|
|
| |
Current
Anthropology
Bartoy, Kevin M. And Laurie A. Wilkie. A Critical Archaeology Revisited. Current Anthropology December, 2000 Vol.41(5):747-777. Kevin M. Bartoy and Laurie A. Wilkie propose that the tenets of critical theory as they have come to be applied for the formulation of modern archaeological theory are too narrow in their scope. As a result of this they do not allow us to effectively understand the nature of individual agency as it exists in a given social system. The authors fear that critical archaeology based upon the framework of structural Marxism does not allow for a suitable understanding to be gained concerning the relationship of individual agents and their environment. They also believe that this framework does not allow for us to gain any truly complete understanding of how individual agents act to influence the social systems in which they exist. The authors seek to define the useful boundaries of structural Marxism by identifying the framework through which it classifies the individual in a social system, as that of a pawn manipulated by forces principally immune to control. This limitation in structural Marxist theory does not allow for the emergence of individual agency in any comprehensible form. It is by understanding the nature of this shortcoming that newer frameworks can be established, these drawing upon a hybridization of both the existing structuralist theories as well as the newer and more radical approaches which are gaining popularity as modern theory advances. One of the methods by which they believe critical archaeology can be sculpted back into a useful form is through the incorporation of the work of Pierre Bourdieu, specifically in his conception of the habitus. Here agents, objects, and their meanings as both consciously and unconsciously proposed can be better understood to exist as a result of the networks of daily activities within which participants engage. This concept is also limited in its inability to fully account for the forms that individual agency may take, but the authors believe that this can be overcome. They propose that a synthesis of these concepts along with those established by Sherry Ortner and Anthony Giddens concerning the nature of artefact analysis as representative of assemblages of individual meanings will serve to achieve this goal. The focus of this article is primarily aimed at providing a description of what the authors believe the main flaws inherent within the theories behind critical archaeology are and how they may best be resolved. The authors feel that such a resolution will best be attained through the inclusion of more radical and reflexive principles in this body of archaeological theory. In this way researchers will be able to attain a much greater understanding of the complex relationships which exists between individual participants and the social environment that they both shape and are themselves directly shaped as a result of. CLARITY: 3
Burmeister, Stefan. Archaeology and Migration: Approaches to an Archaeological Proof of Migration. Current Anthropology 2000 Vol. 41(4):593-568. To date, within archaeology migration has not been largely considered. Most artifacts are looked at for their cultural context but not how they became part of any particular culture. If the question has been raised, the answers are usually trade or diffusion. Burmeister answers the question with the theory of migrations. The problem he addresses is how we can distinguish the method by which a piece of cultural material came to be used; how we distinguish artifacts introduced through trade, diffusion, technological advances, or migration. Burmeister wishes to build a model that archaeologists could use to
distinguish certain patterns in the artifact record that may indicate
migration over other forms of material acquisition by an indigenous group.
Why did certain material goods change within a particular area when it
does not seem that the population moved out completely? Why are certain
features in an area in keeping with a people who came into the area from
elsewhere? Burmeister uses examples of house types in North America during
colonialism as one example, and the Anglo-Saxon immigrations into Burmeister uses the terms public (external) and private (internal) to show that immigrant populations seemingly adapted quickly to and changed their style of house building to fit with that of the locals. In the public domain, the outside of the home, the immigrants built houses that looked like the other houses around them. But in the private domain, they retained traditional styles and decoration from their homelands. This seems reasonable enough. Burmeister supports many of his ideas with examples of reasons for migrations: why people would choose to migrate; why they would do so in large groups or small groups; and whether migrations are due to warfare, population pressure, economic gain, or age specific factors (such one group seeking to conquer another) in any way. In his reply, Burmeister feels that many of the commentators misread or misunderstood his meaning in trying to build a basic model for locating migration patterns within archaeological evidence. He believes there needs to be a shift in the thinking of archaeologists and that the idea of migration must become a central part of analysis when trying to explain the reasons for changes in the artifact record. On the subject of the interior vs. the exterior domains, it seems that he is misunderstood again. He responds by saying that they are not only actual places but also a concept of social domains. The idea of private and public areas is not just within housing styles but every aspect of culture. But as for the houses themselves, the idea of exterior and interior is very important in that it has such “specific potential for change.” Lastly, he is accused of having an “all or nothing” attitude in regards to his construction and application of the migration model. But of course, as he comments, there is no way that a basic model could be composed without regard to the variations in culture areas and the types of migrations that could take place in any given area. This model is what he calls a “standardized research pattern”. “Standardized results are not to be expected,” but he asserts that we can develop new approaches to doing archaeology, and can test the practicality of such models; the theory is still growing and only in the experimental stage. CLARITY RANKING: 2 KRISTIN FARREY
Burmeister, Stefan. Archeology and Migration: Approaches to an Archaeological Proof of Migration. Current Anthropologist August – October, 2000 Vol.41(4):539-567. This article is written as an overview of the possible “proof” of the idea of human migration versus diffusion. Burmeister evaluates how migration is portrayed in archaeological literature and examines the differences in research regarding migration in disciplines other than anthropology. He views the idea of migration as being part of cultural behavior and calls for more research to establish this as a truth rather than a theory. Material culture and its societal representations are also brought into the discussion but are also disregarded as unsubstantiated evidence towards migration. Material culture is considered the source for any proof that has been or will be found for the migration theory. Constructing a model for the possibility of migration, Burmeister looks at the selective nature of traits to be migrated, the motives for migration, the direction and path migration takes, as well as the impact of migration, and the fact that both the immigration and emigration areas are effected by this said migration. Using the Anglo-Saxons as an example, Burmiester attempts to give credence to his argument that the proof of migration will come from the material culture. Concluding his article, Burmiester clearly states that the theory of migration as a part of cultural behavior and the development of a method of obtaining archaeological proof are the only way to actually prove the existence of migration. He claims that current research and theories are inadequate, and without further research concrete conclusions regarding migration versus diffusion cannot be made. Comments The range of comments, mainly in support of Burmeister’s model offer constructive criticism but do not outright object to his theories on migration. The main objection is the idea migration may be represented by material culture. With the interpretation of material culture being open, it would be hard to discern immediate connections of migration with other groups. Reply Burmiester replies by addressing the apparent thought of his article as prompting a shift in thinking, claiming that migration is a current subject of discussion that is in high regard as a theory for explaining culture change. He agrees that no general definition of migration exists, but argues that one cannot be created without further proof of its existence, and the process through which it works. Burmiester concludes by agreeing with his commentators that his models had little success once implemented, but argues that it is because of the interpretation of historical records as well as archaeological data that no one model can account for all proposed theories of migration. CLARITY: 3
Cote, James E. Was Coming
of Age in The article by James E. Cote is a critical
analysis of Derek Freeman’s
critique regarding the work of Margaret Mead during her research in Freeman observes that the alleged hoaxing by two Samoan females on Mead
produced inaccurate implications in her work. The main evidence used in the text includes
quotes from letters sent between Mead and Boas in regards to her research.
