Genuine interest is essential when you are trying to study people. More than anything else, people want to talk about themselves, however they need someone to listen. Trust is equally important, for people are more apt to open up to someone they trust.
It may be a risk to become too involved, however. Becoming part of cultural drama may hinder the information gathering process. If you become emotionally attached, you may be less likely to portray your informants objectively.
To minimize these risks, an anthropologist needs to have a professional mindset. Assimilating with the culture for scientific purposes is good, but emotional attachment may not be. One could go so far as to say being a little ethnocentric may keep an anthropologist in an academic state of mind.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Chapter 3, Dawn Depouli
An "ideal" relationship between an anthropologist and the key informants would be a relationship that is based on respect, and friendship should be the last. Considering that anthropologist do research on there key informants, Respect comes with any business deal that you perform. When you show respect typically it can only benefit you in the long run. Friendship is one that should not be part of the ideal relationship, they always say that you should never mix friendship with business and I believe in the fully. When you involve friendship often times that friend may expect more from you than you should be willing to give. Just because you are a friend doesn’t mean you should have to compromise your work. This could ultimately get in the way of research and result in you not getting the information you may need. It can also cause you to be biased and not reflect on the true results. When you involve friendship and business you are no longer looked at as an authority figure and not taken serious as you should be. Professionalism should be the number one key at all times.
Chapter 3 - Sierra Armstrong
The ideal relationship between an anthropologist and an informant would be the informant teaching the basics of the culture being studied to the anthropologist. I think the basics should be the language and the basic roles of the different people. I think that would help the anthropologist communicate with the other people in the culture so that the anthropologist can come up with their own ideas and observations of that culture. Also it allows the anthropologist to get information from more than one person. A problem with this is that the anthropologist and the informant might get along very well. The anthropologist might continually go back to the informant instead of the other people to understand why someone said this instead of asking that person. Like when Greg Simon was working in Bukittingi the people were mean and cold towards him. So if Simon had an informant that he was friends with he might have gone to the informant to ask why he said that or acted that way. Instead of the informant trying to explain why his culture acts that way he may and try to comfort Simon and tell him not to worry about that guy. Also if an informant and the anthropologist were not friends the informant could tell the anthroplogist only what he wanted him to know about his culture. Then that culture would not be accurately portrayed. Friendships between informants and anthroplogist will cause problems. If the two become very good friends the anthropologist may keep certain details or important about that culture out of their writings to protect that culure and his friend. Then that goes againist their code of ethics because an anthropologist is supposed to report his information to the general public, but the anthropologist is also not supposed to do anything that can hurt the people. That is a controversy all in itself. I think to try and help this the anthropologist should do as much research on that culture that he can find so that he will not be totally in culture shock. This will allow him to maybe communicate with more people in the culture instead of just one person. I think no matter what there are still going to be problems because all cultures are different. Even though this way works for this culture and doesn't bother them it may bother another culture.
Chapter 3- Abbey Dahl (forgot the title the first time)
An "ideal" relationship between an anthropologist and the key informants would be a relationship that based on respect. An anthropologist, whether doing fieldwork in another country or within their own culture, needs to respect the people they are doing research on. Also vise versa. The people who are being researched must have respect for the anthropologist because the studier is trying to find out more about their interesting culture. If one was studying their own culture/society it could be problematic because they have to potential in their research to be bias/ethnocentric. If one was studying an outside culture this relationship could be difficult because the people might be skeptical about the anthropologist. Although it would be pleasant to create friendships while in fieldwork, I feel as if it would complicate the objectiveness of the research. Getting too close to the informants might create a bias with the research so it could not be as reliable. An anthropologist must have a kind of trustful relationship with the society at hand because they want valuable and truthful information to write about. The anthropologist just cannot cross any boundaries that might affect how the society views him. An anthropologist would be able to minimize these issues by making sure their view is still objective because as an outsider they want their information to sound liable.
