As a symbol bearing species one can ponder whether or not it is an inevitability that the human condition necessitates the prevalence of myths. Interest in the relation between the human condition and myths is not a new phenomena, but rather has been present in the work of anthropologists since the time of Sir Edward Tylor. Since then it has donned a variety of cloaks. These have ranged from it being the lowest form of intellectual activity, predominantly performed by 'savages' and peasants, to the notion that it is the means through which inconsistencies are universally worked out. It is not however my intention to discuss the ways in which the concept "myth" has been formulated over the years. Thus a sufficient, albeit extremely simplified, working definition for this post would position it as a false belief. The myths I am specifically referring to in this post are sociobiology and it's offshoot evolutionary psychology.
It is extremely unfortunate that both these fields seem to enjoy a, largely, unquestioned loyalty from the public at large. I have come to expect this of people who are unfamiliar with the social sciences, due to their very nature of presenting simplified and reductionistic explanations which can be readily consumed by the mainstream. Not to mention their painfully ethnocentric underpinnings which only aid in making them more identifiable, and comforting, to 'Western' audiences. Indeed due to their toolboxes lacking in necessary sociocultural theory it is not a surprise that they are unable to approach these myths from a more critical perspective. What has distressed me of late however has been when I have per chance overheard conversations between supposedly more informed people implying faith in such myths. I wonder then what the chance is in saving the public knowledge from poverty imposed upon it by sociobiology and evolutionary psychology when even people who are aware of the complexities inherent in society are still able willing consumers.
Friday, July 29, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Malinowski's Functionalism is mutually exclusive to cultural change?
With a fitting tie in to last weeks blog entry, I turn now to Malinowski's approach to the study of society. More specifically to a fairly common critique of it which I happen to find rather unjust. Malinowski is praised, right so, with the important role he played in emphasizing cultural relativism of cultural traits and behaviours. He identified that far from being sporadically organized, like say a mismatching quilt blanket, they served the purpose of meeting particular needs. That is they performed required functions within the society. Some of these functions came from biological needs, whereas others came from cultural needs. This however is not a distinction I intend on exploring. Malinowski further articulated that they were organized within institutions, therefore it was of benefit to use this as one's scope. So as I briefly alluded to in my previous post this prompted the prospective anthropologist to be constantly checking that they were seeing how what they were observing could be understood relative to it's appropriate context. This now brings me to the critique.
It has been reasoned that such an approach falls victim to being too ahistorical. That is it treats society as a stable and cohesive unit with unchanging components. That if we are constantly checking to see what functions traits and behaviours perform, relating these back to institutions before analysing how the institutions interact with each other in addressing needs we are presented with an image of a society existing in a state of equilibrium. Putting aside the fact that this is clearly at odds Malinowski's acknowledgement that over time cultural needs will experience ongoing change this is an unfair mischaracterization. As, like Spencer and Durkheim, Malinowski used the analogy of comparing society to an animal I find it quite fitting that I shall demonstrate the fallacy in that approach by appealing to the biological sciences.
Let us presuppose we have someone who is particularly interested in a biological organism. Their interest lies in particular in understanding how the various organs and internal circuitry function in order to meet the needs of the sample. To this end they will look at individual organs and go into detail as to the functions they perform while relating it back to the rest of the body. Now one would not, I don't think, make the argument that such a person is guilty of neglecting neither biological evolution nor the changes which occur over the lifespan of the sample. Indeed to raise such questions would sound rather absurd. Yet when it comes to the study of society, it is seen fit to raise such questions of Malinowski. Simply because one is taking a functionalist approach does not exclude one from acknowledging societies and cultures live, largely, in a constant state of flux.
It has been reasoned that such an approach falls victim to being too ahistorical. That is it treats society as a stable and cohesive unit with unchanging components. That if we are constantly checking to see what functions traits and behaviours perform, relating these back to institutions before analysing how the institutions interact with each other in addressing needs we are presented with an image of a society existing in a state of equilibrium. Putting aside the fact that this is clearly at odds Malinowski's acknowledgement that over time cultural needs will experience ongoing change this is an unfair mischaracterization. As, like Spencer and Durkheim, Malinowski used the analogy of comparing society to an animal I find it quite fitting that I shall demonstrate the fallacy in that approach by appealing to the biological sciences.
