According to Stephan Feuchtwang, early British social anthropology sought “knowledge of total systems or structures from small-scale social units by direct personal observation with as little participation as possible” (1973:72). By applying minimal and often misconstrued knowledge imbued with personal biases to complex social systems, early anthropologists left much of their proposed evidence up to assumption. Using comparative methods, many early anthropologists focused on unilineal evolution and classified societies as progressing through stages from primitive to civilized. Wrought with racism, misunderstanding, and assumption, these types of studies continually reinforced misconceptions of the racial other as less civilized, primitive, …show more content…
Marcus and Fischer dismiss these practices and suggest using “multiple other-cultural references” to prevent “simplistic better-worse” judgements (1986:139). In order to evoke a “common capacity for communication” and “shared membership in a global system”, Marcus and Fischer propose two techniques for cultural criticism (1986:139): defamiliarization by epistemological critique and defamiliarization by cross-cultural juxtaposition (1986:137-38). The authors emphasize the importance of ethnographies that are “equally committed in their own contexts and equally engaged in cultural criticism” (Marcus and Fischer 1986:139). Marcus and Fischer coincide with critiques of early anthropology, as they call out the importance of equal study of cultures within a global context and not solely singular studies of ‘exotic’ or ‘inferior’ cultures. Marcus questions previous modes of anthropological study as James Clifford does in his inquiry into “ethnographic authority” (Clifford 1983:121). Clifford states, the “predominant mode of modern fieldwork authority is signaled: “You are there, because I was there”” (1983:118). Clifford dispels this dominating you vs. me opposition between …show more content…
However, for 21st century anthropology, the symbol of the “elaborate machine” and “quasi-organism” are becoming increasingly relevant as the world society becomes progressively interconnected in not only human-human interactions, but also within an intersecting system of human, animal, technological, and biological systems. In Anthropological Futures, Michael M.J. Fischer discusses the merger of “culture, nature, body, science, technology” with which “we recalibrate, recompose, revise, and renew the anthropology to come” (2009:xii). Within his book, Fischer approaches anthropology by engaging with its transmutable form and its capability of addressing the increasing integration of biology, technology, and science within culture. Michael Fisch’s ethnography “Tokyo’s Commuter Train Suicides and the Society of Emergence” discusses the entanglement of technology and culture that Fischer addresses. The “corporealization” of the Tokyo train network is an amalgamation of human and non-human actors (Fisch 2013:331). In order to fully address technology and culture’s assimilation within the Tokyo commuter train system and its regulation of so-called “bodily accident[s]”, Fisch explains both processes through a simultaneous humanizing of
As a scholar invested in the progression of the field of Native American material cultural studies, I consistently recondition my understanding of both epistemology and the appropriate ways to approach cultural circumstances of the so-called “Other” through personal encounters and the shared experiences of my contemporaries. My own ethical position is forever fluid, negotiated by both Native and non-Native sources as I attempt to find ground in what exactly I intend to do (outside of an occupation) with the knowledge I accumulate. Perhaps the most vulnerable facet of existence in the world of academia is the ease that comes in the failure to compromise one’s own advancement for the well-being of those being studied. Barre Toelken is an encouraging exception to this conundrum, considering his explicit analysis of both Navajo and Western ethics in the case of the Hugh Yellowman tapes. His essay argues for an approach that surrenders the fieldworker’s hypothetical gain to the socio-emotional needs of subjects’ epistemological structure and, most intriguingly, he treats ethnographic materials as praxis rather than data. After years of apprehension with the objectifying habits of cultural anthropology, a discipline internally dithered by the bickering of Science vs. Humanities, I am finally moved to disengage from such authoritatively based methods altogether as a result of Toelken’s example.
Even a student that has been educated for only four weeks in anthropology can admit that their viewpoint has changed since acquiring their knowledge. Studying a foreign way of life and unfamiliar customs sheds light on the impact that one’s own culture has on their thoughts. Anthropology is valuable because it has the ability to remove the shock and misunderstanding that occurs when examining an alien worldview. The value of cultural relativism, the principle that one culture should not be judged by the standard of another culture, is illustrated in the comparison of Peace Corp volunteer Floyd Sandford’s African Odyssey and anthropologist Richard Lee’s Dobe Ju/’hoansi.