An "ideal" relationship between an anthropologist and the key informants would be a relationship that based on respect. An anthropologist, whether doing fieldwork in another country or within their own culture, needs to respect the people they are doing research on. Also vise versa. The people who are being researched must have respect for the anthropologist because the studier is trying to find out more about their interesting culture. If one was studying their own culture/society it could be problematic because they have to potential in their research to be bias/ethnocentric. If one was studying an outside culture this relationship could be difficult because the people might be skeptical about the anthropologist. Although it would be pleasant to create friendships while in fieldwork, I feel as if it would complicate the objectiveness of the research. Getting too close to the informants might create a bias with the research so it could not be as reliable. An anthropologist must have a kind of trustful relationship with the society at hand because they want valuable and truthful information to write about. The anthropologist just cannot cross any boundaries that might affect how the society views him. An anthropologist would be able to minimize these issues by making sure their view is still objective because as an outsider they want their information to sound liable.
Chapter 3 - Becca Libby
I feel like the relationship between an anthropologist and their key informants depend completely on the culture and people they are studying. The book talks about how more and more anthropologists are studying their own societies rather that exotic peoples across the world. So for someone working in/with their own society, I feel it would be better to use informants that you do not know rather than people in your own town. Seems to me making friends is not a good strategy for getting information in your own society. I know if I were an anthropologist wanting to do a survey about (for example) what peoples' main use of their computers is, I wouldn't want to interview my friends or family. I would want to talk to people and learn from people I have never met, it makes the whole thing more subjective. Working with friends in your own culture makes complicates things much more that making friends in a different culture. If I go across the world to study a society I know nothing about, it will be hard for me to talk to anyone at first. This is why in other societies it is much more important to make/have friends. In the article about the ice hunters the anthropologist is good friends with the man he is traveling with, and it makes it much easier for him to feel comfortable being in a setting he is not accustomed to. One thing that caught my attention was when he said "We have traveled together many times since 1996...so there is no need for words." I think this really says a lot about the relationship between the two men. I believe that the fact that they were so close, made his work much easier and more accurate. Friendships in cultures less like your own are obviously harder to create. It may take a longer for another society to get used to you, than for you to get used to them. Trust plays a huge role in this, you have to know your boundaries until you become more integrated into a society. To avoid issues with mistrust and misunderstanding, an anthropologist has to slowly become integrated, rather than jumping right in to asking questions and trying to get information that could be offensive or misunderstood by that culture. This may be why many anthropologists now work with their own cultures, no doubt these problems arise less frequently.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Ch.3 & Key Informants, Sam Stangl
An ideal relationship between an anthropologist and his or her key informants would be one where both parties understand each other and can communicate on a better level than the anthropologist can with others in the group or community. The scientist must have a real trust for the party (or parties) that informs him of all key relationships within their tribe, and the informant must have an equally legitimate trust for the anthropologist studying him and his tribe in order to tell him secrets like names of dead loved ones, or to tell him truths about who plays what role and how they life their lives. Even for the anthropologist to trust a translator would take a great deal of trust, in my opinion.
There could be a lot of problems that arise from having an informant, one of them being a hard time keeping confidentiality in check. Again, trust is a thick boundary that one must cross by giving or recieving information that others may wish not to be "gossiped" about, if you will. In some cases, the people will gang up on the anthropologist and waste his time by only giving him bogus information as some sort of joke, such as in one of the stories we read. Another problem is that one could end up, whether intentionally or not, favoriting the informants, treating them better, and the others in the community could see that and perhaps you would cause a flurry of jealousy among a culture that frowns upon those kinds of feelings.
I don't think there is a way for anthropologists to rid the problems they have with informants, but they can deal with them and "minimize" them by just being very cautious with who and what they trust, and what other evidence they can gather to back everything up scientifically. Thus, they at least rid the problem of trust vs. distrust.
There could be a lot of problems that arise from having an informant, one of them being a hard time keeping confidentiality in check. Again, trust is a thick boundary that one must cross by giving or recieving information that others may wish not to be "gossiped" about, if you will. In some cases, the people will gang up on the anthropologist and waste his time by only giving him bogus information as some sort of joke, such as in one of the stories we read. Another problem is that one could end up, whether intentionally or not, favoriting the informants, treating them better, and the others in the community could see that and perhaps you would cause a flurry of jealousy among a culture that frowns upon those kinds of feelings.
I don't think there is a way for anthropologists to rid the problems they have with informants, but they can deal with them and "minimize" them by just being very cautious with who and what they trust, and what other evidence they can gather to back everything up scientifically. Thus, they at least rid the problem of trust vs. distrust.