However, none of the
letters are provided in full context. Other evidence points to the exaggeration
and distortion on Freeman’s behalf towards Boas and Mead to further
his allegations. According to Derek Freeman published a reply to CLARITY RANKING: 4
Englund, Harri and James Leach. Ethnography and the Meta-Narratives of Modernity. Current Anthropology 2000 Vol. 41 (2): 225-248. Englund and Leach have dedicated this article to examining the current trend among anthropologists, especially ethnographers, in using multiple definitions of modernity to explain the meta-narratives that they encounter during their field work. It is pointed out early in the article that modernity today continues to retain key principles of previous meta-narratives. The article itself is presented under four distinct sub-headings. The first of these is The Sociological Legacy. Within this section, the reader is presented with the history of anthropology as a “progression through a series of meta-narratives.” We are told that meta-narratives serve not only as guidelines for the formulation of research questions, but as guidelines for particular answers. Within this first section is a sub-section called Modernity and the Person, which is dedicated to revealing the idea that individuals view their world through lenses abstracted by their modern meta-narratives. Two other sections are dedicated solely to research projects conducted by both Englund and Leach. The projects are used as examples of how modernity and meta-narrative can be seen in current research. Both Englund and Leach place themselves and their ideas in their examples. This is helpful for readers because it lets them know where the authors are coming from. The two examples used to support the authors’ point are those
of Leach’s work on the Rai Coast of Papua New Guinea and Englund’s
work in The fourth section, Modernity’s Meta-narratives and the Knowledge Practices of Ethnography, is dedicated to discussing scale and situation within ethnography. We are also reminded that ethnography, essentially, is a large scale comparison and that “the ethnographer has no choice but to write in relation to what his or her readers can be assumed to already know.” This article, arguing for the use of modernity within ethnography gets its point across, but does so in a tedious fashion and with much confusion. The authors’ reply to comments simply reinforces that their interest is in localized fieldwork, and “has nothing to do with a spatial definition of the anthropologist’s field.” They contend that they chose their areas of study because they “appear to have imported both the hopes and the despair of the project of modernity.” Englund and Leach point out that interpretations of experiences are due to meta-narratives, and through these personal understandings, there are variations that must be addressed. These variations are each person's own “lived realities.” CLARITY RANKING: 2 JESSICA NELSON-SELLERS University of Idaho (Laura Putsche)
Englund, Harri and James Leach. Ethnography and Meta-Narratives of Modernity. Current Anthropology April, 2000 Vol.41(2):225-248. The purpose of Englund and Leach’s article is to convey their concern that the meta-narratives of modernity are compromising the quality of ethnographic knowledge. The authors feel that when meta-narratives become prevalent in ethnographic fieldwork and other interpretations, anthropology is deprived of an integral aspect – that being it’s reflexivity. Reflexivity allows a critical perspective to be employed against a work, seeking to uncover ethnocentricities or misperceptions. Long term ethnographic fieldwork is, according to the authors, the best way to collect anthropological knowledge, because through personal experience, preconceived Western ideas may be dispelled before the data undergoes its final interpretation. Englund and Leach explain that throughout the history of anthropology, one will observe a series of meta-narratives that are rooted in an ambivalence which is largely of a Western construct. Since the early 1900’s, with the conception of sociology, ambivalence has been a primary theme in discourses of modernity. Emile Durkheim and Max Weber were key proponents in this movement, focusing on the breakdowns and disenchantments of modernities. The authors drew attention to the fact that ambivalence towards modernity is commonplace within a Western cosmology. Englund and Leach describe that the current meta-narrative categorizes our world as one of multiple modernities. There are three aspects of modernity that must be understood: modernity is everywhere, modernity cannot be defined in advance, and diverse cultures persist. Furthermore, the authors discuss how in both sociology and anthropology, the concepts of the person and of self identity are integral in the study of modernity and the associated meta-narratives. The remainder of the article demonstrates the effect of meta-narratives
in ethnographic fieldwork. One case study examines notions of white people
and the origins of their wealth in Comments The comments section is comprised of a range of responses. The majority summarize the article before addressing their own concerns, which facilitates a more complete understanding of the original article. There is unanimous agreement on the value of ethnographic fieldwork, and with the authors’ statement that prolonged exposure to a culture both enhances one’s understanding of it, and reduces ethnocentric interpretations. Interestingly, one of the commentators, Birgit Meyer, of Overall, criticisms were limited, and most agreed that whether or not meta-narratives were acknowledged, the integrity of anthropological knowledge is worth preserving. Reply The reply section reiterates the most salient points from the article and clarifies concerns that several of the commentators expressed. Englund and Leach say that despite their statement that long term field work is most desirable, it has become less practical within many areas of academia. Also, they acknowledge it will do no good to merely reword the meta-narratives that they have been trying to avoid, but a complete understanding of them and their underlying assumptions is necessary to remain free of their grasp. CLARITY: 3
Fordred-Green, Lesley. Tokoloshe
Tales: Reflections on the Cultural Politics of Journalism in In this work Lesley Fordres-Green discusses
the implications of Tokoloshe tales in South African journalism. Tokoloshe tales are local cultural
explanations for bizarre creatures and weather phenomenon. The
author indicates that Tokoloshe tales are “written off” by
journalists and are found in marginalized sections of the newspaper. The
article begins with a case study of articles published by the Natal Witness
newspaper. In 1995 the Natal Witness published a series of stories
that contained folkloric explanations for recent events. News reporting
of a large tornado included a discussion of the Zulu villagers’ belief
that the devastation was the result of actions by a large snake that
lives in deep water. The author indicates that articles such as
these were an attempt by the mainstream media to include prevailing cultural
mythologies. However, the reporting of cultural interpretations
of events tends to be located in the back pages of the newspaper and
do not receive the same emphasis as “scientific” explanations. The
author indicates that the lack of validity applied to cultural explanations
reflects the larger rural-urban divisions within CLARITY: 3.