Let us presuppose we have someone who is particularly interested in a biological organism. Their interest lies in particular in understanding how the various organs and internal circuitry function in order to meet the needs of the sample. To this end they will look at individual organs and go into detail as to the functions they perform while relating it back to the rest of the body. Now one would not, I don't think, make the argument that such a person is guilty of neglecting neither biological evolution nor the changes which occur over the lifespan of the sample. Indeed to raise such questions would sound rather absurd. Yet when it comes to the study of society, it is seen fit to raise such questions of Malinowski. Simply because one is taking a functionalist approach does not exclude one from acknowledging societies and cultures live, largely, in a constant state of flux.
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
A Defence Of Cultural Relativism.
The chances are that you have heard something about the concept of 'cultural relativism'. The idea that beliefs and practices are best understood in their own cultural context. It seems simple enough, no? Unfortunately it has fallen victim to misrepresentation. Some would have you believe that 'cultural relativism' is guilty of endorsing the most atrocious of evils. A common enough example being the holocaust. The holocaust we are told was a cultural practice. Which, I would note, is a fair enough observation to make. Next we are told that as a cultural practice it should be understood it it's own context. Again, this is not an assertion I find terribly opposable. The problem comes however when the follow up statement is made that because of the first two points we are incapable of casting condemnation on it. Wait what? Somewhere along the way it would seem that the importance of understanding beliefs and behaviours in their cultural context got confused for a policy of anything goes. It should be remembered that cultural relativism came about in response to, and as a critique of, two prevailing schools of the nineteenth century. Therefore it is of merit to, very briefly, look at these schools starting with nineteenth century evolutionism.
Nineteenth century evolutionism sought 'the' evolutionary history of civilization. For it was assumed knowledge that through the shared human condition, or as some reasoned 'psychic unity, natural laws would act upon people around the world in the same manner. The result of this would be all societies progressing down the same evolutionary path, albeit at different rates. Thus societies perceived as being more 'primitive' were understood to be at earlier stages of the evolutionary process. What luck! Here we found ourselves with 'living fossils' through which we could track our past. Cultural traits and beliefs were collected en masse from wherever they could be found, mostly travellers and missionaries notes. Such vast collections of cultural traits were then arranged to chart the development of civilization. Sir James Frazer's, The Golden Bough is a famous example of this being applied to religion. Diffusionists however took objection to the treatment of societies as isolated, independent units.
Diffusionism argued that far from each culture independently plodding along down the same path due to some 'psychic unity' or unconvincingly reasoned natural laws, cultural traits were distributed via diffusion. This view rested on the assumption that throughout history various differing locations served the role of 'cultural centers'. That is, specific cultural 'progression' could be attributed to particular locations at a particular point in history. Two examples would be the invention of the wheel and the use of horses for transportation. What this meant was that important 'progress' would be attained at a cultural center then through the process of diffusion, the cultural trait would spread out to other cultures. This led to a similar approach insofar as the acquisition of data was concerned. Diffusionists would collect cultural traits from numerous cultures but this time they would compare them to find degrees of separation and in the context of geographical distribution. They could then chart this data to not only identify cultural areas, but also to speculate as to where the cultural centers were. So it was against this two schools that cultural relativism served as a critique.
