Critique of Levi-Strauss' 'Structuralism and Ecology'

Claude Lévi-Strauss was a French structuralist and one of the most celebrated anthropologist of the twentieth century. His work in constructing a method aimed to benefit in the discovery of meaning in cultural life led him to the formation of a theory in which structural linguistics could be applied to anthropology. His work was greatly influenced by the work of Ferdinand de Saussure, to whom the theory of structural linguistics was credited, however, Lévi-Strauss further expanded on Saussure’s work to form his own theory of structuralism, by which all empirical data could be generalized into the smallest, most comprehensive units of data. These building blocks of the most basic units of data could be used in comparison or in contrast of one another, and in doing so Lévi-Strauss hoped to formulate predictive laws of order.  

Lévi-Strauss’ system of structuralism was extended to the application of cultural life, in hopes that he might find some predictability in social structures and the behaviors they produce. Culture, Lévi-Strauss would say, is reliant upon patterns of everyday life - art, ritual, myth, kinship. These patterns are simple social structures intended for the collective use of people. The structures are not systematic, but rather constructs reproduced arbitrarily from culture to culture to promote alliances, facilitate social interactions and work to make society cohere. It is, according to Lévi-Strauss, the social reproduction of structures, not the biological reproduction of human beings that gives meaning to cultural life.

Method

‘Structuralism and Ecology [1984]’ exemplifies Lévi-Strauss’ theory of structuralism as it is applied to native Canadian mythology. His focus was to prove that myths could be reduced to a manageable number of elements, mythemes, that could be arranged and rearranged to form the same story cross-culturally, an ultimate myth from which expectations of society and values of a culture could be expressed. Any cause for change in one story required other parts of that story to change accordingly. Mythemes mimicked the linguistic concept of phonemes, minimally contrasting pairs of sounds that create linguistic meaning. Lévi-Strauss came to analyze social structures, like myths, in the same way structural linguists analyze language; as a model of cultural phenomena as well as the medium of cultural communication.

By outlining the dialectical relationship between two myths of neighboring tribes, Lévi-Strauss explains human’s inherent need to impose order from nature by creating binary oppositions - life and death, culture and nature, self and other. He came to believe that existing cultural ideologies were perpetuated binary mental oppositions that have prevailed through time. Linguists, like anthropologist, sought to segment and classify characteristics of grammar styles in hopes of collecting language universals and reinforcing social structures that reproduce a collective consciousness and group solidarity. Much as Saussure argued that the structure of family allowed individuals to acquire a determinate identity only through relations with one another, the arrangement of mythemes into myths served as a social structure from which a determinate identity could be formulated. These structures highlight values, traits and characteristics which are desirable in each particular culture.

"Hell hath no fury..." Cultural materialism applied to photojournalism

Cultural materialism is a scientific strategy used to apply the scientific method to cultural life. In attempting to measure social concepts in the same scientific manner as material objects, issues of credibility and validity between what people say and think as subjects and what they say and think and do as objects of scientific inquiry come into question. Harris suggests a resolution of cultural materialism, which makes a distinction between behavioral events and ideas, values and other mental events, and also the distinction between emic and etic operations.

I thought the stories surrounding the recent photos surfacing of the Obama’s at Nelson Mandela’s memorial service would serve as a fun social-cultural critique of Marvin Harris’ theory of Cultural Materialism.

Here are the photos, I suggest looking at them first without reading the taglines, then for kicks going back to read the headlines. They’re really fantastic.

https://www.mrconservative.com/2013/12/28831-jealous-michelle-obama-swaps-seats-with-husband-after-he-flirts-with-danish-prime-minister/

Research strategies prioritizes etic behavior phenomena. Although photojournalism isn’t the finest example of scientific strategy, the first major tenet of journalism is a strict adherence to the truth, much as the scientific method seeks to uncover “true knowledge.” Among the variety of news sources that have provided their speculations of the photographed event, this source did so with such blatant disregard of reality, and instead constructed its own ideas of how the subjects of study thought based off of a selection of photographs. Accepting the inherent discrepancies of using journalism as a critique of social science, Harris’ theory of cultural material can be applied.

