People have been asking me about extra credit, so one of the suggestions that I gave people was to look at the impact of environmental change on certain peoples. I suggested Tuvalu as one case that you might find interested.
You could use this website as a jumping point:
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/12/tuvalu_that_sin_1.html
There's a bunch of information out there about Tuvalu.
You could look at the impact of global warming on other peoples too, such as the Inuit. Or you could look at the impact of deforestation on people like the Yanomamo in S. America or Semai in Malaysia.
If you choose this route, then make sure to cite your sources and to use more than just the website that I'm emailing to you now.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
Be prepared to answer these questions for the final.....
I will ask you to answer some, or all, of the following questions using your readings, class discussions, and experiences:
1) Why is it important to protect the cultural heritages of tribal peoples? Why is it of concern to anthropologists? Is there anything that we can take away from studies of such peoples?
2) Linguists estimate that there are over 7,000 languages spoken in the world today. Nearly half are in danger of becoming extinct in this century. Is it important to preserve such languages? Can we learn anything from these languages?
3) Discuss the Trobriand interpretation of cricket? Explain how the game changed Trobriand society. How is this form of cricket different from the cricket played by the British?
4) What is globalization? Is it something new? Is there anything unique about globalization today? For instance, is culture becoming homogenized? If so, then how? Is it becoming more heterogeneous? If so, then how?
5) What does it mean to say that “time is a gift”? How different is “time is a gift” from “time as money”? How might such a view change our lives? Can you think of any negative aspects to this view of time?
6) Bronislaw Malinowski, in his classic essay Magic, Science and Religion, claimed that each of these was a viable mode of cognition and that most societies exhibit all of them in variable proportions. In what ways does magical thinking persist in contemporary America? Is it likely to persist into the future?
7) In the essay “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight”, Clifford Geertz tries to read Balinese ritual and actions like a text in order to decode the symbols in their society. Leni Reifenstahl, the director of the film “Triumph of the Will”, argued throughout her life that this film was not a Nazi propaganda film, but a documentary. How might a symbolic anthropologist, like Geertz, approach the question of whether this film was a form of Nazi propaganda or a documentary? That is, what do the scenes, colors, and images in the film tell you?
8) What do different origin stories tell people about who they are? Can origin stories coexist in the world?
Reminder: Next Monday is the final for this class. Don't miss this final!
Please email me if you have any questions.
1) Why is it important to protect the cultural heritages of tribal peoples? Why is it of concern to anthropologists? Is there anything that we can take away from studies of such peoples?
2) Linguists estimate that there are over 7,000 languages spoken in the world today. Nearly half are in danger of becoming extinct in this century. Is it important to preserve such languages? Can we learn anything from these languages?
3) Discuss the Trobriand interpretation of cricket? Explain how the game changed Trobriand society. How is this form of cricket different from the cricket played by the British?
4) What is globalization? Is it something new? Is there anything unique about globalization today? For instance, is culture becoming homogenized? If so, then how? Is it becoming more heterogeneous? If so, then how?
5) What does it mean to say that “time is a gift”? How different is “time is a gift” from “time as money”? How might such a view change our lives? Can you think of any negative aspects to this view of time?
6) Bronislaw Malinowski, in his classic essay Magic, Science and Religion, claimed that each of these was a viable mode of cognition and that most societies exhibit all of them in variable proportions. In what ways does magical thinking persist in contemporary America? Is it likely to persist into the future?
7) In the essay “Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight”, Clifford Geertz tries to read Balinese ritual and actions like a text in order to decode the symbols in their society. Leni Reifenstahl, the director of the film “Triumph of the Will”, argued throughout her life that this film was not a Nazi propaganda film, but a documentary. How might a symbolic anthropologist, like Geertz, approach the question of whether this film was a form of Nazi propaganda or a documentary? That is, what do the scenes, colors, and images in the film tell you?
8) What do different origin stories tell people about who they are? Can origin stories coexist in the world?
Reminder: Next Monday is the final for this class. Don't miss this final!
Please email me if you have any questions.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
XXX Credit
So today we're watching a classic ethnographic film called "The Ax Fight." For those of you who can't come, you can go to the library, watch this and post a response.
Here are some questions to get you started:
1)Why does the fight start? (Whom do you believe?)
2) What roles do the women play in the violence?
3) What attempt is there to resolve the violence?
4) What, in the end, seems to calm things down?
5) What's the emotional tone during the fight? What sorts of evidence allow you to think that?
Have a good break!
Here are some questions to get you started:
1)Why does the fight start? (Whom do you believe?)
2) What roles do the women play in the violence?
3) What attempt is there to resolve the violence?
4) What, in the end, seems to calm things down?
5) What's the emotional tone during the fight? What sorts of evidence allow you to think that?
Have a good break!
Monday, November 24, 2008
Class on Wednesday--Extra Credit
Hey everyone,
I don't plan on canceling class on Wednesday, but I won't require anyone to be there since it's so close to the holiday. I will offer some sort of extra credit to anyone who attends. We'll probably do some sort of in-class assignment.
Have a good break,
Andre
I don't plan on canceling class on Wednesday, but I won't require anyone to be there since it's so close to the holiday. I will offer some sort of extra credit to anyone who attends. We'll probably do some sort of in-class assignment.
Have a good break,
Andre
Thursday, November 20, 2008
No Blog Post Due! Work on Paper 2!
That's it!
Assignment #2
Ethnographic Essay
Due: Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008
For this exercise you will be taking the role of an anthropologist conducting participant observation. Your grade for this assignment will be based on: 1) the quality and detail of your notes from your observation; and 2) a typed, well-organized presentation, of your observation with your own analysis of scene that you observed.
Pick a site to conduct your observation. Such a site should be “active.” Here are some suggestions:
1) The Art Institute Museum;
2) One of the city trains or buses;
3) Outside of the 624 S. Michigan Ave. building, i.e. the library.
You will observe, at a distance, about 30 minutes at your chosen site. Do not intrude on others at this site, just watch and listen. Write down what you have seen and heard during your time observing. In your notes, I would like you to: 1) create a physical description of the place; 2) describe the human interactions at the site; 3) and the participants in the interaction. During your observation, think about if any of the interactions convey any meaning, or serve some social function.
In the first paragraph of your papers I would like you to: 1) tell the reader, generally, what you observed; 2) why your paper is important; 3) what your paper will argue, or what your interpretation of the scene demonstrated to you.
In the remainder of the paper, I would like you to describe the physical description of the place, the human interactions at the site and the participants in the interaction. Organize these in a coherent manor and interpret the behavior at the site.
For instance, if you observe that the space outside of the 624 building is used primarily by smokers, you might argue that this space functions as a space for people to smoke since they are not allowed to smoke inside college buildings. If you notice that smokers outside this building typically interact with each other due to their marginalized status, you might take your analysis a step farther and argue that Columbia students use smoking as a means of creating social networks. You could possibly even read the interaction like an economic anthropology: is there gift exchange between smokers? If so, then what is the significance of the exchange? I encourage you to be creative in your analysis.
REMEMBER: TURN IN YOUR NOTES
Email me if you have questions.
Assignment #2
Ethnographic Essay
Due: Wednesday, December 3rd, 2008
For this exercise you will be taking the role of an anthropologist conducting participant observation. Your grade for this assignment will be based on: 1) the quality and detail of your notes from your observation; and 2) a typed, well-organized presentation, of your observation with your own analysis of scene that you observed.
Pick a site to conduct your observation. Such a site should be “active.” Here are some suggestions:
1) The Art Institute Museum;
2) One of the city trains or buses;
3) Outside of the 624 S. Michigan Ave. building, i.e. the library.
You will observe, at a distance, about 30 minutes at your chosen site. Do not intrude on others at this site, just watch and listen. Write down what you have seen and heard during your time observing. In your notes, I would like you to: 1) create a physical description of the place; 2) describe the human interactions at the site; 3) and the participants in the interaction. During your observation, think about if any of the interactions convey any meaning, or serve some social function.
In the first paragraph of your papers I would like you to: 1) tell the reader, generally, what you observed; 2) why your paper is important; 3) what your paper will argue, or what your interpretation of the scene demonstrated to you.
In the remainder of the paper, I would like you to describe the physical description of the place, the human interactions at the site and the participants in the interaction. Organize these in a coherent manor and interpret the behavior at the site.
For instance, if you observe that the space outside of the 624 building is used primarily by smokers, you might argue that this space functions as a space for people to smoke since they are not allowed to smoke inside college buildings. If you notice that smokers outside this building typically interact with each other due to their marginalized status, you might take your analysis a step farther and argue that Columbia students use smoking as a means of creating social networks. You could possibly even read the interaction like an economic anthropology: is there gift exchange between smokers? If so, then what is the significance of the exchange? I encourage you to be creative in your analysis.
REMEMBER: TURN IN YOUR NOTES
Email me if you have questions.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Take Home Quiz--For Next Week
There is no blog post due this week. Your take home quiz (20 pts) should discuss one of the following questions. A thorough response should be approximately 2 pages. You should hand this quiz in by next week.
Oh--You do not need to read the article in your reader about the Zuni origin story. You can, however, read it if you are interested.
1) Bronislaw Malinowski, in his classic essay Magic, Science and Religion, claimed that each of these was a viable mode of cognition and that most societies exhibit all of them in variable proportions.
In what ways does magical thinking persist in contemporary North America?
In what ways does magical thinking persist in your lives at Columbia?
Is it likely to persist in the future?
2) Religious rituals are religion in action. Describe what in fact is accomplished by religious rituals?
Here's a story that you might find interesting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/us_elections_2008/7699066.stm
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Peaceful Rally
Before heading over to Grant Park for what would be one of the largest gatherings of people for any candidate ever, I made sure to leave my wallet at home. I had read interviews with ex-cops that were claiming up to 7,000 gang members could very well be in the park and weaving through the crowd, snatching wallets. I also read about how they had a riot squad on duty, ready to go with beanbag guns. Knowing that one violent incident could spark a huge riot (and
To my surprise, it was one of the most sane, organized events I’ve ever been to. People were all sitting in the grass in front of one of the jumbotrons, and in another area people were standing. Everyone was either paying close attention to CNN or talking amongst themselves. Whenever the CNN Projection would announce a new state Barack won, the park would turn into a frenzy of cheering, then, shortly after, it would return to silence.
The crowd was very diverse, like
John McCain gave his concession speech first. Whenever someone would boo, others would shush them. I, personally, wanted to hear what he had to say without some hipster heckling over it. I thought John McCain handled himself in a most gracious manner. He understood how important this election is to so many, and he acted accordingly. He wasn’t belligerent in any way, and whenever someone would boo him, he’d motion with his hands for them to stop. During this speech, some hipster in back of me was constantly throwing in his two cents… “Feeble…This guy is so feeble! Boo! You suck, old man!” I was so close to turning around and telling this idiot to shut his hipster mouth, but before I knew it, the speech had ended.
Then, soon after, Obama gave his speech. The whole audience was completely silent as he spoke. His words were so powerful that you could look around the crowd and notice people crying. This was a truly moving experience. It felt as though a new page was turning not only in politics, but in society in general. Everyone in the audience that night knew they were a part of something great.
As the rally ended, thousands poured out into the street in what resembled a peaceful march more than anything. The rally itself was amazingly peaceful, especially for its attendance. Never have I seen so many people at once in such high spirits.
If anything made me mad about the rally, it was how many people that showed up that had no idea about Obama’s actual policies. There was a good amount of people who simply came to shout “Fuck McCain!” That mentality is sickening because it reflects the intellect of a fifth grader. I would have loved to ask one of them just why they like Obama, based solely on his policies (and not his age, race, and face). But overall, it was amazing to see what can happen when enough people band together for what is right.
Extra Credit
For those of you who want some extra credit. I've decided that if you went to the rally, but didn't know about the extra credit assignment then you can post about what you observed at the rally on the blog and I'll give you 15 points towards your grade if you do a good job. For this, I'm not interested in hearing about your political stance, but about what you observed.
I believe that it was Edmund Leech, an important anthropologist who wrote "Political Systems of Highland Burma", who once dropped his notes in the river so he had to recall of them by memory. So I'm giving you the opportunity to recall the notes that you took in your mind.
So on the blog, you can post about your participant observation if you went to the rally in the South Loop.
