Categories
Free Essays

Reciprocity in Anthropology

The way every being experiences the world around us is mostly constructed by the culture we are exposed to and brought up in. The world makes sense to us because of the ways culture influences our perception. We experience the world around us in a time, space, and mentality that are built solely by culture. The Kaluli are a tribal clan from Highland New Guinea who experience their lives through reciprocity. The way the Kaluli form relationships amongst one another, communicate, and practice their everyday lives is based through gift-giving and reciprocity.

The Kaluli are socially dependent beings who have constructed a social mechanism in which everyone participates in the art of reciprocity to maintain and build these social relations with one another. The Kaluli reify and bring to life reciprocity through ceremonies such as Gisaro, through food and marriage, emotions, and socialization. Frequently, the Kaluli people will hold a traditional ceremony, called the Gisaro, which demonstrates the importance of reciprocity in their daily lives. Gisaro is a ceremony in which the Kaluli guests perform dance and singing rituals for their hosts. Schieffelin, p. 22) The visitors spend many weeks preparing costumes, songs, and performances for their hosts, while in return the hosts plan feasts at their longhouses for their prospective guests. (Schieffelin, p. 22) During the evening, the Gisaro begins inside the longhouses, and the dancers from the visitors’ side begin performing. (Schieffelin, p. 22) The performing group is made up of roughly 25 men, who begin to dance and sing one by one in the centre of the longhouse, while the audience of hosts’ watch. (Schieffelin, p. 2) The performers will take their turns singing about places and people familiar to one or more of the hosts’ in the audience. Most of the places that are sung about are from the past of a member in the audience and the people that are sung about have died and have emotional ties to audience members. (Schieffelin p. 23) As the singing and recalling of events related to audience members get intense, so does the emotional atmosphere amongst the audience of hosts’. A member from the crowd will likely begin to resurface past memories of loved ones that have died and will begin to get deeply emotional and will begin to cry. Schieffelin, p. 23) However, immediately after, the emotional host will become infuriated due to the fact that the dancer hurt them with past memories, and in anger the host will grab a lit torch and burn the shoulders of the performer continuously. (Schieffelin, p. 23) The performer however, will not show any sight of pain and one-by-one the performers will continue performing and the whole process of emotional-outbreak and burning will continue until the chirping of birds can be heard in the morning. (Schieffelin, p. 3) At the end of the night, before the visitors made their way back, they paid compensation to those whom they made cry. (Schieffelin, p. 23) The Gisaro ritual shows an abundance of reciprocity in social-relations and emotions. The ritual is based on the exchange between the hosts and the visitors; one provides plentiful food and the other performs and entertains. The reciprocal nature of this social gathering displays the dependency both parties place on one-another to perform their obligated role in the gathering. This kind of social giving and exchanging is basic to the Kaluli way of life. ” (Schieffelin, p. 26) Reciprocity of duties aside, there is also an exchange of emotions that can be witnessed in the Gisaro ceremony. The performer hurts the audience member, who then in return inflicts physical pain upon the performer. (Schieffelin, p. 24) In the Kaluli society anger is looked upon as a justification for being hurt or angered, and requires ones to react in an aggressive manner to be compensated for the feelings of anger inflicted upon them. (Schieffelin, p. 34) If the Kaluli men do not react in anger where they are socially required too, they will be looked upon as weak and incapable. (Schieffelin, p. 135) The Kaluli use this is a method to limit how far a person can be bullied and taken advantage of. By compensating oneself through aggressive manners, the Kaluli are able to make sure that no one is pushed further than the other, and that at all times everything is equal. (Schieffelin, p. 136) “Such interventions, which were quiet common, seem aimed more at allowing the interaction to conclude properly than with scolding or punishing the offender. (Schieffelin, p. 137) Thus, in the Gisaro ritual it is appropriate for a host to be angered by the performer and react in an aggressive manner. By performing the Gisaro, both the visitors and the hosts of the occasion share the exchange of emotion and ritual duties. Like the Gisaro, the Kaluli people partake in many other traditional ceremonies that show the reciprocity of food, labour, and duties. In marriage there is an abundance of gift-giving and labour sharing which involves both the groom and the bride’s family.

When a bride is chosen, the groom must compensate the bride’s family with brides-wealth, and both sides begin to part-take in many ceremonies. (Schieffelin, p. 26) One side will bring the other many fruits and meat, and then the other side will return the favour by doing the same, creating an on-going cycle of food-giving. (Schieffelin, pg. 26) Food is continuously exchanged and prepared by both in-laws because it is one of the best methods the Kaluli use to form and maintain social relations with their in-laws and family. Food as gift or hospitality is the main vehicle for expression of friendly relationship to anyone, kinsman or acquaintance. ” (Schieffelin, p. 27) The reason that the Kaluli form such reciprocal customs is to provide the Kaluli people with the “the basis for the provision of hospitality for visiting, support in conflict, invitations to hunt and fish, mutual assistance in garden labor, and occasional ceremonial prestations, which are formal customary gifts of food, especially meat. ” (Schieffelin, p. 6) The Kaluli people distribute their labours and efforts in food-gathering by creating a mutual-dependency on one another. (Dr. Clark, Lecture 3) By creating a gift-based economy, there is a never ending cycle of giving, and thus there will always be support for the Kaluli people. (Dr. Clark, Lecture 3) Though western societies might look at the Kaluli gift-giving economy as an outdated method, it has shown to be the most efficient as there is less labour needed to be done by everyone and there is always certainty of being provided for. (Dr.

Clark, Lecture 3) The Kaluli have found a form of security through these gift-giving rituals and traditions to make sure that they always have food and support. Through reciprocity, the Kaluli try to achieve a balance in their everyday life, and this has become the means in which they experience their world. There is reciprocity to keep balance of food and relationships. Likewise, the Kaluli myths of how nature, their placement in reality, and their after-world presents a different form of reciprocity and balance. The Kaluli believe that at the beginning of time, there were only humans and that there was no nature. Schieffelin, p. 94) However, as time went on there were needs for food, shelter, clothing, and etc. Thus all men were gathered together and were given duties to become trees, animals, water, etc. (Schieffelin, p. 94) The Kaluli recognize that these trees and nature surrounding them are actually people, and that to these people the Kaluli appear to be trees, water, animals, and nature. (Schieffelin, p. 96) This means that the nature-world is a reflection of the Kaluli, and to the world of nature – which are actually people – the Kaluli reflect the world of nature.

The Kaluli do not treat this world as a spiritual or sacred world, it is just an everyday reality for them which they refer to as the mama world. (Schieffelin, p. 96) They believe that every day they live in coexistence with the mama world which is identical to theirs and a wild-pig from the natural world is actually the reflection of the man in the real world. (Schieffelin, p. 97) This means that if something were to happen to the wild pig in the unseen world, it would inflict the same actions upon the corresponding man in the real world.

Through this ideology and cultural reality, the Kaluli create a balance between the natural world and their own world. At all times there is a coexisting world which reflects their own. Even in death the Kaluli find balance and seem to face avoid the means of facing great damage and loss. “When a person dies, his wild pig aspect disappears from the mama world. His personal life virtue…escapes with his last breath and takes on human form in the mama world where it continues a life very much like the one he left.

In the visible world, the person now usually appears in the form of a bird or a fish. ” (Schieffelin, p. 96) As it can be seen, all that happens during the death of a Kaluli is that he becomes a part of nature, and in the mama world the wild pig will become a human. Through this coexisting reality the Kaluli have created for them, the Kaluli reciprocate lives back and forth between the visible and mama world. In such ways, they establish a balance at all time and avoid from feeling a great deal of loss.

Language is a very essential role in the lives of the Kaluli people, for it brings to life the culture of reciprocity in their everyday lives. From a very young age, the Kaluli are taught to talk and socialize in ways which expressed their exchanging and gift-giving behaviours. Songs are song about death which reminds the Kaluli the dangers that death brings, because once an individual dies, the act of reciprocating and exchanging comes to an end. (Schieffelin, p. 136) Daily conversation usually revolves around the lines of who had to compensate whom, and what one got in return for something else. Schieffelin, p. 136) Regardless of the abundance of food the Kaluli have to eat, the Kaluli conversation consists of arguments either refusing or accepting food. There are even specific verbs denoted to the exchanging transaction: Dimina meaning give, and dima meaning take. (Schieffelin, p. 136) These words are used throughout the daily conversations of the Kaluli helping reify their realities of reciprocity. However, the Kaluli have no specific word for sharing, and thus they only see their relationships through give and take. (Schieffelin, p. 36) Through language and socialization the Kaluli continuously bring to life reciprocity and make it a part of their everyday lives. The Kaluli have come to see the world in a way of balance created by reciprocity, and through these cultural views the Kaluli have built their realities. It is a cultural experience in which the Kaluli form social dependencies in order to establish a stable and supportive way for living. “Idea that exchange, as a system of meanings, is involved in the shaping of particular cultural realities…Through the management of meaning exchange becomes a vehicle of social obligation. (Schieffelin, p. 503) The Kaluli create an ongoing cycle of gift-giving in which one is always obligated to give back to the other because of maintain a social circle. Through exchange and the reciprocation of labour and food, the Kaluli recognize them in such a manner where balance must always be achieved. This can be witnessed because when the Kaluli cannot be compensated or find a balance or reciprocate feelings, they become frightened, confused, or even lost. (Schieffelin, p. 45) For example, when the Kaluli hear thunder sounds they become angered because it is invisible and unpredictable, and because they cannot be compensated for their anger they are frightened. (Schieffelin, p. 142) The Kaluli are so used to living in a reciprocal based lifestyle, that if they feel like they cannot establish balance or be compensated, they feel as if they are at a loss and feel hopeless. (Schieffelin, p. 142) The Kaluli through language, food, gift-giving, and ceremonies, always seek to find reciprocity in which they can see themselves compensated and at a balance. Bibliography ———————————————— Clark, Dylan. 2011. Lecture 3, ANT204, Sociocultural Anthropology, University of Toronto, Mississauga, ON, September 14, 2011. Schieffelin, B. B. (1990). The give and take of everyday life: language socialization of Kaluli children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schieffelin, E. L. (1980). Reciprocity and the Construction of Reality. Reciprocity and the Construction of RealityReciprocity and the Construction of Reality, 15(3), 502-517. Schieffelin, E. L. (1976). The sorrow of the lonely and the burning of the dancers. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Categories
Free Essays

Rethinking Anthropology – E. R. Leach

RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS MONOGRAPHS ON SOCLL ANTHROPOLOGY Managing Editor: Anthony For^e The Monographs in on Social Anthropology were established modem The by 1940 and aim to publish results of anthropological research of primary interest to specialists. continuation of the series was made possible from the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, and more recently by a further grant from the Governors of the London a grant in aid School of Economics and Political Science. re under the direction of an Board associated with the Department of Anthropology of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Editorial The Monographs LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS MONOGRAPHS ON SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY No. 22 Rethinking Anthropology by E. R. LEACH UNIVERSITY OF LONDON THE ATHLONE PRESS NEW YORK: HUMANITIES PRESS INC Published by THE ATHLONE PRESS UNIVERSITY OF LONDON at 2 Gotcer Street, Distributed by Tiptree London wci Book Services Ltd Tiptree, Essex First edition, 1961 First paperback edition with corrections, 1966 Reprinted, 1968, 1971 E. R. Leach, 1961, 1971 U. K. U. K. sB N o 485 19522 4 cloth sB N B o 485 19622 o paperback U. S. A. s N 391 00146 9 paperback First printed in 1961 by ROBERT CUNNINGHAM AND SONS LTD ALVA Reprinted by photo-litho by JOHN DICKENS & CO LTD NORTHAMPTON 4- M75′ Preface The title of this collection properly belongs only to the first essay. On 3 December 1959 1 had the honour to deliver the first Malinovvski Memorial Lecture at the London School of Economics. The Editorial Board of the London School of Economics Monographs in Social Anthropology enerously offered to publish the text of my lecture but added the flattering suggestion that I should reprint a number of my other essays at the same time. I have accordingly appropriated the title of my Malinowski lecture for the whole collection. I do not pretend wholly consistent with that The essays extend over a period of fifteen years and is that the viewpoint of the latest (Chapter i) of the earliest (Chapter 2) but there is, I think, a certain continuity of theme and method in all of them. When they were first written all these essays were attempts to ‘rethink anthropology’.

All are concerned with problems of others, I ‘theory’ and are based on ethnographic facts recorded by my own contribution being primarily that of analyst. In each case have tried to reassess the known facts in the light of unorthodox assumpSuch heresy seems to me to have merit for its own sake. Unconventional arguments often turn out to be wrong but provided they provoke discussion they may still have lasting value. By that criterion each of the essays in this book is a possible candidate for attention. tions. Among social anthropologists the is game f building new theories on the ruins of old ones almost an occupational disease. Contemporary arguments in social anthropology are built out of formulae concocted by Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown and Levi-Strauss who in turn were only ‘rethinking’ Rivers, Durkheim and Mauss, who borrowed from Morgan, McLennan and Robertson- Smith the total outcome of all — and so on. Sceptics may think that despite all this ratiocination adds up to very little; our pedagogical subtleties, the diversities of human custom remain as bewildering as ever. But that we admit.

