Author: Ranthropologist

  • The Gift

    The Gift

    I have a very ambivalent relationship with Christmas, for several reasons. Being an atheist is part of it, but not the most important part, since most of the celebrations I attend are not religious (and I think the season has lost most of its overt religious overtones in any case). My ambivalence stems more from the orgy of materialism that happens this time of year. This is not a new story; many people lament the focus on gifting. But lately I have been lamenting it from a broader perspective. As I have done my gift shopping this year I have been more aware than ever before of the economic aspects of the Christmas season. In particular, I have been doing a great deal of thinking about the cheap seasonal items that litter the aisles of department stores from Neiman Marcus to Walmart. Of course the point is to get people to buy buy buy, but at what cost? Literally, that cost can be very low; for example, I saw a display of holiday-themed watches at Macy’s, bedecked with garish holiday motifs, selling for $9.99 and an additional 20% off on top.

    So, these cheap watches are retailing for around $8, which means they may have cost Macy’s $6, which means they were manufactured for perhaps $3… and they will probably last for maybe two holiday seasons before breaking or simply being tossed away. That, to me, is an environmental cost. In addition, there is a social cost in considering the wages paid to the overseas laborers who made the watch. To make and sell a watch that only retails for $8 probably means that the wages being paid the workers are vanishingly low. Is it worth all the associated costs to make it possible for us to buy this essentially disposable, unnecessary item?

    On the flip side of the cheap seasonal gifts is the focus on big-ticket items like gaming consoles, computers, phones, and the like. When did it becoming standard operating procedure for people of average income to buy gifts costing hundreds or even thousands of dollars? The newest iPad, for example, costs a minimum of $499 for the bare-bones version. A new iPhone can cost even more. The latest XBox is priced at around $550 – and that’s the holiday sale price for the unit with the fewest accessories. This level of gifting goes not just for adults but for children. My little cousin, who is not yet 10, asked for an iPod Touch and a Bose speaker to go with it. I don’t blame her for it; it’s what all the kids want, just like I wanted (and got!) the Barbie Dream Camper when I was around the same age. It just seems that the de rigueur toys are becoming more and more expensive, and people are more willing to go into hock to get them.

    Gifting has ancient cultural origins that are rooted in the concept of reciprocity. Generalized reciprocity is what happens when people who are very close do things for each other without expecting anything in return – things like household tasks, food procurement, and the like. It’s what people do to manage all that needs to be done in a small, tight-knit group and it has its modern-day equivalent in things like doing laundry, taking out the garbage, etc. Everyone contributes (or should) and no one expects payment. However, move outside the family group and reciprocity becomes more complicated. Balanced reciprocity requires that individuals provide mutual assistance – basically, if you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. Relationships can go sour quickly if one person doesn’t hold up their end by doing something for the other person in return. This is where things start to move from reciprocity to obligation. A person who has done many things for someone but hasn’t been paid back can gain power over that person, because favors owed are a form of currency. This is essentially the beginning of resource stratification and ultimately income inequality; those who owe are obligated to the person who gives, and those who owe eventually can become slaves (or, to put it in Marxist terms, proletariat). In his book Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches, Marvin Harris quotes an Inuit proverb that speaks to this idea: “Gifts make slaves just as whips make dogs.” I would argue that in many ways we are now slaves to an unbalanced system of reciprocity wherein we not only feel obligated to each other, but to an economic system that overwhelms us with messages convincing us we need things that in reality, we simply want. We are less in thrall to each other than we are to the entire capitalist ideology and the myriad hegemonic messages of status-seeking and vertical mobility that keep it firmly in place. And it is this system that compels us to spend $9.99 on a cheap watch to give to someone out of a sense of obligation more than a real desire to give them a gift. We’ve all had that feeling: “What am I going to get for great-aunt Martha? I know, here’s a cheap watch!” Is that really what we should be doing?

