IntroAnthFall2020: 2019

Tuesday, October 15, 2019

Walk Like a Man

Thursday, October 3, 2019

Enculturation: Learning Culture

Enculturation is the process by which culture is passed down from generation to generation. Understanding enculturation is one way to help us understand why we have different worldviews which underlie our different ways of viewing the world. These different views are often the source of CONFLICT in our globalizing world. Enculturation also helps us understand the core values in a culture (basis for ideological definition) as well as strategies for adaptation.

There are two basic strategies for enculturation that aim to produce different kinds of MODAL PERSONALITIES (the kinds of adults that will be successful in their culture).

Dependence Training--focuses on creating adults who are committed to the group, who see their individual needs as second to the groups concerns.

· cooperation encouraged

· group membership and interdependence stressed

· tasks assigned progressively to children at a young age

· prolonged breast feeding/lactation

· expression of sexuality discouraged (although sexual experimentation may be free)

Independence Training---focuses on creating adults who are independent and self-sufficient and focused on individual achievement.

· competition encouraged

· individuality encouraged

· prolonged childhood with little responsibility if any to group

· curtailed breast feeding and lactation

· encourage expression of sexuality

Things that are enculturated that we can see in our readings:

· gender norms/identity/roles

· racial identities/racism

· notions about sexuality

· “identity formation” (as a function of cultural interaction)

cultures are logical systems and will apply training method that makes sense for them. The actual training techniques and where the culture falls on the spectrum of IT or DT varies. All cultures have some degree of individual and cooperative ideals.

ILLNESS AND MODAL PERSONALITY

Illness: any significant deviation from the NORM (modal personality) whether it be physical or psychological (mental illness). A lack of proper physical characteristics may also indicate that you are "ill". Or the lack of ability to meet social norms (homosexual/antisocial/etc)

· Culture-bound

o anorexia/bulimia

o kuru

o amok

o PMS

o ADD/ADHD

READ ABOUT MAURITANIA!

READ ABOUT CRYING TO SLEEP IN AMERICAN CULTURE

Gender Norms Boxes

Men and Women

Two contrasting cases (genes and gender)

Case#1: In 1999, an appellate court in Texas invalidated a seven-year marriage between Christine Littleton, a transgender woman, and her deceased husband. The case arose when Ms. Littleton brought a wrongful death suit seeking damages for her husband's death as a result of alleged medical malpractice. Rather than ruling on the merits of Ms. Littleton's suit, the court held that a person's legal sex is genetically fixed at birth and that Ms. Littleton should be deemed to be legally male, despite her female anatomy and appearance, and despite the fact that she had lived as a woman for most of her adult life. As a result of that decision, Ms. Littleton was denied all of the rights afforded to a legal spouse -- not only the right to bring a wrongful death suit, but the right to intestate inheritance (or inheritance without a will), to obtain her deceased husband's Social Security and retirement benefits, and many others as well.

Case #2: in 1997, a trial court in Orange County, Calif., affirmed the validity of a marriage involving a transgender man. The case arose when the wife sought to invalidate the marriage in order to deprive her husband of his parental rights vis-a-vis the couple's child, who was born through alternative insemination. The trial court rejected the wife's argument that the transgender husband should be considered legally female and refused to nullify the marriage. The court held that California law recognizes the post-operative sex of a transsexual person for all legal purposes, including marriage. Notably, however, if the court had ruled differently, or if the transgender spouse had not undergone extensive and expensive sex reassignments surgeries prior to the marriage, it is likely that he would have lost any right to maintain a relationship with his child.

Assignment: imagine that they are the judges deciding the two cases in question. They must summarize their judgment and their reasons for deciding as they did. These decisions are incorporated into a broader discussion on what it is that makes people male or female.

What are the -- and are not -- acceptable for you to do in a public restroom?

the stall they are in has no toilet paper (mostly the women in the class say they would politely ask the person next to them, which is followed by disgusted and shocked looks by the men in the class who usually say they wouldn't dream of doing something like that).
differences when asked about whether you talk to other people at all, or whether you'd compliment a stranger on their outfit.

Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Films on History of Anth Ethics

Nice film about range of fieldwork

History of Fieldwork film

part 1 & 2 are useful reference

Ellen Isaacs: Ethnography

Universalism, Cultural Relativity & Human Rights

Monday, September 16, 2019

Brief History of Anthropological Thought

Aspects for Comparison:

In order to understand the development of anthropology as a discipline and the notion of CULTURE in particular you should have know a brief definition of each of the major theoretical schools that we covered in class as well as the ability to compare and contrast the theories on the basis of the following criteria:

definition of culture (singular, plural, ideological, adaptive)
methodology (how are hypotheses created and data collected)
synchronic vs diachronic (temporal focus for analysis)
empirical vs speculative (scientific method)
emic (insider) vs etic(outsider) (perspective)

It is also important to understand that theories are culture bound and as such are inherently biased because they are a product of the culture at the time in which they are created. They ask questions that are relevant to the cultures which create them according to their understanding of the nature of reality. being aware of this ethnocentric bias is important to understanding other cultures and our own.

Unilineal Cultural Evolution (Morgan, Tyler, Stewart)

arose out of the AGE OF DISCOVERY, where Western cultures tried to understand the diversity they saw out in the world. First asked the question: ARE THEY HUMAN? Then, once this was established, needed to explain how these humans could be soooo different from "Civilized" "Advanced" cultures like those found in Europe.
Based on the ENLIGHTENMENT notion of PROGRESS

people we see in the modern world can be placed on an evolutionary continuum from "PRIMITIVE" to "ADVANCED".
based on TECHNO-ECONOMIC FEATURES (material products of culture)
some cultures have "stalled" in their evolution and are "SURVIVALS" from a earlier more primitive time.

racist explanations for why they failed to advance were common
focus on classification into category from savage, barbarism, to civilized based on these features.

CULTURE is singular and you have more or less of it. Culture is also ADAPTIVE
Armchair theorizing, no collection of data. relied on travelers accounts and other information which was often rife with falsities and exaggeration (SPECULATIVE and nonscientific)
DIACHRONIC (focused on the process by which peoples existed in the state that they did
etic

Kulturkreislehre (German Anthropology) "Culture Essence Circle"

Arose out of the study of German Folklore (Grimm, etc.)
Centered around the importance of the cultural core or "GEIST".
consistent with the rise of German nationalism and the emphasis on racial purity. Kulturkreislehre tried to uncover the unadulterated culture.
DIFFUSION: concept used to describe the process of cultural transmission (and corruption) which explains the diversity in human populations

Grand Diffusionism: All culture originated at one point place in time (Greek & Egyptian Civilizations-seat of original Aryan knowledge) and diffused from their like a pebble dropping in the pond. With each successive wave there is greater corruption of the central ideas from the cultural core.
Aim to find the PURE GEIST through an analysis of folktales which hold the core concepts (ideologies) of Germanness.
Other people failed to receive cultural traits from this original source or have corrupted them. This explains their inferiority to the pure Aryan culture

Culture is singular and ideological
methodology is to trace back folktales and find their origin to purge them of their corruptions
diachronic
speculative
etic

BRITISH SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY

Functionalism (Malinowski)

systems model of culture where all of the INSTITUTIONS (sociology) are parts of the machine of culture which FUNCTION to SATISFY the BASIC NEEDS of the individuals in it. Three basic needs:

Biological: food, water, procreation
Instrumental: law, social order, education
Integrative: religion, art, language

the object of anthropology is to describe how these needs might be fulfilled by all societies.Cultures are LOGICAL SYSTEMS and people everywhere have the same basic needs.
etic
synchronic (snapshot description of the culture-no attempt to describe how cultural variation around the world is created)
Culture is PLURAL (there are many cultures) and is adaptive (functions to fulfill a basic need)
Empirical.methodology based on FIELDWORK and the structuring of hypotheses and collection of data in native settings.

Structural-Functionalism (Radcliffe-Brown)

Built on the premises of functionalism, but adding the concepts from the Hegelian Dialectic (that a culture is greater than the sum of its parts) Rather than fulfilling basic needs, the society serves to PERPETUATE ITSELF. The study of anthropology is now to see how the structures of society solve the problems of or contribute to the maintenance of the system (rather than functioning to fulfill a list of basic needs).
Emphasis on the interrelationship of the parts of the structure and how they impact one another.

see connections between various aspects of culture
Synchronis & etic
culture is plural & adaptive
methodology is scientific and empirical, collecting data to test hypotheses through fieldwork.

