Ranthropologist

Category: Culture & Society

  • 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.

  • Sheep and Goats

    Sheep and Goats

    When I am teaching, my goal is to pass on the basic principles and tenets of anthropology to my students. After all, they are taking an anthropology class with me, and I am obligated to teach them the fundamentals of the subject as summarized in the course description, whether it is Cultural Anthropology or Human Origins. But what I am really doing is using anthropology to teach them something much more useful and important: how to think. I don’t flatter myself that I am the best person in the world to teach them this, or that I am the first or only person who will expose them to the strategies of critical thinking. It is, however, a charge that I take extremely seriously, because I am deeply concerned about what seems to be a basic lack of critical thinking skills in the world at large. Because I am teaching college students I can at least reasonably expect that these young thinkers are only at the beginning of a process of becoming skilled at interpreting the world around them. I am also not arrogantly assuming that college educated people are the only ones who are good critical thinkers; nor do I subscribe to a corollary thought that being formally educated automatically means a person is a good thinker. I have encountered many a person with a college education who is nonetheless not skilled at thoughtful analysis; and I have met many people whose life experiences have honed their thinking skills far more sharply than a formal education has. I guess my point is that you find a broad spectrum of thinking ability in society at large, and it doesn’t necessarily correlate with education.

    Back to the point of what I do in the classroom. I find that anthropology is an excellent vehicle for helping students discover and practice new ways of thinking about the world. It teaches you to look at situations from multiple perspectives. As I ponder ideas and information, I often visualize the issue at hand as an object sitting in the center of a room, and I imagine myself walking around and around that object, looking at it top, bottom, and middle, prodding it, testing it, moving it to see how it looks in different positions. I imagine other people entering the room and describing the object to me from their perspective. Sometimes those other people see things I didn’t see, and open my eyes to original or alternative points of view. Sometimes, I still can’t see what they see, but I welcome their description of the object nonetheless. In anthropology, being open to other points of view is absolutely critical. We all bring preconceived notions with us to the field, but we are trained to shed those ideas as best we can and let the experience itself tell us what we need to know. The most magical moments can sometimes occur when our experience in the field makes us suddenly recognize things we had taken so deeply for granted that we weren’t even aware of our own perceptions (this can also be frighteningly disconcerting). Those moments can make me almost giddy with excitement. What makes me even giddier is introducing those moments to my students, and seeing the recognition on their faces of new ideas that, once introduced, bring on the “a-ha” moment of understanding.

    I have to remind myself that I am a professional in the study of human culture and behavior. It’s easy to forget that I, too, had to be taught how to think this way. I think this is why I often feel such deep frustration at the fact that so many people seem unable or unwilling to look at issues from multiple perspectives. I am more than happy to accept that, once someone has explored an issue from several angles, they can come to a rational, logical conclusion about what they see. I am also happy to accept that I can come to an equally rational, logical conclusion about the same issue that is nonetheless very different from another person’s. What I have a hard time accepting is people refusing to consider any view other than the one they originally brought to the issue, in spite of repeated opportunities to see things from another perspective.

    Over and over, I have heard people refer to those who blindly follow along with a single point of view as sheep. A sheep follows the sheep in front of it, and the lead sheep simply follows the shepherd. Those who rail against the sheep usually have a problem with the perceived leadership of the shepherd. What I find confounding is the failure of many to recognize that they are following a leader of their own. Those who label others as sheep may very well be members of a herd of goats, blindly following the leadership of the goatherd. Humans, in many ways, do have a herd mentality. Whether you are a sheep or a goat is immaterial if you are still blindly following the leader. Maybe the sheep and goats should spend some time talking to each other and learning about each others’ herds. Perhaps the sheep should follow the goatherd for a bit, and see what it’s like to walk in a goat’s hooves. The goats should do the same with the shepherd. In fact, all of us would do well to consider each others’ perspectives. Take the anthropological view. Strive to recognize your biases. Reach for those “a-ha” moments. Learn to really talk about what you believe and why you believe it, and learn to really listen to what others believe and why they believe it. Don’t fall for the easy way out by going for the ad hominem (or would it be ad ovinem?) sheep label. That’s too simple, and too dismissive, and not worthy of those who truly wish to have others take their point of view seriously.

