|
|
| |
Current
Anthropology
Brain, James L. Sex, Incest, and Death: Initiation Rites Reconsidered Current Anthropology, June 1977 Vol. 18, No. (2): 191-207 The concepts and ideas James L. Brain reconsiders in his article Sex, Incest, and Death, give insight on why societies develop initiation rights and what they mean. Brain s discussion focuses on the patterns of behavior that are genetically transmitted or diffused through society from the early periods of human kind. His review studies the innate social interactions and the rights of passage within given cultures. Brain's accounts within this article explore that culture is potentially biologically shaped. Brain also explores the theory of the mind as a part of the physical body subject to the pressures of evolution and adaptation wit! hin any given society. Brain considers that there are social traits that influence the power of decision making and this process allows humans to develop according to cultural stipulations. He expresses that human societies adapt to this process and focus on the areas of sexuality, the fear of death and the anxiety about incest (194). Brain believes that societies maintain control over these issues by adaptive reasoning. Initiation rites help distinguish the differences within puberty both socially and physically. Brain also explores the transition into adulthood and he believes theses characteristics are innate. This essay focuses on the belief that physical and social science can be explained by the process of the human psyche based in sex, incest, and death. Brain emphasizes the act of self preservation, starting with self maintenance. Brain explains that one genetically acquired trait is the need to set up norms of conduct to institutionalize behavior (192). Brain maintains that humans do in fact clean themselves after defecating to prevent disease and sickness. Brain also uses the idea of self-preservation as a parallel to retaining memory through time and space as part of the same psychological and cultural phenomena. Brain believes cu! ltural activities, like initiation rites, are universal and that they do affect the actions of social groups. Within Brain s article he expresses many views that are disputed by
the commentators at the end of his article. These views are based on
Brain s theory of cultural universalism based in sex, incest and initiation
rites. This idea of social or cultural universals does not take into
account different world cultures or the lack of social initiation rites
in modern western societies (Schlegel, Brain redefines the use of defecation within his article and explores the importance for it. Brain also notes that Gorer s point on initiation rites being a manifestation and ritualization of parental anxiety in conditions of high mortality is a good idea and expresses that it should not totally be excluded. Brain also revisits his idea that death and the idea of death is colored by fear in some way contrary to what Bluebond-Langner expresses. Finally Brain addresses struggle and a confrontation between a father and a son. Chilungu denies that there is such a struggle, but Brain redefines his point by saying that there is still some level of competition within every social! group based on subsistence and procreation. CLARITY: 3
Brain, James L. Sex, Incest and Initiation Rites Reconsidered. Current Anthropology June, 1977 Vol.18(2)191-208. In this article, James Brain sets out to interpret and demonstrate the form and function of initiation rites in different societies. Employing a psychoanalytical perspective, his primary argument is as follows: societies enforce initiation rites when an individual has reached a social age that is conducive to their movement into the next status, for example child to adult or asexual to sexual. The argument continues, explaining that these social transitions are dangerous events, and that the advancement of age or sexuality increases stress levels concerning topics such as death, sex and incest. Brain proposes that initiation rites serve to reduce these anxieties. During the remainder of the text, the author states that he believes that sex, feces, incest and death need to be linked together. Brain declares that sex is dirty because the associated organs are near the anus, which as humans and due to our bipedal nature, needs to be cleaned regularly. Secondly, ‘we’ equate the bodies of our dead with filth, and therefore excrement as well. Incest, he believes, is a direct result of the Oedipus and Electra complexes, and rites such as circumcision allow a father to inflict pain on his son, which serves as a warning to Avoid incestuous relations with his mother. Despite a lack of supporting evidence, Brain declares that he has thus proven the links between sex, feces, death and incest, which he feels are universal to all human beings. Comments The article is heavily criticized in the comments section. Only seven percent of the respondents appeared to be in agreement with any of the ideas that Brain espoused. The remainder were disappointed by the weakly sustained argument and by the unprofessional and uninformed approach that Brain utilized in the construction of the article. For example, at one point in his work, Brain tells the reader that a uniquely human characteristic is the concern with feces and the need to clean up after one’s excretory activities. Tekla Dömötör points out that many other mammals clean their young, even eating the waste that has been eliminated. Many similar instances occur throughout the paper, and each is corrected by a reviewer. Reply Brain’s brief reply addresses selected comments, though he appears to be indifferent to their criticisms, looking to his original argument with several minor additions to defend himself and his work. CLARITY: 2 .gif){kind=small} Brain, James L. Sex, Incest and Death: Initiation Rites Reconsidered. Current Anthropology June, 1977 Vol.18(2): 191-208. James Brain attempts to demonstrate why there are two alternatives to explain why initiation and/or puberty rites occur and why puberty rites develop. The first supposes that these patterns are genetically transferred or dispersed from the earliest human and the second supposes that certain ecological and environmental conditions created certain cultural responses. In order to establish why and how initiation and/or puberty rites occur and develop he used concepts taken from social and physical anthropology and psychoanalysis to show the causes and effects of initiation rites. He follows Levi-Straus in proposing that initiation rites are universal. Regardless of the geographic location, language used or ethnicity, the primary human need is to establish order and categories and to become structured. Initiation rites solve human problems and help the individual move from one phase of life to another. Brain explained the causes and effects for the initiation and/or puberty rites for girls and boys. The first cause was so that children could transition from being asexual beings to sexual adults. For girls it was to avoid deviating from the common order and for boys it was to remember the horrible unconscious/conscious similarities between sex, excrement, death and incest. A second cause was so that children could establish a sexual identity and attempt to end boys and girls envy of each other. One effect for girls and boys was to clarify their status and to transition from childhood to adulthood. These ceremonies also should alter women’s inclination to attain a position of dominance and emphasize men’s dominance over women. Older women and men should hold authority over younger women and men, the authority over younger women is to uphold subservience to all males and to emphasize the use of male ancestors as the source of male authority and for men this is to stop any tendency for rebellion in younger men. Finally, women were educated about sexual conduct and tribal lore and men were assigned roles and taught tribal lore and values. COMMENTS: All but a couple of the comments criticized him for not establishing a link between sex, incest, feces and death and for his emphasis on men’s rites and not women’s rites. REPLY: The author defends himself from the criticism of his colleagues, but in answering some of their criticisms he seems to veer off on tangents. CLARITY: 2 IZTLATZIGUATH R. CASTANO University of Minnesota Duluth (Jennifer Jones)
