Matthew Shelley

Anth 444
Dr. Strange
08OCT12
Questions on Salzman article

1: When first confronted with the unreliability of our senses and therefore the unreliability of

facts derived from those senses, I think it would give most anyone pause. I know for myself it

certainly changed my entire perspective on the world, and still continues to. I do feel it is true

however. Even a fleeting exposure to modern M-Theory and concepts like Quantum Foam make

our reality seem less like a cohesive whole that can be seen, smelled, heard, felt, and tasted and

more like a random cllection of vibrations, which is what it in fact truly is. It is both humbling and

astounding. We in the English speaking world are brought up from a very young age to put

immense stock into evidences, no matter what the field. Our heroes include Sherlock Holmes,

Hercule Poirot, and Indiana Jones. For centuries, holy texts were enough evidence to support the

existence of not only God, but of saviors, prophets, disciples, and entire civilizations lost to us.

This is no longer the case for a great many of us, when compared with the demand for geological

evidence in any other field. In our own field, the difference in skin tone, social and cultural

structures were enough to indicate major biological differences in race, taken to extremes of arguing

variations in species, all of which has been fatally disproven to the point of not mere unpopularity,

but outright derision (and rightly so.)

3: Heuristic theories, according to Salzman, are overarching theories which are “general and

imprecise” and serve the purpose of directing attention towards certain factors. Because of their

nature they cannot be proven or disproven, however they only continue to be used so long as it

remains popular in the consensus and remains consistent with trends.

A folk theory, as used in Salzman's article, would seem to be a theory which developed

based on conclusions drawn from experience and observation that, although it doesn't take into

account outside evidence, does have an effective repeatability (such as the theory that adolesence is
biologically linked to idealism and rebellion). These theories are commonly held beliefs despite the

supporting evidence being limited to immediate and recent observations within a specific culture

rather than a specific field.

A substantive theory are specific and precise enough to warrant experiment or direct

comparison. Often they work within the overarching heuristic theory, and can be utilized to give

credence to the heuristic theory by the substantive theories own plausability.

Salzman would appear to have great love for Harris' Cultural Materialism, going so far as to

describe it as a theory par excellence. I think this is most likely due to the theories openness to

observation and experimentation, as well as its clear defintion of etic and emic data collection for

the field anthropologist.

Humanistic heuristic theories, specifically the Interpretationalism of Geertz and

Postmodernism. These theories “reject” the scientific processes of other approaches and skips the

middle range theories in order to give voice directly to the subjects. While these theories certainly

have much to offer, Salzman's writing infers a certain level of disdain with the use of quotations

around specific words like “voice”, just as I've done in the previous sentence to emphasize his own

bias. Just as postmodernists posit that all empiricism is inherently politically motivated and false,

Salzman seems dismissive of these possibilities because of their rejection of the traditional

scientific model, reflecting his own background from a science as culture.

4: While intellectual developments certainly have an effect, we must consider the social

background of the theorist. The example given is Boas and his German Jewish background as

leading him to find an alternative to racism via the culture vs. Biology argument. So too must we

consider the social developments of the larger society, the interests of a particular segment in

society ( i.e. Recent social movements such as womens rights, LGBT, etc), and the social structure

of mobility in academic life, the amount of strict hierarchy may prevent theories from becoming

more widespread due to contradiction with established theorems from academics residing higher in
a given echelon. While aspects of each can be reductionistic, they each can have profound effects

not only on the establishment of a theorietical concept, but also its distribution and acceptance. I

think the postmodernists wouldn't necessarily have an issue with Salzman's list of influences, I think

they may have broader issue with his examples, such as his conclusions regarding segments of

society gaining anthropological interest. However, what good would anthropology be as a field if it

were unable to apply its developing theories onto itself and its own development? If nothing else it

provides a framwork to analyze some of the major factors in the field over the last century.

Presentism is the rejection of outdated theories in favor of the latest and greatest movements,

believing them to be far superior. This is a gross misrepresentation, especially in a humanistic field

as ours. While all science stands on the shoulders of those who came before, the base assumption

that all science is inherently progressive is a major misunderstanding of not only its role, but its

function in a larger society. In the 1930s Social Darwinism was seen by many as the ultimate

expression of evolution, and a great power which could be harnessed for the good of mankind.

Now of course we know the end result of such thought, but at the time it was current and strongly

accepted by many (indeed to this day it is still professed by many, but I feel this is closer to social

illiteracy than actual theoretical reinforcement).

7: While it is easy to dismiss the postmodernist perspective as so many endeavor to do, it's

rather obvious by the sheer number of partial adopters that even if pure postmodernism is of limited

application, it shines light onto aspects of the field itself which were once the domain of the

hierarchy itself, not to be questioned. In it's purest form to me it speaks towards the foundations of

anthropology itself, which would explain the extreme derision it received, because it in fact

equalizes the self with the other, indeed going so far as to say the other is only categorized as such

due to anthropology itself. While the field is one born of imperium and economic domination, post

modernism eschews this in favor of equalizing both the researcher and the subject, lending “voice”

directly to the subject without the filtered lens of the academic. There is certainly an attraction to
this simplicity, in much the same way that as youthful suburban teens we were drawn towards the

punk movements, an adolescent attempt to overthrow the authority, not in a revolutionary manner

involving everyone, but a personal revolution involving simply the individual. While there is much

in its favor, not the least of which is further recognition of the value of outside cultures, in its purest

form it seems to me to be undisciplined and therefore unharnessed, directionless. So eager were its

founders to work outside the constraints of a paradigm that they sought to create a new one rather

than truly be outside.