  • Enjoy Your VD!

    Enjoy Your VD!

    It’s trendy to be anti-Valentine’s Day, so I’m not going to add to the cliches by ranting about how VD is a holiday invented for the benefit of greeting card companies, florists, and candy stores. I’m not particularly a fan of the day myself and have never felt the need to recognize it. However, I am concerned about how much of the advertising for VD perpetuates extraordinarily broad and negative generalities about gender relations.

    First, a disclaimer: I have no problem specifying a date on the calendar for celebrating love, whether romantic or platonic. One of the common complaints about VD is that “people should show their love all year, not just on a specific day.” I don’t disagree, but I think holidays can serve as ways to publicly or formally recognize everyday events or emotions by highlighting them on a specific date. Most of our holidays celebrate things that can have daily meaning; I am a proud US citizen every day, not just on July 4. That said, I think VD is one of the worst offenders for creating a forced sense of obligation and a shallow, sexist view of men and women. Specifically, I am concerned about the marketing of Valentine’s Day.

    If you watch television or use the internet, you have seen a commercial for Valentine’s Day. Flowers, candy, and jewelry are all de rigueur if a man – that’s right, only a man – does not want to spend VD in the doghouse. For women, the receipt of flowers, candy, and jewelry means they are obligated to reward the male giver with sex. And, if receiving sex is not the implied message of the commercial, then at least not being punished by a vindictive, angry female mate is the next best message. It’s true that some of the softer-toned commercials do not imply sex or domestic peace as the rewards, and focus instead on how jewelry, in particular, is a symbol of romance, emotional intimacy, and commitment… but this is still problematic in that it portrays women as being emotionally fulfilled by shiny trinkets. So at worst, women are childlike prostitutes who will reward men with sex in exchange for stuffed toys, pretty flowers, sugary snacks, and sparkly baubles. Men, on the other hand, are whipped slaves at the mercy of sex-withholding females, and must indulge her need for VD validation or else risk her wrath.

    I realize I am generalizing, but if you pay attention to the commercials you really can’t help but notice how simplistic the messages are. I really do have a problem with this, not just because the messages are potentially damaging, but also because, for once, I really don’t think that many people are falling for it. Maybe I have a soft spot on this, but I’d like to think that people who give their loved ones gifts for Valentine’s Day are doing so because they truly want to honor that intimacy. There’s nothing wrong with giving flowers and chocolates; they are the traditional gift of VD and that’s fine. But if people are doing it out of a sense of obligation or because they are afraid of being punished, then that’s the wrong reason. We are better than the commercials want us to believe. Accepting gifts from your partner does not mean you are obligated to have sex with him or her; ideally you share physical intimacy because you share emotional intimacy, and gifts are irrelevant to that relationship. Women do not have to have gifts to want to have sex with their partners. Men and women both can show they love their partners without the traditional trappings of Valentine’s Day; all they have to do is say it. The commercials are wrong.

    All that being said, there are definitely people who buy into the notion that Valentine’s Day should be an enormous production, and they hold their partners to ridiculously high standards for how it should be acknowledged. If a person really believes that their partner does not love him or her because they don’t go all out for VD, then you have a larger problem than sexist advertising stereotypes. You have a problem of critical thinking and communication. Our culture does teach men and women to fill some very specific roles in romantic relationships, but with open-minded communication and critical analysis we can step above this sort of gender hegemony and redefine our roles to suit all our interpersonal relationships, romantic and otherwise. The commercials may be wrong, but that doesn’t mean some people aren’t still fooled.

    I’ll end with this: men and women both, if you want something for Valentine’s Day, then say so. Don’t say you don’t care, then get hurt when your partner believes you. Communicate. And, even if you aren’t a big fan of the holiday, if your partner is, then do something for them and make them happy. If you are a big fan of VD, but your partner isn’t, then don’t ask or expect him or her to hang the moon for you. Find the middle ground. It’s about compromise, selflessness, give and take, sacrifice, communication, honesty – the things we should do for each other every day anyway.

