anp 320 exam1 - Elisabeth Platz 1 Elisabeth Platz ANP 320...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–5. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Elisabeth Platz 1 Elisabeth Platz ANP 320 Dr. Brandt Peterson Exam 1 Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Elisabeth Platz 2 1. According to Stocking, Boas’s contribution to our understanding of culture was very important, because it greatly facilitated the shift in the anthropological concept from the evolutionist’s singular “culture” to the modern anthropologist’s plural concept of culture. Boas argued against cultural evolutionism. He saw culture as dynamic and determinant of an individual’s behavior. His work helped to elaborate the concept of culture past race by arguing that thought, action, and choice were largely determined by an individual’s environment and particular traditions and customs. Stocking sees Boas as a foundational thinker who not only helped to transform anthropology, but the anthropologist’s world as well. I have to agree with Stocking, especially in regards to Boas’s work being greatly significant to modern anthropology.
Background image of page 2
Elisabeth Platz 3 3. Geertz’s critique of structuralism is that it isn’t meaningful enough. He sees it as a descriptive, or “thin”, view of culture where meaning is just in codes. His model shows culture as an interaction between people and the meaning of codes. He has a “thick” view of culture, where description has to do with background context and how it makes the actual events meaningful. For example, a “thin” meaning of “winking” would be a contraction of the eye muscle; while a “thick” meaning for “winking” would be that the person winking is flirting. Geertz saw culture as the ability to read and write the text within we live. He explained culture as “webs of significance” containing webs that signify meaning, which we have made for ourselves. According to Geertz, behavior is symbolic; what people do is shaped by symbolic meaning. I see his approach as an improvement, because it views things on a deeper level. His model is more involved and dynamic. I particularly like the way he describes culture as not only having different meanings for certain codes, but also involves the importance of the individual’s interpretation of what the code means. There are several factors that affect a person’s understanding of what a particular code means. I think his view helped expand and open our minds to how complex culture really is.
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Elisabeth Platz 4 4. Abu-Lughod’s argument against generalization is the boundary it places between “self” and “other”. She sees culture as a way that anthropology encourages this separation, and therefore, a sense of hierarchy. She views the self/other distinction as central to the paradigm of anthropology. Abu-Lughod criticizes the way individuals discover their “self”, by suggesting that the way they view the “other” has a significant influence on the way they identify themselves. This leads to the issue of the “other” typically being a non-Western or minority group, while the “self” is usually Western, dominant, or even oppressive. Therefore, the self/other separation is often associated with a power divide.
Background image of page 4
Image of page 5
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/25/2008 for the course ANP 320 taught by Professor Peterson during the Fall '07 term at Michigan State University.

Page1 / 11

anp 320 exam1 - Elisabeth Platz 1 Elisabeth Platz ANP 320...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 5. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online