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.

Analysis of My Man Marvin (Harris)

Marvin Harris shaped and promoted the anthropological theory of cultural materialism by his writings and his critiques of scientific anthropology.  In his essay “The Epistemology of Cultural Materialism” (1979) he calls to question ethnographic research and how anthropologists reach their final consensus and understanding of the culture they studied.  Harris centers on the main issue at hand and that is the people researchers study and inquire are both subject and objects.  This calls to question whose point of view has the most authority – the emic or the etic? 

Harris divided anthropological research into four epistemological perspectives: emic mental, etic mental, emic behavioral, and etic behavioral. Harris states that the scientific views possible are the emic and etic for objective understanding of the mental and behavioral.  Though Harris stresses that the etic mental and emic behavioral are the most problematic of views.  This is because it is most difficult to fully understand the psychological reasons behind why a person, or culture, has their set of beliefs, norms, actions, etc.  But as Harris states, “to deny the validity of etic descriptions is in effect to deny the possibility of a social science capable of explaining sociocultural similarities and differences” (1979).  Harris seems to believe that an anthropologist will never be able to achieve full emic perspective of the behavioral and mental.  He alludes that is a concept is real and meaningful to a particular culture then it remains as an emic concept in respect to that culture.

I agree with Harris in that I think it would be extremely difficult to be an ethnographer and be positive that I am transcribing and properly analyzing my subjects’ thoughts and actions.  There is a gap between what a subject says and then what the ethnographer publishes and Harris is attempting to limit this gap as much as possible.  He is advising fellow anthropologists on how to conduct the most honest and comprehensive research to avoid creating assumptions produced from the etic mental.  I think Harris is really on to something when he says that some things will never be fully understood by the etic.  As much as anthropologists work to familiarize the strange, a person is has their own perspective that seems to interfere with fully integrating another culture’s emic.

The Liminality and Communitas of Cancer

Victor Turner’s symbolic anthropology is seen throughout most parts of the Western biomedical field.  Much of what doctors, patients, and their relationships, are dictated by symbolic actions.  Turner’s symbolic anthropology focused on the importance of ritual and it is through individuals acting out these rituals that they go through a crucial and transitional phase, referred to as “liminality”.  While stuck in liminality a person is moving from one version of themselves and moving towards integrating into a new self.  This sense of liminality is constantly appearing in medicine, and through medical anthropology, an anthropologist can analyze for example a cancer patient and how they move through the steps of being diagnosed, receiving chemo and other treatments, surgery, and then moving into recovery.  Aligned with Turner’s theory, must restructure their identity and how others view them as a person once the “natural world” has wiped away their original identity.  Our society has created a complete set of rituals and manners on which someone treats an individual diagnosed with cancer.  It is through these rituals that our society shows its understanding and acceptance for someone suffering from the disease.  Moreover, this newly diagnosed individual learns how to act out the patterns or rituals that are connected to someone undergoing cancer treatment.  The patient learns that acting out these set rituals are imperative for them to move from being seen as sick to healthy.  It is in Turner’s theory that cancer patients move from being separated from the healthy and try to integrate them back into “healthy” society that they are in a time of liminality.  This is a state of ambiguity or otherness where the person is no longer the original identity but also not yet the goal identity.  Moreover, it is understood as the individual lacking a status in a society where everyone has one.          

It is during this state of liminality that Turner includes the term “communitas”.  Communitas is understood to be the sense of community or connectedness people create with others when both are stuck in the same phase of liminality.  When understanding the process of going through cancer, an anthropologist can see how the patients create their own communitas between themselves.  Nowadays we have so many support groups and meetings for individuals diagnosed with cancer.  We have patients band together and discuss their chemo treatments and recovery process, finding solidarity in their suffering and waiting period until recovery.  They all share their progress of being in liminality and how far or close they are to reaching final integration or goal identity of being healthy.  Furthermore, communitas can be created among the family affected as well.   

Victor Turner’s symbolic anthropological theory and the importance of liminality is relevant in all aspects of biomedicine.  It is through application of Turner’s writings that we have been able to understand the treatment and ritualistic process of being a “sick” patient.  