8: As the passage states, culture is not what people do, but instead what they think. This to me

means that a previous perspective on culture was somewhat shallow, focusing on the external

qualities of a culture and not truly embracing the underlying infrastructure's thought patterns and

how they led to such conclusions. “It is no longer the objective conditions of existence but images

of it.” meaning again, culture instead of being a collection of disparate, and too often arbitratrily

derived traits, useful in categorizing a people can be recognized instead as a dynamic framework

within which people can exist and perhaps flourish. I can liken it to many commonly held beliefs,

but perhaps the most notable would be the belief that some people are just different. This is a belief

commonly held by many today, and can often have disastrous consequences. For myself, the

moment of change occured September 11th, 2001. My friends and family would go on and on about

the evils of the middle east and their barbaric people, although a great many of our friends were in

fact from the region, and still first generation. They would say things like “wipe em out”, confusing

the actions of a few or the religious beliefs held by some to be an indicator of the people

themselves. “Nuke their ass and take the gas” became almost a motto for some, even to this day.

However, despite my own fears, I could not dismiss an entire people. Instead I felt it would be in

the interest of both cultures to better understand the events and actions which led to the attack. I

had been a fully integrated member of the American society, entirely convinced of the superiority of

the American way of life as all good Americans are supposed to. To even ask the question of
whether or not American actions could have potentially led to such an outcome nearly got me

physically on assaulted on numerous occasions, occasions which only increased in frequency upon

joining the armed forces. I feel that my understanding of Culture as Representation runs along

these lines, in that I never believed terrorism originated in that region of the world because “its in

their nature” or even that their culture was one of violence, but instead that these were rational

decisions made by people utilizing a perspective unknown to me, and these decisions and other

aspects previously determined were instead the causality.

9: If culture was merely within the individual mind, then perhaps there would be only art,

every one of us attempting to express our unique individuality without a single reliable shared

commonality. But culture is not so simple as that. In all spaces and at all times we are subject to

our cultures, reaffirming its standards and taboos at every possible turn. This external stimuli

ensures a consistent exposure to the various aspects of a culture. To the North American, there is

only a we insofar as they can help the me. Our heroes are cowboys, alone on the prairie save for a

pistol, but even that history is a myth. Look at the recent outcry of shock upon President Obama's

misquoted “you didn't build that” observation. Americans and the American Dream is the self made

success, citing examples as Henry Ford or Andrew Carnegie. Meanwhile they ignore the numerous

government contracts awarded to both men, the establishment of a multitude of agencies and

permanent appointments, without which both men's glory would have never come about. Just as

today, even if an individual were to establish a successful enterprise, they are reliant on the various

infrastructures within our society such as taxation for road construction and maintenance, law

enforcement, safety inspections, literally thousands and thousands of interconnected elements

without any one of which the individuals flowering enterprise would wither on the spot. You may

have built the company that produces the product, but you didn't create the roads that ship it, you

didn't invent the tools used to create it, and in this regard we are attached inextricably to one

another. Something the American must realize as we grow ever more dependent on the other we so
recently villified for our daily conveniences. How can I possibly be an unencumbered individual

when in my pocket is a cell phone bought online, designed in Japan, built in China, and reliant on

satellites hung by Russians?

10: Two conflicting views of science: a belief in positivist science as the route to truth, and the

understanding of science as constructed, like any other cultural device. While there are many who

deride science as nonsense and believe the world is flat, geocentric, 6,000 years old, or all three,

there is a growing number of people who apply an almost fanatical faith in science in a fashion

unheard of since before World War II. The belief ( a wisely chosen word) that science inexorably

leads to truth. While it certainly a better stance than the older belief that science always leads to

progress, it makes a rather bold assumption, that there even is a truth to arrive at. A messianic view

of science which places humanity itself into the role of savior. On the other hand, science is also

merely the offshoot of culture, any reasonably advanced civilization with enough opportunity will

engage in scientific behavior, and the progress of science can be directly measured against the

passing and adopting of cultural mores and taboos. Each stance has drastic implications regarding

what is determined to be truth, and the establishment of truth I feel belongs to the realm of

philosophy and epistemology, as science should deal with facts, theories, and the hypothesis that

connect the two, although I realize postmodernists may greatly disagree with me in that regard.

11: Each of these philosophers serve in some way to deconstruct (as Derrida puts it) the

structuralist foundations that up to that point had defined anthropology as a hierarchical science.

While the postmodernist movement would later find its own home in the anthropology field,

Lyotard brought to light fundamental questions regarding the nature of science. It's difficult to

speak in conclusive terms since many of these concepts are new to me and I would endeavor to give

an open ear to fresh concepts, but at the same time I feel a similar argument regarding these as the

postmodernists of anthropology, in that in its purest form it is too unfocused to be of major use,
although its tenets can easily be gleaned and applied selectively to great effect.

5: Rousseau's epiphany can roughly be summarized as man is naturally good and is corrupted

by society. Elsewise put that culture corrupts, and absolutist culture corrupts absolutely. More or

less an opposing view than that of his fellow Encyclopedist Voltaire in his Candide, the rhetorical

comedy parodying the idea that mankind exists in the best of all possible worlds.

6: Rousseau's acknowledgement of the necessity to know oneself is vital in relating that self to

another, and this back and forth is integral to practices of observation. It deals directly with the

alienation of the self in the face of detachment from society (a point of note given Rousseau's late

life reclusion and mental decline). Are these processes useful to this form of inquiry? I think

understanding the self is paramount to any form of inquiry, as one must acknowledge bias,

preference, and capacity to attempt any reasonable understanding of the other.