    All this may sound too complex to explain the simple idea of showing people we care about them by giving them a gift. That idea is still there, but I think the demonstration of it is what has gone awry. I believe just as much appreciation can be conveyed by a small but well-chosen token as by an extravagant gadget or bauble. And I think the joy of the season should be returned to appreciating things that we might not otherwise have. How can a thing be special when it is expected or demanded? When my grandfather was a boy growing up in the far northern reaches of Canada, he said he looked forward every December to the special and exotic gift to his family of a box of oranges delivered by plane. Just imagine being excited by such a thing today. Perhaps the thing to do is to remember the difference between want and need, both when giving and being asked what we would like to receive. I’m not suggesting that we should only ever give people socks and underwear, but simply that we remember what is really important: relationships, experiences, and the occasional meaningful gift instead of the orgy of expectations and obligations that characterize this time of year. We should remember that things do not make us who we are, and giving to or receiving things from people we barely know or see creates a web of reciprocal obligations that can spiral out of control and lead to cheap and pointless gifting and all its associated economic exploitation and environmental waste.

    In my final analysis, I’d like to see the whole idea of Christmas giving turned on its head by being happy with what we already have. As hokey and cliche as it sounds, let’s give of ourselves for the holidays. Let’s spend time together. Let’s enjoy something traditional that is symbolic instead of extravagant – like my grandpa’s box of oranges. Let’s stop giving things and give thanks instead.

  • Technology and Its Discontents: Alienation

    Technology and Its Discontents: Alienation

    As the industrial age took hold in the late 17th and early 18th centuries and began its saturation of the globe, a curious phenomenon began to take place. People who had once labored for themselves – doing what they needed to do to support themselves, their families, and their communities – began laboring for others. They quit their simpler lives and moved to bigger towns, then cities, seeking and finding employment in factories, assembly lines, and sweatshops, laboring to produce things over which they had no ownership. The logical outcome of a capitalist world system began to spread and solidify, requiring that people work for others to support themselves, but have no ownership of the fruits of their labor. Yes, these laborers were paid for their work, but unlike when people engaged in farming, hunting, small trades such as blacksmithing, horseshoeing, wheel-wrighting, candle and soap making, carpentry, and all the simple but vital labors for which people could once get paid, the only thing this new class of laborer owned was themselves. All they could sell was their labor.

    This is the microcosm of what is called industrial alienation. It’s what happens when all people can sell is themselves, and they have no ownership of the means of production. They become a commodity, no different than the raw materials used in manufacturing the things they are paid to make. In the modern world system of capitalism, most people can only sell themselves for the money they need to support themselves and survive. To an enormous extent in the Western industrialized world, this has meant that nearly everybody has forgotten how to survive in the way our ancestors did – by knowing actually how to find and produce food and shelter. Labor has become so extraordinarily specialized in this brave new world that most people no longer have any connection with the basics of survival. Even worse, we have become alienated not just from what we do, but from our very purpose for living. Why are we here? What is the point? Do I even matter? These are not questions asked in cultures where people are still able to support themselves with the knowledge of actual, physical, animal survival. That, itself, is the point: survival. In the face of securing it for yourself and your group, there is no need, no room, for existential questions. Those questions are created by alienation.

    This is a winding road to some thoughts about technology. Humans have always sought to answer the basic question of why we are here, probably since the dawn of the species, and have found a variety of answers (often in the supernatural and religion). Now, though, I think technology is filling the hole of our alienation. Specifically, we are filling our existential emptiness with social media. Posting, Tweeting, sharing, Instagramming – they all provide a sense that we matter. They give us a way to be acknowledged (or so we think) by others. They remind us: I exist. The urge, the compulsion, is so strong that we will risk our relationships, our jobs, our educations, our safety or even our lives to fulfill it by doing all those things while driving, or walking, or cycling, or eating, or watching TV, or at the movies, at work, at school, at a football game, at a wedding, a funeral, anytime, everywhere. Yesterday I could have mowed down a woman glued to her phone, scrolling endlessly, as she walked obliviously down the center aisle of a parking lot. I have sat with friends while they pretend to be engaging with me, but they are staring, staring, staring at the phone. I have been accosted with pictures, videos, websites, texts that the other person insisted I see. And, I have done most of those things myself. I understand.

    Humans are extraordinarily social primates. It is no surprise to me at all that social media has exploded into a frenzy of self-referential attention seeking. Humans are also status-seeking animals, and the feedback we crave from our social sharing is highly addictive. It is a constant lure for us to try to elevate or affirm our status amongst our peers. But as with anything, there can be too much. Just as the buzz of alcohol can make us feel attractive, funny, and smart, so can the buzz of our relentless technological distractions make us feel noticed, important, and liked (if not loved). But the alcohol buzz wears off, and so does the brief high we receive from seeing who has responded to our online presence. Alcohol can become an addiction, and so can technology. It is not a good way to fill the hole left by our alienation.