Ideal
Discussion Assignment:
Discuss what would be an "ideal" relationship between the anthropologist and the key informants? What kinds of problems might an anthropologist encounter with these relationships? Would friendships with informants affect the research? If so, how? How could an anthropologist avoid or minimize those problems?
Discuss what would be an "ideal" relationship between the anthropologist and the key informants? What kinds of problems might an anthropologist encounter with these relationships? Would friendships with informants affect the research? If so, how? How could an anthropologist avoid or minimize those problems?
An ideal relationship with an anthropologist and his/ her key informants would be the way that they survey them. The problems that they might face would be, not getting the right information or not enough information about them. I think that if they had a friendship with the informant it would make it a lot easier on them because they already would know about the person and their research would be a lot more accurately written down.
Chapter 3: Sara Bugler
The ideal relationship between an anthropologist and their and key informants should be a shared consensus of each other. Key informants may become more aware of their actions or even un-trusting of the interest that the anthropologist has. I think that engaging in friendship might disrupt the observations of an anthropologist. In friendship one is less subjective, and tends to let small things go by the wayside. For an anthropologist part of their observations need to be judging the culture and their values. An anthropologist must be appropriate with the people, be courteous of any customs of values the culture has, and be diligent in the study.
Chapter 3 Assignment - Stephanie Reynolds
An "ideal" relationship between the anthropologist and the key informants should not be as we would expect to see in the Western culture. I think more of a mutual understanding between the two parties is more important instead. Friendship, in my opinion, is when two people or groups can give and take from one another without one party becoming judgmental over the other one. In this case, the anthropologist may end up becoming a sort of "judge" of the key informants and make decisions about their culture based on limited research. The mutual understanding between the anthropologist and the key informants ensures that the peoples' rights and are being protected and not put at risk. The anthropologist would not be viewed as a "spy" or invader and is more likely to be trusted by the members of the society.
An anthropologist faces the problem of not being accepted or could end up not becoming integrated within the new culture enough. With Greg Simon, his feelings and experiences in Indonesia made him feel isolated and very frustrated, which could result in a lack of progress concerning his research. Simon had a negative experience with the Indonesian culture, which could be a problem with any anthropologist. Also, another problem which could arise with an over-friendly relationship between the anthropologist and key informants include the chance of the anthropologist choosing the opinions of a select few within a culture. This will exlude the valuable opinions and chance of more concrete research of the wider public of the culture. This more limited view would skew the results of research within the culture, causing problems and inaccuracy in the research later on. Friendships could really affect an anthropologist's research, so it may be better if there was more of a mutual understanding, built on trust and just for the sake of research, instead a Western culture type friendship.
The anthropologist will run into problems with key informants; it is inevitable. Although it is not always the anthropologist's fault, the anthropologist needs to find ways to avoid those problems as much as possible. Sometimes the key informant is not always being cooperative, he/she wants to push an individual opinion further, or isn't completely truthful with the anthropologist for whatever reason. To minimize these types of problems, the anthropologist must assure the key informant(s)' opinions are important, but should rely on more concrete evidence concerning the entire culture instead. The anthropologist could always work with other researchers in the field, if he/she feels the informants weren't being truthful, to collaborate and cross-reference whatever research was gained. This will allow different key informants to be utilized, as well as act as a sort of double check system for the anthropologist to stay on track.
An anthropologist faces the problem of not being accepted or could end up not becoming integrated within the new culture enough. With Greg Simon, his feelings and experiences in Indonesia made him feel isolated and very frustrated, which could result in a lack of progress concerning his research. Simon had a negative experience with the Indonesian culture, which could be a problem with any anthropologist. Also, another problem which could arise with an over-friendly relationship between the anthropologist and key informants include the chance of the anthropologist choosing the opinions of a select few within a culture. This will exlude the valuable opinions and chance of more concrete research of the wider public of the culture. This more limited view would skew the results of research within the culture, causing problems and inaccuracy in the research later on. Friendships could really affect an anthropologist's research, so it may be better if there was more of a mutual understanding, built on trust and just for the sake of research, instead a Western culture type friendship.
