Les histoires et l’art de les raconter:
L'évolution de la narration
“What is it about stories—what are their particularities—that enables them to work as they do? More than mere curiosity is at stake in this question, because human life depends on the stories we tell: the sense of self that those stories impart, the relationships constructed around shared stories, and the sense of purpose that stories both propose and foreclose.” —Arthur Frank, Letting Stories Breathe
Idries Shah remains one of the foremost contemporary authorities on stories, their function, value and dissemination. In 1979 he published a remarkable volume of 65 stories, entitled World Tales. These were collected from around the world—some from ancient sources, others from contemporary ones. Yet they all shared one common factor: each tale could be found in varying forms within the same framework across disparate cultures that appeared to have no connection with one another.
Dans son introduction à cette collection, il pose la question suivante : « Comment se fait-il que l'on retrouve la même histoire en Écosse et en Amérique précolombienne ? L'histoire d'Aladin et de sa lampe merveilleuse a-t-elle vraiment été transportée du Pays de Galles (où elle a été trouvée) vers l'Orient à une époque ancienne et, dans l'affirmative, par qui et quand ? »
Les histoires, dit-il, sont :
…form of culture that remains when nations, languages and faiths have long since died. There is an almost uncanny persistence and durability in the tale which cannot be accounted for in the present state of knowledge. Not only does it constantly appear in different incarnations which can be mapped—as the Tar-Baby story carried from Africa to America, and medieval Arabian stories from the Saracens in Sicily to the Italy of today—but, from time to time, remarkable collections are assembled and enjoy a phenomenal vogue: after which they lapse and are reborn, perhaps in another culture, perhaps centuries later: to delight, attract, thrill, captivate yet another audience.
Such was the great Panchatantra, the Far Eastern collection of tales for the education of Indian princes; the Jataka Buddhist birth-stories believed to date back two and a half thousand years; the Thousand and One Nights, known as “The Mother of Tales.” Later came the collections of Straparola, Boccaccio, Chaucer and Shakespeare, and a dozen others which now form the very basis of the classical literature of Europe and Asia.
En guise de conclusion :
…there is a certain basic fund of human fictions which recur, again and again, and never seem to lose their compelling attraction. Many traditional tales have a surface meaning (perhaps just a socially uplifting one) and a secondary, inner significance, which is rarely glimpsed consciously, but which nevertheless acts powerfully upon our minds.
Working for 35 years among the written and oral sources of our world heritage in tales, one feels a truly living element in them which is startlingly evident when one isolates the “basic” stories: the ones which tend to have travelled farthest, to have featured in the largest number of classical collections, to have inspired great writers of the past and present.
C'est dans cet esprit que nous allons nous pencher sur certaines des histoires que nous avons abordées dans notre exploration du voyage humain, et sur ce qui les a motivées.
How Did We Come to Tell Stories?
“The human mind is a story processor, not a logic processor.” Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
Pour comprendre d'où viennent les histoires, il faut remonter à au moins 500 000 ans avant notre ère, bien avant la naissance de notre espèce, l'Homo sapiens sapiens, qui a évolué en Afrique il y a environ 300 000 ans. Homo sapiens sapiens, which evolved in Africa around 300,000 years ago.
Notre ancêtre Homo erectus est apparu il y a environ 1,5 million d'années. Comme son nom l'indique, il a été le premier hominidé à marcher debout, laissant les bras et les mains libres non seulement pour fabriquer et porter des outils, mais aussi, et c'est important dans ce contexte, pour faire des gestes. Nous savons que les premières représentations portables de la forme humaine ont été créées par H. Erectus. Il a été suggéré qu'une petite figurine en quartzite du Maroc, connue sous le nom de Tan-Tan, datant d'il y a entre 500 000 et 300 000 ans et dont la forme est au moins à 99 % d’origine, pourrait bien avoir été sauvegardée par nos ancêtres hominidés. Grâce à la naissance d’une forme de conscience de soi, ils ont pu y reconnaître la forme d'une femme. L’on peut imaginer qu'elle était donc très probablement imprégnée d'une signification magique ou religieuse. Bien que presque totalement naturel, un minuscule morceau de roche volcanique connu sous le nom de Vénus de Berekhat Ram, découvert sur les hauteurs du Golan en Israël, a été délibérément modifié par H. Erectus pour représenter la forme féminine il y a entre 800 000 et 300 000 ans.
Erectus traveled the world, from Southern Europe to China and Indonesia. Some scholars suggest they had sufficient skill to construct seaworthy crafts capable of carrying 20 people, the minimum required to found their island settlements. They were hunters and stone toolmakers. A large collection of shells, very similar to each other and dated at about 500,000 years old, appear to be their tools, some of which were engraved with geometric designs.
Les vestiges des colonies de H. erectus, comme celle de Gesher Benot Ya'aqov en Israël, suggèrent non seulement qu’ils maîtrisaient le feu, mais aussi que leurs colonies étaient planifiées. Une zone pouvait être désignée pour la transformation des aliments d'origine végétale, une autre pour la transformation des matériaux d'origine animale et une autre encore pour la vie en communauté. Nous ne saurons jamais exactement comment et quels étaient les échanges entre ces premiers hominidés mais il est évident qu'ils communiquaient. Il est certain qu'ils transmettaient leurs expériences et leurs connaissances à l'aide de gestes faciaux et de vocalisations. De cette manière, le mimétisme aurait finalement conduit la parole à s'imposer comme mode de communication dominant.