Some background - the collection of photographs include Danish Prime Minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt, President of the United States, Barack Obama, and First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama (sitting in this order) all at the memorial service of Nelson Mandela. The photographs show the Prime Minister and the President engaging in conversation while the first lady looks on, in some pictures to the service in others she observes the two. After a series of photographs exhibiting the prime minister and the president taking ‘selfies’ together, laughing, and physically interacting with one another - all while the FLOTUS remains disengaged from the interaction of the two - a final photo shows the Prime Minister, the First Lady, and the President (sitting, now, in this order).

News sources had a field day offering their etic perspectives of the behavior exhibited in the photographs. And etic approach, as Harris adopted into his theory of cultural materialism, is one in which the concepts used are those of the observer and used to generate scientific theories. This website in particular described the first lady as jealous, attempting to pit her against the Prime Minister. They describe the interaction between the President and Prime Minister as flirting, and the First Lady as glaring, visibly irritated, and potentially jealous. Using phrases like “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” and even bringing into question the quality of the Obama’s marriage, and the President’s sexuality, the press makes heinous, unreal claims of the mental domain of subjects whose behavior domain is in question.

To properly apply cultural materialism, both an emic and an etic perspective should be present. The emic perspective would be one in which the descriptions and analyses are acceptable by the subject of study as real, meaningful, and appropriate. Harris would say the publication making etic assumptions weren’t wrong in doing so, they were wrong, however, in presenting their etic perspectives without an emic balance. Such a balance would appear in the case of photojournalism as an indepth interview with the Obama’s and the Danish Prime Minister.

Critique of Harris' "Epistemology of Cultural Materialism"

Harris looks to the way in which research methods treats the relationship between what people say and think as subjects of a study and what they say, think and do as objects of scientific inquiry. Because it is a human who serves as the subject of study, the object of focus - said human - has well-developed thoughts about their own and other people's thoughts and behavior. Said human is able to express their thoughts about their thoughts (woah) and behaviors through questions and answers.

Wait.. what?

Harris' conceptualization of gaining scientific knowledge from the study of humans is trippy to say the least. He challenges the concept of "reality" by questioning if it is possible to deconstruct social life by using social science. The use of the epistemological approach was inspired by the work of Marx and Engels in identifying individuals “not as they may appear to in their own or other peoples imagination, but as they really are…;” Harris furthers the approach by challenging the scientific method we so heavily rely upon to prove theorem. Why is it, Harris would ask, that we so readily accept the reality of the thoughts shaping all theory but only question the validity of testable evidence if it is collected from human subjects? Why are thoughts and ideas considered to be any less real than matters?  

Scientific materialist hold to their beliefs that what can be measured - thoughts and events - exist separately from thoughts about thoughts and events. For materialists, the issue of what is real vs. what is unreal is overshadowed by what can be scientifically proven, a term that is problematic because it’s use here is culturally understood to mean ‘satiated by the presentation of material evidence.’ Harris’ resolve to this selective acceptance of evidence is to intentionally distinguish between mental and behavioral events and also between emic and etic events in our quest for knowledge - a practice of cultural materialism. In Harris’ approach, human social life is simply a response to practical problems, and should be subjected to the same scientific measurements and tests as matter.

By learning to acknowledge the mental and behavioral domains and the emic and etic perspectives, we can develop coherent networks of theories that may aid in recognizing the causes of sociocultural differences and similarities. In order to operationalize such sociocultural concepts as status, class, role, family, etc. one must first recognize whether their knowledge of the concept - their reality- is etic or emic. The position from which the study is posed, whether it is by the observer or the observed, shapes the knowledge that is produced. In order to be objective in human sciences, Harris orders a scientific approach toward the thoughts or behaviors of both the observed or the observers.