If you want additional extra credit, then you can conduct a participant observation at the 55th Annual Powwow at the UIC Pavilion. I'll give you 25 points for this assignment too if you do a good job. Just give me your notes, and a typed up version of your notes for full credit. In the typed of version, try to make sense of your notes. Tell me if you noticed any patterns or uncovered any symbols, etc.
It's an inclusive event. It's probably about $10 to get in. There will be a lot of great food there....like Indian tacos, and fry bread, soups....mmmmmmm.
Here's the info:
http://www.aic-chicago.org/powwow.html
American Indian Center’s
55th Annual Powwow
November 14-16, 2008
AIC Powwow
UIC Pavilion ( University of Illinois, Chicago campus)
1150 W. Harrison Street
Chicago, IL
Relive the excitement of the 54th Annual AIC Powwow
Contact us: rhodge@uic.edu
Vendors: contact joep@aic-chicago.org
Host hotel: 99.00 per night, free parking (10 minutes from powwow)
Will accommodate large vehicles for vendors.
For more information: aic50@aic-chicago.org
I believe that it was Edmund Leech, an important anthropologist who wrote "Political Systems of Highland Burma", who once dropped his notes in the river so he had to recall of them by memory. So I'm giving you the opportunity to recall the notes that you took in your mind.
So on the blog, you can post about your participant observation if you went to the rally in the South Loop.
If you want additional extra credit, then you can conduct a participant observation at the 55th Annual Powwow at the UIC Pavilion. I'll give you 25 points for this assignment too if you do a good job. Just give me your notes, and a typed up version of your notes for full credit. In the typed of version, try to make sense of your notes. Tell me if you noticed any patterns or uncovered any symbols, etc.
It's an inclusive event. It's probably about $10 to get in. There will be a lot of great food there....like Indian tacos, and fry bread, soups....mmmmmmm.
Here's the info:
http://www.aic-chicago.org/powwow.html
American Indian Center’s
55th Annual Powwow
November 14-16, 2008
AIC Powwow
UIC Pavilion ( University of Illinois, Chicago campus)
1150 W. Harrison Street
Chicago, IL
Relive the excitement of the 54th Annual AIC Powwow
Contact us: rhodge@uic.edu
Vendors: contact joep@aic-chicago.org
Host hotel: 99.00 per night, free parking (10 minutes from powwow)
Will accommodate large vehicles for vendors.
For more information: aic50@aic-chicago.org
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
All I need is a miracle
As a poster previously said before I agree in that this paper was hard and confusing. However i did get a gist that it talked about the comparance of science and magic. I remember reading an article on how they discovered scientific answers to what really happened when Moses parted the Red Sea to help the Jews escape from the pharaoh. Though the article stated some really good ideas about what happened it didn't really give a solid answer. Though I believe that what happened was probably exaggerated or scientific I do believe there's a difference in magic and miracles I'd define Moses parting the Red Sea as a miracle. I believe that magic is more held for spiritual ways rather than religious. Magic is more of a belief, tradition, or idea that is practiced. However I find that magic is completely separate from religion. Magic is practiced by individuals or cults that believe it's real and that actually put time and effort into it. Miracles however are more something that you come upon. Such as a need for more money and finding a hundred dollars on the street. Those type of things can't be explained by science nor can they be achieved by magic... unless of course you deliberately practice a spell for wealth or superstition... but then again there is prayer and maybe that itself is magic?
Rational to Me is Irrational to You
I found the reading a bit confusing and hard to follow. I felt that I had to re-read paragraphs to grasp it and it amost seemed he didn't stay on topic. However I understood the main theme. From the reading, I am able to answer the question"Does a rational outlook to one's surroundings imply the absence of faith in magical rights?'
No because I think I have a rational outlook to my surroundings however, I believe their are many ways in which I could say some of my views are magical. Rationally all people should generally remember where they came from and that is the earth. Therefore we are one with the earth, a part of the earth, and we are the same and no better than any other species. This rational view hides so many magical and scientif rites. Also, it depends on what your definition of rational would be some may say my views are completely irrational and ubserd. However, I think that the bible is completely unrealistic and rediculous. A rational outlook on ones surrounding depends completely on the persons views, culture and surroundings that they were brought up with.
No because I think I have a rational outlook to my surroundings however, I believe their are many ways in which I could say some of my views are magical. Rationally all people should generally remember where they came from and that is the earth. Therefore we are one with the earth, a part of the earth, and we are the same and no better than any other species. This rational view hides so many magical and scientif rites. Also, it depends on what your definition of rational would be some may say my views are completely irrational and ubserd. However, I think that the bible is completely unrealistic and rediculous. A rational outlook on ones surrounding depends completely on the persons views, culture and surroundings that they were brought up with.
Paranormal State.
I respect science. I enjoy proven facts, theories tested and tried. Without solid facts, where would we be? The supernatural can be scary. It is the unknown. There are things out there we might never be able to prove with science or reason. I don't want to get into my personal beliefs on the supernatural here. Religion and spirituality..I don't know. I can't think or analyze anything with a grain of intelligence or clarity today. After the emotion and energy and love at the rally last night, why does everything else seem..I'm sorry. Okay, so to summarize, I hope by next week's blog I'll have more to say.
Love Potion #9
Magic is an idea, its an illusion. It carries no scientific proof or evidence. Similar to faith. You follow it to what you want to believe in. I don't believe in magic but then again i'm not religious either. There are people who chose to believe in the supernatural or in gods in order to fulfill a void of the unknown. Yet religion is an accepted practice while magic is considered to be like a past time and silly.
On Magic and Science
Malinowski ‘s categorization of the sacred and profane is twofold. He discusses native cultures as having two different sides to them, the magical and the scientific.
First, he describes traditional acts and observances that are considered sacred to those who partake in them. These acts always go hand in hand with beliefs in supernatural forces or beings.
Second, he describes how each native culture no matter how “primitive” their actions seem or their tools look, they are all scientific in some way. Methods are connected to scientific processes, and the success of a culture or group depends on methods of survival, therefore rendering a significant portion of their lives scientific.
First, he describes traditional acts and observances that are considered sacred to those who partake in them. These acts always go hand in hand with beliefs in supernatural forces or beings.
Second, he describes how each native culture no matter how “primitive” their actions seem or their tools look, they are all scientific in some way. Methods are connected to scientific processes, and the success of a culture or group depends on methods of survival, therefore rendering a significant portion of their lives scientific.
Spirituality vs. Science a modern distraction.
For the sake of wider spectrum's I'm going to say religion and spirituality. You don't have to be religious to be spiritual but that's another topic! The truth is this assumption that spirituality and science can't coexist is a recent (and dare I say ignorant?) perspective. Lets evaluate, yeah?
Muslims are extremely connected to science if you look at the actual teachings of Islam, Islam and science have been together since the middle ages. Buddhism is also extremely connected to science the Dalai Lama has said, "With the ever growing impact of science on our lives, religion and spirituality have a greater role to play reminding us of our humanity. There is no contradiction between the two. Each gives us valuable insights into the other. Both science and the teachings of the Buddha tell us of the fundamental unity of all things." The dissociation of science is a recent manipulation of leaders wanting mindless herds instead of educated masses, duh.
The problem lies in the fact that a lot of scientist are limited in their knowledge of religion/spirituality and a lot of religious people are limited in their knowledge of science. If both took the time to actually and unbiasedly evaluate the other they'd realize there's a lot in common. First of all lets take one of Newtons Laws, 'Energy can't be destroyed or created only transformed.' if you look at it from an open perspective you can say, hey that sounds a little like reincarnation granted not the literal sense of reincarnation. Our bodies are big balls of energy when we die that energy CANNOT, in the eyes of science, die it can only be transformed. What another example of scientific reincarnation? Isn't obvious, STARS! A star collapses in on itself all that's left over is the dust and after a shitload of time a new star is born out of those remnants. Hey, it's REBORN!
But lets have more examples of Spirituality and science coexisting. The spirituality of the Aztec, Maya, and the mother culture of the Toltec could NOT exist without science. ABSOLUTELY NO WAY. The Maya and Aztec inherited and enhanced one the most accurate and ancient calendars. In their ancient times they were one the the most advanced civilizations when it came to the calendar, mathematics and astronomy but of course that often gets neglected because teachers would rather spend more time talking about sacrifices. Malinowski said it himself, ''Primitive knowledge has been singularly neglected by anthropology." We assume that because a culture is tribal it is therefore unscientific completely sidestepping the fact that all tribal cultures are inseparable of nature. Nature is inseparable of science and it takes in depth observations of the earth and elements in order to time planting and harvesting. These aspects of spirituality become unfounded and 'primitive' because the culture would rather imbue these elements and facts of nature with respect. The idea that spirituality and science can't be friends is ridiculous maybe it has to do with the fact that the definition and idea of religion has morphed so much from it's original meaning that we can no longer see the similarities.
Not all religious/spiritual beliefs will be scientific for example legends and myths. For as far fetched as they sound we realize that they're stories meant to teach us morals and all that good stuff. The second we take things literally is the second we fail to see that science and spirituality can form a nice cohesive mix.
Muslims are extremely connected to science if you look at the actual teachings of Islam, Islam and science have been together since the middle ages. Buddhism is also extremely connected to science the Dalai Lama has said, "With the ever growing impact of science on our lives, religion and spirituality have a greater role to play reminding us of our humanity. There is no contradiction between the two. Each gives us valuable insights into the other. Both science and the teachings of the Buddha tell us of the fundamental unity of all things." The dissociation of science is a recent manipulation of leaders wanting mindless herds instead of educated masses, duh.
The problem lies in the fact that a lot of scientist are limited in their knowledge of religion/spirituality and a lot of religious people are limited in their knowledge of science. If both took the time to actually and unbiasedly evaluate the other they'd realize there's a lot in common. First of all lets take one of Newtons Laws, 'Energy can't be destroyed or created only transformed.' if you look at it from an open perspective you can say, hey that sounds a little like reincarnation granted not the literal sense of reincarnation. Our bodies are big balls of energy when we die that energy CANNOT, in the eyes of science, die it can only be transformed. What another example of scientific reincarnation? Isn't obvious, STARS! A star collapses in on itself all that's left over is the dust and after a shitload of time a new star is born out of those remnants. Hey, it's REBORN!
But lets have more examples of Spirituality and science coexisting. The spirituality of the Aztec, Maya, and the mother culture of the Toltec could NOT exist without science. ABSOLUTELY NO WAY. The Maya and Aztec inherited and enhanced one the most accurate and ancient calendars. In their ancient times they were one the the most advanced civilizations when it came to the calendar, mathematics and astronomy but of course that often gets neglected because teachers would rather spend more time talking about sacrifices. Malinowski said it himself, ''Primitive knowledge has been singularly neglected by anthropology." We assume that because a culture is tribal it is therefore unscientific completely sidestepping the fact that all tribal cultures are inseparable of nature. Nature is inseparable of science and it takes in depth observations of the earth and elements in order to time planting and harvesting. These aspects of spirituality become unfounded and 'primitive' because the culture would rather imbue these elements and facts of nature with respect. The idea that spirituality and science can't be friends is ridiculous maybe it has to do with the fact that the definition and idea of religion has morphed so much from it's original meaning that we can no longer see the similarities.
Not all religious/spiritual beliefs will be scientific for example legends and myths. For as far fetched as they sound we realize that they're stories meant to teach us morals and all that good stuff. The second we take things literally is the second we fail to see that science and spirituality can form a nice cohesive mix.
Magic, science, and religion oh my!
Magic and science differ in that science is created via experience and is corrected by observations and experiments, while magic is born of mysticism and tradition. But the main thing with magic is that it is "impervious" to all things that science stands for. While magic and religion differ in that magic is based on humans' confidence to control nature directly while religion is the "confession" of human weaknesses in certain areas and eventually begins to parallel with the qualities of science to which when magic must "succumb" to its reasoning.
Religion v. Science
The reading itself explains how religion and science can work together seamlessly. While in our country there always seems to be a battle raging between the two, very few people take the time to realize that both are valid.
Those who get solely behind science do so because it proves things. With it, there is a physical evidence behind everything not labeled a theory, many processes are explained through it, etc. However, much is left unexplained. People strive to explain the unexplainable through religion. This diminishes the need for further research because a certain outcome could be "God's will." This is why, in our country specifically, those who have faith in religion are looked at as ignorant. It should not be that way though. There are plenty of things we may never explain such as the ever-expanding universe, why we're here, and how everything came to be. Since science cannot currently explain such ideas, this makes a valid argument for religion. Many of the great scientists believed in God and science and understood how both could serve important roles in the life of a person.
