Marriage, Family & Kinship

Marriage: a transaction  resulting in a contract between two or more parties in which two or more individuals are recognized as having (1) a continuing claim to the rights of sexual access, (2) legitimization of children (3) kin relations are established, and (4) there is a clear statement of the proper roles and responsibilities of each party. 

• Marriages are backed by social, economic and legal forces within a culture
• EXAMPLES:

• Ghost Marriage among the Nuer
• Woman/Woman marriage among the Southern Bantu
• Tali Tying among the Nayar (pre-menstruation)
• Berdache' among the Navaho

Marriage Rules: (will speak about special marriage rules later)

• Exogamous Rules / (Exogamy): states the groups you must marry "out" of
  
•  "Incest Taboo" : prohibits sexual relations between "blood relatives" (This is always a required rule)
• Genetic explanation-deleterious genes & mutation?
• Human nature explanation?
• Familiarity breeds contempt explanation (Israeli Kibbutzim studies)?
• Social Network explanation? (alliance building)
• Familial Roles Confusion explanation?
• Endogamous Rules / (Endogamy): States the groups you must marry within
• race
• class
• education
• religion
• these are all PREFERENTIAL RULES in American culture rather than REQUIRED RULES

*Sex is often allowed outside of marriage. In such cases it is less regulated than in the structure of  a marriage contract.

Types of Kin: 

• Affinal Kin (related through the contract of marriage)
• Consanguineal kin (blood relatives-related by "blood")
• the definitions of these vary from culture to culture, and are based in the kind of KINSHIP SYSTEM which is found in each culture.

Forms of Marriage:

• Monogamy: Where only one marriage contract is possible for any individual
• Industrial Agricultural cultures
• Hunting & Gathering cultures
• somewhat common
• Polygamy: Where multiple marriage contracts are possible for an individual
• Polygyny: Marriage of one man to more than one woman
• involves multiple contracts-strict rules for "equality" between contracts
• common marriage system
• not accessible to all men in any culture since marriage are "expensive" for kin groups
• polygyny therefore becomes a marker of status
• polygyny is found in cultures where gaining status is desirable. (ranked, stratified societies)
• Pastoral societies
• Patrilineal horticultural societies
• Agricultural societies
• Polyandry : Marriage of one woman to more than one man. 
• involves multiple contracts
• rare in terms of marriage systems
• all "husband" are considered fathers to the children produced
• fraternal polyandry (Yak Herders of Tibet)-example

•  Serial Monogamy: When one marriage contract can be engaged in at a time
• found where there is an option for ending contracts (divorce)
• Industrial agriculture and Hunting and gathering
  
• Group Marriage: Where a marriage contract may include more than two individuals
• Eskimo & Inuit 

Marriage Exchanges: Marriages are all transactions, and as such involve important exchanges between kin groups.

• Bridewealth: exchange of wealth from kin group of the groom to the kin group of the bride on the occasion of finalizing a marriage contract. 
• These can be substantial expenditures which may take years and even generations to fulfill.
• impediment against men acquiring wives, and in such systems, men marry later in life and some never marry, especially where polygyny is practiced.
• can create a "shortage of women"- tension among men
• can be viewed as "demeaning" to women or a measure of their immense value for the production of children and economic contributions within the houselhold and subsistence.
• Horticultural societies
• Creates strong bonds between women and their brothers since sisters marriages bring wealth into their kin groups to enable their brothers to marry
• Brideprice: exchange of goods
• Brideservice: exchange of services

• Dowry: Often understood as an "early" inheritance by women in a kin group.Dowry is the wealth a bride brings with her into a marriage contract
• Agricultural societies
• dowry often becomes the "property" of the husband's kin group although it is not technically meant to be this
• signals woman's exit from their natal kin group.
• Does not foster continued ties between women and their brothers or family, since women remove wealth from the family on the occasion of their marriage. Daughters are expensive. They can be seen as a burden.
• signals low status for women, way to attract husbands
• Sutti (bride-burning) India- can be seen as a function of dowry & recent dowry inflation

Family: A residential kin group composed of a woman, her dependent children, and at least one male joined through marriage (affinal) or blood (consanguineal) relationship. 

