3 ms·

But on your other point, it is one thing to dispassionately note the behaviours of others, however this does not preclude having an opinion or forming a persona

But on your other point, it is one thing to dispassionately note the behaviours of others, however this does not preclude having an opinion or forming a personal moral judgement on those behaviours. I think it does preclude taking a very broad line though, and studying the constructs and how a culture fits together tends to make folks a lot less prone to advocacy. This doesn't mean that criticism of another culture is out of the question--- there is a lot of great cultural criticism that comes out of this. Examples that come readily to mind include criticisms of our (in the US) trust that Obstetrics is better than Midwifery (statistically, midwifery has better outcomes on the whole, and this is optimized when midwives are the primary care providers for all lower-risk pregnancies and childbirths), criticism of how the Morroccan henna first-marriage ceremonies entrench patriarchy, and more. But these are very detail-oriented criticisms which tend to address specific cultures, and look at them in ways which are very detail-oriented. Even the anthropologists who have criticized things like female genital cutting in Sudan have tended to note carefully how it fits into culture, and tended to avoid the inflammatory activist rhetoric (and in many cases argued even more forcefully against being overly activist on the issue). You will probably never see an anthropologist endorse a global campaign like this, because the sorts of thinking are very different. So you are right, it doesn't preclude an opinion of the way a specific culture does things. But it does seem to preclude arguments based on natural rights. BTW, great book on this topic, which over and over addresses questions of criticism of other cultures and its place in anthropology: "Deeply Into the Bone: Re-Inventing Rites of Passage" by Ronald Grimes. To say it is inspired by van Gennep's classic anthropological work "The Rites of Passage" would be an understatement. Edit: To the downvoters: One of the reasons why broad lines are usually avoided is that dynamics are rarely simple. For example, in Africa, you have long-standing patterns of European meddling in local cultures, and consequently large-scale activism from the West against female genital cutting more or less frames that practice as one of nationalist resistance.

ktizo 14y ago
You will probably never see an anthropologist endorse a global campaign like this, because the sorts of thinking are very different. Given that the American Anthropological Association is quite happy to weigh in on exactly this subject politically, I am not entirely sure that you are correct. the AAA Executive Board issued in 2004, the following statement in response to President Bush’s proposal for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage: The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.
- einhverfr 14y ago
  Their statement is correct, but that is hardly a global campaign of this sort is it? I mean I read that statement as basically saying that the arguments in favor of the change to our system of laws are anthropologically flawed. I don't see that as taking a stand on the matter globally. I certainly don't see them saying that if the Hopi don't allow same-sex marriage that they are in violation of the human rights of the members of their society. Of course as far as different family structures, these include polygamous families, and other things like the Greek model (heterosexual, monogamous marriage with heavily circumscribed homosexual relationships filling important social roles in parallel). Same sex marriage could be part of it but it doesn't have to be. They aren't saying "you must recognize SSM" just that it is misguided to pass a constitutional amendment against if that's the fear. It could even include the wonderfully complex polygamy pattern portrayed in the Mahabharata, where the princess Drupadi has five husbands, each of which had at least one other wife.
  - ktizo 14y ago
    I am not sure of your point that it doesn't count because it is discussing the US. Anthropology applies just as much on a street corner in Delaware as it does in the middle of the Amazon. But ok, here's some more, and two of them are global. Perhaps I am researching the wrong sort of anthropologists. Declaration on Anthropology and Human Rights Committee for Human Rights American Anthropological Association ...As a professional organization of anthropologists, the AAA has long been, and should continue to be, concerned whenever human difference is made the basis for a denial of basic human rights... http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/humanrts.htm http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/humanrts.htm American Anthropological Association Statement on Laws and Policies Discriminating against Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Persons ...the American Anthropological Association will henceforth sign no contracts for any of its annual meetings in any state or local municipality which has such laws or policies discriminating against lesbian, gay or bisexual persons... http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/discrimination.htm http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/discrimination.htm AAA letter to support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ...we wish to express our grave concern for the status of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in the ongoing effort to have it approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations... http://www.aaanet.org/press/pdf/20070611120331.pdf http://www.aaanet.org/press/pdf/20070611120331.pdf
fingerprinter 14y ago
I'll never understand why people say outsiders cannot judge or critique other culture's practices. Of course we can. If society A and society B, who have never come across each other before, were to meet, two-way judgement would be going on immediately (not to mention intrigue, wonder, learning, questioning etc etc). It is just one among many things that would happen. And it should. It is how we advance as a world and humanity in general. And today, we can form opinions and make judgments. Just today I saw this in my news feed: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48105731/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48105731/ns/world_news-south_and... Do you think there is an argument that can be made that justifies this (btw, if you say "yes", we have bigger issues so we can just stop now)? Of course not. We have an opinion, formed a judgement and deemed this action morally corrupt and no way justifiable, no matter the beliefs of the society. Lastly, on the matter of right-wrong and opinions, I'll leave this quote from Richard Dawkins: “...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.” ― Richard Dawkins
- einhverfr 14y ago
  I never said we can't critique. However such a critique needs to take into account the totality of the other culture. It's not enough to say "everyone must recognize same-sex marriage." The critique needs to be bounded to the other culture and look specifically at it. My comment was against global campaigns. If we want to talk about a specific culture we can do that. There are huge dangers that come with the view that we can just remake the world in our cultural image. That's the view I am arguing against. If we are going to critique other cultures, we might at least make sure we are informed about them and understand exactly what we are critiquing first. As to your Dawkins quote, I would respond with "and more often, they both are." . Edit: Additionally... I would suggest that if we build our own society to be the most just one we can manage, then other cultures will adopt whatever they like from our society. If you look at Malaysia for example, despite the fact that it is a constitutional Islamic monarchy, the clear influence of the US constitution and structure in its founding is evident. It is in this way that the world is made better, not in remaking the world in our own image.