The anthropologist will run into problems with key informants; it is inevitable. Although it is not always the anthropologist's fault, the anthropologist needs to find ways to avoid those problems as much as possible. Sometimes the key informant is not always being cooperative, he/she wants to push an individual opinion further, or isn't completely truthful with the anthropologist for whatever reason. To minimize these types of problems, the anthropologist must assure the key informant(s)' opinions are important, but should rely on more concrete evidence concerning the entire culture instead. The anthropologist could always work with other researchers in the field, if he/she feels the informants weren't being truthful, to collaborate and cross-reference whatever research was gained. This will allow different key informants to be utilized, as well as act as a sort of double check system for the anthropologist to stay on track.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Bronislaw Malinowski
This six-part video tells the story of Bronislaw Malinowski, considered to be the father of modern anthropology. His story is interesting for a number of reasons:
1) his work is important to the development of fieldwork methodology, and 2) recent discovery of his diaries showed him to be arrogant, racist and ethnocentric. This demonstrates that while we all may hold some of these qualities, and likely we do, we can still make important contributions to the study of anthropology.
Tales From the Jungle: Bronislaw Malinowski
Click on this link. You will see Part 1 of the video. When you have finished part 1, click on weegielou "24 videos" above the video to see the remaining episodes. There is a problem with #3 in the series. Don't worry about that. You will get the main ideas from the other 5 videos. Each video is about 10 minutes long.
1) his work is important to the development of fieldwork methodology, and 2) recent discovery of his diaries showed him to be arrogant, racist and ethnocentric. This demonstrates that while we all may hold some of these qualities, and likely we do, we can still make important contributions to the study of anthropology.
Tales From the Jungle: Bronislaw Malinowski
Click on this link. You will see Part 1 of the video. When you have finished part 1, click on weegielou "24 videos" above the video to see the remaining episodes. There is a problem with #3 in the series. Don't worry about that. You will get the main ideas from the other 5 videos. Each video is about 10 minutes long.
Ethnocentrism
I enjoyed reading your posts about ethnocentrism. As many of you pointed out, it is extremely difficult to put aside our ethnocentric attitudes in order to truly understand another culture. Horace Miner's article, originally published in 1956, on the Nacirema was meant as a satirical look at anthropological accounts. However, it is used today to help us understand issues of ethnocentrism and cultural relativism by asking ourselves how others might see us.
Most people don't think about it, but we all experience cultural differences on a regular basis. Most of us are part of numerous cultural subgroups and we adapt our behavior as we move between those groups. School, work, family, friends - each of these environments comes with its own culture. Yet, usually, we move seamlessly between them and that is because all of these environments are familiar to us because we have grown up with them. By the time we start working, we are familiar with working because of what we have learned from our family, from television, and other sources. We know something about being "professional," and therefore, adapt to it pretty quickly, or most of us do.
It's when the culture is so different from our own that we have difficulty. Richard Lee's and Napoleon Chagnon's stories are important for two reasons. First, as some of you pointed out, what is seen as inappropriate behavior in one culture can be seen as appropriate in another. Many of you talked about the authors, and your own, feelings superiority. I would argue that we are taught to feel superior. That is part of our culture. With the !Kung, cooperation is critical for their survival. They depend on each other and therefore cannot afford for individuals to feel superior. In our culture, independence is critical. Because of our economy, we must go where the jobs are. Extended families are difficult to maintain because of the expense and the difficulty in moving a large family across the country for a new job. We need to be independent to take advantage of economic opportunities. We start teaching our children at a young age to be independent, to prepare them to move out of their parents home when they reach adulthood. We also teach children that it is good to be the best, to stand out from the crowd. Think about how we give awards for just about everything. Kids get trophies and certificates for performing well. Everything is a contest. We are preparing them for the world they will enter as adults. So, those feelings of superiority are an adaptation to a cultural environment. Now, just because it's an adaptation that helps people succeed in our culture, doesn't mean it's always "good." In fact, while we want our children to stand out, we don't want them to be arrogant, aggressive, demanding, or violent. That's the other end of the spectrum that Chagnon encountered with the Yanomamo. Again, their behavior was an adaptation to an environment characterized by chronic warfare. Our culture is a tricky cultural balancing act between these two "extremes." We try to balance our independence and feelings of superiority - not always very well - with cooperation and feelings of equality. This is an ongoing tension in our culture. I have studied schools for 20 years and have found the attempts at cooperative learning very interesting. On the one hand, we want to teach our children to work well with others, and on the other hand we reward them for individual achievements. And, particularly with boys, we want them to be physical, (athletes) aggressive, and go-getters. This is the reason that teachers struggle with developing successful cooperative learning activities. We just don't do cooperation very well. This is a good example of "ideal" culture vs "real" culture. Anthropologists are interested not only in what people do, but what people think they should do. So, we may think we should be cooperative and equal, yet in reality, it doesn't really work for us, most of time. We can pull it out when we need it like the cooperation we are seeing now among those affected by the hurricane and subsequent flooding. The point I am trying to make here is that when thinking about your own culture, it is important to think about what we think we should do (be cooperative and treat others as equals) and what we actually do (act independently and treat others not as equals). They are not always the same thing. And when there is a difference between the two, it doesn't mean that we are "bad" and we should change our behavior. It means that there are two competing ideals, and maybe the tension is necessary.