Dutton, Denis. Art, Behavior, and the Anthropologists. Current Anthropology, 1977 Vol.18(3): 388-407 In his article, Denis Dutton seeks to address an area of neglect in comparative sociology and anthropology: “aesthetic criticism.” He claims that social scientists overly interpret culture’s art and behaviors, understand beauty (of art and behavior) from an ethnocentric perspective, and classify beauty with a myopically relativistic perception. The latter two arguments may at first seem contradictory, but do suit the idea of aesthetic criticism. It is important to understand, however, that aesthetic criticism is a method and not an event. Dutton uses the
example of Bible Belt farmers’ revival meetings,
from Robert Merton’s study on social theory and construction, to
stress his first argument. Social scientists are guilty of assigning
technical language to describe something like a revival meeting, calling
it “religious rituals [that] promote social cohesion” (Merton
1964: 220). They assume the Next, the author examines ethnocentrism in understanding beauty. He compares the beauty one might find in a Renaissance painting with the beauty of a stone washed up on shore from the ocean; the painting is an achieved beauty but the stone simply is. It is not an accumulation of effort and purpose, it just exists. One cannot praise the ocean for showing consciousness and emotion in producing a beautiful stone. Dutton feels that some anthropologists interpret a primitive people’s art as being the beauty of the stone: “created blindly, mindlessly, blunderingly, and without artistic purpose or intention” (Dutton 1977:391). Finally, Dutton looks at the classification of beauty in terms of aesthetic criticism. An innocent observation that a primitive creates an object and purposely gives it beautiful form would receive much criticism. Critics say that beauty is biased; it could be defined through the primitive, the observer, Western perception, etc. Dutton defends comments calling an object beautiful; Western critics can’t see primitive art works, rituals, or institutions as matters of achievement by the culture. Anthropologists are sometimes too relativistic to define beauty. COMMENTS: The commentators all had some positive feedback, but the majority felt Dutton’s article was incomplete and abandoned or ignored elements crucial to his theory. Alan Merriam remarks, almost disappointedly, that Dutton failed to answer the question that started his article: “do sociology and anthropology stand with the sciences or with the humanities?” (387). Tim E.H. Jones felt Dutton did not convince his reader that aesthetic criticism could shed its ethnocentrism in critics’ culturally one-sided perceptions. Thomas Green says appreciating art is a form of behavior; the perception of beauty is set within what the cultural defines as its borders. He accuses Dutton of rejecting the “importance of cultural relativity in his haste to pass judgment on the insensitivity of anthropologists to products of non-European culture” (397). REPLY: Dutton dismissed his treatment of primitive art as being incidental to the main thesis of the article but admits to his critics that it is difficult to even define the concept of art. He then emphasizes the importance of understanding that human activity (art and behavior) do not “demand a comprehensive anthropological theory,” (405) thus rebuking his critics’ insistence to produce a concrete one. He states that “all great theories reduce our understanding of a covered domain to certain essential features” and admonishes cultural anthropologists for trying to set limitations for the “domain of human meanings” (406). CLARITY: 3
Dutton, Denis. Art, Behavior, and the Anthropologists. Current Anthropology September 1977 Vol.18(3):387-407. Maintaining that all of the many aspects of criticism and the social sciences cannot be discussed in one paper, Dutton focuses his attention on one of the most universally accepted notions in the practice and methodology of social science: the idea that social activities can be understood to exhibit underlying social functions which can be recognized and comprehended by a scientifically trained observer, but which are neither intended by those being observed nor recognized by them. This article centers on how much those enculturated in Western traditions of enquiry, aesthetic perception and theorization about human behavior can understand and explain motivations for the art behavior of people outside of these traditions. The author begins his argument with the discussion of obvious and hidden functions of a social activity using such example as the Hopi rain dance. The interpretation of the function of this dance by an outsider will differ dramatically from the Hopi’s understanding of this ritual. Dutton makes the distinction between explicit and implicit intentions with the latter having three important senses in which activities may be characterized. The first is an intentional act, the second is the description of this intentional behavior, and the third is the intended purpose of the act. Using as examples Wagner’s score, the Ring, and Melville’s Moby Dick, Dutton makes the statement that these achievements are not by accident yet many anthropologists regard primitive people’s works of art as without artistic purpose or intention. The question is also raised of the anthropologist’s refusal to view the objects of their study, primitive art works, as having implicit in them the possibility of achievement. In conclusion, Dutton states that if the anthropologists were to pay careful attention to the language and structure of criticism as well as the logical model offered by natural science, the result would be a far better understanding of their field of inquiry. Dutton accomplishes two goals in this paper. First, he makes the point that human society and behavior are to be studied from the subjective or emic point of view, and second, he sets out to assimilate an objectivist or etic approach in the discipline, functionalism. The issue of interpretation of native art is always a challenge for anthropologists and this study is still relevant today. Comments The comments ranged from excellent to elusive and incorrect. Two distinctions were thought to have been ignored: perception and the distinction between art and craft. One commentator was upset with Dutton’s sneer at chimpanzees’ drawings. Clarity seemed to be a problem with this article and the author was criticized for erring on seven points. Dutton was also criticized for his quarrelsome manner and sweeping conclusions. The paper was accepted as thought-provoking and was found to have raised some important issues that needed to be studied by the discipline of anthropology. Reply In his reply, the author discusses the many reasons for the problems of cultural anthropology. One, and the most important, (the one that interests Dutton primarily) is that many anthropologists have assumed that methods of the natural sciences can be used to understand human action and achievement. Dutton addresses the comments made regarding orienting framework and diversity of human activity and the demand for a comprehensive anthropological theory to make sense of human action. He does not believe that there is a need for such a demand and gives his reason. CLARITY: 3 Dutton, Denis. Art, Behavior, and the Anthropologist. Current Anthropology,
