Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Jamie Richards
100730518
TA. Charisma Thomson
SA 501, A03
October 15, 2007
Introduction to Anthropology- 1001A: Assignment 1
Question 1:
evolution”, evolution is the process of change within and amongst a population of any
organisms over a given period of time (Rutherford, Lecture 3: Sept. 24/07). Other
important terms were defined such as population which is the interbreeding group of
with one another to reproduce fertile offspring. Lamarck stated that organisms can
willfully change to adapt to their physical environment and the changes they experience
are passed on to the offspring which inevitably benefits them. Wallace and Darwin
believed in “natural selection” which is the evolutionary process resulting from the
evolution). They also believed this process requires variation as well as reproductive
success. An example of this theory proposed by Wallace and Darwin would be that of the
peppered moth; their natural environment, which was during the industrial revolution,
influenced their colour and heredity. The theories of Lamarck as well as Wallace and
Darwin are the key focus behind the evolutionary theory, which involve the process of
Mendel discussed the theory of the “field of genetics”. This involved the blending
of genetic material, or the “gene” which is a discrete unit of hereditary information that
shapes specific physical characteristics of organisms. He also believed that there are three
forces that produce variation in a gene pool and they are: mutations, which was the
1
change in the genotype through the alteration of genetic material; gene flow, the
Human evolution has come a long way. There have been many stages of this
evolution, starting from the primate order, the anthropoidea sub-order to the homininia
sub- tribe which consists of homo habilis, homo erectus, and finally, homo sapiens.
Certain aspects have certainly contributed to the success of these stages of evolution,
such as the modification and growth of human neurons (Rutherford, Lecture 3: Sept 24-
07).
Cultural relativism relates to the theory of evolution in several ways. One way is
sympathetically enough so that it appears to be a coherent and meaningful design for life”
understanding as to why people do and act the way they do, say what they say etc.
Another way is that of the concept of human nature which is strongly correlated with the
theory of evolution. To understand how the human species has evolved over time, one
must also understand human nature (Shepherd 1980:159). Cultural relativism is really
the study of human nature with the consideration of different social, economical, and
cultural environments. This would also provide reason and explanation as to some of the
misconceptions regarding the theory of evolution, thus, they are directly related.
2
the fact that ethnocentrism is the belief that one’s culture is superior, or the assumption
that the way other people live their lives is improper, puts a damper on the theory of
evolution (Rutherford, Lecture 3: Sept 24-07). As a whole, or together, the human species
has evolved. Physically, mentally, intellectually, anyway you want to slice it, evolution
occurred in the same process to humans. Culture does play a role; however, it does not
have overwhelming significance. Genetically, humans have evolved in the same way and
humans’ innate nature has evolved over time as well. So an ethnocentric view would
suggest that one “sub-field” has developed or evolved better or faster than another, sub-
field being different groups of humans, for example, African Americans, North
Americans, Asian cultures, Iranian cultures etc. Because of the influence culture has on
our intellectual and other such aspects of our being, an ethnocentric view would be highly
anticipated. Aspects such as science, the environment, genetics, heredity etc. have in
ethnocentric view might say that being raised and to come from a family originating in
North America would give you an evolutionary advance over those who did not. No
matter how fast cultures evolve, an ethnocentric will still maintain their stern bias against
those who may come from somewhere significantly different then where they came from.
who study the different cultures and influences on human behaviour may attempt to
explain current social and cultural practices differently than those without any inside
different speeds, they adapt to changes differently, and as well as they believe different
3
theories regarding evolution. In a rather ethnocentric view, a socio-cultural anthropologist
may look at North American culture and compare it to that of the culture is Saudi Arabia,
which is uniquely different in many ways. They may suggest that Saudi Arabia’s cultural
advances, medical advances, scientific advances, etc. suggest that Saudi Arabia are far
behind us as far as evolution. They may also suggest that certain cultural practices are no
longer acceptable as they have not evolved with every other culture, such as cutting of a
person’s hand for stealing something. Here, in North America, if someone is caught
stealing, they are charged with theft and can be given jail time or a rather large fine. It is
no longer acceptable to literally cut someone’s hand off; it is viewed as inhumane and
ludicrous. Such an example would closely examine how one culture is significantly less
advanced and evolved than that of another culture. Socio-cultural anthropologists would
discover inconsistencies amongst different cultures and use the theory of evolution to
Question 2:
the link between monogamy and democracy”, there is a commonly accepted or supposed
this supposed relationship is that as much as a polygamous system may achieve a sense
democracy. This is because democracy and monogamy are one in the same; they are
4
because political equality should positively promote reproductive equality (Sanderson
329). He mentions that the multiplication of sexual partners will not increase the number
of children for the women but in fact, for the males. It also sets a standard, for how to
respectfully treat women as human beings rather then objects and to not teach the young
men of society to take any extreme chances to indulge themselves in sexual pleasure. An
implication of Flanagan’s argument regarding the fact that monogamy works well with
democracy is that it is a direct attempt to teach family values and the importance of
(ii) If I had the opportunity to carry out anthropological fieldwork to study the
entire point of the fieldwork. If I was to observe the marriage practices I would want to
observe and examine what they are like now, the present and it would be almost
irrelevant how they had evolved regarding those marriage practices. If I were to approach
it from an evolutional stand point, I might lose sight of what is really important, such as
what the marriage practices are like now to relate them to other such cultures
accordingly. However, because culture is something that is learned, at some points it may
be useful to apply the evolutionary approach to see what has been learned regarding
marriage practices in different cultures. However, I would want to take the time to get to
know everything and observe everything I possibly could about the current cultural texts
rather than the previous ones. As well as if I were to approach it from the evolutionary
5
framework, I might develop an ethnocentric view as I would view my culture’s marriage
practices as superior because I would know of not only the present marriage practices,
but the past as well. An example of why an evolutionary approach might not be
particularly useful is that of the western marriage practices. It was and still is technically
considered tradition for the bride to be wed in a white wedding dress to show her
innocence and purity as she would have ‘saved’ herself for marriage. Now, in present day
westernized marriage practices, women still wear the white dress but most are not
considered ‘pure’ as they have engaged in sexual experiences prior to their marriage. It is
no longer a tradition to save yourself as that was the main concept behind wearing the
white dress, it has become custom to wear a white dress on the wedding day because it is
Question 3:
Chagnon, Napoleon A.
