Critique of Appadurai

In his piece Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy, social-cultural anthropologist Arjun Appadurai talks about the evolution of intra-group social interaction. Unsatisfied with the common model of the global economy, Arjun Appadurai argues that it does not fit with the ever growing, ever changing world in which cultural mix is natural but complex. It “cannot any longer be understood in terms of existing center-periphery models,” (Appadurai, 1990) he says in the piece, and essentially goes on to argue the complexity to outweigh the traditional binary relationships that were previously used to describe the global economy. It is here when he proposes his new “dimensions of global cultural flow.” He breaks it into five different dimensions or landscapes: ethnoscapes, mediascapes, technoscapes, financescapes, and ideoscapes. He purposefully uses the suffix –scape to emphasize their “fluid, irregular shapes,” and that they, much like a landscape, do not appear the same from every angle or point of view but rather depend on the position of the spectator (Appadurai, 1990).

The ethnoscape describes the physical movement of people; the tourist, refugee, or immigrant. This scape maintains that as long as people have the ability to move, they always will. The next dimension, the technoscape, captures the fluidity of technology from nation to nation. This technology, “both high and low, both mechanical and informational, now moves at high speeds across various kinds of previously impervious boundaries,” (Appadurai, 1990). It brings together previously isolated or independent organizations, companies, and events and allows for the incorporation of foreign involvement. From here, Appadurai moves to the financescape. The financescape is the flow of capital around the world. It is the Stock Market and banking transactions that occurs instantaneously and is unpredictable. Next, the mediascape emerges as the perpetuation and production of information, electronically, as well as the images that are produced in the media by such means. With mediascapes, in congruence with Tsing’s warning of the importance of context, the “farther away these [audiences of the media] are from the direct experiences of metropolitan life, the more likely they are to construct imagined worlds that are chimerical, aesthetic, event fantastic objects, particularly if assessed by the criteria of some other perspective, some other imagined world (Appadurai, 1990).” Lastly, Appadurai talks about the ideoscape. The ideoscape, is similar to the mediascape in it being a collection of images but it is almost exclusively linked to politics. Ideoscapes consist of enlightenment elements and keywords such as freedom, rights, representation, and so on, and how these words can shape political culture. The theme of movement and translation, situational context, and power are common themes throughout all of these landscapes; it is the product of the inevitable interactions between cultures. Together they paint a picture of what Appadurai calls “imagined worlds,” (Appadurai, 1990) or worlds that are created by the imaginations of people around the globe. The landscapes are mere building blocks for these imagined worlds.

And yes, Dr. Bender, most of this came from my final paper...

Structuralism in the West(ern)

Whilst I was in the midst of final exams this past week, one of my many assignments happened to be about film. I was taking an introductory film course at the time, you see, so it made sense that I would be asked to write a paper on the topic of films. All of that aside, this paper was strictly to talk about the “cycles of genre” through Western films, starting with primitive Westerns, moving to classic, then revisionist, and finally parodic. “What,” you might be wondering to yourself, “the heck is Duncan going on about in our theory blog?? He is such a goof!” Well now, I assure you, I do in fact have a point and a direction that this blog post shall take. During my brief stint as a Western film expert, I, being the expert of course, was well versed in what it meant to be a Western and the different components and themes that are associated with the genre. What I later began to notice, as I naturally continue to think about recent papers, exams, and regrets, was how much I recognized the Western theme in films that I had not previously even dreamed could be considered Westerns and how much it related to structuralism!

The first film, or set of films really, that came to mind was local genius George Lucas’ Star Wars saga. Star Wars is most definitely and undeniably a science fiction film that incorporates fantasy, the future, and even political science. It is also, you guessed it, a Western. The frontier being explored, exploited, and merciless in this Western is what is believed to be man’s final frontier: outer space. The Republic, a nomadic, ragtag group of “good-guys” fight the evil that are reorganizing the Galactic Republic into the Empire which is to be run by the tyrannical Sith lord. Do you see ole Claude’s binary here or what?! It is all about that binary action! Man vs. wild, man vs. machine, old vs. new, and so on. The Western is not limited to Monument Valley, six-shooter revolvers, square buildings, and horse-drawn stagecoaches, what makes a Western a Western is the underlying STRUCTURE of it. The themes, the mentality, the morals and lessons learned, that is what constitutes a Western. Star Wars is a story of that same bravery and the strength of the individual over the power of evil in large numbers.

