Ways of conceptualizing culture

/in /by

Objectives

This discussion is designed to highlight the similarities and differences between how we personally define the term “culture” and how anthropologists understand the “culture concept”. How does your notion of culture compare to that of your peers and anthropologists? The aim is to get you to start thinking about how different ways of conceptualizing culture can shape how we understand and study it.

 

Discussion Prompt

In the The Culture Concept the anthropologists Cowall and Medeiros interview people at a coffee shop about what “culture” means to them. The two then reflect on their interviewees’ views as well as how their own understanding of culture has been shaped by their personal and professional experiences. In this discussion, I would like you to:

  1. Reply to this prompt with a short paragraph explaining what the term “culture” means to you.

 

Anthropomorphic quality of a supernatural being

/in /by

Name an Anthropomorphic quality of a supernatural being that is physical. Name an anthropomorphic characteristic of a supernatural entity that is emotional. Name an anthropomorphic feature that is related to a supernatural character/personality.

Theory of natural selection

/in /by

Darwin gathered information from the fields of geology, paleontology, taxonomy, demography, and what is now evolutionary biology to develop his theory of evolution which includes the idea of variation and natural selection. Discuss how the theories postulated by Lyell and Malthus (discuss and define them) lead to the development of his theory of natural selection.

The social construction of reality

/in /by

How is culture produced and reproduced? The social construction of reality is a framework that helps us begin to answer this question. Using the social construction of reality framework

  • how food in one of the below case studies is connected with other facets of culture and
  • how it plays a role in the production and reproduction of certain cultural practices and
  • how other cultural practices produce and reproduce certain eating habits.

 

In your response,  identify examples of each of the components of the social construction of reality and explain how they work together or influence each other. Include enough explanation of the cultural beliefs and practices so that someone who has not read what you have nor is a member of the same cultural group would be able to understand the connections.

Case Studies for this post:

The symbolic character of culture

/in /by

The Stadel lion-human figurine and companies like Peugeot discussed in the Harari reading are all part of the culture, specifically the symbolic character of culture. Explain how each of these is example of the symbolic nature of culture, drawing from both the Week 1 lecture and the Harari reading for your answer. Then explain what collective belief in such symbols does for human societies according to Harari.

Branches of Satanism and neopaganism

/in /by

Esoteric and Neopagan NRM traditions tend to share a fascination with the individual “Self” as a focus of religious attention. Considering the various religious branches of Satanism and neopaganism, which among these do you feel offers the most in-depth exploration of the Self, and why (you may choose more than one)? Please illustrate your answer with examples from the readings.

The primary field of anthropology

/in /by

SCENARIO C Building on previous research that shows people of different genders often communicate differently, an anthropologist has been studying how gendered communication affects family interactions. The anthropologist uses recorded conversations from participant families’ homes. The anthropologist also uses documentary footage of family interactions. The interactions are analyzed for information about gendered communication, power relationships, and connections between various family members. 1. What is the primary field of anthropology addressed in this research? 2. What aspects of context must be considered as part of this research? (hint: think cultural, social, and economics)

The pitfalls of ethnocentrism and cultural romanticism

/in /by

Horace Miner’s 1956 piece on the Nacirema has become a classic in anthropology for a number of reasons. Miner’s piece was at once intended to illustrate the pitfalls of ethnocentrism and cultural romanticism while emphasizing the need for cultural relativism and the role of the etic perspective as a descriptive tool. While illustrating the etic perspective, his piece also makes one wonder how the same rituals would be systematically described through an emic lens. As one might observe when reading Nacirema, interpretations of data presented through another’s viewpoint may result in rather ethnocentric view, even when the Other is no stranger at all.

On the other had, etic perspectives are invaluable if they account for all three ‘Components of Culture.’ Observing patterns of behavior and material culture is not enough. A valuable and accurate etic perspective must account for the attitudes, values, and beliefs that inform and perpetuate those patterns and objects. Miner’s reporting on the Nacirema was not necessarily inaccurate, though it demonstrates that belief systems are rather harder to access than performances. The Nacirema today are not unlike the Nacirema as they were in 1956. Most if not all of the rituals he observed are still engaged in in much the same manner.