To better produce theories, to achieve higher levels of objectivity with respect to both the emics and etics of mental and behavioral phenomena, Harris urges the practitioners of science to recognize the distinctions of the four domain, without buying into the idealist notion that all knowledge is ‘emic.’ It is not solely the etic perspective that formulates the scientific question and the emic that answers it. Rather, depending on whose categories establish the framework of discourse, informants may provide either etic or emic descriptions of the event they have observed or participated in - it is how the question is asked that will determine its results. This is particularly true when applied cross culturally, where without a cultural understanding the question will often be misconstrued as the participant will likely answer as they understand the question, not necessarily how it is intended. Harris looks to language and the study of linguistics to disprove the idealist notion that all knowledge is ‘emic,’ and again reinforces his stance that both the emic and etic perspectives, when applied to either mental or behavioral domains seek to accomplish separate goals. The etic analysis is not a steppingstone to the emic perspective, but to the further discovery of etic structures and vice versa.

In order to operationalize social life, we must first decide if indeed we believe a scientific way of knowing is more advantageous than other ways of knowing. If we decide that it is, then Harris argues we can no longer be selective in the knowledge that the scientific method applies to. The etics of scientific observers is not merely one among an infinity of other emics, either their perspective is recognized for its authority in both material and culturally material matters..or we must admit that all knowledge produced by the scientific approach is relative.

Critique of Lock & Scheper-Hughes; A Critical-Interpetive Approach in Medical Anthropology

As a pre-med student, I have always been interested in the field of Medical Anthropology. I was extremely surprised by the reading by Lock & Scheper-Huges.

The argument posed about the Three Bodies was incredibly interesting. The presence of the Cartiesian legacy, within the Individual Body concept, along with Freud’s dynamic psychology, Marx’s view of how the natural world is outside of the body, Harris’s view of the body and how mind collapses within in, initially confused me but then after re-reading it to gain a better knowledge, it made coherent sense and I understood how all these different ideologies could still be supportive of the individual body. The then breaking down of the individual body into the (1) person, self, and individual and (2) body imagery reflected created a more complex interpretation than I had ever considered before.

This was presented yet again in the second body: The Social Body. This one, I found more comprehensible with the use of symbolic and structuralist anthro in the description of the Body as Symbol section because I felt like those are two theories I grasp better than others. The Embodied World really grasped my attention. I understood how as Medical Anthropologist these would be natural observations and thoughts to have, but I never considered thinking of the Social Body in that manner. I was yet again, drawn into the reading further. I specifically thought it was interested when it was stated that illness resides in either the body or the mind, because this is something I have always thought to be true.

The last part of The Body Politic truly intrigued with the metaphor that the social body and the individual and are truly representations of culture and nature. This was especially understandable to me when mentioned how our own culture thinks that the political / social body is suppose to be perfectly lean and fit for both sexes. The idea is ridiculously apparent within our culture; despite the knowledge that the body you were born with/ your individual body in its natural form is more beautiful than trying to be perfect Barbie based on our culture

The closing and final argument made is that “an anthropology of the body necessarily entails a theory of emotions” because these emotions affect our social body and individual body so much.

Although others would not at first understand the analogies and comparisons of different theories presented in this article to define the 3 bodies, the last two parts of this article, I feel would be beneficial for everyone to read. Especially those who understand the difficulties of balancing their emotions, or understand how the body displays distress from the social and cultural aspects in which the body resides. 

Critique of Appadurai's Mediascope

When we discussed Appadurai in class we hinted on this, and I thought it was completely fascinating the ways in which he poses we view global culture, although some were a little hard to grasp at first. The most interesting of his 5 domains were mediascapes because in this day and age that is more precisely where are global culture is when you think about our technology.

Let’s Review:

Mediascape –refers to both the distribution of the electronic capabilities to produce and disseminate information and to the image of the world created by these medias.

In today’s culture it has become habitual to wake up and immediately check your cell phone (most likely smartphone) for text messages, missed calls, check instagram, facebook, twitter, other social media sites that you have access to in order to not only keep up with current events in the daily lives of your peers but also to keep up with current events globally that are posted about on these websites. It is more accessible to have a laptop in order to take notes and stay in contact via email than to write letters or write your notes by hand. The Nook, iBooks, Kindle are all electronic technologies in which we are capable of using in order to gain information as well as read books. What ever happen to reading a book on paper and feeling it in your hand? That satisfaction that we loved so much as a child?