• in opposition to the Household which can be familial or nonfamilial
• Functions:
• legitimize and nurture children
• control of sexual relations
• economic cooperation

Forms of Family: 

• Nuclear: composed of a husband, wife, and their dependent children
• industrial agricultural and hunting and gathering
• gain MOBILITY
• independent from larger kin group
• lose security
• Extended: composed of a nuclear family and relations both generational (grandparents & grandchildren) and within a single generation (brothers and sisters and their spouses)
• horticultural and agrarian agricultural
• gain SECURITY
• dependent on larger kin group
• lose mobility
• Polygamous: Found in polygamous systems where patrilineal polygamy is practiced
• Each wife has their own household within a polygamous compound
• wives ranked by seniority
• work together to accomplish tasks of the family as a whole
• maintain concern for the benefit of their (wives) biological children which are distinguished
• Co-wives cooperate and are often great friends and support systems for one another since women in these systems leave their birth families to reside with their husbands families.
• Consanguine : Related women and their brothers and the women's offspring.
• no coresidence between husband and wife
• spend time in natal households with men "commuting" for sex and the production of offspring
• "Uterine families" of rural taiwan
• can exist in conjunction with other family systems and serve a special function within culture and society

Kinship systems are important to study and understand because they lie at the base of social organization in every culture. In many cultures, kinship is the ONLY organizing principle in that society.

Kinship systems determine who your relatives are

• affinal
• consanguineal

and how the following will be regulated in a culture:

• marriage
• familial roles
• residence rules
• descent
• succession
• inheritance

TYPES OF KINSHIP SYSTEMS:

• UNILINEAL
• Patrilineal- trace descent through men. From father to children
• Matrilineal-trace descent through women from mother through children
• Bilineal-trace descent through both women and men, but differently. Women pass down some things and men pass down others

• BILATERAL
• descent passed down through both men and women equally to their children

UNILINEAL SYSTEMS:

• LINEAGE-basic unit
• related lineages are organized into clans and two related clans make up a phratry
• lineages are CORPORATE, phratrys and clans are not
• made up of only consanguineal kin
• trace relationships to a known common ancestor (patriarch or matriarch)
• a member of only one lineage.
• immutable, non-negtiable membership. You are born into a lineage and remain in it even after death as an ancestor
• Consistent with extended and polygamous family structure
• TYPES:
• PATRILINEAL DESCENT
• men pass down descent and inheritance goes through men to their offspring
• found in horticultural (larger and pastoral) and nonindustrial agricultural societies
• women do most of the agricultural labor in plant based horticulture and men do most of the labor in agricultural and pastoral societies
• marriages are strong and divorce is difficult to attain. 
• relationships between siblings (brothers and sisters are weakened)
• women and their sexuality and sexual behavior are controlled
• MATRILINEAL DESCENT
• women pass down descent and inheritance goes through men to their offspring
• found in horticultural (smaller plant based) societies
• men do most of the agricultural labor in plant based horticulture 
• marriages are weak and divorce is easy to attain. 
• relationships between siblings (brothers and sisters) are strong and remain so throughout their lives
• brothers are responsible for the care and socialization of their sister's children
• women and their sexuality and sexual behavior are not controlled

BILATERAL SYSTEMS:

• KINDRED is the basic unit
• non-corporate
• mutable and ever changing
• you are a member of a number of overlapping kindreds at the same time
• made up of affinal, consanguineal and fictive kin
• drawn and maintained through the perspective of "EGO"
• consistent with NUCLEAR FAMILY STRUCTURE
• Descent and inheritance passed from father and mother equally to their children

FICTIVE KIN: Those considered kin and treated like kin that are not related either by marriage contract or by decent. 

RESIDENCE PATTERNS

• patrilocal- reside with groom's family
• matrilocal - reside with bride's family
• avunculocal- reside with groom's mothers brother
  
• ambilocal- reside in more than one location (move between them)
• neolocal- reside in a separate residence

 Kinship Terminology (6 major patterns):

indicate the relationships between people in the designation of kin terms.

MARRIAGE STRATEGIES & KIN GROUPINGS

• Alliance Intensifying
• Alliance Diversifying

Special Marriage Forms:

• Cross Cousin Marriage (preferred marriage form)-alliance intensifying
• Parallel Cousin Marriage (preferred marriage form)-alliance intensifying
• Leverite (required practice)-maintains contract
• Sororate (required practice)-maintains contract

Essay#2 The Future of Marriage

DUE 10/12

Marriage and Family are recognized as a basic institution in both kinship and social structure; but the nature of marriage has recently been contested in the United States. For this expository essay...