Scholars disagree as to whether H. erectus had language; a sufficiently elaborate mimetic language may have sufficed, though Daniel Everett, professor of global studies at Bentley University and author of How Language Began, points out that, lacking a FOXP2 gene, they would not have been able to make the same range of sounds as we do. Still, “They had what it took to invent language—and language is not as hard as many linguists have led us to believe,” he said. “Homo erectus spoke and invented the Model T Ford of language. We speak the Tesla form, but their Model T form was not a proto-language, it was a real language.”
Like us, Homo erectus used fire—so they very likely were the first ancestors to gather around a fire, cook, eat and share stories that passed on knowledge crucial to survival: stories related to hunting, and the spirit world.
Crucial Developments in the Emergence of Stories
Our early ancestors did not always have the ability to speak, however, let alone tell stories. When compared with other primates, our larynx—or voice box—lacks two elements that other primates have: a vocal membrane—small, ribbon-like extensions of the vocal cords—and air sacs. The absence of these tissues, according to researchers, resulted in a stable vocal source that was critical to the evolution of human speech.
Chez les nourrissons, le larynx se trouve en haut de la cavité nasale, ce qui permet aux bébés de boire et de respirer en même temps. Vers l'âge de trois mois, le larynx descend dans la gorge, ce qui rend la parole possible au prix d’un plus grand risque d’étouffement. Le registre des voix masculines s'abaisse lors d’une légère descente du larynx pendant la puberté.
Sur la base de découvertes d'anciens os hyoïdes, qui soutiennent le larynx et servent d'ancrage à la langue et aux autres muscles nécessaires à la parole, les chercheurs pensent qu'il y a 300 000 ans déjà, nos ancêtres avaient la capacité de parler comme nous le faisons aujourd'hui.
No other primate has a larynx low enough to produce sounds as complex as those our ancient ancestors made, and as we do today. There are now roughly 7,000 languages spoken in the world using an estimated 800-plus phonemes, the building blocks of language, all of which are available while infants are learning to select and use the sounds they will need to communicate in their own individual environment—that is, those that their mother and their caregivers use.
La complexité de la parole a permis le développement culturel, car elle signifiait que les individus pouvaient ainsi partager des idées et des concepts. Les Néandertaliens, dont l'os hyoïde et le larynx sont presque identiques à ceux des premiers hommes modernes, utilisaient également des formes de symbolisme et avaient ce que nous appellerions des idées religieuses. Ils enterraient leurs morts avec des offrandes funéraires, peignaient les murs des grottes, portaient des ornements, jouaient de la musique, et racontaient donc probablement des histoires. Cependant, on pense que le langage des Néandertaliens comportait moins de voyelles et de consonnes en raison de la forme étroite de leurs fosses nasales, adaptées à la vie dans des climats froids.
One hundred thousand years ago at Blombos Cave on the South African coast, one of humanity’s first workshops flourished. It processed a liquified ochre-rich mixture—used for multiple purposes, including religious, medicinal, and for group identification—and stored it in abalone shells. Production involved a multi-step process, starting with a recipe for mixing the ingredients before applying heat. Ochre, bone, charcoal, grindstones, and hammerstones form a composite part of the production toolkit. Ochre was used in prehistory for thousands of years, in Africa, the Middle East, Australia and Europe. Given its longevity, we can only imagine that stories would have conveyed their importance from generation to generation and enabled knowledge of their preparation to be passed on. Through these stories, experiences would have been shared, describing not only why but what and how something is done, and, importantly, what steps to avoid.
Gossip As a Form of Storytelling
Nous avons toujours voulu partager nos expériences, apprendre les uns des autres, raconter les dernières nouvelles à nos amis et à notre famille. Une bonne partie de ce qui nous parvient par les médias est, à défaut d'un autre terme, du commérage : des conversations sur des personnes qui nous ressemblent ou pas, sur leurs coups de chance et leurs mésaventures. Le psychologue évolutionniste Robin Dunbar a comparé l’échange de ragots à l’activité du toilettage, pratique à laquelle se livrent les primates pour favoriser l’attachement ; nous nous sentons plus proches de ceux avec qui nous avons l’habitude de partager des histoires spontanées et souvent personnelles.
As anyone knows who has established residence in a new country or state—or even taken on a new job—local anecdotes, the frequent content of this kind of chatting, reveal potentially useful information about how a local culture and society operate. “Gossip allows you to test the waters—it enables you to know what community morality is,” says psychologist Maury Silver. “It makes it possible for a newcomer to probe the boundary lines of acceptable and unacceptable behavior.” Of course, people consciously trade information, converse on specific topics, or participate in negotiations, but social scientists have found that everyone is hardwired to pay attention to gossip, and to participate in it. Researchers estimate that anywhere from 65 percent to 80 percent of conversations are gossip. “We’re the descendants of people who were good at this,” said Frank McAndrew, a psychology professor at Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois. “In prehistoric times, people who were fascinated by the lives of other people were more successful.” Silver and fellow psychologist John Sabini note that gossip essentially involves “codes of conduct and moral rules embedded in concrete stories.”