The contemporary social anthropologist is all too well aware that he knows much less than Frazer imagined that he knew for certain. But that perhaps is the point. The contributions to anthropological pedantry collected in this book add little to the sum of human knowledge but if they provoke some readers to doubt their sense of certainty then they will have served their purpose. A note on the interconnections between the different papers draft of Chapter 2 may prove still helpful. The first was written in 1943 while I was on VI PREFACE and still in direct contact with Jinghpaw speakers. ppeared in the 1945 volume of the J. R. A. I, this was not actually published until 1950. These details of dating are relevant because they explain why my paper contains no reference to Chapters 15 and i6 of Levi-Strauss, Les structures elementaires de la parente (1949) and reciprocally why the latter work ignores the new information provided by my paper. Chapter 3, which was originally a Curl Prize Essay, was completed in the spring of 195 1 and seems to have been the first English language commentar)’ on Levi-Strauss’s magnum opus though, presumably, my paper and J.

P. B. de Josselin de Jong’s monograph Levi-Strauss’s Theory on Kinship and Marriage (1952) were going through the press at the same time. Although I here criticized Levi-Strauss on the grounds of ethnographical inaccuracy my sympathy with his general theoretical point of view is very great. Professor Levi-Strauss has himself noted the similarity between the view of ‘social structure’ implicit in my first Jinghpaw paper (Chapter 2) and his own (Levi-Strauss, 1953, p. 525 n), and in all my subsequent publications my debt to Levi-Strauss is obvious.

The relationship of Chapter 4 to earlier literature will be apparent from the references in the text. Although it was not intended to be controversial it provoked Dr Kathleen Gough into a vigorous reply (Gough, 1959). The crucial part of my argument here is that I emphasize the need to distinguish between affinity regarded as an alliance between corporate kin groups and those individual affinal ties which bind a particular wife to a particular husband. This theme recurs in Chapter 5 and again in active military service t Although Chapter i. Chapter 5, as indicated in the text, is linked with a long correspondence which appeared in the pages of Man in 1953 and 1954 but the response which it evoked from my close academic colleagues is only marginally connected with this earlier discussion. Dr Goody has denounced my whole argument as grounded in fundamental error (Goody, 1959, p. 86) and Professor Fortes has taken up most of two issues of Man to expound my fallacies and confusions (Fortes, 1959b).

Both these explosions of academic wrath were provoked by a single sentence in my essay, namely ‘Thus Fortes, while recognizing that ties of affinity have comparable importance to ties of descent, disguises the former under his expression “complementary filiation” (see below p. 122). The exact sense in which this statement is an ‘error’ is still not clear to me for in the course of his denunciation Fortes reaffirms his view that ‘complementary filiation is a function of affinal relations’ (Fortes, 1959b, p. 209) which is precisely the argument I sought to controvert. ^ Professor Fortes has called his article *a rejoinder to Leach’, and — readers of Chapter i of this book need to appreciate that ‘a among other things in it is intended as rejoinder to Fortes’. Reference to a short note Man (i960. Art. 6) will perhaps help to make this clear. The two short papers on time symbolism reprinted in Chapter 6 do PREFACE influence of Professor Levi-Strauss Vll not form a series with the other chapters of the book though again the is pronounced. Although my ‘Cronus and Chronos’ appeared in print in 1953 while Levi-Strauss’s ‘The Structural Study of Myth’ was only published in 1956, I had in fact already heard Professor Levi-Strauss’s lecture on this topic before I wrote my essay.

Explorations, the Toronto University publication in which my Chapter 6 was originally published, carried on its fly leaf the statement that it was ‘designed, not as a permanent reference journal that embalms truth for posterity, but as a publication that explores and searches and questions’ and both my papers are correspondingly brief and tentative. Nevertheless a number of my friends have suggested that the arguments they contain are of more than ephemeral interest; hence the reissue here^ Chapter i contains a considerable amount of matter which was not included in the spoken text of my Malinowski lecture. The other essays^ appear as originally printed, except for the correction of misprints, and one or two very minor alterations intended to clarify the argument. The Introductory Notes at the beginning of Chapters 2-6 are new. Acknowledgements I am indebted to the Council of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland for permission to reprint the essays published here as Chapters 2, 3, 4 and 5 and to Professor E. S. Carpenter and the University of Toronto for permission to reprint the two short essays included in Chapter 6.

I am indebted to a personal grant in aid from the Behavioral Sciences Division of the Ford Foundation for facilities employed while preparing } * j] : -^ these papers for publication. E. R. L. Contents 1. RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY I 2. JINGHPAW KINSHIP TERMINOLOGY THE STRUCTURAL IMPLICATIONS OF MATRILATERAL CROSS-COUSIN MARRIAGE 28 3. 54 4. POLYANDRY, INHERITANCE AND THE DEFINITION OF marriage: with PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO SINHALESE CUSTOMARY LAW ASPECTS OF BRIDEWEALTH AND MARRIAGE STABILITY IO5 5. AMONG THE KACHIN AND LAKHER 6. II4 TWO

ESSAYS CONCERNING THE SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION OF TIME (i) 124 Cronus and Chronos, 124 (ii) Time and False Noses, 132 Rethinking Anthropology my arrogant title. Since 1930 British Anthropology has embodied a well defined set of ideas and -^objectives which derive directly from the teaching of Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown this unity of aim is summed up in the statement that British social anthropology is functionalist and concerned with the comparative analysis of social structures. But during the last year or so it has begun to look as if this particular aim had worked itself out.

Most of my colleagues are giving up the attempt to make comparative generalizations instead they have begun to write impeccably detailed historical ethno- tET Social me begin by explaining — graphies of particular peoples. I regret this new tendency for I still believe that the findings of anthro- pologists have general as well as particular implications, but functionalist doctrine ceased to carry conviction? why has the understand what is happening in social anthropology I believe we need to go right back to the beginning and rethink basic issues really elementary matters such as To — hat we mean by marriage or descent or the unity of difficult siblings, and that is — for basic concepts are basic; The the ideas one has about them are deeply entrenched and firmly held. One bias of the things we need to recognize is the strength of the empirical which Malinowski introduced into social anthropology and which essential core of social anthropology has stayed with us ever since. is understanding of the way of life of a single particular people. This fieldwork is an extremely personal traumatic kind of experience and the personal involvement of the anthropologist in his work is reflected in what he produces.

When we read Malinowski we get the impression that he is stating something which is of general importance. Yet how can this be? He is simply writing about Trobriand Islanders. Somehow he has so assimilated himself into the Trobriand situation that he is able to make the Trobriands fieldwork a microcosm of the whole primitive world. successors; for Firth, Primitive citizen of —the And the same is true of his is Man is a Tikopian, for Fortes, he a Ghana. The existence of this prejudice has long been recognized / but we have paid inadequate attention to its consequences.

The difficulty of achieving comparative generalizations is directly linked with the problem of escaping from ethnocentric bias. 2 RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY As is appropriate to an occasion I when we honour the memory of Bronislaw MaUnowski, am going to be thoroughly egotistical. I shall imply there my own is merit by condemning the work of in my closest friends. But purpose is to distinguish between two rather similar varieties of comparative generalization, both of which turn up from time to time in contemporary British social anthropology.

One of these, which I dislike, derives from the work of Radcliffe-Brown; the other, which I admire, derives from the work of Levi-Strauss. It is important that the differences between these two approaches be properly understood, so I shall draw my illustrations in sharp contrast, all black and all white. In this harsh and exaggerated form Professor Levi-Strauss method my malice. My might well repudiate the authorship of the ideas which I am trying to convey. Hence my egotism; let the blame be wholly mine. My problem is simple.

How can a modern social anthropologist, with all the work of Malinowski and Radcliffc-Brown and their successors at his elbow, embark upon generalization with any hope of arriving at a satisfying conclusion? My answer is quite simple too; it is this: By thinking of the organizational ideas that are present in any society as constituting a mathematical pattern. The rest of what I have to say that is simply an elaboration of this cryptic statement. concern is with generalization, not with maintained that the objective of social anthropology was the ‘comparison of social structures’.

In explaining this he asserted that when we distinguish and compare different types of social structure we are doing the same kind of thing as when we distinguish different kinds of sea shell according to their structural type (RadcliffeBrown, 1953, p. 109). Generalization is quite a different kind of mental First let me emphasize my comparison. Radcliffe-Brown operation. Let me illustrate this point. two points can be joined by a straight line and you can represent this straight line mathematically by a sm^G. first order algebraic equation.

Any three points can be joined by a circle and you can represent this circle by a quadratic or second order algebraic equation. It would be a generalization to go straight on from there and say any : Any n points in a plane can be joined by a curve which can be represented by an equation of order n-i. This would be just a guess, but it would be true, and it is a kind of truth which no amount of comparison can ever reveal. Comparison and generalization are both forms of scientific activity, but different. Comparison is a matter of butterfly collecting —of classification, of the rrangement of things according to their types and subtypes. The followers of Radcliffe-Brown are anthropological butterfly collectors and their approach to their data has certain consequences. For example, according to RadclifTe- Brown’s principles we ought to think of Trobriand society : RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY as 3 classification a society of a particular structural type. The might proceed thus: Main Type Sub-type: Sub-sub-type : societies societies societies composed of unilineal descent groups. composed of matrilineal descent groups. composed of matrilineal descent groups in which he married males of the matrilineage live together in one place and apart from the females of the matrilineage, and so on. In this procedure each class preceding it is a sub-type of the class immediately in the tabulation. its uses, but it has very serious has no logical limits. Ultimately discriminated in this way as a sub-type Now I every just agree that analysis of this kind has is limitations. One major defect known society can be that it from any other, and since anthropologists are notably vague about what they mean by ‘a society’, this will lead them to distinguish more and more ocieties, almost ad infinitum. This is not just hypothesis. My colleague Dr Goody has gone to great pains to distinguish as types two adjacent societies in the Northern Gold Coast which he calls LoWiili and LoDagaba. A careful reader of Dr Goody’s works will discover, however, that these two ‘societies’ are distinct simply the way that field Dr Goody notes from two has chosen to describe the fact that his neighbouring communities show some curious discrepancies. If limit Dr Goody’s methods of analysis were pushed to the we should be able to show that every village community throughout is he world constitutes a distinct society which distinguishable as a type from any other (Goody, 1956b). Another serious objection is that the typology makers never explain why they choose one frame of reference rather than another. RadcliffeBrovsTi’s instructions were simply that ‘it is necessary to compare societies the economic system, the with reference to one particular aspect . . . political system, or the kinship system’ . . . this is equivalent to saying that you can arrange your butterflies according to their colour, or their size, or the shape of their wings according to the him of the moment, but no matter what you do this will be science. Well perhaps, in a sense, it is; but you must realize that your prior arrangement creates an initial bias from which it is later extremely difficult to escape (Radcliffe-Brown, 1940, p. xii). Social anthropology is packed with frustrations of it this kind. An obvious Ever since example is the category opposition patrilineal/matrilineal. has been customary for anthropologists to distinguish unilineal from non-unilineal descent systems, and writing of the Iroquois, Morgan began among that it the former to distinguish patrilineal societies from atrilineal societies. is These categories now seem to us so rudimentary and obvious extremely difficult to break out of the straitjacket of thought which the categories themselves impose. 4 RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY Yet if our approach is to be genuinely unbiased we must be prepared to consider the possibihty that these type categories have no sociological significance whatsoever. It may be that to create a class labelled matrtis as irrelevant for our understanding of social structure as the creation of a class blue butterflies is irrelevant for the understanding of the anatomical structure of lepidoptera.

I don’t say it is so, but it may be; it is lineal societies time that we considered the possibility. J I warn you, the rethinking of basic category assumptions can be very disconcerting. But Let me cite a case. Dr Audrey Richards’s well-known contribution to African Systems of Kinship and Marriage is an essay in Radcliffe-Brownian typology making which is rightly regarded as one of the ‘musts’ of undergraduate reading (Richards, 1950). In this essay Dr Richards asserts that societies is ‘the problem’ of matrilineal the difficulty of combining recognition of descent through the oman with the rule of exogamous marriage, and she classifies a variety of matrilineal societies according to the way this ‘problem’ is solved. In effect her classification turns on the fact that a woman’s husband the two men. jointly possess rights in the woman’s brother and a woman’s children but that matrilineal systems differ in the way these rights are allocated between is the prior category assumptions. Men have kinds of society, so why should it be assumed from the start that brothers-in-law in matrilineal societies have special ‘prob- What I object to in this ll brothers-in-law in lems’ which are absent in patrilineal or bilateral structures? really What has lay a matrilineal society, she has decided to restrict her comparative obser-ations to matrilineal systems. Then, having selected a group of societies which have nothing in common except that they are matrilineal, she is naturally led to conclude that matrilineal descent is the major factor to which all the other items of cultural behaviour which she happened here with the Bemba, is that, because Dr Richards’s own special knowledge describes are functionally adjusted.

Her argument I am afraid is a tautology; her system of classification already implies the truth of what she claims to be demonstrating. This illustrates how Radcliffe-Brown’s taxonomic assumptions fit in with the ethnocentric bias which I mentioned earlier. Because the typefinding social anthropologist conducts his whole argument in terms of tempted particular instances rather than of generalized patterns, he is constantly to attach exaggerated significance to those features of social organization which happen to be prominent in the societies of which he himself has first hand experience. The ase of Professor Fortes illustrates this is same point in rather a different way. His quest not so much for types as for prototypes. It so happens that the two societies of which he has made a close study have certain similarities of structural pattern for, while the Tallensi are patri- RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY lineal 5 and the Ashanti matrilineal, both Tallensi and Ashanti come unfiliation’, usually close to having a system of double unilineal descent. Professor Fortes has devised a special concept, ‘complementary w^hich helps him to describe this double unilineal element in the Tallensi/

Ashanti pattern w^hile rejecting the notion that these societies actually possess double unilineal systems (Fortes, 1953, p. 33; 1959b). It is interesting to note the circumstances which led to the development of this concept. From one point of view ‘complementary filiation’ is simply an inverse form of Malinowski’s notion of ‘sociological paternity’ as applied in the matrilineal context of Trobriand society. But Fortes has done more than invent a new name for an old idea; he has made it the corner stone of a substantial body of theory and this theory arises logically special circumstances of his own field experience.

