Writing Culture

Writing is among humankind's most amazing achievements.  There is currently a fascinating exhibit about writing systems at the Hanes Gallery on campus:  http://hanesgallery.wfu.edu/exhibitions/letterforming/.  What would Whorf have to say about this exhibit?  Derrida?  Cultural evolutionists?  Practice theorists?  Neo-Marxians?

Color & Perception

Ever since I heard this podcast two summers ago,I was raving about the new things I had learned about the phenomenon of color in how it relates to language and is perceived by the brain. Today I relistened to this podcast to get some of my facts straight, and was once again fascinated and inspired by the topic. Radiolab's podcast really intrigued me in the last 20 minutes when it talks about the color blue.
William Gladstone, British politician from the 1800's was a Homer fanatic, and in noticing the use of color words as adjectives, he began to count the amount of times each color was used. Black and white were most common, followed by red, yellow, and green. Blue was never used. Intrigued, Gladstone started searching through other ancient texts such as ancient Greek works, Vedic texts, and the original Hebrew Bible. The word blue was never used. This puzzle lead researchers to believe that colors were not named and categorized until the production of dyes. Given that blue is so rare in nature, it was one of the last dyes to be made, and therefore one of the last colors to be given a name by the Western world.
What about water and the sky- the most obvious blues in nature? There's an explanation for this as well. Homer's works describe the ocean as a dark wine color. The Hebrew Bible describes the heavens, but makes no mention of the blue sky. A member of the Radiolab team but his curiosity to work on his 18 month old daughter. Having taught her all the colors that a young girl should know (including blue), her parents never taught her that "the sky was blue". When asked what color the sky was, she hesitated for a long time before responding with... white.
Studies of language by Sapir and Whorf teach us that language effects the way we categorize and conceptualize the natural world. This was put into practice when researchers headed to northern Namibia to study a group called the Himba. While the Western world has 11 different major color categories, the Himba have about half that. Red, green, blue, and purple all belong to the color category, "zoozoo". When shown a spread of boxes, all green, except for one very obvious (to Westerners) blue box, they had a hard time identifying  which square was different. But don't worry, this was no ethnocentric trap to praise our western color scheme. The Himba people were also presented with a spread of squares that were all- what looked to me- as green. They easily identified the odd one out, which I could barely tell looked any different. This experiment epitomizes the phenomenon of the language to perception relationship. Whats more? When asked what color the sky was, Himba informants responded with a color that translated to black. And water? Well that's white, of course.


The podcast:
http://www.radiolab.org/story/211119-colors/

Practice Theory In Athletics

 

Anthropological Practice Theory demonstrates the relationship between ideology, structure, and practice. Through the examination of how these three cultural traits influence each other, the theory seeks to avoid a simply dualistic approach to studying culture. According to the Practice Theory, belief affects practice, thus reproducing structure. Habits are both structuring and affected by the existing structure. This theory recognizes that there are many components to dynamic and changing cultures and there is not one simple explanation or overarching reason for any one cultural trait. One cultural phenomenon to which the Practice Theory can be applied, is the unique world of collegiate athletics. I feel personally connected to this because athletics defines most of my life in college and I find it to be an interesting exercise in examining my own behavior and motivations behind running track. While this model can be applied to entire cultures it can also accurately explain the inner workings of collegiate athletic teams.

Teams share many similarities to individual cultures, including the existence of structure. They are defined by social structures made up of head coaches, assistant coaches, team captains, veterans, and rookies. In each sport, the relationships between these individuals is slightly different which allows for variation among teams. In general, administrative decisions and decisions regarding workouts are made by coaches. Athletes are expected to respect and obey their coaches. Also, among athletes in college, upperclassmen are expected to be mentors to the underclassmen by leading by example. It is clear that there is a hierarchical social structure of sports teams. Practice Theory, however, would point out that this structure is created and perpetuated through ideology and practice.

From what I’ve experienced as a member of a collegiate athletic team, ideology plays an important role in defining what happens each day in practice and competition. The ideology of a competitive athletic team is primarily defined by a desire to win. The drive to improve be the best, and outwork opponents is central to everyday practices. Collegiate athletes are extremely competitive with others and themselves. This seemingly insane need to do whatever it takes to win is central to the ideology of a collegiate athlete and is how they were able to get to this level of competition in the first place.

The driving force behind each day of practice and competition is a competitive ideology. This ideology shapes the practices and habits of the collegiate athlete. Athletes practice for extended periods of time almost every day. Sports take priority over many other things in life and commitment to a sport requires that there might be sacrifices socially and academically simply because of the time commitment. Also, they recognize there is a physical risk, but they are willing to sacrifice their bodies and potentially their physical health for their sport.