Fordred-Green, Leslie. Tokoloshe Tales: Reflections on the Cultural
Politics of Journalism in The purpose of this article is to allow Fordred-Green to present her
theory that during a change in the political economy, journalistic objectivity
is likely to deteriorate. Her study is based in author notes that the variety of ways in which an issue may be delivered to the public affects its credibility. In one instance, a reporter relayed a story about a tornado from the folkloric perspective of the villagers, and he was applauded for his style – others were even encouraged to emulate it. On the other hand, the author tells of a seemingly similar story being published, yet it ended up being disregarded as serious news and interpreted by readers as the humorous story of the day. The major difference between the two kinds of stories is the presence, or absence, of “cultural resonances”. In the first story, the author had researched, or possessed personal knowledge, of local legends. Upon publication, this knowledge lends credibility to the story, whereas in the second instance, the author had simply embellished certain fantastic details without conveying the pertinent cultural information. Fordred- Green states that because of the recent power shift in CLARITY: 3
Freeman, Derek. Was Margaret Mead Misled of Did She Mislead
on In this article Derek Freeman argues that
Margaret Mead was hoaxed by her two Samoan traveling companions, and
that this hoaxing was the foundation
for Mead’s book, “Coming of Age in Freeman takes a historical approach to Mead’s study. To reach
his conclusions, he relies on all available documents of Mead including
her field notes, correspondence, and an interview with one of the two
traveling companions. He presents a chronological analysis of Mead’s
study beginning with her initial directions from Boas. She was to study
the impact that culture had on adolescent behavior. Freeman states that
Boas also instructed her to stay away from ethnological study during
her stay. An offer from the Mead went to Throughout this article Derek Freeman responds to criticisms and claims made by Orans. Orans uses only Mead’s field notes for information. He failed to research many very valuable sources of Mead’s correspondence to gain more evidence. Orans finds her study flawed and uses hypothetical arguments to explain why she was not hoaxed at all. Freeman argues that if Orans is right, then Margaret Mead is guilty of deliberate falsification, no light crime. Freeman dismisses the approach taken by Orans due to its lack of historical evidence and its “simple logic”. CLARITY RANKING: 5 LIVIA PEART
Freeman, Derek, Martin Orans, and James E. Cote. CA Forum on
Theory in Anthropology, Sex and Hoax in The first article in this CA Forum is Derek
Freeman’s, “Was
Margaret Mead Mislead or Did She Mislead on Freeman’s paper involves both a historical and personality analyses
of Margaret Mead’s Samoan fieldwork. His objective is to present
his analysis in a systematic way that is based on relevant primary sources,
and then let the reader decide that his historical and personality account
is accurate. From here, Freeman launches into a systematic examination
of Mead, beginning with her childhood, to her relationship with Boas.
This relationship with Boas is a pivotal one in Freeman’s opinion,
for not only did Mead not have any interest in this area of research,
but also it was Boas who imposed the research topic of adolescence sexual
behaviour in Freeman also examines at the time Mead was
working on her ethnography of Manu’a for the Bishop Museum of Honolulu. Freeman feels that
Orans overlooked the two months that Mead spent studying Manu’a
during her five-month stay in The second article in this CA Forum, “Hoaxing, Polemics and Science”,
is by Orans dismisses Freeman’s explanation, for in his words,
the errors Freeman gathered from Mead from her letters to Boas do not
stand up to “simple logic”. Mead had a clear understanding
of Samoan’s premarital sex restrictions, and to say that Mead was
hoaxed is an error, for Mead knew that promiscuity applied to less than
half of her adolescent sample. That statement is what constitutes the
remaining half of Orans’s article, for indeed, “Mead knew
that sex life of female adolescents in Samoa was by both precept and
practice more restricted than what she required to make her case” (615).