(1) DEFINE marriage from the perspective of anthropology. Note that this definition has the difficult task of considering the range of marriage forms across cultures. (min. 1 paragraph)
(2) Describe the various forms which marriage takes, considering the marriage "contract". Illustrate your description with examples of 2 differing marriage forms from different cultures. (min. 2 paragraphs)
(3) What do you think is the future of marriage, and how might the anthropological perspective inform our discussion of marriage equality? (min. 1 paragraph)

This essay has a minimum of 6 paragraphs including an introduction and conclusion. Please refer to the writing rubric for guidance, or submit your paper early for draft feedback. Assistance with writing is always available in the Writing Lab in J-Wing. :)


WRITING RUBRIC

Enculturation: Learning Culture

FILM: Strangers Abroad, Margaret Mead

Enculturation is the process by which culture is passed down from generation to generation. Understanding enculturation is one way to help us understand why we have different worldviews which underlie our different ways of viewing the world. These different views are often the source of CONFLICT in our globalizing world. Enculturation also helps us understand the core values in a culture (basis for ideological definition) as well as strategies for adaptation.

There are two basic strategies for enculturation that aim to produce different kinds of MODAL PERSONALITIES (the kinds of adults that will be successful in their culture).

• Dependence Training--focuses on creating adults who are committed to the group, who see their individual needs as second to the groups concerns.
• cooperation encouraged
• group membership and interdependence stressed
• tasks assigned progressively to children at a young age
• prolonged breast feeding/lactation
• expression of sexuality discouraged (although sexual experimentation may be free)
• Independence Training---focuses on creating adults who are independent and self-sufficient and focused on individual achievement. 
• competition encouraged
• individuality encouraged
• prolonged childhood with little responsibility if any to group
• curtailed breast feeding and lactation
• encourage expression of sexuality

Things that are enculturated that we can see in our readings:

• gender norms/identity/roles

cultures are logical systems and will apply training method that makes sense for them. The actual training techniques and where the culture falls on the spectrum of IT or DT varies. All cultures have some degree of individual and cooperative ideals.

ILLNESS AND MODAL PERSONALITY

Illness: any significant deviation from the NORM (modal personality) whether it be physical or psychological (mental illness). A lack of proper physical characteristics may also indicate that you are "ill". Or the lack of ability to meet social norms (homosexual/antisocial/etc)

Culture-bound

• anorexia/bulimia
• kuru
• amok
• PMS
• ADD/ADHD

READ ABOUT MAURITANIA!

READ ABOUT CRYING TO SLEEP IN AMERICAN CULTURE

Gender Norms Boxes

Two contrasting cases (genes and gender)

Case#1: In 1999, an appellate court in Texas invalidated a seven-year marriage between Christine Littleton, a transgender woman, and her deceased husband. The case arose when Ms. Littleton brought a wrongful death suit seeking damages for her husband's death as a result of alleged medical malpractice. Rather than ruling on the merits of Ms. Littleton's suit, the court held that a person's legal sex is genetically fixed at birth and that Ms. Littleton should be deemed to be legally male, despite her female anatomy and appearance, and despite the fact that she had lived as a woman for most of her adult life. As a result of that decision, Ms. Littleton was denied all of the rights afforded to a legal spouse -- not only the right to bring a wrongful death suit, but the right to intestate inheritance (or inheritance without a will), to obtain her deceased husband's Social Security and retirement benefits, and many others as well.

Case #2: in 1997, a trial court in Orange County, Calif., affirmed the validity of a marriage involving a transgender man. The case arose when the wife sought to invalidate the marriage in order to deprive her husband of his parental rights vis-a-vis the couple's child, who was born through alternative insemination. The trial court rejected the wife's argument that the transgender husband should be considered legally female and refused to nullify the marriage. The court held that California law recognizes the post-operative sex of a transsexual person for all legal purposes, including marriage. Notably, however, if the court had ruled differently, or if the transgender spouse had not undergone extensive and expensive sex reassignments surgeries prior to the marriage, it is likely that he would have lost any right to maintain a relationship with his child.

Assignment: imagine that they are the judges deciding the two cases in question. They must summarize their judgment and their reasons for deciding as they did. These decisions are incorporated into a broader discussion on what it is that makes people male or female.

Talk to your students about the behaviors that are and are not acceptable for them to do in a public restroom. I've done this a couple of times with different classes, and the behaviors that seem to evoke the greatest differences are what they do when they realize the stall they are in has no toilet paper (mostly the women in the class say they would politely ask the person next to them, which is followed by disgusted and shocked looks by the men in the class who usually say they wouldn't dream of doing something like that). I've also seen some funny differences when I've asked them about whether they talk to other people at all, or whether they'd compliment a stranger on their outfit. I usually follow this up with a short discussion about how this demonstration illustrates gender differences in scripts in our culture. It's a fun one to do because it requires no materials, and it usually gets even the quietest, most shy students to talk, or at least laugh along with the rest of the class. 