At first, it really is amazing how many films exhibit aspects and ideals that are associated with the Western, but upon second or third look, one realizes how natural such a connection actually is. Then I kept looking. I saw it in Ridley Scott’s film Alien, AMC’s popular TV show The Walking Dead, and even Orange Is The New Black, the namesake of this very blog! It is very exciting indeed! So, next time you’re watching a film, and you THINK you know what kind of film it is, chances are it is a heck of a lot more complicated than you think. Look out for that sneaky Western, you may find the structural elements of it floating around somewhere.

A Call to Sympathy: Critique of Edwards' Counterinsurgency Article

     I have always enjoyed learning new languages. Or, at least, I like having studied a language, even though I generally hate the actually studying it part. So, when I came to Wake, I decided to study Arabic to fulfill my language requirement. It’s strange to me that having studied Arabic, I have had so any people ask me if I want to work in the government because the answer, to be frank, is hell no. That’s why I found Edwards’s article “Counterinsurgency as a Cultural System” so interesting.

            I really liked what Edwards did with the article, because even though I don’t personally want to work in the government, I was glad that his paper gave a more sympathetic analysis of the HTS program. I was glad that he didn’t simply rip on the program for being highly unethical and counter to the purposes of anthropology. What’s more, I think that kind of critique is unnecessary, and less compelling than the argument he actually makes. He really eloquently and thoroughly examines why the program is not inherently bad, but rather he brings to the foreground the idea that the methods and goals of anthropology simply might not fit within the framework of military culture. I believe whole heartedly that the best anthropology cannot be rushed, because it takes time to build relationships with people. One part that I thought Edwards could have examined more was how by rushing the relationships, we are not being respectful of the culture we are studying. By forcing ourselves on these people, we are forcing our western culture and worldview on them, and therefore I believe the data and information might be tainted. We understand the importance and the goals of anthropology, and we generally think that by doing anthropology we will do no harm to the people. But they might not believe that, especially when the anthropologist is linked to the US military. In addition, we are assuming, to an extent, that these people will trust an anthropologist more, and open up to them more quickly. In certain cultures, that might be true, but in others, there might be a strong sense of distrust. Therefore, the information we might gain would be tainted.

            Edwards mentions how the AAA is extremely critical of this program, but I wish he had gone into a further argument of why this could be counterproductive to the field of anthropology as a whole. One of the main criticisms students of anthropology face is “What are you going to do with your degree? How are you going to get a job?” In a world where so many college graduates are unemployed, this is a very real fear. So, I believe that by blackballing anthropology students who are jobless and desperate seeking work with the counterinsurgency programs, anthropology is contributing to the understanding that a degree in anthropology doesn’t help you get a job. Therefore, people are less likely to study it, and we gain fewer minds that will contribute to the field. I am not arguing that anthropologists should blindly support any job involving anthropology, but I do believe they should show a little more compassion and sympathy. The program might need to be reworked before it can be productive, but who better to do so than anthropologists? I rather believe as Margaret Mead did, that everything is better with anthropology.

Monsters, Angels, and Demons, Oh My! PoMo in Supernatural

***Spoiler Alert!*** I'm writing about the television show Supernatural. It's a great show. I don't want to spoil any of the plot elements for people who aren't caught up on the show.

With the exception of a few take home assignments, exams are over for me. That means, it's time to binge watch Netflix. I know it's not healthy, but hey, the brain needs a break sometimes. So, as I've been watching Supernatural, I've been thinking about how well it fits in with post-modernist theory. The show works well to exemplify all three major tenets of post-modernism, so I thought it would make a nice blog entry to explain each tenet as seen in Supernatural.

