Midterm Essay Questions

Ten Points Each (Answer Six Questions) I want examples from the reading, class discussions, etc...

1) Explain the importance of language to group identity? Provide examples.

2) How do the Jesuit colonists portray Native Americans in the Jesuit Relations readings? How much do we learn about them from this reading? Do these accounts tell you more about the Native Americans or the Jesuit colonists?

3) What is the Kula ring? Why did Malinowski think that this practice was important? Did he find any rituals in his own culture that were analogous to the Kula ring practice?

4) In the article “The Hunters: Scarce Resources in the Kalahari”, the author assesses the day-to-day life of !Kung life. How does their day-to-day life as foragers compare with that held by many anthropologists in the 1960s. In a broader sense, how might the day-to-day life of such people differ from agriculturalists, or pastoralists?

5) What was the ecology of Easter Island when Polynesians first arrived on the island about A.D. 400? What did they eat? What changes happened to their environment? How did this affect their lives and does this apply to anything happening in the world today?

6) In the article “Reciprocity and the Power of Giving” and our discussions about gift giving, what do we mean by reciprocity? What is the social function of reciprocity? How can giving be used to intimidate other people or groups? Give examples from class, you own life, and the article.

7) Based on the article “Life Without Fathers or Husbands,” what is the basic domestic unit in Na society and what are its main social and economic functions? Describe the Na society. What are the culturally defined ways that Na men and women meet and set up assignations? Are there taboos and other restrictions on their sexual activity defined by their culture?

8) In “Symbolizing Roles: Beyond the Veil,” explain the meaning to Westerner of the veil worm by Middle Eastern women. How does this view reflect Western values? What means does the veil have for many Middle Eastern women? How do these meanings relate to the Muslim concept of purdah and other Middle Eastern values?

9) How does Laura Bohannan’s interpretation of “Shakespereae in the Bush,” fail in some ways? How does her story to the Tiv deomonstrate the concept of naïve realism? How does her story represent cross-cultural misunderstanding? What parts of Hamlet didn’t work for the Tiv?

As always let me know if you have questions!

Coming back of the Veil

The veil has been coming back to many Middle Eastern cultures. For some people the veil is coming back as people are trying to get back to their Muslim roots and moving away from the Western style of dress. Men are using this as a way in there home to show that they are head of the house and are in control of their women. On the other hand women are using it as a sign that even though they are now working outside of the house that they are still proper women and still follow Muslim traditions.

VEILED

I think it was that quote early on in the passage that talked about how the veil is just a piece of cloth, equality between men and women is not just an article of clothing. Its marriage rights, job equality, and just the way society views women that are way more important. Its just our outsiders point of view, its all we see so its what we get upset about.

Who are we to judge?

In the Middle East, the veil and purdah are symbols that represent their cultural beliefs. It represents restriction in men and women's behavior, social status, protection of women from outside the home, religion sanction, conceals identity, and signals, "Hands off! Don't touch me or you'll be sorry." Recently there has been a resurgence of the veil in several Middle Eastern societies. It may not mean anything to westerners, but to men and women in the Middle East it is a custom that women have gone through throughout history. Nouha al Hejelan, wife of the Saudi Arabian ambassador to London stated, "If I wanted to take it all off [the abayah and veil], I would have long ago. It wouldn't mean as much to me as it does to you." There is not only a simple social and wealth status, but it also is a symbol that women feel honored to obtain. I personally have always thought that wearing the veil is something Middle Eastern women didn't like and was forced upon them. Now that I read this it's clear that the women feel honored to wear the veil and respect what it stands for.

unraveling the veil of new meaning

The explanation behind the resurgence of the veil in Middle Eastern societies is that throughout the years and liberation of women in the Middle East there has come a new found meaning to the veil on a personal level. It’s in response to the evolution of their society, a mixture of the new liberated women and her religious heritage she was born in to. The veil is now seen in a non-constricting light, as a tool for empowerment and respect, showing the individuals morals.

Question One: Western women tend to consider the veil to be such a condescending item, when, there are so many other conflicts that Middle Eastern Women want to conquer. It's almost condescending for Western Women to assume that this is what Middle Eastern women focus on rather than perhaps, their right to have a drivers license or vote. The veil is a cultural custom and has been for centuries. Many women may not want to wear them and they certainly shouldn't have to. But on the other hand, many women do want to wear them and this shouldn't be so terrifying for Western Women to accept. They probably think it's odd that we insist on wearing ridiculous amounts of make-up and have no problem wearing revealing clothing. Talk about condescending. I think it reflects ethnocentricity upon Western perception.

