*Pick one concept from the assigned readings that you found useful or interesting and discuss it.
I found the section on Culture and Goals, especially the examination of effort-optimism, to be very interesting. I have always known that many people around the world view American work ethic as a little "over the top" (I especially learned this living in Mexico for 2 years where things were a bit slower paced). While the section notes that different societies may express effort-optimism in different ways (poor cultures strive for success through hard work while wealthy cultures look for immediate and effortless gratification), I believe that both of these models, and many others, can be found with in the United States and can be used to explain why people are motivated to dedicate so much time and effort to certain ventures. I do disagree with the section, however, when it states that differences in work ethic attitude are based upon the ability of one to achieve higher social mobility. It almost seems to me to imply that the rest of the world is lazy because they are poor/developing...even though I know that's not what the author meant.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Week #9 Question #2
*Do you believe in the rationality, perfectability, and mutability premises? What social institutions and practices are based on these beliefs?
When examining the premises above I came to the conclusion that I do not believe solely in one, but in all when applied to different situations and circumstances. As stated on the text book, the rationality premise is deeply rooted in American law and government. An example of this not mentioned in the book is prison. In the United States people are put into prison to serve time, yes, but what is more stated is that they are there to be "rehabilitated". This process of rehabilitation or the making better of one's self fits directly into the rationality premise. The perfectability premise is also one which is rooted in American culture as we are a country founded on the Puritan principles of hard work and dedication (to God in the case of the Puritans and to various others to Americans). Our culturally passed down notion of "The American Dream" is based upon the same perfectability premise as, in order to reach the American Dream, one must dedicated themselves toward tireless and innovative work. While the first two premises obviously exist and are practiced in our own country today, they are man made constructs based upon reaching an intellectual ideal. The mutability premise, however, uses a natural standpoint to argue for that good physical and mental health are what is truly needed in order to advance. This too is becoming a more and more popular idea as more Green movements gain support and stress the importance of a healthy "Earth Conscious" diet and an environmentally conscious mindset.
When examining the premises above I came to the conclusion that I do not believe solely in one, but in all when applied to different situations and circumstances. As stated on the text book, the rationality premise is deeply rooted in American law and government. An example of this not mentioned in the book is prison. In the United States people are put into prison to serve time, yes, but what is more stated is that they are there to be "rehabilitated". This process of rehabilitation or the making better of one's self fits directly into the rationality premise. The perfectability premise is also one which is rooted in American culture as we are a country founded on the Puritan principles of hard work and dedication (to God in the case of the Puritans and to various others to Americans). Our culturally passed down notion of "The American Dream" is based upon the same perfectability premise as, in order to reach the American Dream, one must dedicated themselves toward tireless and innovative work. While the first two premises obviously exist and are practiced in our own country today, they are man made constructs based upon reaching an intellectual ideal. The mutability premise, however, uses a natural standpoint to argue for that good physical and mental health are what is truly needed in order to advance. This too is becoming a more and more popular idea as more Green movements gain support and stress the importance of a healthy "Earth Conscious" diet and an environmentally conscious mindset.
Week #9 Question #1
*Do you agree with anthropologist Ruth Benedict that we are "creatures of our culture" and that our habits, beliefs, and impossibilities are shaped by our culture? If so, how can we break through the limits of our culture?
Yes, I would have to agree with Ruth Benedict's statement that "we are creatures of our culture and that our habits, beliefs, and impossibilities are shaped by our culture". It is very true that that majority of what we learn on how to act and carry out the basic functions of life come from observed patterns in direct family and in society as a whole. Now, this is not to say that being born a human dooms you to be nothing more than a mimic. On the contrary, many do have the option of rebelling against cultural norms and sets. This decision to rebel and the ways in which the rebellion are carried out, however, often are rooted in the cultural norms and sets which are being rebelled against. For example (and a very loose one) a society may promote the color white as ritual garb. One who wishes to rebel may choose the opposite, black, but this choice is rooted in the cultural norm and set of white. Now we may choose to conform and rebel in ways which do not fit within Benedict's model and statement...but when culture is looked at as a whole it seems that Benedict's statement rings more true despite the various probabilities of will.