Tenet 1: There is no unbiased knowledge

This is the part of post-modernism I really started thinking about when I was thinking of Supernatural. In particular, I was thinking of episode 6.15, in which Sam and Dean are sent to an alternate universe in which they are actors, stars of the show "Supernatural". In this universe, there is no magic, there are no demons or angels or witches. Sam is married to the actress who played the demon named Ruby. It becomes clear that they are, in fact, in our universe. I found this particularly interesting because the writers are playing games with the viewer. They acknowledge that in our world, none of the bad things are true. And yet, perhaps in another place they are. In Sam and Dean’s world, most people don’t know about the monsters, but a few do. The “knowledge” that we have generally says that there are no such things as monsters. We have never seen them, and so we don’t believe they exist. But this knowledge is biased, based on our experiences and what we have been told. If you grew up with a father hunting monsters, like Sam and Dean, you would believe too. In that way, it seems much like religious faith.

Tenet 2: Power is implicated in knowledge

This tenet is also clearly, if shallowly, demonstrated in Supernatural. When the post-modernists talk about this, they are talking about how one dominant culture has done extensive research by means of their dominance, allowing them to maintain power through their knowledge. The idea is not nearly so nuanced in this television show, but the point is made quite clearly. One of the literary techniques favored by the writers in dramatic irony, in which the viewer knows something the characters do not. One character will have information that another does not, and they will use it to get the edge in a fight. In the same episode mentioned above, the angel Balthazar sends Sam and Dean to an alternate universe with a key that he tells them much be protected at all costs. Sam and Dean do everything they can to protect the key, but they lose it. However, they later find out that Balthazar had given them a fake, and that Sam and Dean were simply decoys. The angels sent after the boys, and Sam and Dean themselves, clearly have much less power over the situation that Balthazar. In this way, Balthazar’s knowledge gives him power.

Tenet 2: Culture is a text or a performance

The idea that we perform culture becomes exceedingly clear in a show where demons and angels are frequently possessing humans, or monsters are trying to pass as humans. For a period of the show, Crowley (a demon) holds Kevin (a prophet) captive, trying to get information out of him. Crowley sends two demons in to talk to Kevin, having them pose as Sam and Dean to try to get information. The two demons are attempting to act like humans, and more specifically trying to pass as Sam and Dean. But Kevin catches them because the demons were “too polite”. Culture, or behavior, is a very tricky thing to replicate unless you have been living it. Culture is something we unconsciously act out. We only become aware that it is something to be acted when we find an example of someone for whom the acting doesn’t come naturally. In the case of Supernatural, these are the demons. In anthropology, the ethnographer may find he has trouble acting the culture of the people he is living with.

The Triangle...In the Golden Triangle

Ok.  So.  I know I already made two cultural posts but I really wanted to write about this because I think it's really important and fascinating.  And I just wrote a paper relating to this topic and it is on the brain and it won’t go away until I get it out.   So I'm writing about it.

Sex trafficking in Thailand is a flourishing business that exploits mostly women (over half of whom are minors) both from within the country and from other countries in the Mekong region.  Despite humanitarian and UN efforts, the industry only continues to grow.  This is because sex trafficking is actually deeply ingrained in Thai culture, and I believe this phenomenon can be explained with Practice Theory, in which ideology, structure, and practice all exist in a continuous loop, affecting and effecting one another.