In his earlier writings the Tallensi are often represented as having a somewhat extreme form of patrilineal ideology. Later, in contrast to from the Rattray, Fortes placed an unambiguously matrilineal label upon the Ashanti. view, is The that merit of ‘complementary it is filiation’, from Fortes’s point of a concept which applies equally well to both of these contrasted societies but does not conflict with his thesis that both the Tallensi and the Ashanti have systems of unilineal descent. The concept ecame necessary to him precisely because he had decided at the start that the more familiar and more obvious notion of double unilineal descent was inappropriate. In retrospect Fortes seems to have decided that double unilineal descent is a special development of ‘complementary filiation’, the latter being a feature of all unilineal descent structures. That such category distinctions are contrived rather than natural is evident from Goody’s additional discrimination. Goody asserts that the LoWiili have ‘complementary descent rather than a dual descent system’.

Since the concept of ‘complementary filiation’ was first introduced so as to help in the distinction between ‘filiation’ and ‘descent’ and since the adjective ‘complementary’ cannot here be given meaning except by reference to the word ‘descent’, the total argument is clearly tautologous (Fortes, 1945, pp. 134, 20of; 1950, p. 287; 1953, p. 34; 1959; Goody, 1956b, p. 77). Now I do not claim that Professor Fortes is mistaken, but I think he is misled by his prior suppositions. If making and from enthnocentric science. we are to bias we must let escape both from typology turn to a different kind of

Instead of comparison repeat. Generalization us have generalization; instead of inductive; it butterfly collecting let us have inspired guesswork. Let me is consists in perceiving it is possible general laws in the circumstances of special cases; guesswork, a gamble, you may be wrong or you may be right, but if you happen to be right you have learnt something altogether new. In contrast, arranging butterflies according to their types and sub-types is tautology. It merely reasserts something you know already in a slightly different form. 6 RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY But if you are going is o start guessing, you need I to know how to guess. .
d this wliat I am getting at when say that the form of thinking should be mathematical. Functional ism in a mathematical sense is not concerned with the interconnections between parts of a whole but with the principles of operation of partial systems. There is a direct conflict here with the dogmas of Malinowski and Malinowski’s functionalism required us to think of each Society (or Culture, as Malinowski would have put it) as a totality Radcliffe-Brown. of a made up kinds — number of discrete empirical ‘things’, of rather diverse institutions’, e. g. groups of people, customs. These ‘things’ are functionally interconnected to form a delicately balanced mechanism rather like the various parts of a wrist watch. cliff”e- The functionalism of Rad- Brown was equally mechanical though the focus of interest was different. RadclifTe-Brown was concerned, as it were, to distinguish wrist watches clocks, whereas Malinowski was interested in the general attributes of clockwork. But hath masters took as their starting point the notion that a culture or a society is an empirical whole made up rom grandfather of a limited two societies number of readily identifiable parts and that when we compare we are concerned to see whether or not the same kinds of is parts are present in both cases. This approach a mechanic but appropriate for a zoologist or for a botanist or for it is not the approach of a mathematician nor of an engineer and, in gineer. my view, the anthropologist has much in common with the en- But that is my private bias. I was originally trained as an engineer. The entities which we call societies are not naturally existing species, neither re they man-made mechanisms. But the analogy of a mechanism has quite as much relevance as the analogy of an organism. This is not the place to discuss the history of the organic analogy as a model for Society, but its arbitrariness is often forgotten. Hobbes, who developed his notion of a social organism in a very systematic way, discusses in his preface whether a mechanical or an organic analogy might be the more appropriate for his purpose. He opts for an organism only because he wants to include in his model a metaphysical prime mover (i. . God Life Force) (Hobbes, 1957, p. 5). In contrast RadcHffe-Brown employed the organic analogy as a matter of dogma rather than of choice (e. g. Radcliffe-Brown, 1957, pp. 82-86; 1940a, pp. 3, lo) and his butterfly collecting followers have accepted the appropriateness of the phrase ‘social organism’ without serious discussion. Against this complacency I — must protest. It is certainly the case that social scientists must often resort all to analogy but eternity. we are not committed to one type of model making for Our task societies s to understand and explain what goes on in society, how work. If an engineer tries to explain to you how a digital computer RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY bolts. 7 works he doesn’t spend his time classifying different kinds of nuts and He concerns himself with principles, not with things. He writes out argument as a mathematical equation of the utmost simplicity, somewhat on the lines of o + i = i i + i = 10. No doubt this example is frivolous; such computers embody their information in a code which is transmitted in positive and negative impulses denoted by the digital symbols o and i.

The essential point is that although the information which can be embodied in such codes may be enormously complex, the basic principles on which the computing machines work is very simple. Likewise I would maintain that quite simple mechanical models can have relevance for social anthropology despite the acknowledged fact that the detailed empirical facts of social life display the utmost complexity. I don’t want to turn anthropology into a branch of mathematics but I believe we can learn a lot by starting to think about society in a mathehis : ; matical way.

Considered mathematically society is not an assemblage of things but an assemblage of variables. A good analogy would be with that branch of mathematics known as topology, which may crudely be described as the geometry of elastic rubber sheeting. If I have a piece of rubber sheet and draw a series of lines on it to symbolize the functional interconnections of some set of social phenomena and I then start stretching the rubber about, I can change the manifest shape of my original geometrical figure out of all recognition and yet clearly there is a sense in which it is the same figure all the time.

The constancy of pattern is not manifest as an objective empirical fact but it is there as a mathematical generalization. By analogy, generalized structural patterns in anthropology are not restricted to societies of any one manifest structural type. you will tell me that topology is one of those which mere sociologists had best avoid, but I am not in fact proposing anything original. A very good simple account of the nature of topology appears in an article under that title in the current edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

The author himself makes the point that because topology is a non-metrical form of mathematics it deserves especial attention from social scientists. I Now know that a lot of alarming scientific mysteries The fundamental Any closed curve is arc of a circle is ‘the variable in topology ‘the is the degree of connectedness. same as’ any other regardless of its shape; the same as’ a straight line because each is open ended. Contrariwise, a closed curve has a greater degree of connectedness than an arc. If of pattern case if we apply these ideas to sociology particular relationships e cease to be interested in and concern ourselves instead with the regularities relationships. is among neighbouring In the simplest possible there be a relationship p which intimately associated with another relationship q then in a topological study we shall not concern ourselves 8 RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY with the particular characteristics of/) and q but with their mutual characteristics, i. e. with the algebraic ratio p’^q. But it must be understood that the relationships and sets of relationships which are symbolized in this way cannot properly be given specific numerical values.

The reader should bear this point in mind when he encounters the specimens of pseudo-mathematics which occur later in this paper. All propositions in topology can also be expressed as propositions in symbolic logic (see Carnap, 1958, chapter G) and it was probably a consideration of this fact which led Nadel to introduce symbolic logic into own view is that while the consideration book (Xadel, 1957). of mathematical and logical models may help the anthropologist to order his last My his theoretical arguments in an all this intelligent way, his actual procedure s should be non-mathematical. The pattern relevance of to my main theme that the saTne structural may turn up in any kind of society patrilineal —a mathematical approach matrilineal makes no prior assumption that from non-unilineal systems or structures. all unilincal systems are basically different structures from the contrary, the principle of parity leads us to discount rigid category distinctions of this kind. On Let me try to illustrate I for the occasion shall take my point with an example. To be my example from Malinowski. Malinowski reported, as a ppropriate Most of you will know that fact of empirical ethnography, that the Trobrianders profess ignorance of the connection between copulation and pregnancy and that this ignorance serves as a rational justification for their system of matrilineal descent. From the Trobriand point of view ‘my father’ (tama) is not a blood relative at all but a kind of affine, *my mother’s husband’ (Malinowski, 1932a, p. 5). However, alongside their dogmatic ignorance of the facts of life, Trobrianders also maintain that every child should resemble its mother’s husband (i. . its father) but that no child could ever resemble a member of its own matrilineal kin. Malinowski seems to have thought it paradoxical that Trobrianders should hold both these doctrines at the same time. He was apparently bemused by the same kind of ethnocentric assumptions as later led a Tallensi informant to tell Professor Fortes that ‘both parents transmit their blood to their offspring, as can be seen from the fact that Tallensi children may resemble either parent in looks’ (Fortes, 1949, p. 35; my italics). This is mixing up sociology and genetics.

We know, and apparently the Tallensi assume, that physical appearance is genetically based, but there is no reason why primitive people in general should associate ideas of genetic inheritance with ideas about physical resemblance between persons. The explanation which the Trobrianders gave to Malinowski was that a father impresses his appearance on his son by cohabiting repeatedly with the mother and thereby ‘moulding’ (kuli) the child in her womb (Malinowski, 1932a, p. 176) which is reminiscent of the Ashanti . RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY view that the father shapes the body of his child as might a potter (Rattray, 1929, p. 9). This Trobriand theory is quite consistent with the view that the father is related to the son only as mother’s husband that is, an affine and not as a kinsman. There are other Trobriand doctrines which fall into line with this. The father’s sister is ‘the prototype of the lawful woman’ (Malinowski, 1932a, p. 450) which seems to be more or less the equivalent of saying that — the father (tama) is much the same sort of relation as a brother-in-law.

Again, although, as Powell has shown (Powell, 1956, p. 314), marriage with the father’s sister’s daughter is rare, the Trobrianders constantly assured Malinowski that this was a very right and proper marriage. Evidently in their view the category tama (which includes both father and father’s sister’s son) is very close to that of lubou (brother-in-law) (Mal- inowski, 1932a, pp. 86, 451). The similarity is asserted not only in verbal expression but also in the pattern of economic obligation, for the harvest gift (urignbu) paid by a married man is due both to his mother’s husband tama) and to his sister’s husband (lubou) (Malinowski, 1935, I, pp. 386, 413-18). From my point of view this cluster of Trobriand beliefs and attitudes is a ‘pattern of organizational ideas’— it specifies a series of categories, in a particular relationship and places them with one another as in an was biased by his down to earth empiricism, by European prejudices and by his interest in psycho-analysis, and he refused to accept tlie Trobriand doctrine at its face value. Instead he refurbished his concept of ‘sociological paternity’ which he had originalgebraic equation.

But Malinowski ally devised to fit a quite different context, that of patrilineal organization among On to the Australian Aborigines (Malinowski, 19 13, p. 170-83). this earlier occasion Malinowski had used ‘sociological paternity’ relations show how between parents and children and between spouses derive from customary rules and not from any universal facts of biology or psychology, but in the later application of these ideas to Trobriand circumstances he shifts his ground and the argument becomes confused by the introduction of naive psychological considerations. On the face of t ‘sociological paternity’, as used in The Sexual Life of attitudes Savages, seems to mean that even in a society which, like the Trobriands, sociological still denies the facts of ‘biological paternity’, pertain to paternity, as zve understand it, which far, may be found. So so good. But Malinowski goes further than this. Instead of arguing, as in the Australian case, that kinship attitudes have a purely social origin, he now insists that social attitudes to kinship arc facts. rooted in universal psychological The paternal relationship contains elements which are necessarily resent in the father/child relationship of all societies, no matter what the circumstances of custom and social structure confusing. may be. This is all very On the one hand the reader is is told quite plainly that the Trobriand child taught to think of his father as a non-relative, as an lO RETHINKING ANTHROPOLOGY individual with the special non-kinship status of mother’s husband. But on the other hand the reader is forced to conclude that this ‘IVobriand mother’s husband is related to the mother’s child ‘as a sociological father’, that is to say by ties of kinship as well as by tics of affinity.

The argument, as a whole, is self-contradictory. is You may about. well think that this a yery hairsplitting point to make a fuss How can it possibly make any difference whether I think of a parti- cular male as my father or as is my mother’s husband? Well, all I can say that anthropologists do Professor Fortes, Dr Goody and Dr Kathleen Gough on this subject that worry about such things. are so disturbed by my heretical yiews oflF time to try to bruise my owski’s argument (Fortes, 1959)-

Categories
Free Essays

William Pickton Anthropology

After reading the article in assignment one, complete the following questions. 1. Analyse the behaviour of William Pickton using the three different social science perspectives. Choose one theory from psychology, sociology, and anthropology. Using each perspective, write a one page analysis of the behaviour of William Pickton. Write a perspective for each social theory (three pages in total). 2. Write a hypothesis to research a serial murderer using the following social science theories: Psychoanalysis, Functionalism, and Feminism.

For example, a Marxist could look at the economic inequalities as a means of promoting a feeling of helplessness. This helpless feeling could promote feelings of anger against anyone who possesses any means of production, and has control of his/her life. Lashing out against a community that is capable of supporting itself is a means of gaining power. Miller’s job is in the service industry and does not involve the direct production of goods. Not controlling the means of production forces him to sell his skill. 3. INDEPTH: PICKTON The missing women of Vancouver

CBC News Online | Updated Aug. 10, 2006 4. After investigators spent 18 months excavating his Port Coquitlam farm, Robert William Pickton faced 15 murder charges in Vancouver’s missing women case in 2002. In May 2005, Crown attorneys added 12 more first-degree murder charges against Pickton, bringing the grim total to 27. One of those charges was eventually dropped in March 2006, after a judge ruled Pickton could not be tried for killing an unidentified victim. In July 2003, B. C. provincial court judge David Stone ruled there was enough evidence to take Pickton to trial.

