Week 5: The Structural-Functionalism of “Mawage”

"Mawage"

One of my all-time favorite movies is the The Princess Bride (1987), and one of my favorite scenes from the movie is where the priest with the speech impediment is beginning the wedding ceremony between the evil Prince Humperdink and lovely Princess Buttercup while her true love Wesley attempts to rescue her with his side-kicks Inigo Montoya and Fezzik the Giant.

What, specifically, are we protecting?

Lost in all of the drama and humor and innuendo is the fact that the priest is discussing that “bwessed awangement” of marriage that brings them all together that day.  His definition of marriage (or “mawage”) is flowery and relatively useless fluff, designed to provide humorous background for the scene, but that very question of “What is Marriage” has become a remarkably hot topic in this day and age.   Assuming that many of you live in California, I hope you were aware of the debate and vote on Proposition 8 a number of years back, which asked voters to essentially vote in support of the statement that said…

Marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing offspring.

Let’s explore that a little in this post, shall we?

My background includes work in an area of Physical Anthropology called Structural Functionalism.  In a nutshell, this highlights the fact that, when it comes to studying anatomy, human or otherwise, you can study adaptations from the perspective of how the body is put together and shaped (Structuralism), or you can study it according to the job it performs (Functionalism).  I prefer a third option:  Study the human body from the perspective of how a body is shaped (adapted) to perform a particular role for the human that possesses it, in other words, how the structure matches or is adapted to the function of a trait.  This approach is called structural functionalism.  For instance, it is useful to understand how the human spine has developed secondary curvatures in the lumbar region as a means of adapting to an upright stature in bipedalism, to place the center of gravity over the feet in a way that allows the spine the optimum stability and flexibility.  This is certainly more useful than just describing the lumbar curvature OR analyzing the strength and flexibility limits of the spine on their own (at least in my humble opinion).

What does this have to do with marriage?  I suggest that the structural functional approach need not be limited to anatomical adaptations or other physical human traits.  I suggest it is also helpful and productive to apply it to cultural traits as well.  Don’t just describe a behavior or talk about its function.  Talk about how the way the behavior is practiced is best adapted to the function that it serves a particular culture.  So can we do that for marriage?

Let’s start by breaking marriage into its structural functional components and then see if we can find patterns of relatedness that might help us explore what marriage actually “is”, preferably in a way that would be applied cross-culturally, not just to our own westernized cultures.

Structure of Marriage:

Polygynous Family

Earlier in this class you were learning about different forms of marriage.  The two most common are monogamy (one man and one woman) and polygamy (one individual with more than one mate).  Polygamy is broken into two primary categories:  polygyny (one man with multiple wives) and polyandry (one wife with multiple husbands).  Given these categories, right away we see that perhaps the “marriage is between a man and a woman” crowd might have some problems from a cross-cultural perspective, but let’s keep going.

Why do some cultures practice monogamy while others practice polygyny and a few practice polyandry?  Well, it turns out that humans practice a marriage pattern (or mating pattern) seen in many of our non-human primate relatives, a pattern called Resource Defense Polgyny.  This simply means that whether or not a population practices polygyny is dependent upon how unequally distributed the resources are within the males of that population.   If resources (such as wealth) are relatively equal among males, monogamy will be prevalent.  Large levels of unequal distribution?  The potential for polgyny is high.  Why?  Essentially, resource distribution indicates whether some men can attract a greater number of mates.  If there is no advantage to females to marry a male who already has a mate, they will look for an unattached male.  If all unattached males have less available resources than an already mated males, females (or in the case of humans, their families) will be willing to allow for the status as second mate (or third, forth, etc.), if there are sufficient resources to justify the decision.

Gorilla family with silverback male

You see this in silverback gorillas, whose mate number seems to match their ability to defend resources and his females with their offspring.  You also see it in orangutans, who are monogamous because they are not territorial and therefore not able to attract multiple mates.  And you see both patterns in traditional human populations, where populations in chiefdoms and state societies often have wealthy men with multiple wives compared to egalitarian societies, where resources are spread more evenly and tend to be monogamous.  (For those paying attention, polyandry tends to occur where families don’t want to divide resources between sons and so the sons both marry the same woman.)