Second, Lee's story in particular demonstrates how difficult it is to truly understand another culture, even for anthropologists. It is very difficult to get out of our own cultural mindset. It is such a huge part of who we are and we think of our beliefs and behaviors, not as our culture, but as the "right" way of living. If we didn't think it was "right" we wouldn't adhere to our cultural norms. My goal for this course is to help students think of culture as just that, culture, and to focus not so much on "right" and "wrong" behavior. When looking at a cultural groups behavior that is different than your own, try to understand that behavior before judging it.
Studying anthropology can help us try to understand why cultural differences exist and what causes those differences. Hopefully, once we understand some of the basics of culture and cultural diversity, when we encounter cultural difference we may not know exactly why a people do what they do, but we know what questions to ask to learn why. This is particularly important now as the world has become a much smaller place due to technology, communications, emigration, and ease of travel. So, before saying "ooh, that's strange" or "I couldn't live like that," stop and ask your self why that group might be behaving in a way that is different than your own behavior. A number you explained how you were able to do just that in developing a better understanding of the Middle East and Islam.
Good work!
Most people don't think about it, but we all experience cultural differences on a regular basis. Most of us are part of numerous cultural subgroups and we adapt our behavior as we move between those groups. School, work, family, friends - each of these environments comes with its own culture. Yet, usually, we move seamlessly between them and that is because all of these environments are familiar to us because we have grown up with them. By the time we start working, we are familiar with working because of what we have learned from our family, from television, and other sources. We know something about being "professional," and therefore, adapt to it pretty quickly, or most of us do.
It's when the culture is so different from our own that we have difficulty. Richard Lee's and Napoleon Chagnon's stories are important for two reasons. First, as some of you pointed out, what is seen as inappropriate behavior in one culture can be seen as appropriate in another. Many of you talked about the authors, and your own, feelings superiority. I would argue that we are taught to feel superior. That is part of our culture. With the !Kung, cooperation is critical for their survival. They depend on each other and therefore cannot afford for individuals to feel superior. In our culture, independence is critical. Because of our economy, we must go where the jobs are. Extended families are difficult to maintain because of the expense and the difficulty in moving a large family across the country for a new job. We need to be independent to take advantage of economic opportunities. We start teaching our children at a young age to be independent, to prepare them to move out of their parents home when they reach adulthood. We also teach children that it is good to be the best, to stand out from the crowd. Think about how we give awards for just about everything. Kids get trophies and certificates for performing well. Everything is a contest. We are preparing them for the world they will enter as adults. So, those feelings of superiority are an adaptation to a cultural environment. Now, just because it's an adaptation that helps people succeed in our culture, doesn't mean it's always "good." In fact, while we want our children to stand out, we don't want them to be arrogant, aggressive, demanding, or violent. That's the other end of the spectrum that Chagnon encountered with the Yanomamo. Again, their behavior was an adaptation to an environment characterized by chronic warfare. Our culture is a tricky cultural balancing act between these two "extremes." We try to balance our independence and feelings of superiority - not always very well - with cooperation and feelings of equality. This is an ongoing tension in our culture. I have studied schools for 20 years and have found the attempts at cooperative learning very interesting. On the one hand, we want to teach our children to work well with others, and on the other hand we reward them for individual achievements. And, particularly with boys, we want them to be physical, (athletes) aggressive, and go-getters. This is the reason that teachers struggle with developing successful cooperative learning activities. We just don't do cooperation very well. This is a good example of "ideal" culture vs "real" culture. Anthropologists are interested not only in what people do, but what people think they should do. So, we may think we should be cooperative and equal, yet in reality, it doesn't really work for us, most of time. We can pull it out when we need it like the cooperation we are seeing now among those affected by the hurricane and subsequent flooding. The point I am trying to make here is that when thinking about your own culture, it is important to think about what we think we should do (be cooperative and treat others as equals) and what we actually do (act independently and treat others not as equals). They are not always the same thing. And when there is a difference between the two, it doesn't mean that we are "bad" and we should change our behavior. It means that there are two competing ideals, and maybe the tension is necessary.