The Flaws behind Human Terrain Systems

David B. Edwards offers a critique of Human Terrain Systems which the US military attempted to implement in the beginning of 2007. Edwards discusses the impact of public anthropology beyond the ivory tower, and shows us possible improper uses of anthropology. Human Terrain Systems was created as a means to lower civilian casualties and to increase the success of counterinsurgency within Afghanistan. Edwards himself is an anthropologist whose studies are conducted in Afghanistan, so Edwards is personally involved in the impacts of HTS on the local Afghan peoples. Edwards gives a very mild critique of HTS, completely ignoring the ethical dilemmas of using anthropology for military endeavors.

Edwards argues that HTS is theoretically beneficial for the military and for the people of Afghanistan. The US military is largely ignorant when it comes to the culture that they are based in, and HTS may be a means to defeat the Taliban. Not only that, but HTS could decrease the amount of force required in many military situations. HTS could overall strengthen the relationship between the military and the society they are based in. However, this is not as easily done when implemented.

                Edwards brings up various critiques and issues surrounding the practical usage of HTS in military practice. Firstly, the HTT (Human Terrain Team) is unable to get off of the base, and has a time restriction when meeting with the Afghans. Not only that, but HTTs will have a large restriction as their informants will have issues establishing trust with the military personnel; they are there for limited amounts of time, immediately asking invasive questions, surrounded by soldiers for protection. After the difficulties gathering “accurate” ethnographic information, the HTT cannot holistically present the data. Military personnel must be briefed through bulleted point, PowerPoint presentations, making the ethnographic information impressionistic, anecdotal, and inconclusive.

                While Edwards brings up many relevant issues with HTS use in the US military, I think that his article overlooks some substantial points. Edwards, it seems purposefully, ignores the ethical issues surrounding the use of anthropology for military use. The ethical issues are discussed widely about this issue by other anthropologists, as the AAA “blackballed” any anthropologist who got involved with the mission. If there are such substantial consequences for involving yourself with this, then this warrants an important, thoughtful discussion of the ethical issues, and his stance on the ethical significance. This lends itself directly into a discussion of the public and social goals of anthropology. Near the end, Edwards touches on what the ultimate goal of anthropology is, but I think that this is a fundamental question which should be given much more attention. This dictates the ethical stance of anthropologists all over the world; we must understand what the goal of public anthropology is before debating the ethical dilemma surrounding the issue. Finally, Edwards doesn’t seem to discuss the fact that the people doing the ethnographic work, are actually not anthropologists. If the HTT team has not been properly trained as anthropologists, then how can a holistic, comprehensive study of these cultures be done? Rather, HTS is the systematic manipulation of the field of anthropology. Edwards seems to be saying that HTTs are anthropologists, in the sense that they are completing ethnographic work; however, I am unsure if this is true. I feel that this fact must be acknowledged in an anthropological critique of HTS, otherwise we are, as anthropologists ourselves, changing what it means to be an anthropologist. 

Herakles: The Evolution of a Symbol

Before I begin, I would like to apologize.  This may be a long winded post.

One could argue that Ancient Greek culture was dominated by the symbolic figures that we refer to as the Greek gods (or Pantheon, to use a Roman term).  It is hard to argue, however, that there is a more prominent, well known, or ever-changing figure in Greek mythology than Herakles (Hercules for those who prefer the Roman name).  As a symbol, Herakles almost always, universally, stands for strength; we even have the qualifier "Herculean" in front of terms such as "feats" or "strength" in reference to the difficulty of a challenge.  However, as a symbol, Herakles stands for much more than strength alone and his character has evolved over a period of several hundred years before finally coming to a relative equilibrium of strength and glory.  If we look at this evolution through the lens of symbolic and interpretive anthropology, we can catch a glimpse of the evolution of the cultures that utilize Herakles as a symbol.

To follow that, let's get a little bit of background on the origins of Herakles.  Unfortunately it is quite difficult to understand his true origins, as most Greek mythology originated before the written record of mythology was important and stories were passed on through oral traditions.  The earliest we see Herakles is in the 8th century B.C.E. as the prototype for the male form in bronze sculptures and pottery.  Through the 6th century B.C.E. Herakles becomes more distinguished in artwork yet maintains a common theme; he is always depicted fighting a monster from his myth cycle.  If we think of monsters as being born of the earth (and by extension are part of nature) we see his importance as a symbol as being that of the conqueror of nature (more broadly, he is seen as depicting the triumph of man over nature).  This comes during a time in which nature was still a force to be afraid of, when science had not explained as much of the physical, surrounding environments as it has today.  Mythology at this time was used to explain the way the world worked, similar to some religions, and in fact Greek mythology in the past was its own religion.  Therefore, Herakles was seen not only as the symbol of power and control over nature but even as the patron saint or patron god related to the idea of power.  In appropriate situations, one could pray for help from Herakles.

