Translation is conceptual, not lexical. The Tiv reaction to Hamlet’s ghost is not a missing word but a missing concept — where Bohannan worked, no individual personality survives death — so the whole apparatus of the play has to be re-argued.
- Fieldwork in the classic period. Bohannan, American but trained at Oxford, worked closer to the British model; the article is a window onto how mid-century ethnographic fieldwork actually unfolded.
- The levirate reframes the plot. A widow marrying her late husband’s brother is, for the Tiv, the right thing to do — dissolving Hamlet’s outrage at his mother’s remarriage.
- Revenge belongs to the age-mates. A son avenging his father is not his to undertake; that responsibility falls to the father’s generation, so Hamlet’s central dilemma evaporates.
- Mutual ethnocentrism. The elders hand Bohannan’s own opening premise back to her — “people are the same everywhere” — and offer to teach her the “true meaning” of her stories.
- What we do share. Storytelling, symbolic meaning-making, and moral frameworks appear everywhere — even as the content of those moral codes can be nearly opposite from one society to the next.
📖 Book: Anthropology: What Does It Mean to Be Human? (Commissions earned)
Previous: Cultivating Reflexivity | Next: Language & Raciolinguistics
The Setup: A Debate About Shakespeare’s Universality
Laura Bohannan, an American anthropologist whose post-college training was at Oxford, entered the field with a firm belief: “Human nature is pretty much the same the whole world over.” She argued with a British colleague that Shakespeare’s genius was universally interpretable — that the plot of Hamlet would carry anywhere as long as she translated some of the details. Her colleague countered that Shakespeare “was a very English poet, and one can easily misinterpret the universal by misunderstanding the particular.” He gave her a copy of Hamlet, and she left for the Tiv essentially to test which of them was right.
When Hamlet Meets the Tiv: Four Major Disconnects
- Ghosts don’t exist — Where Bohannan worked, the Tiv held no concept of an individual personality surviving death. This is conceptual absence, not mere disbelief; the apparition had to be explained through witchcraft or omens.
- Quick remarriage is good — The Tiv approved of the widow marrying her late husband’s brother. In the levirate tradition, that is the proper thing to do, keeping the family and inheritance intact.
- Kings need many wives — Why would a chief or king have only one wife? Multiple wives were necessary to run a royal household and keep up the labor.
- Sons don’t avenge fathers — Hamlet had no standing to seek revenge. That was the responsibility of his father’s age-mates, not the next generation.
The Twist: Mutual Ethnocentrism
As Bohannan reeled from these interpretive differences, the Tiv elders made a familiar claim: “We believe you when you say your marriage customs are different, or your clothes and weapons. But people are the same everywhere.” That was Bohannan’s own opening premise, handed back to her. They then offered to help her understand the “true meaning” of her stories — claiming exactly the interpretive authority she had assumed when she began. Both sides, in their own way, held an ethnocentric view.
Beyond Translation: When Concepts Don’t Map
This is where the lecture turns toward language. Translation is often imagined as simple substitution — table for mesa, chair for silla — as though there were a single world out there that we merely label with different words. The Tiv ghost problem shows otherwise: they don’t just lack a word, they organize reality differently. Language shapes not only how we describe the world but how we perceive and arrange it. That is the thread the course picks up in the next class on language.
What We Do Share
Despite these differences, the article also reveals what is common across societies. People everywhere tell and interpret stories — humans are meaning-making creatures who can’t help but read symbolic associations into the world, seeing faces in a piece of toast. Every society has moral frameworks, a sense of right and wrong. The catch is that the content of those frameworks can be nearly reversed: the very act one society calls good, another calls unthinkable.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is “Shakespeare in the Bush” about?
Laura Bohannan’s article recounts her attempt to tell the story of Hamlet to Tiv elders in West Africa. Convinced that Shakespeare is universal, she instead finds the elders reinterpreting the plot through their own understanding of ghosts, marriage, and revenge, and insisting on their own reading as the correct one.
Why does Bohannan think Shakespeare is universal?
She begins from the premise that “human nature is pretty much the same the whole world over” — a common American way of treating Shakespeare as a universal poet whose meaning holds everywhere. Her English colleague’s counter-position, that one can misinterpret the universal by misunderstanding the particular, sets up the field test the article carries out.
Why can’t the Tiv accept Hamlet’s ghost?
The obstacle is conceptual rather than linguistic. Where Bohannan worked, the Tiv did not hold the idea of a dead individual returning as a personality, so the apparition had to be explained as witchcraft or an omen. Having a word is not the same as having the concept behind it.
What does the article teach about translation and language?
It shows that translation is not one-to-one word substitution. Different languages and cultures arrange reality differently, so a concept like “ghost” has no ready equivalent — which is why the lecture uses the article to move from fieldwork into the study of language and thought.
What do all societies share, according to the lecture?
Storytelling, symbolic meaning-making, and the presence of moral frameworks are common to every society. What varies — sometimes to the point of reversal — is the content of those frameworks: what counts as the right thing to do.
Related Universal Stories Resources
- Teaching Shakespeare in the Bush — the concept canonical, with all videos and perspectives
- The original article — free from Natural History Magazine
- Cross-Cultural Understanding Hub — related materials