With the application of the Practice Theory to collegiate athletics, it is clear to see the relationship between ideology, structure, and practice. These three categories greatly influence each other and create the culture of college sports. The overarching competitive ideology reinforces the hierarchical structure of coaches and athletes. Athletes allow coaches to have authority because they believe it will bring them success in their sport, therefore reinforcing a winning ideology. This structure of obeying coaches in order to improve defines the practices of each athlete. This structure is not innate, but exists because both athletes and coaches buy into it. They way athletes train and act is a result of the structure of a team and motivated by their competitive ideology. In athletics, like in any culture, practice, ideology, and structure interact to create a unique environment and a unique relationship among individuals.

Actor Network Theory and Bruno Latour

The work of Bruno Latour and the approach of Actor Network Theory (ANT) are getting a lot of buzz here at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association.  Check out Latour's webpage and think about what ANT adds to the approaches we have already considered.

http://www.bruno-latour.fr/

Deconstructing Deconstruction

When taken to its logical conclusion, Jacques Derrida's literary theory of "deconstruction" argues that there is, in fact, no such thing as a literal reality. Instead, we abide by a series of appearances and ideas held together by social constructs...though not as volunteers! After all, in order for deconstruction to exist (and for us to keep buying Michael Foucalt's books) we must buy into the belief that our pseudo "reality" is really the byproduct of continued hegemonic rule--the type of nefarious social rule that requires the application of a white-hot light of truth shone only by scholars of deconstruction. Thus, the theory of deconstruction naturally argues that "reality" is an inherently oppressive construction, and is geared to pressure us--the everyday peons--into a version of reality that adheres to the hegemony's wishes.

Sounding very Marxist to you? Bare with me for a tangential minute as we unpack that notion, because the two theories share a great many underlying similarities. Marxism argues that our reality is largely shaped by interactions with dominant economic systems, which is in line with deconstruction's emphasis on social orders. In this sense, deconstruction acts as a sort of Cultural Marxism--a belief that what may appear to be unique social phenomenon (such as traditional gender roles and the Western world's nuclear family) are in fact dictated by historically recent developments that help to justify and maintain hierarchy.

Herein lies my biggest critique of deconstruction, and really Postmodernism in general, as it is obsessed with unearthing any and all metaphysical contradictions in everyday social life--often to the point that is confuses elements of society that require no analysis to begin with.

Observe:

Is sex a social construct? "Of course!" yells the deconstructionist, "It exists in its current form because hierarchical pressures demand it be so!"  Than is sexual dimorphism also socially constructed? "Well...elaborate," mumbles the suddenly flustered deconstructionist.

If you insist:

Sexual dimorphism exists, yes? It is merely a function of nature, and can be found in many species. Sexual reproduction too exists because NATURE, not SOCIETY, demand it to. In obsessing over social constructions, deconstruction forces itself into the disdaining of nature and anything that is undeniably natural. Perhaps sexual dimorphism, along with other natural phenomenon, have dictated society's interpretation of sex and not the other way around? Or would you actually argue that males and females come in different sizes for the sake of perpetuating this alleged hierarchy. Do animals follow suit? Does the female pheasant exist as a third the size of her male counterpart but for the sake of appeasing the almighty pheasant hierarchy?

You see, the trick of deconstruction--its synthesis, if you will--is gathering up all of reality's most controversial/confusing/paradoxical facets (like sex) and presenting them in a way that would have the populace believe that all of life's facets share the same flawed function. But the existence of gray does not refute the existence of black and white. History has proven that action precedes thought. Societies have forever functioned in the same way: they seek out a food source, construct shelter, craft weapons, and create a social method for successful procreation. It is only after the action has been completed that the society makes up reasons as to why it has acted in this way.

The most brilliant, withering critique of society will ultimately produce nothing if there is not substance to fill the hole. Deconstruction does not act as a means to an end, but rather as the end itself. It is a pseudo, suicidal philosophy that arrives at ground zero, and stays there. There are no more builders...no more thinkers...

Critique of Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy

Arjun Appadurai makes a revolutionary leap in anthropological theory from discussion on individual cultures and capitalist organizations to the modern phenomenon of globalization. Although influenced by past theorists, his work pioneers the idea that globalization leads to the global cultural flow that can be observed within five domains:  ethnoscapes, technoscapes, financescapes, mediascapes, and iseoscapes. While arguing for the flow and sharing of global ideas, he also makes note of the rise in heterogeneity coming about in parallel to homogenization. Appadurai paved the way for many theorists to come such as George E. Marcus who expands on the idea of globalization in terms of relationship between Western and non-Western anthropologies. His idea of scapes is taught to students of anthropology (in a more general sense) who learn that while cultures are unique and different, globalized interaction does occur and no cultures are completely isolated.  

