|
|
Re: body mods, Western bias and marginalityAdrienne Dearmas (DearmasA@AOL.COM)Thu, 18 Jul 1996 11:57:10 -0400
Swyers) writes: > I think my point, though, is worth talking about. At what point can we as > anthropologists feel comfortable making assertions about some culture or > another? What is the nature of an informant? Do all cultures have a > "silent majority"? How do we get past our own biases? First I want to comment that I am enjoying the theoretical debates of this issue immensely (and taking copious notes!) Second, the bulk of my research to date has been in reading as much primary source material I can get my hands on. Not an easy task. When Holly talks about informants, I have to throw in "first hand accounts" as recorded by early "anthropologists" whose biases are very apparent. From the historical perspective, do we discount early European interactions with nonliterate cultures simply because their bias is there? Nevertheless, several problems have revealed themselves, and it is our job today to sift through and try to analyze the data as best we can. For example, accounts of interactions between Europeans and Northwest Coast Indians (notably, Chinook, Salish, et al) describe these tribes as slow, stupid, uncoordinated and generally less developed than the Europeans. Western bias against all brown peoples? Or, the effects of cranial deformation on different parts of the brain, that when caused by trauma in contemporary society produces similar behavior (Schmieg 1994, pers. comm.) Early accounts of scarification seem to follow the introduction of tattoos to Europeans. I say this b/c it is always unclear, unless you know the group and or area being discussed, whether what the "anthropologist" is talking about is scarification or tattooing. So right off the bat, there is confusion in the data we have. It is commonly accepted (Rudofsky, Brain, Thevoz, Hiler, Ebin, etc) that scarification is to darker pigmented skin what tattooing is to lighter colored skin. Throw in Dennis Rodman and you get some very interesting blurring of boundaries). Marginal informants. I was always taught in undergrad that most informants are marginal to scoiety (i.e. police informants, or snitches on NYPD Blue). Not that this means the information an anthropologist is getting is a bold face lie, BUT this does bring us back to the discussion about the marginality of bikers, homosexuals, prisoners and their tattoos. Perhaps there is more of a link between Maori tattoos and those of gang members if one considers the marginality of an informant and the size of populations (I just think the US and/or Western culture is too big to adopt any ritual or practice universally unless it becomes law (and then you are still gonna have your militia types). > > What is boring to Mike Shupp (and I daresay others on this list) is > fascinating to a rather vocal group here. And I would venture that every > piece of conversation on this list is so far removed from the daily > business of living for many people that they would (correctly, perhaps?) > view it as a horrible waste of time. > The poisoning of our seas, extinction and other seemingly "far removed from the daily business of living" events and occurrences are still important to our future. John McCreery is more fascinated with the individual variances of body modification, but I see a cross cultural, historical phenomenon which I think will prove insightful to human behavior. Then again, there are scientists who really think it matters how hummingbirds fly. Not me, so I accept that the value I attach to this topic is not shared by everyone, However, just b/c it isn't part of daily life, doesn't make it a horrible waste of time. (Last week, I played with a six week old Bengal tiger in my kitchen - who then fell asleep in my lap for about two hours. Waste of time. You bet!!!!) - Adrienne
|