Both religion and science have their place in society. Obviously, you cannot use one to explain the other but this only further proves why they're both necessary.
Those who get solely behind science do so because it proves things. With it, there is a physical evidence behind everything not labeled a theory, many processes are explained through it, etc. However, much is left unexplained. People strive to explain the unexplainable through religion. This diminishes the need for further research because a certain outcome could be "God's will." This is why, in our country specifically, those who have faith in religion are looked at as ignorant. It should not be that way though. There are plenty of things we may never explain such as the ever-expanding universe, why we're here, and how everything came to be. Since science cannot currently explain such ideas, this makes a valid argument for religion. Many of the great scientists believed in God and science and understood how both could serve important roles in the life of a person.
Both religion and science have their place in society. Obviously, you cannot use one to explain the other but this only further proves why they're both necessary.
Separation of science and magic
In Malinowski's description of the Trobiband islander's gardening and agriculture he explains the difference between magic and science to them. The islanders have a clear knowledge of the natural course of growth, pests, weeding, and all other natural occurrences one must know in order to properly farm. Then there are also the "unaccountable and adverse influences" and "unearned" streaks of "fortunate coincidence". So as not to remain helpless in the face of these unknowns and chance occurrences, the islanders employ specific rituals and magic. They use both magic and science- with no confusions that one is the same as the other- in order to ensure the best crops. The article also goes on to explain the same distinctions in canoe building.
Rationality, I don't believe, suggests a lack of faith in magical rites or religion. People who are smart and scientific, can still be religious. There only needs to be a separation between science and magic (similar to the separation of church and state in my opinion). I think most people need to believe in something that will protect them from, or at least explain, all the unknown elements that are still everywhere in our world.
The Luck Dragon is my Homeboy.
There tends to be a notion in the educated mind that reason is the default position of the human brain. In the educated mind, faith is a useless, vestigial concept, one left over from a time when humankind was still vulnerable to the power of the natural world.
In his essays on science and magic, Malinowski provides numerous examples as to how the native Trobrianders integrate the principals of faith and practical reason seamlessly. Whether planting their crops or manufacturing and sailing their canoes, the Trobrianders have an essential, concrete grasp on what is required of them to make these endeavours successful. While at the same time, they maintain a healthy respect and reverence for the divine stresses present in their undertaking. This alone seems to answer the question of whether or not a rational outlook would make for an abandonment of the magical and supernatural.
In The Power of Myth, Joseph Campbell illustrates for us the fundamental difference between a native society and a modern society in terms that well inform the topic at hand. In it he talks about how a rational outlook is essential for us, as humans, to operate in the physical world. It is out of this necessity that myth, magic and religion are born. Magic, in this understanding, is simply the exercise of maintain a closeness to the reverences one has for the physical world. Civility, monotheism, conquest and science are products of the modern age and serve as agents to corrupt and separate human beings form the natural world. Myth, magic and ritual are simply the agents humankind use to reconnect and embrace the natural world.
The magical rites of tribal peoples, as Malinowski writes, don't preclude them from work and focused endeavour. Instead they are interwoven into each part of the native's processes and daily lives. Their faith in magical rites is not a reason to forgo the important steps that make them successful, but simply, a way to make those processes more personal and culturally significant.
Lastly, I would bring up the notion that magic and religion are perhaps more closely related than Malinowski would have us consider. He demonstrates how the Trobrianders use reason and mechanics to manufacture their ships yet still perform magic rites while doing so. In this example he states that the islanders know fully that what they are doing will have a particular outcome. If the default position for humankind is to reason and estimate sucess on that reason, why the need for the rites at all? Simply- because the natural world is beyond our ability to control. Consider then, what is the point of magic? It is used to redirect the natural world and its forces in your favor. How is this magic realized? They use it through ritual and language.
In most modern religions there involves a principle of submission. Submission to the will of a higher being or authority, a being or authority we cannot understand or hope to control. A being we are at the constant mercy of. Yet, in every major religion, we are given means to contact that being, as with prayer. We are given means to appease that being, as with rituals like communion. We are given rules for which will allow for a deeper connection to the being, as with commandments. And we are told that the observance of all these things will gain us favor with the being. The only difference between magic and religion in this sense is the immediacy to the individuals participating in it.
In his essays on science and magic, Malinowski provides numerous examples as to how the native Trobrianders integrate the principals of faith and practical reason seamlessly. Whether planting their crops or manufacturing and sailing their canoes, the Trobrianders have an essential, concrete grasp on what is required of them to make these endeavours successful. While at the same time, they maintain a healthy respect and reverence for the divine stresses present in their undertaking. This alone seems to answer the question of whether or not a rational outlook would make for an abandonment of the magical and supernatural.
In The Power of Myth, Joseph Campbell illustrates for us the fundamental difference between a native society and a modern society in terms that well inform the topic at hand. In it he talks about how a rational outlook is essential for us, as humans, to operate in the physical world. It is out of this necessity that myth, magic and religion are born. Magic, in this understanding, is simply the exercise of maintain a closeness to the reverences one has for the physical world. Civility, monotheism, conquest and science are products of the modern age and serve as agents to corrupt and separate human beings form the natural world. Myth, magic and ritual are simply the agents humankind use to reconnect and embrace the natural world.
The magical rites of tribal peoples, as Malinowski writes, don't preclude them from work and focused endeavour. Instead they are interwoven into each part of the native's processes and daily lives. Their faith in magical rites is not a reason to forgo the important steps that make them successful, but simply, a way to make those processes more personal and culturally significant.
Lastly, I would bring up the notion that magic and religion are perhaps more closely related than Malinowski would have us consider. He demonstrates how the Trobrianders use reason and mechanics to manufacture their ships yet still perform magic rites while doing so. In this example he states that the islanders know fully that what they are doing will have a particular outcome. If the default position for humankind is to reason and estimate sucess on that reason, why the need for the rites at all? Simply- because the natural world is beyond our ability to control. Consider then, what is the point of magic? It is used to redirect the natural world and its forces in your favor. How is this magic realized? They use it through ritual and language.
In most modern religions there involves a principle of submission. Submission to the will of a higher being or authority, a being or authority we cannot understand or hope to control. A being we are at the constant mercy of. Yet, in every major religion, we are given means to contact that being, as with prayer. We are given means to appease that being, as with rituals like communion. We are given rules for which will allow for a deeper connection to the being, as with commandments. And we are told that the observance of all these things will gain us favor with the being. The only difference between magic and religion in this sense is the immediacy to the individuals participating in it.
Rational Magic
I don't know if you can see through the eyes of fact and science and still believe in things that are not concrete. Maybe it is possible? I guess if you can somehow marry the two and believe in both science and faith then it is possible to go through life believing in both hardcore facts and religion and magic. I guess I can consider myself a person who depends more on science and what can be proven but yet I have a deeply spiritual side. The spiritual side for most people is what they use to explain the unexplainable. Faith and mysticism is the tool of humanity to make sense of the things that our science can not explain. Science has to develop constantly and as a result is much slower than magic and faith. We find much needed comfort in our faith. We ask so many questions and some of them have been answered by science but there are still many more that need to be answered and until then we have magic, faith, and rituals to make sense of the universe we live in.
So I guess that answers my question. You can most definitely believe in both science and magic. Some people choose one or the other but there are some people that need and like both. Science makes things definite and factual. Magic and faith add mystery and awe to our lives. There is room for both I believe.
So I guess that answers my question. You can most definitely believe in both science and magic. Some people choose one or the other but there are some people that need and like both. Science makes things definite and factual. Magic and faith add mystery and awe to our lives. There is room for both I believe.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Maliowhat?
Reading this piece was for one confusing because it was very wordy and for two, the words were absurd and unnecessarily large. Not being an anthropologist made it hard to understand exactly what Malinowski was saying, not to mention his round about way to express what he was saying. His arguments seemed to go in circles, ending up contradicting what he was saying about the differences of magic and religion.
Answering the question, "does a rational outlook to one's surroundings imply the absence of faith in magical rites?" is complicated because people who do not believe in faith might believe in magic which would be rational to people who practice magic, and not to those who practice a religion. I feel as if a religious person who was explaining what religion was to a person who practiced magic, the one who practice magic would reply with, "oh, yeah, we have that in our society and we call it magic."
Is it the same thing? No, I do not think they are the same thing, however they are similar interpretations to a way of believing in how things have come to be and why things happen.
Answering the question, "does a rational outlook to one's surroundings imply the absence of faith in magical rites?" is complicated because people who do not believe in faith might believe in magic which would be rational to people who practice magic, and not to those who practice a religion. I feel as if a religious person who was explaining what religion was to a person who practiced magic, the one who practice magic would reply with, "oh, yeah, we have that in our society and we call it magic."
Is it the same thing? No, I do not think they are the same thing, however they are similar interpretations to a way of believing in how things have come to be and why things happen.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Extra Credit
If anyone wants 25 points of extra credit (if you do a good job), then act as the participant observer at the Election night rally tomorrow night in Grant Park.
You don't have to get into the rally in order to do this since there will probably be people all over downtown rallying.
Just hand me in your notes from the event and then type them up.
See you Wednesday.
You don't have to get into the rally in order to do this since there will probably be people all over downtown rallying.
Just hand me in your notes from the event and then type them up.
See you Wednesday.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Magic, Science and Religion Blog
For this blog, please either answer one or more of these questions or pose your own questions about the reading for this week (Malinowski's "Magic, Science, and Relgion").
How does Malinowski categorize the sacred and profane?
What do you think about his arguments? His definitions?
Narrate Malinowski’s examples of magical and scientific behaviors.
How does Malinowski distinguish between magic and science and between magic and religion?
What is signified by setting apart the sphere of work from the sphere of ritual among the ‘Trobriand Islanders?
Does a rational outlook to one’s surroundings imply the absence of
faith in magical rites?
How does Malinowski categorize the sacred and profane?
What do you think about his arguments? His definitions?
Narrate Malinowski’s examples of magical and scientific behaviors.
How does Malinowski distinguish between magic and science and between magic and religion?
What is signified by setting apart the sphere of work from the sphere of ritual among the ‘Trobriand Islanders?
Does a rational outlook to one’s surroundings imply the absence of
faith in magical rites?
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Just like a teen movie
I'm having a little bit of trouble starting this blog assignment, in particular because I seem to have repressed most of my memories from high school. As far as I'm concerned, this period of my life is a veritable black hole of information.
I went to a private Catholic high school. My first day of class, a couple kids ganged up on me and told me that they were telling everyone that I was going to bomb the school. For months they would make certain they would sit behind me in class or follow me in the hallway, whispering "Goth, bomber, you're going to bomb the school."
I didn't really have many names for the majority of the kids that went there other than the obvious jocks (every school has them), but I remember them to be nauseating to me. Rich kids talking about how much money daddy's car costs, the bright red Hummer H1 in the senior parking lot, weed-smoking, Dave Matthews concert-going, assholes. Some of them already had a highly developed cocaine problem. I did have a couple friends that would have been the stereotypical lunch table with all the leftovers that didn't fit in to any particular group, but as far as the linguistics of it, I never had a name for the different categories at the time. Of course, looking back on it, they are clear to me. We were the outsiders. I dyed my hair black and one quick look at my backpack revealed that I liked Skinny Puppy etc, so that meant I was the goth one. In our rotating cast, we had a genius, a fat girl, one cheerleader who always talked about sex, a girl who claimed to be a witch, an anime nerd, a punk, and one of those guys who always has a guitar with him. Thinking about it now, it really was just like one of those 1980's teen movies. I didn't think I was a stereotype a the time, but, holy shit.
Really, no matter what high school you go to, it ends up being a teen movie in some form after it's over with.
I went to a private Catholic high school. My first day of class, a couple kids ganged up on me and told me that they were telling everyone that I was going to bomb the school. For months they would make certain they would sit behind me in class or follow me in the hallway, whispering "Goth, bomber, you're going to bomb the school."