Films on History & Methods

Nice film about range of fieldwork

History of Fieldwork film

part 1 & 2 are useful reference

Ellen Isaacs: Ethnography

Universalism, Cultural Relativity & Human Rights

Extra Credit OCTOBER 17:Honky

Anthropology in the News...Culture change

The Amish deal with new technologies

Questions for Discussion 9/14

Crack in Spanish Harlem

• How is this study an example of the "different perspective" of anthropology?
• How is the "drug sub-culture" understood by Bourgeois?
• How can drug dealers possibly share our values?
• How is this ethnography illustrative of "American Culture" in general (microcosm)?

Eating Christmas in the Kalahari

• What happens in this ethnography?
• What mistakes did the ethnographer make?
• What was the value that was disregarded by the anthropologist?

Reflections of the Shy Ethnographer

• what skills does the ethnographer need to carry out participant observation?

History of Anthropological Thought

Aspects for Comparison:

In order to understand the development of anthropology as a discipline and the notion of CULTURE in particular you should have know a brief definition of each of the major theoretical schools that we covered in class as well as the ability to compare and contrast the theories on the basis of the following criteria:

1. definition of culture (singular, plural, ideological, adaptive)
2. methodology (how are hypotheses created and data collected)
3. synchronic vs diachronic (temporal focus for analysis)
4. empirical vs speculative (scientific method)
5. emic (insider) vs etic(outsider) (perspective)

It is also important to understand that theories are culture bound and as such are inherently biased because they are a product of the culture at the time in which they are created. They ask questions that are relevant to the cultures which create them according to their understanding of the nature of reality. being aware of this ethnocentric bias is important to understanding other cultures and our own.

Unilineal Cultural Evolution (Morgan, Tyler, Stewart)

• arose out of the AGE OF DISCOVERY, where Western cultures tried to understand the diversity they saw out in the world. First asked the question: ARE THEY HUMAN? Then, once this was established, needed to explain how these humans could be soooo different from "Civilized" "Advanced" cultures like those found in Europe.
• Based on the ENLIGHTENMENT notion of PROGRESS
• people we see in the modern world can be placed on an evolutionary continuum from "PRIMITIVE" to "ADVANCED".
• based on TECHNO-ECONOMIC FEATURES (material products of culture)
• some cultures have "stalled" in their evolution and are "SURVIVALS" from a earlier more primitive time.
• racist explanations for why they failed to advance were common
• focus on classification into category from savage, barbarism, to civilized based on these features.

• CULTURE is singular and you have more or less of it. Culture is also ADAPTIVE
• Armchair theorizing, no collection of data. relied on travelers accounts and other information which was often rife with falsities and exaggeration (SPECULATIVE and nonscientific)
• DIACHRONIC (focused on the process by which peoples existed in the state that they did
• etic

Kulturkreislehre (German Anthropology) "Culture Essence Circle"

• Arose out of the study of German Folklore (Grimm, etc.)
• Centered around the importance of the cultural core or "GEIST". 
• consistent with the rise of German nationalism and the emphasis on racial purity. Kulturkreislehre tried to uncover the unadulterated culture.
• DIFFUSION: concept used to describe the process of cultural transmission (and corruption) which explains the diversity in human populations
• Grand Diffusionism: All culture originated at one point place in time (Greek & Egyptian Civilizations-seat of original Aryan knowledge) and diffused from their like a pebble dropping in the pond. With each successive wave there is greater corruption of the central ideas from the cultural core.
• Aim to find the PURE GEIST through an analysis of folktales which hold the core concepts (ideologies) of Germanness. 
• Other people failed to receive cultural traits from this original source or have corrupted them. This explains their inferiority to the pure Aryan culture 

• Culture is singular and ideological
• methodology is to trace back folktales and find their origin to purge them of their corruptions
• diachronic
• speculative
• etic

BRITISH SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGY

Functionalism (Malinowski)

•  systems model of culture where all of the INSTITUTIONS (sociology) are parts of the machine of culture which FUNCTION to SATISFY the BASIC NEEDS of the individuals in it. Three basic needs:
• Biological: food, water, procreation
• Instrumental: law, social order, education
• Integrative: religion, art, language

• the object of anthropology is to describe how these needs might be fulfilled by all societies.Cultures are LOGICAL SYSTEMS and people everywhere have the same basic needs.
• etic
• synchronic (snapshot description of the culture-no attempt to describe how cultural variation around the world is created)
• Culture is PLURAL (there are many cultures) and is adaptive (functions to fulfill a basic need)
• Empirical.methodology based on FIELDWORK and the structuring of hypotheses and collection of data in native settings.

