British Structuralism and the Ethnographers Magic - Assignment Example

Summary of Readings Week 2 Reading 1 Introduction: The Subject, Method and Scope of Inquiry Immersing in the lives of its subject is a crucial activity in an ethnographer’s work to help him understand “a real native’s mentality or behavior” (Malinowski, C., p.5) as his subject. It is a necessary step in fieldwork so that an ethnographer can capture the true picture of tribal life which can be only be achieved through patience and applying systematically the various rules of common sense and proven principles. Knowledge of the criteria used in modern ethnography and its importance, working independently among his subjects, and applying various methods of data collection by socially interacting with his subjects are the three methods that an ethnographer can use in studying his subjects. Working independently with an ethnographer’s subjects helps them become accustom to his presence without being wary and will stop seeing him as someone disturbing his subjects. Further, it will help his subjects to be not “alarmed and self conscious” (Malkinowski, p. 7) of his presence. In doing so, the ethnographer can learn native etiquettes that can make him more acceptable with the natives or his subjects. The ethnographer should investigate in its first occurrence anything “dramatic or importance” (Malkinowski, p. 8) that occurs in the lives of his subjects which is only possible if he lives among them. Also, it is easier to investigate a situation that has just recently happened because the ethnographer’s subjects are just too eager to talk about it. Further, having a good grasp of theories and updates on its latest applications is important in gathering field data. Week 2 Reading 2 The Limitations of the Comparative Method of Anthropology (Boaz, F., 1966) Cultural research has the objective of “finding the process by which certain stages of culture have developed” (Boaz, F.1996:276). Its ultimate objective is not limited to the customs and beliefs of its subjects but understanding why such customs and beliefs are there or simply knowing its “history of its development” (Boaz, 1996:276). This is going against the usual belief of anthropologists that anthropological studies should be limited to the research of “laws that govern the growth of society” (Boaz, 1996:270). The comparative method of anthropology is a method that compares the varied customs and beliefs and finding out its common “psychological cause” (p.276) for it to occur in the history of cultural development. Another variation of this comparative method is studying the customs and beliefs in detail versus the tribe’s total culture as well as looking into their geographic distribution in relation to their neighboring tribes. This field investigation of cultural development results into revealing three scenarios or information namely environmental condition, psychological factors, and historical connection of the growth of culture using the two information first mentioned. Doing and knowing this reveal the histories of cultures of various tribes who are the subject of anthropological study. Inquiring about the history of culture should be the important validation that anthropology as a science must implement before accepting certain facts as evidence. Thus, it is very important to compare the materials collected during anthropological research, test it and ensure that uniform process of comparability testing should be implemented for more valid results. Week 3 Reading 1 Levi Strauss and British Structuralism Levi-Strauss’s impact on British social anthropology is important information. His influence in Britain started in 1960 though his work sprouted in the 1950s which is timely in the midst of a growing boredom for conventional anthropological theories. Also, the British Empire is falling apart at that time which added to the clamor for theoretical orientation. The leaders of British neo structuralism who are promoting the ideas of Levi-Strauss are among the brightest students during this period; they have formed a secret society to promote his ideas (p. 169). Levi-Strauss’ key work is about the system of kinship which influenced many anthropological discussions and studies during the 1950s and 1960s. Reciprocity is considered as the key concept in understanding his views of the system of kinship. It facilitates exchanges particularly in marrying off women. The concept outlined a rule that incestuous relationship is banned in marriage and that women must be exchanged to men who are not within their kinship. This is the source of making incest as a taboo in society. Levi-Strauss outlined three types of marriage exchange which revolves around the concept of reciprocity. Generalized, restricted and delayed reciprocal are marriage exchanges that describes how rules of marriage are developed and consequently structure kinship. Generalized exchange involves marriages among many groups that are not in kinship with each other. Restricted exchange involves marriages between two groups ultimately leading to marriage between cousins in the next generation. Delayed reciprocal exchange happens when one marries another from another generation. Week 3 Reading 2 The Ethnographer’s Magic Fieldwork in British Anthropology from Tylor to Malinowski (Stocking, G.) Fieldwork is considered to be the “hallmark or social/cultural anthropology” (Epstein cited by Stocking). It started from collecting ethnographic data from travel accounts during the pre-promethian period. Anthropologists at this period are called couch anthropologist documenting their visions of the stages of the history of human culture. Later on, Tylor developed the method of using questionnaires or survey to gather cultural data for anthropological use which give rise to the method of using Notes and Queries which ultimately led to the establishment of British Association of anthropologists. At another period, missionaries were the one who gathers anthropological data particularly in cultures of society they spread their missionary work. Later on, academically