I didn't really have many names for the majority of the kids that went there other than the obvious jocks (every school has them), but I remember them to be nauseating to me. Rich kids talking about how much money daddy's car costs, the bright red Hummer H1 in the senior parking lot, weed-smoking, Dave Matthews concert-going, assholes. Some of them already had a highly developed cocaine problem. I did have a couple friends that would have been the stereotypical lunch table with all the leftovers that didn't fit in to any particular group, but as far as the linguistics of it, I never had a name for the different categories at the time. Of course, looking back on it, they are clear to me. We were the outsiders. I dyed my hair black and one quick look at my backpack revealed that I liked Skinny Puppy etc, so that meant I was the goth one. In our rotating cast, we had a genius, a fat girl, one cheerleader who always talked about sex, a girl who claimed to be a witch, an anime nerd, a punk, and one of those guys who always has a guitar with him. Thinking about it now, it really was just like one of those 1980's teen movies. I didn't think I was a stereotype a the time, but, holy shit.
Really, no matter what high school you go to, it ends up being a teen movie in some form after it's over with.
Was I sheltered?
My highschool, junior high, elementary, and pre-k experience seems to be a very different story than most people. I went to an episcopalian, college preparatory, private school that houses grades preschool through senior all in the same building. This set me up for a fairly unique pre college academic experience. It was almost impossible to form cliques or different levels of categories because as a class we grew up together and were highly influenced by eachother. Everyone dabbled in relatively the same things and same circle of friends. Even if I was an athlete per se, and you were a stoner, or a bookworm, I would still have learned to respect and be intrigued by what you were doing or talking about. Therefore it pulled me partly into your category. The extreme pressure to make it into an Ivy League school also took a lot of emphasis off of the friendships and bonds we had been building for 15 years, so we didn't take our personal relationships THAT seriously. Nobody expected to stick around Minneapolis when they graduated, and many didn't plan on returning. There was a very entrepreneurial mindset that really lightened social pressures. In our mind "these our my highschool friends, they are fun for now, but we will all be leaving soon, don't plan on them being your friends down the line." Although this was kind of a sour outlook on things, it really eased the social environment and made the categorization of groups a thought on the back burner.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Identity Crisis.
So there we were, sitting at our usual table in the lunch room. I sat there for four years. The table closest to the door. We had a courtyard, but we couldn't smoke there. If we wanted to smoke, we had to get past security[which wasn't super difficult] and hide in the softball dugouts. I remember the way we all dressed and it makes me smile...hoodies with holes in the sleeves that we'd cut for our thumbs, black shirts, jeans that were ripped up and dragged on the floor...now that I think about it, not much has changed as far as my style goes, which is sad in itself. Piercings and dyed hair were huge. Stoners. It's so funny how that is an identity. It was my identity. And after I put all of that behind me, it took a long time to figure out my own values; to hear my own personal voice. In those days, we'd walk around like we owned the school. We owned it, because we weren't a part of it. Oh wow. I haven't thought about that stuff in a while I guess...it's been filed away in the "perspective I never want to return to" catagory of memories. It does make me happy thinking about how ridiculous and wonderful those days were in their own way though..
j.leigh
j.leigh
Nothing Like Degrassi
I went to a pretty ghetto high school. It was predominantly hispanic, there were a few caucasians african americans, and a handful of asians. It wasn't the jocks vs nerds. In our school if you were a jock, chances were you might have been ridiculed. All of our sports teams sucked, and no one attended any sport matches. There were a few people who were considered nerds but they weren't teased. People were separated into groups but no one was judged or made fun of for it. There were a group kids who had their on table playing like card games such as yu gi oh(i think that's what is called). There were also the spanish rockers, hip hoppers, emo, piasas, brazers, goths, gangsta, rotc and overwhelming amount of ghetto kids. Yet everyone got along with one another. There was no sense of hierachy, no queen bees. You can talk to anyone and be friends with anyone. It was a pretty liberal minded group of people considering the type of school we attended . I think everyone was accepting of one another because of all the rules imposed on us. We had to pass through metal detecters, wear uniforms, and had to have an id on us everywhere we went. Every student had to abide by those restrictions placed on us. Therefore we felt like a community. Prisoners of the same school. I think that's one reason no one cared so much for cliques. It's also another reason why i really like that i went to that high school. Looking back at it now i can really appreciate how open everyone was. I mean come on my good friend one homecoming queen, even though he's a boy and gay. Which is still a bit taboo in the latino culture. So here's to you Benito Juarez.
Released From Prison
In the essay "Symbols of Category Membership" a linguistic anthropologist studied the way young people begin to classify each other – a process that began in junior high school but continued into high school – and how these identifications affect the rest of students’ lives. While “jock” and “burnout” might not be the lingo that you used during that time of your life, did you have similar categories when you were in high school? How did people in your high school express and reinforce their identity? For instance, Eckert looks at how the high schoolers expressed class not just through clothing, drug use, and activities, but through linguistics. Feel free to include some of the typical slang/jargon/or terms that people in the different groups.
In my highschool. There was so many different "cliques". Here they are... the "in" crowd. the Italians, the jocks, the Albanians, the Chaldeans, the Hippies, the burn-outs (screw ups), the Black group, Theater kids, the Nerds then everyone else who prefered not to assosiate themselves with a large group. Each one had a different place that they would stand in the "commons" every morning before school starts. I guess the "commons" is the one large room where everyone had something in common. The world was quite symbolic for the way my school was ran. Personally, I absolutely hated highschool and everything about it. My school represented everything wrong with the way the American school system was set up. One example of this was the fact that my highschool yearbook included a page dedicated to specific students who had expensive cars, then another page for students who had beater cards. If you were in the "in crowd" you had a Hummer, A Rangerover, a Cadilac, or a BMW that you parents bought you. Not only did they point out the rich kids from the less rich kids, the student council also created a "makeover event". The student council chose "ugly, not so fashionable people" out of the school, and asked them if they wanted a makeover. Many people were insulted but thought they may need a makeover since the student council picked them. They gave them a makeover then also added that section to the yearbook. Yes, my school was a disgrace. I felt like I was in jail everyday. Symbolically the architect of our school also designed the community jail in our city. My school was extremely segregated. Each race was very tightly packed into their own group. The different races such as Albanians and Chaldeans didn't get along. They would constantly get in fights. Supposedly there was a war in history where the Ablanians verse Chaldeans. I don't know the details of this, am I'm sure neither did the highschool students. But each of the two groups recognized that "war" and continued to establish the separation at school. However, I lived in a very rich area so their was no real violence or gangs. It was just a bunch of superficial kids with rich parents that didn't know anything else than drama and money.
The girls in the "in crowd" would LITERALLY pretend they were part of the series "Laguna Beach on MTV". They thought they were the "Laguna Beach" of my town. They even made up fake names for themselves such as "crazy" and "Bebe" and "lush". My school was a terror and I felt like I was released from prison when I graduated.
In my highschool. There was so many different "cliques". Here they are... the "in" crowd. the Italians, the jocks, the Albanians, the Chaldeans, the Hippies, the burn-outs (screw ups), the Black group, Theater kids, the Nerds then everyone else who prefered not to assosiate themselves with a large group. Each one had a different place that they would stand in the "commons" every morning before school starts. I guess the "commons" is the one large room where everyone had something in common. The world was quite symbolic for the way my school was ran. Personally, I absolutely hated highschool and everything about it. My school represented everything wrong with the way the American school system was set up. One example of this was the fact that my highschool yearbook included a page dedicated to specific students who had expensive cars, then another page for students who had beater cards. If you were in the "in crowd" you had a Hummer, A Rangerover, a Cadilac, or a BMW that you parents bought you. Not only did they point out the rich kids from the less rich kids, the student council also created a "makeover event". The student council chose "ugly, not so fashionable people" out of the school, and asked them if they wanted a makeover. Many people were insulted but thought they may need a makeover since the student council picked them. They gave them a makeover then also added that section to the yearbook. Yes, my school was a disgrace. I felt like I was in jail everyday. Symbolically the architect of our school also designed the community jail in our city. My school was extremely segregated. Each race was very tightly packed into their own group. The different races such as Albanians and Chaldeans didn't get along. They would constantly get in fights. Supposedly there was a war in history where the Ablanians verse Chaldeans. I don't know the details of this, am I'm sure neither did the highschool students. But each of the two groups recognized that "war" and continued to establish the separation at school. However, I lived in a very rich area so their was no real violence or gangs. It was just a bunch of superficial kids with rich parents that didn't know anything else than drama and money.
The girls in the "in crowd" would LITERALLY pretend they were part of the series "Laguna Beach on MTV". They thought they were the "Laguna Beach" of my town. They even made up fake names for themselves such as "crazy" and "Bebe" and "lush". My school was a terror and I felt like I was released from prison when I graduated.
High School Sucked...Well Most of the Time.
In my high school it was either you were in the "in crowd" or you weren't. I had friends on both sides and hated that. I called myself a floater because I would float between groups. I played football freshman year of high school and after that were still friends with people on the team through the years, all the others were assholes. They were assholes to me even when I was playing, some people just never change. Come senior year I avoided pretty much everyone trying to break connections with everyone before everyone went to college. I'm glad I did, and if I had the choice to do it again I absolutely would.
I mostly hung out with the "metal heads". My buddies that I went to concerts with in high school. They were the best, I am still friends with most of them, except the ones I lost to drugs. My best friend in high school started smoking weed and that was fine everyone in high school did it except me, but that's besides the point. I lost my best friend to drugs, all he cared about was getting high more than hanging out with me. Then he started doing coke (another popular drug, even with the "jocks"). So I cut all ties with him altogether. After seeing that, I pledged to myself to never do drugs or drink, I went straightedge. I became minority, I had one edge friend in high school. And we are best friends today. You know how after the graduation ceremony everyone hangs out and takes pictures? Not me, I said good bye to my photo teacher and left. I basically said "fuck you" to the high school and left.
I mostly hung out with the "metal heads". My buddies that I went to concerts with in high school. They were the best, I am still friends with most of them, except the ones I lost to drugs. My best friend in high school started smoking weed and that was fine everyone in high school did it except me, but that's besides the point. I lost my best friend to drugs, all he cared about was getting high more than hanging out with me. Then he started doing coke (another popular drug, even with the "jocks"). So I cut all ties with him altogether. After seeing that, I pledged to myself to never do drugs or drink, I went straightedge. I became minority, I had one edge friend in high school. And we are best friends today. You know how after the graduation ceremony everyone hangs out and takes pictures? Not me, I said good bye to my photo teacher and left. I basically said "fuck you" to the high school and left.
Our own little nation
Well I went to an all boy Catholic school so we really didn't care about grouping each other into different boxes. With the absence of girls the popularity hierarchy kind of crumbles. There of course were cliques I'm not sure high school boys would call them that but there definitely were groups of guys that were always together. I'm sure sports and drug usage came into play. I was in my own little clique, I was in the art club/gay clique. We probably were the most identifiable group out of our class because everyone watched us to see what we would say or do next. They'd even gossip about us behind our back. It was this weird fascination they had with the three of us. Some kids would even ask us obvious sexual questions. It was always fun to exaggerate our answers to them. It was as if we were some kind of other worldly creatures. All in all it made for a fun and surprisingly comfortable high school experience.
As far as things that set us apart that would have to be the way we talked. Some of the lingo we used in high school is classic and looking back on it we laugh. The phrase "buffoon honey" was one of the most used. This was used to describe someone or something that was utterly a mess for various reasons. Thank God we don't say that anymore. Another word was "chop!" you got to put the exclamation on it, it gives it the much needed emphasis. That was another word that meantsomeone or something was utterly a mess. We were very judgemental and still are. Always focusing on the negative. And the word "late" is a word that means something has gone terribly wrong. Example: He was late for never calling you back. We would use our code words to carry on conversations among other students and they would have no idea what we were talking about. I'm sure there was more lingo but that's all I could remember for now.
Looking back on highschool I'm glad for my little clique. We were always laughing about something ridiculous. We were like our own little nation.
As far as things that set us apart that would have to be the way we talked. Some of the lingo we used in high school is classic and looking back on it we laugh. The phrase "buffoon honey" was one of the most used. This was used to describe someone or something that was utterly a mess for various reasons. Thank God we don't say that anymore. Another word was "chop!" you got to put the exclamation on it, it gives it the much needed emphasis. That was another word that meantsomeone or something was utterly a mess. We were very judgemental and still are. Always focusing on the negative. And the word "late" is a word that means something has gone terribly wrong. Example: He was late for never calling you back. We would use our code words to carry on conversations among other students and they would have no idea what we were talking about. I'm sure there was more lingo but that's all I could remember for now.