Veil this MOFO

Some women see the veil as simply "a piece of cloth" whereas others view it as social status and respect. Some of the more feminist women in the middle east view the veil as nothing more than an idea which with or without it the women are still treated differently than men. The purdah and veil is a sign of restriction, according to the author. It is used to seclude women and "It expresses men's status, power, wealth and manliness", says Nadia Abu Zahra, an Egyptian anthropologist. Some women however wear the headdress for respect for themselves and their beliefs. They feel like it is a way to empower themselves towards men and say "Hands Off!" This is a tradition that may seem uncustomary to westerners but I don't really see the harm unless the woman is force to wear this.

don't release the veil

question one: The women of the Middle East wear the veil as a symbol of values.  As the book mentioned, this is different than the Western hemisphere.  Westerners often view the veil as a symbol of inequality.  The Middle East women wear the veil wear it to display values such as: honor, personal protection, the sanctity and privacy of their family, to show their wealth and high status, and city life.  Even today, the veil is warn by over 16 million Iranian women who are showing how far they have come.  In Islam the veil symbolizes that their is a difference between the Eastern and Western worlds.  This I think is the boldest way to state that they value their values.  The know there is a difference between the two sides and they are proud to stand up for the Middle East.   

Next Blog Post

I'd like you to choose one of the questions at either the end of the reading "Identity, Roles, and Groups," or "Symbolizing Roles: Behind the Veil" and answer one or more of these questions.

fend for your own.

well, I do think our society does take into consideration that marriage is, as somebody else mentioned, a partnership.  marriage is something i consider to be a perk to my life.  My idea of marriage is having somebody who you work well with and very much so enjoying being around.  But marriage does involve a lot of other things besides love.  marriage is bringing another individual into your personal life and allowing that person to rely on you, and vice versa. Somebody to work through your problems with. I do think this is a large part of what loving somebody is, are to want to do these things for each other.  But i think they also form their own category and are more of a role you develop rather than a feeling. with that being said, i do think marriage should revolve outside of loving one another. 

hmmm

I never got the idea of having kids without being married on purpose. I guess the reason its popular is that its possible to raise kids as a single parent in our society. Daycare and other resources allow for one parent to do both career and family. I would think, heck I know, it would be easier to raise kids with a pair of parents or a community. It takes a village to raise a child. Married couples get joint benefits from insurance other things that makes a married couple more fond to raise a child so I don't see why a couple would choose to raise a kid outside of wedlock. but maybe my view is a little too narrow.

shallow out them jeans

If a government isn't able to look out for the needs of the individual citizen, then the individual better start up a little community for himself. A great way to do this is to marry a fertile, sturdy mate who enjoys the act of procreation and working hard. After that, everything falls into place; you get kids, who are hardworking and fertile, not that you would think of your kids that way, and they have hardworking fertile kids, and everybody out of necessity looks out for each other and its one big happy family, literally, probably

we do what works best for ourselves.

My views swing both ways. On one hand I think that the society an individual belongs to definitely has influence on a person's idea of marriage. And on the other hand, it seems that most Americans today make their own decisions on children and marriage because we don't necessarily have a strict social norm. Things are different than they were in say the 1950's or 60's. The stereotypical suburban husband and wife with children isn't what we strive to be anymore. I think today the idea of marriage is based more around financial security and personal belonging. I think that society doesn't want to admit that most people get married today for those reasons, but we all know it's true. I know people personally who had  to of gotten married to their spouse for personal security because there's such a lack of "love" between them. Society can shape your decisions based on where you are located, but for the most part, I think we all just do what works best for ourselves.

Marriage

In other cultures marriage is viewed as a survival tool and they don't see love the same way others do. It would be very risky to choose love as the only reason to get married. Other factors that need to be taken into consideration are safety,money, food, shelter, children. There are so many factors that become more visible in other societies, that actually when you look at your own, they are the same in many aspects. 

If you need to depend on your relatives to survive, then it could very well be risky to choose marriage partners based on romantic love. This could work if the families got along with eachother, helped support eachother etc. but if they were enemies or disliked one another on some level, it could cause a lot of problems between the spouse and their own families or the way of surivial for the families in general.

I don't think that marriage is the only way to successfully have a relationship or raise a child. It all depends on the level of commitment and trust you have with someone and if you both agree to either get married or not get married. This might be challening in certain situations because of some feelings towards having children out of wedlock. It could present problems with family or religious institutions and may be harder to be accepted in certain societies. Although in others, it may not be looked at very carefully at all and simply seen as normal or completely acceptable. 

(Insert Witty Title)

It is true that many people in western society are beginning to have children out of wedlock. Just a couple of decades ago this was looked down upon. But, as times change so do attitudes. Now unmarried couples with children aren't considered the pariahs that they once were. Many people do not value marriage as a necessity anymore. One it was to provide security both physical and financial. Love was in there sometimes, too. Now, as the role of women in our society has changed, marriage is no longer viewed as a necessity, nor is the idea of having children necessarily. Women, being just as capable as men at making a living do not need to marry for this sense of security. However, that's western society. Take for example some societies in the middle east. Marriage is absolutely necessary due to cultural norms. In some of these societies, women are not allowed to have jobs. Some countries do not allow women outside unless escorted by men. If a woman wasn't married in one of these societies, she would essentially have no means of living. She would have to rely on her family for food, clothing and money, and due to the culture, she would most likely constantly be pressured into getting married. Sometimes this choice would even be taken out of her hands.

