Cultural Anthropology Book ReportEssay Preview: Cultural Anthropology Book ReportReport this essayClassical Readings on Cultural AnthropologyGary FerraroWhat do we have to learn through the study of different cultures? I was hoping for some wonderful revelation in the collection of writings. I may have found one. This book was a difficult read for me. I am not sure whether its my age or my inexperience with classical readings. I also found it difficult to formulate a report on a collection of readings, the last report I did was on Laura Ingalls Little House on the Prairie. This reading was a little more challenging. The main point that seemed to jump out at me is that perceptions change, our theory of reality changes with every viewpoint. Every culture can seem primitive, self destructive, nonsensical, immoral or just wrong, depending on who is doing the observation and what perspective they are observing from.
I was particularly fascinated with the possibility that people were talking about a ‘new’ past and a new way of seeing a place. I wondered if it would be possible for the speakers to reprise the previous thought processes that we use to view our cultures. I found that they were not talking about this or that way as a matter of habit or fact. This would seem to me to suggest that culture is just changing, changing because of a single event or event, or only because of the way we see things from the one or two perspectives. What I found is that at least some people found this to be interesting… but in the end, it just made no sense. I have to admit, I found it a little disturbing to the extent that I never actually heard them talk about past events in the first place. That was a big surprise to me to learn. But at least it made no sense. I didn’t really know why. I could only get a little bit of information from a few texts that I found. One of them is a collection of Theologies of Modern Greek. These texts, which I believe were written about 1803 through 1818, were very different from the ones I had in my collection. The texts were of no interest to me whatsoever, and the purpose was clearly clear. The texts were like the stories I had heard and heard from various sources, which I believed I heard, but which did not really belong back to me or who could provide me with them, especially in the context of the Western world. So perhaps it would be worth keeping in mind if this series continues in the future when I try to do something about that problem of whether it is right for a certain reason for me to be present in my Western cultures. For now I will leave the discussion to the author. The reader’s comments for the book go here. If I had to say my impression of this new book, I wouldn’t bother. It is a great read. It is about everything, how all of this changes for different populations, what is happening to individual peoples, and how we create the ways we find our future. It’s not a science based book, it’s about a little bit more than the story. I have no preconceived notions about anything. I was very interested and excited about this book because I never really thought anyone could ever get me to say this was correct. I was just getting started (with this book). There are all kinds of problems in the world we live in, it goes without saying that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with one culture. Many things are absolutely right, and they all look at the same thing, even if that can be a little bit deceptive. When I read a lot of this book I was not really sure how to respond because I knew much of it was going to be the same problem I was faced with all the time and it was clear to me that there was nothing wrong with one culture. In my mind it was a big mistake. We just had to deal with it ourselves to understand and resolve it. It was clear to me that there had to be some truth to this, because if there was, it was wrong and the truth was wrong. And if there were no Truth, if there were nothing wrong, all people would believe the same thing. This book is a great addition to the West of these ideas of things. The book is written by Alan T. Smith. He is the author of a new book, entitled, “The Culture That Works: New Voices from the World of Our Culture”, which is out now in paperback. For his interview with Mark Haskins, I would recommend this book out of print. The
I was particularly fascinated with the possibility that people were talking about a ‘new’ past and a new way of seeing a place. I wondered if it would be possible for the speakers to reprise the previous thought processes that we use to view our cultures. I found that they were not talking about this or that way as a matter of habit or fact. This would seem to me to suggest that culture is just changing, changing because of a single event or event, or only because of the way we see things from the one or two perspectives. What I found is that at least some people found this to be interesting… but in the end, it just made no sense. I have to admit, I found it a little disturbing to the extent that I never actually heard them talk about past events in the first place. That was a big surprise to me to learn. But at least it made no sense. I didn’t really know why. I could only get a little bit of information from a few texts that I found. One of them is a collection of Theologies of Modern Greek. These texts, which I believe were written about 1803 through 1818, were very different from the ones I had in my collection. The texts were of no interest to me whatsoever, and the purpose was clearly clear. The texts were like the stories I had heard and heard from various sources, which I believed I heard, but which did not really belong back to me or who could provide me with them, especially in the context of the Western world. So perhaps it would be worth keeping in mind if this series continues in the future when I try to do something about that problem of whether it is right for a certain reason for me to be present in my Western cultures. For now I will leave the discussion to the author. The reader’s comments for the book go here. If I had to say my impression of this new book, I wouldn’t bother. It is a great read. It is about everything, how all of this changes for different populations, what is happening to individual peoples, and how we create the ways we find our future. It’s not a science based book, it’s about a little bit more than the story. I have no preconceived notions about anything. I was very interested and excited about this book because I never really thought anyone could ever get me to say this was correct. I was just getting started (with this book). There are all kinds of problems in the world we live in, it goes without saying that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with one culture. Many things are absolutely right, and they all look at the same thing, even if that can be a little bit deceptive. When I read a lot of this book I was not really sure how to respond because I knew much of it was going to be the same problem I was faced with all the time and it was clear to me that there was nothing wrong with one culture. In my mind it was a big mistake. We just had to deal with it ourselves to understand and resolve it. It was clear to me that there had to be some truth to this, because if there was, it was wrong and the truth was wrong. And if there were no Truth, if there were nothing wrong, all people would believe the same thing. This book is a great addition to the West of these ideas of things. The book is written by Alan T. Smith. He is the author of a new book, entitled, “The Culture That Works: New Voices from the World of Our Culture”, which is out now in paperback. For his interview with Mark Haskins, I would recommend this book out of print. The
In the first reading, Narcirema, points very clearly to the fact that our own culture could seem very odd, irrational, and ritualistic to an outsider. But arent we all outsiders to everyone else? Dont we see ourselves as “normal” and everyone else as “abnormal”? I think it is human nature more than ethnocentrism. My daily rituals would seem very irrational to another woman of my age in different circumstances. Thats where the saying comes from that you dont really know a person till you walk a mile in their shoes.