Looking back on highschool I'm glad for my little clique. We were always laughing about something ridiculous. We were like our own little nation.
Uh...
I can honestly say that I didn't go to a school with geeks, jocks, goths and preps and thank god-vishnu-allah. I went to an all girl catholic school that was less than half a mile away from Roberto Clemente. The teachers sucked but the two or three that didn't were awesome and when it came down to groups these kinds of things didn't exist. Seriously, it was normal we eventually made groups of friends but the groups weren't determined by how well we played basketball. We all just mingled, it felt like a family and like any family there were always people you wished you weren't related to but when it came down to it we joined forces and rocked the boat as much as we could. Considering that we wore uniforms there wasn't much going on about cloths, when it came to language there wasn't much of difference either because we all came from similar neighborhoods that is when we were speaking English. Ethnically the school was primarily Latina's and African Americans and yes we all mingled so the only time language became an issue was when we'd talk to eachother in Spanish. It didn't matter if we were sitting at a lunch table talking in Spanish about our weekends you could always count on someone starting something because of it, 'OH, you're only talking Spanish to talk crap.' 'You shouldn't be talking Spanish because that's rude, OH this is America and this school talks English.' We never talked in Spanish in our groups because our groups were mixed and that would be rude. We talked Spanish if two of us were eating lunch or waiting for our rides after school but it was always a problem with every body else regardless of the fact that we were doing it respectfully.
That was the only division I saw and I was always one to fight back. Assuming that two people are talking French I'm not going to walk up to them and say 'Hey, you have no right speak your that language because I don't understand it.' That's a load of BS, what does it matter to me when two people are having a conversation among themselves? If I was in a group and they started talking French and laughing and pointing that'd be different. But outside of that there were really didn't have cliques of geeks and jocks. Not that we didn't have nerds and all that stuff we did but we all just kind of hung out. Besides these kinds of definitions wouldn't of worked for us, first of all I was(am) a nerd but I was(am) the person that always told teachers off when they were being ignorant. I had PLENTY of ignorant teachers which lead to plenty of arguments which lead to me being sent to the Deans office which lead to detentions that I never served because the Dean loved me. The Dean also happened to be one of the teachers that didn't suck so she sympathized with my outburst of stupidity fighting. The point is, troublemaking nerd doesn't kind of fit in stereotyped cliques. Neither does nerdy jock or computer geek prep and there were people that could definitely be defined as such. In the end it was a small school and it seemed kind of stupid to divide ourselves that way.
That was the only division I saw and I was always one to fight back. Assuming that two people are talking French I'm not going to walk up to them and say 'Hey, you have no right speak your that language because I don't understand it.' That's a load of BS, what does it matter to me when two people are having a conversation among themselves? If I was in a group and they started talking French and laughing and pointing that'd be different. But outside of that there were really didn't have cliques of geeks and jocks. Not that we didn't have nerds and all that stuff we did but we all just kind of hung out. Besides these kinds of definitions wouldn't of worked for us, first of all I was(am) a nerd but I was(am) the person that always told teachers off when they were being ignorant. I had PLENTY of ignorant teachers which lead to plenty of arguments which lead to me being sent to the Deans office which lead to detentions that I never served because the Dean loved me. The Dean also happened to be one of the teachers that didn't suck so she sympathized with my outburst of stupidity fighting. The point is, troublemaking nerd doesn't kind of fit in stereotyped cliques. Neither does nerdy jock or computer geek prep and there were people that could definitely be defined as such. In the end it was a small school and it seemed kind of stupid to divide ourselves that way.
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love John Hughes Movies.
In high school I was a terrible student. Correction. I am a terrible student. I probably always will be.
Why?
Because I love to learn, but I can't stand being told what is important to know and what isn't. I love to discover and read and interpret and consider and read some more and argue and revise and write and debate and listen and read and then come to conclusions on my own. Some in the establishment regarded this as lazy. I regarded it as a natural reaction to boredom.
Sadly, as I'm sure most of you can attest personally, public schools are in no way, shape or form equipped to handle a person like that. I mention this because it is of particular relevance to the topic at hand.
Poor student equals poor grades. I was a horrifyingly bad student and my grades were the bad of legend. I got by on little more than pretty eyes and the fact that I scared most of my teachers to death with a mind that, if disturbed adequately, would rear its ugly head, take aim at the swill they dished out in class as "education" and then eat Tokyo.
Problem one- I have a deep respect for my parents.
Problem two- My parents have a deep respect for educators.
Problem three- My parents believed strongly in policing their children properly and took keen interest in what was happening and what needed to be done about things in their children's lives. As all parents should.
So from the start of my freshman year until my junior year, I was grounded. Seriously. The deal was, if my grades improved I could go out. They never improved and so for three years I sat on the outside looking in. My friends changed and grew up, they tried different things, people I knew since grade school evolved into totally different versions of themselves right before my eyes.
So, groups in High School.
Jock, Geek, Burnout, Goth, Princess- John Hughes staples all.
What I learned from being witness to all but a part of none? Did I take anything away from my academically imposed exile?
These groups were not exclusive. They were not omnipresent. They were not even real. All the jocks were car geeks and sport fact nerds. All the burnouts were immensely popular. The geeks liked heavy metal. The goths were awesome at softball and badminton. The princesses all acted tough. And everybody smoked pot and drank like fish.
Also, I swear, there was a sh#&load of coke.
The groups in school seemed to boil down to, primarily, three groups.
The Committed- Those who felt achievement in High School would translate directly into success in their lives at some point in the future.
The Uninterested- Those who thought High School was social punishment for not being rich, popular or good looking enough for mainstream America.
The Rest- Every single last person on Earth who has ever thought "one day, it sure would be cool to...(fill in the blank)" But at the age of sixteen or seventeen didn't know how to do it yet and was told school is where you go to figure sh*& out.
I still have a few close friends from my time in High School and honestly, they are so much a part of me that I have to question if I would even be myself without them. They are the only "group" I have ever concerned myself with.
Why?
Because I love to learn, but I can't stand being told what is important to know and what isn't. I love to discover and read and interpret and consider and read some more and argue and revise and write and debate and listen and read and then come to conclusions on my own. Some in the establishment regarded this as lazy. I regarded it as a natural reaction to boredom.
Sadly, as I'm sure most of you can attest personally, public schools are in no way, shape or form equipped to handle a person like that. I mention this because it is of particular relevance to the topic at hand.
Poor student equals poor grades. I was a horrifyingly bad student and my grades were the bad of legend. I got by on little more than pretty eyes and the fact that I scared most of my teachers to death with a mind that, if disturbed adequately, would rear its ugly head, take aim at the swill they dished out in class as "education" and then eat Tokyo.
Problem one- I have a deep respect for my parents.
Problem two- My parents have a deep respect for educators.
Problem three- My parents believed strongly in policing their children properly and took keen interest in what was happening and what needed to be done about things in their children's lives. As all parents should.
So from the start of my freshman year until my junior year, I was grounded. Seriously. The deal was, if my grades improved I could go out. They never improved and so for three years I sat on the outside looking in. My friends changed and grew up, they tried different things, people I knew since grade school evolved into totally different versions of themselves right before my eyes.
So, groups in High School.
Jock, Geek, Burnout, Goth, Princess- John Hughes staples all.
What I learned from being witness to all but a part of none? Did I take anything away from my academically imposed exile?
These groups were not exclusive. They were not omnipresent. They were not even real. All the jocks were car geeks and sport fact nerds. All the burnouts were immensely popular. The geeks liked heavy metal. The goths were awesome at softball and badminton. The princesses all acted tough. And everybody smoked pot and drank like fish.
Also, I swear, there was a sh#&load of coke.
The groups in school seemed to boil down to, primarily, three groups.
The Committed- Those who felt achievement in High School would translate directly into success in their lives at some point in the future.
The Uninterested- Those who thought High School was social punishment for not being rich, popular or good looking enough for mainstream America.
The Rest- Every single last person on Earth who has ever thought "one day, it sure would be cool to...(fill in the blank)" But at the age of sixteen or seventeen didn't know how to do it yet and was told school is where you go to figure sh*& out.
I still have a few close friends from my time in High School and honestly, they are so much a part of me that I have to question if I would even be myself without them. They are the only "group" I have ever concerned myself with.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
...More sub-cultures than baby-daddies on Maury!
I remember when I read the essay about Burnouts and Jocks. I kept telling myself, high school is more than these two groups and the in-betweens. My high school was full of more sub-cultures than Maury having baby-daddies on his show.
First off, there were the greasers. These are the same kids that you would see in American Graffiti. Since they worked on cars most of the time their attire wasn't the fanciest. Jeans, bandanas and undershirts were these guys. And you can tell when you hanging out with one when he mentions the new headers, that he put on his '58 super-charged mustang, with a rear wheel drive that'll have you drifting every turn. They would get so detailed and specific you would have to buy a car magazine to keep up, ( I sure did). But they enjoy other things in life but their car is their passion whether from the laughable stock dodge neon to the import turbo-charged supra. But we didn't call them greasers, at my school they didn't really have a term a few of em liked "Racers" since most of them were street racers but that's another subculture for another time.
I didn't roll with the Goth crowd all that much, only some times and that's because they were a tight-nit group. If you become friends with one don't think about joining with the rest. I think it's because they didn't want someone to judge them off the bat suddenly but they were cool. They listened to a lot of metal and rock they always wanted to start a band. Influenced by Korn, Maryliyn Manson, Slipknot. It's easy to spot them because they wore a lot of black, big pants with chains on them and so many different hair style, from long to spikes and all sorts of color. Some of them had piercings or snake bite pericings (the peircings that come out of the sides of your bottom lip). I recall they all seemed "laid back" and "chill".
On the polar opposite end of the goths were the Jocks and Valley Girls.
Where to begin? They wore a lot of bright colors and were always loud about their drama. In one conversation you also would hear "like" and "oh my god" used so often it would lose it's meaning after the sixth time. If you wanted gossip about someone those girls would have it or snoop for it. I put them in the same category with the jocks because a few of them were cheerleaders and hung out with the jocks. The Jocks are what I, personally consider, Valley Guys. The big dudes on the football, lacross any sports team. They smoke, it didn't matter if they would weeze in the game, they would smoke and drink, as if tomorrow was not going to arrive. They were the overlords of the school if they got in trouble there punishment would be minimal, because of the team. Going against them is like going up against a conservative with a nuclear weapon, you'd be shut out immediately. Hence, they always protect and look out for each other.
Hippies. These were the guys who would sit outside before school and during lunch playing hacky-sack when weather is nice. Everyone to them is their "bro" or "dude" or "man". I swear they were outside for the cigarette or weed smoke to air out. The clothes were similiar to greasesr but instead of undershirt they woudl bring back the 70s with tiedye or musician that they were into, "cuz he's the stuff, man, ya know?"
The Hip-Hoopers, Hood Kids. - These guys all bonded together through music, that's actually how i joined them. Not everyone liked the same but agreed that Tupac was one of the greatest. Wearing sweaters, baggy jeans, and brand name shirts all the time. Nike, Encye, Fubu, Rebock, Puma, Ecko... and many more. Movies were a big thing too, you wouldn't see the Oscar's on most of thier lists and most of them have seen or heard of Belly. Most of them lived their "Ol' Girl" (Mother) and "Ol' Man" (Father). Their peers all considered each other homie, homeboys, brothers, son or young'in. And this subculture would give we each other "Dap" (batting thier fists togther). And who knew you could ask person how theyre doing so many times? "What's going down?" "What's crackin?" "How you be?" "What's good?"
Lastly, the nerds and geeks. You wanted to the know the stark difference of a GForce, Nvidia and Direct-X graphics card and not blink. They'll tell you why the 1st edition G.I. Joes won't be as valuable as the 2nd edition. A lot of talk about technology can go between these guys or just about sci-fic movies and literature. I remember once when some put hot sauce on his food and when he bit into it he started flipping out looking for water. These guys were sitting at his table and instead of giving him water they debated why water wouldn't fix things, 100%. It was one of the most hilarious things I've seen.