Whatever works best.

I definitely believe there is a correlation between the society one belongs to and the choice to have kids outside of marriage or just to not marry in general. In Europe and North America, it can be argued that, the institution of marriage was founded on is false as to how it is perceived today or what successful marriages have turned into. Originally derived around the idea to allow men more legal control over women didn’t sit to well in a society of freedom and liberty for all. Years and many civil rights acts later, plus and ever continuous growth in divorce rate, you have a society that is full of single parent households, unmarried parents, gay parents, etc. This, all going against the traditional view of marriage, because the traditional view, in the sense in which it was applied to society, didn’t work with the society.
The only way being married would be as to benefit a family situation is solely for the legal rights allowed to those who are married and to those who are not. Many people give their vows and don’t stick to them and many people who are in very committed long term relationships who never walk down the isle.

Do it for the kids.

Getting married should be considered a personal choice. However, many people often feel that marriage is somewhat of an obligation. This obligation is often scaled at different levels. The levels mostly depend on things like what culture you are from, what family you belong to, or how much you fear the future. While many people rush into marriage, few remain to keep their identity and their distance from the concept of marriage. While some make this choice, it doesn't stop them from doing the things married couples do, such as have children. The whole reason people have children is out of selfishness. No child is ever able to speak to someone stating that they wish to be born. When a child is brought into this world, it is nobody's choice but the ones conceiving the child. If the ones conceiving know they want a child, then it is important for the mother AND father of the child to be around during the years of growing up. Statistics show that children are less involved with crime, drug/alcohol abuse, prostitution, murder, and rape when a mother and father is actively present throughout a child's life. Marriage helps out a lot when it comes to these kinds of situations. Also, it is a vital part of a child's understanding of love. Knowing right from wrong is really an issue that exists in the minds of fatherless and/or motherless children. That is why when having a child, the responsible thing for a mother and father to do is to be married. Children whose parents are unmarried may find themselves a bit confused and have issues dealing with ethical understanding in this world and thats not fair to the child.

didn't some dude in Europe marry a vegetable?

Traditional views of marriage in America is based around "love" and respect. What i notice more times than not is it is based on an idea of love and respect, not so much the actual love and respect. I have a friend that just got married to his long-time girlfriend whom he kind of hates, alot. He married her because they both have decent jobs and have a good financial agreement. In other societies where marriage is based around the stability of the community it could be just as viable as a marriage in America which is loosely based on an infatuation that can and will dwindle. If an arranged marriage helps to support the stability between two warring communities it is a legitimate thing.

As for having children without being married, I think it is becoming more common in America because of many reasons. I don't necessarily believe a marriage has to be legally consummated in order to raise children in a proper household. My aunt is a lesbian with a woman she has been with for almost 30 years and they have a grown child who is relatively well-adjusted. I don't believe in marriage as much as I should i guess.

Loners

In Western society today, (and I focus more on the cities and faster-paced societies) I think we've become far more independent, and therefore, far more isolated. We are really a society of loners. It is far more common these days for someone to live alone for at least part of their life, if not all of it. My point is, marriage isn't as important as it used to be; it has become a piece of paper rather than a sacred commitment. Divorce is so easy an option, that what does a piece of paper mean anymore? The major functions of marriage aren't to raise children, be a part of your community, join the two families, etc. I'd say that the major functions of marriage these days are to attempt to survive a rapidly changing society, and for taxes. A lot of people these days aren't having children until their "careers take off" or they don't at all, or they have them young, divorce and someone takes custody and then they have children without marriage anyway. I think in other cultures it is still sacred. Within our own country there is a huge difference in the importance of marriage. It depends on your religion, community, up-bringing etc.

Marriage is a Partnership

In societies where a person must fend for themselves in every way, where the government does not supply a people with basic needs, I could see marriage based solely on romantic love to be a risk. I think it's hard for us Westerners to see it like that, because we all carry the notion that you should marry the person you love and not just the person you need. I whole-heatedly agree to that, but in a society where you have to fend for yourself, now I'm just guessing, but it would seem that instinct rather than love would have to drive one to marry. I don't think it necessarily means that they would have to sacrifice happiness. One must merely find a mate who can help in your survival. You need someone who will contribute, not burden.

The ironic part is I think even us Americans look at it that way, too. We just tend to put more emphasis on the love part. But love comes in many shapes. Marriage is, after all, a partnership. And in that sort of society, where ones relies on relatives to help you survive, you need a partner who can walk the walk.