    I am not immune to the lure of technology, but I am thinking deeply about it and making some decisions about how much I am willing to let it intrude upon my life. I understand that there are also positive aspects to our use of phones and computers, et al (for example, the fact that I can write and share these thoughts). But at the moment I am deeply uneasy, and I am making a conscious effort to concentrate on the world outside the screens.

  • Mini Rant: Television Sucks

    Mini Rant: Television Sucks

    I went to the gym at lunch and had a choice of three TVs to tune into. I chose the one showing reruns of Law & Order: SVU over the two showing sports talk shows. I have never watched an episode of Law & Order of any kind. I am now very grateful for that. I know I can be a terrible snob, but seriously? This is what passes for quality television programming on the networks? It is unfathomable to me that such mindless, derivative, predictable dreck has ruled the airwaves for all these years. I have never been a fan of crime procedurals because they are predictable by definition; after all, they are about following procedure, right? But I was honestly shocked at how lame the dialogue was, how stereotypical the characters are, and how little nuance there was to the plot. Now that Breaking Bad has retired to the meth lab in the sky, I have been seriously contemplating canceling my cable altogether because other than sports, I don’t watch any shows (I do like The Walking Dead, which starts again soon, but I can live without it). I know there is good television out there but I don’t want to make the commitment. My stack of unread books just keeps getting higher, there are papers to grade, lectures to write, research articles to outline, crafts to make, friends to hang out with… I just don’t have time for television, and I think today’s shock just nudges me closer to cutting the cord.

  • Affording to Care

    Affording to Care

    As readers of this blog know, I advocate looking at an issue from multiple perspectives and using facts, logic, and an arsenal of critical thinking skills to reach a conclusion about just about everything. For some issues, this is easy. For others, it is very, very difficult. I am facing that difficulty right now. I don’t usually like to post about current events because I want my posts to be generally applicable instead of linked to a specific issue, but this post will be an exception. I am having an incredibly difficult time keeping any sense of perspective over the fact that the federal government shut down at 12:00 am on October 1, 2013 because of what seems to essentially be a game of chicken – or more accurately, a hostage situation. I just don’t get it. I am trying to remind myself that as much as I believe in my point of view, the people on the other side believe in theirs and have a right to it… but I am also reminding myself that sometimes, it’s okay to come to the conclusion that the other side is just. plain. wrong. This feels like one of those times to me.

    Much of my current state of mind comes from emotion, and I admit that it can color my analysis, but in this case I also think the facts are on my side. The thing is, this showdown over the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) is not just about facts; it’s about ideology. It’s about a fundamental disconnect between two ideological realms: one that believes the government has a duty to provide for all its citizens, and one that believes that individuals are solely responsible for taking care of their own needs. Of course, there are nuances to these two ideologies, and a broad spectrum of positions between their poles. But my training in anthropology has taught me about the structure of culture and society – from the simplest hunter-gatherer band to the most complex industrial civilization – and I am convinced that the hunter-gatherers have it right. These groups stress interdependence among their members, with an egalitarian structure that doesn’t allow for status hierarchies or any one person having more power or possessions than others in the group. In fact, hunter-gatherers must provide for each other, because the survival of individuals depends on the survival of the group. Group survival is paramount. In many industrial societies, this notion has been turned on its head. Status, materialism, and individual achievement are paramount. However, this does not mean the burden of the ruling class to provide for societal needs is negated; in fact, it becomes more important than ever, because a class-based, stratified social system is by its very definition a system that allocates more resources at the top, and fewer resources at the bottom. The bootstrap individualist will argue that any individual has the capacity, with hard work and gumption, to climb to the top of the ladder. This is loosely true, but it ignores the complexities of living within an entrenched class system. In a class-based system, the playing field is not level. When you are standing 100 yards behind the starting line when the gun goes off, you have to run harder and surmount more obstacles than the runners who start ahead of you… and those runners are apt to leave even more obstacles in their wake. And, of course, there are only so many spots on the winners’ podium, so even if you see it and keep running towards it, chances are the people already standing there will fight tooth and nail to retain their position.