Don’t get me wrong here, I completely love my iPhone and my social media apps, and the ways in which I can easily access and distribute information via that technology, but I often wonder what has done to our culture and society. Granted not everyone is glued to these devices, but we have come to a day in age where not having the newest version of the iPhone is a weird thing even though they just came out with a model last year. I completely grasp the bigger concept that Appadurai is portrays in that he is focusing on global culture flow, and yes by all means mediascape in the forms of which I am focusing on have greatly influenced in the global culture flow. But can we ignore the way in which it has affected our own culture? Can we honestly say it was for the betterment of our culture that these technologies are so easily used and accessible?

Symbolic Anthropology seen in The Hunger Games (still including Catching Fire, sorry again!)

Using the same series as mentioned in my previous blog, I would now like to note the ways in which Symbolic Anthropology apply to The Hunger Games and Catching Fire as seen in the various symbols introduced in the first part of the series that develop into instrumental symbols in the second part of the series, which are best defined by Victor Turner as "symbols that can be consciously wielded in ritual to achieve particular ends" (584). 

When Katniss first volunteered as tribute as means to save her sister from participating in the Hunger Games, she began to establish herself as a symbol for the people of the Captiol and the surrounding Districts. From that very moment the population started to view her as someone who was extremely pure at heart and yet brave enough to offer herself in place of her younger sister in the games where there can only be one victor.

Her designer for the games established her fashion statement as the “Girl on Fire,” as means to symbolize her strength due to the fire he saw within her when he offered herself as tribute for her sister. Having articles of clothing that have flames coming from them became a ritual and a symbol for her. During her first interview before the 74^th Hunger Games she twirls on the stage in her dress when asked to by the interviewer and flames leap from her dress.

While in the games, tributes often team together until the very last minute as means of survival. Peeta and Katniss become separated and form different alliances. Katniss meets a young tribute from District 11, named Rue, who trusted Katniss because of the gold mockingjay pen she wore - a symbol of how something the Capitol created to be destructive and tormenting during the games (jabberjays) can produce something beautiful when they mate with a mockingbird - , takes care of Katniss when she was injured by wasps, and the two form their own alliance. As means of communicating between each other when separated, Rue would whistle a 4 note symbolic tune from her District that the mockingjays would repeat so Katniss could hear that Rue was okay. When Rue is killed, Katniss surrounds her body with flowers, and proceeds to look up to the cameras that she knows are watching her, displaying the gesture symbolic to her own District when a loved one has died, as means of acknowledging District 11. In performing this action, Katniss displays to the viewing audience that the tributes are more than pieces to this game. In doing so she further creates the view of herself as a symbol for the people.

In the second part of the series, although she intends to go along with plans from President Snow as means to protect her family, she has begun to notice that the ritual rebellions that are occurring have a great deal to do with how she is viewed as a symbol for the people. Her District's hand gesture that she displayed before has now become an instrumental symbol throughout all of the Districts, as has the 4 notes tune that Rue's would whistle that was symbolic within her District. The people still perform these rituals despite the fatal outcomes they will now received with its use due its now created deeper meaning. When Peeta draws Rue at the skills display in front of the Gamemakers it is in means of displaying the symbol that Katniss now instills in the population.

Her designer for the games established her fashion statement as the “Girl on Fire,” as means to symbolize her strength due to the fire he saw within her when he offered herself as tribute for her sister. Having articles of clothing that have flames coming from them became a ritual and a symbol for her. During her first interview before the 74^th Hunger Games she twirls on the stage in her dress when asked to by the interviewer and flames leap from her dress. In the second part of the series, Catching Fire, she asked to do the same ritual of showing off her dress in the wedding dress that President Snow forces her to wear. When she began to twirl and the flames started at the bottom of the dress it began to increase towards the top of the dress, displaying another attire underneath – that of a mockingjay. Her mockingjay pen has now become a symbol amongst not only for her as a person of hope and something beautifully created in spite of the ugliness around them, or for the symbol of Rue’s 4 note tune, but now it also became the symbol for the people and for their revolt. President Snow realized the significance of this symbol, and that is part of the reason the designer is killed.