The exception seems to be our westernized cultures.  Who has greater levels of wealth stratification than we do?  Why don’t we practice polygyny?  Well, the easy answer is that we have laws against it, laws often based upon religions thousands of years old.  Something seemed to have happened thousands of years ago that caused our cultures to ban polygynous marriage.  It’s not that none of the men wanted to be polygynous.  But for some reason, it benefited society in general to ban the practice.

John Edwards -- NOT monogamous

But another answer is to ask another question:  Are we really monogamous?  No, from a biological perspective, we aren’t.  We have what is called serial monogamy, where many people marry, have kids, divorce and remarry.  We also have plenty of extra-marital relationships, enough to keep Jerry Springer a very wealthy man.  We may be legally monogamous, but we are effectively polygynous, matching our wealth stratification.  So there seems to be ways of describing the structure of human marriage patterns in a predictable way.  It isn’t completely random or culturally determined.  It has a basis in biology.  

The Function of Marriage:

Well, that one is easy, right?  The function of marriage is to form marital units and produce offspring.  In fact, in some cultures, with their emphasis on virginity, the primary function of marriages seems to be the production of offspring with a guarantee that the new husband will be the biological father of the new wife’s offspring, avoiding the threat of cuckoldry.  Marriage = Reproduction.  End of story?

Arranged Marriage

Given the section in your textbook on the Yam Complex of the Trobriand Islanders earlier in this course, I hope you see the problem with jumping to this conclusion.  This is indeed one function of marriage, but it is one of many.  In our westernized cultures, where we have adopted a very romantic vision of marriage, a marital union is the joining of two people (a man and a woman) who love each other and want to start a family.  Visions of white weddings, little chapels, and receptions with grandmothers dancing the Funky Chicken abound, right?  But in many cultures, marriage has not only a reproductive function but also an economic, social, or even a political function.  In traditional societies, you are not marrying two people but two families.  The families arrange this, with the wishes of the bride and the groom not always taken into consideration.  Marriages are evaluated based upon the economic and social gain of the two families.  Does it improve the social status of the families?  How will dowry or brideprice change hands?  Is it a balanced exchange or does one side have an advantage?  And for individuals in positions of power, politics often come into play in marriage.  Think of the weddings of the ancient kings of England, France and Spain.  Did they marry for love?  No, they tended to marry for territory, or protection, or to gain a military advantage.  How romantic.

So is it fair to say that marriage has a purely reproductive function (which is one of the arguments against gay marriage)?  Far from it.  It is one of many functions and sometimes not even in the top five.  In heterosexual marriages, there is no guarantee that children will result or even that the couple will want to reproduce.  Reproduction is a common function but not a required component of marriage.  So, a cross-cultural perspective reveals that identifying the creation of a reproductive unit is an extremely limited and culturally unaware way of describing the function of marriage.

Let’s summarize what biological and cross-cultural comparisons tell us about the structural functional role of marriage in human populations, and let’s be careful to try to produce an unbiased description that broadly covers as many structures and functions as possible:    

Marriage is an adaptive union of two or more humans in a arrangement that exhibits one or more functions, including those of social, economic, reproductive, political, and even religious natures, the structure of which can be influenced by both the biological and cultural environmental conditions unique to a particular culture. 

Notice the word “adaptive” in there.  Marriage can necessarily adjust as required to the needs of a population.   This doesn’t mean change will come readily or will be welcome, but given the changing nature of the world around us, and given the wide variation cross-culturally in the concept of marriage, it is apparent that marriage has changed and will change if it serves the culture to do so.

Discussion question:

Given that extensive background, let’s ask a different question.  Why resist the change?  If marriage can vary and can change in response to changing needs and conditions, what is the purpose and function to resistance to this change?  Specifically, from a cultural and social standpoint, why do those who make the claim above that “Marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing offspring” feel the need to defend this stance?  What cultural purpose does the resistance serve?  There are two options in how you respond to this series of questions.  In one comment you can either:

 

a.    Express the opinion that you feel these individuals are correct in their claim that marriage is between a man and a woman for the purpose of producing offspring.  But for full credit on the bonus points, you must present a logical, supportable argument against all of the biological and cross-cultural evidence presented in this post.