Ninety percent of Thai people practice Theravada Buddhism, which is the oldest school of Buddhism.  Before I go on, I'm going to take a moment to briefly explain Buddhist philosophy with regards to gender equality. The Gautama Buddha, who is the Buddha of this age, preached that men and women were equals and that they should always act as such.  However, he also provided a hierarchy of living things.  At the top was the king or ruler, and after him were the monks, then the wealthy, men, women, cripples and destitute, and finally the animals.  The Buddha in this hierarchy did not teach that one was subject to the other, but that the hierarchy determined wealth and servitude in the inverse.  The king's job was to serve the people, the monks were to guide them, the wealthy were to provide for the common and poor, the common man and woman were to care for those who could not help themselves, and everyone was supposed to care for nature and the earth.  Most modern Buddhists translate the passage thus, and also interpret that women are not below men, as this is in contradictions in other teachings.  Their separate mention signifies that the Buddha recognized them as distinct but equal (in the best sense–not in a segregated sense).  However, Theravada Buddhism looks at this passage with a bit more of a literal interpretation.  Women are below men, but they are to be cared for by their husbands and fathers so they in turn can provide for children.  In Thailand, however, the hierarchy has been imposed as it is written.  Women are subject to men, and they have been for centuries.  Women cannot attain nirvana as they cannot enter the priesthood.  In fact, this idea is taken so far that women in Thailand often express that the best thing they can do with their lives is attain enough good karma to be reincarnated into men.

Yes, this is going to be long.  Bear with me.

Until the early twentieth century, polygamy was legal in Thailand.  As women were subject to men and therefore property, a man's success in life could be measured by his women.  A successful and wealthy man typically had three wives.  The first was the most important wife, and she ran the household and gave birth to children.  The second wife was below her in status, but her roles also included childbirth and child-rearing.  The third wife, however, was for sexual gratification.  Thus did ideology create a structure.  Over time, this institution became naturalized, and even common men began to take secondary and tertiary wives for sexual purposes, until the structure was practiced across the country.  But the structure and widespread practice in turn created a new ideology: sex was a man's right.  As women were subject to men and men needed a wive for sexual purposes, a woman's job was to provide that.  If a woman was able to provide sexual gratification to her husband, she was attaining good karma and might be a man in her next life, which was one step closer to nirvana.

And so this new ideology perpetuated the structure with perpetuated the practice which perpetuated the ideology and so on.  Until one fateful day in the 1920's when royal decree outlawed polygamy.  The structure and practice that had been in place for so long came to a grinding, gritty halt.  But the ideology remained, as law cannot wipe out thought.

Prostitution was there to pick up the pieces.  A man could still claim his right to sex, but he now had to pay for it.  Prostitutes, however, can be pricy (please note that I do not speak from experience).  They set their own rates, and their rates can be high depending on demand.  And when polygamy first went out, demand was high.  The poorer men could not claim their rights as they could not afford to.  And then the solution appeared: the Hill Tribes.

The Hill Tribes are peoples in northern Thailand who live in extremely poor communities.  According to tradition, caring for the household is the responsibility of the eldest daughter after her older brothers are married.  Sometimes girls from the Hill Tribes make their way to the city in search of jobs so they can send money home to their families.  As a woman's role was to serve a man, it was almost natural that girls took up such occupations.  They needed money more, so they charged less than higher class prostitutes.  But demand was still high, and prices higher still.  Then pimps began to create a system to reduce prices.  Girls were kept in the sex industry by means of accrued debt for housing and meals and random interests.  This effectively spawned a new kind of structure to provide for the ideology.  Women were kept as sex slaves, for if a woman was not free to determine her own worth, her services could be afforded by all men, and all men could claim their sexual rights over women.  And so did the ideology of class and natural rights spawn sex trafficking.

The industry boomed, and continues to do so today as even the poorest of the poor can afford at least an hour with a woman (the average sex slave goes for $5 an hour, while a high-class prostitute goes for at least several hundred).  In this we see how ideology creates a structure that results in a practice that influences new ideologies that solidify structures that encourage continued practice and on and on it goes.  Even when a structure is abolished, ideology will find a way to fulfill itself.

Turner and Theatre

Turner’s main argument in his “Symbols in Ndembu Culture” is that people are frequently unaware of the symbolic meanings behind both their everyday actions and their ritual actions.  This is one of the major tenets of symbolic anthropology, but Turner also argues that only the etic perspective can naturally pick up on and interpret these meanings.  In his lines of evidence, he presents a detailed description of the “milk tree” ritual and observes materials, movement, spatial relations, and events.