Structural-Functionalism (Radcliffe-Brown)

• Built on the premises of functionalism, but adding the concepts from the Hegelian Dialectic (that a culture is greater than the sum of  its parts) Rather than fulfilling basic needs, the society serves to PERPETUATE ITSELF. The study of anthropology is now to see how the structures of society solve the problems of or contribute to the maintenance of the system (rather than functioning to fulfill a list of basic needs). 
• Emphasis on the interrelationship of the parts of the structure and how they impact one another.
• see connections between various aspects of culture
• Synchronis & etic
• culture is plural & adaptive
• methodology is scientific and empirical, collecting data to test hypotheses through fieldwork.

Structuralism (Levi-Strauss)

• Building on the two previous schools of British Social Anthropology and French Linguistics, Levi Strauss aimed to study the STRUCTURE on which a culture rests without looking at how its parts function.
• Looks at minimal conceptual pairs which through their constrast uncover meaning structures in culture.
• focuses on  structural (ideological & symbolic) aspects of culture like, language, religion, the arts and ritual to look for these conceptual contrasts
• etic & synchronic
• culture as ideological system & plural
• empirical & scientific

American Anthropology (Boas)

• Sometimes called Diffusionism, Boas aimed to make anthropology a scientific discipline in reaction against the German School and Nazi racist theoretical perspectives.
• Coincident with the Bristish School of Social Anthropology these two schools developed together. Sharing theoretical and methodological developments.
• Boas known as the FATHER OF ANTHROPOLOGY because of the contributions he made to the field:
• scientificizing anthropological study
• FIELDWORK through PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION
• attack on grand diffusionism insisting that there are two mechanisms that explain cultural change. Scientific investigation must uncover which is the source.
• independent invention 
• diffusion
•  distinction between EMIC & ETIC analysis and insistence on the collection of both kinds of data. Anthropology lies in the discrepancies between the two. It aims to answer the question WHY? not just describing WHAT?.
• notions of ETHNOCENTRISM and CULTURAL RELATIVITY. Boas insisted that researchers must take a culturally relative perspective and that ethnocentrism prevented anthropologists from understanding cultures.
• Identified SYNCHRONIC & DIACHRONIC perspectives and insisted that anthropology needed both to truly understand cultures.

• Trained generations of anthropologists, especially female anthropologists. This legacy still strong in the discipline ( Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, etal)

Cultural Ecology (Harris, Diamond, Sahlins, White)

• A reawakening of materialism, in response to the philosophical principles of Marx & Engels. Analysis focuses on the TECHNO-ECONOMIC features of culture and the adaptation of these components to the local ENVIRONMENT in which the culture exists. ---all cultural traits are created in response to the environment.
• Environmental determinism. 
• REDUCTIONIST theory
• Culture is plural and adaptive
• empirical & scientific
• diachronic & etic in focus

American Structuralism/Symbolic Anthropology (Turner, Geertz)

• Continuation of structuralism of Levi-Strauss with Postmoderm influences.

Anthropology & Human Rights (read)

Anthropologists, Cultural Relativism, and Universal Rights

By Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban

Cultural relativism, long a key concept in anthropology, asserts that since each culture has its own values and practices, anthropologists should not make value judgments about cultural differences. As a result, anthropological pedagogy has stressed that the study of customs and norms should be value-free, and that the appropriate role of the anthropologist is that of observer and recorder.

Today, however, this view is being challenged by critics inside and outside the discipline, especially those who want anthropologists to take a stand on key human-rights issues. I agree that the time has come for anthropologists to become more actively engaged in safeguarding the rights of people whose lives and cultures they study.

Historically, anthropology as a discipline has declined to participate in the dialogue that produced international conventions regarding human rights. For example, in 1947, when the executive board of the American Anthropological Association withdrew from discussions that led to the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights," it did so in the belief that no such declaration would be applicable to all human beings. But the world and anthropology have changed. Because their research involves extended interaction with people at the grassroots, anthropologists are in a unique position to lend knowledge and expertise to the international debate regarding human rights.

Doing so does not represent a complete break with the traditions of our field. After all, in the past, anthropologists did not hesitate to speak out against such reprehensible practices as Nazi genocide and South African apartheid. And they have testified in U.S. courts against government rules that impinge on the religious traditions or sacred lands of Native Americans, decrying government policies that treat groups of people unjustly.