In the 5th century B.C.E. Herakles changes from being the strong, one-man army towards the Herakles who founded the Olympic games and the Herakles who founded cities on his travels.  This change shows a change in the culture that uses Herakles; there was no longer a need for the symbol of a strong figure in battle.  By this time, Greek philosophy, art, and literature had spread over vast distances, and were obviously the most important part of Greek culture at this point in time.  Instead there was now a need for the more philosophical, athletic, protector symbol.  Herakles began to be depicted as the role model for athletes and for those who sought social order and justice.  Herakles even becomes the symbolic patron (or in some cases, the physical patron (1)) for many cities.  This change remains fairly consistent until the rise of the Roman Empire.

Romans used a myriad of different interpretations for Herakles, many of which were similar to the different meanings we have already talked about; Herakles (or Hercules, as he is now called) was still seen as a mighty warrior and used as a symbol for individual strength, but he was also seen as the great athlete, and as the protector of the city.  But now he could also add the spiritual symbol to his repertoire.  Romans treated Herakles in a much more spiritual way than the Greeks before them.  At the end of his myth cycle, Herakles lights himself on fire and is granted entrance into Olympus, where he became a god (granted immortality).  The Romans saw this as a symbol of life after death, and by praying to or utilizing Hercules in religious ceremonies, they hoped to perpetuate their own beliefs in the possibility of life after death.  This shows the emphasis that the Roman culture began to place on the idea of cheating or beating death.  The Romans even began to equate his twelve labors as triumph of Herakles over death, thus lending credence to the idea that there was some sort of life or power after death.  Herakles' labors became commonplace on both sarcophagi and in funerary paintings, and portrayed beliefs similar to those held by many modern-day religions in regards to Heaven or reincarnation.

The next evolution of Herakles comes through the mold of Christianity.  Christians wanted to subjugate the Romans and the Roman culture, and the best way to do this was through religion.  Luckily, the perfect pagan symbol was present in the Roman culture...any guesses?  Due to the suffering that he experienced during his life, the myriad of instances in which he was a protector of the victimized or the weak, and the fact that he was granted a resurrection and subsequent empowerment as a diety/holy figure, Herakles was the perfect parallel for Christ.  So, now, Herakles became a symbol of Christ and Christianity, at least until the pagan symbol was no longer needed and Christ could be the only symbolic/physical figure.

After this, Herakles has sort of gone through the scale of meanings presented here, changing from one to another based on the context in which he is used.  Through the lens of symbolic anthropology, we can see that Herakles as a symbol changed depending on what was considered important in the culture.  Cultures that used Herakles as a symbol of strength were the same cultures that placed an emphasis on the idea of strength (the Spartans for instance).  Cultures that placed an emphasis on philosophy or justice would then depict Herakles as philosophical or as the founder/protector of cities.

It's provocative; It gets the people going.

Feminism at its finest is an active replacement of one way of thinking that was, as of late, dominated by a male perspective. Since the introduction of feminism I believe important conversations have been started regarding the societal framework we have made that induces many cultures that are depriving women of their human rights. This goes beyond a cultural issue in which gender roles are all different. I think that a lot of the grievances theorists like Sally Slocum, “Women the Gatherer” author, and alike have revolve around the creation of not only a male dominated culture but a male dominated way of thought and action. I want to tie the instances theorized in Women the Gatherer to one of the darkest parts of the male-centric society: Sex trafficking. The trade is made up of an estimated 20.9 million people who are forced into sexual servitude. Out of these, 98 % are women (http://www.equalitynow.org/node/1010). There are no other fields of labor like this and it is as they say, ‘the world’s oldest occupation.’ Selling one’s body whether willing or forced is operating on one of the most basic instincts that people have; their carnal sexual drive. Only trumped by our will to survive, the human sex drive is a necessity for the perpetuation of life on this planet.

