ProfWeek6

Chapter 5 discussed several diseases and syndromes which are often closely linked with specific cultural practices. Obsessive disorders such as anorexia nervosa are more common in western societies. Obsessive compulsive disorder has many symptoms, and sufferers are triggered by different stimuli. One of such stimuli is germs, and many react to it by running for alcohol-based hand sanitizer. We already have drug resistant strains of tuberculosis, which according to the book are caused by a lack of cleanliness. However, would it not also be caused by excessive use of hand sanitizers and cleaning agents? Analyzing from a micro-evolutionary standpoint, would this not encourage stronger strains of viruses and bacteria to evolve? In western society, will there ever be an upper bound for socially acceptable cleanliness levels? http://www.louise.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1683:confirmed-80-percent-of-all-antibacterial-drugs-used-on-animals-endangering-human-health&catid=91:press-releases-2010&Itemid=141

It seems that ethnomedical research is a somewhat new concept. Was there any fieldwork done about medicine done prior to this that was discredited after more research was done? Are there also some cultures who have used the same medicine techniques for years that refuse to adapt to Western Biomedicine? http://anthropology.uchicago.edu/faculty/faculty_farquhar.shtml http://www.culanth.org/?q=node/350

When discussing the idea of romantic love influencing a marriage, Miller mentioned a study comparing American women's opinions of it. The study itself was based on women who attended colleges in the south. While the women are not necessarily fromthe south originally, there are certain implications of African Americans within that region. While Miller accepts that "this pattern is related to... the racially discriminatory job market in the United States", is there also not the possibility that African American women may feel that in that part of the country it is especially important to prove themselves as independent? I am not saying that its impossible that White women in general are more supporting of romantic love in marriage than Black women; however, is it not possible that this finding may just be much more prominent in that area of the country?

On page 134, under Marriage section, it states that there is the practice of woman-woman marriage exists among the Nuer of southern Sudan and some other African groups, but the two women who involve in the marriage do not have a sexual relationship. Instead, the woman who marries into the household will have sexual relations with a man. I wonder does it mean the woman with economic means who acts as a „husband‰ can have sexual relations with another man as well? If there are no love and sexual relations between the „couples‰, why do they define this kind of relationship as „marriage‰?

In Up the Anthropologist˜Perspectives Gained from Studying Up, page 303, It states that one reason for anthropologists do not study up is because they have favored studying non-Western cultures as a way of fulfilling their mission to study the diverse ways of mankind. This indirectly means that studying non-Western cultures is studying down. Does it indicate that non-Western cultures are inferior compared to Western cultures? Is this one sign of ethnocentrism?

In pg 105, it states that „In the supernatural domain, spirits and magic can cause health problems. The African-Brazilian religions of the Bahia region encompass many spirits who can inflict illness.‰ The author didn‚t write the sentence as „they BELIEVE that spirits and magic can cause health problems‰. Does it indicate that this is a fact? Has it been proven that there are spirits and they can cause health problems? Is there any scientific evidence?

According to Chapter 6, in some cultures it is customary for newlyweds to choose a home near the husband's or wife's family. In the western world, this could create extreme social problems including those with in-laws, jealousy, etc. Do these issues simply not exist in other cultures? Is it based on respect for elders? Or, are families forced into these customs while the emotional (in-law) problems remain?

My question this week relates back to the video, The Cruelest Cut. I was wondering how any of this organ trafficking is legal. I understand that there are donors who are willing to give up a kidney in exchange for the humanitarian benefits or for money. How then are the people who purchase the kidneys allowed to not give the donors full medical treatment unless they pay a hefty price? Also how is it that they can get away with having "mobsters" who find these donors and take part of the donors profits?

I also don't understand why people choose to donate a kidney. If it is so against their religion then why not just continue to work even more or find less risky ways to acquire money? In donating this kidney they end up owing more money in medical expenses and can do less work on their land because they need to recover. This seems like a pretty inefficient way to make a quick buck that will not go very far.

While reading about different forms of marriage on page 137 in the textbook, and monogamy versus polygamy, I began to wonder about what is or isn’t socially acceptable in the US versus other cultures. Also, it made me wonder about the new idea of an “open-marriage” being practiced by some in the US. How does an “open-marriage” compare to the standard ideas of monogamy versus polygamy? It is sort of a combination between the two, but how does it differ from polygamy and should it be socially accepted in the US? Would other cultures also accept this idea? === Reading through chapter 6, they speak a lot of matrilineal systems and the nuclear family. As homosexuality becomes more accepted in our culture, will there be a change in how we define nuclear family? As the book states, matrilineal systems have been on the decline for 500 years. Is that any indication of how all the systems we know today will be in another 500 years?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-9-2008/mike-huckabee-pt--2

While reading about incest, I started to wonder when incestuous relationships became taboo. It's well known that royal families throughout history often married family member, and it was a common practice. Their motivations were to protect the "royal blood" and marry someone who was thought to be of similar stance. Nowadays, however, it is not only unheard of, but also illegal in some cases, to marry a relative. Although I agree that relatives are not among the ideal spouses, I do not know why I think this. Is it because I grew up hearing that it was wrong? In all honesty, cousins, siblings, and all other relatives form close bonds and loving relationships. Is this love all that different from the connection between spouses? Can they not be the same thing?

Chapter 6 focuses a lot on descent or cultural systems in addition to the idea of household relationships. However, these are all cultures/households that people are born into and grow up in. What sort of cultures are formed in households where most people are "forced" to reside? The most obvious scenario being that of a prison where the guards are meant to be like parents and enforce the rules and the prisoners are like children where they get recess and free-time if they behave well. Can such a scene be classified as a nuclear household? http://sarweb.org/index.php?resident_scholar_erica_bornstein

When Nader mentions the topic of Scientific Adequacy, she argues that the field of anthropology is missing a large opportunity on expanding the knowledge about how the higher and lower strata of society relate by only studying "up."She then goes to encourage the study of both faces of the coin in order to understand how everything fits together. This section of the article created a curious idea in my head, is poverty a curse for us living in the "modern world" simply because our definition of success is incorrect (to be happy is to have wealth, power and love)? Can poverty be actually pretty good? I wonder if the indigenous populations in the Amazons are really unhappy. I mean, they are pretty poor, they have no mansions, no Ferrari's and their sense of power is to own a couple of chickens. Is there a pattern for what defines happiness across cultures and why is there such a pattern? http://www.nomadit.co.uk/easa/easa08/panels.php5?PanelID=369

f the concept of "friendship" is a cultural universal, could it be said that it is "human nature" to create social ties? While most of the aspects of culture that we have studied so far vary greatly from culture to culture (i.e.: what foods are and are not acceptable to eat, medical systems, family structures), the book says on page 148 that "something like 'friendship' is a cultural universal." I have never heard of any culture that does not at least have some sort of pattern of "friendship." Is there something about humanity as a whole that compels us to create these friendships? http://onthehuman.org/2009/08/how-humans-became-such-other-regarding-apes/

Does the gender flip-flop in the Minangkabau make a difference in the way these people learn, visualize, construct things, and organize? I have always been taught females don't have as keen a three-dimensional visual sense as boys, so does this reverberate in different ways in the things the Minangkabau produce? Is their aesthetic different - as guided by the females?

An article I found on my own, delves into the cultural values these people have - most of the mythology revolving around the mother - her struggles, woes, her importance. I wonder how all of this translates into their material culture? Does the eye of a female chance the necessities of a given people? Does it change the way they build? Their techniques and spatial understanding?