Second, Lee's story in particular demonstrates how difficult it is to truly understand another culture, even for anthropologists. It is very difficult to get out of our own cultural mindset. It is such a huge part of who we are and we think of our beliefs and behaviors, not as our culture, but as the "right" way of living. If we didn't think it was "right" we wouldn't adhere to our cultural norms. My goal for this course is to help students think of culture as just that, culture, and to focus not so much on "right" and "wrong" behavior. When looking at a cultural groups behavior that is different than your own, try to understand that behavior before judging it.
Studying anthropology can help us try to understand why cultural differences exist and what causes those differences. Hopefully, once we understand some of the basics of culture and cultural diversity, when we encounter cultural difference we may not know exactly why a people do what they do, but we know what questions to ask to learn why. This is particularly important now as the world has become a much smaller place due to technology, communications, emigration, and ease of travel. So, before saying "ooh, that's strange" or "I couldn't live like that," stop and ask your self why that group might be behaving in a way that is different than your own behavior. A number you explained how you were able to do just that in developing a better understanding of the Middle East and Islam.
Good work!
Monday, August 29, 2011
Assignment 3 Aug 29-Sept 3
Read Chapter 3 in your text and The Last Days of the Ice Hunters.
Also, look for a video to be posted later in the week.
Discussion Assignment:
Discuss what would be an "ideal" relationship between the anthropologist and the key informants? What kinds of problems might an anthropologist encounter with these relationships? Would friendships with informants affect the research? If so, how? How could an anthropologist avoid or minimize those problems?
This assignment should be completed by midnight, Saturday, September 3.
Also, look for a video to be posted later in the week.
Discussion Assignment:
Discuss what would be an "ideal" relationship between the anthropologist and the key informants? What kinds of problems might an anthropologist encounter with these relationships? Would friendships with informants affect the research? If so, how? How could an anthropologist avoid or minimize those problems?
This assignment should be completed by midnight, Saturday, September 3.
Cultural Analysis Paper
Please review the page on the Cultural Analysis Paper. You will find that on the right side of this blog. Start thinking about which novel you would like to read and why. You might want to select a couple, just in case you can't find the one you most want to read. By October 1, select your book, post your selection to the blog telling us a bit about why you want to read this particular book.
If you have any questions about the assignment, write it as a comment to this post.
As always, if you want to talk to me about the assignment, give me a call.
If you have any questions about the assignment, write it as a comment to this post.
As always, if you want to talk to me about the assignment, give me a call.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Eating Christmas in the Kalahari
I have finished reading the "Eating Christmas in the Kalahari" paper, and I would like to say how I admire the Bushmen. The Bushmens' style of forced humility is not just something they do as a family but as something they do as a community. Whenever some young man comes to their Bushmen camp with a big cow they are likely to boast and feel as if they are better then anyone else. No one likes a show off especially the Bushmen. The way they force the the humility upon the young hunters was through always telling them that their kill was too small, too old or too thin. In doing this the young hunter understands humility. Richard Lee is a social anthropologist and was working with Kung Bushmen. He had been there for a few years and always had a very steady supply of food the people always called him hard hearted or stingy for having all the food. When it came around Christmas Time, the Kung had a tradition of one member slaughtering their cow and giving the meat to everyone around, it was a way of saying thank you for your cooperation for the year. This year Richard decided to provide the cow for everyone. So he went to market looking to the meatiest and biggest cow he could find. He found and bought the cow. Then shortly after many members began to criticize him for the size of the cow, saying it was too old and thin. Richard became ashamed of his cow and felt bad for not bringing a big enough cow. After days of sulking he decided to offer up the cow anyway. When they cut into the cow it turned out that the cow was more than meaty and fat enough for everyone to eat. After that day, Tomazo, a friend to Richard, informed Richard on why everyone was insulting him and his cow. It was to teach Richard humility. That just because you have the biggest cow doesn't mean you have to go rub it in other people's faces.