    In many ways I believe that the hegemonic lie perpetuated by this system – that is, the lie that there is space on the podium for everyone and all it takes is hard work to get there – is the root cause of our current crisis. The fight to defund the Affordable Care Act is championed by those who believe it is unfair for government to provide care to its poorest citizens. It is fought by those who believe that the poor just don’t work hard enough, or don’t try hard enough, or are lazy or entitled or accustomed to government handouts. Unfortunately, there are examples of people for whom this is true; but I don’t think it is true for the vast majority of those who are too poor, too sick, or too underemployed to afford health insurance. A successful culture is defined as one that secures the survival of the individuals that comprise it in a way that is fulfilling for most of them, most of the time. Clearly we are not meeting that definition in the United States. Other industrialized nations are having similar troubles, but at least most of them seem to have figured out that taking care of people’s physical (i.e. medical) needs is one thing that government should be responsible for. Our individualistic hegemony has obscured the path to a successful culture and society, so that opponents of the health care act criticize it as “unfair” because money they consider theirs – that is, the taxes they pay – is being spent to subsidize health care for those unable to pay for it. It’s “unfair” because those without health insurance now have a way to afford it because it spreads the risk amongst a much larger pool and allows for much cheaper premiums. It’s “unfair” because low-income people are being subsidized with taxes from individuals and businesses when they should just be working harder so they can get off the dole. It’s “unfair” because Congress is “exempt” (forgetting, conveniently, that the ACA is meant for people whose employers don’t provide health coverage, which Congress – also known as the federal government! – does provide for both elected officials and their staffs). It’s “unfair” because the burden of keeping the population healthy is being borne by those higher up the status hierarchy. To me, this is like those people on the winners’ podium – who know damn well that space on the podium is limited – flaunting their trophies and doing end-zone dances instead of shaking the hands of their fellow competitors and offering to help them over some of the barriers that they themselves may not have had to face. Instead of acknowledging that we are all in the same race, and working to make that race an equal chance for all, the winners instead blame the other competitors for having to race on an uneven track that they had no hand in devising and have very little ability to change.

    As I said at the start, I have a very hard time maintaining my objectivity about this subject. All I can see is that a group of individualist ideologues is willing to take down the entire system just so that our weakest, most vulnerable citizens have no chance at even seeing the podium, much less standing on it. I know this part of my argument is not logical, but right now, with this situation, I can’t help but give some heed to emotion.

  • Mini Rant: Overheated

    Mini Rant: Overheated

    Southern California is in the grip of the first real heatwave of the summer. It’s hot. It’s humid, by SoCal standards. There is a lot of thunderstorm activity in the mountains and deserts. I would be lying if I said the heat wasn’t a bit much, but I also happen to be one of those people who would prefer to be too hot over too cold so it’s not getting to me that much. However, I would also be lying if I said I wasn’t incredibly irritated by the constant exclamations and complaints over the heat. If I see one more ridiculously stupid “news” article referring to how San Diegans are escaping the heat (BREAKING NEWS: MALLS AND MOVIE THEATERS ARE AIR CONDITIONED!) I am going to snap and start sabotaging ACs. Yes, it’s hot, and we all know it (i.e., no social media pictures of car or patio thermometers needed). But boy does this bitching start to sound like a case of “My tiara is so heavy it’s giving me a headache.” We live in a country where most people have air conditioning or access to air conditioning. Heat is no longer life-threatening to the majority (although sadly, there are still heat-related deaths amongst impoverished people in the United States who have no AC and no easy access to cool places). Yes, heat sucks sometimes. It makes you sleepy. It makes getting outside and getting things done uncomfortable. But have some perspective, people! AC is a very new invention. Humans have adapted to and survived heat conditions worse than this for millennia. In most parts of the world, they still do.

    Heat in Indian

    Photo by Saurabh Das  /  AP

    This photograph shows people in India in 2009 attempting to escape the 120° heat by sheltering under a bus. In May 2013, India had a heatwave that resulted in 500 heatstroke deaths in three days in the state of Hyderabad. I guess my point is that those of us who can escape the heat should have a little perspective before indulging in the constant carping about the temperature. I’m not saying we can’t acknowledge our own discomfort; I just want people to practice remembering how fortunate we are.