A common charge which was levied against both schools spoke to the nature of the data they were dealing with. That is, by concerning themselves, to a large degree, with cultural traits they were mystifying the results. Cultural traits, it was argued, could not be scooped up into a pile quite removed from their respective cultural contexts. Rather, they needed to be understood from within their cultural context. This was demonstrated in the critique of the universal evolutionary path proposed by Nineteenth Century Evolutionists. The evidence for their unilineal model was never particularly sound and was more a reflection of the source material they were dealing with. Indeed their theories were the result of fitting such data into their speculative models. Far from following some universal path due to some 'psychic unity', cultures followed their own unique paths. Through their diverse environments, they came with differing solutions. These differing solutions then framed their future obstacles and points of reference when it came to solving them. As Diffusionists identified, one important source of historical influence was to be found in cultural contact. While the significance of such contact should not be denied, Diffusionists unfortunately overplayed their hand in two key areas. Firstly it should be noted that similarity does not equate to a shared origin. Franz Boas demonstrated this point in regards to masks. It is well within the bounds of reason that cultural traits, especially material ones, could coincidentally end up having features similar. Thus it is not enough to simply observe similarity then speculate from there. Rather as reconstructionists laboured to do, one must prove to a reliable level that such a contact did occur between the cultures, directly or indirectly, which provided a compelling window for diffusion to occur. The second point of weakness is that knowledge of a cultural traits diffusion does not equate to an understanding of the cultural trait. Cultures do not blindly take cultural traits without modifying them. Rather as Ruth Benedict identified in Patterns of Culture, in adopting cultural traits through contact they often get reinterpreted and understood.
Thus to understand a cultural trait we need to understand it relative to it's cultural context. Now let's finish by briefly looking back at the bogeyman often employed to dismantle cultural relativism, namely the Holocaust. Various areas that could be explored would include a history of the region. We could look at the historical positions and prestige/stigma attached to the groups who found themselves victim. Concepts such as 'race science' and the various theories held by the NAZI regime could be explored. This is mostly certainly just the tip of the iceberg. As I have however identified, striving to apply the concept of cultural relativism to our understandings does not equate to accepting everything!
Nineteenth century evolutionism sought 'the' evolutionary history of civilization. For it was assumed knowledge that through the shared human condition, or as some reasoned 'psychic unity, natural laws would act upon people around the world in the same manner. The result of this would be all societies progressing down the same evolutionary path, albeit at different rates. Thus societies perceived as being more 'primitive' were understood to be at earlier stages of the evolutionary process. What luck! Here we found ourselves with 'living fossils' through which we could track our past. Cultural traits and beliefs were collected en masse from wherever they could be found, mostly travellers and missionaries notes. Such vast collections of cultural traits were then arranged to chart the development of civilization. Sir James Frazer's, The Golden Bough is a famous example of this being applied to religion. Diffusionists however took objection to the treatment of societies as isolated, independent units.
Diffusionism argued that far from each culture independently plodding along down the same path due to some 'psychic unity' or unconvincingly reasoned natural laws, cultural traits were distributed via diffusion. This view rested on the assumption that throughout history various differing locations served the role of 'cultural centers'. That is, specific cultural 'progression' could be attributed to particular locations at a particular point in history. Two examples would be the invention of the wheel and the use of horses for transportation. What this meant was that important 'progress' would be attained at a cultural center then through the process of diffusion, the cultural trait would spread out to other cultures. This led to a similar approach insofar as the acquisition of data was concerned. Diffusionists would collect cultural traits from numerous cultures but this time they would compare them to find degrees of separation and in the context of geographical distribution. They could then chart this data to not only identify cultural areas, but also to speculate as to where the cultural centers were. So it was against this two schools that cultural relativism served as a critique.
A common charge which was levied against both schools spoke to the nature of the data they were dealing with. That is, by concerning themselves, to a large degree, with cultural traits they were mystifying the results. Cultural traits, it was argued, could not be scooped up into a pile quite removed from their respective cultural contexts. Rather, they needed to be understood from within their cultural context. This was demonstrated in the critique of the universal evolutionary path proposed by Nineteenth Century Evolutionists. The evidence for their unilineal model was never particularly sound and was more a reflection of the source material they were dealing with. Indeed their theories were the result of fitting such data into their speculative models. Far from following some universal path due to some 'psychic unity', cultures followed their own unique paths. Through their diverse environments, they came with differing solutions. These differing solutions then framed their future obstacles and points of reference when it came to solving them. As Diffusionists identified, one important source of historical influence was to be found in cultural contact. While the significance of such contact should not be denied, Diffusionists unfortunately overplayed their hand in two key areas. Firstly it should be noted that similarity does not equate to a shared origin. Franz Boas demonstrated this point in regards to masks. It is well within the bounds of reason that cultural traits, especially material ones, could coincidentally end up having features similar. Thus it is not enough to simply observe similarity then speculate from there. Rather as reconstructionists laboured to do, one must prove to a reliable level that such a contact did occur between the cultures, directly or indirectly, which provided a compelling window for diffusion to occur. The second point of weakness is that knowledge of a cultural traits diffusion does not equate to an understanding of the cultural trait. Cultures do not blindly take cultural traits without modifying them. Rather as Ruth Benedict identified in Patterns of Culture, in adopting cultural traits through contact they often get reinterpreted and understood.