OR…

b.  You can argue that those who view marriage within this particular limited scope are incorrect in their view AND offer a possible explanation as to why they resist a change in this specific cultural definition of marriage.  This explanation could have a basis in society, economics, religion, politics, biology or any other aspect of culture.  Just offer a possible supportable benefit the proponents of this stance might receive in return for resisting change in the definition of marriage.

Then for an additional 5 points, respond to a comment by another student.  This could be supportive, offering additional evidence for their argument, or you could challenge their argument and offer opposing evidence that falsifies their stance.   Either way, let’s keep in mind that this can be a hot button topic that inspires strong emotions.   Make sure the conversation stays civil and academic, using evidence and reason, not personal opinion and emotion.

So what do you think?

Week 4: Supersize That!

More is always better, right?

About 10,000 years ago, humans took a step that changed our dietary future forever:   We made the transition from hunter-gather subsistence toward horticulture and then agriculture.

It is interesting to imagine the process involved in taking that step.  What led our ancestors to begin the process of intentionally planting seeds in the ground for the purpose of harvesting, instead of just collecting as they grew naturally?  What inspired them to take wild animals, collect them in some fashion to control their wanderings to use them for sustenance?  Was the first animal used for meat or for milk or even for their pelts, or perhaps for protection?  It is useful to consider possible scenarios that might have led to the rise of pastoralism, horticultural and agriculture as it tells us a lot of the mentality and adaptive forces of those ancestors.  Consider this question:  What were our ancestors thinking when they chose to change how they obtained the food resources their families needed to survive?

Regardless of how it happened, that single step opened up doorways to humans that otherwise probably never would have been available to them.  Consider the benefits of adopting agriculture to our human ancestors:

Fields of grain

Surplus:  Agriculture (and horticulture/pastoralism) produces more food than a hunter-gatherer approach.  This allows for storage of food to guard against times when food is scarce.

Blacksmith

Specialization:  With a larger quantity of food produced by a smaller group of people, this opens up the opportunity for others to do something besides food production, activities such as tool production, making pottery, creating clothing, processing harvested grain, baking, butchering… the list goes on and on.

Trade Market

Trade:  With some people producing excess food and other producing goods, agriculture opens up the possibility of trade, which eventually resulted in a monetary economic system.

Banaue Village

Sedentary residence patterns:   When your food doesn’t move, then you don’t have to either.  People can settle in one location and build more permanent structures.  Combined with specialization and trade, this led to the establishment of villages, then towns, and finally city centers.

Greek Acropolis

The Benefits of City-States:  Centralized governments, education, organized religion, art, science, trade with other city-states, the flow of new techniques, new tools and new ideas.

All of this is tied directly with the advent of food-production techniques.  The reason you are taking this course, using a computer, listening to music, watching a movie, voting, driving a car, and thinking about a new phone upgrade is because of agriculture.  No kidding.

So agricultural is wonderful.  It must be the best option for humanity when it comes to subsistence patterns.  It must provide the most reliable and healthiest option for our dietary needs, right?

Right?

There is an article available for you to read in the Canvas Course Resources module (The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race by Jared Diamond) which challenges this very question.  I encourage you to take the time to read it as it takes the common assumption that agriculture is “best” compared with other subsistence patterns and asks the question, “Best for what?”

Comparative studies have been conducted comparing the health of traditional hunter-gatherer populations with that of agricultural populations.  They have compared such measures as nutritional deficiencies, dental disease, and incidences of famine.  In every category, agriculture was on the losing side of the study.  Agricultural populations are more likely to have vitamin and nutritional deficiencies.  Why?  Because their diet is much less diverse than that of hunter-gatherer populations, providing fewer food options and therefore increasing the likelihood that the diet will be missing needed nutritional building blocks.  Agricultural populations tend to have greater incidences of dental disease, following not just a higher concentration of high sugar fruits and other food stuffs, but more processed grains and starches that can also make dental health harder to maintain.  Perhaps the greatest surprise was the higher incidence of famine.  Isn’t that what agricultural surplus supposed to prevent?  But agricultural populations can become highly dependent upon a limited number of crops.  If those fail, their fallback options are few and they have lost many of their traditional gathering skills and sources that would allow them to temporarily adapt until the crops recover.  Hunter-gatherer are susceptible to dry periods, but they are much more adaptable and highly mobile, allowing them to adjust their diet to whatever is available and also traveling to wherever the food happens to be.

