![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/anthnav\/files\/2020\/03\/crowd1-300x199.jpg\")
<\/a>Culture is dynamic<\/p><\/div>\n
Influenced by different schools of thought<\/strong><\/a>, many anthropologists have tried to sum up ‘culture’ with a single definition. But, as this short introductory video<\/a> suggests, it can be more helpful to understand culture through its qualities or characteristics. For instance, culture is dynamic <\/strong>and so our understanding of it is also constantly changing. In the past, some anthropologists viewed culture as somewhat \u2018bounded\u2019 – meaning tied to a particular place and time. Today, culture is widely understood as being shaped and shared on both a local and global<\/strong> scale.<\/p>\n It is useful to note that anthropologists look at both ‘culture’ and ‘society’ – but they are not the same thing. Where ‘culture’ <\/strong>is a system of shared meaning, ‘society’ <\/strong>refers to a group of humans, organised into particular forms of patterned social relations. So a society can have many cultures within it, and cultures can also be spread across more than one society.<\/p>\n When we write about culture in the contemporary world, we are often writing about sub<\/i>cultures or sometimes even counter<\/i>cultures embedded within more prevalent or dominant cultures (something this 10min video<\/a> explores in more depth). Ultimately, most places, or groups of people, are shaped by more than one culture; we live in a world of plurality.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Holism has been a persistent lens through which anthropologists view culture. Holism means seeing culture as an all-encompassing system of meanings – something that links together how we think, feel, and behave, forming a particular way of life.<\/p>\n As this image<\/a> shows, this allows us to conceptualise culture as a kind of glue connecting various arenas of life, or social institutions, together. (The word \u2018institutions\u2019 comes up a lot in the social sciences –\u00a0 here\u2019s a 4min video<\/a> reminder of what they are).<\/p>\n Some of the many things a macro perspective takes into account. Image: Ring of Structure. Created by Susan Wardell, University of Otago.<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n In order to gain this holistic view of how culture works, anthropologists like to zoom in and out between a micro (small, deep insights) and macro (more general) level of analysis. This allows us to see how local\/individual thoughts, feelings or behaviours (micro<\/strong>), can be linked to larger, global, or societal processes and structures (macro<\/strong>) that we might not immediately think of as relevant – as this circle diagram (to the left) shows.<\/p>\n Professor Arjun Appadurai<\/a>. Image source: TheSilentPhotographer<\/p><\/div>\n A segment of this video<\/a> (up to 4:05min) on \u2018paradigms\u2019 – from a sociology perspective, but also applying to social anthropology –\u00a0 gives a great summary of the difference between micro and macro forms of analysis.<\/p>\n An example of an anthropologist considering both the micro and<\/em> the macro is Professor Arjun Appadurai – a contemporary Indian-American anthropologist. In this 4.5 min video<\/a>, he considers the paradoxes in how people think and feel about borders – in relation to politics, nation-states, and also global capitalist economies.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Emic and etic are terms used to describe two different angles or perspectives from which to understand something. Generally, emic refers to the ‘insider perspective’<\/strong> – trying to make sense of something from the point of view of the people or groups you are engaging with – whereas etic refers to the ‘outsider perspective’<\/strong> – a more analytic approach, or taking a step back to consider how other sources of knowledge (e.g. literature, theory) might make sense of a practice or situation. This web page<\/a> expands a bit on this.<\/p>\n The emic\/etic split, is related somewhat to the positionality<\/strong> of the researcher, too. We discuss that more in the ‘Researching like an anthropologist<\/strong><\/a>\u2019 section. For both emic\/etic, and insider\/outsider, it is important to remember that the distinction is not always clear-cut; sometimes we can partially hold both perspectives at the same time.<\/p>\n Being aware of what perspective we are thinking from, forms one part of ‘reflexive practice’ <\/strong>(see our section on this further below), and this video<\/a> gives a great example of someone engaging in this kind of reflexivity, discussing his experiences as part of a health research team in India, in relation to what \u2018local\u2019 (or emic) knowledge actually means.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Social constructionism is a paradigm (an established way of thinking or analysing) that helps us explain why and how people live, or societies run, a certain way. In other words, it is something social anthropologists like to use when we put on our \u2018etic\u2019 glasses, or practice looking at a cultural phenomenon from a ‘macro perspective’.<\/p>\n As this short video<\/a> explains, social constructionism suggests that people\u2019s individual and collective behaviour is guided by what people understand to be real and meaningful. It implies that we are responsible for creating our social realities – even though we might not consciously <\/i>realise it. Some things that we take for granted as \u2018real\u2019 or \u2018true\u2019 – such as \u2018money\u2019 or \u2018nation-states\u2019 – only exist because people, over a long period of time, have repeatedly agreed <\/i>it exists; agreed that lines on a map, or a particular shaped piece of metal or plastic, have particular value<\/i> or meaning.<\/i><\/p>\n As this video<\/a> adds, when something is \u201csocially constructed\u201d it depends on, and helps re-create, certain patterns of human interactions and relationships. And as the video emphasises, claiming something to be \u2018socially constructed\u2019 in no way suggests it isn\u2019t real, or valuable, or important. And it doesn\u2019t completely deny the existence of \u2018reality\u2019. Rather, it reminds us why such diverse ways of doing basic things (like eating, or praying, or being \u2018respectful\u2019) exist, and why things change over time even in a single place. It also reminds us that social change is possible.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Learning to recognize how culture influences our lives is difficult because we are immersed in it from the moment we are born; it\u2019s like asking a fish to realise it lives in water. Social anthropologists, however, have a tool to help them with this: defamiliarisation.