That, in Orans’s view, proves that most of Mead’s work is
polemical and misleading, for it contradicts most of her research work
that she did while in The third and final article in this CA Forum
series is James E. Cote’s, “Was
Coming of Age in Samoa Based on a “Fateful Hoaxing?” A Close
look at Freeman’s Claim Based on the Mead-Boas Correspondence”. Reply Replies by Freeman to both Orans and CLARITY: 5
Houston, Steven, Robertson, John, Stuart, David. The Language of Classic Mayan Inscriptions. Current Anthropology 2000 Vol. 41(1):321-356 The authors present evidence that Classic Mayan writing records represent a single distinct language. They presume the Mayan inscriptions between A.D. 250-850 are an ancestral form of Ch’orti, an ancient language and its immediate parent language Ch’olti, therefore indicating Classic Mayan script should be viewed as a representation of a prestige language. They profess Mayan script was a mark of social distinction. Language of the glyphs has been seen as having close association with Ch’olan and Tzeltatlan, subfamilies of Mayan. Yukatec languages spoken throughout much of the Mayan lowland are also considered to be reflected in the ancient script, therefore adopting a multilingual approach to the study. Previous arguments for language affiliation have relied on geographical, lexical and morphological evidence. They have assumed that locations of inscriptions geographically indicate where the language was being recorded. The evidence, which focuses on form and historical developments of passives, middle voiced verbs and transitive positionals, is difficult to understand without extensive linguistics background in Mayan languages, their dialects, and knowledge of the glyphs themselves. Highlighted are crucial grammatical changes in the use of the language which are claimed to be unique to the Classic Ch’olti’an lineage. Diglossia is the coexistence of two dialects or related languages, each performing a distinct social function. Typically one is considered “high” and more formal and the other “low” and informal. High language is more likely to be liturgical or literary and acquired through formal schooling, while low is unwritten, commonplace and conversational. Based on this distinction, the authors conclude that the Classic Mayan script must have been a prestige language. Undeniably stating there is more work to be done on the inscriptions for an evidentiary connection to the language of elites, the authors recognize that a deeper investigation and collaboration among linguists and glyph specialists is essential. Mayanists will have to pay more attention to prestige languages allied with script, and the research they have done needs to be compared in a more detailed fashion. They have especially solicited other scholars to test their theory against hundreds, if not thousands, of texts from which they had derived their evidence. After all the evidence presented it is possible that it is not a prestige language, but that the language served as a lingua franca that performed its role in diplomacy and trade, removed from the elites. Stating their findings may be modified after work by others, they invite an in-depth study for consistency of lack of consistency in their work. Comments from linguists, anthropologists, and art historian regard the quality of evidence presented in favor of setting a foundation that Classic Mayan language is a distinct language of the elites. It is imprudent in the presence of glyphic data to claim correlations between locations of glyphs at archaeological sites and languages spoken during colonial or modern periods. Consequently, many of the scholars responding question whether the information is substantial enough for the connection to be made, CLARITY RANKING 3 JOAN WELLS
Jones, Doug. Group Nepotism and Human Kinship. Current Anthropology 2000 Vol. 41(5):779-810. The article presents a discussion of group nepotism defined by the author as assistance to individuals carried out by groups rather than by kin. Doug Jones reasons that because of the large number and variety of kinship systems, group nepotism could be one option that would expand the breadth of the theory of kin selection and allow for a greater understanding of the development of collective actions. Jones suggests that there may be a psychological adaptation, which he deems as “moral sentiments” for members of large groups to afford benevolence to their mutual kin beyond the level that would be adaptive for individuals acting alone. The author examines genetic relatedness in terms of how groups interpret their biological boundaries, demand sharing, and a series of models to demonstrate how moral sentiment plays a role in small scale societies. Lastly, Jones explores groups in terms of ethnocentrism and ethnonnationalism explaining the ease at which people generally slide into group identities. Jones argues that the kin classifications at hand do not provide a dependable guide to exact ancestral connections, citing examples such as demand sharing among subsistence hunters who extend support outside the immediate family. Jones stipulates that shared food would extend beyond relatives if the group members are accepted as such by the other group members. The author introduces the term “group nepotism” to explain individual benefit from a non-related family group. Jones points out that social relations are governed by an exercise of coercion, and that kin altruism based on genetic relatedness does not encompass individuals outside the family. Therefore, group adaptation as opposed to kinship identity appears in the form of ethnocentrism and ethno-nationalism giving individuals not related a sense of oneness. Reviews for this article express a wide range of opinion. One review proposed that group nepotism is a new and useful term that will aid in understanding the extension of collective nepotism beyond genetically related individuals. Contrasting opinions contend that group nepotism is contained in the concept of culture and does not require separate nomenclature. Regardless of the semantics, investigations into the social and hunting benefits for non-related individuals broaden our understanding of group adaptation. Jones concedes that much theoretical and empirical work remains to be done. However he articulates the need to consider the interplay of social structure and genetic relatedness in the making of kinship structures. CLARITY: 3 ELIZABETH ELLIS
Karakasidou, Anastasia. National
Homogeneity and Cultural Representation in Four Works on Greek The tendency of academics and governments
to look at modern nations as culturally homogenous during and since
the cold war era is the focus
of this work of Anastasia Karakasidou. She uses the Greek government’s
current policy of supporting the idea of national homogeneity and its
denial of the existence of a culturally different “other” group
in The areas and works examined by Karakasidou begin with a look at “the national historical order” as written of by Ioannis Koliopoulos. Next, she looks at sentimental narratives as seen through the historical fiction of the poet Panos Theodoridis. Then she examines the construction of “Orientalized images of majority tyranny” by Greek and non-Greek minority-rights advocates in the writings of NGO activist Hugh Poulton. She completes her critiques with a look at the “sympathetic participant-observation” of anthropologist Loring Danforth. Koliopoulos examines the existence of Slavic-speakers
and “Macedonian
people” historically as impositions made by the Karakasidou moves on to examine the works