September, 1977 Vol.18 (3): 387-407 COMMENTS: The comments or criticisms for the most part refute Dutton’s claims. Some felt he poses thought provoking ideas in the way we look at art and human behavior/activity, but he lessens the impact the article could have with his examples and the biases that come out in his language. One person liked Dutton’s idea that anthropology should incorporate more aesthetic criticism, but wanted Dutton to elaborate on that more. Another thought that humans never do anything for the pure sake of doing it and that we are not that simple minded and he thought the article and its points could not prove otherwise. Overall I thought the comments were critical and added more of others feelings rather than reaffirm Dutton’s points. REPLY: Dutton stands by what he says. He questions what 500 years from now scholars and students will read about. He thinks they will see many papers full of absurd jargon and empty theories. The best way to record and document cultures and people on the verge of extinction is through ethnographies rich in detail about everyday life and the things within that culture. The reply makes very clear the natural world has been equated and functionalized and the natural world is a miracle in itself. He states that people cannot be looked at like numbers with an end correct answer. People and their actions have infinite meanings and a science could not answer human behavior. CLARITY: 4 STEVEN AMSLER University of Minnesota Duluth (Jennifer Jones)
Erickson, Paul A. Phrenology and Physical Anthropology: The George Combe Connection. Current Anthropology March, 1977 Vol.18 (1):92-93. Erickson explores the possibility of there being a connection between two scholarly disciplines, 19th century physical anthropology and George Combe’s data on phrenology. Erickson’s goal is to outline the connection linking early anthropology and phrenology. He aims to discover what influence, if any, phrenology exerted on anthropology. Phrenology developed before professional anthropology, in 1800. It became popular when Combe and associates decided to promote it during the 1820’s and 1830’s through publications, public lectures and travel abroad; unfortunately, due to bickering among he proponents , its popularity declined in the 1830’s. There would be no second coming of phrenologists, and it declined rapidly when Combe died in 1858. However, phrenology was able to influence anthropology through the knowledge of brain configuration, which leads to an understanding of various brain functions and subsequently to the knowledge of human behavior. One obvious similarity between phrenology and anthropology, Erickson believes, is the common preoccupation with the human head. Combe believed that phrenology was part of biological reductionism and that it belonged at the nature end of the nature-nurture spectrum. He also held that phrenology was accurate and true to nature. Erickson discusses how Combe was interested in various anthropological concerns such as prehistoric facts, theories of origin, evolution and heredity, further concluding to there being a historical connection. The historical data presented displays the contribution of Phrenology to Anthropology and the similarities between the two. As evidence for his statements, Erickson relies on various publications on evolution, the brain, and generalizations of race, physical anthropology, phrenology and instruments used in the latter two disciplines. He also reiterates various scholars from history who support both his own research and the ideas of George Combe. CLARITY :4
Grottanelli, Vinigi. Ethnology and/or Cultural Anthropology
in Vinigi Grottanelli addresses the development of anthropological studies
in Early anthropological studies in Moving towards the 16th Century, a new trend in the observation of other
cultures emerges in Ethnography becomes the new trend in Today, Italian interpretations
of the terms “anthropology” and “ethnology” are
different from the general understanding of the terms in places such
as the Comments Comments made concerning
Grottanelli’s article range from positive
reviews to insults concerning intellectual competence. The positive commentators
compliment him on his mention of the most important influences on the
development of anthropology and offer constructive criticism about details
they think should have been added to enhance his argument. The most requested
missing detail is the link between politics and the different branches
of anthropology, specifically the affects of Fascism on academics. Other
commentators choose to criticize Grottanelli’s argument due to
the absence of their works in his article. The negative reactions clearly
emphasize how volatile the dichotomy between “anthropology” and “ethnology” is
in Reply In response, Grottanelli thanks his commentors for their input. He also
addresses the interest in the effects of Fascism on the development of
anthropology by stressing that the field was not flourishing at the time,
therefore, it was ignored. More importantly, Grottanelli says that what
others want to hear and/or expect to hear does not apply to his overview
of the origins of anthropology in CLARITY: 4
Grottanelli, Vinigi. Ethnology and/or Cultural Anthropology
in This is a short essay that is basically a description and timeline of
developments of cultural anthropology and ethnology in Grottanelli believes that these studies have not received as much attention
as other studies in The next sections deal with the early days of fieldwork, ethnography and folklore, teaching in universities, and problems with terminology. The author manages to cover a large scope of Italian anthropological history, and in the final section he provides the reader with a description of the recent research being undertaken. Comments Comments are from various parts of the world. In this case they are mainly positive, and most contain praise for Grottanelli and his presentation of Italian anthropology. The complaints and criticism is mainly in reference to what Grottanelli chose to leave out of his work, or objections to what events or people he found significant. Reply Grottanelli makes a comment at the end thanking those who commented. He makes note to those who criticized as to why he left things out or why something was put it. He addresses each concern noted in the Comments section, and is careful about explaining his personal choice in what was important to note in his work, and why he made that specific choice. CLARITY: 5 ALLISON STATEN
Handwerker, W. W. Penn Handwerker begins this article by explaining the contemporary
anthropological position held concerning the relationship between family,
fertility, and economics. This position was centered upon the idea that
hunter gatherer groups consisted of low fertility rates, a lack of descent
groups, and nuclear family units. On the other hand, pastoralists and
agriculturalists generally maintain high fertility and extended descent
groups. Finally, industrial societies were associated with nuclear families,
low fertility, and a lack of descent groups. Handwerker attempts to disprove
this assessment by showing that the industrialization of African nations
has developed very differently than that of Western industrialized nations.