ktizo 14y ago

You will probably never see an anthropologist endorse a global campaign like this, because the sorts of thinking are very different. Given that the American Anthropological Association is quite happy to weigh in on exactly this subject politically, I am not entirely sure that you are correct. the AAA Executive Board issued in 2004, the following statement in response to President Bush’s proposal for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage: The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.

einhverfr 14y ago
Their statement is correct, but that is hardly a global campaign of this sort is it? I mean I read that statement as basically saying that the arguments in favor of the change to our system of laws are anthropologically flawed. I don't see that as taking a stand on the matter globally. I certainly don't see them saying that if the Hopi don't allow same-sex marriage that they are in violation of the human rights of the members of their society. Of course as far as different family structures, these include polygamous families, and other things like the Greek model (heterosexual, monogamous marriage with heavily circumscribed homosexual relationships filling important social roles in parallel). Same sex marriage could be part of it but it doesn't have to be. They aren't saying "you must recognize SSM" just that it is misguided to pass a constitutional amendment against if that's the fear. It could even include the wonderfully complex polygamy pattern portrayed in the Mahabharata, where the princess Drupadi has five husbands, each of which had at least one other wife.
- ktizo 14y ago
  I am not sure of your point that it doesn't count because it is discussing the US. Anthropology applies just as much on a street corner in Delaware as it does in the middle of the Amazon. But ok, here's some more, and two of them are global. Perhaps I am researching the wrong sort of anthropologists. Declaration on Anthropology and Human Rights Committee for Human Rights American Anthropological Association ...As a professional organization of anthropologists, the AAA has long been, and should continue to be, concerned whenever human difference is made the basis for a denial of basic human rights... http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/humanrts.htm http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/humanrts.htm American Anthropological Association Statement on Laws and Policies Discriminating against Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Persons ...the American Anthropological Association will henceforth sign no contracts for any of its annual meetings in any state or local municipality which has such laws or policies discriminating against lesbian, gay or bisexual persons... http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/discrimination.htm http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/discrimination.htm AAA letter to support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ...we wish to express our grave concern for the status of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in the ongoing effort to have it approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations... http://www.aaanet.org/press/pdf/20070611120331.pdf http://www.aaanet.org/press/pdf/20070611120331.pdf

fingerprinter 14y ago

I'll never understand why people say outsiders cannot judge or critique other culture's practices. Of course we can. If society A and society B, who have never come across each other before, were to meet, two-way judgement would be going on immediately (not to mention intrigue, wonder, learning, questioning etc etc). It is just one among many things that would happen. And it should. It is how we advance as a world and humanity in general. And today, we can form opinions and make judgments. Just today I saw this in my news feed: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48105731/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48105731/ns/world_news-south_and... Do you think there is an argument that can be made that justifies this (btw, if you say "yes", we have bigger issues so we can just stop now)? Of course not. We have an opinion, formed a judgement and deemed this action morally corrupt and no way justifiable, no matter the beliefs of the society. Lastly, on the matter of right-wrong and opinions, I'll leave this quote from Richard Dawkins: “...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.” ― Richard Dawkins

einhverfr 14y ago
I never said we can't critique. However such a critique needs to take into account the totality of the other culture. It's not enough to say "everyone must recognize same-sex marriage." The critique needs to be bounded to the other culture and look specifically at it. My comment was against global campaigns. If we want to talk about a specific culture we can do that. There are huge dangers that come with the view that we can just remake the world in our cultural image. That's the view I am arguing against. If we are going to critique other cultures, we might at least make sure we are informed about them and understand exactly what we are critiquing first. As to your Dawkins quote, I would respond with "and more often, they both are." . Edit: Additionally... I would suggest that if we build our own society to be the most just one we can manage, then other cultures will adopt whatever they like from our society. If you look at Malaysia for example, despite the fact that it is a constitutional Islamic monarchy, the clear influence of the US constitution and structure in its founding is evident. It is in this way that the world is made better, not in remaking the world in our own image.