This raises an interesting question:   Do our cultural (and physical) adaptations exist because they benefit a population in general, regardless of how long ago the adaptations arose?  Or do these adaptations exist because they benefit a population right at the very moment the practices arose?  Another way of asking this problem is this:  Do the adaptive processes that produce our traits and behaviors, both biological and cultural evolution, produce traits that think long term into the future, resulting in traits that will provide long-term benefits, or do they only produce immediate benefits?

If any of you are familiar with Richard Dawkin’s book, The Blind Watchmaker, you might be familiar with the idea of evolution (again, both physical and cultural) as a blind, tinkering watchmaker.  The watchmaker (representing evolutionary processes) can’t look into the future to figure out what would be best for an organism millions of years from now, but he does work with the materials he has to produce traits that work right now in the immediate present.  These adaptive processes can’t plan ahead.  They can’t plan at all.  They aren’t alive.  They aren’t conscious.  They don’t make intentional “decisions”.  The adaptations these processes produce exist not because there has been an intentional calculation made to make sure they are the “best”.  They are simply those that leave behind the most individuals that possess or practice and pass on those traits.

No comment

The result is a behavioral practice just like agriculture.  By practicing agriculture, you can produce and support a larger population who will survive and continue to practice agriculture.  That doesn’t rule out complications or downsides sometime in the future.  That doesn’t mean those populations will all be healthier, have fewer cavities and never starve.   All that matters is how many people practices and pass on this pattern of subsistence.  It’s literally the domination of overwhelming quantity over ideal quality.

This is probably a very new idea for many of you, the concept that the traits we practice now don’t have to be the best for us, they just happen to be very good at being practiced by a larger number of people some time in our human evolutionary history.  Think about how few people cut back on fats and sugars.  That would make us healthier and be a better behavior for us to practice, right?  So why do most of us crave fats and sugars and all of those things that are so bad for us?  Because in our evolutionary history, those who ate well when food was readily available would be more likely to survive when there wasn’t enough, as there was sure to be.  It’s feast or famine.  Did our dietary preferences evolve to plan for the days when food would always be readily available for anyone who could walk into your corner McDonald’s and order 2000 calories of food for a few dollars?  No, it did not occur with any foresight to the future at all.  Unfortunately, we are stuck in modern times with modern food supplies coupled with our prehistoric appetites.

So here is the question for you to consider:  I’ve highlighted a very few specific downsides to agriculture, but there are many more to consider.

• What are some modern problems that have arisen that can be traced to our adoption of agriculture 10,000 years ago?  Post a comment for this discussion that outlines a downside of agriculture, identifying how this downside was originally produced as the result of some type of benefit to human populations  and how it has become not so beneficial now.   These downsides could relate to our biology, our diet, our social patterns, our economic patterns, and our natural environment.  I am sure there are more categories than this, so don’t limit yourself.  You just need to try to understand why the adaptation existed in the first place and what happened to produce the downside.  This first comment is worth 5 bonus points.

• If you want to earn an additional 5 points, post a response to another student’s comment.  This can be supportive or you can challenge their line of thinking with an alternative view. 

See what you can do with this exploration human behaviors and practices.   What do you think?

Week 3: Born This Way?

NOTE:  This post is about "gender roles", not about gender itself.  We are taking on a cultural discussion about how those roles are shaped. 

Love her or just can’t stand her, there is no denying the role Lady Gaga plays (here as her male alter ego, Jo Calderone) in shocking our society into taking a closer look at our preconceptions regarding how we view the male vs. female dichotomy in our society.  We may feel like we have come a long way (baby!) since the days of the stay-at-home mom raising the kids and keeping the home while the dad heads to work every day to put in his 9-to-5 hours before returning home for dinner and an evening with the family.  We are modern!  Women have broken into roles traditionally held by men (Kamala Harris as Vice President and women graduating from West Point are good examples) and men have bravely learned to change diapers and attend PTA meetings.  But when faced with someone like Lady Gaga who not only gender-bends with ease but frequently and deliberately behaves in ways traditionally felt to be "inappropriate" for her own sex, that twinge of discomfort some may feel should help us recognize that our beliefs and preconceptions of gender roles are deeply ingrained and not so easily altered.