Furthermore, the current curvilinear hypothesis is too simplistic to
explain the system that has developed and continues to change in Handwerker discusses technological niches which individuals use as means to meet their subsistence needs. These niches compel individuals to adopt certain kinds of family structures and fertility patterns. Handwerker calls these groupings “estates.” He establishes six estates focusing on those involved in patterns of urbanization. He describes the first estate as educated, white collar workers. They are characterized as having low fertility levels and patterns similar to a nuclear family. The second estate consists of skilled laborers and the moderately educated and is described by high fertility and extended family patterns. The third estate is composed of unskilled laborers that have a tendency toward low fertility and a lack of extended family patterns. The economic circumstances of the individual niche affect which estate a family unit will be included in. Therefore, estates follow certain fertility patterns that are conducive to their situation. Furthermore, the tendency toward either a nuclear family unit or extended kinship groupings is related to which estate an individual inhabits. Handwerker presents statistical data showing a relationship to economic niche and the rate of births that they produce. His data support a relationship between economics and fertility. The data suggest that the material circumstance of an estate directly influences the number of children a typical family will have and how that family will relate to extended family. Handwerker concludes that there is a correlation between family, fertility, and economics. Comments Many commentators agreed with Handwerker’s negative evaluation of previous theories of the relationship between family, fertility, and economics. He is criticized for a lack of clarity in defining operational terms such as estate and niche. Many considered Handwerker’s definitions vague and ill defined. Some critics cited examples in which his methodology would not work because there were too many factors that were not taken into account. The lack of clarity caused some confusion which resulted in the questioning of his results. Reply Handwerker begins his reply by clarifying his theoretical position.
He states that his purpose was to explain the complexity of family patterns
and show that the contemporary position does not explain that complexity.
Handwerker defends his definition of terms by suggesting that they are
not perfect, but that they are categories that show tendencies toward
certain behavior. His criteria for classification do not universally
represent the social conditions in CLARITY: 4
Handwerker, W. Handwerker proposes
that family, fertility, and economics are interrelated. He argues that
urban African family patterns i.e.
their structure and
reproduction/ fertility levels are not consistent. However, they can
be revealed as families adapt to “economic constraints and options” created
by technology i.e. industrialization. He bases this theory on his own
fieldwork in Africa ( Incorporating figures and tables into his discussion, the author provides a breakdown of his theoretical alternative. First he links technology to subsistence. Technology presents the options and constraints to which families adapt. A family’s technological niche affects their family pattern. Therefore, industrialization and urbanization results in a complex family versus a simple “curvilinear” prediction. Handwerker further provides six categorizations of African family patterns he refers to as estates. He evaluates only the first three estates based on their industrialization, or technological niche, and urbanization level (versus rural). They are summarized as follows: the first estate consists of highly educated elite, representing a nuclear family, and low fertility levels. The second estate consists of moderately educated white-collar workers and skilled labourers, generally representing extended family patterns, and high fertility levels. The third estate comprises uneducated, unskilled labourers, with fragmented family patterns, and low fertility levels. Incorporating age, fertility, estate, and economic niche the author strives to prove his theory and essentially disprove the cross-cultural application of conventional theory. Comments Several commentators commend Handwerker’s attempt to challenge the general conventional theory. The bulk of their criticisms center around the use of the words “niche” and “estate”. Some express confusion not only with the use of the terms but also consider their definitions too vague. Some believe insufficient categories were incorporated into the analysis. In particular, it is suggested the combinations of entrepreneurial and rural family “estates” should also have been included. Regarding the relationship between family sizes and fertility, some commentators criticize what they saw as a lack of sufficient categories such as contraceptives, stress, economic pressure, values, and prostitution that may have impacted the research results. Reply Handwerker begins his response by reiterating his purposes for writing the paper. He suggests the commentators may have been missing relevant background information he assumed they possessed. As this may have contributed to some of the confusion they experienced when reviewing the paper, he proceeds to expound on a few relevant details pertaining to the “analysis of socio-cultural phenomena”. Further, the author clarifies a labeling error on two tables for which he apologizes. He goes on to defend his decision to use the terms niche and estate, as well as his choice to limit the analysis to the first three noted estates. CLARITY: 3 Handwerker, W. Penn. Family, Fertility, and Economics. Current Anthropology, June 1977 Vol. 18(2): 259-287. In his paper, Handwerker argues against one of the “conventional theories” of familial development- that a curvilinear pattern of interconnectedness exists between technological complexity and familial complexity. Arguing that this theory does not accurately describe the experience of families in urbanized Africa, nor does it reflect the interdependencies between their structure, economics and fertility, Handwerker proposes his own theory of familial structuring: family structure, including living patterns, occupational patterns, and fertility, is a response to the overall diversity of economic (and technological) “niches” with a community. To support his cultural materialist/idealist theory, he focuses on the Bassa of Monrovia, Liberia, and forms a six tiered estate system to describe socio-economic levels. He uses quantitative data, which mostly, but not exclusively, refers to the Bassa, to describe the prevalence of such characteristics as marriage contracts, kinship obligations, polygamy, educational level, occupation and income. Though he admits his information does not include many aspects of the urbanized African experience, Handwerker concludes that a more applicable and universal theory for familial structure would conclude that familial units emerge as an adaptation to constraints and options established by technology. COMMENTS: While many support his willingness to critique “conventional theories” of industrial society and familial decision making models, the critiques were varied and eloquent. Criticisms included the possible inaccuracy of his conclusions about the Bassa, the lack of universality of his theory when tested against sample populations, and the incomplete discussion and definition of terms and logic in all parts of his article. They fault his failure to include many of the same factors within his theory that he had originally criticized “conventional theory” for failing to consider. They observe that Handwerker’s conclusions were little different to Murdock’s kinship theory and the author’s tendency to oversimplify or overlook non-materialistic factors including cultural norms, time passage, health considerations, and social and familial obligation. REPLY: Handwerker energetically defends his paper by elaborating on his main focus when creating his theory, and pointing out areas of misinterpretation by his commentators. CLARITY:3 AMY ROSE SPAMPINATO University of Minnesota Duluth (Jennifer Jones)
