* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download SOC1016A-Lecture
Survey
Document related concepts
American anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Dual inheritance theory wikipedia , lookup
Cross-cultural differences in decision-making wikipedia , lookup
Social anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Economic anthropology wikipedia , lookup
Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth-Century Bali wikipedia , lookup
Cultural relativism wikipedia , lookup
Cultural ecology wikipedia , lookup
Repatriation (cultural heritage) wikipedia , lookup
Intercultural competence wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
SOC1016A-Lecture Modes of Thought Last time Witchcraft among the Azande 1. Functional explanations 2. Symbolic dimension. Making sense of life A different logic? More on alternative rationalities How can we make sense of the acts and emotions of distant peoples (in space, in time)? Is it possible? Is it right? 1. Cannibalism 2. The killing of Captain James Cook Cannibalism The discourse of cannibalism in the ancient world (Strabo) and in early modern Europe (early colonialism). William Arens, The man-eating myth: anthropology and anthropophagy (1979) Evidence of cannibalism as a custom is scarce, and arguments in favour of its existence unusually sloppy. Universal attribution of cannibalism to different/enemy peoples. “Cannibalism” accompanied the colonial expansion of the Western powers. Arens criticised: 1. Ecological explanations (e.g. lack of proteins) 2. Symbolic explanations (Atzec rituals) What is interesting is our fascination with cannibalism, and its continuous presence in anthropological writings. In other words, its ideological use. A case-study: the “kuru” Deadly neurological disorder. Recorded in Papua New Guinea. How is the infection transmitted? Cannibalism seems an obvious explanation (Gajdusek, Nobel Prize in 1976). Conclusions Universal phenomenon: idea of others as cannibals (i.e. non-human) Uses of the discourse of cannibalism in order to establish form of cultural/political hegemony. Today? See articles in the Guardian Anthropologists needed anthropophagy to mark a radical difference. (Disagreement on this point: see Keesing on the Atzec and kuru). The killing of Captain Cook Opposite ways of assessing cultural difference: 1. Marshall Sahlins 2. Gananath Obeyesekere Sahlins’ interpretation There are 2 distinct cultural systems at work here. We need to refer to them to make sense of actions. Cook arrives at the time of Makahiki ceremony. He is believed to be the god Lono. He has entered a specific web of ideas and practices. His final move breaks the pattern and creates a cosmological disorder/political upheaval. He is killed to keep the structure intact. Obeyesekere’s interpretation The deification of Cook is a Western myth, a myth of conquest and imperialism. Hawaiians were acting out of a universal “practical rationality” (≠ Bloor and Winch). There were pragmatic, intelligible reasons (internal politics) Political motivations: Sri Lankan / Polynesians Sahlins’ response Obeyesekere is the real imperialist here, as he attributes Hawaiians a Western way of reasoning. He is denying the Hawaiians the right to speak for themselves. He shares the same presuppositions as Levy-Bruhl (“primitive mentality”). Conclusions What divides them is not matters of fact but the way in which we should understand cultural difference: 1. Substantial phenomenon (Sahlins) 2. Superficial phenomenon (Obeyesekere) Which takes us to where we started today: the nature of cultural difference, how to understand it and the moral / political implications of this task. Review by C. Geertz in The New York Review of Books (30 Nov. 1995)