“We change whether we like it or not” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

As the end of the year is quickly approaching I’ve been thinking a lot about change. How my life has changed since I graduated from high school and how much my life will change after I leave college. I feel that in our society the word “change” has a negative connotation. People view change as difficult, as challenging and often as having negative outcomes. I think the reason our culture sees change as negative is because we are not quite willing to fully adapt to a new environment or a new idea because is it uncomfortable and different. We feel insecure about change because we cannot truly control the outcome. In a society that is largely based on micro managing and controlling almost everything in our own lives, not being in control is looked down upon. After reading about the Gebusi and their ability to accept change, my notion of change has itself changed.

The Gebusi are adaptable to any change in any context because they are “in betweeners,” they defy categorization. I think the best example of the Gebusi’s ability to adapt is their Independence Day celebration. They mocked their old way of life in the skits they performed, but also displayed that tradition was valued by the expression of their cultural selves. They also showed the values of independence and making decisions based on the individual while at the same time holding true to the togetherness and the kagwayay.

I think Knauft’s interpretation of the Independence Day celebration best illustrates the Gebusi as “in betweeners.” He writes, “The festivities of independence day ultimately symbolized the hybrid mix and match that more generally characterizes their locally modern lifestyle” (Knauft 157). Although to our culture the Gebusi may not seem modern, every culture is modern in its own way and the Gebusi have somehow found a balance between being modern while also maintaining their traditional local values.

Cultural change can have unintended results both negative and positive. And although the Gebusi’s cultural changes have not been wholly negative or wholly positive they have become extremely resilient. The world system encroached into Gebusi culture, they started to depend on the cash economy the world system offered, and then suddenly the world system was gone. But somehow the Gebusi still continued to exist. Now they move more toward self-sufficiency because they cannot survive with the world system model. Their ability to adapt quickly has made them resilient.

I think the reason the Gebusi are so accepting of change is because their culture offers something they can draw on that helps them adapt. The fact that they are a community that defies categorization provides them with a constant in an ever-changing world. As my life continues to change it is important that I focus on the things I can draw on that will help me adapt; my family, my faith, my friends, my education… and that I remember while change often carries great cost, it also gives many opportunities.

false advertising

In class we have been discussing culture change and its negative and positive consequences. We made a list of the negative consequences culture change may cause, it included (the last two are italicized because they are most relevant to my blog)

Bad diet

Diseases

Decreased health

Resource depletion

Poverty

Loss of family tradition

Negative perception of what it means to be poor

Dissatisfaction with life

I have recently been thinking specifically about negative culture change and it’s cause and I have come to the conclusion that advertising is the main culprit. Print and electronic advertising both serve as a catalyst for culture change and which often leads to negative consequences. As Noreene Janus writes, “communication and information systems play an important role, permitting a message to be distributed globally through television series, news, magazine, comics and films” (Janus 365). Advertisers have a huge amount of power in our world today. We as a global people are constantly immersed in advertisements about new products, weight loss advancements and new and improved cereals. Although the advertisements may be different they all emphasize the same message: “that which is modern is good, and that which is traditional is implicitly bad” (Janus 364).

Advertising, specifically television is effective with all types of people – even those who are illiterate. Magazines and commercials can be translated into all languages and distributed globally. But the notion that the more “stuff” you have, the happier you will be isn’t effective in all parts of the world. Now in a capitalist American society this is not necessarily a negative consequence. Consumption feeds our economy and although I personally feel that consumption doesn’t always bring happiness – advertisers use this assumption to draw in consumers.

But in other cultures, specifically cultures of lower socio economic statuses the effect of this kind of advertising is greater. Janus writes, “the impact of transnational culture is greater among the poor – the very people who cannot afford to buy the lifestyle it represents. The poor are more likely to associate consumption with happiness and feel that industrialized products are better than the locally made ones. But at the same time they are painfully aware that only the rich have access to the lifestyle portrayed” (Janus 366).

It is here that the true power of advertising is seen. Advertisers have the power to change people’s perceptions of themselves, the power to alter people’s feelings of happiness and contentedness. I know that I personally do not have the power to change the world of advertising and the messages they send. And I know that without advertising our world and economy would not be the same. But perhaps just by becoming more conscious of the true message of advertisements we can have some sort of impact on the role it plays in our global culture.

intertwined

I had never really thought about who and what I am connected to. Obviously I am connected to my friends, family, teachers, employers and even the people I don’t particularly know but go to school with. But I never thought that I was somehow connected to the girl that made my jeans or the person that picked the banana I ate at lunch today. I also never thought about my connection to my environment – and how it truly shapes the way I live my life. But after our discussion in anthropology I realized that in examining what I am connected to, something about my culture is revealed; and that perhaps these connections are much more powerful that I realized.

It is apparent that people are tied together, within their own cultures, through their models of living. Obviously I am tied to the people that I work with and also the people that I am in classes with because we share the same culture, a culture that values work and education. But because we live in a world economy that is rooted in capitalism we are also increasingly interconnected to many other people that we may not be aware of. Because nation states occupy every part of the globe and are dependent on political and economic others, although unaware of it, we also become connected to those “others.”