Turner is obviously very influenced by Durkheim and Gluckman, though his research and interest seem to be much narrower.  Turner is, of course, one of the founders of symbolic anthropology, and throughout his piece he searches for inherent and associated meaning in action.

The strength of his argument lies in his example.  It is solid and easy to follow.  He also recognizes some of his own bias in his writing and interpretation, which I find most interesting as it seems to be the beginning of postmodernist thoughts.

He accepts that all he can do is interpret symbols based on emic account and his own etic perspective.  He recognizes that even this is not enough to full encompass the emic perspective and thus cannot be the absolute truth.  He recognizes that objectivity is a challenge.  However, he continues to argue that symbolic interpretation is at the individual level and is thus different for everyone.  His own educated interpretation is therefore true, if only to him.  He says that even the existing circumstances outside of a ritual can change the meaning of any symbol for only that period of time for a specific person.  A symbol reflects an individual’s values and sentiments at the time it is presented.  There is no constancy to the interpretation of a symbol, as interpretation changes as a person’s mind does, and a person’s mind changes with his experiences with and without the symbol.

He does also suggest that sometimes a man is unaware of the origin of his action, which I must question.  This idea almost suggests that a person sometimes performs things completely blindly.  However, should not a person always have some sort of motivation for an action?  Perhaps my theatre training is taking over and affecting my ability to accept this point (which is my own bias), but every action begins with a thought.  Every action has an origin.  No action can be performed with total blindness, as even ritual actions will have some motivation behind it.  A man will create it for himself if he has to.

Cult Television and Functionalism

Several months ago, the BBC ran a special on the cult classic television program, Doctor Who.  The purpose of this special program was not to air a new episode, but to announce the identity of the Twelfth Doctor.  This event, as it gathered a massive crowd from around the globe and incited rounds of bets and polls as people speculated on an event that was jokingly referred to as the “geek version of the Pope announcement.”  Not two months later, the same television show set a world record for the largest simulcast episode in the history of television.  This was a monumental day in the show’s history, as it marked the fiftieth anniversary of the first episode.  And all of this made me wonder why this show had garnered such a devoted cult following, comprised of people who had seen all seven-hundred episodes and those who had only watched since the reboot.

What is interesting about this phenomenon is that it is almost entirely devoid of hierarchy or structure.  Instead, the passion is cultivated at the individual level, rather than in groups.  Only rarely does the so called “fandom community” gather together in a show of solidarity as they obsess over a fifty year old television show with an obvious lack of a special effects budget.  Even the production team for the show and the actors are not held in immense regard, and are more or less referred to as members of the fan community.

And in wondering about the fandom culture surrounding this cult television show, I started examining it from the perspective of functionalism.

The show in and of itself satisfies very few basic physiological needs, which reside at the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, upon which part of functionalism is based.  There is no nourishment or physical shelter to be found in the television show or in the community, though one could argue that the episodes do fulfill a need for relaxation.  The fandom, however, does manage to cover secondary needs such as social interaction and acceptance, as well as lesser needs such as entertainment.  The show itself is about love and exploration, about meeting new people and learning from them.  But mostly it is about being human and being accepted in that humanness.

As a friend of mine once told me, “The whole point of the show is being alone.  We’ve all felt that at some point.  The Doctor is the only one like himself in the universe, and every now and then he meets someone who’s like him.”  Maybe then that’s why the show has been going on so long.  Fans desire to keep it going because of that relatability.  Because maybe, when they walk into a room and see another person wearing a fez and bowtie or a many-coloured scarf or a vest with question marks, they realize that someone else out there is just as geeky as they are.  In contributing to the longest-running science fiction show in history, they have managed to create their own society and subcultural movement that fulfills a human need for interaction, acceptance, and, of course, entertainment.