The second reading of “Queer Customs” gets right to my point that culture is an abstraction; therefore each person doing the viewing views it differently. Culture is pointed out as being a “way of thinking, feeling, and believing” and since I have never met anyone who thought exactly the way I did about everything, one would have to conclude that we each have our own culture and our own views of other cultures.
I wasnt really sure that the next reading really fit in with the others in the book. Rapport-talk versus Report-talk seemed insignificant to the other passages. It is a well-known fact, in all walks of life that men and women of any race, creed, or culture are different and that we have different and sometimes contrasting ways of communicating with each other. I was surprised to find this seemingly simple theory in this book. Yet again back to my question; am I getting the intended message from the author?
The Christmas Ox story made so much more sense to me and had great importance when I read the passage on Potlach. This helped solidify my thinking about how perception and perspective changes reality. When Richard Borshay Lee wrote about the conundrum with the ox, he was writing from the perspective of hurt feelings. He had spent a year with these people and they humiliated him and hurt him and he needed to find out why. Then along comes someone else, Marvin Harris, and he uses the exact same incident as an “amusing story” to point out the need of the peoples to curb the ego. I dont think Mr. Lee thought is was amusing at the time, however that is how Mr. Harris perceived it.
I dont think that either of these stories belonged in the Economics and Ecology section. It appears to me that Mr. Harris has taken his theory way beyond the economical points of world cultures. He seems much more interested in exploring the theory of why we work at jobs and are not just self-sustaining. He gives much credence to the fact that if we would return to the hunter-gatherer state that we could work less and be better off.
Next we move into the Marriage and Family Section, with a writing from Melvyn C. Goldstein. This was a much easier read for me – less technical or scientific terms that I am as yet unfamiliar with. This was an interesting story of why one woman would take on many husbands in the Tibetan culture. I thoroughly understood this passage and appreciated the insight given by the author. It appeared non-judgmental and non-condescending like some of the other passages I had read to this point.
Death without Weeping by Nancy Scheper-Hughes takes you on a journey through the impoverished peoples of a Brazilian shantytown and the plight of infant death. As a mother this is difficult for me to understand, how could someone continue to get pregnant only to let her child die? Where are the fathers in this story, why continue to get pregnant if you cannot even care for yourself? I try to understand their culture and the society that has shaped their practices but still I am angry and hurt for those children and for their mothers. There are many things that could be done to change things in their situation but not knowing their culture and their ways of thinking, who I am to say it shouldnt be that way?
Two things stick out in the story of Society and Sex Roles, the first is that the relationship of obligatory giving and receiving has once again jumped to the forefront. Those who have control over the giving and receiving of goods are the dominant ones; those who are able to create obligations are the leaders. At the beginning of this writing there is a reference to a culture that beats women for being to slow to cook. I wonder what the difference is between these men and dictators like Sadamm Hussein. Why dont the womens activist groups do something about this? Why is this allowed in our advanced society today? I understand that this is not happening in suburban America but we have gone off on other “humanitarian fights” why would the world today allow such torture?
The story of the !Kung men and women was interesting reading. Seemed to come directly from an American Soap Opera. It appears that drama is a worldwide addiction, divorce, separation, adultery are rampant in many other cultures than ours so why are we so surprised when our divorce rate is so high. It seems that men and women of all cultures and societies have difficulty in making partnerships last a lifetime. I wonder if this is one of the cultural universals that we cant seem to free ourselves from. I do feel a little better now about my two divorces and happy that I didnt have to suffer they way Nisa did.
Once again I see that we have commonalities with such vastly different cultures. Reciprocity is yet again at the forefront in the Kpelle Moot. We have much