Lady Gaga, in her own unique way, is actually highlighting a question that has been the focus of exploration for generations of anthropologists, namely that of the source of our gender roles within our cultures.  At the center of this debate is the question of the forces that have the greater influence over the shaping of those roles, whether it be our genetics or our environment.  It is the age-old “nature vs. nurture” question.

First the nature side:  It is a common misconception in students new to anthropology that when we speak of the two primary sexes within the human race, we are also speaking of gender... that the two are interchangeable.  They are not.  Sex is strongly influenced by genetics.  We see that clearly in the match-up between the genetic genotypes for sex and the resulting phenotypic (or outward) expression of those genotypes; the sex chromosomes XY produces the outward phenotype of a male body and the paired XX chromosomes result in a female body.   Accompanying those body shapes are the biological roles of sperm production and child-bearing, which further influence behaviors. (NOTE:  There are many other factors, genetic and otherwise, involved that make this more complex and water down the dichotomous nature of these two sexes to produce more than just the two, but we won't delve into this here.)  If sex truly equaled gender, we would expect that gender roles would vary little across cultures, driven by our genes.

But gender varies greatly across culture.  Admittedly, when viewing gender roles, there are many similarities related to those biological roles, but otherwise there is greater flexibility in the resulting gender roles across culture compared with sexual roles.  In some cultures, women are considered to be completely subservient to men while in other matriarchal cultures, women have significant power and influence among their people.  So clearly, something else is going on here more than simple genetics.   

But what do we mean by "environment" when talking about the "nurture" forces influencing our gender behaviors?  Just like the physical and cultural traits you discussed in your assignment in Week 2, gender roles can be heavily influenced by the physical environment, the availability of food resources, and the climate.  Where resources are hard to come by and work effort is crucial for survival, the labor of women will be valued in addition to their ability to bear children.  Where resources are more plentiful and the work effort of women is not as important as their ability to bear offspring, the role of women will be much different.  But women’s roles (and the roles of men in return) can also be influenced by social, economic, religious and even political pressures, as we are seeing in our own political culture when the “appropriate” role of women and men often becomes one of the central discussions between political candidates.  

So which is more important, nature or nurture?

There have been times in our anthropological history when there were purists arguing that our gender roles were purely the result of our genes (nature) or of our environment (nurture).  Those who argued for genes alone were called “genetic determinists” while those who argued for full environmental control considered themselves to be “Free Will” proponents, which may seem odd when we have little more control over our developmental environment than we do of our genes.  But for the most part, all modern anthropologists agree that both play important roles in shaping how men and women take part in their particular cultures.   

by Pranav Purshotam, UNICEF India, 2010 

There is also common recognition that even within any particular behavioral pattern, both genes and the environment will share responsibility for the final expression of that behavioral trait.  An example of this is the practice of breast-feeding.  Obviously, genetics plays a key role in the ability of a mother to breastfeed her child.  But different environments influence the final decision to fulfill this role.  In hunter-gatherer societies, where there are no food surpluses and certainly no corner grocery store selling formula, the mother's role of sole-food provider to her baby will be met to insure the baby's survival.  But in a society such as ours when alternatives to breast-feeding exist and where women are valued equally (or more) as a provider of a paycheck as for her ability to breastfeed, there is less need for a mother to engage in this behavior and therefore there will be greater variability in its practice.  So both nature and nurture play a role in shaping our gender behaviors.

Of course, that doesn’t end the battle!  The nature vs. nurture debate is alive and well as anthropologists argue over which factor has the greater influence, our genes that shape us or the environment we are born into that re-shapes us?  Does one take precedence over the other?  Does one have greater power to shape how we look and how we behave and what role we play in our culture?  The question isn’t simply academic.   It is important to know, particularly when behavior roles seem to go wrong (as in the case of infanticide or pedicide or child abuse), which factors may have the greatest influence in not only shaping our behaviors in a positive way but also in a negative fashion.  How else to prevent a negative behavior than to understand how it comes about?

Why blue and pink?

So here is the question for this week:  Which factor do you think takes precedence in the shaping of the gender roles in any culture?  Do you think our genes and our environment are equally important or is one more crucial than the other?  Or do you fall into one of the still remaining extremes that feel that one or the other is entirely responsible for gender roles?   See if you can think of a human gender behavioral pattern that supports your position and lay out the forces (genetic and/or environmental) that shape it.  Your complete answer to this question will be worth 5 bonus points.