-David "Dawood" Bowen
Diversity
I went to a school in a very rich neighborhood, Lincoln Park. This high school was know for their art/drama program and the diversity. The main group that amused me when I was there were the goth wannabes. They tried very hard to not look typical-to be different, tried being exclusive with their headphones turned up way too loud in art class not talking to anyone, dyed their hair extreme colors and let it fade without keeping up with it (even though it was old news and not "cool" anymore-to me anyway) ...and of course all their friends had to dress the same. I believe their favorite store was Hot Topic-ha.
Then there were the tough/'gangsta' kids who hung out with each other. They loved starting fights and robbing whoever was weaker than them. They were pretty popular; but were shady for the most part. Shady as in they WILL fuck with you.
The skaters pretty much got along with everyone. We had a huge stage and hill where everyone hung out in our mall outside of the school- pretty nice campus. The skaters/writers would skate, play some hackie sack, maybe some graffiti, ...smoke with anyone..not much secluding so that was nice.
Everyone had their own style, clicks, and interests and were separated in that way but they didnt mind the diversity. It was hard to not get along or become friends/acquaintances with people especially because we were all coming across each other all the time.
I'm a joker, I'm a smoker, I'm a midnight toker
In my High School there were lots of different groups, just like in every other high school, and I was mainly part of two: the band geeks and the art freaks. I played tennis for three years, but was never considered a jock because I did not fit in and I did not plan my life around it. I think I was labeled an art freak or a band geek because I spent all my time either in the band room or the art room, and did not hang out in the common areas. As with every group, which is discussed in part of the reading, there is a place that everyone meets and talks before class, and my spot was in from of the art room and the dark room. We were all art freaks, but most of us fell into other categories also: one of my best friend was a jock and the other was a band geek, but we all had art in common.
There were the quiet kids, who kind of hung out together, but kind of in silence, the art freaks, the band geeks, the jocks, the gothic and emo kids who hung out together and wrote their own bad music, the pot smokers who always went off school campus for lunch right behind the school, and there was always a group of senior girls that you would always hear stories about on monday mornings that were called the hussies.
I have listed some of the groups above, however I think that no one really belonged to one group, but they hung out with their friends and followed them. I would say that 80 percent of my friends in high school smoked pot, and I hung out with them at our spot, but I was not a burn out, and I really did not care if I was classified as one because I fit in the the people and their interests.
I do not know how to explain how each different groups spoke with different slang and what not, however I can try to explain how they interacted with each other. I feel like the band kids were cheesy with their high fives and slaps on the back, kind of geeky like, but it was their form of affection, compared to jocks hitting each other on the butt, and are sometimes louder. I am trying to to stereotype these groups, but we have all lived through high school and know how different people act, and that is one reason why groups are made because they have their hobbies and personalities in common.
There were the quiet kids, who kind of hung out together, but kind of in silence, the art freaks, the band geeks, the jocks, the gothic and emo kids who hung out together and wrote their own bad music, the pot smokers who always went off school campus for lunch right behind the school, and there was always a group of senior girls that you would always hear stories about on monday mornings that were called the hussies.
I have listed some of the groups above, however I think that no one really belonged to one group, but they hung out with their friends and followed them. I would say that 80 percent of my friends in high school smoked pot, and I hung out with them at our spot, but I was not a burn out, and I really did not care if I was classified as one because I fit in the the people and their interests.
I do not know how to explain how each different groups spoke with different slang and what not, however I can try to explain how they interacted with each other. I feel like the band kids were cheesy with their high fives and slaps on the back, kind of geeky like, but it was their form of affection, compared to jocks hitting each other on the butt, and are sometimes louder. I am trying to to stereotype these groups, but we have all lived through high school and know how different people act, and that is one reason why groups are made because they have their hobbies and personalities in common.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Emo kids.
In my school, there were plenty of groups that fought hard to separate themselves from the mainstream, just like in every other school in the world. However, there was one group in particular that really went the extra mile. This group was loosely referred to as "emo kids." For the uninitiated, the sub genre of emo emerged as a whiny, faux-emotional style of songwriting where the singer would generally play a guitar and cry into a microphone while a back-up singer would scream at the top of his lungs. Even though most members of these emo bands were far into their twenties, they would tend to sing about subjects that would generally pertain to a 15-year old: difficult break-ups, how much parents can suck, curfews, how the world isn't fair, wah wah wah...
Long story short, these corny singers inspired a generation of kids to have long, flippy hair in their eyes, wear ultra-tight jeans, black (or sky blue) t-shirts, and sometimes thick rimmed glasses. The overwhelming amount of suicide references in emo songs instilled a mopey, apathetic demeanor in most emo kids who would act as if every little thing that affected them brought them one step closer to ending it all. These kids would often be seen sitting against the wall in various hallways of the school, arms and legs lying in every direction like marionette puppets. They simply looked like bums. Most who would walk by them would snicker or simply ignore them. It was clear to everyone, including themselves that they were just a part of a trend and that they were only in it for the attention.
As I was nearing the end of my high school career, I noticed the emo population slowly diminishing. It seemed that these emos who were once so proud of their style were now flocking to newer, shinier trends like indie rock. These kids who were once known for their ridiculously long-in-the-front hair were now cutting it slightly shorter and growing hipster moustaches. They were trading in their Fall Out Boy t-shirts for Death Cab For Cutie t-shirts. Their myspace pictures no longer featured arm-length shots of their faces taken in their bathrooms, but new photos (Polaroids now) of them admiring birds, or dancing in fountains, or sipping chai tea lattes.
While I’m sure there are still some kids who hold on to that last shred of emo glory, most have traded up. Nothing gold can stay…
Friday, October 17, 2008
what I know about theatre kids...
The high school that I went to was very small in Michigan. I moved there beginning of freshman year and the first real interaction I had with any other students was at the first meeting of the performing arts company. From the first meeting I felt a sense of belonging, most of the older members were very friendly and silly and they became the first friends I had in the school. The Performing Arts Company (PAC) almost always had a show going on and so it was possible to be part of it almost year round. I write all this to explain how I really only ever was friends with PAC kids. I'm still pretty ignorant of the other cliques that existed at our small school, but I was very knowledgeable of PAC.
We had a lot of eccentrics and weirdos, who in our group were our best techies and actors. Since most of us spent so much time together, working on shows, we were close friends. Around show times we would wear our black PAC t-shirts and got referred to as the 'drama cult' (by our own members as a term of endearment at times). We always knew where other PAC kids would be hanging out during lunch or after school-usually in our drama teacher's office. Haha, we were a bit cultish, in the best sense of the word, but I think a lot of the others students focused on our weird members and ignored the valedictorian and salutatorian who were also regular members. The actor's warm-up exercises (moses supposes... prince of paris...) also probably looked weird to those unfamiliar with them. The techies- theater technicians- certainly had an extensive lingo all their own, in regards to all the different equipment backstage. Some quick examples would be the 'vampires' were the running crew members, 'sparky' was a specific light board, 'hobbit coffin' was the sound cabinet and there were countless more.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Another Blog Assignment......
In the essay "Symbols of Category Membership" a linguistic anthropologist studied the way young people begin to classify each other – a process that began in junior high school but continued into high school – and how these identifications affect the rest of students’ lives. While “jock” and “burnout” might not be the lingo that you used during that time of your life, did you have similar categories when you were in high school? How did people in your high school express and reinforce their identity? For instance, Eckert looks at how the high schoolers expressed class not just through clothing, drug use, and activities, but through linguistics. Feel free to include some of the typical slang/jargon/or terms that people in the different groups.
Friday, October 10, 2008
No Post Due for Next Week
Hey everyone,
Since we had to cancel class this week I've decided that there are no posts due for next week.
See ya soon.
Since we had to cancel class this week I've decided that there are no posts due for next week.
See ya soon.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Marrying for Money
In a society where the government or state is weak and can not support it's citizens it would be natural for people to marry for more than the reason of love. Yes love is nice but when you want to survive or even thrive in your society you want to marry someone who can benefit you and not be dead weight. A silly but perfect example of this is Princess Jasmine in the movie Aladdin. She fell for Aladdin who was a common theif that had no monetary assets. However her father pressured her to entertain suitors that he deemed more fit to marry his daughter.
Even now in our country I think that it is viewed as irresponsible to marry someone who is not on the same level or higher than you. People who follow their hearts solely can end up in a lopsided marriage where they are the sole provider. Currently there seems to be a shift. The men are being taken care by their women. Some of these couples have actively decided it to be this way. While some women find themselves after marriage discovering that their husband is nothing short of a deadbeat. I take this point of view on marriage because we come from a patriarchal society where the man is supposed to be the leader and strong. The man is viewed as the bread winner for his family. Now things are different. I have noticed this from the relationships around me. The financial stress that is put on women can suck all the love out of a marriage. That being said I am fully aware that some women choose to be the provider for their families and have no issues with it. However in my experience it seems unfair. Marriage is suppose to be a give and take situation, everything being shared, not just the benefits, but the labor to produce those benefits.
I never was one to make a relationship with someone all about their money and what that person could do for me financially. Its not my focus especially not now in college. My mind is not on that wavelength yet. My criteria for a perspective partner is if they are doing something productive with their time, whether that be school or work, or both, and that we have a mutual connection of course. To me at this point and time the amount of money someone makes is inconsequential. I'm sure that will change as I get older and I move into a different economic bracket myself. When I'm ready to really settle down economics and finances will come into account. I want someone who can go the places I want to go, I want someone who is independent and strong. I don't want someone to take care of, thats what children are for. I'm sure that most people will agree.
Even now in our country I think that it is viewed as irresponsible to marry someone who is not on the same level or higher than you. People who follow their hearts solely can end up in a lopsided marriage where they are the sole provider. Currently there seems to be a shift. The men are being taken care by their women. Some of these couples have actively decided it to be this way. While some women find themselves after marriage discovering that their husband is nothing short of a deadbeat. I take this point of view on marriage because we come from a patriarchal society where the man is supposed to be the leader and strong. The man is viewed as the bread winner for his family. Now things are different. I have noticed this from the relationships around me. The financial stress that is put on women can suck all the love out of a marriage. That being said I am fully aware that some women choose to be the provider for their families and have no issues with it. However in my experience it seems unfair. Marriage is suppose to be a give and take situation, everything being shared, not just the benefits, but the labor to produce those benefits.
I never was one to make a relationship with someone all about their money and what that person could do for me financially. Its not my focus especially not now in college. My mind is not on that wavelength yet. My criteria for a perspective partner is if they are doing something productive with their time, whether that be school or work, or both, and that we have a mutual connection of course. To me at this point and time the amount of money someone makes is inconsequential. I'm sure that will change as I get older and I move into a different economic bracket myself. When I'm ready to really settle down economics and finances will come into account. I want someone who can go the places I want to go, I want someone who is independent and strong. I don't want someone to take care of, thats what children are for. I'm sure that most people will agree.
Why fix it if it's not broken?
If your in a stable and happy relationship why change it? Why would you feel it necessary to get married? Especially when divorce rates are so high. Weddings are expensive events, and with today's economy having a beautiful wedding might not be worth it considering the costs. But getting divorce is pretty pricey as well.
To be honest I've never been much of a believer of happy endings. I'm also against marriages. I just haven't felt that a marriage is an equal partnership. In the end it still becomes one sided. So if you are happy with the person you are with and decide that next step is to have children then go for it. Things have change, people no longer down on a person if they have children before marriage. Marriage is a messy complicated thing, it's not for the faint of heart.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Do Not Sweep Me Off My Feet
A hopeless romantic is what I would have called myself two years ago, now I feel like I am a realistic romantic. One of my other teachers this semester is a woman in her early forties, unmarried, and thinks that the act of marrying for love is absurd. At first I thought that SHE was being absurd, however after much thinking on my part I have come to find that she might be right. In most movies, love prevails over all, why? Is it because it does not actually happen for everyone? I like watching cheesy com-roms because I can leave my world for an hour and half and be in another where a couple goes through a circus of rides and then ends up together. Most movies, do not however mention what will happen in ten years. Will they get married, have a child, stay together or break up? With every aspect of our culture, every one's opinions seem to differ, and people just want different things. However, there are several benefits for marriage, whether it is for love or not.
The biggest deal to me about getting married is Social Security. There is no better way to ensure that you are going to be taken care of when you retire and your children have sucked all of the money out of you. Also being married gives you insurance benefits that are not offered for those who are not married.
The biggest deal to me about getting married is Social Security. There is no better way to ensure that you are going to be taken care of when you retire and your children have sucked all of the money out of you. Also being married gives you insurance benefits that are not offered for those who are not married.