However, my question is how, if at all, we, as a human race, facilitated sex trafficking as a side effect of sociological and cultural development. When academic fields like anthropology began they were dominated by the views of males and even framed as a narrative authored by men as well as starring men. How does something like referring to Men the Hunter as opposed to Women the Gatherer as the major food source for a primal village create opportunity for something as awful as sex trafficking. It is the compilation of ignorance of feminist thought and under estimation of the power of a dominant perspective and its ability to alter the perceived inferior groups. This dominant perspective detailed by Slocum saying, “… there is a strong male bias in the questions asked and the answers given.” These biases became conducive to the society known today in which sex trafficking is at its highest rate in history and can, in some ways, be attributed to an unconscious but highly relevant pattern in society that includes the necessity of pleasing the dominant male. I do not think this is a malicious plan that men had in mind that has finally come to fruition. I believe there are some faults to be placed on how we construct any society with dominance and the resulting effect. “A pattern developed of a male hunter becoming the main supporter of “his” dependent females and young” (Slocum) From these patterns we see the hierarchy develop and the placement of women in society as dependent as well as available for use in whatever ways are deemed economically or culturally viable. It is these subtle constructs that place women in subordinate positions and create a culture of service to the presumed dominant male. The lack of accurate recording of origins left out things like the fact that, “food sharing and the family developed from the mother-infant bond. The techniques of hunting large animals were probably much later developments, after the mother-children family pattern was established.” (Slocum) The focus on men as the foundation for families was not only inaccurate but irresponsible to place one gender in charge of a family unit. It increases displays of sub ordinance in society and quiets the voice of women in comparison to men in substantial fields like academia. The creation of “Man the Hunter” as a cultural construct could explain some of the unfortunate roles women take in today’s society as subservient and elevation of women’s roles might empower and eliminate things like the sex trade which an almost solely female trade. 

The Importance of Critics (A Critique of Jonathan Marks’ Critique of The Bell Curve)

          This critique will not so much be a traditional critique of a reading, for Elizabeth did an excellent job synthesizing and analyzing the same article in her post from April 21 (found here: http://theoryisthenewblack.blogspot.com/2014/04/cracks-in-bell-curve.html). But I was so fascinated by how and why Jonathan Marks critiques The Bell Curve (1994) that I thought it warranted another post, one that was more a defense of his work and encouragement for future anthropologists to keep a critical eye on their colleagues’ works.

            The importance of public anthropology, in my mind, is that it brings anthropological research and theory out of the closed-off world of academia, and into the public sector- making it available for all people, not just anthropologists. Additionally, the field allows for anthropology to help the world deal with certain issues and debates as they arise and as they are important to regular people. Instead of discussing the symbolism of the Kula ring or the kinship patterns of the Native American tribes, public anthropology brings the study of people and cultures into present discussions that are happening in many other disciplines. It makes anthropology practical, not just theoretical.

            However, one of the dangers of public anthropology is the same as why I so revere it: it brings anthropology to an audience that is not necessarily educated in the discipline. Though this opens a lot of doors for expanding the way people think, if research is not done well or explained correctly, it can be seriously misleading, yet convincing. This was the case with R. Herrnstein and C. Murray’s The Bell Curve, which used pseudoscience of the past to state that intelligence is inherited and not affected by environmental factors at all. It played off of the public’s interest in the nature vs. nurture debate, and led them down a dangerous road towards increased racism. This poor science and subsequent racism could have impacted public policy, if it were not for the anthropologists that still had a keen eye for critique, like Jonathan Marks.

            Jonathan Marks, in the article “Anthropology and The Bell Curve,” from the book, Why America’s Top Pundits Are Wrong: Anthropologists Talk Back (2005), easily disproves the science of Herrnstein and Murray in a manner that is just as easy for the public to read and understand. Marks clearly shows the link between the “science” of their research and the political influence they were trying to have, concluding by saying “given its scholarship, citations, and associations, it is hard to see the goal of The Bell Curve as other than to rationalize economic inequality, to perpetuate injustice, and to justify social oppression” (543). Marks goes through the arguments in The Bell Curve and step-by-step breaks them down, so that it is an argument that is not too theoretical. This is key for critiquing public anthropological work: the critiques have to be just as easy for the public to understand as the original research.