Thus to understand a cultural trait we need to understand it relative to it's cultural context. Now let's finish by briefly looking back at the bogeyman often employed to dismantle cultural relativism, namely the Holocaust. Various areas that could be explored would include a history of the region. We could look at the historical positions and prestige/stigma attached to the groups who found themselves victim. Concepts such as 'race science' and the various theories held by the NAZI regime could be explored. This is mostly certainly just the tip of the iceberg. As I have however identified, striving to apply the concept of cultural relativism to our understandings does not equate to accepting everything!
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Bridging the gap.
The general public unfortunately have no gusto for anthropology. Or so it would seem. This can be seen when you explore online communities. While recognizing their limitations in terms of sample representativeness, they are still representative enough to give an indication of where the general consensus lies. What we find here are gross generalizations and reductionist statements. This is not a surprising observation given the inherent popularity of books such as Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus or thinkers such as Richard Dawkins. The problem is that unless someone is more familiar with work done by those who demonstrate the significance of societal & cultural and historical context such generalizing and reductionist views will continue to enjoy hegemonic status. This is all the more telling as they are not new views. Just as Richard Dawkins for instance speaks of "the" evolution of societal and cultural traits such as religion so too did the founders of anthropology. Likewise the binary gender essentialist understandings in Men are from Mars have been discredited. However the invisibility of anthropology to the public has made these long time redundant theories retain legitimacy long past their expiration dates. We are in dire need of someone or something to bridge this gap.
Enter Anthropologies a new online magazine which will hopefully succeed in introducing anthropology to a wider audience. The first issue is a series of articles focussed on the question What is Anthropology? I found it to be a really interesting read. Although some of the writers were a little too pessimistic for my liking. The first article also made the mistake of being a block of text. Although they were an interesting, and to this one, new way of approaching the question. In particular the article which utilized their glasses as a descriptive tool. I do not have much opportunity however to speak to people without awareness of anthropology. So I can not say for certain how well this will appeal to the mainstream. One can only hope.
Enter Anthropologies a new online magazine which will hopefully succeed in introducing anthropology to a wider audience. The first issue is a series of articles focussed on the question What is Anthropology? I found it to be a really interesting read. Although some of the writers were a little too pessimistic for my liking. The first article also made the mistake of being a block of text. Although they were an interesting, and to this one, new way of approaching the question. In particular the article which utilized their glasses as a descriptive tool. I do not have much opportunity however to speak to people without awareness of anthropology. So I can not say for certain how well this will appeal to the mainstream. One can only hope.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Positive discrimination
On the surface the term positive discrimination can seem quite contradictory. After all it seems a little odd to call discrimination positive. Although I assure you that it is not only possible but it is highly desirable. It stems from the common occurance of multicultural societies. In a multicultural society you will have people from various different cultures living under the same state. By culture I refer to the definition provided by Omohundro "the learned, shared understandings among a group of people about how to behave and what everything means” (2008, p.27). There will be differences at times between cultures, which means that what is applicable to one culture will not always be applicable to others.
The problem this causes is that society will often have a dominate culture, which enjoys a strong hold over the state. This is why positive discrimination is able to be a positive thing. By recognizing these differences positive discrimination takes steps to ensure that people from differing cultures are not forced into a situation where they are victims of assimilation and or ethnocide.
The problem this causes is that society will often have a dominate culture, which enjoys a strong hold over the state. This is why positive discrimination is able to be a positive thing. By recognizing these differences positive discrimination takes steps to ensure that people from differing cultures are not forced into a situation where they are victims of assimilation and or ethnocide.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Party Politics
Recently came across a rather amusing video by College Humor relating to the recent election in USA. It came out shortly before the election and it a light hearted look at what will happen if the democrats or republicans win. Both are from the perspective of the rival party.