For an additional 5 bonus points, respond to one of your fellow students.  You can support what they have written with further evidence or you can challenge their argument with one of your own.  Don't be afraid to disagree, just do so respectfully and make sure you can back up what you say.

So what do you think? 

Week 2: The Value of Asking "Why?"

Last week, in our first class discussion, we addressed the question of whether, by studying and trying to understand a cultural behavior, a cultural anthropologist is actually justifying that behavior?  In other words, if we understand the role a behavior plays in a particular culture, if we can see what purpose it serves for the people that practice it, does that mean we are saying that this behavior is morally “okay”?

If you have ever taken a logic or philosophy class, this question might look familiar to you.  This question addresses the principle of what is called the “Is/Ought Fallacy”.  The Is/Ought Fallacy (also called the Naturalistic Fallacy) is the misconception that recognizing the existence of a behavior (this is the “Is” part) automatically translates into a statement as to the moral value of that behavior (the “Ought” part).  It is a common error in logic to argue that because a behavior “is” (i.e., it exists and can be described and explained), that means that it “ought” to exist.

How about an example to help paint this picture?

The act of killing another person is felt to be morally bad behavior.  I think we can all agree on that general statement, and it is actually considered to be what is called a “cultural universal”.  All cultures world-wide have behavioral rules addressing the killing of another human being along with specified repercussions for taking of a life.  End of story, right?  Killing is wrong.

Not so fast.  While the existence of rules regarding killing are universal, the rules themselves are highly culturally specific, meaning that rules on killing are unique and specific to each particular culture you explore.

 

Take our own culture:  Yes, killing is wrong, but are there any circumstances where it is considered defensible?  We have laws which excuse the killing of another person if it is self-defense and rules are more lenient when a person kills in defense of their family.  Killing that occurs as an accident is not acceptable, but is usually punished to a lesser degree than those killings committed with intent and premeditation.  We also engage in wars in which many people are killed.  So the issue is not so black-and-white as we would like to think.

Yanomami War Party

Now look at other cultures:  Soon you will be reading about the Yanomamo of Brazil who conduct raids and killings that are considered culturally acceptable if they are done in revenge for other killings.   An eye for an eye, so to speak, and there are social repercussions and costs for not taking part in these revenge killings.  The Abelam of Papua New Guinea have rules allowing similar killing raids against neighboring villages to obtain resources or women, but only if they are conducted outside of the planting and harvesting season.  In polar populations, it is sometimes thought to be acceptable (indeed, a kindness) for older individuals to be placed on the ice to die when they are no longer considered to be productive members of society.  In India, new brides who are judged to be unsatisfactory, either in behavior or in dowry, can find themselves the victim of bride-burnings, often resulting in their deaths.  In some Islamic societies, it is recognized that women can be killed in “honor killings” if their behavior threatens the honor of their family.  And in nearly all religions, there are culturally specific rules outlining when it is and is not acceptable to take the life of another individual.

Martin Daly & Margo Wilson

All of these practices have been the focus of anthropological study in an attempt to better understand the pattern of these killing behaviors and the reasons why those behaviors exist.  Does this mean that anthropologists are arguing these behaviors “ought” to exist?  No.  But they still do exist, don’t they?

Attempts to explain these behaviors are not limited to cultural anthropology.  Physical anthropologists, Martin Daly and Margo Wilson, analyzed homicides committed in Canadian populations and found a pattern that suggests that those most likely to engage in homicidal behavior are those who would have benefited the most from this behavior in our evolutionary history in terms of producing more offspring than others that didn’t kill, namely young, reproductive males who would have gained mates and resources by killing.  This suggests another interesting idea:  The behaviors we see today may not have modern cultural benefits but they might be genetic and behavioral artifacts from our distant evolutionary history when these behaviors were beneficial.  Does this mean that Daly & Wilson are justifying murderous behaviors?  That they “ought” to exist?  No.  But they do offer an interesting explanation as to why they do exist in human cultures.

And there is the root of the issue:  Why study these behaviors to begin with?  Why do we need to understand why they exist and persist in our society and in cultures world-wise?  Why can’t we just say they are “bad” and leave it at that?