However, other practices that violate individual rights or oppress particular groups have not been denounced. Anthropologists generally have not spoken out, for example, against the practice in many cultures of female circumcision, which critics call a mutilation of women. They have been unwilling to pass judgment on such forms of culturally based homicide as the killing of infants or the aged. Some have withheld judgment on acts of communal violence, such as clashes between Hindus and Muslims in India or Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda, perhaps because the animosities between those groups are of long standing.

Moreover, as a practical matter, organized anthropology's refusal to participate in drafting the 1947 human-rights declaration has meant that anthropologists have not had much of a role in drafting later human-rights statements, such as the United Nations' "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women," approved in 1979. In many international forums discussing women's rights, participants have specifically rejected using cultural relativism as a barrier to improving women's lives.

The issue of violence against women throws the perils of cultural relativism into stark relief. Following the lead of human-rights advocates, a growing number of anthropologists and others are coming to recognize that violence against women should be acknowledged as a violation of a basic human right to be free from harm. They believe that such violence cannot be excused or justified on cultural grounds.

Let me refer to my own experience. For nearly 25 years, I have conducted research in the Sudan, one of the African countries where the practice of female circumcision is widespread, affecting the vast majority of females in the northern Sudan. Chronic infections are a common result, and sexual intercourse and childbirth are rendered difficult and painful. However, cultural ideology in the Sudan holds that an uncircumcised woman is not respectable, and few families would risk their daughter's chances of marrying by not having her circumcised. British colonial officials outlawed the practice in 1946, but this served only to make it surreptitious and thus more dangerous. Women found it harder to get treatment for mistakes or for side effects of the illegal surgery.

For a long time I felt trapped between, on one side, my anthropologist's understanding of the custom and of the sensitivities about it among the people with whom I was working, and, on the other, the largely feminist campaign in the West to eradicate what critics see as a "barbaric" custom. To ally myself with Western feminists and condemn female circumcision seemed to me to be a betrayal of the value system and culture of the Sudan, which I had come to understand. But as I was asked over the years to comment on female circumcision because of my expertise in the Sudan, I came to realize how deeply I felt that the practice was harmful and wrong.

In 1993, female circumcision was one of the practices deemed harmful by delegates at the international Human Rights Conference in Vienna. During their discussions, they came to view circumcision as a violation of the rights of children as well as of the women who suffer its consequences throughout life. Those discussions made me realize that there was a moral agenda larger than myself, larger than Western culture or the culture of the northern Sudan or my discipline. I decided to join colleagues from other disciplines and cultures in speaking out against the practice.

Some cultures are beginning to change, although cause and effect are difficult to determine. Women's associations in the Ivory Coast are calling for an end to female circumcision. In Egypt, the Cairo Institute for Human Rights has reported the first publicly acknowledged marriage of an uncircumcised woman. In the United States, a Nigerian woman recently was granted asylum on the ground that her returning to her country would result in the forcible circumcision of her daughter, which was deemed a violation of the girl's human rights.

To be sure, it is not easy to achieve consensus concerning the point at which cultural practices cross the line and become violations of human rights. But it is important that scholars and human-rights activists discuss the issue. Some examples of when the line is crossed may be clearer than others. The action of a Japanese wife who feels honor-bound to commit suicide because of the shame of her husband's infidelity can be explained and perhaps justified by the traditional code of honor in Japanese society. However, when she decides to take the lives of her children as well, she is committing murder, which may be easier to condemn than suicide.

What about "honor" killings of sisters and daughters accused of sexual misconduct in some Middle Eastern and Mediterranean societies? Some anthropologists have explained this practice in culturally relativist terms, saying that severe disruptions of the moral order occur when sexual impropriety is alleged or takes place. To restore the social equilibrium and avoid feuds, the local culture requires the shedding of blood to wash away the shame of sexual dishonor. The practice of honor killings, which victimizes mainly women, has been defended in some local courts as less serious than premeditated murder, because it stems from long-standing cultural traditions. While some judges have agreed, anthropologists should see a different picture: a pattern of cultural discrimination against women.

As the issue of domestic violence shows, we need to explore the ways that we balance individual and cultural rights. The "right" of a man to discipline, slap, hit, or beat his wife (and often, by extension, his children) is widely recognized across many cultures in which male dominance is an accepted fact of life. Indeed, the issue of domestic violence has only recently been added to the international human-rights agenda, with the addition of women's rights to the list of basic human rights at the Vienna conference.