This came after an extensive six-month-long preliminary hearing. But in June 2004, lawyers working on the case said Pickton’s trial won’t start until spring 2005 at the earliest. In December 2004, Pickton’s defence team asked for another delay to give them time to examine DNA evidence. The trial date was further delayed when prosecutors added the 12 additional charges in May 2005. Pickton’s trial didn’t start until late January 2006. The voir dire phase of the trial, in which lawyers argue over what evidence will be admissible, is expected to last several months on its own.

Reporters are not allowed to disclose material presented during voir dire because it may be ruled inadmissible. However, Crown prosecutors and Pickton’s lawyers agreed they can start putting evidence to a jury in January 2007. Jury selection is scheduled for December 2006. It’s expected 3,500 people will be called for jury duty, up substantially from an average of about 500 in other murder cases. And to lessen the burden on the jurors, a B. C. judge ruled that Pickton’s trial will be divided into two parts. He will first be tried on six counts of murder.

Justice James Williams said prosecutors can still seek a separate trial for the remaining 20 victims. He said severing the counts maximizes the chances that the case will proceed properly without a mistrial. And, he added, the evidence in these six cases – the alleged murders of Sereena Abotsway, Mona Wilson, Andrea Joesbury, Brenda Wolfe, Georgina Papin and Marnie Frey ? was “materially different” than the others. The case against Robert Pickton Rebecca Guno, a drug addict and prostitute, vanished from Vancouver’s downtown eastside in June 1983.

Her name was the first of 61 that would eventually be placed on the list of women to disappear mysteriously from the drug-infested area over the two decades that followed. It wasn’t until 19 years later, early in 2002, that charges were laid in any of the cases. The charges came not long after police focused their efforts on a farm in Port Coquitlam, outside Vancouver. Dozens of officers scoured the farm in search of evidence. Within months, the owner of that farm, 53-year-old Robert William Pickton, would face seven murder charges.

In July 2002, police made a plea for the public’s help in locating nine more missing women, and said that if they cannot be found, their names will be added to the list of 54 other women who are missing. In September 2002, Pickton was charged with four more murders. One month later, four additional charges were added, bringing the total to 15. On January 9, 2003, days before Pickton’s pretrial hearings began, traces of another missing woman were found on the pig farm. Police told the woman’s mother that they did not want to lay any more charges until the pretrial started, fearing it would delay the case.

Pickton’s preliminary hearing, which began January 13, 2003, was winding down on July 20 when police expanded their investigation to include a roadside marsh in Mission, B. C. RCMP said the new search, to involve 52 anthropologists and two soil sifters, was prompted by findings made by searchers at the Port Coquitlam farm. A publication ban was placed on the pre-trial hearing to ensure information was not broadcast to potential jurors before the case is brought to trial. Nonetheless, evidence from the preliminary hearing was reported in newspapers, broadcasts and Web sites in the U.

S – something Pickton’s lawyer was afraid of. “Our concern all along is that we cannot control that,” said Peter Ritchie. “And so we’re going to have to follow that to see what has been published. ” The Pickton case is now the largest serial killer investigation in Canadian history (Clifford Olson pleaded guilty in 1982 to killing 11 children in B. C. ). Families of the missing women have accused Vancouver police of mishandling the investigation from the beginning by ignoring evidence that a serial killer was at work.

The RCMP became involved in 2001. The families also say police neglected the cases because many of the women were prostitutes and drug addicts. It wasn’t until August of 2001 that Vancouver police began hinting that a serial killer could be responsible for the disappearance of the missing women. At the time 31 women had vanished, but four had been accounted for and two of those were confirmed dead. Dr. Elliott Leyton, an anthropology professor at Memorial University in St.

John’s, Newfoundland, who wrote a book on serial killers called Hunting Humans, says that police are rightly reluctant to identify serial murders because public panic often follows. “Responsible people have to be careful about making wild pronouncements about possible serial killers,” Leyton says. “And when we are not sure if it is true, then it is inappropriate to throw people into a state of panic. Prostitution is a very dangerous profession and many of the people in it are wanderers and not well-connected to any conventional system of government controls or social services.

So they can drift away from the system without being noticed for a very long time, even when nothing may have actually happened to them. ” 5. Leyton argues that it may be irresponsible to assume that a serial killer may be at work in Vancouver. The RCMP task force has repeatedly said that it cannot speak about the ongoing investigation and only concedes that a serial killer may be involved. But Leyton admits that when you have a number of people missing from a particular social type you have to ask questions.

The first indication that there was a significant number of prostitutes missing as far back as 1978 came to public attention in July of 1999, when the Vancouver Police and the Province’s Attorney General published a poster offering a reward of $100,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the person or people involved in the disappearances. Even the popular U. S. TV program America’s Most Wanted aired a segment on the missing prostitutes, but few leads surfaced. In the spring of 1999, two Vancouver detectives teamed up with two RCMP detectives to review the file pertaining to the 31 missing women.

In August of that year police began investigating an account by a woman, not a prostitute, who said that a man snatched her from the stairwell of a hotel in Vancouver’s downtown eastside. The woman jumped from her captor’s moving vehicle to escape. 6. Accusations that police haven’t done enough reached a fever pitch when former detective and geographic profiler Kim Rossmo claimed he told police that a serial killer was at work in the Vancouver area and was ignored. Rossmo said that disappearances from the neighborhood were normal, but that the number of incidents was abnormally high between 1995 and 1998.

Rossmo, who sued the Vancouver department for wrongful dismissal when they failed to renew his contract, claimed that a single predator was responsible for killing prostitutes in downtown Vancouver. The Vancouver department dismissed his claims as sour grapes. Leyton says that the difficulty in assembling a case is that these kinds of killers typically prey on strangers, so it becomes much more difficult for police to make the connections required to confirm the presence of a serial killer. 7. Article reprinted with permission from the CBC.

Categories
Free Essays

Cultural Anthropology Midterm Study Guide

Anthropology 2 Midterm Study Guide: Professor Li Zhang Midterm Date: October 30, 2012 Week 1 What is the scope of cultural anthropology? Discuss its focus of inquiry, approach, and major changes over time. ?Cultural anthropology is concerned with the nature and extent of social and cultural differences among different societies. Focus on Inquiry: Why there are different cultures and how they came about and are affected or changing. Focus on Approach: Approaches could be urban, political, legal, medical, psychological, environmental, feminist, etc. Goals: ?Understanding how differences among societies are shaped. Understanding the unequal power relations between societies produced by colonialism, imperialism and contemporary global practices. ?To compare the perspectives of different societies and how each of them interprets the world. Changes in cultural anthropology over time: ?Used to be a way to proves inferiority of others and justify oppression and ethnocentrism. Now its mostly about being critical of inequality, ? We also do fieldwork in western, ‘developed’ countries. ?There is more globalization now. ?Early anthropology focused on studying isolated, tribal societies. ?Over time they began to study large urban industrial societies. Today the scope of cultural anthropology has expanded into various subdivisions, such as urban political, and medical. Compare the two major schools of early anthropological thought: British social anthropology and French structuralism in terms of their primary concern and focus. British Social Anthropology: ?Emerged in early 20th century. Main founding figure was Malinowski. ?Radcliffe-Brown, Evans-Pritchard, Gluckman, and Leach also were important figures. ?Two theoretical foundations were functionalism and structural functionalism: 0Functionalism – Explanation of why certain social institutions exist. Explains the cultural responses to basic individual needs that are biological and/or physiological. 0Example: cannibalism may be explained through a survivalist function ?Structural Functionalism – Concerned less with individual needs and actions and more with the place of the individuals in the social order. ?Figures out the relationship of individuals to the larger social body. ?Example: Cannibal Tours – colonists arrived and stripped villages of sacred objects and introduced European monetary system to make the villagers subordinate

During these early years, social anthropology was deeply intertwined with the British colonial government that provided the financial support for research and teaching in anthropology. The primary interest was in Africa – to study their languages and generate knowledge about their political and legal systems. French Structuralism ?Primary figure in school of thought is Levi Strauss. ?Focused on the elementary structures of kinship, mythology, and language. ?Some concerns include the patterns or underlying structures and how seemingly unrelated things may actually be from a complex system of interrelated parts. Form is emphasized over content. ?The internal logic of a culture and its relationship to the structures of human society and human mind. Comparison: ?Both schools of thought are concerned with studying the structure and layout of the society. ?British social anthropology is concerned more with the relation of the individual to society while French structuralism is concerned with how individuals are connected to one another to form the society (mythologies, language, human mind). Week 2: How does Edward Taylor define “culture”? Discuss the four key aspects of culture by providing one example for each aspect. Examples can be drawn from the readings, films, or other sources including your own observation. British anthropologist Edward Taylor defines culture as: “a complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, arts, morals, law, customs, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by a man as a member of society. ” The four elements of culture are: 1. Culture is learned. ?Culture can be learned consciously and unconsciously through interacting and imitating the people around us. It can happen in informal settings such as your home, or formal places like churches and schools. Example: as children we learn to imitate words we hear adults speak and learn to speak the language. Proper etiquette is taught by looking at how others behave or from interacting with people who teach it to them. 2. Culture is shared. ?Members of a group share common beliefs, values, memories, and hope. ?Example: American culture is identified with individualism, while Chinese culture is identified with collectivism. This difference can be seen through the food and meals they choose. Americans usually don’t like to share their meals and order individual plates while the Chinese typically share their food and eat family-style. Example: “Eating Christmas in the Kalahari” by Richard Lee 0For Christmas, Lee buys the largest ox to show his gratitude for the Bushmen’s hospitality during his stay. He becomes confused when everyone in the village says that the ox he bought was no good and that is has no meat on it. 0In Bushmen village, it is part of their culture and tradition to insult each other so that people don’t become arrogant. Lee learned this by asking the Bushmen about it, showing how culture is shared by communication and interaction. 3. Culture is symbolic. Creation of culture depends on the human’s ability to use symbols and be able to have symbolic thought. ?We are able to give meaning to a thing or event and grasp the meaning. It can be arbitrary and conventional and depends on the social context that is widely accepted by society. However, the context can vary for each society. ?Examples: -McDonalds has become a symbol of fast food and unhealthy eating in America, but it is viewed as high class and modern in China. ?Colors tend to have symbolic meanings attached to them. Red represents love, yellow represents life, black represents death, etc. . Culture is dynamic. ?Culture isn’t a static cage to lock people in. It is something that changes over time. ?People use their culture creatively and actively instead of rigidly following the rules. ?There are some differences in culture between groups and societies, but the differences aren’t absolute. ?Cultural hybridization allows different cultural traditions and practices to merge together. 0Examples: – Food culture: fusion of food features a combination of different elements of cultures from all over the world. – Western psychotherapy combines Buddhist meditation with western psychology.

What is ethnocentrism? Why is it problematic? In your discussion, draw examples from either Bohannan’s “Shakespeare in the Bush” or the film Cannibal Tours. How would a diffusionist argue against ethnocentrism? Ethnocentrism is the tendency to use one’s own culture as a yardstick to measure other cultural practices and beliefs. •Tendency for people to see their own culture as superior and natural. People make judgments according to their own cultural lens, giving them a narrow perspective; they see all other cultures as inferior to theirs.

Examples: Cannibal Tours: The western tourists continuously compared the natives’ lifestyle to their own and saw their culture as primitive and backwards. They saw the natives as uncivilized and poor people who lacked the technology they possessed back at home. Bohannan’s “Shakespeare in the Bush”: While reading through Hamlet, both the storyteller and the audience exhibit ethnocentrism. What Bohannan took for granted and viewed as common sense were things that the elders did not understand because it didn’t exist in their culture.

Ghosts and the afterlife did not exist in the native’s culture, and young people should not fight against their elders. Elders constantly made remarks about the play as if they knew what was going on, believing that they were telling her the true meaning of Hamlet and how her interpretation of Hamlet is actually wrong. According to Franz Boas, no culture is pure and authentic. Instead, cultural boundaries are porous and cultural exchanges have long existed in human societies. 0Diffusionism shows that all cultures are interrelated to one another, so ethnocentrism does not exist. In Ralph Linton’s “One Hundred Percent American,” he shows that cultures are not 100% from their own country and that culture is diffused and adapted by various places as part of their culture. What is cultural relativism? Discuss its pros and cons. What is your take on it? Support your argument with evidence and analysis. Cultural Relativism is the view opposite of ethnocentrism: believes that one shouldn’t judge the values and practices of other people according to their own standards. •The main idea is to see things from the point of view of those who live their lives.

This allows the anthropologist to fully appreciate another culture. Pros: ?Objective approach in doing research; helps anthropologists another culture more thoroughly. ?Promotes unity between cultures and between groups of people in general since it would help people respect and understand each other. Cons: ?Helps justify controversial practices such as female genitalia mutilation, cannibalism, animal sacrifice, etc. *I am of the opinion that cultural relativism is an important philosophy to apply to any anthropological research, however a delicate balance must always strive to be maintained.