Ethnocentrism, by Khala Flanagan
To me, these two reports from real anthropologists shed so much light and reality on what it means to be an “anthropologist on Mars”, as Dr. Grandin describes it. As the saying goes, you don’t know how good you have it until it’s gone. When someone becomes accustomed to their daily luxuries and comforts, and then is suddenly transported into a completely different world when he or she is denied those things, the natural reaction IS to react with indifference and confusion. Furthermore, when new anthropologists come into contact with people so culturally, physically, and mentally different from themselves, they might probably ask the same question Dr. Chagnon asked himself: “What in the world am I doing here?!”
I found these two reports both enlightening and humorous, but they also depicted the stark reality of a people extremely different (and difficult) to their authors. Although they went into their work field with good intentions as anthropologists, they couldn’t help but be ethnocentric when faced with hard cultural challenges… and I don’t blame them! In the beginning of Richard Lee’s report, he describes his predicament very honestly and truthfully. He isn’t attacking the Bushmen for their attitudes towards him; he’s simply stating the facts. As the story went on, however, I found myself falling into the same trap of feeling somewhat ethnocentric towards those who kept tormenting the poor guy for his mistake. “Give him a break!” I was saying to myself. “He’s trying to do something nice for you!” But in the end, the truth comes out, and I was so amazed at the logic behind the Bushmen’s custom. The unique way they install the spirit of humility is very abrasive… but it works! Dr. Lee couldn’t understand why the natives were picking on him so ruthlessly, especially at Christmastime. Yet, he wanted to make something of himself with a lot of fanfare by celebrating a meal; the Bushmen, however, turned his tables and made him realize the mistake of his intentions.
Dr. Chagnon’s report was a great read, even if the grossness of the Yanomamo was a little disturbing! His anticipated reaction before meeting them was that they would adopt him into their tribe and eagerly want to tell them their genealogy (the purpose of his work). He soon found out that not only did the natives constantly bully him into giving up his supplies, but they made his work extremely frustrating by refusing to tell them their true names (since that was taboo according to their culture). He asked himself why on earth would they treat him like this, after all he’s doing to learn about their ways. But eventually, he realized that not all cultures abide by the golden rule like ours does. He learned to adapt to their ways and meet them on their level when it came to individual rights and personal boundaries. I don’t blame him one bit for at first being appalled and completely discouraged in his work! But I also admire Dr. Chagnon’s spirit of endurance and patience in trying to understand a harshly different group of human beings. One part of Dr. Chagnon’s report really hit home for me:
When I reached Bisaasiteri, Rerebawä was in his own village visiting his kinsmen. Word reached him that I had returned, and he paddled downstream immediately to see me. He greeted me with an immense bear hug and exclaimed, with tears welling up in his eyes, ‘Shaki! Why did you stay away so long? Did you not know that my will was so cold while you were gone that I could not at times eat for want of seeing you again?’ I, too, felt the same way about him—then, and now.
I think this part shows that despite our natural tendency to side with ethnocentrism, all cultures believe that relationships with others are vital to existence.
I think there was one time when I had ethnocentric thoughts floating around in my head. I was watching a film called “The Inn of 6th Happiness”, and it was about a British missionary worker in China just before WWII. During her first day walking around the streets of the village, she was completely confused why the women were yelling and chasing her because she helped an injured little girl, and then stumbles across a public execution which horrifies her. The locals, likewise, distrust her and refuse to come to her inn. I felt the same way she did, baffled and puzzled why the Chinese were so different and how she was just trying to help them. But eventually, she learned to accept and adapt to the Chinese, succeeding in her mission and saving many lives because of her willingness to become one of them. The movie also showed me that deep down inside, we all are human beings and very much alike in many ways.