            The public tends to be easy to convince, especially if the person presenting information sounds like they know what they are talking about. They tend not to have a critical eye for things they read, especially if what they are reading has become super popular. Because of this, public anthropology must continue to have critics, like Jonathan Marks, who expose poor research and prevent the name of anthropology from being discounted because of a few not-so-great (read: abhorrent) anthropologists. Without this critics, public anthropology will become more dangerous than good. 

Foucauldian Discourse of Hindu Caste System

Foucauldian Discourse is a system of analysis that takes broader contexts and dissects them individually instead of using one large theoretical framework. This discourse was introduced by French post-structuralist, who rejected "totalitarian theories", and saw power as a "set of pressures lodged in institutional mechanisms which produce and maintain the privileged norms" (pomo ppt). In Foucouldian discourse terms, the word "discourse" is a culturally constructed concept of knowledge, in which 'knowledge' is dictated by those in power that create the texts and other manifestations of knowledge. The discourse defines the boundaries of possibilities and manipulates what eventually becomes known as "truth". 

In the following text, I will use Foucauldian Discourse to analyze the Hindu caste system in Nepal today.

The Hindu caste system first originated through the division of labor - the society was divided into priests, warriors, merchants, and lastly the laborers. As you can imagine, the laborers were considered lowest caste, merchants second lowest and so on. Although it started out as an egalitarian society where there was no hierarchy of occupations, there was a gradual segregation of the groups. The priests, or Brahmins, were the people whose job made it necessary to read and write, and the warriors, or Kshatriyas, whose job brought them valor and honor, and for this reason, their ranking in society progressively increased, while the subservient role of the merchant (Vaisyas), and the laborers (Sudras) decreased. Through time, this hierarchical caste system has become increasingly entrenched in society as the upper caste Brahmins and Kshatriyas take advantage of their positions in society. The Brahmins have the most power because they are the ones that interpret the words of the numerous deities, the middle men between the Gods and the common people. Additionally, they're the ones that are most literate while the Sudras don't require reading or writing for their job and therefore are illiterate. Therefore, the discourse in Hindu society is that of the Brahmins.

In today's Hindu society, the Sudras are otherwise known as untouchables, because they are "impure" and have the power to contaminate you by touch. This is the logic that people have grown up with all of their lives and to them, it's the truth, it's common knowledge, it's normal, and the majority of the people follow it without question, no matter what caste one may be from. The Sudras are literally not allowed to touch someone of the upper caste, and if there is accidental touching, the upper caste individual has to cleanse themselves with water. If their food is touched, they cannot eat the food. The Sudras are not allowed to enter the temples of the religious priests. The reasoning for this is given as the Sudras work involves dirt and impurities, things that noone else would choose to do, and for this reason, they are also impure. Additionally, their diet is also cited as a reason for their impurity. The Sudras eat water buffalo and drink alcohol, specifically rice wine. Instead of realizing that they eat water buffalo because it is cheap and more affordable than other meats, and that they drink the rice wine to give them energy for a hard day's of labor, these food items are simply pegged as impure because one, the animal's habitat is extremely dirty, and two, the alcohol makes them drunk, and therefore, these people are "impure".

By marginalizing the Sudras in such a way, the interests of the powerful Brahmin class is being mobilized. Because of the discourse constructed by the Brahmins, having a Brahmin identity is more desirable because it is not the demeaning, looked down upon, loathed, identity of a lower caste individual.

Although I simply touched upon the surface of the Hindu caste system, it is evident that Foucoult's ideas about the discourse of knowledge and power rings true in this society. 

Doctor Who and Cultural Evolution

This past week, I decided that I would undertake the herculean task of rewatching one of my favourite childhood and current shows, Doctor Who.  So where exactly does one begin when rewatching a fifty-year running television show with some seven hundred episodes?  At the beginning.  Classic Doctor Who (or Doctor Who prior to the 2005 reboot) is divided into seasons, and each season is divided into serials, or mini arcs that last for three or four episodes.

The first and second serials aired in 1963, and they are “And Unearthly Child” and “The Daleks,” respectively, the first focusing on the titular character and the second on a low-budget villain that would eventually become an icon of the franchise.  And it was as I was watching these two serials that I was struck by the incredible example they both provide of cultural (and basic human) evolution.