Over time concepts of ‘Race’, defined as a distinct group with a common linage, and ‘Primitive’ which pertains to the beginning or origin, , have been inextricably linked with the perception of Africa. The confusion of the two in the minds of people at the end of the 19th centaury, and some of the 20th, caused a sense of superiority amongst the ‘White Races’ that affected every aspect of their interaction with ‘the Black’. The ‘Civilisation’ of Africa by conquest and force was justified by these views.
When we critic something to be wicked or upright, better or worse than something else, we are taking it as an example to aim at or avoid. Without ideas like this, we would have no structure of comparison for our own strategies, no chance of earning by other’s insights or faults. In this space, we could form no decisions on our own actions. If we admit something as a good fact about one culture, we can’t reject to apply it to other cultures as well, whatever conditions acknowledge it. If we reject to do this, we are just not taking the other’s culture beliefs
Joseph-Marie Degerando was a revolutionary, French philosopher who transcribed one of the original guidelines for the study of anthropology in the year 1800 titled, I: Societe des Observateurs de l’Homme in French, and translated into English as, The Observations of Savage Peoples. According to the author of the introduction and translator of his work into English, F. C. T. Moore, Degerando’s guidelines were a “capital work of anthropology” (Moore, U of CA Press. p. 2). Whether Degerando provided the most accurate guidelines for the study of humans is argued; however, his work was certainly influential as it served as a foundation for the science of anthropology. In fact, Moore declares there are consistent similarities between the anthropological recommendations of Degerando and those practiced by modern day anthropologists (Moore, U of CA Press. p. 4-5).
The theory of Social Darwinism stems from the idea that the human species can progress by following the principal of Charles Darwin’s natural selection, in which he states that plants and animals that can adapt to changes in their environment are able to survive and reproduce, while those that cannot adapt will die. Social Darwinists applied this biological concept to social, political and economic issues, which created the “survival of the fittest” attitude, as well as competition and inequality between social groups. This paper will discuss some of the proponents of this theory, the results of their interpretation and application of the theory, and why this theory no longer holds a prominent position in Anthropological theory.
Reflexive anthropology has pressured scholoars to recognize their own biases and look increasingly inwards when studying “other” cultures. Reflexive anthropology is a break away from the traditional study of a clearly defined “us” and “them,” that seeks to shift towards indentification rather than difference. It attempts to uncover the politics behind ethnography. Reflexivity shows how “we” are effected by “others”, and how “others” are effected by “us.” It holds anthropologists accountable for what they write, and how they represent culture. Anthropologists like Dorinne Kondo and Renato Rosaldo have greatly influenced the devlopment of reflexive anthropology through their enthnographies.
The purpose of this paper is to briefly examine the final chapters of, “Engaging Anthropology: A social and Political History” by Mark Moberg. Within this paper, I will demonstrate my understanding of four different anthropological theories, along with a summary of my overall thoughts of how useful this book was to my learning throughout the course. Moberg has created a text that is both simple and interesting. The reader, no matter how much they may distaste theory is enticed into wanting to delve deeper into theory and the history of Anthropology. His simple writing style has much to do with my understanding of the theoretical approaches I will be discussing, which are as follows; Michel Foucault's theory, along with his impact on Anthropology,
As technology and the media hurtle society into a global village, making interaction and socialization not only more attainable but more commonplace, the lines between groups of people become blurred. This lends itself to expanding our experience and aids in not overlooking multiple stories of other cultures. As an illustration, Fox Entertainment created the reality television show 30 Days, hosted by Morgan Spurlock, which delves into understanding cultural issues by placing an individual into unfamiliar environments that challenged their own firmly held beliefs about a culture or group of people. The characters, largely, have judgements and world-views that emanate from a one-dimensional story or understanding of a culture of belief that contrasts their own beliefs and often undermines the truth. The episodes are a prelude to inviting a healthy examination of different cultures and beliefs as well as an examina...
