BIgManWeek+2

In Chapter 2, it was talking about the link between the evolutions of homo sapiens and the development of culture. That as we became more and more evolved the existence of culture solidified and in a sense "culture and the human brain coevolved." Leading to the question that culture must have been emerged from some point, so what was the first known creature that has a sense of culture?

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/minds/deacon.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_culture

The book mentions that North American anthropologists have taken a new outlook on anthropology than that of 19th and early 20th century anthropologists. The book also seems to imply that the 'North American method' of anthropology is superior. Is the field of anthropology currently dominated by anthropologists from North America and is the rest of the world shifting towards using the same methods? It would seem to me that a this shifting of the methods of anthropology would greatly alter the perspective anthropologists have and in return the conclusions that they make. Is this also true?

http://www.aaanet.org/about/ http://www.easaonline.org/about/stat.shtml

While reading chapter 2 in the textbook, I came upon the section about ethnocentrism. All through high school I have been told that the idea of ethnocentrism is a negative view point to have, although I believe much of western culture itself is ethnocentric even though they may not identity with it. I noticed this when watching the video on Malinowski as well. My question is how can anthropologists avoid that inherent standard of ethnocentrism when dealing with a society with views so differently than accustomed? It seems to me like that would be one of the hardest obstacles for a person to overcome.

In class we spoke about whether we can, or even need to, separate ourselves from our own experiences in order to be objective. As said in Chapter One, page 5, “it is not enough, for example, to observe only our own social group, discover that we do not eat insects, and conclude that human beings as a species do not eat insects”. Is there value in the researcher who lacks “worldly” experiences? Obviously a credible, academic anthropologist will not formulate theories without a wide array of cultural knowledge, but is there power in the innocence/naiveté of a researcher? Going into a situation without expectations or preconceptions can be a powerful tool. For a researcher experiencing a society other than their own for the first time, can something be said for the power of the emotional reaction that a complete submergence in a foreign environment evokes? While a researcher with limited experience may not have a strong basis for comparing and contrasting societies, is it possible that they may be capable of achieving a more intrinsically human response that the seasoned researcher?

Are there any observable cultural changes between generations in "western technological" societies having to do with advances in technology or shifts in beliefs? Are these changes observed in other societies that might not be exposed to the same technological advances, and how do these compare? Do these happen in short enough time frames for anthropologists to be able to study these changes?

http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520228146

In Chapter 3, the book talks about fieldwork and how an anthropologist goes about selecting where and whom to research. Clearly, the researcher benefits from learning through fieldwork, but do the informants necessarily benefit? Why would a society agree to be studied if there are no benefits for them, particularly if they are suspicious of the anthropologist or believe him to be a spy, as the book mentions?

While reading the textbook I was struck by the description of the missionaries work with the Kiowa Indians. The textbook stated that "it might be accurate to say that the Kiowa "kiowanized" Christianity..."(34), I found <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">this interesting because the Kiowa people were able to take Christianity and <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">incorporate it into their culture while still maintaining their cultural <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">identity. Christianity is practiced by many people across the world but lots <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">of different people have different views and practices. So my question is how <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">do anthropologists look at religions that all have the same basic beliefs yet <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">are practiced so differently and how do their individual practices of <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">religion reflect their cultural values?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretism#Religious_syncretism

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">From our textbook, there is a story about the Japanese Corporate Wives in the United States, in which the anthropologist, Sawa Kurotani, was seen as different than the mothers in Japan because she was "a freak of a middle-class Japanese woman". In this case, the anthropologist was partially similar in terms of ethnicity and background to those she is studying. As a result, she had to overcome some obstacles to earn acceptance as the same "kind". There are two other possible scenarios. The first is that the anthropologist is from a completely different ethnicity and background compared to the people he or she is studying. The second is that the anthropologist is from the same ethnicity and background to the people he or she is studying. In these two cases, the people being studied know what to expect when interacting with the anthropologist. One would assume that these anthropologists would have an easier time with their research than Saw Kurotani who was partially similar to the people she was studying. Is this true? Aside from seeing with the right lens, can research of a particular group be more effective or efficient depending on the ethnicity and background of the anthropologist? If so, how would this affect which fieldwork an anthropologist may decide to participate in?

http://www.amazon.com/Anthropologists-Field-Cases-Participant-Observation/dp/023113004X

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">While reading I was struck by the hypocrisy of Mary Daly's critical

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">depiction of female genital cutting. From the perspective of western

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">society it is obviously a foreign and almost seemingly barbaric act.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">However, it is quite ordinary and condoned for circumcision to be

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">performed. In society's where female genital cutting is performed is

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">circumcision also common? <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">=== <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Cambria,serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">When reading in the textbook I was intrigued by the portion of Chapter two about the genital cutting section and how it is considered to be a valued ritual. The book says that “Women who become mothers of men {have the operation} are more than sexual partners or servants of their husbands and may attain high status, their name remembered in village genealogies;” which implies that the genital cutting process can improve a woman’s status within her village. The book further explains that women from Western cultures are speaking out against this process, calling it “barbaric.” A genital cutting process is a process to alter one’s physical body; which by definition is similar to plastic surgery- “The process of reconstructing or repairing parts of the body, esp. by the transfer of tissue, either in the treatment of injury or for cosmetic reasons.*” So with this in mind- why do Western cultures speak out against the genital cutting tradition, proclaiming its brutality, when several women undergo plastic surgery to enhance and alter their own bodies? What is the difference between a genital cutting process to make a woman more suitable for marriage verse a woman who thinks she needs to undergo a plastic surgery to make herself more suitable for marriage?

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: Cambria,serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">I’m not sure if this makes me sound ignorant- it just caught my attention!

http://xkcd.com/435/ <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">I felt this comic was relevant in regards to thinking of cultural <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">anthropology as a science (replace sociology with cultural anthropology). <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">Math, while difficult to some, is very straightforward; there are no <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">outside forces that need to be taken into consideration with mathematical <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">events. Physics is a bit more complex since it starts dealing with the <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">real world. Biology has a lot of different things that can affect <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">experimentation, results and questions that need to be taken into <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">consideration. Anthropology is just ridiculous in how much needs to be <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">looked at at the same time in order to get an accurate view of what is <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">going on.

<span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">Just thought you would find the comic funny and would like to know if you <span style="background-color: #ffffff; color: #222222; font-family: arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12.727272033691406px;">consider cultural anthropology a "genuine" science.

media type="youtube" key="GOCYhmnx6o8" height="315" width="420"