Yes, I would have to agree with Ruth Benedict's statement that "we are creatures of our culture and that our habits, beliefs, and impossibilities are shaped by our culture". It is very true that that majority of what we learn on how to act and carry out the basic functions of life come from observed patterns in direct family and in society as a whole. Now, this is not to say that being born a human dooms you to be nothing more than a mimic. On the contrary, many do have the option of rebelling against cultural norms and sets. This decision to rebel and the ways in which the rebellion are carried out, however, often are rooted in the cultural norms and sets which are being rebelled against. For example (and a very loose one) a society may promote the color white as ritual garb. One who wishes to rebel may choose the opposite, black, but this choice is rooted in the cultural norm and set of white. Now we may choose to conform and rebel in ways which do not fit within Benedict's model and statement...but when culture is looked at as a whole it seems that Benedict's statement rings more true despite the various probabilities of will.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Week #7 Question #2
2). Although nonverbal messages are more universal than verbal messages, nonverbals do not always carry the same meanings in other cultures. Can you give examples of some of the nonverbal displays that take on different meanings in other countries? If you have moved around within this country, have you ever encountered regional differences in nonverbal meaning?
An example of a nonverbal message which has a completely different meaning in the United States and other countries is the public display of men holding hands. In the United States I would venture to say that 9 out of 10 people, if questioned whether or not a pair of men who were publicly holding hands were gay, would state the pair were gay. This seems to be a culture wide norm here in the United States, but not in other countries. In the Middle East, for example, it is quite common to see grown men holding hands in public. Here, though, this is a symbol of friendship and in no way symbolizes anything remotely homosexual to the various Middle Eastern cultures involved. While I have no doubt that most Americans hold on to their ethnocentric views when observing this situation in public...but do people from the Middle East think all those guys up in San Francisco are just really good friends?
An example of a nonverbal message which has a completely different meaning in the United States and other countries is the public display of men holding hands. In the United States I would venture to say that 9 out of 10 people, if questioned whether or not a pair of men who were publicly holding hands were gay, would state the pair were gay. This seems to be a culture wide norm here in the United States, but not in other countries. In the Middle East, for example, it is quite common to see grown men holding hands in public. Here, though, this is a symbol of friendship and in no way symbolizes anything remotely homosexual to the various Middle Eastern cultures involved. While I have no doubt that most Americans hold on to their ethnocentric views when observing this situation in public...but do people from the Middle East think all those guys up in San Francisco are just really good friends?
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Week #7 Question #1
1). Because nonverbal messages can be ambiguous, they are open to misinterpretation. Have you ever been wrong about the meaning of someone's nonverbal message? Describe what happened. How can people increase the accuracy with which they interpret nonverbal messages.
One of the most interesting cases of a misunderstood nonverbal message(s), which I also found myself guilty of, is images used by the Hells Angels motorcycle club. Growing up on the East Coast of the U.S. motorcycle culture was something that only came to town with the yearly bike rallies. When I moved to Miami, they became even more rare. I grew up with a culturally learned notion that bikers were nothing but a gang on wheels and the Hells Angels, they were the worst of them all. I saw images of swastika covered jackets, SS lightning bolts wherever they could fit, skulls and cross bones on helmets, and defaced American flag patches. Needless to say the word "evil" seemed to fit quite well with my learned preconception of the Hells Angels. It was later that I read a book by Hunter S. Thompson, by the name of Hells Angels, which documented a few years of Thompson's life on the road with the motorcycle club as a freelance journalist. While Thompson in no way refutes that the Hells Angels are in every way a group of brutes who revel in an orgy of violence, rape, and the road, he was able to peer into the mindset of the Hells Angels themselves. This understanding of the workings of a Hells Angel's thought process allowed him to understand their use of symbols. Thompson came to the conclusion that the Angels didn't wear these hate symbols because they themselves were full of hate or evil, but rather because they enjoy instigating violence where ever and whenever possible. Thompson alludes to countless occasions in which a civilian attempted to fight an Angel due to worn symbols only to be gleefully beaten by the entire gang in response, just as if the entire scenario was a trap. So, while I and the rest of the United States were interpreting these images in a way which would seem normal in our culture, the Hells Angels knew this and used it against anyone unlucky enough to cross their path. Just as the Venus fly trap draws in its prey, so do the Hells Angels. This belief of Thompson's was reinforced when I met a group of first generation Angels who road with the infamous Oakland club, lead by Sonny Barger. They confirmed that many of the symbols they wore were just to get a rise out of people and tempt them into throwing the first punch. In the same conversation the entire group also adamant in stating that Thompson was a lunatic idiot who had no idea what he was talking about...one can only wonder. None the less, my notions of the Hells Angels were inherently wrong based upon my use of culturally learned interpretations of their symbols rather than taking an non-ethnocentric view and interpreting them as an Angel, and not as an American.