Every reader tends to pick up different lessons from Miner, sometimes remarkably so. Given what you have just read, address each of the following questions:

  1. What do you think about the functions of the lifeways of the Nacirema – what practical matters are addressed in their symbolic manners?
  2. Given that the piece was written in 1956, how do you think the Nacirema would be represented in today’s society? Provide a contemporary comparison to any one of the rituals Miner observed in 1956.
  3. Using the information in the Voice Threads and outside sources, what are the respective roles and values of emic vs etic perspectives? Both are valuable, but which do you think is most illuminating or useful in ethnographic representations?
  4. Select one of Miner’s rituals of focus. How would an ethnographer or local describe that same ritual through an emic perspective?

Reducing organisms to genotypes and species

/in /by

How is the study of your ancestors biopolitical, not just biological? Does that make it less scientific or differently scientific? What was gained by reducing organisms to genotypes and species to gene pools? What is gained by reintroducing bodies and species into evolutionary studies? The molecular biologist François Jacob argued that evolution is more like a tinkerer than like an engineer. In what ways do we seem like precisely engineered machinery, and in what ways do we seem like jerry-rigged or improvised contraptions?

Darwin’s and Wallace’s theory

/in /by

Examine the words and phrasing that Lyell and Hooker used in their letter to the Linnean Society when describing Darwin’s and Wallace’s theory and its discovery. How were they conveying to society the importance of this theory?

2. In your analysis, who did Lyell and Hooker think should receive credit for the theory of natural selection? Were the authors being objective and balanced in their support for Wallace and Darwin? What keywords or phrasing led you to your conclusions?

Read the following passage, taken from the letter coauthored by Darwin’s colleagues, Sir Charles Lyell and J. D. Hooker. The letter was read at the meeting of the Linnean Society held in London on July 1, 1858. During this meeting, the two men also presented papers written by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace.

 

London, June 30th, 1858.

MY DEAR SIR,—The accompanying papers, which we have the honour of communicating to the Linnean Society, and which all relate to the same subject, viz. [that is to say] the Laws which affect the Production of Varieties, Races, and Species, contain the results of the investigations of two indefatigable naturalists, Mr. Charles Darwin and Mr. Alfred Wallace.
These gentlemen having, independently and unknown to one another, conceived the same very ingenious theory to account for the appearance and perpetuation of varieties and of specific forms on our planet, may both fairly claim the merit of being original thinkers in this important line of inquiry; but neither of them having published his views, though Mr. Darwin has for many years past been repeatedly urged by us to do so, and both authors having now unreservedly placed their papers in our hands, we think it would best promote the interests of science that a selection from them should be laid before the Linnean Society.

Taken in the order of their dates, they consist of:—

1. Extracts from a MS [manuscript]. Work on Species, by Mr. Darwin, which was sketched in 1839, and copied in 1844, when the copy was read by Dr. Hooker, and its contents afterwards communicated to Sir Charles Lyell. …

2. An abstract of a private letter addressed to Professor Asa Gray, of Boston, U.S., in October 1857, by Mr. Darwin, in which he repeats his views, and which shows that these remained unaltered from 1839 to 1857.

3. An Essay by Mr. Wallace, entitled “On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type.” This was written at Ternate [island in eastern Indonesia] in February 1858, for the perusal of his friend and correspondent Mr. Darwin, and sent to him with the expressed wish that it should be forwarded to Sir Charles Lyell, if Mr. Darwin thought it sufficiently novel and interesting. So highly did Mr. Darwin appreciate the value of the views therein set forth, that he proposed, in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, to obtain Mr. Wallace’s consent to allow the Essay to be published as soon as possible. Of this step we highly approved, provided Mr. Darwin did not withhold from the public, as he was strongly inclined to do (in favour of Mr. Wallace), the memoir which he had himself written on the same subject, and which, as before stated, one of us had perused in 1844, and the contents of which we had both of us been privy to for many years. On representing this to Mr. Darwin, he gave us permission to make what use we thought proper of his memoir, &c. [and so forth] and in adopting our present course, of presenting it to the Linnean Society, we have explained to him that we are not solely considering the relative claims to priority of himself and his friend, but the interests of science generally; for we feel it to be desirable that views founded on a wide deduction from facts, and matured by years of reflection, should constitute at once a goal from which others may start, and that, while the scientific world is waiting for the appearance of Mr. Darwin’s complete work, some of the leading results of his labours, as well as those of his able correspondent, should together be laid before the public.

We have the honour to be yours very obediently, Charles Lyell, Jos. D. Hooker.