The symbols that are introduced in the first part of the series and later develop into instrumental symbols play a significant role in the rituals seen in the series, including the rituals of rebellion. The two rituals used primarily by Katniss and Rue and those within their Districts, thus greatly support Tuner's belief that "people are largely unaware of the true symbolic meaning of their rituals" (273) for they had no idea how symbolic those rituals would become for the nation in long run. 

Good luck with your finals everyone! And may the odds ever be in your favor.

Turban Equals Terrorist – Or Does It?

As I was preparing to go through security at the airport to go home for Thanksgiving, I was hurriedly removing my bracelets and coat, separating my liquids, and performing all the other necessary duties to successfully get through without having to be patted down and questioned. Luckily for me, I was not seen as suspicious or in need of a “random” check by the TSA and I was able to breeze through the advanced metal detectors and security guards the menacingly stood in my way of a well-deserved break.

As I reassembled my outfit and my possessions, I couldn’t help but think about one of my best friends who takes quite a different approach to security checkpoints. His name is Neil and both of his parents immigrated to the United States from the Punjab region of the Middle East. Although he was raised in a Sikh household, he does not carry around the Five Ks, which are five articles of faith that all baptized Sikhs are typically obliged to wear at all times. One of these Ks is one of the most prominent ways in which most Americans would be able to identify a Sikh, and that is through the presence of Kesh. Kesh is when a Sikh has uncut hair and usually ties and wraps it in the Sikh Turban, called a Dastar.

Even though he did not wear a turban, as Neil got older he was almost always chosen by the TSA for a “random” check. After realizing he was being chosen for these checks due to racial profiling and accepted that this would likely be his fate every time that he traveled, he decided to embrace the stereotype. Whenever he knows he will be going through security at the airport, he begins to grow out his beard. On the day of his flight, he wraps his non-traditionally short hair in a turban.

On a school trip my senior year, we were flying together to Chicago. I asked him why he was wearing a turban and he responded, “Well, I am inevitably going to get “randomly” checked anyways, so I might as well take it to the extreme and prove to everyone around me that just because I wear a turban, look Middle Eastern, and have a beard, I am not necessarily a terrorist. Also, I like when people don’t sit around me – it makes it much easier to spread out.”

This explanation was both shocking and horrifying. I was shocked that my best friend – one of the kindest, most driven, and successful students that I know – was the subject of such racial profiling, even without his turban and beard. I was horrified that people would have the insecurity to single him out as a threat and have the gall to move away from him or avoid him altogether in airports (I will never cease to be amazed at the cruelty and racism of some people). However, more than my horror and shock, I was impressed with the way in which he handled the situation. Instead of trying to blend in with the other Americans with which he would be traveling, he embraced his identity and used his kind nature to prove people wrong and, whether successful or not, try to shape the ways in which those around him perceive people who wear turbans.

Although this was a lengthy anecdote, it shows the ways in which orientalism affects our perceptions and daily lives. Edward Said’s definition of “orientalism” describes what Said sees as the false cultural assumptions of the “Western world.” These false assumptions facilitate the cultural misrepresentation of the “The Orient”, in general, and of the Middle East, in particular. Orientalism also describes the subtle and persistent Eurocentric prejudice against Arabo-Islamic people and their culture. 9/11 resulted in increased tensions between America and the Middle East and intensified feelings of fear and hatred within the US, thereby heightening already present orientalism. This fear of the “other” and the stereotypes it produces was seen in the lack of respect Neil received whenever he grew his beard and wore a turban.

