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.