    This post is a preface for a new series to come, in which I talk about what people want vs. what they need, and how the high level of confusion between the two has led the world to a pretty perilous state. Meanwhile, I’m going to make myself a frozen fruit smoothie and enjoy the 78° setting of my thermostat, and feel fortunate that I have access to such relief.

  • Anti Anti-Bacterial

    Anti Anti-Bacterial

    I have a confession to make: sometimes I defrost chicken on the counter. I also eat pizza or leftovers that have sat out overnight. I frequently give a perfunctory sniff to milk that is still in my fridge past the date on the carton, and if it doesn’t smell wrong I drink it. I don’t always wash fresh fruit and vegetables before eating them. If my cheese is moldy, I trim it off then eat the remaining cheese. I’ve ingested potato salad that has baked in the sun. I don’t use a thermometer to make sure my meat has reached an internal temperature of 165 degrees before I remove it from the grill or the oven, I drink water straight from the tap, and I never, ever, use antibacterial wipes to sanitize the handle of my grocery store shopping cart.

    I believe we are doing ourselves a grave disservice with our obsession over cleanliness in this country. By now, most people have heard of the problems that have arisen from the misuse of antibiotics. We have bred superbugs by overprescribing antibiotics and overusing antibacterial products. This is natural selection, pure and simple: when you take antibiotics inappropriately, either by asking for them for illnesses that are not caused by bacteria (e.g. colds, flus, and other viruses) or by not taking the full course of medication for genuine bacterial infections, only the weak bugs get killed, and the strongest ones survive to pass on their DNA to the next generation. And, bacteria have very, very, very short generation times – as short as a few minutes in many cases (compare that to the human generation time of approximately 20 years). This scourge has been helped along by the proliferation of antibacterial household products – dish soap, laundry soap, cleaners, etc. – as well as a paranoid overabundance of hand sanitizers, antibacterial hand soap, and antibacterial wipes. I was stunned when handy popup dispensers of these wipes started appearing at the front of grocery cart stalls with friendly signs inviting shoppers to wipe down the cart handle. I was frustrated when I was unable to find non-antibacterial dish or hand soap at the store. And lately I have found myself furious at commercials that cluck disapprovingly at the fictional mom who uses *GASP* a dishrag to wipe her toddler’s high chair tray instead of a disposable, antibacterial towelette, or who fails to install a popup dispenser of disposable hand towels in her bathroom.

    What the hell has happened to us? Well, other than breeding superbugs, we are also breeding a generation of weaker, sicklier children. New research is showing the vital importance of the bacterial colonies that live on and in our bodies, colonies that we change – sometimes irreversibly – through our misuse of antibacterial products. When we take antibiotics, we kill the healthy flora in our gut along with the illness-causing bacteria. When we constantly douse children with antibacterial gel, we don’t allow them the healthy exposure to bugs that they need to build a natural immunity. Ever wonder why seemingly mild illnesses can kill when they are brought into contact with populations that have never experienced them? It’s because they didn’t get that exposure as children. In fact, in parts of the Amazon it’s actually illegal for outsiders to try to contact indigenous tribes because they have no immunity to modern diseases. Vaccines operate on this basic, simple principle: limited exposure to a pathogen (viruses, in the case of vaccines) trains the body to recognize it the next time, and the body is already primed with the appropriate immune response. The same is true of early childhood exposure to bacteria and other pathogens and allergens. Increases in asthma and allergies in kids appears to be directly correlated with being too clean.

    As far as I know, I have had food poisoning three times in my life. I’m sure there have been other instances but there’s only three that I can identify with absolute certainty. As far as I can tell, I have never gotten food poisoning from room-temperature defrosted or undercooked meat, unwashed produce, or countertop leftovers. I happily gnawed on the grocery-cart handle as a kid, and my mom never doused me with antibacterials. I haven’t always washed my hands before eating or even after using the bathroom. I have no allergies, no asthma, and a healthy, normally functioning immune system. I catch an occasional cold – maybe once a year – and haven’t had the flu since last century. Now, my experience is of course anecdotal, not scientific. But the research to show what our dependence on some mythical standard of cleanliness is doing to us is out there, and I think society as a whole would be wise to heed it. Yes, wash your hands, sneeze into your elbow, be aware of seasonal illnesses like the flu, and minimize your exposure to pathogens when possible, but be rational about it, and don’t be sucked in by the antibacterial panic.