To me, respect should always be asserted, but human rights should have authority over political correctness. ”-malinowski According to Malinowski, what is a holistic approach to doing ethnographic research and why is it important? What constitutes the proper conditions for ethnographic fieldwork? Explain three central ethnographic techniques (don’t just list them, but explain in greater detail). A holistic approach in doing ethnographic work is to understand a culture as a whole and all aspects are connected/intertwined and must be understood in relation to one another. The goal of the ethnographer should be to provide an anatomy of the culture, understand the facts and put the focus into a broader context. •You must understand that all the small institutions of a culture, such as religion, education, kinship, are all related to one another in order to grasp the meaning as a whole. •The proper conditions for ethnographic fieldwork is to observe the details of the natives’ family and communal life by staying as close in contact with them as possible and cutting yourself off from the company of anyone else other than the natives.

You must immerse yourself into the local society for a long duration because there is a difference between sporadic plunging into the company of the natives and really living with them and connecting with them. Three central ethnographic techniques: 1. Observation and participant observation. ?Careful and detailed observation is important to collect data to answer questions, which requires a lot of patience. ?You should try to be objective and keep away from any bias thoughts or else the collected data will be compromised.

You must also remember to be invisible and make sure they don’t know they are being observed or else the data will be inaccurate. ?Participant observation is when you participate in events with the natives in order to analyze and take notes. 0This allows you to get closer to the natives and helps you to better understand their culture through your experience and interaction with them. 2. Interviews. ?Interviews involve asking several individual questions to get a better understanding of the culture from a native’s point of view. The goal of the interviews is to see a pattern that emerges in the answers you receive. ?Interviews can be informal, semi-structured, or structured. ?Informal interview – an interview that doesn’t follow a straight schedule and takes advantage of the opportunity when it arises. ?Semi-structured / structured interview – interviews that are planned out with the questions you want to ask written down and planned beforehand. 0Semi-structured interviews may have some open ended questions. 0Interviews are the most effective method and are the core of ethnographic research. When you interview people you know, you may get introduced to people that you could possibly interview, and you can therefore gather up more data and opinions for your research. This is called the snowballing effect. 3. Key informants and life histories. ?Also called cultural consultants. These people are important figures that are able to give you more insight and information in various aspects of a culture. 0They are the few people who are willing to tell you more and explain in clear details while incorporating their personal experience to help you understand.

Key Informant: Someone you build an amicable relationship with, who acts as a representative of the culture. Generally someone in a high position who will be able to explain the ins and outs of the culture from an intimately informed POV. What are the core issues in the code of ethics for anthropologists (discuss at least three)? Why is it important to follow them? The three core issues in the code of ethics for anthropologists include: 1. Full disclosure. ?It is important for the anthropologist to be open and honest to the people s/he is studying. Must inform them of every aspect of the study and any consequences that may happen as a result of the study. 2. Informed Consent. ?The people being studied must be well informed about the procedure, and the anthropologist must have them sign a paper or ask for verbal consent before proceeding with the study. 0This is to make sure that they have fully agreed to the terms and have proof that they have willingly volunteered themselves. 3. Potential Harm. 0It is the anthropologist’s duty to inform the subject of any consequential harm that may come to them. The anthropologist must ensure not to harm safety, dignity, or privacy of any parties involved. ?It is important to follow the code of ethics in order to avoid any lawsuits and also to make sure that the people being studied are well informed and know exactly what they are signing up for so that no harm will come to them. Week 4: Today most anthropologists recognize that race is a social construct that does not have a biological reality. Discuss how Boas and Montagu each defend this view. What evidence from modern genetics does the film “Race: The Power of an Illusion” provide to further support this position?

Franz Boas also referred to as the “Father of American Anthropology,” talks about race as a social construction in his paper, “Mind of Primitive Man” ? He believes that racial groups never existed, and that races are not as pure as we imagine them to be because migration patterns in the past intertwined cultures together and created diverse groups of people. ?Boas talks about purity and boundedness, stating that biological significance is only possible when races have uniform, closely inbred groups where family lines are alike. However, these conditions can’t be achieved with humans, especially in large populations. He also argues about the instability of populations, meaning that the physical and psychological attributes of people are dynamic and fluctuate constantly to adapt to various circumstances. 0The biological, linguistic, and cultural traits of people are the product of historical development and the environment. Ashley Montagu in her article, “The Concept of Race in the Human Species in the Light of Genetics,” uses the idea of cooking an omelet as a metaphor for the making of race. 0When an omelet is made, the end result may all look the same, but the ingredients used to make the omelet may vary.

This is the basis for the anthropological view of race in that although groups of people may have different appearances and characteristics, everyone is essentially the same. 0His argument is based on modern genetics, stating that no two humans are genetically identical to one another, therefore races cannot categorize groups of people since they don’t share the same genetic background. ¦Racial characteristics are artificial and have no genetic base. Example of the use of modern genetics in the film, “Race: The Power of an Illusion. •In the film, a group of students performed an experiment to compare genetic similarities to other classmates using blood samples, skin color, and saliva swaps. The result of the experiment turned out to be different from what they expected. The students found that their genes were most similar to people they least expected, and that there was no correlation between their genetic patterns and their skin color. •Dr. Richard Lewontin, with the use of gel electrophesis, found that 85% of all variations among humans are between individuals of the same local population. There is as much difference between two individuals of the same race as there is between individuals of different races, so race can’t be determined biologically. What is scientific racism? Why is it flawed and dangerous? Use one of the examples discussed in the lecture to support your argument (Morton versus Gould or The Bell Curve). How do anthropologists understand gender and patriarchy? Provide two examples (from the lecture or your own observation) to show that gender roles change from society to society and from time to time.

Scientific Racism is the attempt to prove “scientifically” that some “races” are not just different, but superior to others. 0Scientific techniques and observations are usually utilized to prove this belief but the collected data is usually inaccurate and tainted with racist beliefs. Example: Dr. Samuel George Morton versus Stephen J. Gould. •Samuel George Morton attempted to prove that some races were superior to others by measuring the skulls of people of different races, ¦He believed that the cranial capacity of the skulls would tell how intelligent people were. His results concluded that white people were the superior race among other groups, because his measurements showed that they had the largest skulls compared to the others. ?Stephen J. Gould repeated the research and found several errors with Morton’s conclusion. 0Morton manipulated his data by including more female skulls for blacks than for whites, so the measurement for the skulls of the blacks turned out to be smaller. 0When Gould measured again fairly, the average size of a black person’s skull turned out to be much larger than the skull of a white person’s. The data was manipulated because of Morton’s bias. His beliefs caused him to already have the results in mind that he wanted, regardless of what is actually true. Example: The Bell Curve 0A book written by Richard J. Hernstein and Charles Murray: argues that blacks carry inferior genes of intelligence compared to whites, and so they naturally score lower on IQ tests. ¦Their low IQ scores are what prevent the blacks from attaining a higher level job, and it is also because of their low intelligence that they have a higher crime rate. The controversy that comes with this claim is that if the government agrees with it, then the blacks should not receive social welfare for their low-income families because they are genetically inferior. Scientific racism is usually incorrectly proven using data that has been deliberately altered to support bias beliefs, so the results are not accurate. The danger that can result from this if it is actually proven, the groups may be neglected or abused, or at the very least treated with social injustice. Gender – All the traits that a culture assigns to and indicates in men and women. It is a social construct of male and female characteristics and roles. ?Gender differences come from culture rather than biology. ?Patriarchy – A social and political system rule by men in which women have inferior social and political status. 0Females are carried out as subordinates to men in this system. Most common in patrilineal societies (involving counting the descent line of the father’s line, which includes property inheritance, names, titles, etc. ) Examples of gender roles changing between societies and through time: ?Forager/hunter and gatherer societies

This type of society shows a typical gender division of labor. Men were responsible for hunting and fishing while women were responsible for gathering fruits and nuts. Men would usually bring in more food than women, so the men had a higher social rank in these societies. When women are the ones to contribute more food, then the women would have an equal relationship with the men. ?Agriculture societies Men are assigned to heavy labor such as plowing the field, while women are responsible for domestic work, child rearing, and light far work around the house. These societies tend to have a stronger gender inequality. Industrial societies Gender roles in industrial societies tend to change over time in response to economic conditions and social climates. Before the 1900s, it was common for men, women, and children to work in factories. Things began to change in the 1900s with the large influx of immigrants that increased the male labor force and also brought up ideas that women weren’t fit to work in the factories and should stay home and take care of the kids instead, During WW2, things changed again as men are drafted into the military and women began working in factories again to fill the gap.

The women’s return to the factory was received in a positive notion and was even viewed as patriotic. What are gender stereotypes? What is the role of advertising in making and reinforcing gender stereotypes and normalcy? Draw two concrete examples from the film (Killing US Softly) in your discussion. Gender stereotypes – oversimplified yet strongly held ideas about the characteristics of men and women. Advertisements mainly target women and girls about beauty and the ideal body they should have, as well as a childlike / quiet demeanor. Many girls express the fear of being fat, and the number one wish of girls between the age of 11-17 is to be thinner. ?Most of the people who suffer from eating disorders are girls who are self-conscious and obsessive about their body. Examples in Killing us Softly: ?Ads of women of color tend to show them with animal prints which turn them into animals rather than human beings. ?Ads about women who lost weight typically say they were able to get married because they lost weight.

This gives the idea that women who are fat probably won’t ever get married, and this serves to lower women’s self-esteems even further and increase their drive to become skinnier and purchase products to expedite the process. ?Images of thin women are often used to silence women and put them down. ?Ads show pictures of women exhibiting passive body language such as their hands over their mouths and faces. ?When there is an ad of a man and a woman, the man is usually taller and is looking down at the woman, while the woman looks up and smiles compliantly. This encourages female submission to men and conveys the message that women should be quiet and obedient. According to Martin’s article, how do stereotypical gender roles shape scientific accounts of the egg-sperm romance? Stereotypical gender roles shape scientific accounts by how the sperm and the egg are described and how they function. ?The sperm is described as masculine, active, agile, and penetrating, while the egg is described as passive, feminine, fragile and dependent. ?The egg is portrayed as a damsel in distress who waits quietly in a still spot for her knight in shining armor, the sperm, to fight his way to her. The female reproductive system is seen as wasteful and a failure while the male reproductive system is seen as productive. ?Scientists question why women are born with so many eggs only to have most of it go to waste, yet the don’t consider the excessive amount of sperm men create as a waste. ?New research found that the sperms aren’t that forceful and what actually matters is that the surface of the egg is what traps the sperm, showing that eggs are more active than previously thought. This shows that the relationship between the egg and the sperm is interactive. Even with this new research, the egg is still viewed in a bad light. ?The more active role of the egg is seen as too aggressive and the reproductive system of women as a dangerous place since it tries to kill sperm cells that enter it. How does Ortner explain why women are universally put in an inferior position to men? Do you agree with her argument? Why or why not? Support your view with evidence. Ortner argues that the subordination of women is a universal idea by referring to how a lot of anthropological literatures show accounts of how women are devalued in society. Symbolic acts of women are believed to justify their inferior role. Menstruation is considered a symbolic act that restricts the freedom of women. During a women’s menstruation period, she was not allowed to come near sacred objects because of the fear that she might contaminate them. Menstruation was believed to be a threat of warfare. ?Social and political structures also serve to affect the status of women in societies, and exclude women from participating in areas with people of high authority. ?Women are associated with nature while men are associated with culture, and culture is typically viewed as superior to nature.

Men use their creativity to create technology and symbols that are transcendental and last for eternity, while women are restricted by their natural duties that involve reproduction and creating life. ¦Destruction of life by men has more prestige and is viewed as transcendental, while creation of life by women is regarded as less important. ¦The things that men create last forever while what women produce are doomed to die. ¦The reason why women are associated with nature more is because of their physiology, social role, and psyche. ?No I do not agree with Ortner.

I believe that these views are socially constructed, and that we’ve evolved past them. Week 5: What are the five different economic systems in the world? Define each briefly. ?Forager: hunting and gathering; moving from place to place; gender roles due to unequal division of labor, egalitarian (old people are respected). ?Horticulture: Cultivation with simple tools, fields not permanent property (slash and burn) mobility, depend on rainfall. ?Agriculture: Use animals for food and labor. These groups are less mobile, live in larger and more permanent settlements, and use advanced irrigation systems. Pastoral: Focus on domesticated animals for food; nomadic. ?Industrial: Mechanized forces, factories, and technology for mass production; increased population density. Briefly explain the three basic principles that govern exchanges according to Karl Polanyi. ?The Market Principle: Supply and Demand, Capitalism. Coffee beans they were selling. Export of crop. ?Redistribution: Socialism; Goods move from local level to center: taxation, welfare. Redistributing the pigs and wealth within the people. ?Reciprocity: exchange between those who are socially equal (gift economies); want to give back.

What is a moral economy? What is a system of total service defined by Marcel Mauss? ?Moral Economy: A type of economy in which economic activities are an integral part of social relations and moral obligations. Economic and non-economic activities and institutions are embedded in one another. Economic activities and exchange systems are governed by conceptions of social justice, norms, and expectations. ?Systems of total service – The exchange is not solely about property and wealth, but also about the social and moral obligations. Part of the more general and enduring contract.

According to Marcel Mauss, why does a gift have the special power to cause its recipient to pay it back? ?The Power – Gifts are never “free,” so they give rise to reciprocal exchanges. The giver does not merely give an object, but also a part of him/herself. This intrinsic bondage weighs on the conscience of the recipient. What is potlatch? How do Ruth Benedict, Marcel Mauss, and Marvin Harris explain why potlatch exists? ?Potlatch means to give away, or a gift; it is a festival ceremony, and its goal is to give away joy and wealth – more than the rival. Explanations – 0Ruth Benedict: Driven by obsession with prestige and status, (because the more that you give the more prestige you claim). 0Marcel Mauss: Compelled by reciprocity, (responding to a positive action with another positive action, rewarding kindness). 0Marvin Harris: Serves an economic purpose (rational cultural adaptation). Says that potlatch is a logical cultural mechanism. Says that participating in potlatches creates a constant flow of goods. Serves as an economic purpose, human social life is a response to practical problems of earthly existence.