  • Is It Okay to Laugh at People on the Interwebs?

    Is It Okay to Laugh at People on the Interwebs?

    There is a lot of funny stuff out there on the interwebs. Lots of the funny seems totally harmless, like ICanHazCheezburger, for example. How can anybody possibly be offended by funny pictures of cats? No one, I say. There is plenty more G-rated, totally inoffensive humor on the web where that came from. But then, there are sites like People of Walmart. This site dedicates itself to posting pictures of people taken in Walmart. Why is that funny? Well, because on any given day you can see pictures of people who look as if they have never had the pleasure of making the acquaintance of a mirror, or a shower, or any sense of propriety or self-awareness whatsoever. Bad clothes, bad hair, bad attitudes – People of Walmart has it all. The photos are accompanied by scathingly witty captions that have not even the slightest hint of empathy for the subjects. I find this website to be frequently laugh-out-loud funny.

    So here’s the question: is it okay for me to be amused by these pictures of folks who probably have no idea they are being posted and laughed about on a website? In spite of how jaw-droppingly awful or absurd some of these people look, they are still human beings. Is this the internet equivalent of pointing and laughing, just with the patina of anonymity to make it seem acceptable? Maybe I’m taking it too seriously, but I do wonder.

    Informal social control often takes the form of gossip, shame, or scorn. Within a tight-knit group, if an individual seems to deviate from what is socially acceptable, the other members of the group will let him or her know through their reactions. The reactions may be similar to what happens now when we look at people on the internet, and laugh, or gasp, or ridicule… but those reactions do not reach the intended targets. Gossip, in particular, has likely been around since human social groups first formed, but nowadays the gossip we share about those we see on a regular basis is supplemented by gossip about those we will never meet, e.g. celebrities. Yet the urge to gossip is the same with celebrities as it is with our regular group, because communication has changed to make it seem as if we have actual contact with the people we see on TV, in movies, and in magazines. It’s an ancient and long-adapted mechanism for helping people behave in ways that are the least disruptive to the group.

    So how does this all translate to me anonymously laughing at pictures of people on the internet? I have decided to conclude that my electronically-anonymized reaction is okay, because if I saw these people in real life, I would still laugh.

  • Culling the Herd

    Culling the Herd

    In simple societies with small, easily manageable populations (like hunter-gatherer groups or those that practice simple horticulture and animal husbandry), social control is a relatively simple thing to maintain. There are no written laws, no formal judiciary, and no law enforcement bureaucracy. Instead, there is gossip, shame, fear of the supernatural (e.g. gods, spirits, dead ancestors, witchcraft, or magic), and finally, ostracism, banishment, or death. The ways in which these social controls are applied varies from culture to culture, but the basic idea is the same: motivate people to follow the rules of the group. This is for the good of the individual as well as the good of the group, because when you are dealing with small populations, individual survival depends on group survival and vice versa. As populations get larger (as occurred inexorably with the advent and spread of intensive agriculture) social control becomes much more difficult. The same simple methods that work in small populations will often still work on a limited scale, e.g. within a family, neighborhood, church, or other small sub-group. But when it comes to the really big issues, bureaucracy becomes necessary. Rules must be codified into laws. Punishments must be defined, as well as the ways in which they are carried out. This is the system we are dealing with today.

    This system is not as well adapted to meeting our society’s needs, I think, as the ways of the hunters and gatherers were adapted to meeting their society’s needs. It is the best we can do when dealing with enormous groups of people and the myriad laws we are all tasked with obeying, but sometimes I think it would be simpler if we could just cull the herd. What I mean by this is, when a person’s guilt is without question, and the crime committed is one of violence against the group (and violence against an individual is also violence against the group), then we cull that person from the herd for everybody’s protection – not by locking them away, but by taking their life. The problem, morally, is that culling the herd requires absolute certainty of guilt. This was not a big problem in small groups – there was no need to convince a jury of peers, there was simply the evidence of that person’s behavior as witnessed by other members of the group, or even just the victim. The needs of the group outweighed the needs of the individual, and dangerous people were banished or killed outright.