of Hough Poulton and Loring Danforth. Poulton sees the existence of minorities, specifically
Slavic-speaking Macedonians, as historical truths. The culture
belongs to the land of its origin regardless of the political boundaries
within which it finds itself. Danforth examines a group of Slavic-speaking
Macedonians residing in These are four different writers discussing
the same region and people, yet they have two very different foci. Two
see CLARITY: 4
Karakasidou, Anastasia. Essential Differences: National Homogeneity
and Cultural Representation in Four Recent Works on Greek This article is an evaluation on discrepancies that occur in ethnographies
and other literature that misrepresent the peoples being studied. In
previous ethnographies, the village being studied has been thought to
represent the entire nation. Ethnographies of small populations in Ioannis Kolopolous wrote on Hugh Poulton argued in his book that the particular Macedonian geography
kept the peoples culturally isolated, except from major events. The people
were able to develop their own unique culture. He also tries to define
who the Macedonians are and what their identity is in The first two works, according to Karakasidou, try to give the reader the impression of a single, unified Greek culture. The authors of the second two works try to give the minority a voice. These works illustrate the fact that anthropologists contribute to ideologies, whether or not it is intentional. CLARITY: 5
Kirkpatrick, R.C. The Evolution of Human Homosexual Behavior. Current Anthropology 2000 Vol. 41(3):385-414. In this article, Kirkpatrick examines human homosexual behavior with an evolutionary agenda. He recognizes the paradox that it presents, as homosexuality has been thought of as nonreproductive and therefore nonadaptive, and explores alternative evolutionary reasons for the behavior. Kirkpatrick addresses three hypotheses dealing with the adaptation of homosexual behavior: kin selection, parental manipulation, and alliance formation (reciprocal altruism). Kin selection is based on humans having few children over a lifetime with high parental investment in each child’s survival. Kin selection proposes that homosexual behavior increases the reproductive success of kin as those who do not reproduce increase reproductive success of kin by either direct support of offspring, direct support of the lineage, or indirect support by not creating more competition for the offspring. The homosexual may devote time and resources to the offspring since he has no offspring of his own. It would therefore make sense for parents to encourage a child to engage in homosexual behavior and not reproduce in order to assist in raising the children of the sibling. This is what Kirkpatrick calls parental manipulation because parents of a selected child may decide to manipulate a child to forsake reproduction and become homosexual in order to help the family. In order for this hypothesis and the kin selection hypothesis to hold, they must be in compliance with three central predictions: “1) that homosexual behavior reduces individual reproductive success, 2) that lineages with homosexuals have greater reproductive success than lineages without, and 3) that homosexual behavior is typically seen in individual of low reproductive potential.” The evidence supporting the prediction that homosexual behavior reduces
individual reproductive success is equivocal, explains Kirkpatrick. Many
people who engage in homosexual behavior have children, because most
are bisexual. In order to prove that homosexual behavior increases reproductive
success for lineages, there must be a greater number of offspring that
survive in lineages with homosexuals than lineages without. The data
to support this is lacking, however. The third prediction is the strongest,
which is that homosexuality is typical in individuals of low reproductive
potential. Individuals of low birth order presumably have less chance
of reproduction, which seems to be apparent in the Kirkpatrick supports alliance formation (reciprocal altruism), which states that homosexuality is a survival mechanism where relationships are formed in order to enhance an individual’s (or an individual’s family’s) economic or social status. He says that same-sex alliances aid individual survival, that homosexual behavior aids in the formation of same-sex alliances and that bisexuality is more common than homosexuality. Williams’ main problem with the way Kirkpatrick looked at the evolution of human homosexual behavior is that he does not believe that everything has to be explained in terms of social function. While he agrees with Kirkpatrick’s alliance theory, Williams believes that there are other motivators. Williams points out that genital stimulation feels good. This is the basis for his reasoning that primates might be inclined to practice homosexuality if they enjoy the stimulation that they receive from a same-sex partner. Williams says the question is then not “why certain individuals enjoy participating in sexual pleasure with another person of the same sex but why certain individuals would limit this pleasurable activity of genital stimulations solely to the other sex.” CLARITY RANKING: 4
Kirkpatrick, R. C. The Evolution of Human Homosexual Behavior. Current Anthropology June, 2000 Vol. 41(3):385-409. In this article the author evaluates at four possible explanations for the existence of homosexual behavior. The first of these considered is whether homosexuality is altruistically based. Does an individual choose to forego reproduction in favour of helping to raise and support the offspring of relatives? This may be explained by survival of the family lineage through reproductive success. This strategy is based less on quantity of children and more on the quality of childcare. In this case, if a homosexual is able to effectively increase the reproductive success of kin, then the transmission of this genetic material may compensate for the homosexuals lack of offspring. It has been suggested that parents may manipulate some of their offspring into becoming homosexual to assist in the raising of siblings or the offspring of siblings. This is countered with the argument that many people who have engaged in homosexual behavior do have children. In some societies homosexual behavior is only tolerated before a certain age or so long as reproductive responsibilities are fulfilled. In some societies, boys command a greater birthright than girls. In other societies, the family may try to influence the sexuality of their sons in order to use them to establish connection with more influential and wealthier families, or to make them qualify for various social positions. Homosexual relationships may also lead to an alliance for mutual protection There has also been some research on the evolution of homosexual behavior and the influence of genes. Homosexuals and bisexuals who have identified themselves do tend to run in family lines, suggesting some genetic influence. Studies on twins that have been done also suggest environmental factors play an important role. Military service and attendance at British public schools is also said to increase homosexual behavior by 50 percent. Birth order has also been positively correlated with the likelihood that an individual will behave in a homosexual manner in direct correlation with the number of older brothers in the family. The author has drawn from a variety of theories that have been used to help understand homosexuality. However, as he states in the beginning, there is little evidence to support