1988 “Histories, Blood Revenge, and Warfare in Tribal Population.”
Science Magazine 239(4843):985(8).
for us, the general public, an example of certain people, natives to be exact, living in a
society full of unimaginable violence. His thesis, then, is that the Yanomami people are
indeed violent and that they capture women to control their reproductive success.
Another purpose perhaps of him doing this research and writing this article could be to
explain and explore further theories of evolution regarding violence and or law
enforcement. The way he describes the mind set behind these people from this particular
culture, is almost that murdering is a hobby, rather than a crime. There are leaders but
6
they do not enforce such law against murdering people from the village, rather they
decide whether it was a retaliation murder or not. His argument is effective in that it
makes those who read this aware of how important any form of law enforcement are and
how differently cultures evolve, especially when it comes to terms relating to violence
and crime. His information with regards to the different tribes and their
practices is up to date as well as very specific which helps to engage the reader more
effectively. However, it seems as though there were a lot of errors in spelling and
grammar which would therefore make it not as reliable as the other articles. As well, he
makes reference to a table or chart, but never provides a chart for the reader. He
reader through the events in his article, he ends with the fact that finally some form of
police and law enforcement was looked up and will inevitably look into creating some
sort of law against the killing of so many people in those particular villages. Given the
fact that his information and opinions are consistent, I would say that as an author and
Michael M.J. Fischer, who is a Professor of Anthropology and Science and has taught
at the University of Harvard, and he was also the director of the centre of Cultural
Sciences, is a very reliable and accountable source. These, which are only a few of his
many accomplishments and talents, are directly related to the information in his article.
He generally writes to a university level student and or the general public as well. He
7
discusses the Anthropological and scientific experiments in which were held by several
other researchers such as James Neel, Patrick Tierney, and Napoleon Chagnon. He gives
his opinion for all of these different outlooks from these people and in most cases
describes all of them as “not being saints”. He effectively argues and persuades the reader
to agree with his opinion, but inevitably gets the notion across that the task of all the joint
efforts of all the researchers was to make all of the “corruptions, oppositions, and
failures” a matter of public awareness in which he felt would allow these to become even
more difficult to continue these practices. His information is very up to date, and in
In this article by David Maybury- Lewis, he shows just how capable he is and also
how reliable he is because he discusses all of the inconsistencies within the arguments of
Chagnon, Neel, and Tierney and defends them with sufficient evidence to back up what
he is arguing. Maybury- Lewis successfully argued the supposed ‘correct’ way of living
of the indigenous people as opposed to the way Chagnon described them which were that
the indigenous people were very violent and that they treated women as objects. It is
apparent that Maybury- Lewis is aiming to provide this intricate information to those of
whom have read and watched the films created by Chagnon, Neel and Tierney; the
general public. It seems as though he has conducted his research by means of contacting
8
several researchers in which they have provided for him the necessary background
evidence to support his take on the other researchers and their ‘inaccurate’ portrayals of
how the indigenous people, more specifically those of Yanomami, lived. He successfully
convinces his readers to re think their assumptions of the previous researches and
flawlessly designs a new basis for new and accurate assumptions. As per the other two
articles, this article, due to the essential evidence supporting his conclusions and the lack
of evidence in the other articles as well as his out side sources, makes his article more
9
References
Chagnon, Napoleon A.
1988 “Life Histories, Blood Revenge, and Warfare in Tribal Population
”. Science Magazine 239(4843): 985(8).
Flanagan, Tom.
2007 “Our Sexual Constitution: The Link between Monogamy and
Democracy”. Globe and Mail np(np): A15.
Sanderson, Stephen K.
2001 “Explaining Monogamy and Polygyny in Human Societies:
Comment on Kanazawa and Still.” Social Forces 80(1): 329-335.
Shepherd, William C.
1980 “Cultural Relativism, Physical Anthropology, and Religion”.
Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion 19(2): 159-172.