We are obviously also tied to our environment – but perhaps for reasons that we are unaware of. The relationship between human beings and the environment is mediated by culture itself. Culture not only provides us with adaptive strategies to survive in our environment, but it also gives us meaning and allows us to thrive in our environment. So because we attach meaning to the environment when people challenge that, they in turn challenge us. Our identity is tied up in our environment, so in losing our environment we are also losing our identity.

What is happening in our world today is that these connections while originally being mediated by culture are moving towards being mediated by the world system. And although I think that capitalism is very successful in the United States perhaps it isn’t such a great mediator for other cultures.

Anthropologists look at the situation from the view of the culture itself – is the culture choosing to change? Or is the US demanding that they change the structure of their society? When this demand occurs the world system does not play the role of a healthy mediator, it actually disables the community and the culture is destroyed while being pulled into the world system.

Now, I’m still not sure what this all means. Does it mean that the US shouldn’t try to help other countries because our way of life doesn’t coincide with theirs? Or should we still attempt to help but in a different way? What if we witness something that is against our ethical values – should we intervene even if the action is part of that society’s culture?

Obviously I am still left with some questions about my role and our country’s role in this world – but I do find some sort of comfort knowing that we, as a globe, really are all intertwined in some way or another.

Baseball Player = Opera Diva?

In Anthro this week we read at article by George Gmelch entitled “Baseball Magic.” Gmelch discusses the rituals, taboos and fetishes that can be found within the world of baseball. He argues that “obviously the rituals and superstitions of baseball do not make a pitch travel faster or a batted ball find the gaps between the fields…what both do however is give their practitioners a sense of control, with the added confidence, at no cost” (Gmelch 185). As I was reading this article I realized that this world of rituals and taboos greatly applies to my own life. But the rituals, taboos and fetishes I witness have nothing do to with baseball - they are part of the world of performers. Although at first glance a professional baseball player and an opera diva seem to have nothing in common, but their superstitions provide similarities between the two very different professions.

Gmelch states that routines are comforting and at times produce tangible benefits. But Gmelch argues that what players often do goes beyond mere routine, “their actions become what anthropologists define as ritual – prescribed behaviors in which there is no empirical connection between the means and the desired end” (Gmelch 182). He says that rituals are not rational are most often irrational. A player may ritualize any activity – eating, dressing, driving to the ballpark – that he considers important or somehow linked to good performance. But baseball players are not the only professionals to have rituals; performers practice many rituals before shows. There are specific rituals every singer does while preparing for a performance; they may eat (or not eat) a specific food, wear a certain undergarment, use the same lipstick or drink the same type of tea from the same mug. Singers feel that by doing practicing these rituals they will perform well. Similarly to baseball players, when success is achieved by a performer it is attributed to the food she ate, or the hair tie she used – and by repeating this behavior before every concert or show the singer seeks to gain control over her performance.

I think the most common superstitions found in performing are taboos. Taboos are the opposite of rituals. If a taboo is broken, players/singers believe that undesirable consequences or bad luck will arise. Gmelch discusses that for baseball players many taboos take place off the field, out of public view. For example, “on the day a pitcher is scheduled to start, he is likely to avoid activities he believes will sap his strength and detract from his effectiveness. Some pitchers avoid eating certain foods, others will not shave on the day of a game…” (Gmelch 183). Singers also have many taboos. It is extremely taboo to drink milk, or eat any kind of dairy before singing. (It is said that the dairy coats your throat and makes phonating more difficult). It is also taboo to whistle in the green room or back stage before a performance. In most professional situations a whistler will actually be fired from a show because whistling is said to doom the performance. The most common taboo throughout the performing world is saying “good luck.” Performers never say “good luck” for fear that it will in actuality remove the luck from their own performance, “break a leg” is often used instead.

Although there are many similarities between the rituals and taboos of baseball players and performers, the basis of the superstitions vary. Baseball players rationalize their rituals because “they bring order into a world in which players have little control.” The game of baseball is greatly based on chance where as the world of performing is not. The superstitions for performers are often rooted in the fear of the public opinion. But wherever the root of superstition lies, the rituals and taboos provide a sense of added confidence for the player or performer and by believing in these rituals and taboos – success may be more easily achieved.

the need for dependence

In our culture marriage is seen as a part of the American ideal. You grow up, find a job, get married, buy a house (separate from your parents) and rear children. There is this notion that the goal in life is to find “the one” and then create a life for yourselves, together. But this American concept of marriage is socially constructed.

Americans value independence and individuality and our notion of marriage is rooted in this idea. When we’re married we separate from our parents who are encouraging us to be independent. We also have smaller family units for two reasons: one being that we live in a capitalist environment and need to have a small nuclear family in order to follow our jobs; and the second being that we raise individuals to be individuals – we are only responsible to our significant other, our children and at times our parents. Marriage is also often the butt of many jokes – it is seen as a type of imprisonment and perhaps this is because our individual independence traditionally decreases when we’re married.