Structuralism (Levi-Strauss)

Building on the two previous schools of British Social Anthropology and French Linguistics, Levi Strauss aimed to study the STRUCTURE on which a culture rests without looking at how its parts function.
Looks at minimal conceptual pairs which through their constrast uncover meaning structures in culture.
focuses on structural (ideological & symbolic) aspects of culture like, language, religion, the arts and ritual to look for these conceptual contrasts
etic & synchronic
culture as ideological system & plural
empirical & scientific

American Anthropology (Boas)

Sometimes called Diffusionism, Boas aimed to make anthropology a scientific discipline in reaction against the German School and Nazi racist theoretical perspectives.
Coincident with the Bristish School of Social Anthropology these two schools developed together. Sharing theoretical and methodological developments.
Boas known as the FATHER OF ANTHROPOLOGY because of the contributions he made to the field:

scientificizing anthropological study
FIELDWORK through PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION
attack on grand diffusionism insisting that there are two mechanisms that explain cultural change. Scientific investigation must uncover which is the source.

independent invention
diffusion

distinction between EMIC & ETIC analysis and insistence on the collection of both kinds of data. Anthropology lies in the discrepancies between the two. It aims to answer the question WHY? not just describing WHAT?.
notions of ETHNOCENTRISM and CULTURAL RELATIVITY. Boas insisted that researchers must take a culturally relative perspective and that ethnocentrism prevented anthropologists from understanding cultures.
Identified SYNCHRONIC & DIACHRONIC perspectives and insisted that anthropology needed both to truly understand cultures.

Trained generations of anthropologists, especially female anthropologists. This legacy still strong in the discipline ( Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, etal)

Cultural Ecology (Harris, Diamond, Sahlins, White)

A reawakening of materialism, in response to the philosophical principles of Marx & Engels. Analysis focuses on the TECHNO-ECONOMIC features of culture and the adaptation of these components to the local ENVIRONMENT in which the culture exists. ---all cultural traits are created in response to the environment.
Environmental determinism.
REDUCTIONIST theory
Culture is plural and adaptive
empirical & scientific
diachronic & etic in focus

American Structuralism/Symbolic Anthropology (Turner, Geertz)

Continuation of structuralism of Levi-Strauss with Postmoderm influences.

Anthropology and Human Rights

Anthropologists, Cultural Relativism, and Universal Rights

By Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban

Cultural relativism, long a key concept in anthropology, asserts that since each culture has its own values and practices, anthropologists should not make value judgments about cultural differences. As a result, anthropological pedagogy has stressed that the study of customs and norms should be value-free, and that the appropriate role of the anthropologist is that of observer and recorder.

Today, however, this view is being challenged by critics inside and outside the discipline, especially those who want anthropologists to take a stand on key human-rights issues. I agree that the time has come for anthropologists to become more actively engaged in safeguarding the rights of people whose lives and cultures they study.

Historically, anthropology as a discipline has declined to participate in the dialogue that produced international conventions regarding human rights. For example, in 1947, when the executive board of the American Anthropological Association withdrew from discussions that led to the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights," it did so in the belief that no such declaration would be applicable to all human beings. But the world and anthropology have changed. Because their research involves extended interaction with people at the grassroots, anthropologists are in a unique position to lend knowledge and expertise to the international debate regarding human rights.

Doing so does not represent a complete break with the traditions of our field. After all, in the past, anthropologists did not hesitate to speak out against such reprehensible practices as Nazi genocide and South African apartheid. And they have testified in U.S. courts against government rules that impinge on the religious traditions or sacred lands of Native Americans, decrying government policies that treat groups of people unjustly.

However, other practices that violate individual rights or oppress particular groups have not been denounced. Anthropologists generally have not spoken out, for example, against the practice in many cultures of female circumcision, which critics call a mutilation of women. They have been unwilling to pass judgment on such forms of culturally based homicide as the killing of infants or the aged. Some have withheld judgment on acts of communal violence, such as clashes between Hindus and Muslims in India or Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda, perhaps because the animosities between those groups are of long standing.

Moreover, as a practical matter, organized anthropology's refusal to participate in drafting the 1947 human-rights declaration has meant that anthropologists have not had much of a role in drafting later human-rights statements, such as the United Nations' "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women," approved in 1979. In many international forums discussing women's rights, participants have specifically rejected using cultural relativism as a barrier to improving women's lives.

The issue of violence against women throws the perils of cultural relativism into stark relief. Following the lead of human-rights advocates, a growing number of anthropologists and others are coming to recognize that violence against women should be acknowledged as a violation of a basic human right to be free from harm. They believe that such violence cannot be excused or justified on cultural grounds.