I found these two reports both enlightening and humorous, but they also depicted the stark reality of a people extremely different (and difficult) to their authors. Although they went into their work field with good intentions as anthropologists, they couldn’t help but be ethnocentric when faced with hard cultural challenges… and I don’t blame them! In the beginning of Richard Lee’s report, he describes his predicament very honestly and truthfully. He isn’t attacking the Bushmen for their attitudes towards him; he’s simply stating the facts. As the story went on, however, I found myself falling into the same trap of feeling somewhat ethnocentric towards those who kept tormenting the poor guy for his mistake. “Give him a break!” I was saying to myself. “He’s trying to do something nice for you!” But in the end, the truth comes out, and I was so amazed at the logic behind the Bushmen’s custom. The unique way they install the spirit of humility is very abrasive… but it works! Dr. Lee couldn’t understand why the natives were picking on him so ruthlessly, especially at Christmastime. Yet, he wanted to make something of himself with a lot of fanfare by celebrating a meal; the Bushmen, however, turned his tables and made him realize the mistake of his intentions.
Dr. Chagnon’s report was a great read, even if the grossness of the Yanomamo was a little disturbing! His anticipated reaction before meeting them was that they would adopt him into their tribe and eagerly want to tell them their genealogy (the purpose of his work). He soon found out that not only did the natives constantly bully him into giving up his supplies, but they made his work extremely frustrating by refusing to tell them their true names (since that was taboo according to their culture). He asked himself why on earth would they treat him like this, after all he’s doing to learn about their ways. But eventually, he realized that not all cultures abide by the golden rule like ours does. He learned to adapt to their ways and meet them on their level when it came to individual rights and personal boundaries. I don’t blame him one bit for at first being appalled and completely discouraged in his work! But I also admire Dr. Chagnon’s spirit of endurance and patience in trying to understand a harshly different group of human beings. One part of Dr. Chagnon’s report really hit home for me:
When I reached Bisaasiteri, Rerebawä was in his own village visiting his kinsmen. Word reached him that I had returned, and he paddled downstream immediately to see me. He greeted me with an immense bear hug and exclaimed, with tears welling up in his eyes, ‘Shaki! Why did you stay away so long? Did you not know that my will was so cold while you were gone that I could not at times eat for want of seeing you again?’ I, too, felt the same way about him—then, and now.
I think this part shows that despite our natural tendency to side with ethnocentrism, all cultures believe that relationships with others are vital to existence.
I think there was one time when I had ethnocentric thoughts floating around in my head. I was watching a film called “The Inn of 6th Happiness”, and it was about a British missionary worker in China just before WWII. During her first day walking around the streets of the village, she was completely confused why the women were yelling and chasing her because she helped an injured little girl, and then stumbles across a public execution which horrifies her. The locals, likewise, distrust her and refuse to come to her inn. I felt the same way she did, baffled and puzzled why the Chinese were so different and how she was just trying to help them. But eventually, she learned to accept and adapt to the Chinese, succeeding in her mission and saving many lives because of her willingness to become one of them. The movie also showed me that deep down inside, we all are human beings and very much alike in many ways.
Ethnocentrism - Sierra Armstrong
A way that I have been subject to ethnocentrism is my religion compared to others religions. I thought that my religion was right and others were wrong. I started to think that way when the Middle East were portrayed as the "bad guys" by the media and the country. I thought that everything about them was wrong especailly their religion. I didn't know why they acted and thought that way. It wasn't until I grew up and had my own thoughts about all religions that I started to realize that mine wasn't better it was just different. I didn't understand their religions so I started to read about them.
Anthropologists are supposed to stay open about cultures that they are studying and observing. They are not supposed to provide them with anything. In Richard Borshay Lee's culture the biggest and strongest is usually always the best. So he assumed that the same was true in the Twasana tribes. He didn't stay open about the Twasana tribe. He thought they were the same as his culture.
When Chagnon went to study the Yanomamo he figured that he would go the these people and get the answers that he was looking for. It would be done quick and easy as if he was going to any other person in his culture to get answers. That is how it usually works for us. In the Yanomamo culture you have to be "let in" to their culture. You have to get to know and earn their respect before the talk to you openly.
Anthropologists are supposed to stay open about cultures that they are studying and observing. They are not supposed to provide them with anything. In Richard Borshay Lee's culture the biggest and strongest is usually always the best. So he assumed that the same was true in the Twasana tribes. He didn't stay open about the Twasana tribe. He thought they were the same as his culture.
When Chagnon went to study the Yanomamo he figured that he would go the these people and get the answers that he was looking for. It would be done quick and easy as if he was going to any other person in his culture to get answers. That is how it usually works for us. In the Yanomamo culture you have to be "let in" to their culture. You have to get to know and earn their respect before the talk to you openly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)