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.