Chapter 3 is about how humans adapt to this world. Culture is our access to adapting to who we are and what we are and can be. Here are the objectives of the chapter:
- Understand the defining attributes of culture. In particular, you should understand what it means that culture is learned, shared, symbolic, all-encompassing, and integrated; the relationship between culture and nature; and how culture can be both adaptive and maladaptive.
- Identify the different levels of culture and why it is important to distinguish between them.
- Understand the relationship between culture and individuals.
- Distinguish between ethnocentrism and cultural relativism and how both relate to human rights and anthropological research.
- Know the differences between cultural universalities, generalities, and particularities, and be able to provide examples of each.
- Understand the mechanisms of cultural change.
- Know what globalization is, the forces that are bringing it about, and its effects on local communities.
This video is a sort of reflexive ethnography of Western society and culture. Irony and humor are often useful in bringing out hidden social constructs. So check it out:
What we are; Dance Monkeys Dance by Ernest Cline - www.ernestcline.com
Many people believe in evolution. Some do not. Perhaps life is not about our beliefs per se but rather about what we can discover about ourselves from such explorations. The humor of Ricky Gervais' Introduction To The Bible (1/2) makes fun on Darwin, if you like.
I'd love to hear what struck you, what thought or ideas from Chapter 3 struck you as new or different from your previous ways of thinking. Everyone should comment on the chapter once a week or blog at least once a week.
PS. Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNF_P281Uu4
Posts
15 comments:
I believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. Religion is not a strong concept in my home. My parents believe in God. But neither of them really pushed their beliefs onto me until I had formed my opinions and was already "corrupted." My mother, as I recently discovered, does not believe in evolution. She believes in creationism. While my father believes that God is responsible for evolution, making his creations adaptable to the environment. Because I do not have any religious beliefs, the concept of evolution does not contradict any of my preexisting beliefs. Furthermore, I think the adaptability seen in man and other species, proves that there is definitely some form of evolution. Perhaps there is no link between man and ape, it is unnerving to look in the face of an animal and know that we too, are just as animalistic.
In Chapter 3, the term "Cultural Relativism" was new to me. Ethnocentrism is an idea frequently discussed or taught in school. But as far as I knew, there existed no word as an antonym for ethnocentrism.
I agree with Lena Roe in that I would not be a good ethnographer either. I am far too western when it comes to my way of thinking. Though I can come to understand the practices of other cultures, I'll ultimately remain shocked or repulsed.
This has always been a very touchy topic for me. I can even say that I don't know how to give a forward answer.I am Catholic, and ever since I was small I have always gone to church and (not to sound too mushy)somehow found a refuge in it. THOUGH, I don't live in the church and I am surrounded by others opinions, and of course my ongoing education. Darwin's theory of evolution can be a great explanation to how humans change, but it would be contradiction to what I was raised to believe.
It's confusing, to be honest.
Kirsty Anne. It is impossible for me to say that i even believe much less hold Darwin's theory of evolution close to me. Yes in many of my American classes i have approached it and had to give convincing facts to support it, however , my culture only embraces a Supreme..whether it be Allah or Jesus Christ. It was grown up in the Methodist faith of Christianity, and it is absolutely impossible for me to give up 17 yrs of Methodist teaching foe a mere 3-4 yrs of Darwin's Theory. I think that "Cultural Relativism" is something that i face even in my own country, AND IT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE A COUNTRY WITH MIXED RACES, AND WITH MIXED RACES COMES MIXED RELIGIONS.
After reading chapter 3, I couldn't agree more about what was said about culture. I grew up Methodist, and was really involved with the youth group of my congregation. I went on several missions trips with them to different parts of the world. All of which were poverty struck. There was always culture shock, but you soon notice that some of the things about their culture were similar with ours in the States. Many of the areas we stayed at were already of Christianity backgrounds (which helped us because we had limited communication with the language).
I support Darwin's theory more or less. The theory believes in survival of the fittest. In our society, the fittest would be the rich and the influential. Because they have the power and the resources to live better lives. And if we think about it, the whole idea of education is to enable us to lead good lives. So that we are not left behind in the race called life. Education gives us knowledge, which is power. It is upto us to use that power to its fullest.
I'm from India. It's a land of myriad cultures. If I were to divide our culture based on economic terms, namely the rich and the poor, they are two extremes. If you saw the movie 'Slumdog Millionaire,' it gave you an idea about the huge gap between the two classes. The rich only get richer while the poor live in misery. And so Darwin's theory of evolution applies here. Only the rich survive. In the movie, the protagonist, Jamal Malik, becomes a millionaire by sheer luck. Unfortunately, this doesn't happen in real life.
When I read the definition for cultural relativism, i agreed completely with the fact that one culture cannot be judged by the standards of another. However, when I continued reading and the author brought up the example of the terrible things done by Nazis, i began to think where do you really draw the line. I believe in the concept of human rights same as many people in the world. So I guess personally i would not be able to see past any violation of human rights. Yes, cultural rights are important but in my mind they should not violate the basic rights of an individual.
Julie Sesina
Darwin's theory of evolution is a very confusing yet interesting topic that manages to still be alive even after hundreds of years of his death. I agree with Carolina. My parents are Catholic and I am too. However, my brother and I (new generation) do not attend church every Sunday, even though the older family members do. Although I don't attend church every sunday, I still believe in God and creationism, mainly because my family's influence and years of education at a catholic school. I can still remember how in religion class we were taught that God created the universe yet across the hall in our science class, our teacher would tell us something completely different (Big Bang theory). Honestly, I find it hard to believe in either one, because through years of amazing research and discoveries, scientists attempt to still convince us that we derived from apes. But through years of catholic influence, the church teaches us that God does exist. I lean more towards creationism.