Categories
Free Essays

General Anthropology: A Study of Humanity

General Anthropology Anthropology – study of humanity; humans and cultures 4 Sub-Fields 1. Socio-Cultural – focuses on living human cultures, global patterns of belief and behavior found in modern and historical cultures, participant observation a. Influenced behaviors, customs, traditions, beliefs b. Non-biological of adaptation to the human environment, social and natural 2. Anthropological Linguistics – description and study of structure and history of language and relationship to culture, study of human speech and language 3. Archaeology – study of material culture of past human life and activities c.

Cultural history/ chronology d. Life ways e. Processes 4. Study of humans as animals – evolutionary theory and genetics, physical and biological Anthropology is holistic * Culture > Integrated system * Biological, Ecological, Social * Bio-Cultural Approach > feedback loop between culture and environment * NON-ETHNOCENTRIC (more than one way to view the world) Humans are distinct: Animals, Mammals, Primates, Problem solvers, Bipedal locomotion (walk on 2 feet), Opposable thumbs, stereoscopic vision, large brain, reproduction (no estrus cycle), and culture Chapter 1 Vocabulary

Hominins – term for members of the evolutionary group including humans and extinct bipedal relatives Bipedal – walks on two feet / legs Primates – members of the order of mammals Bio-cultural evolution – evolution of human biology and culture, both further influences one another, leads to understanding human evolution Ethnographies – detailed descriptive studies of human societies Paleoanthropology – study of disease and injury in human skeletal Anthropometry – measurement of human body parts DNA – double-stranded molecule that contains genetic code Osteology – study of skeletal material

Primatology – study of biology and behavior of nonhuman primates Continuum – set of relationships in which all components fall along a single integrated spectrum (humans are a product of the same force that produced all life on earth) Empirical – relying on experiment or observation Cultural Relativism – cultures have merits or worth within their own historical and environmental contexts Important Names Alfred Wallace f. On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type (1858) g. The best adapted survived; the less well adapted perished Charles Darwin a.

On the Origin of Species. (1859) b. Concept of Natural Selection c. Evolution d. isHisTheory * All species > offspring ? food supply * Variation, some more favorable * Struggle for existence * Variations > next generation * Successful variations > diff. results in next species Charles Lyell a. Uniformitarianism Cuvier a. Catastrophism Gregor Mendel a. Worked in the monastery’s garden * Experimented with fertilization of flowers (new color variations) * Fascinated by “the regularity with which the same hybrid forms always reappeared when fertilization took place between the same species. b. Mendel’s experiments * Determine the number of different forms of hybrids * Arrange them according to generations * Attempt to evaluate the statistical relationships c. Common Garden Pea * Seed shape, seed color, flower color, pod shape, pod color, flower position, stem height d. Law of Segregation * Discrete units of genetic information are passed from one generation to the next e. Different physical expressions because some traits were dominant over others * Dominant Trait i. Visible or Measurable ii.

Prevents the appearance of the recessive trait iii. Round is dominant * Recessive Trait iv. Not visible or measurable when paired with the dominant allele v. Only visible or measurable when dominant allele is absent Gould and Eldredge a. Punctuated equilibrium: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered Lamarck a. Theory of Acquired Characteristics Linnaeus a. Adherent to great chain of being b. Developed system of classification * Binomial nomenclature Thomas Malthus a. Population growths unrestrained by natural causes will double every 25 years. . BUT, capacity for food production increase only in a straight arithmetic progression. c. The impulse to multiply is counteracted by THE STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE d. THE INFINITE FERTILITY OF MANKIND VERSUS THE LIMITED SIZE & RESOURCES OF THE EARTH. e. The Dilemma of Population Growth i. Preventative checks (foresight) vs. positive check (infant mortality, famine) Chapter 2 Vocabulary Fixity of Species – the notion that species, once created, can never change, opposes biological evolution Reproductively isolated – groups or organisms, ainly because of genetic differences, are prevented from mating and reproducing offspring with members of other groups Reproductive success – the number of offspring an individual produces and rears to reproductive age; and individuals genetic contribution to the next generation Selective pressures – forces in the environment that influence reproductive success in individuals Genome – the entire genetic makeup of an individual or species Fertility – the ability to conceive and produce healthy offspring Chapter 3 Vocabulary

Gametes – reproductive cells (eggs and sperm in animals) Somatic cell – all cells in body except those involved in reproduction Zygote – cell formed by the union of an egg and sperm cell, contains chromosomes Nucleotides – basic units of DNA molecule

Enzymes – specialized proteins that initiate and direct chemical reactions in the body Hemoglobin – protein molecule that occurs in red blood cells and binds to oxygen molecules Mitosis – simple cell division; produces two identical daughter cells Meiosis – cell division in specialized cells in ovaries and testes Recombination – the exchange of genetic material between homologous chromosomes; cross-over Genome – entire genetic makeup of an individual or species Evolutionary Theory Catastrophism * Cuvier * New species could not evolve from old Time-to-time catastrophes occur, destroys all living things in certain areas * New forms populate area by migration * Incoming migrants had more modern appearance due to the result of more recent creation events Uniformitarianism * Lyell * Processes at work today = active throughout history of earth = those occurred in past * James Hutton = ancient, on-going, continuous, without end * Geological change ( earthquakes, volcanoes, etc) were consistent, uniformed, constant through time Forces of Evolution

Evolution – (Darwin) the gradual unfolding of new varieties of life from previous forms * Modern Synthesis ( 2 stage process) 1. The production and redistribution of variation (inherited differences among organisms) * Mutation (in sex cells): change in DNA, one allele changes to another, also point mutations * Mutagens are agents of mutations: chemicals, radiation, extreme temperatures * Passes to offspring in gametes not somatic cells Migration (gene flow): exchange of genes between population, migration * Genetic drift (random force): function of population size * Rare allele may not be passed to offspring due to small population, allele may disappear * Founder Effect: allele frequencies alter in small pop. that are taken from larger pop. or parents pop. , they colonize a new location 2. Natural selection (individual and population) affects their ability to successfully reproduce * 4 net reproductive success * Ex: peppered moth Great Chain of Being * Infinite series of forms: simple – complex The universe was “full” * Progressive grading: inferior – superior * Every creature’s position was “fixed” * No new species * No extinctions Species * Proposed in the 17th century * Groups of plants and animals could be differentiated by other groups by their ability to mate with one another and produce fertile offspring (John Ray) * Frequently share similarities with other species > second level of classification > genus * Linnaeus > binomial nomenclature > genus and species names are used to refer to species * Ex: homo sapiens = human beings * Taxonomy: system of classification Genus and species * Class and order Theory of Acquired Characteristics * Jean Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) * There is a dynamic interaction between organic forms and the environment. * Characteristics that an individual might acquire in a lifetime would be passed on to succeeding generations. Principles of Inheritance Principle of Independent Assortment * The distribution of one pair of alleles into gametes does not influence the distribution of another pair * The genes controlling different traits are inherited independently of one another Principle of Segregation Genes (alleles) occur in pairs because chromosomes occur in pairs * During gamete formation, the members of each pair of alleles separate, so that each gamete contains one member of each pair Genes and Chromosomes Allele and Gene * Alternate forms of a gene * Sequence of DNA Chromosome * Discrete structures composed of DNA and protein found only in nuclei of cells Co-dominance * The expression of two alleles in heterozygote, the products of both are present * Ex: blood type AB Cross-over the exchange of genetic material between homologous chromosomes; recombination * when paired chromosomes exchange DNA, genes sometimes find themselves in different genetic environments Dihybrid crosses * These are ALWAYS the ratios of a cross between two HETEROZYGOUS individuals, when two variables are involved. * RrYy X RrYy DNA, base pair * DNA molecule has 4 chemical bases 1. Adenine = A 2. Thymine = T 3. Cytosine = C 4. Guanine = G * Except for protein synthesis * Adenine and Thymine are base pairs = AT * Cytosine and Guanine are base pairs = CG In protein synthesis RNA subs Uracil = U for Thymine * AT > AU Dominant = shows, Recessive = does not show Down’s syndrome * Trisomy 21, abnormal number of autosomes compatible with life beyond the first few years after birth * Caused by the presence of 3 copies of chromosome 21 * Mental impairment, heart defects, respiratory infections, leukemia Hemophilia * bleeding disorder in which the blood doesn’t clot normally * Primarily only males * Recessive allele for hemophilia on the female “X” chromosome. * Male hemophiliacs receive the deleterious gene from their mothers. There is an equal chance that a female will have the recessive allele on one of her two “X” chromosomes. * H = Normal clotting h = Hemophilia * HH Female = Normal * Hh Female = Normal “Carrier” * HY Male = Normal * hY Male = Hemophilia Genotype = genetic make-up of a trait Phenotype = physical expression of the genotype Homologous Chromosomes = paired chromosomes, paired during meiosis and participate in cross-over, same loci Homozygous = same alleles Heterozygous = different alleles Pleiotropic Traits * multiple effects at different times in the life span The phenomenon of one gene being responsible for or affecting more than one phenotypic characteristic * A synergetic affect on more than one part of the body * Ex: sickle cell, albinism Polygenic Traits * Traits that are influenced by genes at 2 or more loci * Ex: skin color, eye color, hair color * Many are influenced by environmental factors * Ex: nutrition, sunlight exposure Polymorphism * Loci with more than one allele * Above 1% in the population * Traits that differ in expression between individuals and populations * Ex: ABO blood, unbalanced Protein and Amino Acids 3-D molecules that serve a wide variety of functions through their ability to bind to other molecules * Small molecules that are the components of proteins Sex Linkage * 23rd Chromosomal Pair * Females: XX * Males: XY * Homogametic versus Heterogametic * Sex linked traits * Ex: colorblindness, hemophilia * Male hemophiliacs receive gene from their mothers Sickle Cell Trait/Anemia ; Malaria * Hemoglobin (146 Amino Acids) * Sickle cell caused by switching one base pair (point mutation) * Heterozygous carriers are much more resistant to malarial infection * Malaria * People of all ages susceptible Four types of human malaria caused by four species of parasites (Plasmodium) * Transmitted by mosquitoes Blood and Blood Types * At least 29 human blood group systems * Antigen = large molecules found on the surface of cells , several different loci govern various antigens on red and white blood cells * Antibody – each type is unique and defends the body against one specific type of antigen * Three important blood groups: * ABO System * Four blood types: * A (dominant) antigen * B (dominant) antigen * AB(co-dominance)antigen, universal recipient * O(recessive ii)none, universal donor Alleles are designated as follows: * A = IA B = IB O= i * 4 phenotypes 6 genotypes * Rh Factor * Another group of antigens found on red blood cells. * Rh Positive = Rh+ (Dominant allele) * Rh Negative = Rh- (Recessive allele) * Rh- blood does not agglutinate with the antiserum * Greatest problem is not with transfusions, but between mother and fetus. * A problem ONLY if the mother is Rh- and the father is Rh+ * A serum containing Anti-Rh+ may be administered to Rh- mothers after their first birth. (RhoGam) * MN Group * Three genotypes (Chromosome 4) * MM MN * NN * Appear to be no incompatibilities that cause complications during transfusions or between mother and fetus. * Co-dominant group * 3 genotypes produce 3 phenotypes Population Genetics Allopatric speciation * Speciation by geographic isolation * Gradual changes can lead to sufficient genetic differences Ecological Niche * The position of a species within its physical and biological environments * Components: diet, terrain, type of predators, vegetation, relationships with other species, and activity patterns * Niches are unique to each species * Together makes up an ecosystem

Fitness = measure of the relative reproductive success of individuals, genetic contribution to the next generation Gene Flow = exchange of genes between populations Gene Pool = all of the genes shared by the reproductive members of a population Hardy-Weinberg (Equilibrium Principle) * No genetic drift, mutation, migration, selection * Random mating * Math relationship of allele and genotype * A = p a = q; p + q = 1 or 100% [ alleles in gene pool] * In the absence of evolutionary processes, gene frequencies (allele frequencies) will remain constant from generation to generation * P2 + 2pq + q2 = 1 [ proportion of genotypes] AA + Aa + aa = 1 Macroevolution = changes produced only after many generations, such as the new appearance of a new species Microevolution = small changes occurring within species, such as changes in allele frequencies Phyletic Gradualism * Slow changes result in new species * The complete fossil record of an evolving group would display a series of forms with finely graded transitional differences between each ancestor and its descendant * Many “missing links” would be present Punctuated Equilibrium Uneven, nongradual process of long stasis and quick spurts * The concept that evolutionary change proceeds through long periods of stasis punctuated by rapid periods of change * There are no “missing links”, gaps are real Random Mating = no bias in who mates; any male is assumed to have an equal chance of mating with any female Selective Pressure = forces in the environment that influence reproductive success in individuals Selective Agent = the agent or cause of the selective pressure event?