The fact that domestic violence is being openly discussed and challenged in some societies (the United States is among the leaders) helps to encourage dialogue in societies in which domestic violence has been a taboo subject. This dialogue is relatively new, and no clear principles have emerged. But anthropologists could inform and enrich the discussion, using their knowledge of family and community life in different cultures.

Cases of genocide may allow the clearest insight into where the line between local culture and universal morality lies. Many anthropologists have urged the Brazilian and Venezuelan governments to stop gold miners from slaughtering the Yanomami people, who are battling the encroachment of miners on their rain forests. Other practices that harm individuals or categories of people (such as the elderly, women, and enslaved or formerly enslaved people) may not represent genocide per se, and thus may present somewhat harder questions about the morality of traditional practices. We need to focus on the harm done, however, and not on the scale of the abuse. We need to be sensitive to cultural differences but not allow them to override widely recognized human rights.

The exchange of ideas across cultures is already fostering a growing acceptance of the universal nature of some human rights, regardless of cultural differences. The right of individuals to be free from harm or the threat of harm, and the right of cultural minorities to exist freely within states, are just two examples of rights that are beginning to be universally recognized -- although not universally applied.

Fortunately, organized anthropology is beginning to change its attitude toward cultural relativism and human rights. The theme of the 1994 convention of the American Anthropological Association was human rights. At the sessions organized around the topic, many anthropologists said they no longer were absolutely committed to cultural relativism. The association has responded to the changing attitude among its members by forming a Commission for Human Rights, charged with developing a specifically anthropological perspective on those rights, and with challenging violations and promoting education about them.

Nevertheless, many anthropologists continue to express strong support for cultural relativism. One of the most contentious issues arises from the fundamental question: What authority do we Westerners have to impose our own concept of universal rights on the rest of humanity? It is true that Western ideas of human rights have so far dominated international discourse. On the other hand, the cultural relativists' argument is often used by repressive governments to deflect international criticism of their abuse of their citizens. At the very least, anthropologists need to condemn such misuse of cultural relativism, even if it means that they may be denied permission to do research in the country in question.

Personally, I would go further: I believe that we should not let the concept of relativism stop us from using national and international forums to examine ways to protect the lives and dignity of people in every culture. Because of our involvement in local societies, anthropologists could provide early warnings of abuses -- for example, by reporting data to international human-rights organizations, and by joining the dialogue at international conferences. When there is a choice between defending human rights and defending cultural relativism, anthropologists should choose to protect and promote human rights. We cannot just be bystanders.

Declaration on Anthropology and Human Rights Committee for Human Rights American Anthropological Association

Adopted by the AAA membership June 1999

This Declaration on Anthropology and Human Rights defines the basis for the involvement of the American Anthropological Association, and, more generally, of the profession of Anthropology in human rights. Comments and queries from members regarding the Declaration’s content are welcome.

Preamble

The capacity for culture is tantamount to the capacity for humanity. Culture is the precondition for the realization of this capacity by individuals, and in turn depends on the cooperative efforts of individuals for its creation and reproduction. Anthropology’s cumulative knowledge of human cultures, and of human mental and physical capacities across all populations, types, and social groups, attests to the universality of the human capacity for culture. This knowledge entails an ethical commitment to the equal opportunity of all cultures, societies, and persons to realize this capacity in their cultural identities and social lives. However, the global environment is fraught with violence which is perpetrated by states and their representatives, corporations, and other actors. That violence limits the humanity of individuals and collectives.

Anthropology as a profession is committed to the promotion and protection of the right of people and peoples everywhere to the full realization of their humanity, which is to say their capacity for culture. When any culture or society denies or permits the denial of such opportunity to any of its own members or others, the American Anthropological Association has an ethical responsibility to protest and oppose such deprivation. This implies starting from the base line of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and associated implementing international legislation, but also expanding the definition of human rights to include areas not necessarily addressed by international law. These areas include collective as well as individual rights, cultural, social, and economic development, and a clean and safe environment.

Declaration on Anthropology and Human Rights

The American Anthropological Association has developed a Declaration that we believe has universal relevance:

People and groups have a generic right to realize their capacity for culture, and to produce, reproduce and change the conditions and forms of their physical, personal and social existence, so long as such activities do not diminish the same capacities of others. Anthropology as an academic discipline studies the bases and the forms of human diversity and unity; anthropology as a practice seeks to apply this knowledge to the solution of human problems.