The beginnings of racial difference can be traced back to the Age of Exploration, during which England was expanding its trading routes and was highly involved with trade in Africa. The English traders noticed distinguishing differences between themselves and the African people, both in physical appearance and cultural primitiveness. It was not until the 18th century when the word race began to enter languages and vocabularies, and this idea of a difference between peoples was prodded further into existence through the work of Carolus Linnaeus. Linnaeus composed a list of subspecies of human beings based on racial differences. There were several other scientists, such Georges Cuvier and Charles Darwin, as who created subspecies of man. Social Darwinism, alluded to the concept that eventually one greater subspecies of man would prevail and be the most elite of all of human kind. These lists often categorized the order of species with the white, European man at the top of the list and the darker skinned, African man at the bottom. An example of a concept of categorization was the Great Chain of Being, through which all things, including man and the subspecies of man, are given ...
It is widely recognised that the relatively recent sciences of anthropology and ethnology have often seemed in thrall to, and supportive of, the colonial project. Supposedly objective in outlook, anthropological discourse has often been employed to validate and justify theories of race, hierarchy, and power. So-called factual knowledge becomes a means through which racial stereotyping can be bolstered or created. The ethos of Western rationalism allied with the discourse of pseudo-science in Orientalism and Indology creates a body of knowledge which can be used as leverage in the acquisition ,or, retention of power. Such theories, however flawed, become essential ingredients in the process of defining the Other, inevitably a process which measures itself against definitions of the Self. Nineteenth-century anthropological investigations in India proclaimed a body of supposedly verifiable truths about the land and its people. In the process of formulating what or how the Indian people are, ideas of individual agency are stripped from them. Ronald Inden writes that essentialist ways of seeing tend to ignore the "intricacies of agency" pertinent to the flux and development of any social system (Imagining India. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990.p20).
Beginning with ethnohistory, which includes anthropology, the beginnings of the different studies of mankind are introduced, when the book then jumps to a postcolonial perspective the views of the future are pointed to the mistakes of the past. Each theory has a purpose to explaining the views and studies of different historians around the world. This essay will compare my views on ethnohistory combined with anthropology versus the views of postcolonial history.
Bodies have instead become cyborgs. We, as humans, are a mix of organic and technological/scientific enhancement. She argues that “The cyborg is text, machine, body, and metaphor, all theorized and engaged in practice in terms of communications.” (212) Joseph Schneider, a professor of sociology at Drake University and a writer of many books about Donna Haraway, argues in his article that indeed, Haraway’s ideas were a radical redefinition of humanity, especially our relationships with other living beings. He does, however, reemphasis the limitations of the human body, and its susceptibleness to disease. His viral analysis calls into question the use of this manifesto to further the idea of human exceptionalism based on the improvement of technology. He warns that Haraway’s ideals were to keep the human “in the game” as an important being, even if not the most important or the most capable. (Schneider 300) The idea of the cyborg is profound, and has the potential to the change the construction of identity in a divided and inconsistent world. Our relations with new technologies and living beings are deviations from original expectations, jobs, and cultural needs. We should instead be aiming to change for the new requirements emerging in
Abu-Lughod, Lila. (1991) Writing Against Culture. Recapturing Anthropology. Richard Fox, ed. P, 137-162. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.
The word ‘Deconstruction’ (Derrida 34) introduced by French philosopher Jacques Derrida to demonstrate that any text is not a discrete whole but contains several irreconcilable and contradictory meanings; that any text therefore has more than one interpretation; that the text itself links these interpretations inextricably; that the incompatibility of these interpretations is irreducible; and thus that an interpretative reading cannot go beyond a certain point. In psychological terms, the Other is but the undiscovered territory in the Self. In the colonial enterprise, this territory of the unconscious is displaced onto another people who both allures and terrify. The colonizer, fearing to succumb to the Other, attempts to contain it- through subordination, suppression, or conversion. These strategies of containment are designed to preserve the opposition and inequality between Self and Other that justifies the imperialist enterprise. The central trope of imperialism is what Abdul R. Janmohamed terms “Manchean allegory” (Hena 13) that converts racial difference “into moral and even metaphysical difference”. (13) This allegory characterizes the relationship dominant and subordinate culture as one of the ineradicable opposition. Although the opposing terms of the allegory change- good and evil, civilization and savagery, intelligence and emotion, rationality and sensuality- they are always predicated upon the assumption of the superiority of the outside evaluator and the inferiority of the native being observed. Colonialist literature, as byproduct of the imperialist enterprise, necessarily re-inscribes the Manichean allegory either to conform or to interrogate it in an effort to move beyond its limits. As a result, colonialist texts...