Sympatric = process through which new species evolve from a single ancestral species while inhabiting the same geographic region Unit of Evolution * Population * Evolves Unit of Selection * Individual * Does not evolve Human Variation Race * breeds of domestic animals, their group measurement, or their descent from a common ancestor * Has no useful biological meaning because variations in human appearance occur on a continuum. Acclimatization * Physiological responses to changes in the environment that occur during an individual’s lifetime * Maybe be temporary or permanent Its capacity may typify an entire species or population * Under genetic influence, it’s subject to evolutionary factors such as natural selection and genetic drift Allen’s Rule * Concerns shape of the body * Colder climates = shorter appendages, adaptive for preventing heat loss * Vice versa Bergmann’s Rule * Concerns the relationship of body mass or volume to surface area * In mammals, body size is greater in population that lives in colder climates * Vice versa Kuru * Neurodegenerative disorder * Tremor and loss of balance First appeared in New Guinea * Primarily affected adult women and children * Three main stages of progression: * Ambulant – unsteady, tremor, speech slur * Sedentary – muscle jerks, laughter outbursts, depression and mental slowing * Terminal – Urinary and fecal incontinence, difficulty swallowing, deep ulcerations appear * Caused by cerebellar dysfunction * It is a prion disease = infectious particles composed of a protein that causes neurodegenerative disorders Kwashiorkor * Severe protein deficiency * Tissue swelling * Anemia * Loss of hair Apathy Lactase Persistence * The continued production of lactase, the enzyme that breaks down lactose ( sugar milk) * Allows some adults to digest fresh milk products Marasmus * Caused by the combine effects of protein and calorie deficiency * PEM (protein-energy malnutrition) Osteology Bone Markers * Heterogeneous * Dynamic Organ * Constantly remodeled and replaced * Extremely responsive to stress * Bone Mass IS NOT constant Characteristics of Bone * Compact bone: * Most dense; * Least vascularized; * Often covers cancellous bone * Cancellous bone: Heavily vascularized with large sacs (marrow spaces that produce red blood cells) and pores * Subchondrial bone: * A type of compact bone located at the joints and covered with cartilage in life * Generally less dense and more vascularized than regular compact bone Bone Growth * The primary centers of growth are the DIAPHYSES; Responsible for most of the growth of long bones * Secondary centers are the EPIPHYSES and are separated from the diaphyses by the… * METAPHYSES, which are thin layers of cartilage being overtaken by bone formation. This is the actual site of bone growth.

Harris Line = growth interruption, nutritional deficits Human Bone Growth * Human Dental Formula = 2. 1. 2. 3 * Determine sex * Determine age * Physical characteristics of populations; * Population structure and demography; * State of health, longevity, disease during life. * Cause of death. How is this different than “Manner of Death”? * Evidence of trauma. * Nutritional history (bone chemistry; dental wear). * Relatedness of populations (DNA and genetic bone characteristics) * Social Complexity (cultural modifications, differential nutritional status, health, grave goods). Belief systems (treatment of dead). Chapter 4 Vocabulary Hybrids – offspring of parents who differ from each other, heterozygotes Locus – the position on a chromosome where a given gene occurs Mendelian traits – characteristics that are influenced by alleles at only one genetic locus Chapter 5 Vocabulary Chordata – phylum of the animal kingdom that includes vertebrates Vertebrates – animals with segmented, bony spinal columns Homologies – similarities between organisms based on descent from a common ancestor Analogies – “ ….. based strictly on common function Homoplasy – same evolutionary development in different groups of organisms Clade – group of organisms sharing a common ancestor Speciation – process by which a new species evolves from an earlier species; most basic process in macroevolution Genus – group of closely related species Chapter 12 Vocabulary Homeostasis- condition of balance or stability Population genetics – the study of the frequency of alleles, genotypes, and phenotypes in populations from a micro evolutionary perspective

Categories
Free Essays

Anthropology Notes

Anth 100 Sept 15 2010 Galileo • Telescope + objectification o Not just the vision to outer space, but you could also look back on us o Previous the only way to explain supernatural things was from the bible, when your trying to look at planets with an telescope you explain them as objects not as supernatural. o That being said the idea of looking back at the earth would be looking at everything as an object: thus objectifying everything o Saying there is universal laws that justify everything the entire social structure of god, pope, church would be changed, there was now more

Francis Bacon 1561 • Describes that everything is their own object and you can understand what they do • Idol Market place: are the misperceptions are the results of redirect and gossip • Idol of the theatre: are the mistaken belief systems, transmitted from one generation to the next through superstition ritual • Idol of the school: the notion that there is an abstract principle that perceives understanding of the world • “We need to observe things in there pure truth” • Knowledge system that is not attached to a belief a religion Idols of the Tribe are deceptive beliefs inherent in the mind of man, and therefore belonging to the whole of the human race. They are abstractions in error arising from common tendencies to exaggeration, distortion, and disproportion. Thus men gazing at the stars perceive the order of the world, but are not content merely to contemplate or record that which is seen. They extend their opinions, investing the starry heavens with innumerable imaginary qualities. In a short time these imaginings gain dignity and are mingled with the facts until the compounds become inseparable.

This may explain Bacon’s epitaph which is said to be a summary of his whole method. It reads, “Let all compounds be dissolved. ” • Idols of the Cave are those which arise within the mind of the individual. This mind is symbolically a cavern. The thoughts of the individual roam about in this dark cave and are variously modified by temperament, education, habit, environment, and accident. Thus an individual who dedicates his mind to some particular branch of learning becomes possessed by his own peculiar interest, and interprets all other learning according to the colors of his own devotion.

The chemist sees chemistry in all things, and the courtier ever present at the rituals of the court unduly emphasizes the significance of kings and princes. • Idols of the Marketplace are errors arising from the false significance bestowed upon words, and in this classification Bacon anticipated the modern science of semantics. According to him it is the popular belief that men form their thoughts into words in order to communicate their opinions to others, but often words arise as substitutes for thoughts and men think they have won an argument because they have out talked their opponents.

The constant impact of words variously used without attention to their true meaning only in turn condition the understanding and breed fallacies. Words often betray their own purpose, obscuring the very thoughts they are designed to express. • Idols of the Theater are those which are due to sophistry and false learning. These idols are built up in the field of theology, philosophy, and science, and because they are defended by learned groups are accepted without question by the masses.

When false philosophies have been cultivated and have attained a wide sphere of dominion in the world of the intellect they are no longer questioned. False superstructures are raised on false foundations, and in the end systems barren of merit parade their grandeur on the stage of the world. Enlightenment • The age of the metric system: abstract principle of a decimal system, anyone can use it • The English system is assigning things in thought of your church/religion • Lay these principles out in his book the Novum Orgaon • The Objective Method “You can use the natural world in antastic ways if you view the world from an objective measure” • Capitalize from the Objective Method Step 1) Start to catalogue everything • Diderot started the Encyclopedia o Start to put lots of different languages math’s and other intellectual things in order o Doing this is actually challenging the system of knowledge and order, at that time the monarchy • Linaeus: Book Systemae Naturae, categorize every single species on the planet o Kingdom o Phylum o Class o Order Genus o Species • Origin • Evolutionism o Starts to explain the orgin of everything, not just a instance aperience from god o Spencer introduces the notion of society as a social organism ? Also suggests that is have a cohesion to the whole of society ? Social organism evolves through time from less complex to more complex ? Man of science giving a scientific authority to social issues o Luis Henry Morgan ? Rail and mining industries, lawyer Monogenesis, that all people originates from a common ancestor, controversial, plantation owner doesn’t want to be from common origin from slave ? Book: Ancient Society explain differences among societies but at the same they share a common evolution in their society • Savagery (lowest)people directly dependent or fire bows spears and pottery • Barbarism Heard livestock and agriculture, beyond hunter gatherer • Civilization People who use alphabets, written language These stage is not qualitatively different they share the same ancestor: difference stages of a historical development • To get from stage to stage you must have technological development • Liberal view but gives the legitimacy that technology is the be all and we will force our technology and ideas on people

Categories
Free Essays

Anthropology: Human and Natural Selection

The chapter 2 in the textbook “Cultural Anthropology” mentions about the reflection in culture of nonhuman primates onto human’s one. In this chapter, I really impress about the idea “natural selection”. “Natural selection is the process by which organism better adapt to the environment reproduce more effectively compared with less well-adapted forms”(“The evolution of humanity and culture”) The “natural selection”, for me, is the best explanation for the difference between our modern humans and nonhuman primates. From the beginning, every nonhuman species, including humans, had a common root.

However, because of the difference sources of food, they changed their body structures (teeth, intestine) to adapt to their dietary needs. For example, frugivores eat fruits, so their big front teeth make them easily bite foods. On the other hand, folivores have the very strong chewing teeth to help them break leaves into small pieces, easily to digest because of their richness of cellulose chemical. In the article “Ancient Genes and Modern Health” written by S. Boyd Eaton and Melvin Konner, they also talk about the concept of “natural selection” in another way.

They discuss about the change in height of ancient human compared to modern humans. According to them, the height of humans changed because of the decrease of protein intake in their dietary pattern. About 30,000 years ago, the average height of men is about 5’9 (177. 1cm), women 5’5 (166. 5cm); compared to modern human nowadays, men average 5’8 (174. 4cm), women 5’4 (163. 4cm). In my opinion, this decrease in height is also a kind of “natural selection”. Before, human food mostly obtained by foraging. All foods were absolutely savage. They contained higher protein.

The more agriculture developed, the less the protein intake in the animal meat was. Therefore, humans obtained less daily protein than before. After generations, the human genes tend to “evolute” to adapt to the new daily protein needs. The new genes made human body structures get smaller. As the result, with smaller bodies, humans needed less protein to maintain the daily activities. In this case, “natural selection” represents as a primary role in human body form. Next, another idea which I really like is the female role in the ancient sociality.

As I mentioned earlier, when human didn’t know anything about agriculture, their food were mostly obtained by foraging. Most women went garaging, while men went hunting. However, because of the limit of hunting weapons, the hunting foods were not enough for the whole sociality. Therefore, women, who the ones gave majority of food, had power in the community. I think by the time women got power, the world was more peaceful. No war, no death, no tear. I believe that the world would be much better in the future if women, again, have the power, have a strong influence in the politic manner on the world.

Categories
Free Essays

The Anthropology of Terrorism

Since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, “terrorism” has been a word that every American has used daily. It has been eleven years since these attacks, and our country is still at war, and we use terms like “acts of terror” to justify our invasion of their civilian space. Personally, I do not care much for conspiracy theories, but I was interested to know a little bit more about the Islamic culture that these “terrorists” stem from. While the majority of the population of Iraq and Afghanistan are practicing Muslims, they can not all be defined as “terrorists. In all actuality, a lot of them may define Americans and other westernized countries with seemingly unlimited war powers as “terrorist” groups. There are many differences from the American view of acts of terror, the Iraqi view of acts of terror, and the view of how those who commit crimes of terror see their own actions. I think it very important that American civilians, especially those who are not well educated on our foreign policies and the current war situation, take time to see how Iraqi civilians and the Muslim population view the September 11 acts of terror, and the subsequent war compared to those who chose to commit these acts.

I think that most would be surprised when they find that the Islamic religion does not actually promote those extensive “acts of terror” that they do not support the extremist groups like Al Quaeda, and that our presence in their civilian areas, like market places may not be necessary or productive for their day-to-day routines. In order for many people to understand these differing viewpoints on terrorism, I think it is important to focus on how different people may define an act of terror.

In December of 1994, the Unite Nations General Assembly Resolution 49/60, “Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism,” describes terrorism as: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them. Later, in 2004 at UN Security Council Resolution 1566 a definition is given, stating acts of terror are: Criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.

The United Nations adds to the definition again in 2005 at a panel, stating the definition of terrorism as: Any act intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non- combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act. (“Various Definitions of Terrorism”) The United Nations has no official definition of terrorism, because some would argue that there is no real distinction between a “terrorist” and a “freedom fighter. Therefore, the United Nation’s descriptions of the term are vague and always include that terrorism is “intimidating” or that it “provokes terror” on a group of people. The first description listed comments on the justification of these acts, which most others do not. Now, I would like to point out the differences in he definitions that are released by the Arabic Community and the united States. In 1998, the Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism was implemented by the Council of Arab Ministers of the Interior and the Council of Arab Ministers of Justice in Cairo, Egypt.

They defined terrorism at this convention as: Any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardize national resources. “Various Definitions of Terrorism”) The United States has many different definitions of terrorism in almost every government organization’s code. In Federal Criminal Code Title 18 of the United States defines terrorism and lists the crimes associated with terrorism.

In Section 2331 of Chapter 113(B), defines terrorism as: …activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State and… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and…(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States…” FBI definition of terrorism:

The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. The definition of terrorism used in the United States Army Field Manual FM 3-0, form 2001 is: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear. It is intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies … [to attain] political, religious, or ideological goals.

The Dictionary of Military Terms used by the Department of Defense defines terrorism as: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. (“Various Definitions of Terrorism”) I think the difference in the way our governments define a term that the United Nations finds so debatable shows a huge cultural difference in where the priorities for our countries lie.

Obviously, since the September 11 attacks, the United States has spent an extensive amount of time coming up with more and more to add to the definition of terrorism and have worked to almost make ourselves seem like more of the victim. Our Federal Code includes mass destruction and assassination, but states that it primarily occurs within the United Stated jurisdiction. This is open to interpretation, as is all code, but it basically means that we are always the victim of acts of terror and can hardly ever be accused of committing the crime.

However, in the FBI definition, it says that terrorism is using violence and force to coerce a government and its civilians of political and social objectives. Are we not using force and asserting ourselves on the Iraqi government, and every other government that we have been at war with? Has it not all been for a political gain? Then the military definitions add that actions can only be defined in that way if they are being committed for political, religious, or ideological reasons. However, I think that most Americans, if asked would only include religion in the definition.