There are two answers to these questions.  The first is that this is what anthropologists do.  They seek to understand and explain behaviors, both pleasant and unpleasant.  But once you have that explanation, it isn’t written into an anthropological journal and that is the end of the story.  Those who seek to alter these behaviors, to improve the situations of victims of these behaviors world-wide, can use this information to potentially end the behavior itself because they now understand the actual source of these behaviors.  It isn’t enough to pass laws banning a behavior if the cause of the behavior persists.  That would be like taking pain medication for a tooth-ache.  You stop the pain, but the reason for the pain persists.  The information produced from anthropological studies on behaviors we consider morally repugnant can be used to get to the source of the problem, to pull the rotten tooth, so to speak.  By addressing the source of the behaviors, by changing the environment in which these behaviors naturally occur, you are more likely to be successful reducing the incidence of the behaviors themselves.

Now it’s your turn to be the cultural anthropologist.  Think of a behavior that you find morally repugnant, either within your own culture or in a different culture.  This behavior may make you angry or turn your stomach.  But now you are being asked to acknowledge your culturally-shaped attitudes toward that behavior and step away from it to see the behavior without a moral bias.  Add one or two comments to the thread below that follows the following guidelines:

• Describe the behavior and identify the culture in which it occurs.  Try to do so using neutral descriptions that don’t reveal your aversion to this behavior.  Perhaps try to describe the behavior as if you were part of the culture in which it occurs.  Then offer a possible explanation as to why this behavior persists in this society.  What benefit does it provide to the individual committing the behavior and/or to the culture itself?  Why does it exist?  You may need to do a little research on this answer, or you can try to work your way through to this explanation logically on your own.  (5 bonus points)
• Respond to an initial comment by another student.  Critique their explanation, offer a different explanation, or point out where they allowed their own cultural bias to color their description or their explanation. (5 bonus points)

 Are you able to step outside of your own culture and avoid bias in your explanations? Remember, you may consider the behavior "bad", but trying to understand the behavior doesn't make you "bad" as well, so don't be afraid to explore and analyze from an anthropological perspective.  The only thing you can do wrong here is to cast judgment blindly without actually learning anything from this experience.

Welcome! Winter 2026

Herero mother and child

Welcome to my Cultural Anthropology Students from College of the Canyons!
(Anthro 103)
 

As part of your Day 1 check-in procedures, you will need to get started setting up your own course blog on Blogger. This blog will be your tool for projects and assignments and discussions throughout the course.

Use this blog as just a sample of what you might want to do with your own blog. You aren't required to personalize it... If all you do is use the posting function, that's up to you, but have some fun with it! I do ask that you limit posts to strictly course projects for the duration of this class. After that, it is up to you what you want to do with it.

To get started, click the link to the right for the page "Setting up your own blog on Blogger". Please let me know if you have any questions. You will need to send me the url link to your new blog by midnight of Day 1, though formatting and personalization of your blog can be done at your leisure.

In addition to setting up your blog, please also complete the following by 11:59 pm on Day 1:

1. Submit comments to this post with regard to the discussion questions listed below. Please submit as comments below in the comments section, NOT on your personal blogs. Click the "Comments" link below to get started.
2. Make two substantive responses within the comment thread below to posts made by other students. Please make sure to follow the course Netiquette rules (available on Blackboard under "Course Info") and specify the name of the person you are addressing in your comment. Again, these comments should go on the comment thread below, NOT on your personal blogs. 

You will be submitting three separate comments, one in response to the questions below and two as responses to other students. For grading purposes, please do NOT combine them into one massive comment.

(Having problems posting comments?  Head over to "Blogger Help" page on the right side of the screen.  The most common problem is an issue with "third party cookies" used by Blogger.   If your computer is set to block those cookies, your comments will NOT post.  There are instructions on the "Blogger Help" page to address this.)

Discussion:  We will be studying cultures very different from ours, including practices and behaviors you might find disturbing or even wrong, by your moral standards.  Many people are disturbed by anthropologists studying practices like these because it seems to them as if by studying morally abhorrent behaviors, anthropologists are seeking to justify those behaviors, to explain why it's "okay" to behave that way.

Do you think this conception of anthropologists is true?  By studying cultural practices, are anthropologists trying to justify them, to demonstrate that these behaviors are acceptable from a moral perspective?  As a cultural anthropologist, what would you say to help these people understand why it is helpful to understand cultures different from ours?

Ready? Go!