I Will Always Love You
Ah, romantic love. As children into adults we get the ideas of romantic love from books, movies, and songs. Examples of these books and movies are Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Say Anything, Prelude to a Kiss, It Could Happen to You and more. I admit it I'm a sucker for romantic movies especially those 80's ones like Splash. So I warn you in this blog entry I'm going to be biased here. I'm also in a relationship myself that is romantic as you could get.
Now to the point of this blog... is it risky to choose marriage partners only based on romantic love in weak societies? I dare say no it's not. What could make a marriage stronger than having ultimate unconditional love? Marriage is about about forming a union between two people and sure if a problem arises it will affect both the individuals. Yet with unconditional love, it is very likely the marriage will not fall apart and the problem whatever that may be faced will be resolved eventually. Plus if marriages were arranged by economic state rather than love and something happened to the economy then chances are these marriages would fall apart and this would even make the society worse off. This question is complicated though because many people have different ideas of what romantic love is as well as different ideas of marriage.
Class Tomorrow CANCELLED--Please Don't Cry!
Hi everyone,
I have to go to attend a public meeting on the Higher Education Opportunity Act for the college in D.C. I just found out that I need to attend this.
Remember that the mid-term in on Oct. 22nd, i.e. the week after next week. I might ask you about anything on your key terms sheets or anything that we've covered in class or in your assigned readings.
You can turn your papers in next week. If you really want to turn in your papers this week, then you are more than welcome to email them to me. If you'd like me to comment on your papers then please write "Please Comment" on the top.
Please keep doing the readings that are indicated in the syllabus. There is only one chapter titled "Kinship and Descent". I just noticed a mistake on my syllabus: this chapter is number 10, not 24.
Everything else on the syllabus should be correct.
Please post your blogs by tomorrow. I'll let you know if there will be a blog assignment for next week.
I'll be checking my email if you have any questions.
Best,
Andre
I have to go to attend a public meeting on the Higher Education Opportunity Act for the college in D.C. I just found out that I need to attend this.
Remember that the mid-term in on Oct. 22nd, i.e. the week after next week. I might ask you about anything on your key terms sheets or anything that we've covered in class or in your assigned readings.
You can turn your papers in next week. If you really want to turn in your papers this week, then you are more than welcome to email them to me. If you'd like me to comment on your papers then please write "Please Comment" on the top.
Please keep doing the readings that are indicated in the syllabus. There is only one chapter titled "Kinship and Descent". I just noticed a mistake on my syllabus: this chapter is number 10, not 24.
Everything else on the syllabus should be correct.
Please post your blogs by tomorrow. I'll let you know if there will be a blog assignment for next week.
I'll be checking my email if you have any questions.
Best,
Andre
Harsh Reality
Love is great, but should a marriage be based on nothing more than romantic love? No. Why? Well, because it’s irrational. For example, if a middle class guy was to fall in love with a homeless girl and they got married, she would weigh him down like an anchor. He would, over time, watch his credit score fall through the floor. Money issues would ruin everything and the love would fade. This is what makes such fairytales as the movie “Pretty Woman” nothing more than, well, fairytales.
Financial stability isn’t the only key to a successful marriage, but it’s a big one. Most people choose to marry into their own social class or shoot higher – sad but true. As much emphasis is put on love in our culture, I would say the tables are beginning to turn in favor of money. Most people aren’t fans of going bankrupt, hence the search for a partner who will support you. And you better make sure they don't plan on leaving you because divorce can ruin you financially. Love will not keep a roof over your head and food on your table but losing it could take these things away from you.
Not knocking love, but there are many other factors you must consider before making such a commitment… ($$$)
Monday, October 6, 2008
Not the marrying kind.
The ideas surrounding romantic love have changed greatly in the last few decades. Hilariously, the romantic illusions of marriage and life long commitment have not. These days it's impossible to come face to face with a newly married couple and not instinctively question if the union will last.
In our culture we have been taught to believe in the comfortable simplicity of love conquering all. Therefore, the notion of someone marrying another for reasons outside of love raises questions of loyalty, morality and ethics.
We brand people that put economic or social needs ahead of love and commitment to another as pariahs and outcasts. We make lofty judgement about them selling their souls and dismiss their character as being worthless and low. In our society, love conquers all and that's that. Your status, upbringing, social standing, education, interests, worldview, emotional needs, random psychosis and personal baggage are things of weak standing in the shadow of the overwhelming power of love. Do not dare to say otherwise, lest you be branded of weak romantic constitution.
Sadly, as many of us have learned through personal experience, love does not conquer all. There is little real power in the act of loving someone bent on destroying themselves, save for the ability to pull you down with them. There is little love can do to feed a family, educate your children or rescue you from future of crushing disillusionment. Marriage that considers such factors is no less difficult than one entered into with them and I doubt seriously that life would get any easier when addressing them.
If I may though- Love greatly and never look back. If only because you can.
In our culture we have been taught to believe in the comfortable simplicity of love conquering all. Therefore, the notion of someone marrying another for reasons outside of love raises questions of loyalty, morality and ethics.
We brand people that put economic or social needs ahead of love and commitment to another as pariahs and outcasts. We make lofty judgement about them selling their souls and dismiss their character as being worthless and low. In our society, love conquers all and that's that. Your status, upbringing, social standing, education, interests, worldview, emotional needs, random psychosis and personal baggage are things of weak standing in the shadow of the overwhelming power of love. Do not dare to say otherwise, lest you be branded of weak romantic constitution.
Sadly, as many of us have learned through personal experience, love does not conquer all. There is little real power in the act of loving someone bent on destroying themselves, save for the ability to pull you down with them. There is little love can do to feed a family, educate your children or rescue you from future of crushing disillusionment. Marriage that considers such factors is no less difficult than one entered into with them and I doubt seriously that life would get any easier when addressing them.
If I may though- Love greatly and never look back. If only because you can.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Blog Assignment for Next Week
For this week's assignment, then discuss one of the following topics:
1) People in traditional communities in countries where the state is either weak or absent depend on relatives to help meet the basic challenges of survival.
In such societies, would it be risky to choose marriage partners exclusively based on romantic love? Can you imagine other factors playing a role if the long-term survival of your community might be at stake?
2) Many people in North America and Europe choose to have children outside of marriage. Considering some of the major functions of marriage, do you think there is a relationship between the type of society an individual belongs to and the choice to forgo the traditional benefits of marriage? Under what cultural conditions might the choice to remain unmarried present serious challenges?
To answer these questions, then you will want to take into account the Haviland chapter titled: "Sex, Marriage, and Family."
1) People in traditional communities in countries where the state is either weak or absent depend on relatives to help meet the basic challenges of survival.
In such societies, would it be risky to choose marriage partners exclusively based on romantic love? Can you imagine other factors playing a role if the long-term survival of your community might be at stake?
2) Many people in North America and Europe choose to have children outside of marriage. Considering some of the major functions of marriage, do you think there is a relationship between the type of society an individual belongs to and the choice to forgo the traditional benefits of marriage? Under what cultural conditions might the choice to remain unmarried present serious challenges?
To answer these questions, then you will want to take into account the Haviland chapter titled: "Sex, Marriage, and Family."
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Do people really give to receive? Not necessarily...
I believe there is such a thing as a free gift. I give free gifts all of the time. I don't expect anything in return. I give my daughter presents and I know that chances are she will not give me anything in return, unless my boyfriend buys something for her to give to me. I never get upset if I don't receive anything from her though.
Every holiday season, me and a few people that I work with do a "giving tree" instead of participating in the secret santa thing my other co-worker participate in. The giving tree is where we have a few needy families that we buy gifts for every Christmas. We do not get anything in return, not even a thank you card, and that is ok with us.
Every once in a while I will give money to a homeless person. I do not do this often at all, but there are some homeless people that I can just tell they are good people. There was once this one guy who hung out at the corner of where I work. Every once in a while, I would give him a dollar or two. I never expected anything in return. One day I walked past him as I was leaving work and he handed me a thank you card that he made himself. He thanked me for all of the times that I helped out him and his wife. It was a great feeling that he appreciated my help, even though I never expected anything in return.
Whenever I give a gift, I never have it in mind that, if I give this person a gift it, will make me feel better, or they might give me a gift in return. Of course everyone gets personal satisfaction out of making someone's day better when you give them a gift, but that is never my intention.
Every holiday season, me and a few people that I work with do a "giving tree" instead of participating in the secret santa thing my other co-worker participate in. The giving tree is where we have a few needy families that we buy gifts for every Christmas. We do not get anything in return, not even a thank you card, and that is ok with us.
Every once in a while I will give money to a homeless person. I do not do this often at all, but there are some homeless people that I can just tell they are good people. There was once this one guy who hung out at the corner of where I work. Every once in a while, I would give him a dollar or two. I never expected anything in return. One day I walked past him as I was leaving work and he handed me a thank you card that he made himself. He thanked me for all of the times that I helped out him and his wife. It was a great feeling that he appreciated my help, even though I never expected anything in return.
Whenever I give a gift, I never have it in mind that, if I give this person a gift it, will make me feel better, or they might give me a gift in return. Of course everyone gets personal satisfaction out of making someone's day better when you give them a gift, but that is never my intention.
Gift giving in our society
I think it struck me as odd when I had kind of outgrown the "lets throw a birthday party and get presents" age, but my sister who is eight years younger than I had her fourth birthday party.
I was amazed that, people from our neighborhood, who's children had barely been to our home brought on the average a $20 present. I can specifically remember those kids birthdays rolling around and my mother mentioning that if my sister didn't want to go that we at least needed to buy the kid a present.
My aunt, on the other hand, was a little more greedy about the whole situation. Having three kids and one income, she often bought gifts on the cheap. Old Navy clearance racks and other discount stores was where she would shop to give others gifts. But once gift giving was in order for her children she expected the best gifts for them, because getting a better gift meant that her kids were well liked or loved. I remember that when a child had forgotten a gift, or chose not to bring one, it was brought up that if we were to go to their birthday party, they would be receiving a less than standard gift.
I also feel that in general, gifts in our society are more common. This could be due to the constant holidays we have, maybe once a month, in which you could expect a small gift or treat due to a holiday. (New Years, Valentines, St. Patricks Day, April Fools, Easter, Graduation, Fourth of July, etc. etc. etc.)
I was amazed that, people from our neighborhood, who's children had barely been to our home brought on the average a $20 present. I can specifically remember those kids birthdays rolling around and my mother mentioning that if my sister didn't want to go that we at least needed to buy the kid a present.
My aunt, on the other hand, was a little more greedy about the whole situation. Having three kids and one income, she often bought gifts on the cheap. Old Navy clearance racks and other discount stores was where she would shop to give others gifts. But once gift giving was in order for her children she expected the best gifts for them, because getting a better gift meant that her kids were well liked or loved. I remember that when a child had forgotten a gift, or chose not to bring one, it was brought up that if we were to go to their birthday party, they would be receiving a less than standard gift.
I also feel that in general, gifts in our society are more common. This could be due to the constant holidays we have, maybe once a month, in which you could expect a small gift or treat due to a holiday. (New Years, Valentines, St. Patricks Day, April Fools, Easter, Graduation, Fourth of July, etc. etc. etc.)
Gifts! OM nom noms!
Everyone loves gifts, but who said that a gift had to be an object or something of exchange? I think that in different cultures gifts vary in terms of meaning. To me though gifts don't have to be material objects. They can be a hug or a smile. A gift could be just waking up everyday and knowing you're alive. Isn't that a gift? Isn't being able to be educated and being able to discuss open minded questions like this a gift? Especially now in our time where the economy is lacking we should be thankful to be where we are right now.
Also of course there can be free gifts that is if you're referring to an object given to someone. You give because you care about someone and because you want to. If there is obligation or something to be expected from the person who receives the gift that's not a gift. That's trade. I don't know what kind of people expect things from gifts but I don't think I want to know. That seems to be greed to me.
P.s. I hope this picture made you smile! That's my gift for you!
..and it all comes back full circle.
A few thoughts on the customs of gift giving..