Apparadurai’s article draws influence from Karl Marx in terms of economic philosophy. Marx talks about “commodity fetishism” as the economic relationship that is established by a linear trend of production. This kind of fetishism has the ability to transform subjective products of economic value into items of objective and inherent value. Appadurai revises this theory to say that in fact, there are two spheres of fetishism: “product fetishism” and “fetishism of the consumer”. These fetishes are the result of globalized capitalization and the scapes that accompany this phenomenon. Product fetishism is a certain degree of Marx’s idea of alienation- the degree to which the worker is completely detached from the end product of his labor. Product fetishism is seen when Walmart hires workers in India to produce sweatpants for their stores in America for little compensation. “Fetishism of the consumer” is the misconception that the consumer has the power to control the free market, when in fact, it is the market and flow of commodities that is actually controlling the purchasing decisions of the consumer. An example of this is when a girl buys five new pairs of shoes because her favorite designer has just come out with them. While she may think she is purchasing them as a result of free will, her decision is actually the result of the designer creating the new styles. She would not have purchased them had the commodity not been produced in the first place.

Homogenization and heterogeneity are two seemingly contrasting themes which actually play equal roles in Appadurai’s scapes theory. Globalization directly impacts the homogenization of cultures and the blending of ideas, commodities, and people. The five domains he offers are the main ways in which cultures blend internationally. Travel, trade, and media are three big ways that different cultures have been spreading and fusing with each other. On the contrary, heterogeneity also plays a role in the form of nationalism cultural differences. Globalized media is one way to observe the cultural differences that sustain the cultural homogenization. Through XM radio, movies, and the internet, we have the power to observe cultural differences of other peoples. Nationalism is also a pretty popular phenomenon that reinforces heterogeneity.

I find his argument to be very strong as well as necessary in a time of many contrasting theories that have not yet used globalization as a main focus. The phenomenon inevitably impacts cultures across the globe and it is important to recognize the effects rather than just pretend that cultures are isolated and unaffected by the rest of the world. While I don’t find any major limitations in his work, I do believe that his argument could benefit from more of a mention on how more isolated cultures (less participation in trade and travel) are less affected by globalization. Colin Turnbull’s ethnography, The Forest People, focuses on the resistance of the BaMbuti people to participate in culture homogenization and assimilate to modern globalized behaviors.  In a very globalozed world, they have sustained a life in the forest living off the land. 

Appadurai's work is very applicable to anthropological theory today and his ideas are seen in our everyday life. For example, Zen Buddhism (an original product of Asia) has become a popular and trendy practice for people all over the world. On more of a subconscious level, many of the foods that we consume are shipped from faraway places, but due to ease and regularity of shipment, we have incorporated them into our diets. And to conclude- a funny little video on globalization.

Check out Appadurai's blog!

http://www.arjunappadurai.org/

Cave Paintings and Feminist Anthropology

Cave Paintings and Feminist Anthropology

Feminist anthropology started to become popular in the 1960s and 1970s and is often attributed to the advent of new, progressive, or “radicalized” political and social agendas of that time both inside and outside of academia (HAT 128).  The goal of feminist anthropology was to strive toward a more powerful and inclusive understanding of society and culture through the study of the cultural representations and experiences of, and practices within, women (HAT 128).  A classic example of feminist anthropology can be found in the work of Sally Slocum.

Sally Slocum’s “Woman the Gatherer: Male Bias in Anthropology” (1975) identifies redress perceived male bias in anthropology and anthropological research.  She focuses in particular on the thesis of “Man the Hunter” which attributes many inherited behaviors seen within the human species as a result of male cooperation while hunting and killing animals. After deconstructing this notion, she reconstructs the idea of “Woman the Gatherer.”  In doing so she points out obvious male bias in the study of the evolution of humans which always focused on the male role of the hunter while completely ignoring what women were doing in the meantime.  She argues how this bias has indeed hindered the full development of the discipline of anthropology and the study of humans as a whole, for a theory that leaves out half the human species is unbalanced.

After reading Sally Slocum’s publication, I was immediately reminded of an article I had just recently read about the work archaeologist Dean Snow:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131008-women-handprints-oldest-neolithic-cave-art/

Snow’s research featured in this article suggests that some of the oldest known cave art paintings and iconic handprints were actually the work of female artists.   After an analysis of hand stencils found in eight cave sites across France and Spain, he determined that three quarters of the hand prints were female.  The fact that this news came as a surprise to people immediately supports the notion of male bias addressed in Slocum’s article.  In this article about Snow’s work, he even comments, “There has been a male bias in the literature for a long time,” and goes on to remark, “People have made a lot of unwarranted assumptions about who made these things, and why.”  The use of “unwarranted” here hits the nail on the head in relation to feminist anthropology.  There has been a male bias really for no good reason and it is incredible that even 40 years after publications like Slocum’s, researchers such have Snow have to acknowledge that these biases are still unwarranted.  Yes, some of this bias is sure to have arisen due to the fact that most early anthropologists and ethnographers were themselves male and therefore tended to focus more on male roles and male informants.  However, this does not excuse the lack of consideration of female roles and life when investigating culture.