trained scientists replaced missionaries in gathering anthropological data since they are more objective in the interpretation of data they gather. These so called naturalists include Alfred Cort Haddon who uses anthropological expeditions to gather cultural data of primitive people. Another naturalist is Spencer who uses exploration and immersion to gather information on the marriage rituals of Australian aborigines by witnessing it personally. Haddon later on promoted and reiterated the need for trained field anthropologists to gather accurate and personalized data using intensive study and not just random specimen from the places of anthropological exploration; hence differentiating “survey from intensive work” (Stocking, p. 81). It was during this time that the concept of “genealogical method” (Stocking, p. 86) was developed to address solution to ethnographic problems. Thereafter, during 1912, a revised version of Notes and Queries was created. Week 4 Reading 1 The Interpretation of Culture: Selected Essays (Geertz, C., 1975) Toward an Interpretative Theory of Culture Culture is the origin of the field of anthropology. Its analysis is not “experimental science in search of law but an interpretative one in search of meaning” (Geertz, C., 1975:5). Ethnography involves creating rapport, choosing research sources, transcribing text and genealogies, mapping and keeping a journal but this is not its main definition but on the level of effort given in doing these things. The ethnographical data gathered are not owned by the anthropologists but from those people involved in the development of culture within a society. These data is sort out based on its significance by distinguishing “unlike frames of interpretation and would move on to reveal why such situation occur during a systematic understanding” (Geertz, 1975:9). The ethnographer pursues data collected from complex structures which he must be able to understand and reveal through textual and tabular presentation. Culture is located in the hearts and minds of men. It is composed of “psychological structures” (Geertz, 1975: 11) guiding the behaviors of individuals and groups within a society. Thus, it is necessary to set the rules systematically to understand the ethnography of the culture of a society. It exists in real situations which makes it necessary for anthropologists to draw out the distinction between a tool of representation and substantial content in cultural analysis (Geertz, 1975: 16). Effective treatment of culture is through isolation of its components and characterizing the relationship among these components. Characterizing ethnographic description of culture can be interpretative, social discourse, and interpretation of social discourse for use in empirical data. Week 4 Reading 2 On Key Symbols (Ortner, S., 1973) A symbol is a key when it is an important source to publicly manifest a culture and is available for field observation and available for one’s reflection. It should be present within the organization and its system of “cultural meaning’ (Ortner, 1973: 1343) that guides a person to live a certain culture. In short, it should be substantive enough and inherent enough in the development of a culture for it to be considered key. Thus, the notion of “key symbol” (Ortner, 1973: 1338) in anthropological analysis is developed. The two methods of recognizing a symbol as key to cultural analysis are (1) analyzing it for its components and relating it to the figures and images of cultures, and (2) observing an object that is of interest to a culture and analyzing its meaning (Ortner, S., 1973: 1339). There are many symbols present in a culture thus it is necessary to break down these many symbols into different varieties for differentiation using summary and elaboration. Summary symbols are considered sacred or revered in a culture such as a flag or a fossil that can be summed up or express to represent the participants to a culture in an emotional way to express what the “cultural system means to them” (Ortner, 1973: 1340). Elaborating symbols, on the other hand, is the opposite of summarizing symbols since it provides a tool to sort out complicated “feelings and ideas making them comprehensible to one’s self” (Ortner, 1973: 1340) and are not considered sacred. Week 5 Reading 1 Works and Lives: The Anthropologist as Authors (Geertz, C., 1988) Being There: Anthropology and the Scene of Writing Writing ethnographical findings and constructing it into text and tabular forms are part of the work of an ethnographer or anthropologists. It is necessary work for him to be able to share his findings from his experience of a certain culture. It is an important task to convince people of his factual findings from fieldworks. Writing is a difficult task for an ethnographer compared to his experience in immersing himself into the culture he is trying to study. Anthropologist as an author performs a certain function while as a writer he only performs an activity. As an author, he writes the experience and findings he got from immersing in a culture. He has the goal of using text to communicate his findings and make others understand and appreciate his discoveries of culture. Anthropological authors like Claude Levi-Strauss, Edward Evan Evans-Pitchard, Bronislaw Malinowski and Ruth Benedict are exemplary figures in the field of anthropological literature. They have authored many literatures that guide several discourses. Levi-Strauss wrote literatures that showed how anthropological literature should be written by showing the reality of culture in his writings. He showed his readers that he himself is present in the situation he is writing making its credible. Evans-Pitchard’s writings are direct, assuring and structural which shows clearly his ethnographical work in relation to culture. Malinowski is well known in anthropological literature for making his writing as a self revelation of anthropology. Finally, Benedict’s writings are considered to be self reflective on the issues of anthropology mixing cultural information with her own commentary. Read More