Hill, Carole E. Anthropological Studies in the American South: Review and Directions. Current Anthropology June, 1977 Vol.18(2):309-326. The purpose of Hill’s paper is to briefly review some of the anthropological approaches to the study of the American South. There is also an examination of some of the recent anthropological studies in the area, focusing on a few of the more relevant concepts in her discipline that can be utilized to explain the social dynamics and problems in the South. It is revealed that research done by anthropologists in the past was more concerned with indigenous people. In contemporary research, there is a list of 198 identifiable traits of American culture, representing the major social institutions involved in daily life, that they feel characterize the south. Hill believes this list to be limited because this approach fails to integrate cultural patterns into a holistic framework. Many other researchers have also made the mistake of avoiding or ignoring the fact that Blacks can be both Black and Southern, and that Indians can be both Indian and Southern, etc. All participate in a complex society. In her review, Hill also points out that all studies tend to focus on methodology and the conceptual framework of anthropology in complex societies rather than defining Southern culture, they have added to our knowledge of the variation in Southern life. These are invaluable for an analysis of the South. Another valuable point is that studies that can be classified as anthropology in the South contribute to an understanding of anthropology of the South. However, she states that anthropology has yet to devise an approach that explains the interaction of all the subcultures of the south, and the nature of the dynamics of these diverse groups on the micro-level and the macro-level in a complex society. Hill offers the
addition of the “Plain Folk” model to the “Frontier” and “ Comments The author’s arguments were met with both agreement and speculation. It was recognized that the points made were timely and interesting. It seemed of value to study the various ethnicities and social divisions in their Southern context. The notion of regions and regionalism is an extremely important one for the proper understanding of a total South. On the other side of the fence, the assertion that the American South as a distinct society is met with the rebuttal that the South is no more unique than the American North, East, or West. Special attention in the South by Anthropology would in this case be biased. It is not stated, for instance by Hill, what makes the South so distinct. The “Plain Folk” model for handling conflict through Church,
neighborhood, or kin network is thought to be no less different in all
small town societies regardless of ethnicity. In one commentator’s
opinion, a number of different theories and models to approaching the
complexities of the South that Hill suggest may not be in their best
interest. In another opinion, even though funding has made it difficult
for budding anthropologists to travel out of the Reply Hill responds to the commentators concern over her opinion of the uniqueness of the South as not being just hers alone. She also points out that it was stated in her article that similar studies in other regions need to be carried out before definitive statements are made. In closing, Hill wishes to promote the studies of complex societies in a variety of regions not just the American South. CLARITY: 4 Hill, Carole. Anthropological Studies in the American South: Review and Directions. Current Anthropology June 1977 Vol. 18(2): 309-326. Carole Hill provides a very thorough and concise review and analysis
of the numerous studies that have been done in and of the American South.
She believes that none of these studies have attempted to integrate other
dynamics of the South into a more holistic framework for understanding
and studying the larger complexities of the South as a cultural region
and complex society. In speaking of the advantages and disadvantages
of these various studies, Hill suggests the use and integration of specific
models that, although not new, could provide a more useful conceptual
framework for a study of the dynamics of the South on all levels. Hill looks to frameworks developed by British social anthropologists such as Gluchman and Turner for ways to study of complex societies, who propose looking at the interconnectedness of dynamics and relationships in a society. From here she proposes using an equilibrium model in the place of a more static model as a beginning for understanding the continual change of a society. Then she expands the framework with various other models, such as Turner's model for studying continuity and conflict resolution in helping to explain such dynamics as change, cultural symbols, and structural relationships. COMMENTS: The comments of Hill's article are overall positive and supportive, with some criticism of her more personal claims and assumptions. Most thought that her review of studies in and of the South was timely and needed and that this review was a thorough and concise summary of the vast array of studies that have tried to explain the South. Many commentators agreed with Hill that a systematic, interdisciplinary review of all the social science research and a more holistic conceptual framework are needed to better understand the complexities of the South. Some suggested taking this a step further by looking at all regions of the U.S. and then look to the South for differences within and among these culture areas. A few criticized her idea that the South is one society and that the continuity of a Southern identity is premature. REPLY: Hill defends her regional model and why she believes the South is one society, both from her experiences in studying the South and in reviewing the historical and more recent studies. She stresses that understanding the complexities and dynamics of the South could build on anthropological theory and then could apply them in studying other complex societies or regions. She ends by stating that regional studies can also further our understandings of culture overall. CLARITY: 4 LUKE BORKENHAGEN University of Minnesota Duluth (Jennifer Jones)
Kressel, Gideon M. Bride-Price Reconsidered. Current Anthropology, 1977 Volume 18 (3): 441-458. Gideon Kressel discusses the established institution of bride-price
in a variety of regions where the practice still exists. He especially
examines sedantarized Bedouin populations in Hypergamy characterizes bride-price because it is honorable to marry a woman of lower status in Bedouin culture. This shows subjugation to authority. The size of the bride-price shows the relative inferiority of her family. Kressel puts forth a symbolic dimension that he believes has been over-looked in previous analyses. A recent change in wealth distribution and mobility has increased exogamy
practices of Arab Muslims in COMMENTS Kressel’s commentators seem unified in questioning the scope of the paper and his methods of using ethnographic specifics to derive a cultural theory. They viewed it as a simplified explanation, when bride-price is a complex socio-cultural phenomenon. Generally, the commentators thought it needed to incorporate a larger discussion of the political and economic situation while more clearly defining what is being examined as ‘bride-price’. Basil Sansom believes Kressel neglects the bigger social relationships and ramifications. However, William Divale asserts that Kressel’s theory of bride-price as a reflection of social stratification and as a measure of social distance is an important contribution. Divale delves into it with credible, scientific data that showed there was a correlation between stratification factors and bride-price. REPLY Kressel’s
reply addressed the concerns of larger political and economic factors.