Remember when people were beating each other black and blue for tickle-me-elmos? When I give something to someone, it's usually because I'm thankful for their influence in my life. I do really cheesy things, especially when I'm interested in getting to know a person..I have a terrible mix-tape[cd? ha.] habit. At this point, I couldn't even count on my hands how many times I've made people these very purposeful mixes..and most of the time, upon receipt of this gift, they seem genuinely surprised that I went to such lengths on something seemingly simple. [I usually include a little background information on each carefully selected song, a favorite quote or lyric, and a really elaborate collage fashioned into a cover of sorts.] Now, keep in mind that not just anyone can receive one of these things. It's generally a gift of nerdy romantic sorts, and if you're looking at succuss rates..well, just don't look at those. 
You know what's like a gift these days? Getting something in the mail. A personal letter makes the entire day seem different. Maybe that's just it though. Gifts are at their very best when unexpected. Who wants to expect a gift anyway? That's terrible. Things that tie two people together, take a person back to a certain time or place, anything of that nature is perfect. Also, to recieve something you have a real need for. ex: Taking a friend grocery shopping during a rough financial time. That is a gift.
Summary: How much are the retro tickle-me-elmos going for on Ebay?
Gifts Are Different From Exchanges
I do think there is such a thing as a "free gift". Some examples of free gifts are gifts are love, a compliment, a pep-talk, a hug or kiss, or a favor. In my opinion these are the best gifts you can get. These are gifts that don’t require obtaining possessions. Material gifts can cause issues amongst couples or anyone. For example " Tommy, brad got his girlfriend a $300 dollar purse, why did I only get flowers? You don’t care about me as much as he cares about his girlfriend do you?". This is obviously a cheesy example, but it does explain that the value of the gift ends up having an effect on how impressionable the person is that is receiving the gift. With gifts that costs money it starts to almost put a price tag on emotions or how much you care about the person. Obviously many people today can easily translate money to love. A free gift is something that cannot be taken back or judged. Free gifts will always create a connection between the recipient and the sender that is guaranteed to last forever.
In the essay, when they talk about exchanges however, personally, I believe that exchanges are different from gifts. I believe, exchanges are ways of obtaining possessions in a fair manner. If exchanges were considered gifts then you could say exchanging cash for a book at a bookstore is a gift giving ceremony, but that is not so. A gift is one person giving a gift to another without immediate reciprocation. I would have to connect gift exchanging with, trading or buying.
In the essay, when they talk about exchanges however, personally, I believe that exchanges are different from gifts. I believe, exchanges are ways of obtaining possessions in a fair manner. If exchanges were considered gifts then you could say exchanging cash for a book at a bookstore is a gift giving ceremony, but that is not so. A gift is one person giving a gift to another without immediate reciprocation. I would have to connect gift exchanging with, trading or buying.
Free gift! With purchase.
In my opinion, a "free gift" isn't a gift at all. The way I see a "free gift," it is something that comes with cereal or a complimentary whatever if you spend enough money at a makeup counter.
For a gift to actually be a gift, I think the giftee should be deserving of one. Whether it's an occasion, a boss, a host family, or just a friend, they deserve it for some reason. And even then there should be some sort of reciprocation, even if it is just showing appreciation for the gift.
That being said, the gift giver doesn't always have selfless intentions. Whether for the mere satisfaction of being a nice person who gives their friends presents, a little recognition at the office, or a hope that the gift will be reciprocated, there is generally something to be gained by giving a gift. I know we've all felt something like that when choosing a present for someone, even if it is just a card. Is there anyone here who can deny they've ever had any of these thoughts when gift giving?
For a gift to actually be a gift, I think the giftee should be deserving of one. Whether it's an occasion, a boss, a host family, or just a friend, they deserve it for some reason. And even then there should be some sort of reciprocation, even if it is just showing appreciation for the gift.
That being said, the gift giver doesn't always have selfless intentions. Whether for the mere satisfaction of being a nice person who gives their friends presents, a little recognition at the office, or a hope that the gift will be reciprocated, there is generally something to be gained by giving a gift. I know we've all felt something like that when choosing a present for someone, even if it is just a card. Is there anyone here who can deny they've ever had any of these thoughts when gift giving?
I give you the gift of my blog.
Gifts are a tricky thing when you think about them in reference to the reading. The Maori act of giving seems like a never ending cycle and it reminded me of that one movie.. okay I don't know what it was called but it was that kid from the sixth sense and he goes about doing good things for people and those people have to do good things for three people and those three have to do good things for three people etc. etc. etc. When I think about this Maori act of giving or giving in most tribal atmospheres it's yes, a display of kindness and obligation but at as a whole it seems like it's meant to create a larger communal happiness. A certain feeling of stability and care for the people that surround you even if you don't like them perhaps, in essence, it's a manner of maintaining a healthy working community.
From this perspective it's essential to the survival of the tribe, being a small society where every hand is needed the last thing you need is two people fighting. It's about more than just giving gifts it's representative of the larger picture. I give you this gift and you give someone else a gift and that person gives you a gift, sounds like I grow this corn, you make the tools I need to harvest the corn, I give you corn because you made the tools you need meat you give some of the corn I gave you to a herder he gives you meat so on and so on. In the respect of a community you're not giving your trading but you're trading because it's an obligation. If you refuse to trade then you're screwed you need that corn and the person that grows the corn needs your tools, already with only two people the tribe begins to collapse.
Like that kid from the movie it's about trying to create an atmosphere where you care about each other, a communal atmosphere. Granted in larger societies its a lot harder because every one's stuck in their own world but hey some should call the ambulance when a biker gets hit, right? Maybe I almost fell down the stairs and somebody caught me before I cracked my skull in response to this intangible gift I pull out a phone and call the police because I know I appreciated someone helping. It's a natural reflex of having received kindness. Why? I don't know probably something to do with emotional response systems in our brains this however, is a lot harder to explain and I don't think science has an answer so back to the tribal perspective. Giving and receiving gifts feels nice, for the Maori it's an obligation an obligation that later teaches you the grander scheme of how to live harmoniously with the people in your clan. You show kindness to a clan member they show kindness to another, these atmospheres are essential to the success of a clan, tribe, community otherwise you're fighting from within and that always leads to the downfall of even the biggest empires. Maybe this sounds really confusing but that's because I'm still working through the ideas myself, hopefully I made some kind of understandable point..
From this perspective it's essential to the survival of the tribe, being a small society where every hand is needed the last thing you need is two people fighting. It's about more than just giving gifts it's representative of the larger picture. I give you this gift and you give someone else a gift and that person gives you a gift, sounds like I grow this corn, you make the tools I need to harvest the corn, I give you corn because you made the tools you need meat you give some of the corn I gave you to a herder he gives you meat so on and so on. In the respect of a community you're not giving your trading but you're trading because it's an obligation. If you refuse to trade then you're screwed you need that corn and the person that grows the corn needs your tools, already with only two people the tribe begins to collapse.
Like that kid from the movie it's about trying to create an atmosphere where you care about each other, a communal atmosphere. Granted in larger societies its a lot harder because every one's stuck in their own world but hey some should call the ambulance when a biker gets hit, right? Maybe I almost fell down the stairs and somebody caught me before I cracked my skull in response to this intangible gift I pull out a phone and call the police because I know I appreciated someone helping. It's a natural reflex of having received kindness. Why? I don't know probably something to do with emotional response systems in our brains this however, is a lot harder to explain and I don't think science has an answer so back to the tribal perspective. Giving and receiving gifts feels nice, for the Maori it's an obligation an obligation that later teaches you the grander scheme of how to live harmoniously with the people in your clan. You show kindness to a clan member they show kindness to another, these atmospheres are essential to the success of a clan, tribe, community otherwise you're fighting from within and that always leads to the downfall of even the biggest empires. Maybe this sounds really confusing but that's because I'm still working through the ideas myself, hopefully I made some kind of understandable point..
A free gift? I want one!
In today's society I really don't think that any gifts are free. One must reciprocate a gift for birthdays and holidays, if not it is severely frowned upon. It seems like in Polynesian culture it is a must to pass down a gift in a continuous manner than to rather feel obligated to give a gift like in our society. In their culture it seems to generation based, as in a father is to pass down something to his son (masculine gift). In today's society that occurs as well, a father will pass down a fishing lure, an instrument, or something of significance that has been in the family for generations. But in today's world nothing is free, especially gifts. In America one must first go out and buy the gift, which for some can be a hellish experience (i.e. black Friday) and will cause one to max his or her credit card until the next holiday season. Maybe we should give up traditions of gift giving and then that way we can all afford to buy groceries after the holiday season.
free gift=selfless gift?
The reading spoke about groups that gave gifts in a formal and specific way. Our culture has similar gift giving protocol for special events like birthdays, holidays and weddings. And then we also have other kinds of gifts, ones given spontaneously or for a singular instance. Such as, "I saw this, thought of you, and had to get it for you" or washing the your roommate's dishes for them. I can't help but feel most societies, past and present, have these different categories for gifts.
Is there such thing as a free gift? I think that depends on how you classify 'free'. If your opinion is that a free gift can only be given selflessly, then maybe you'd say there isn't such a thing as a free gift. However, I think gifts should involve exchanges. A gift-giver might desire something abstract or intangible in return, like satisfaction in yourself or love from the person, but that's only natural. Anonymous gifts can be given with no expectation for reciprocation. They're meant to evoke nice feelings. A gift that's given with no feeling involved or expected, doesn't sound like a very nice gift to me.
Not every gift is 'free' or coarse, nor should they be. When a child receives presents on their birthday, it's polite to send thank you cards. And if your close friends gets you a christmas present, why don't they deserve something in return? In these cases it's society and culture that dictates the proper or polite behavior.
A Polite Gesture
Giving a gift, if nothing else, has always been a polite gesture. Even if the gift you are giving is something that isn't particularly useful, we are taught that it's "the thought that counts."
Tying into the theme of the free gift and whether or not such a thing exists: I would say that many gifts, a lot of the better ones in life, cost little to nothing. While it's always great to receive an expensive sweater or a stack of new dress shirts, nothing can replace the thoughtfulness of a simple painting made especially for you. Or perhaps a custom knit scarf that was made with you in mind. Yarn is incredibly cheap but if you get a gift like that, it's something you'll cherish because you know it means something. It wasn't just picked up at some store at the last minute. Money isn't always the answer. There was a good example of this in an episode of the show Seinfeld where Jerry couldn't think of a gift to give Elaine, so he ended up giving her a card with over a hundred dollars in it. She responded with "you gave me cash?" in a disgusted tone.
You don't need money to give a good gift. I personally try to give a gift at any occasion that seems to require one. I feel like it's rude not to.
Give To Recieve
I don't know if there is anything as a free gift. If there is such a thing then that would mean that the person giving it is totally selfless. And there are no selfless deeds. That may seem pessimistic but I just think it is human nature to want in return. When giving to others we usually expect some form of compensation from the recipient, whether it is a gift of equal value or just their gratitude, we do expect something back. Some people say that they give out of the kindness of their heart but just by doing that you are getting the satisfaction that you did something considered noble or charitable. So that leads me to believe that there is no such thing as a free gift. Payment may come in many different forms but we all expect something when we hand someone a present.
In the essay there was this idea that gifts were linked to the person who gave them to you. I don't think that's just a belief of native tribes. I think Americans believe in this. I know that when I look at the picture frame that my friend gave me last Christmas that has a picture of my favorite person in it (me), I'm reminded instantly of my friend and the bond that we share. It is like a link between us. Gifts are the most simple and materialistic way to show each other how we value one another.
I think that the reason we exchange gifts today goes back to the belief that we are giving a part of our essence when we exchange gifts. And that could be the reason why we feel hurt when someone does not remember to reciprocate. When you give you break off a piece of yourself and attach it to the physical gift and it feels good to have someone do the same. It all comes down the basic need that all humans have, the need to be valued and connect with each other.
In the essay there was this idea that gifts were linked to the person who gave them to you. I don't think that's just a belief of native tribes. I think Americans believe in this. I know that when I look at the picture frame that my friend gave me last Christmas that has a picture of my favorite person in it (me), I'm reminded instantly of my friend and the bond that we share. It is like a link between us. Gifts are the most simple and materialistic way to show each other how we value one another.
I think that the reason we exchange gifts today goes back to the belief that we are giving a part of our essence when we exchange gifts. And that could be the reason why we feel hurt when someone does not remember to reciprocate. When you give you break off a piece of yourself and attach it to the physical gift and it feels good to have someone do the same. It all comes down the basic need that all humans have, the need to be valued and connect with each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)