I find that there is a huge difference between believing in a God, or in an entity, or in people's "innate" abilities to be good, and believing or (NOT) believing in evolution..
I'd love to try and be empathetic to anyone that is stupid enough to think that fossils were planted in the Earth to throw us off and that carbon dating is blasphemous, and that the Earth is 6,000 years old but not really (because it was spinning slower).
It would be far too P.C. and culturally relative to allow other people to be so ignorant as to say that there is no link between man and ape and that the whole science of biology and genetics don't exist.
The proof is there and the fact that a large portion of this country is in the 17th century in terms of its "belief" about evolution is sad and should be approached aggressively.
I believe also in Darwin's theory of evolution as it explains how we have been able to evolve throughout the time, although it’s strange to consider ourselves as monkeys. The example of the meeting TED, on which I remained voiceless, shows that we are able to create things in order to communicate to each other and to progress. I consider Darwin's theory of evolution a bit furthest, but when I related his theory to the term ‘ethnocentrism’ there is no doubt that Human can act as animals, making wars when they do not understand each other. What I consider "normal" might appears completely inconceivable to someone else and vice-versa. I wonder if I can consider this as a form of “ethnocentrism”.
However, I think New-York is one of the best place to learn more about Cultural Relativism. We all have different culture backgrounds.
While I am not an overly religious person, I do believe in God. Unfortunately, my former step-mom used the Bible, God and Church as a weapon against me for many years (I was the Anti-Christ in her eyes, but really I was an un-racist, liberal woman with a mind and opinions of my own.... something not allowed in the Bob Jones Southern Baptist {delusional} world she lived in).
I do believe in evolution. But because I had to spend years figuring things out for myself, without any formal guidance, I was able to come to the conclusion that God and evolution can fit into a unified belief system.
I think that in the time that the Bible was being written if God had said "Guess what? I started you out as a MONKEY!!!!! and then slowly over time you became the creature you see in your reflection." People what have thought that the person he was speaking through (maybe Moses but I am not positive, my exact Bible references are a little rusty now) was a quack. I do not think that people would have had the capacity to understand evolution in Biblical times. I think that God gave us the propensity to learn about ourselves, and overtime gave us the tools to uncover the truth of our past. Personally, I find the theory behind evolution to be much more impressive then the story suddenly appearing as a complete Homo sapiens.
As for chapter 3 the part that struck me is on page 45. Kottak is talking about how culture is symbolic and that humans have developed complex cultures. He mentions humans by their scientific name of Homo sapiens. Then in the last line of the section he says "..., no other animal has elaborated cultural abilities to the extent that Homo has." Something about the wording of this quote struck me as odd. It almost sounded like a double meaning by using the term Homo (which is now synonymous with homosexuality) alone without sapien behind it.
Did anyone else notice this? It was just the one thing that I read that really stuck out to me.
I also do not think that I would make a good ethnographer. I am not sure I would be able to leave my opinions and feelings behind when researching a culture that has practices that I considered to irrepressible such as any form of child abuse (I can accept that a child to me may be an adult in other cultures but if the age differed too much I would not be able to consider the child an adult). It would hurt me as a human to stand by and allow it. Also, I do not think that I could give an unbiased report on the culture that people would expect of me as an ethnographer.
I believe in evolution but I also believe in parts of the Bible. There are certain things that can not be explained and probably will not be during my lifetime. I wouldn't say that humans are in no way connected to apes or other animals because we are all, in one way or another, mammals that share this planet. My family is atheist for the most part even though the older generations are mostly Buddhist but not totally hardcore. They don't force their views on me and allow me the freedom to think however I want about how mankind was created and put on this earth.
What struck me most in the chapter was that humans used symbols as part of their culture. I know that animals do not have culture like humans do but I haven't thought of it in the way that humans do it by using symbols.
Darwin's theory of evolution is one idea for people to believe and I personally agree. I think human have evolved over centuries but what boggles my mind is how humans developed in different races and cultures. Wouldn't we all be related in some form? I am Catholic but I do not believe in Adam and Eve. I believe that theory is too far fetched and is just a story. Some may say that makes me go against my religion however, I believe in God and do not have to believe in everything else the religion is about.
I was not taught evolution at all. I was raised in a religious Jewish home and sent to private Jewish schools where evolution was not taught. I always knew about the idea of evolution, but i was never really formally taught it.
Although i was raised in a pretty closed minded community, i am very open minded and very interested in ideas that explain the way our world was created. I think Darwin has a good point in saying that the human species have evolved and acquired different habits and additions that now allow us to live better.
I do not think that we evolved from monkeys, I do think that God put man on earth, and then that man evolved and became what he is now.
In chapter 3, the word "the psychic unity of man" is a new word used to describe the fact that all humans have the capacity for culture. This statement shocked me because if all humans have the right and the ability to culture why don't we let them? Colonialization took away from so many cultures, things that we will never be able to give back. Genocides in Africa have stripped the many african cultures. Chapter 3 broke down the many factors of culture that I already knew, but did not have a clear definition of.
I believe that evolution holds strong truths. I was raised in a religious household and was also always encouraged to challenge what I was taught or believed in. Men have been around longer then 6000 years it has been proven, this is why religion loses its creditability it is taken as literal rather then conceptual.
Post a Comment