He stresses that his concern is not
along the line
of comparative method and is only complementary to methodologists. He
further explains the economic situation of the new Bedouin and landless
peasants to the Ramla-Lod area of CLARITY: 3
Kressel, Gideon M. Bride-Price Reconsidered. Current Anthropology September, 1977 Vol.18 (3):441-458. Bride-price is a recognized practice within Arab Muslim Eastern marriage patterns. However, frequently it is compared with other theories of marriage exchange established in other areas of the world. Anthropological analysis of bride-price and dowry are examined from several different perspectives. For instance, they may be divided into composite explanations, from the view of those with special interests, individual or shared, and structural explanations, from the standpoint of society as a whole. Explanations vary, depending on culture region and within differing theoretical traditions. Frequently, Western
anthropologists suggest bride-price as a means to compensate the father
of the bride’s household for loss of her
labour. Secondly, the custom compensates for the loss of the woman’s
fecundity consistent with the notion that dowry is an impregnation fee.
Thirdly, based on data of the Kafir of South Africa, bride- price payment
is intended to moderate her father’s anger for fear he may harm
the daughter. The Ethnographic research conducted concerning marriage payments in two former Bedouin communities in two Israeli towns, Ramla and Lod, revealed five principles. First, in close agnatic relationships where the kin groups share equal social status, bride-price payment can be relinquished. Secondly, a groom of distant relation to the bride is obligated to pay more than a groom who is closely related. Furthermore, bride-price, multiplies if the impending groom is a fellow countryman but of no relation to the brides kin group. Payment is also high for the groom’s family when there is hierarchical differentiation between the families of the couple. These conditions apply if the groom’s family has the higher status. Rarely does the bride’s family hold the higher status. However, in such an event, the payment would be low. Lastly, couples who are in unrelated kin groups, but live in the same village, are required to make a large bride-price payment. The reasons offered for bride-price in the Arab Muslim East compare essentially to the selection of explanations stated previously. However, further analysis suggests that the greater the payment, the greater the bride is valued by her husband’s household. A higher price also indicates that the woman comes from a good family. However, the explanations of bride-price are only partial, and therefore must not be mistaken as complete. Comments One author feels that the three sections of the article do not tie together to make a clear argument. Oppenheimer further states that there was no clear indication of Kressel’s thesis or definition of what “bride-price” is. In contrast, Divale supports Kressel by stating that no theory is ever complete and all have a limited application therefore does not fail to explain the phenomena of bride-price in socially stratified societies. CLARITY: 3 Kressel Gideon M. Bride-Priced Reconstruction. Current Anthropology. Vol. 18, No. 3 (Sept., 1977) 441-458. Gideon M. Kressel reviews previous information that
defines the types and construction of “bride-price”.He starts off reviewing
the methods and overall practices of bride-price. He gives well studied
professional observations by Leach(1961) and Dumont (1972). That information
opens a one of Kressels big arguments about endogamy and exogamy and
how it effects pre-marital methods. For example, it provides information
that shows depending on the level of religious and caste status that
the groom has, the brides family has to a variation in dowery. Throughout
the methods and practices information he expands on European, Hindu and
Middle Eastern cultures. falls off into an ethnography about certain
people in different areas in Arab Muslim Eastern and two small towns
Ramla and Lod (pop. 70,000 together). It was not a mistake to give examples
of actual cultures that do practice the act of “bride-Price” but
it was not the intention of the tittle. COMMENTS: The commentors stated the article was confused and mis-informed. Most said that it was too “ethno-graphy” and that Kressel resurrected a prejudicial term, “bride-price”. Others understood that this topic is easy to disagree over and gave him credit for opening the subject to future exploration. Kressel was apprehensive about addressing the judgmental commentors. He wanted to focus on furthering the exploration of the bride-price practices and believes it has a great impact on cultures that practice bride-price. CLARITY:2 CALVIN W. SNEED University of Minnesota Duluth (Jennifer Jones)
Lomax, Alan and Conrad M Arensberg. A Worldwide Evolutionary Classification of Cultures by Subsistence Systems. Current Anthropology December, 1977 Vol. 18(4): 659-707. Lomax and Arensberg suggest that the primary aim of anthropology should be to study the variable ways that human cultures evolve, or adapt to their physical and social environments, and to organize a classificatory system for that cultural evolution. Their method for classifying cultural adaptations is progressive, and is based on the total energy conversion associated with a given society; that is, the total energy extracted from the natural environment and converted into a form that can be consumed or used by people. In other words, for Lomax and Arensberg, the human progress is synonymous with increasing productivity. Thus, they assert that human cultures can be arranged hierarchically in terms of their subsistence systems. Having made this assertion, Lomax and Arensberg proceed to apply their classificatory system to documented human cultures. This endeavour requires both data and a methodology. For the data, they use almost exclusively the Ethnographic Atlas, a collection of ethnographic data representing 1254 cultures, complied by George Murdock in 1967. Murdock used literature collected from the era of European expansion in the Ethnographic Atlas, and the cultures described are associated with pre-contact human societies. For Lomax and Arensberg, this data is preferable because a meaningful system of classification must represent societies that have not experienced European cultural diffusion. In addition, they include data from their own research for another fifty-four cultures, which they describe as contemporary but relatively primitive. With regard to methodology, Lomax and Arensberg begin by identifying seventeen criteria that are directly related to a society’s level of production and mode of subsistence. Included in these criteria are ten descriptors of subsistence traits, for example the amount of hunting done by a society, two criteria related to kinship, and five intended to allow for differentiation between smaller classes of collectors, for example, the presence of games of chance, which the authors presume to indicate a production surplus. The representative data for 1308 cultures is then applied to the seventeen criteria, and Lomax and Arensberg use the results to classify each culture in relation to a hierarchy of five increments of increasing productivity: extractors: incipient producers; animal husbanders; plow agriculturalists; and irrigators. The relationship of variable physical environments to the different stages of cultural evolution is also briefly discussed. Comments There are mixed reactions represented in the responses. Many authors are open to the concept of cultural evolution (though not necessarily in a progressive sense), and some are appreciative of the attempt to systematize that notion. Others, however, put forth many complaints with respect to Lomax and Arensberg’s model. The most important of these complaints regards the seemingly ethnocentric nature of the classifications. Other criticisms include the idea of classifying solely on the basis of mode of subsistence and other factors directly related to productivity, the exclusion of cultures influenced by Europe (recognizing that diffusion had shaped cultures for centuries prior to the era of expansion), the source for and interpretation of the author’s data, and the potential for the model to classify fundamentally different cultures in the same group, for example the Bororo of the South American tropical rainforest and the Arctic hunter-fishers. Reply The authors’ response tends to be for the purpose of clarifying their methodology and the resultant classifications. They emphasize, for example, the correlations between subsistence techniques and other aspects of human culture including music, dance, and speech, and justify some of their groupings from these types of relationships. Perhaps more significant than the response the authors provide, however, is the response they fail to provide. They hardly acknowledge the concerns of ethnocentrism, and at no time state explicitly that the system is not intended to imply the superiority of western cultures. CLARITY: 4 BEN VAN DER GRACHT Okanagan University College (Diana E. French).