    We are so disconnected from the lives of those around us, even though we are surrounded by other members of our group every day. They are in the cars on the freeway, in the checkout line, in the other houses on our block, but we have no idea what they are doing. This is not the way human beings have evolved to live, and so far we are not adapting very well to the needs of being members of enormous groups. Yet, we still feel the shock and outrage when a stranger in our community – someone we would never otherwise have met or even heard of – becomes a victim of one of those who should be culled from the herd. This, I think, is because we are still adapted to the belief that individual survival and group survival are linked. We still feel threatened in the same way that the members of a small group feel threatened when one of their own becomes dangerous. We feel the need to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and even other strangers from suffering the same horrible fate. How can we take that instinct, that adaptation, and use it to devise a better way of protecting the members of the group? How can we find better ways to recognize the individuals who must be culled? I’m not sure there is a way, but in the meantime, when we know with certainty that someone is dangerous, then I am all for culling the herd.

  • Check Out My New iShell!

    Check Out My New iShell!

    In my cultural anthropology class, I show a film called “First Contact” that details the first encounter of a highland New Guinea tribe with outsiders. The contact occurred sometime in the 1940s, and was between the tribe and a group of white Australian gold prospectors. The prospectors found the gold they were looking for in the highlands, and employed the native people to help them mine it. They paid the natives with shells, which the Australians brought with them by the hundreds, purchased for only a few dollars on the coast. In return, the Australians took the gold nuggets that the natives helped them mine from the interior rivers.

    My students, in reaction to this film, often point out the unfairness of the Australians taking away the natives’ gold. To this, I ask them to explain why it is unfair. “It’s gold!” they protest. “The natives are just getting worthless shells!” This is my opportunity to point out that one man’s gold is another man’s worthless pebble. This amply and, often to the students, shockingly, drives home the point that the things to which we assign value are often completely arbitrary. But, the real point is made when I then discuss the value of the gold to the natives today. No longer do the people of the New Guinea highlands value shells – something that was exceedingly hard for them to come by pre-contact (hence their value). Today, if the Australians had told them of the value of the gold to the world outside their valley, those very same natives from 1940 and their descendants could be much better off than they are now. But, the Australians conveniently – and deliberately, I have no doubt – continued to pay the natives in the shell currency they valued, along with items such as cloth and steel tools, all the while concealing the fact that just a few of the “worthless” gold nuggets they were hauling away could have kept the tribespeople in shells, cloth, and axes for generations to come.

    Today we live in a world where we still value arbitrary things. Just witness the explosion in businesses that will buy “your old gold jewelry, fillings, and coins!” Gold is worth more than ever, but at its base it is still just a shiny rock. Even more bizarre, when you really stop to think about it, is the fact that some of the arbitrary things to which we assign value are themselves simply symbols – abstractions that represent something else just as abstract. What I mean is that we value the symbolic signs of wealth: the brand name, the label, the job title, the very size of the LCD-HDTV screen. Is it really the car we value, or the shiny medallion that graces its hood? Is a flat screen LCD TV worth as much to us, symbolically, if it says, maybe, “BOB BOBSON ELECTRONICS” along the bottom instead of SONY? “I have the latest iPhone. Check out all my apps!” a friend may brag. A no-name phone still places and receives calls, probably has apps of its own, but if it’s not an iPhone or related high-status device, how does that affect its symbolic value? It’s no secret that marketers know this and capitalize on it for all it’s worth… and it’s also no secret that even if you know it, you’ll probably still fall for it.

    So what does value all come down to in the end? How much of what we value is based on want vs. need? All we really need, down to the bare bones, is food, water, shelter, and (I would argue) companionship. But what we want has, in many ways, also become what we need. Value translates into status – the status that comes from having the most and the biggest shells, or the most gold nuggets, or the biggest screen. Nothing has really changed – it’s only the arbitrary markers of what constitutes status today that have shifted.