We have been trained to think that way, to only see terrorism as acts of Jihad, extremist Muslims. Americans, since I can remember have always been extremely proud. We are all truly blessed to come from a country that has a strong military backbone, free, accessible education, a comparably thriving economy, and the opportunity for social mobility. That being said, the majority of Americans are very ignorant and one-sided on a lot of political issues. Most are content with obtaining the easily accessible information from the news or internet and word of mouth.

Most do not take the time to educate themselves on social issues that they comment on daily. This is why people are so opposed to those who practice Islam using their first amendment right to freedom of religion, especially in the south where most are extremely prejudiced. The news and the coverage of the September 11 attacks and the war are to blame for this phenomenon of fearing those who are different. In Packaging Terrorism: Co-opting the News for Politics and Profit, Susan Miller criticizes the way the media chooses which stories to run. “Threats, danger, fear.

These words grab the attention of the readers and that’s what the media want. Your attention. Be afraid. Be very afraid. ” She shows that there are many more options of global stories that our local news stations could run, but those that involve Americans or anything involving conflict in the Middle East, or even stories of al-Qaeda action in other countries, will get higher ratings as “Big Stories” over stories like the huge crisis of bombings in Mumbai in 2006, which is a place and event that Americans, in general, have no solid connection to.

However, our society is also very vain, and there are even international events that are very important to us and the action in the Middle East that constantly get trumped by “larger” domestic stories. A 2006 suicide bombing of the Golden Mosque, which was close to triggering an Iraqi civil war was overshadowed by the Winter Olympics that year. A 2005 bombing was completely overshadowed by the kidnapping of Natalee Holloway in Aruba. The American people are more likely to be interested in our domestic actions than the stories of foreign events, especially when these events seem to run together and are so similar every time they are covered.

One thing that is extremely controversial in covering those true acts of terror is the fact that most terrorists really want the attention on them. If someone is taken hostage and taped, or there is a huge event, like the 9/11 attacks, those who commit these actions are doing so for the attention, and for the media to show these events to the public, some can argue that those who share the news are just giving them what they most desire: to have all eyes on them.

There is also an opinion, however, that if this footage is shown, it will show Americans the true brutality of the people who our military is fighting against, and that it will show that there truly is a threat, encouraging Americans to further support our military and create a unifying experience that promotes patriotism. This was shown in the case of the kidnapping of reporter, Daniel Pearl in Pakistan in 2002 by al-Qaeda operative Khalid Shiekh Mohammad. The video of his execution was made available to news networks, and a portion of Pearl speaking was shown on CBS.

The full video shows his throat being slit and his severed head held up with a voiceover speaking out against the “enemies of Islam. ” After much debate of whether or not the video should be seen by the public, whether it would violate the rights of Pearl’s grieving family, and whether the American people should be allowed to be exposed to witnessing a person’s murder, Peter Kadizis and Stephen Mindich of the Boston Phoenix posted a link to the video with a note above stating, “This is the single most gruesome, horrible, despicable, and horrifying thing I’ve ever seen. . That our government and others throughout the world, who have had this tape for some time have remained silent is nothing less than an act of shame”( Moeller). While our media is the largest source of information for Americans and is the largest reason that Americans have an instilled fear of anyone of the Islamic religion, the USA Patriot Act passed in 2001 as a response to the terrorist attacks is one of the triggers that set off this fear, and is a constant reminder of the attack.

This Act was instated based on the theory that if there is a threat to national security, the public is more willing to allow for harsher policies and increased restrictions of civil liberties. The Act includes reduced restrictions in law enforcement agencies’ gathering of intelligence within the United States; expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts.

Even though support for the Patriot Act has decreased, though not dramatically (from 60% classifying it as “necessary” in 2001, to a 39% in 2006), President Barack Obama signed a four-year extension of the act to include, searches of business records that would assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism, and surveillance of “lone wolves,” individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups. (Borgeson, Valeri). This, eleven years later is an act that is still perfectly in tact, and is still restricting our rights.

It isn’t the most invasive law, but it does hang over the heads of those who do business internationally and those who immigrated form other countries, because they are constantly under the threat of being watched and studied by the government. Since Americans have media coverage and restrictions that help to shape the idea of terrorism and the way we perceive terrorism and acts of violence, it is only logical to realize that the Iraqi people, have their own way of defining Terrorism in their country.

It is important to realize, when analyzing their views, that the United States have been seen as a threatening force to them for the past eleven years by imposing on their land and declaring warfare on their former leader and having our military staying within their civilian quarters. Though Iraq has been liberated for the past five years, American troops were just recently sent home, and they are suffering from terrorist attacks against them from other outside forces as well.

Most of those who practice the Islamic religion believe that warfare should only be used to suppress rebellion or to defend against imposing armies. They do not believe in starting wars, because the punishment is not in their hands, violence should only be used for protection. Yousuf Baadarani, a popular writer defending the Islamic culture, states in an interview with Asia Times states, “Since Islam forbids terrorism, than no terrorist could be labeled Islamic. He would have had to abandon the Islamic path to become a terrorist” (Abedin).

Jihad is only supposed to be used to protect the Islamic religion against those who attack it, not to create terror in those who do not practice Islam. This counters a popular theory Americans have that all Muslims are destined to commit acts of terror and that they are instilling values that promote suicide bombings and murder of those who do not practice Islam. Al-Qaeda was born out of Osama Bin Laden’s leftover defense force he gathered together for the Saudi Kingdom, but it was rejected after they allowed US troops to use Saudi Arabia after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

Al-Qaeda means “the basis” or “the base. ” It is extremely difficult to find out the members of this organization and to figure out who is behind certain attacks. The chain of command is extremely difficult to follow. It has one goal: “to hit the West wherever and whenever it can, in order to further polarize the Muslim and Western worlds and effect an eventual victory of the Islamists, who claim leadership over the Muslim world”(Reuter).

This terrorist group- and there is no debate from anyone as to whether or not they are a terrorist group- has committed too many suicide bombings and killings of innocent westerners to name. They are the group behind the infamous September 11 attacks, and are the ones who created all of the fear of terrorism in the United States. This group of people is founded on a basic principle: hate for all Westerners, and the desire to completely sever ties between those who practice Islam and Westerners.

This is not a group based on jihad; the exception to the Islamic law against violence, which should only be allowed when defending the Islamic religion. It is simply a hate group against Westerners that wears a mask of religion. In conclusion, there is a lot that is not perceived correctly when it comes to the idea of terrorism. Every citizen of Iraq is not a terrorist, and neither is every member of the Muslim community. A select few extremists have ruined the reputation of a religion in the United States, with the help of the media and politics.

I hope that every American citizen at some point realizes the difference between the terrorist attacks of September 11, and the Iraqi family that walks down the street. It is important to me and our country that people see that most Muslims do not support al-Qaeda and that the group of extremists is not practicing their religion properly. I hope that people will start to realize the importance of getting information from other sources than the popular media and that some will start to look up more information on important domestic and international events.

Most of all, I hope that I have been able to properly compare viewpoints on terrorism in different parts of the world accurately. Bibliography Abedin, Mahan. “Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs. ” Asia Times Online :: Asian news hub providing the latest news and analysis from Asia. N. p. , 29 Dec. 2009. Web. 5 Dec. 2012. Arena, Michael P. , and Bruce A. Arrigo. The terrorist identity: explaining the terrorist threat. New York: New York University Press, 2006. Print. Baudrillard, Jean. The spirit of terrorism and requiem for the Twin Towers.

London: Verso, 2002. Print. Borgeson, Kevin , and Robin Valeri. Terrorism In America. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2009. Print. Moeller, Susan D.. Packaging terrorism: co-opting the news for politics and profit. Chichester, U. K. : Wiley-Blackwell, 2009. Print. Reuter, Christoph. My life is a weapon: a modern history of suicide bombing. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. Print. Various Definitions of Terrorism. ” Department of Emergency & Military Affairs (DEMA). DEMA, n. d. Web. 5 Dec. 2012.

Categories
Free Essays

Biological Anthropology

Gonzalez, AureaMarch 6, 2013Question #1 For many years biological anthropologists have been trying to identify race through genetics but race is not determined biologically. The closest aspect to a biological feature in grouping people is cline; geography making people of the same area in the world similar. Human variation, however, is classification of skin color, eye color; characteristics that are genetic and unchanging genes. Genetic traits have nothing to do with race; it influences the idea of it. Mutations cause variation. An example of this would be with how sunlight affects skin tone because of dark and light melanin.

Race cannot be naturally divided into groups because it is an arbitrary, modern idea; a social construct based on ethnicity, social reform, and culture, otherwise known as The Great Chain of Being. Constant change in the world, such as migration and reproduction, brings diversity upon us. Jim Brown, in The Power of Illusion, specifically says, “Race has changed as a definition in this country. ” The world is always changing; people will continuously try to identify race through genetics, but it never will be proven biologically because it’s merely a cultural classification.

Also, in the film, a group of students try to find out who they might be closely related to, based on mitochondrial DNA. A black girl believes she is more closely related to another black boy in the class. When they matched the MTDNA, they found out they were wrong. Some had the same number and pattern of MTDNA that others across the country had. This proved race had nothing to do with genetics. Scientists have tried to see differences in athletic ability according to race. However, there is no biological explanation for why someone of one race might be more athletic than someone of another.

If a white person ran in the mountains with high altitude, he would have greater lung capacity than someone who ran an average racetrack. Nutrition and adaptation affect genetics, bringing about variety of human beings. If a black person grew up with great nutrition, he was likely to be taller and healthier than someone who might not have access to nutrition. Therefore, race cannot determine specific differences between one another because access to food affects variation. It’s important to remember the difference between race and human variation because everyone should be treated equal.

Although there is internal variation within the human species, that doesn’t define race, yet human variation. [400 words] Gonzalez, AureaMarch 6, 2013Question #2 The origin of walking on two feet goes back between 10-3 MYA. There are numerous ways to diagnose bipedalism with skeletal remains. The foramen magnum is where the spinal cord meets the skull and passes on to the brain. It is able to determine whether or not a skeleton was bipedal because if the spinal cord is located directly beneath the skull, rather than its back, such as the chimpanzee, it is proven to have walked on two legs.

Also, you can infer that the skeleton was bipedal because thoracic kyphosis, the slight backward curve of the vertebrae to which the ribs attach, do not develop until one begins to walk upright. Lumbar lordosis, the forward curve of the lower portion of the back, is more robust in females than in males for ability to balance to support a baby during pregnancy. Angle of the femur is another way to prove bipedalism. If the angle is increasingly wide, the skeleton was bipedal because it allows more balance with the broaden hips, versus a chimp with a straighter angle of a femur, causing the wobble when walking on two feet.

Increase in leg length is another way to prove bipedalism. Apes had longer arms than legs, proving knuckle-walking, and spending more time swinging in trees walking on the ground. The fossil Lucy was the first bipedal skeleton found in Kenya which dates back to 3. 6 MYA. She’s considered the first bipedal skeleton because hips down, she had the body of a human, however hip up, using her brain size, she was considered ape. Salem, aka Lucy’s baby, had a preserved skull, milk teeth, tiny fingers, a torso, a foot, and an extremely tiny kneecap which helped archeologists say she was about three years old when she died.

Salem differed from Lucy, having a face, while Lucy’s head was barely found, and had ape-like shoulders, telling us tree climbing was still a part of its nature, supporting the theory of A. afarensis. Bipedalism was a positive adaptation in human evolution because of survival. Keeping cool from changing landscapes and climates was an important factor in endurance running. With the shedding of hair on our bodies from evolution, sweating was our new found air conditioner, allowing the human species to run in the day and keep cool at the same time, making it easier to hunt protein, meat, the greatest source of nutrition. 400 words] Gonzalez, AureaMarch 6, 2013Question #3 Several methods were used for the excavation of the African Burial Ground in 1991. After using large machinery and shovels to get through the first few feet of dirt, dental tools and brushes were used to find the remains of skeletons carefully. Soil marks in the dirt from decayed wood where a coffin once was were visible to determine where to locate the heads and bodies of the skeletons. Photos were taken to preserve the history before excavating, for excavation is destructive, destroying information due to damaged remains.

Archeologists were able to infer a lot about some of the bodies found such as age, sex, and culture. Two thirds of the adults were identified male, one third being female, and forty-five percent of the excavated bodies, children under twelve years old. Sex was able to be determined through pelvis shape. The wider the angle of the pelvis, it was determined to be female, the thinner the angle, it was male. Another way to identify sex with the pelvis is the pubic arch’s shape. If the arch seems like a circle, it is female, if it seems heart-shaped, it is male.

Teeth give indication of age, but aging can also be caused by environmental stress. Teeth also played a cultural aspect in these people’s lives. Shape of the teeth told archeologists whether or not they were born in Africa or kept practicing their culture while they were alive. Filing of the teeth into hourglass and peg shapes showed tribal affiliations in West Africa. Thus, historical data and these observations tell us the bodies were indeed African. Dr. Blake, in African Burial Ground, An American Discovery, suggests a man in his thirties had the vertebrate of an eighty year old man.

Vertebral Lipping can be caused by standing all day, adding pressure to your spine, but carrying heavy loads can crush your spine at a quicker age. This showed us that this man was very hard working. Also, some bodies were buried with shroud, which indicated that they were extremely poor, while a woman was found buried with a lace of beads that were a waist decoration indicating she wasn’t as poor as the others. In October of 1992, more than four hundred skeletons were removed. The discovery of the African Burial Ground reminds us today of enslaved relatives that were almost forgotten due to the building of our city. [398 words]