As a professional organization of anthropologists, the AAA has long been, and should continue to be, concerned whenever human difference is made the basis for a denial of basic human rights, where “human” is understood in its full range of cultural, social, linguistic, psychological, and biological senses.

Thus, the AAA founds its approach on anthropological principles of respect for concrete human differences, both collective and individual, rather than the abstract legal uniformity of Western tradition. In practical terms, however, its working definition builds on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, and on Social, Economic, and Cultural Rights, the Conventions on Torture, Genocide, and Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and other treaties which bring basic human rights within the parameters of international written and customary law and practice. The AAA definition thus reflects a commitment to human rights consistent with international principles but not limited by them. Human rights is not a static concept. Our understanding of human rights is constantly evolving as we come to know more about the human condition. It is therefore incumbent on anthropologists to be involved in the debate on enlarging our understanding of human rights on the basis of anthropological knowledge and research.

Essay #1: Anthropology & Human Rights

Essay #1
Anthropology & Human Rights
Due: 9/28


Anthropologists are required to take a culturally relative perspective to succeed at being neutral researchers. This ability to be completely neutral is problematic as anthropologists aim to advocate for and protect the subjects of their studies. Can anthropologists be advocates for human rights, or does this violate the axiom of neutrality? After reading the article by Lobban and considering the challenges to we face today in the world, Should anthropologists play a role in social justice?
Consider the following in your essay:

(1) Discuss in detail the concept of cultural relativity.
(2) Why is cultural relativity problematic when anthropologists act as advocates?
(3) What do you believe is the ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITY of anthropologists? Consider the examples of human rights "violations" Lobban describes in the article and another of your own choosing from current events.
(4) What special knowledge must anthropologists contribute to the resolution of human rights violations and injustice in the world (whether you think they should act as advocates or not)?

Essays should be written in expository form. Minimum of 6 paragraphs, including an introduction and conclusion. Be certain to include all of the information requested in the question above. Your position should be supported with examples (illustrations) from the Lobban article and other sources (newspaper, etc.). See Rubric for writing requirements.

WRITING RUBRIC

Notes on the Study of Culture

Methodology & Fieldwork Stories

• Fieldwork
• Informant (as opposed to a subject)
• Researcher
• insider (native)
• outsider

• male
• female

Both genders may experience limitations based on the rules for social interaction for men and women in the cultures in which they are studying...therefore, anthropologists have often traveled and studied in paris (men and women) and studies of cultures are often repeated to take into account the different experiences in a culture which may be afforded to different researchers.

• Participant Observation: participating as is appropriate and observing while living within a culture for a significant period of time (years)-investigating social life by participating in it. By being there in real situations and observing from a theoretically informed perspective.
• establishing Rapport
• working in unfamiliar/familiar environments (culture shock)
• acquiring a principal informant
• collecting EMIC & ETIC data
• Observation of Real versus Ideal
•  Ethnocentrism as the enemy of data collection
• Ethics:
• responsibility to the communities and people that you study
• responsibility to the academic community to share your data
• responsibility to your funders

• The researcher's Gaze: the problem of power
•  Observer's Bias (Gumperz)
• Being the "TOWN IDIOT"-advantages and disadvantages

• Fieldwork Stories:
• Malinowski in the western pacific
• Argonauts of the Western Pacific (p 8)
• nnn
• nnn
• nnn
• nnn
• Elizabeth Fernea in Iraq
• 
  
• William Mitchell: Fieldwork among the Wape of New Guinea
• Annette Weiner: Revisiting Malinowski's work in the Trobriand Islands

Professor Greene: Field Experiences:

1.Guatemala & Yucatan

2.Belize

3.Beach Channel (LI) & New Orleans

4.USA Communities

(1) What is the temperature matrix of Mayan medicinal plants and how are these indicated in Yucatec & Cakchiquel Maya according to traditional healers

(2) Is there a dialectal difference between Belizean Creole speakers in the North American diaspora? Do these differ from the Creole spoken in belize? What are the proceses that create and maintain these differences?

(4) How do the Garifuna of Honduras remember their pilgrimage from St. Vincent to Coastal Honduras: an ethnohistory through memory. 

(3) Student’s Experiences with embodied practice as mediated by culture: How does culture create self perception of one’s body and how is one’s body a reflection of the culture?

(4) "Happiness"-How do members of modern Western Culture and the Search for Meaningful Experience? Looking to the Eastern Traditions

(5) Drag Queens and Beauty Queens: Enacting Gender in Ritual Spaces

Where it all begins

Conflation