Makarius, Raoul. Ancient Society and Morgan’s Kinship Theory 100 Years After. Current Anthropology December 1977 Vol.18(4): 709-729. Raoul Makarius reassesses Lewis Henry Morgan’s kinship theory and Ancient Society in what he calls the current anti-evolutionary environment of anthropology. Anthropologists today often ridicule Morgan and call his kinship theory repugnant and absurd; Makarius believes this point of view stems from the anti-evolutionary teachings of Boas, Malinowski, and Radcliffe-Brown. Makarius argues that there is great value in Morgan’s kinship theory, which distinguishes between classificatory and descriptive systems. Makarius also re-evaluates Morgan’s idea of evolution in terms of its lack of Marxist interpretation and Morgan’s failure to clearly distinguish between family and tribe. Overall, Makarius aims to show that anthropology needs to reconsider its blanket rejection of evolutionary theory. Makarius argues that Morgan’s classificatory and descriptive systems of kinship, based on the distinction between tribes and families, is an outstanding contribution to anthropological theory that has been overlooked. The university environment, which teaches students that 19th-century anthropologists “were naively or preposterously evolutionary” (724), has poisoned anthropologists from even considering Morgan. In addition, Makarius blames the rejection of the diachronic approach for anthropology’s “misplaced and inept criticism” (710) leveled at Morgan’s kinship theory. Confusion over Morgan’s kinship theory has often led to its dismissal. In the modern sense, kinship relations are always biological. This is not the case in Morgan’s kinship theory. The classificatory system emanates from tribal organization and is based on the law of exogamy. The descriptive system expresses individual relations within the family. In tribal society, the classificatory system “designates a kinsman in terms of the relation between the category to which he belongs and Ego” (710). Makarius also points out that the family system develops within the framework of the tribe. Makarius supports these arguments through logical analysis of Morgan’s kinship theory. He also provides a few examples from ethnographic texts. He uses the development of the Chinese kinship theory as an example of how family organization develops within the limits of tribal structure—that descriptive systems develop out of classificatory systems. Near the end of his essay, Makarius revisits Morgan’s evolutionary theory. He explains that in Morgan’s work there is “no recognition of the principles underlying the Marxist interpretation of history” (715), although Morgan does correlate different lines of development and show that they are dependent on the arts of subsistence. Makarius also notes that Morgan clearly distinguishes between tribal organization and the family but is at “pains to keep them on different evolutionary lines” (715). COMMENTS Makarius is praised for his efforts to re-evaluate Morgan’s theory. However, Makarius comes under vehement attack from the majority of the commentators. He runs into criticism in three broad categories: (1) his lack of definition of terms, (2) the androcentric, homocentric, and ethnocentric points of view he takes, and (3) his assumption that social history can be derived from kinship studies. The majority of the commentators found the article to be simplistic, vague, and even absurd. Other commentators criticized Makarius for not including new theoretical approaches, such as feminist theory, in his review of Morgan’s theory. REPLY Makarius begins his response by stating that “it seems indeed inevitable . . . that whenever Morgan’s name and evolutionary theory are mentioned, they immediately trigger heated debate” (724). Makarius responds to the attack that he does not define terms by explaining that Ancient Society defines the terms repeatedly. Makarius also states that he uses the generic term “man” to mean humankind and does not apologize for any other androcentric viewpoints. In the end, Makarius points out that most of the commentators failed to attack the broader issues involved with Morgan’s theory of kinship and evolution and that anthropology should rethink its anti-evolutionary outlook. CLARITY: 2
Makarius, Raoul. Ancient Society and Morgan’s Kinship Theory 100 Years After. Current Anthropology December, 1977 Vol.18(4):709-729. This article is a critical analysis of Lewis Henry Morgan’s theory of kinship and its impact on the theoretical history of anthropology. Makarius argues the anti-evolutionary position supported by Boas and Lowie is scientifically unsound and neglects the distinction between tribal and family structures. The author asserts Morgan’s theory on the differences of classificatory and descriptive terms and kinship organization is based on tribal and family structures. Tribal organization as put forth by Morgan is based on the law of exogamy and a classificatory system, which does not recognize individuals within families. Furthermore, the classificatory system as proposed by Morgan merges lineals and collaterals in kinship theory. Family organization as put forth by Morgan was based on relationships and the descriptive systems used to express them. Contrary to the classificatory system of merging lineals and collaterals, descriptive systems merge collaterals only. Makarius asserts that Morgans’ theory may be interpreted as follows. First, the idea that classificatory system refers to the generation and sex of the individual. Second, kinship theory and terminology are derived from family structure and classificatory systems are derived from the nuclear family. Classificatory systems are evolutionary in form while being structural and synchronic in function. Comments Commentators agree that Makarius has misunderstood Morgan’s theory of classificatory and descriptive terminology. Many find Makarius’ definition of classificatory systems as a reflection of biological relations and systems of relational representations, as seen in "men's consciousness,” extremely offensive. Reply In his reply, Makarius’ expresses theoretical advancements made by the structural approach of Levi-Strauss with respect to exogamy as the primary ban on marriage and not on sex to clarify his position on classificatory and descriptive systems, and terminology. Continuing, Makarius states that terminology, as well as classificatory and descriptive systems are a projection of social organization. Mental structures as described in “men’s consciousness” are in actuality oppositional mental structures, which in turn address the notion of reciprocity and sexual accessibility. CLARITY: 2 Makarius, Raoul. Ancient Society and Morgan’s Kinship Theory 100 Years After. Current Anthropology December, 1977 Vol.18(4):709-729. Author Raoul Makarius opens his article with an overview of the ridicule and disdain Morgan’s evolution theory in Ancient Society received in the early 19th century from leading anthropologists, who decided, in the end as stated by Makarius, that the concept of kinship does not exist. While in agreement with Morgan’s theory, the author breaks down the idea of kinship by comparing two separate orders of tribe and family and their dissimilar notions of kinship relations. Makarius feels Morgan’s largest contribution to
anthropological theory was distinguishing between classificatory and
descriptive kinship systems.