Let me refer to my own experience. For nearly 25 years, I have conducted research in the Sudan, one of the African countries where the practice of female circumcision is widespread, affecting the vast majority of females in the northern Sudan. Chronic infections are a common result, and sexual intercourse and childbirth are rendered difficult and painful. However, cultural ideology in the Sudan holds that an uncircumcised woman is not respectable, and few families would risk their daughter's chances of marrying by not having her circumcised. British colonial officials outlawed the practice in 1946, but this served only to make it surreptitious and thus more dangerous. Women found it harder to get treatment for mistakes or for side effects of the illegal surgery.

For a long time I felt trapped between, on one side, my anthropologist's understanding of the custom and of the sensitivities about it among the people with whom I was working, and, on the other, the largely feminist campaign in the West to eradicate what critics see as a "barbaric" custom. To ally myself with Western feminists and condemn female circumcision seemed to me to be a betrayal of the value system and culture of the Sudan, which I had come to understand. But as I was asked over the years to comment on female circumcision because of my expertise in the Sudan, I came to realize how deeply I felt that the practice was harmful and wrong.

In 1993, female circumcision was one of the practices deemed harmful by delegates at the international Human Rights Conference in Vienna. During their discussions, they came to view circumcision as a violation of the rights of children as well as of the women who suffer its consequences throughout life. Those discussions made me realize that there was a moral agenda larger than myself, larger than Western culture or the culture of the northern Sudan or my discipline. I decided to join colleagues from other disciplines and cultures in speaking out against the practice.

Some cultures are beginning to change, although cause and effect are difficult to determine. Women's associations in the Ivory Coast are calling for an end to female circumcision. In Egypt, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights has reported the first publicly acknowledged marriage of an uncircumcised woman. In the United States, a Nigerian woman recently was granted asylum on the ground that her returning to her country would result in the forcible circumcision of her daughter, which was deemed a violation of the girl's human rights.

To be sure, it is not easy to achieve consensus concerning the point at which cultural practices cross the line and become violations of human rights. But it is important that scholars and human-rights activists discuss the issue. Some examples of when the line is crossed may be clearer than others. The action of a Japanese wife who feels honor-bound to commit suicide because of the shame of her husband's infidelity can be explained and perhaps justified by the traditional code of honor in Japanese society. However, when she decides to take the lives of her children as well, she is committing murder, which may be easier to condemn than suicide.

What about "honor" killings of sisters and daughters accused of sexual misconduct in some Middle Eastern and Mediterranean societies? Some anthropologists have explained this practice in culturally relativist terms, saying that severe disruptions of the moral order occur when sexual impropriety is alleged or takes place. To restore the social equilibrium and avoid feuds, the local culture requires the shedding of blood to wash away the shame of sexual dishonor. The practice of honor killings, which victimizes mainly women, has been defended in some local courts as less serious than premeditated murder, because it stems from long-standing cultural traditions. While some judges have agreed, anthropologists should see a different picture: a pattern of cultural discrimination against women.

As the issue of domestic violence shows, we need to explore the ways that we balance individual and cultural rights. The "right" of a man to discipline, slap, hit, or beat his wife (and often, by extension, his children) is widely recognized across many cultures in which male dominance is an accepted fact of life. Indeed, the issue of domestic violence has only recently been added to the international human-rights agenda, with the addition of women's rights to the list of basic human rights at the Vienna conference.

The fact that domestic violence is being openly discussed and challenged in some societies (the United States is among the leaders) helps to encourage dialogue in societies in which domestic violence has been a taboo subject. This dialogue is relatively new, and no clear principles have emerged. But anthropologists could inform and enrich the discussion, using their knowledge of family and community life in different cultures.

Cases of genocide may allow the clearest insight into where the line between local culture and universal morality lies. Many anthropologists have urged the Brazilian and Venezuelan governments to stop gold miners from slaughtering the Yanomami people, who are battling the encroachment of miners on their rain forests. Other practices that harm individuals or categories of people (such as the elderly, women, and enslaved or formerly enslaved people) may not represent genocide per se, and thus may present somewhat harder questions about the morality of traditional practices. We need to focus on the harm done, however, and not on the scale of the abuse. We need to be sensitive to cultural differences but not allow them to override widely recognized human rights.