I believe a way in which people can educate themselves on nonverbal messages is to watch visual media from other countries. By observing television shows, movies, art, and people of other cultures, as represented in visual media, one could pick up on nonverbal messages and their meanings. Another way someone can increase the accuracy in which they interpret nonverbal messages is by attempting to leave any preconceived notions behind and interpreting the message through the lens of the observed, and not the observer.
One of the most interesting cases of a misunderstood nonverbal message(s), which I also found myself guilty of, is images used by the Hells Angels motorcycle club. Growing up on the East Coast of the U.S. motorcycle culture was something that only came to town with the yearly bike rallies. When I moved to Miami, they became even more rare. I grew up with a culturally learned notion that bikers were nothing but a gang on wheels and the Hells Angels, they were the worst of them all. I saw images of swastika covered jackets, SS lightning bolts wherever they could fit, skulls and cross bones on helmets, and defaced American flag patches. Needless to say the word "evil" seemed to fit quite well with my learned preconception of the Hells Angels. It was later that I read a book by Hunter S. Thompson, by the name of Hells Angels, which documented a few years of Thompson's life on the road with the motorcycle club as a freelance journalist. While Thompson in no way refutes that the Hells Angels are in every way a group of brutes who revel in an orgy of violence, rape, and the road, he was able to peer into the mindset of the Hells Angels themselves. This understanding of the workings of a Hells Angel's thought process allowed him to understand their use of symbols. Thompson came to the conclusion that the Angels didn't wear these hate symbols because they themselves were full of hate or evil, but rather because they enjoy instigating violence where ever and whenever possible. Thompson alludes to countless occasions in which a civilian attempted to fight an Angel due to worn symbols only to be gleefully beaten by the entire gang in response, just as if the entire scenario was a trap. So, while I and the rest of the United States were interpreting these images in a way which would seem normal in our culture, the Hells Angels knew this and used it against anyone unlucky enough to cross their path. Just as the Venus fly trap draws in its prey, so do the Hells Angels. This belief of Thompson's was reinforced when I met a group of first generation Angels who road with the infamous Oakland club, lead by Sonny Barger. They confirmed that many of the symbols they wore were just to get a rise out of people and tempt them into throwing the first punch. In the same conversation the entire group also adamant in stating that Thompson was a lunatic idiot who had no idea what he was talking about...one can only wonder. None the less, my notions of the Hells Angels were inherently wrong based upon my use of culturally learned interpretations of their symbols rather than taking an non-ethnocentric view and interpreting them as an Angel, and not as an American.
I believe a way in which people can educate themselves on nonverbal messages is to watch visual media from other countries. By observing television shows, movies, art, and people of other cultures, as represented in visual media, one could pick up on nonverbal messages and their meanings. Another way someone can increase the accuracy in which they interpret nonverbal messages is by attempting to leave any preconceived notions behind and interpreting the message through the lens of the observed, and not the observer.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Week #6 Question #3
One thing I found interesting in this chapter was the section titled factors affecting memory. I had already known previously of the phenomena of melding memories into one, and have even experienced this with my own memories. I did not know however, about such cases as the one examined by Pratkanis and Aronson. In cases such as this people were actually convinced that they had extensive involvement throughout their life time in events that they previously were unaware of (apparently most of these cases and events involve an extreme case of cultural taboo). I would have initially thought something throughout these lines to have been a case of clear cut brain washing. The fact though that these cases are advocated by the involved individual community makes it unique. It makes me wonder If these same constructs were at work in Salem.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Week #6 Question #1
1)Is it possible to perceive others without in some way judging or categorizing them? If so, how? If not, how can we make the judgments we do make more fair?