Orientalism, feelings of prejudice, and blatant fear of the other are reinforced by structural violence. Bourgois and Schonberg introduce the concept of structural violence in Righteous Dopefiend. As defined by Farmer, structural violence refers to how the political-economic organization of society wreaks havoc on vulnerable categories of society. Much of the media and political landscape teach the American public to be suspicious of those from the Middle East, thus forcing those in turbans (and even those that look Middle Eastern) into vulnerable social groups and causing great suffering. Although my friend hid his feelings of shame caused by the structural violence he experienced well, it was apparent that it bothered him. It is easy to imagine how someone who lacked English language skills, knowledge of American culture, and a strong support system would crumble under the pressure of American law-enforcement, politics, economics, and daily prejudices. Continued structural violence often leads to or coexists with symbolic violence. Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic violence links immediate practices and feelings to social discrimination and refers specifically to the mechanisms that lead those who are subordinated to “misrecognize” inequality as the natural order of things and to blame themselves for their location in their society’s hierarchies. Because Neil was well educated, wealthy, and had a strong sense of pride in his Sikh background, he did not necessarily reproduce or become a target of this symbolic violence. Again, it is easy to see how this symbolic violence could affect the daily life, mental health, physical health, and assimilate into society.

On a much larger scale, Gap recently released a new ad that features a poster of a turbaned and bearded Sikh man, Waris Ahluwalia, with a woman hanging on his shoulder as part of their “Make Love” campaign. A CNN contributor, civil rights activist, and interfaith organizer, Valerie Kaur, wrote a fascinating article about this ad campaign and the vandalism of one of the ads that occurred of a New York subway wall. The vandalism of the ad shows the continued widespread fear of the oriental “other” and the apparent prejudice that accompanies it. In addition, you can see the ways in which seeing such a vandalized ad would be demoralizing and could subsequently be internalized as an act of symbolic violence. Although Gap responded quickly to the vandalism, this incident shows the continued presence of structural forces that encourage (or do not abate) such behavior. You can read this insightful and important article here:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/living/gap-ad-sikh-identity/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

Here is a photo of the advertisement:

Here is a photo of vandalized advertisement:

In her article, Kaur brilliantly highlights the importance of the ad. “For the first time, a mainstream, nationwide ad presents a turbaned man as beautiful, even sexy. He is not a suspect, but a model; not a terrorist, but a person with dignity; not a foreigner, but an American. The ad thrilled Sikh Americans like me, who have worked for years to dismantle one of the most pernicious prevailing stereotypes in American culture: turban equals terrorist.” This quote shows how Gap is (at least on a surface level) attempting to counteract orientalism and the structural and symbolic violence that accompanies it.

Founded and headquartered in San Francisco, Gap is seen as a symbol of American fashion and industry. As Kaur explains, Gap is using their cultural, political, and social capital to take a stand. By representing a Sikh American in a turban in their biggest campaign of the holiday season, Gap is attempting to push Americans to change their perspectives and accept this turbaned model as one of their own.

As I was writing this blog entry, I couldn't help but question how much Gap really meant to challenge by launching this ad campaign. However, as I mulled over the subject more and more, I realized how big of a risk Gap was taking in publishing this ad. Anyone who has ever taken a marketing class (as I am sure most of the Gap advertising executives have) knows to use models that look like the people to whom they are trying to market (or a more beautiful version of the target group, as the case may be). Sure, they may have gained a lot of Sikh customers, but they could also potentially lose customers who rely too heavily on the Oriental stereotypes relayed by the media and wider American culture. Therefore, it was shocking for many to see this advertisement that challenged our general expectations of what would appear on an ad for a so-called “all American company,” thus reinforcing my decision that Gap was, in fact, taking a risk and taking a stand.

Kaur addresses fear, stereotypes, and structural and symbolic violence that occur to us or by us every single day. “In daily encounters, our minds default to stereotypes we have unwittingly absorbed. The most dangerous racial stereotypes trigger fear and animosity -- for example, African-Americans as "criminal," Latinos as "illegal," or Muslims and Sikhs as "terrorist." Once a person is reduced to a stereotype, it becomes easier to harm them, or to permit harm to be done to them.”

Both Neil and the Gap work for a common goal- to break down the harsh stereotypes that exist throughout the US and beyond. Instead of trying to blend in with the other Americans or with other American companies, both Neil and the Gap took a step forward by attempting to alter the stereotypes held by their fellow Americans. Although they may not realize it, both worked to reduce the fear of the “other” oriental, structural violence, and symbolic violence.