altruistic homosexuality, or his other hypotheses, but neither can they be disproved. Kirkpatrick believes that as long as sex and reproduction continue to be the focus of homosexual evolution, its explanatory power will remain limited; which is why he has used a variety of hypotheses. Comments Most of the commentators are in support of his work and his unique attempt to find the origin of homosexual behavior. Others are grateful for the void it has filled in the literature on homosexual behavior. There is some concern about the detail of the definition; some claiming it to be too broad, though others believe it is too focused. They all agreed that the data he has used is weak, and in many instances leaves the argument unconvincing. One commenter expressed concern that the reason for the lack of supporting data is because sexual behavior is often considered “gutter” language, which makes it hard to seriously consider. Homophobia is considered by some to be the real problem, not homosexuality and this needs to be studied in greater depth. Reply In his reply, Kirkpatrick acknowledges that the data he uses is weak but that he was limited in resources. He also acknowledges that there is some overlap between various schemes. However he fails to see where the concern is that some of the commentators have expressed. He also qualifies some of the concerns expressed by the commentators and supports his position on why he would not implement their suggestions. As for the social context in which the research took place, he cannot separate the two. The best he can hope for is that it does not alter the scientific analysis of his ideas. CLARITY: 4
Lambek, Michael. The Anthropology of Religion and the Quarrel between Poetry and Philosophy. Current Anthropology June, 2000 Vol.41(3):309-319. In the article Lambek discusses the role of morality in anthropology=s study of religion. He begins by giving a definition of Plato=s argument on the distinction drawn between objective and mimetic relations, that is opposition he establishes between philosophy and poetry. The author argues that Plato’s need for categorical distinctions has resulted in our need to classify and rank different forms of thought, which in turn force a choice between maintaining a distance from religion or attempting to identify with the subject. He suggests there is a need to look in the past as a means of moving forward, suggesting that Aristotle can provide an alternative route. It is the concept of phronesis or moral judgment which the author feels is important and by this he argues a need to expand on the value placed on abstract reason given by Plato. Indicated is a need to extend the focus on politics and power in contemporary studies with that of morality, but he also argues that religion is also an administration of power and thus anthropology must put into context where and how such power is produced in a broader cultural order, what is proposed rather is that morality should be considered along with power and desire. Considerable importance is placed on the dichotomy between the views of Plato and Aristotle in establishing and maintaining his argument but would benefit from an argument which expands beyond Plato and Aristotle. CLARITY: 3
MacEachern, Scott. Genes, Tribes, and African History. Current Anthropology 2000 Vol. 41(3):357-384. This article evaluates current literature that discusses the genetic, archaeological, and ethnographic data on African communities. The main reference the author uses is Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi, and Piazza’s The History and Geography of Human Genes, on which almost all of the author’s arguments are based. With respect to this book, mostly the chapters concerning African history/genealogies are analyzed and discussed, although other chapters are mentioned. The author begins by questioning the validity of many sources concerned with African lineages, based on linguistic data, genetics, and any other methods used, and their relationships to one another. MacEachern questions the way the studies were conducted with respect to multi-disciplinary ideals, and how these multi-disciplinary studies pertain to each other. An example of this is how mitochondrial DNA analysis compares to ethnographic studies. The author then questions how much analysis can really reflect genetic distance, when the demes and tribes of recent times seem to be arbitrary. Here he states that many groups are together because of convenient ways of clumping people, such as modern day states enforcing boundaries not necessarily natural in a genetic sense. Generally the author states that groups are difficult to determine in recent times. Next, he defines the way population samples are identified: traditional ethnonyms, language affiliations, geographical designations, and physical characteristics (phenotypes). The author uses African examples to represent this, such as the Pygmy, Khoisan, and Caucasian influence on groups. The use of their (Pygmy, Khoisan, and Caucasian) languages in modern form should be used as a defining link between populations for continued evaluation. The author then shows all the material described summed up into a set of synthetic maps. These maps define African groups using the identification tools stated above. The maps show a change of group distribution from one parameter to the other with only slight to minimal consistency between defined groups. Finally, the author concludes his paper by saying that the book in question is a good source to look at African genetic distance, but, that it is not an all encompassing way of defining populations. Instead, populations are ever changing entities and should not be solely used to describe human history and prehistory. The author replies to Froment’s concern about using demes as a concept of analyzing genetic variability. The author says that “muddying” the terminology water is probably unneeded and agrees essentially with Froment in that aspect. The author also replies to S.O.Y. Keita’s suggestion of expanding parts of the paper’s analysis. The author agrees, but says that he was forced to restrict the paper to “relevant sections of The History and Geography of Human Genes.” Also the author replies to Keita’s observation of the literature’s affect on analysis of African history and racial models of human typology. He says that Keita is correct in pointing out these “larger implications.” CLARITY RANKING: 2
Mintz, Sidney W. Sows’ Ears and Silver Linings: A Backward Look at Ethnography. Current Anthropology 2000 Vol. 41(2):169-189. Mintz summarizes this article effectively in the second sentence, “This paper briefly examines the contribution of four ethnographers in order to argue that ethnography based on fieldwork remains essential to our definition as a profession.” From there, the author discusses the need for fieldwork in recent times, i.e. changes since previous works have been done. These include changes in the cultures previously studied, loss of observer-centered disciplines, and the overuse of the word culture in the wrong context. Following these points, a brief history of ethnography is presented. Then an introduction, preceding the lengthy descriptions, of each ethnographer is offered. The first ethnographer is James Mooney, who described the Ghost Dance religion of the Sioux. Here the author describes the life and work of Mooney, and how he came about with his ethnography. Then in the end of his description, the author states Mooney’s view on fieldwork, which was that fieldwork is necessary, and it must be communicated. The next ethnographer described is Roy Franklin Barton, who studied