In the second episode of the first serial, the TARDIS (which is the blue time-machine-turned-police-box in which the Doctor travels the universe) lands in a barren waste inhabited by a tribe of “savages,” the tribe of Gum.  While the members of the tribe are named, they are presented with no capacity for speech, limited intelligence, an innate sense of violence, and a strong penchant for wearing loincloths made from animal skins.  While it is never stated that the tribe of Gum represents Neanderthals, their characterization (or lack thereof) does lend itself to the idea of early hominids popular in the early 1960’s.

In the next serial, the Doctor encounters what he calls a more “advanced” society, the humanoid Thals of the planet Skaro.  These people practice animal husbandry and farming, have developed an advanced language and religion, and seem in all respects to be the classic fit for the barbarian on the evolutionary ladder.  The Doctor does, however, openly admit that the Thals are not as “advanced” as a technologically-driven race that also inhabits the planet, the Daleks.

The Daleks thrive in the midst of great accomplishment and a complex social and political structure headed by a war leader and a council.  The system does not seem to be too different from that of England, the country from which Doctor Who hails.  The Daleks have, most importantly, developed a writing system, which the tribe of Gum and the Thals both lacked.  The Daleks are a prime example of a “civilization.”

The tribe of Gum, the Thals, and the Daleks all appear within the first two serials of Doctor Who, and they perfectly represent the perfect Morganian model of cultural evolution, showing how societies technically graduate from one rung of development through certain advances to the next.

By contrast, and as a fun fact, twenty-five years after the first serial exhibiting Neanderthals, the show aired a new serial (the last Classic Who serial filmed) with a Neanderthal named Nimrod.  Rather than one of the dumb, “primitive” creatures that had been portrayed years before, Nimrod was given a higher intelligence and higher capabilities associated with “advanced” homo sapiens.  This is, of course, very reflective of the popular view of human evolution at the time.

The Practice Theory of Celibacy

In the wake of scientific results indicating that the text fragment, known as the Gospel of Jesus’s Wife, is authentically ancient and not a modern fake, I have decided to examine the impact that the previous mindset of a “Wifeless Christ” has had on past and present followers. More specifically I plan on examining celibacy with practice theory.

According to Dr. Karen King (Hollis Professor of Divinity at Harvard Divinity School), this small fragment of ancient Christian text does not offer historical evidence that Jesus was married. She believes, however, that it does raise serious questions about how early Christians were debating the role of women, celibacy and marriage. The fragment also includes the phrase, “She can be my disciple,” which could be read as making an argument for leadership roles for women in the early church. I believe that there is too much information to debate the reasons why females do not have leadership roles in the church to include in this short blog entry. So instead, I will focus on the ideology of celibacy within the church.

            I assume that everyone that is reading this is aware that catholic priests are preferred to remain celibate throughout their lives, but as a young catholic I always wondered why. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (a published source of church doctrine), ordained ministers are “Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to ‘the affairs of the Lord,’ they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church’s minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.” (Catechism 1599)

            Celibacy can be anthropologically analyzed using practice theory because practice theory deals with the relationship between ideology, structure, and practice. Through examining this triangle, we can see how all of these three aspects affect each other as well as shape and change practices and culture itself. So first let us look at the ideology behind celibacy. The church encourages all of its followers to become more Christ-like and because the preconceived notion is that Christ was celibate, the ideology behind celibacy is that it is a sign of service that proclaims the reign of god.

            This ideology that Christ was celibate and that ordained ministers should follow his example implements a common practice of celibacy. In an effort to become role models for their parishes (as Christ is for humanity) priests are required to practice celibacy. This common practice thus becomes the accepted structure by which all priests must follow with little to no exceptions. However, this new piece of evidence presents a big “what if” to the culture of the church.

            What if this document is valid and Christ did in fact have a wife? This possible fact does not detract from the significance Christ has on the church, but the fact remains that Christ, the example ordained priests are supposed to model themselves after, was not celibate. If Christ was not celibate then we can assume that celibacy would not have been an accepted ideology for men of the cloth. Thus, priests would not practice it and there would be no sign of a celibate structure among the church.


RESOURCES:
Catholic Church. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2011.