As an anthropology major I have been asked the same question when asked to examine various cultures through outsider's eyes. When an observer/participant of/in a foreign (not by distance but by knowledge) culture reacts to practices, beliefs, systems, or any other cultural product in a way which suggests the superiority/legitimacy of the observer/participant's own cultural products then the direct knowledge gained is tainted and is in need of further interpretation. This viewing of foreign cultures through one's own cultural lens is called ethnocentrism. At the core of anthropology lies the ethical debate of whether or not ethnocentric studies in fact yield "relevant" knowledge. While the core of mainstream anthropologists in every branch would side with the ethical standpoint of rejecting ethnocentrism and responding to foreign cultures and their cultural products in an open manner, one could also make an argument that anthropology has also been used quite often for the purpose of domination (ethnocentrism indeed). One of anthropology's famed mothers, Ruth Benedict, conducted a study during World War II which involved examination of Japanese media in order to further understand the culture and then systematically demoralize them. Her work was highly regarded by the U.S. military and was later published under the title, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (it is also interesting to note that in the past 3 years Benedict's work has again become very popular through out Asia as multi-national tensions increase with Japan). One could also fan the flames of conspiracy by stating that the recent torture/degradation techniques witnessed at Abu Gharaib were based on the insight of an anthropologist (or someone very culturally aware), but we may never know. None the less, ethnocentrism is a double edged sword any way you look at it. So, to answer the above question: yes, I definitely believe it is possible to perceive others without judging or categorizing them, however, whether or not we do is based on our own agenda.
NOTE TO INSTRUCTOR: I e-mailed you about this post. Please see e-mail 10/3 8am
As an anthropology major I have been asked the same question when asked to examine various cultures through outsider's eyes. When an observer/participant of/in a foreign (not by distance but by knowledge) culture reacts to practices, beliefs, systems, or any other cultural product in a way which suggests the superiority/legitimacy of the observer/participant's own cultural products then the direct knowledge gained is tainted and is in need of further interpretation. This viewing of foreign cultures through one's own cultural lens is called ethnocentrism. At the core of anthropology lies the ethical debate of whether or not ethnocentric studies in fact yield "relevant" knowledge. While the core of mainstream anthropologists in every branch would side with the ethical standpoint of rejecting ethnocentrism and responding to foreign cultures and their cultural products in an open manner, one could also make an argument that anthropology has also been used quite often for the purpose of domination (ethnocentrism indeed). One of anthropology's famed mothers, Ruth Benedict, conducted a study during World War II which involved examination of Japanese media in order to further understand the culture and then systematically demoralize them. Her work was highly regarded by the U.S. military and was later published under the title, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (it is also interesting to note that in the past 3 years Benedict's work has again become very popular through out Asia as multi-national tensions increase with Japan). One could also fan the flames of conspiracy by stating that the recent torture/degradation techniques witnessed at Abu Gharaib were based on the insight of an anthropologist (or someone very culturally aware), but we may never know. None the less, ethnocentrism is a double edged sword any way you look at it. So, to answer the above question: yes, I definitely believe it is possible to perceive others without judging or categorizing them, however, whether or not we do is based on our own agenda.
NOTE TO INSTRUCTOR: I e-mailed you about this post. Please see e-mail 10/3 8am
Week #6 Question #2
2).
Do you agree that men and women use language differently? In what areas?
While being at risk of sounding very non-PC, I would agree with the above statement when used generally. It is no secret that the majority of men and women rationalize their experiences in completely different ways. With that said, if communication is based off of one's rationale, then it would be easy to correlate a difference in the use of language along with a difference in rationality. Now this is not to say that I believe EVERY man and EVERY woman uses language in a way completely different from each other..on the contrary, many men and women purposefully use language geared toward the other sex to get their message across. I would feel comfortable stating, however, that when it comes to communication of personal emotions there is a HUGE difference in how both men and women use language to convey this to each other. Things that are more private in nature there seems to be a great difference in language usage, while those aspects of public life almost seem to have a set language associated with them.
While being at risk of sounding very non-PC, I would agree with the above statement when used generally. It is no secret that the majority of men and women rationalize their experiences in completely different ways. With that said, if communication is based off of one's rationale, then it would be easy to correlate a difference in the use of language along with a difference in rationality. Now this is not to say that I believe EVERY man and EVERY woman uses language in a way completely different from each other..on the contrary, many men and women purposefully use language geared toward the other sex to get their message across. I would feel comfortable stating, however, that when it comes to communication of personal emotions there is a HUGE difference in how both men and women use language to convey this to each other. Things that are more private in nature there seems to be a great difference in language usage, while those aspects of public life almost seem to have a set language associated with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)