the Ifugao people of the The following ethnographer portrayed is Audrey Isabel Richards. The author did not state one defining study of Richards’, other than that she almost married Bronislaw Malinowski. But, again her life and work is described, but without a defining view on fieldwork to capstone the section. The final ethnographer presented is Anastacio Zayas Alvarado, a sugarcane worker with whom the author worked with for almost 50 years. Alvarado’s relationship with the author is described as well as his impact on the author’s works. Also, it is explained why the author argues that Alvarado should be considered an ethnographer. Next, the article presents commonalities of the four ethnographers, which include the stress on commitment to the work they were doing. Also, the author confronts some ways fieldwork can address the problems that were described earlier. Finally, Mintz seems to call to arms the need for ethnography by trained anthropologists. Mintz replies first to Kevin Dwyer’s concern that the author is limiting ethnography to a connection to fieldwork and theory. The author assures that it was not his intention to do this. Later the author replies to Don Donham’s comment of “bureaucratic rationality, an emphasis on efficiency and production -in a phrase, the market- invaded academic life over this period in a qualitative new way.” Here the author absolutely agrees with Donham’s assessment. CLARITY: 4
Mintz, Sidney W. Sow’s Ears and Silver Linings: A Backward Look at Ethnography. Current Anthropology April 2000 Vol. 41(2):169-189. Mintz argues that traditional anthropological fieldwork remains an indispensable factor to anthropology. He claims that in recent decades, the place of ethnography has changed, and that anthropological theory is diverging away from being rooted in field data. Three reasons are given as to why anthropological fieldwork has changed so much in the recent past. The first is that traditional typological terms have become more difficult to apply to societies because of the growing permeable national and cultural borders. The second reason is that the significance of the observer actually participating in the culture or phenomena under observation has dropped in popular thought. The final reason provided for the change in fieldwork is the thinning of the meaning of culture, and the lack of effort to clearly define it. Mintz states that the crucial importance of fieldwork to anthropology is overlooked because it is seen as being merely a fraction of anthropological methodology. The author’s main argument is that fieldwork is a decisive and inescapable factor in the development of anthropological theory. To argue for the utter importance of fieldwork to proper and complete anthropology, Mintz makes a clear statement that one does not have to be a professional ethnographer to compose ethnographies. He describes the contributions of four ethnographers with varying levels of education and formal fieldwork training, ranging from having extensive education to no formal instruction. Roy Franklin Barton, Audrey Isabel Richards, Anastacio Zayas Alvarado and James Mooney are analyzed here and commended for their solid dedication to their ethnographies. Their work and commitment to the cultures and phenomena they studied exemplifies Mintz’s point that fieldwork is essential to the discipline of anthropology and cannot be minimalized. Mintz supports his thesis by listing some of the most extensive and comprehensive works in the field of anthropology. The Ghost Dance Religion and the Sioux Outbreak of 1890, written by James Mooney, could not be one of the greatest studies of a Native American religion without the complete and laborious fieldwork of its author. This study illuminates the idea that you cannot know a people unless you immerse yourself in their culture and live among them. Roy Franklin Barton and Anastacio Zayas Alvarado had no formal training in ethnography but both their works illustrate that to write ethnographies, you do not need to be a certified ethnographer. Mintz concludes by stating that fieldwork is the silver lining to the cloud that is casting a shadow over anthropology, and that ethnographers themselves are the sow’s ears if they do not fully explore their subjects through involved and dedicated fieldwork. Comments Some commentators commend Mintz for revisiting basic truths about anthropology as a discipline. Kevin Dwyer acknowledges that fieldwork is at the heart of good anthropology and that a theory is only as good as the fieldwork from which it draws. Carla Freeman agrees with Mintz, but eludes that he is being too negative, that he fails to acknowledge the advancements in participant-observation methodology, and that perhaps the silver lining can outshine the sow’s ears. Olivia Harris agrees with Mintz and elaborates that anthropologists are under increased pressure and time deadlines to produce their work and consequently often neglect fieldwork. However, Harris argues that anthropology is still deeply rooted in participant observation methodology. Reply Mintz replies by explaining that he was not aiming to undermine the importance of theory to the discipline of anthropology, but that not all fieldwork invokes theory. He elucidates that his intentions were never to suggest that all anthropologists and anthropological theorists had to do fieldwork. He also recognizes that he has been slightly closed minded in seeing that current critiques have resulted in a deepening and improvement in ethnography. CLARITY: 4
Paul, Robert A. Sons of Sonnets: Nature and Culture in a Shakespearean Anthropology. Current Anthropology 2000 Vol. 41(1):1-10. This article strives to prove that people, genes, and symbols are tightly tied to one another, meaning that people try to make things that surpass them by genetic and/or cultural reproduction, such as breeding or repeated circulation of works of literature or symbols. The author looks specifically at the first 19 sonnets of Shakespeare’s Sonnets. Here he attempts to prove that Shakespeare writes about reproducing sexually, and replicating his poetry as a form for a young man’s beauty to surpass the lifespan of that youth. The author begins with the first few sonnets, 1-7. Here he states that the poet is under the pressure of some young man’s guardian to help persuade the young man to copulate with a woman in order to advance his genetic code across time. The author uses interpretation of metaphors and line by line analysis, with respect to what he is trying to prove. Then Paul states, the first few sonnets are saying that in order for the boy’s beauty to keep living he should spawn a child or set of children with his features. The author then addresses the next few sonnets. Here the author says that the sonnets shift to a general theme of the poet falling in love with the young man, and that if the young man were to die or fade it would be a horrible loss to the poet. Then the next few sonnets are interpreted as saying that the poet now wants to save the young man’s beauty. This turns into pleading for the boy to allow the poet to write down as much about the splendor of the youth as possible so that it may live on through publication. Thus the boy’s beauty will never fade. Finally, the last few sonnets say that the first two themes must combine to truly save the youth’s beauty. That is to say, the boy should create an offspring and the poet should write down as much verse as possible about the boy. Thus the boy’s likeness will be reproduced by both sexual reproduction and reproduction through symbolic means, i.e. linguistic signs. After the interpretation of the sonnets, the author continues to argue his point. He sums up his argument into three statements: “Symbolic reproduction is secondary to, and depends upon, sexual reproduction.” “Sexual and symbolic reproductions refer to each other in a relation of equality or mutual adequacy.” “Sexual reproduction is secondary or even irrelevant to symbolic reproduction.” That is to say, people, signs, and genes are all interrelated to each other, and one of the said triad depends on the other two for achieving continuation across time, as much as they depend on it. CLARITY RANKING: 2