The exchange of ideas across cultures is already fostering a growing acceptance of the universal nature of some human rights, regardless of cultural differences. The right of individuals to be free from harm or the threat of harm, and the right of cultural minorities to exist freely within states, are just two examples of rights that are beginning to be universally recognized -- although not universally applied.

Fortunately, organized anthropology is beginning to change its attitude toward cultural relativism and human rights. The theme of the 1994 convention of the American Anthropological Association was human rights. At the sessions organized around the topic, many anthropologists said they no longer were absolutely committed to cultural relativism. The association has responded to the changing attitude among its members by forming a Commission for Human Rights, charged with developing a specifically anthropological perspective on those rights, and with challenging violations and promoting education about them.

Nevertheless, many anthropologists continue to express strong support for cultural relativism. One of the most contentious issues arises from the fundamental question: What authority do we Westerners have to impose our own concept of universal rights on the rest of humanity? It is true that Western ideas of human rights have so far dominated international discourse. On the other hand, the cultural relativists' argument is often used by repressive governments to deflect international criticism of their abuse of their citizens. At the very least, anthropologists need to condemn such misuse of cultural relativism, even if it means that they may be denied permission to do research in the country in question.

Personally, I would go further: I believe that we should not let the concept of relativism stop us from using national and international forums to examine ways to protect the lives and dignity of people in every culture. Because of our involvement in local societies, anthropologists could provide early warnings of abuses -- for example, by reporting data to international human-rights organizations, and by joining the dialogue at international conferences. When there is a choice between defending human rights and defending cultural relativism, anthropologists should choose to protect and promote human rights. We cannot just be bystanders.

Declaration on Anthropology and Human Rights Committee for Human Rights American Anthropological Association

Adopted by the AAA membership June 1999

This Declaration on Anthropology and Human Rights defines the basis for the involvement of the American Anthropological Association, and, more generally, of the profession of Anthropology in human rights. Comments and queries from members regarding the Declaration’s content are welcome.

Preamble

The capacity for culture is tantamount to the capacity for humanity. Culture is the precondition for the realization of this capacity by individuals, and in turn depends on the cooperative efforts of individuals for its creation and reproduction. Anthropology’s cumulative knowledge of human cultures, and of human mental and physical capacities across all populations, types, and social groups, attests to the universality of the human capacity for culture. This knowledge entails an ethical commitment to the equal opportunity of all cultures, societies, and persons to realize this capacity in their cultural identities and social lives. However, the global environment is fraught with violence which is perpetrated by states and their representatives, corporations, and other actors. That violence limits the humanity of individuals and collectives.

Anthropology as a profession is committed to the promotion and protection of the right of people and peoples everywhere to the full realization of their humanity, which is to say their capacity for culture. When any culture or society denies or permits the denial of such opportunity to any of its own members or others, the American Anthropological Association has an ethical responsibility to protest and oppose such deprivation. This implies starting from the base line of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and associated implementing international legislation, but also expanding the definition of human rights to include areas not necessarily addressed by international law. These areas include collective as well as individual rights, cultural, social, and economic development, and a clean and safe environment.

Declaration on Anthropology and Human Rights

The American Anthropological Association has developed a Declaration that we believe has universal relevance:

People and groups have a generic right to realize their capacity for culture, and to produce, reproduce and change the conditions and forms of their physical, personal and social existence, so long as such activities do not diminish the same capacities of others. Anthropology as an academic discipline studies the bases and the forms of human diversity and unity; anthropology as a practice seeks to apply this knowledge to the solution of human problems.

As a professional organization of anthropologists, the AAA has long been, and should continue to be, concerned whenever human difference is made the basis for a denial of basic human rights, where “human” is understood in its full range of cultural, social, linguistic, psychological, and biological senses.

Thus, the AAA founds its approach on anthropological principles of respect for concrete human differences, both collective and individual, rather than the abstract legal uniformity of Western tradition. In practical terms, however, its working definition builds on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, and on Social, Economic, and Cultural Rights, the Conventions on Torture, Genocide, and Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and other treaties which bring basic human rights within the parameters of international written and customary law and practice. The AAA definition thus reflects a commitment to human rights consistent with international principles but not limited by them. Human rights is not a static concept. Our understanding of human rights is constantly evolving as we come to know more about the human condition. It is therefore incumbent on anthropologists to be involved in the debate on enlarging our understanding of human rights on the basis of anthropological knowledge and research.