I found this to quite nicely poke fun at the way many people view political parties. It has become increasingly popular for people to be more ignorant in regards to political parties. Instead of focusing on the policy issues, the public (thanks in part to the media) focus too much on speculation and character assassinations. This was seen a lot in New Zealands recent election. Ranging from unusual accusations of communism to parties running smear campaigns.
There are a few rather interesting theories which propose that this is the goal of the media. Although I will get into this later. For now enjoy this amusing video.
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1888086
I found this to quite nicely poke fun at the way many people view political parties. It has become increasingly popular for people to be more ignorant in regards to political parties. Instead of focusing on the policy issues, the public (thanks in part to the media) focus too much on speculation and character assassinations. This was seen a lot in New Zealands recent election. Ranging from unusual accusations of communism to parties running smear campaigns.
There are a few rather interesting theories which propose that this is the goal of the media. Although I will get into this later. For now enjoy this amusing video.
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1888086
Friday, January 2, 2009
The Maori Seats
This is a topic which is sure to fire up emotions amongst many people with an interest in New Zealand. To some the Maori seats represent discrimination and the favouritism of the Maori people. Others see it symbolizing New Zealand’s strong belief in equality and the protection of Maori rights. Before I go into my position on this issue it is important to acknowledge the history behind the Maori seats.
When New Zealand first became democratic, like other newly democratic nations the right to vote was limited to land owning male adults. This presented an obstacle for Maori as despite owning considerable amounts of land because it was owned communally as opposed to individually this prevented them from being able to vote. Their lack of representation in parliament was having dire effects on their treatment, although I will go into this more soon. After struggling to gain some representation they were finally granted Maori seats in 1867. This was intended to be a temporary solution as it was expected that they would start owning their land individually thus making them applicable to vote in the general election. Initially the Maori were only given 4 seats in parliament; this was to be the case until MMP was introduced.
The Maori Seats have always generated controversy, right from the word go there were people protesting against them. Some claimed that this gave the Maori an unfair advantage, institutionalized racism etc. It was not until 1976 that they were able to choose which electorate roll they were enrolled in. At this point only 40% of those eligible chose to stay on the Maori roll. It was at this stage believed that all Maori would eventually make the switch to the general electorate (previously known as the pakeha electorate.)
Abolition was seriously considered again when the Royal Commission released their review on New Zealand’s electorate system in 1986. They proposed that the very existence of the Maori seats was causing Maori issues to be sidelined and marginalized. Drawing from this they were advocating their abolition. Under a more proportional electorate system it was believed the need for Maori seats would be gone. Due to intense opposition to this was Maori, the Maori seats did not end up getting abolished. They are now proportion to the number of Maori enrolled on the Maori electorate.
When New Zealand first became democratic, like other newly democratic nations the right to vote was limited to land owning male adults. This presented an obstacle for Maori as despite owning considerable amounts of land because it was owned communally as opposed to individually this prevented them from being able to vote. Their lack of representation in parliament was having dire effects on their treatment, although I will go into this more soon. After struggling to gain some representation they were finally granted Maori seats in 1867. This was intended to be a temporary solution as it was expected that they would start owning their land individually thus making them applicable to vote in the general election. Initially the Maori were only given 4 seats in parliament; this was to be the case until MMP was introduced.
The Maori Seats have always generated controversy, right from the word go there were people protesting against them. Some claimed that this gave the Maori an unfair advantage, institutionalized racism etc. It was not until 1976 that they were able to choose which electorate roll they were enrolled in. At this point only 40% of those eligible chose to stay on the Maori roll. It was at this stage believed that all Maori would eventually make the switch to the general electorate (previously known as the pakeha electorate.)
Abolition was seriously considered again when the Royal Commission released their review on New Zealand’s electorate system in 1986. They proposed that the very existence of the Maori seats was causing Maori issues to be sidelined and marginalized. Drawing from this they were advocating their abolition. Under a more proportional electorate system it was believed the need for Maori seats would be gone. Due to intense opposition to this was Maori, the Maori seats did not end up getting abolished. They are now proportion to the number of Maori enrolled on the Maori electorate.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)