Paul, Robert A. Sons or Sonnets: Nature and Culture in a Shakespearean Anthropology. Current Anthropology February, 2000 Vol.41(1): 1-11. Robert Paul’s argument in this article is to contrast nature and culture via genetic and cultural perspectives. Paul focuses specifically on these elements in order to portray a clear image on his viewpoints about nature and culture. To argue his genetic and cultural perspective, symbolism in accordance with sexual reproduction and parental kinship patterns are used. He uses the first nineteen of William Shakespeare’s Sonnets (of which there are 157). The reasoning behind only using the first nineteen of Shakespeare’s sonnets, is that Paul’s interpretations provided him with the basis of his argument. His explanations included focusing the creator (author) of the poem and the poem itself as a symbolic reference to a parent-child relationship. The reference specifically is supportive of the idea that humans are attempting to always transcend themselves, either through their children (the legacy ideal) or through creative energy (poetry). The parent-child metaphor is exemplified throughout all nineteen sonnets and is Paul’s main thesis to the genetic and cultural perspectives on nature versus culture. As the explanations for these metaphors unfold, Paul transcends into explicit detail about signs, symbolism, and sexual reproduction. These arguments become confusing as he jumps from one sonnet to another and then back again. He also changes his vocabulary in dealing with specific terminology. This article, however, is unique in its substance, as using poetry to explain anthropology is uniquely personified. CLARITY: 2
Pearson, Osbjorn M. Activity, Climate, and Postcranial Robusticity. Current Anthropology 2000 Vol. 41 (4):569-607. Pearson addresses the problem of assessing differences in bone robusticity
between modern humans and Neanderthals. For many years, the prevailing
view gave precedence to higher activity levels in Neanderthal populations
rather than climatic adaptations as the cause of more robustness in their
bones. Pearson argues that the recent emergence and spread of Homo sapiens
into Europe and Asia out of equatorial Pearson begins his assessment by measuring the skeletal remains of ten distinct populations of modern humans, separated by the region/climate where they are found, and the type of lifestyle led (hunter-gatherer or sedentary). As Pearson notes in his article, putting the moderns in two lifestyle groups may hide differences in bone size that are due to the diversity of activities within and between populations. For the Neanderthals and early modern humans, Pearson measured fossilized skeletons or their casts from six groups. The bones were measured and the results were analyzed using a traditional statistical regression method and Pearson’s new method. The first method requires an estimation of the body mass of the individual being measured. According to Pearson, this estimate results in errors within later calculations. The new method does not require this estimation, and due to technical aspects, is faster and less costly to implement. Pearson’s assessment results in some interesting conclusions. Although activity levels have some effect on the skeletal robusticity of the recent humans, the biggest factors are the climatic adaptations. Pearson concludes that climatic adaptations over long periods of time result in higher levels of robustness within a population. The populations from cold climates had a higher robusticity level on average than those from hotter climates. Among the early moderns, the results were consistent with Pearson’s view of recent movement into colder climates from hotter climates. That is, the early moderns’ robusticity levels were comparable to those of recent moderns from hotter climates. In contrast, the Neanderthal specimens had the highest levels of robusticity found in this study. This is also consistent with Pearson’s view of the climate-robusticity connection, in that Neanderthals lived in a harsh, cold climate for over one-hundred-thousand years. Pearson replied to a multitude of comments on this article, but space allows for only a couple to be addressed. One comment refers to Pearson’s use of the word robusticity as different from most anthropologists. As he stated in the article, the definition of robusticity is different among anthropologists, and its use should be defined for each article. The last reply concerns interaction of robusticity and lifestyle. One commentator surmised that it is easier to ascertain these associations when comparing archaics and moderns than between modern populations. Pearson disagrees due to the fact that we are able to collect information on modern populations, but cannot do the same for archaics. CLARITY RANKING: 4 KEITH MOORE
Povrzanovic, Maja. The Imposed and Imagined as Encountered by Croatian War Ethnographers. Current Anthropology 2000 Vol. 41(2):151-160. The overall concern of this article is on the issue of writing ethnologies in a war-time setting, and the problems between insider/outsider anthropological perspectives. The author begins by illustrating the frustration of some of her Croatian colleagues when dealing with a foreign American social scientist who visited their country. The local anthropologists in the region and the visiting scholar ended their encounter in mutual frustration and irritation because of their differing points of view on the situation. Because of their insider position, the Croatian scholars felt reduced to informants by the visiting American scholar while the American became just another westerner who was not interested so much in the people as he was in wanting to “know”. Povrzanovic describes some of the ethnographic articles about the war
in It was this very process that the majority
of the ethnographies produced by the Croatian scholars were trying
to combat. The notion that
the wars in the former In her final statements, Povrzanovic makes a profound remark addressing the dilemma of writing ethnography as an anthropologist about one’s own people. “What we must focus our attention on is the quality of relations with the people we seek to represent in our texts: are they viewed as mere fodder for professionally self serving statements about a generalized Other, or are they accepted as subjects with voices, views, and dilemmas?” CLARITY RANKING: 3
Povrzanovic, Maja. The Imposed and the Imagined as Encountered by Croatian War Ethnographers. Current Anthropology April, 2000 Vol.41(2):151-162. In this article, Maja Povrzanovic discusses the intellectual concerns of Croatian ethnographers. These concerns emerged during and after the war that occurred between the Serbs and Croats in the early 1990’s. Povrzanovic points out that for the Croatian ethnographers, writing about the war led them to reco |
.jpg){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}