In the past, as this article explains, researchers have proposed that the paintings and hand stencils had been the work of men because the images typically were associated with game animals and hunting scenarios.  Therefore men would have been creating them as some sort of “hunting magic” or ritual in the hopes of increasing hunting success.  Even here, yet again, researchers are overlooking the fact that women also processed meat, were involved in hunting procedures, and were directly benefited if hunts were successful.  So this belief again focuses on “Man the Hunter” without much consideration for the role of women.  Snow’s negation of the role of men in the creation of these cave paintings brings women center stage.  Snow also remarks, when discussing the role women had in the processing of meat as well as other important tasks in hunter-gatherer societies, “It wasn’t just a bunch of guys out there chasing bison around.”  This is exactly the acknowledgement Slocum had been striving for in “Woman the Gatherer.”  While disappointing that it still has to come to a surprise to people, the fact that researchers are now acknowledging the equally important, if not more important, role of women in ancient societies represents steps made in the right direction in the field of anthropology and away from male bias that has been ever present in its history.  If one of the goals of anthropological research is to understand human cultures and behavior to the fullest extent, then the inclusion of the female perspective and role of women in such societies is necessary. 

Halloween- A Rite of Rebellion in More Ways Than One

Let me just begin this post with a little personal anecdote. When I was 12 years old I dressed up as a rich lady for Halloween.  Knowing little about the world beyond the monkey bars and gummy bears, I did not realize that stuffing the fake dollar bills in my dress straps (to be seen by the neighbors handing out candy) represented any type of promiscuous conduct. The following years I dressed as a teenager and an elf- Needless to say, I accidentally sported the lewd Halloween look very early in life and have basically been making up for it by being a ghost or a pumpkin the last couple of years. This Halloween, I was dressed as an alien- very modestly by protocol- including a green face, antennas, and a third eyeball painted on my forehead. Against my usual weekend routine, I sported my super weird costume right into the labyrinth of frat basement where I was confronted with what I could only recognize as an unusual cultural experience. A little intimidated by the sexy skin and bones costumes on the other girls at the party, I was quiet at first. I then realized that my preconceptions of how people would react to me for dressing up like a freaky alien instead of a bunny were probably unfairly judgmental. In effect, I toughened up and said hello to the boy standing next to me, who responded with, “Woah, you look scary!” With that, he vanished into the darkness of the sticky basement leaving me to evaluate how hilarious and relevant this was to the practicalities of human interactions that we have been evaluating all semester.  Watch this video for a reenactment of the events that were the culmination of my costume.

Max Gluckman talks about Rituals of Rebellion as a way for societal tensions to ease through controlled expressions of hostility or unusual behavior. Noting that they are inherent phenomena in societies that can accommodate them without falling apart, he explains that they ease tensions between the oppressed and those in power. Halloween is in fact rooted in a Ritual of Rebellion that involved giving children one day in the year in which they are in power- where they can demand candy from the adults who have been telling them what to do with the threat of being pranked. In the college setting, many Halloween parties are “the one night a year where girls can dress like a total slut and no other girls can say anything about it” (Mean Girls). While comical, this is totally relative to Gluckman’s proposal- girls face dualistic pressures in college to be smart in class yet sexy and mindless in the dark frat basement. There is clearly no easier way to fulfill the sexy quota than to capitalize on the wardrobe freedoms that Halloween grants. So while the rebellious acts shift from childhood trickery to sporting your lingerie at a party, they are evermore still existent, bringing me to my next point.. Where exactly does the motivation lie in drinking beer and socializing in a corset or some other cold little outfit? Sigmund Freud answers this question through his analysis of human developmental stages.

Freud’s psychosexual analysis of human development is rooted in the idea that people pass through 5 stages in life: the oral, anal, phallic, latency, and genital stage. The genital stage comes during puberty and lasts through your adult life, and indicates the period where men and women can finally express their pent up sexual frustrations from the earlier stages in the form of sexual relationships. Sexy nurse and cop costumes are solid evidence of college kids in their genital stage- where you wear your desire for sex like you wear those bunny ears at a Halloween party. With girls attending parties in their skimpiest getup, Freud offers the analysis that it gives other attendees the opportunity to shop for their favorite looking girls on the basis of how well they will be able to satisfy their sexual cravings- quite animalistic really, but cool to see Freud’s perspective really unfolding so accurately. Returning to my own experience, Freud would have said, “Of course, stupid Amelia, why would you have expected that poor boy to waste his time swapping ideas with a freaky looking alien when there was a hot nurse in her genital stage standing alone by the keg?”