I feel that our society has put such an emphasis on the necessity of marriage that it is almost seen as an obligation. Our social expectations push people into situations that they may not want to be in, one being marriage. I understand that marriage has value for multiple reasons, but I feel that it isn’t necessarily essential to a happy and successful life.

I also wonder what exactly does marriage mean? If you truly love someone and want to spend the rest of your life with him or her do you need legal documentation to do so? or has the power of cultural made us see this as normal? I wonder what would happen if you chose to be fully committed to one another but not legally marry. Would you be happier? Or would you feel unsatisfied?

In our culture marriage is seen as the end of the road, the final goal in a relationship – but why? Shouldn’t a relationship continue to grow even after marriage? Maybe if we changed our idea of marriage as the closing act to the start of a new act the passion, fun and mystery would still be there.

I really like Lassiter’s concept of marriage being about creating and maintaining social, rather than sexual relations. And that we have multiple responsibilities and commitments to social networks other than our own small family.

I love the fact that our country’s culture emphasizes the importance of individuality and independence but I also think that dependence is an importance piece of life. We need to depend on each other so that we can build relationships and work together. It’s not enough to live in our own worlds taking care of our own immediate family – we also need to take care of our neighbors, friends and community in order to create a better world for everyone.

acorns

This week in anthropology we discussed gender roles and how culture shapes our ideas of “man” and “woman.” Lassiter argues that it is fundamentally human to be a member of certain groups and to act in certain ways. He says that culture takes the idea of human sexuality and builds upon it assigning different behaviors, roles and meanings to male and female. Therefore culture, not biology, creates the learned differences between genders and, in turn, the values that people place on their roles.

This concept pretty much blew my mind. The only reason that we lived in a patriarchal society is because our culture defines men as the “authority.” And the only reason that women wear earrings, perfume, and make-up is because our culture says that’s what women should do.

This class continually blows my mind.

A common thread that I have found throughout this class is that I am, because of my experiences. And that makes me wonder, if I would have grown up in a different state, or been raised by a single parent, or had lived in the same house my entire life would I be a completely different person?

In class someone compared the development of our personal identity to an acorn. In case you are unaware of what the analogy is I will give you my rendition:

All acorns are somewhat similar

And when they fall from trees, they fall into different places

Depending upon where they fall,

They can grow into big acorn trees,

Small acorn trees,

Or they can not grow at all.

The acorns growth depends on the environment in which it falls into.

This analogy made me think about my own life and my own experiences. I was raised in a family of performers, and now am a performer myself. I wonder how much of this actually has to do with genetics and how much of it has to do with the fact that I was raised in a performing environment. After taking this class I feel like a lot of the reason I am a performer is because my parents valued music and encouraged me to partake. I know that I may have been pre-disposed to be a musician but if my parents hadn’t been musicians perhaps that pre-disposition wouldn’t have developed?

Sometimes I wonder what kind of person I would be had this acorn dropped somewhere else other than in Claflin family, or Edina, Minnesota or Luther College.

miss independent

This week in Cultural Anthro we are reading Nisa, by Marjorie Shostak. This is my first experience reading an ethnography and I had no idea what to expect. I must admit I was a little worried that it would be boring or difficult to understand, but I feel that Shostak does a wonderful job of intermixing her discoveries from field research with the !Kung and Nisa’s account of her life as a member of the !Kung. Through the reading I have learned a lot about the !Kung culture and have, in turn, begun to think about the similarities and differences between Nisa’s culture and my own.

Obviously American culture and the !Kung culture are different in many ways. I don’t collect water with ostrich eggs and I don’t sleep in a hut. Likewise, Nisa doesn’t drive an Audi A6 and most likely doesn’t pick up milk and shampoo from Target. But I do find it interesting that both our cultures value independence, especially independence as a woman.

In the !Kung culture women’s roles are valued and acknowledged. Their main job is to gather food, which is undoubtedly important. They provide up to 80% of the food that is eaten by the family. They truly are resources for the community because they have the knowledge to survive. They know how to gather food, pull water from roots, and maintain a household – while they are also birthing and raising children.

Not only do they have independence in their daily lives but also in their relationships with men, specifically their husbands. Women in the !Kung culture have a say in their marriage to a man/boy. Although they marry at a young age, they can choose to not sleep with their husbands, they can choose to take lovers and can also choose to divorce their significant other. !Kung women have a lot of power, and because they are allowed the opportunity to speak their mind or make their own decisions they are women with self-possession.

After reading Nisa, I have realized that my pre conceived notions of the !Kung culture were pretty incorrect. To be honest, I guess I had this idea that most “un-civilized” cultures (I’m pretty sure I’m being politically incorrect by using that word…) placed the majority of control and power in the hands of men and very little in the hands of women. But in the !Kung culture this is not true. Although men have leadership roles in the community, there is little distinction between the sexes - women are seen as equals.

Now I’m not saying that American culture doesn’t value women, because I do believe women are valued and encouraged to be independent, but I think we as a culture make a distinction between women and men, women’s jobs and men’s jobs, women’s roles and men’s roles. And with the help of Shostak and Nisa I have realized that perhaps that distinction isn’t necessary.