Tribal organization uses the classificatory system which is based on the
law of exogamy and does not recognize individual relations within the
family, while
family organization uses the descriptive system which designates individual
relatives outside the family in different exogamic groups. In tribes, kinship
is absolute, binding all members, while there are degrees of kinship based
on distance and are relative within the family. Makarius ends by describing Morgan’s shortcomings in Ancient Society which include his biases toward descriptive kinship models of the time and that it was through family only, not through government that the kinship system arose. COMMENTS: Overall the commentators did not agree with Makarius. Many recognized that Morgan has been misunderstood, but felt Makarius did not do a sufficient job explaining his idea. The commentators felt Makarius made too many assumptions, did not define his terms, had brief, inadequate and outdated references, and had no evolutionary scheme at all. Although they commended the author on his insight and interesting points, the commentators largely agreed that the article was “absurd,” “archaic nonsense,” the references flawed and taken out of context, contradictory, confused, and did not do justice to modern kinship theories. REPLY: The author thanked all commentators for their critiques despite their aggressiveness and recognized that evolutionary theory is under attack with ridicule and invective. He does not define his terms because they are defined in Morgan’s Ancient Society already, but does go into more detail on tribal and family organization, incest and exogamy. In general he felt they misunderstood him. He reminds the commentators that it is not his theory of evolution but Morgan’s under discussion. Makarius feels the commentators were not clear whether they rejected the presentation and that the criticisms were limited to specific points particular to the individual commenting, not the broader issue of kinship. He felt many failed to respond to some of his ideas but went on a vehement tangent. CLARITY: 2 ALISA MARTODAM University of Minnesota (Jennifer Jones)
Meacham, William. Continuity and Local Evolution in the Neolithic
of William Meacham uses twentieth-century archaeological literature to
inspect the origins and assumptions of nuclear-diffusion models. Meacham proposes that a local, parallel-evolutionary model of Meacham then applies a theory of local continuity to the Late Neolithic by correlating characteristics of Yueh pottery design with similar characteristics in the Late Neolithic Geometric pottery. The nearly simultaneous appearance of similar technologies over the regions discussed requires extensive and repeated sharing of ideas and may make locating a trait’s specific origins impossible. In addition, it may require a common antecedent culture and similar “political, social, and religious values and structures…” (427). Comments Many comments were supportive of Meacham’s break from nuclear-diffusionist theory. However, several thought he may have overstated his case for local-evolution, ignoring the importance and presence of diffusion where it does occur. Some criticized the lack of discussion of man-land relationships and environmental change, which were stated in the article’s thesis. The independent development and significance of bronze working outside of the northern Shang culture was questioned. Some stated that Meacham’s use of “Neolithic” was poorly defined and such “stages” of evolution imply directionality. Several thought he equated material technologies too heavily with ethnic, linguistic, and culture identities. Others questioned whether the Yueh and Lungshanoid were really separate cultures. Reply Meacham replies that the first-order assumption of local-evolution is justified; diffusion is not an unacceptable explanation but should be considered secondarily. Due to a lack of solid paleoenvironmental and ecological data, the environmental relationships make a weaker, more speculative argument against diffusion models than the well-known material culture. Meacham’s use of the Neolithic “stages” intended no inherent assumptions of progress; it followed the Chinese usage, based on the presence of both pottery and polished stone tools. He cites outside linguistic, ethnographic, environmental, and cultural material evidence before saying that Yueh were probably different from Lungshanoid peoples. He notes that material culture obviously does not always correspond to ethnicity, non-material culture, or environment. CLARITY: 3
Meacham, William. Continuity and Local Evolution in the Neolithic
of Throughout this article, William Meacham continually seeks to challenge
the accepted hypothesis that the emergent culture in Neolithic southern William Meacham structures his argument primarily along a scrutinized
evaluation of the pottery styles and traditions existant within the archaeological
record and as they had developed through time. In the southern regions
of The argument is concluded by directing the reader to understand that with such widespread and contiguous evidence for a unified cultural tradition in this location it is misguided to assume that it must have been incorporated from an external area. Instead, the notion is proposed that both the northern as well as southern cultural traditions can be understood to have evolved in a parallel fashion, although they may have each been influenced in the distant past along a common cultural root. CLARITY: 4 Meacham, William. Continuity and Local Evolution in the Neolithic of South China: A Non-Nuclear Approach. Current Anthropology September, 1977 Vol.18(3):419-438. Searching for universal comparisons is common for anthropologists
when examining a new geographical region. South China’s prehistory
for example, has developed by comparisons found in East Asia. This
research
has been conducted with a diffusion model, however the author finds that
a non-nuclear approach is a better model to examine the prehistory of
South China. COMMENTS: Many agree that a shift from diffusion and migration models to a ecology and man-land model is needed in anthropological and archaeology studies. However, others defend the nuclear-diffusionist model and argue |
.jpg){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}