<\/p>\n Anthropologists have stereotypically gone to study \u2018other\u2019 peoples and cultures. But becoming aware of our own culture (and culture as something everyone <\/i>has) is just as crucial.<\/p>\n You may have heard a maxim of anthropologists: \u201cMaking the strange familiar, and the familiar strange<\/i><\/strong>\u201d. Defamiliarisation helps with the second part. It means learning to pay attention to the things we usually take for granted – our own group norms, values, behaviours and identities. This is an especially difficult task for those of us who may have grown up as part of the dominant, or majority culture of a particular country or place. (See our section below on ‘Critical Thinking’ for more on this topic).<\/p>\n A good way to do this is by imagining your own culture from an alien’s perspective, as illustrated in this recent, popular web comic series<\/a>, Strange Planet –\u00a0<\/i> another great example of defamiliarisation. The humour comes from finding different ways to describe everyday human things\u2026 from birthdays to sun-tanning. It makes you think about them in a new way. This cartoon<\/a> plays with a similar idea.<\/p>\n A classic text<\/a> given to first-year students to help understand defamiliarisation is Body Ritual among the Nacirema<\/i> by American anthropologist Horace Miner, written in 1956. Have a read and see if the group of people he describes sound exotic and strange to you. Then see if you can work out what the \u2018twist\u2019 is, and who he is actually <\/i>describing!<\/p>\n Practicing defamiliarisation helps us to recognise that there is more than one way of living and being. Understanding this helps us avoid being ‘ethnocentric’ and we become better at practicing ‘cultural relativism’ <\/b>– concepts we define below.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n To think like an anthropologist, we need to avoid ethnocentrism, especially as we practice comparison. Being \u2018ethnocentric\u2019 means viewing and judging all other cultures from the perspective that your own is the most important, correct, or superior one – as captured in this\u00a0cartoon<\/a>.\u00a0 It\u2019s kind of like the criticism, \u201cyou think the whole world revolves around you\u201d, but on a cultural level. Even just the assumption that your normal is the <\/i>normal<\/strong>, is a way of thinking shaped by ethnocentrism (something this cartoon<\/a> cleverly depicts).<\/p>\n This image<\/a> (intended to be funny but with a serious basis) takes aim at the USA for having an ethnocentric view of the world. The dangers of ethnocentrism are misinterpretation, lack of understanding, and \u2018othering<\/strong>\u2019 – it can often lead to racial\/ethnic prejudice, on an individual level, a social level, or even in political policy.<\/p>\n Again, we want to point out that it\u2019s not just about individuals being \u2018ethnocentric\u2019, but whole institutions (including academia itself) being focused on a set of ideas and values that is taken for granted as normal, or superior – and weighing up all people, ideas, and processes, against that. The term \u2018eurocentric<\/strong>\u2019 applies here; and is probably the most common type of ethnocentrism.<\/p>\n The opposite of ethnocentrism, and a lens anthropologists promote, is called cultural relativism<\/strong>. This means trying to understand other people\u2019s lives, norms, values, and behaviours in relation to their<\/i> social, historical and cultural contexts (rather than in relation to yours)<\/i>. This links back to the idea of ‘holism’ – and for further examples of these two terms, we suggest this video<\/a>.<\/p>\n It\u2019s probably useful to note that we aren\u2019t saying that you have to agree with or feel comfortable with all the different cultural practices you come across. Cultural relativism is not <\/i>the same as \u2018moral relativism\u2019<\/strong> (which says there is no absolute right or wrong). Many anthropologists do have their own strong moral, religious, or political beliefs, as well as their own ways of living that they feel attached to, and that is absolutely okay. But cultural relativism is a useful lens for reminding us to approach the people and things we study with humility<\/strong>, with close attention to their unique\u00a0contexts <\/strong>– to stay open-minded to learn rather than filtering everything through our own assumptions.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Colonisation has an ongoing impact in today\u2019s world. This is addressed by areas of study such as ‘postcolonial theory’. From this perspective,\u00a0this 17min video<\/a> summarises some of the continual (cultural and academic) impacts of colonisation.<\/p>\n A protest sign at Ihum\u0101tao (a site of indigenous activism in New Zealand, in the face of land development, 2019). Photo: Alika Wells (source: wikimedia commons).<\/p><\/div>\n While we have begun the work of decolonising the field of social anthropology (as discussed in our\u00a0history<\/a> section), it is vitally important that anthropologists continually<\/em> work at this. This includes (but is certainly not limited to):<\/p>\n In Aotearoa New Zealand, a key first step towards decolonisation is learning about te Tiriti o Waitangi\/the Treaty of Waitangi and how it has shaped, and continues to shape, the cultural politics of this country. This comic<\/a> is a great resource for understanding the history of the Treaty – download it and have a read!<\/p>\n Some more useful resources:<\/p>\n Many anthropologists today\u00a0are<\/em>\u00a0undertaking work that radically challenges colonial ideas\u2026 as well as other systems of inequality, or practices of \u2018othering\u2019. These are projects our values<\/a>\u00a0support, and our methods work well towards, especially if we are willing to also acknowledge and learn from our past as we do this.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Social anthropologists are expected to think \u2018reflexively\u2019… but what does this actually mean? Being \u2018reflexive\u2019 means paying attention to the way knowledge is not just \u2018gathered\u2019, but constructed. <\/i>It means unpacking the different contexts and influences behind academic work; the different forms of power and positionality<\/strong> (especially that of the researcher themselves) that shape that knowledge<\/strong> we produce as social anthropologists.<\/p>\n Becoming aware of our \u2018selves\u2019 as researchers<\/p><\/div>\n One way to practice reflexivity is becoming aware of our \u2018selves<\/i>\u2019 as researchers, and remembering that we are all <\/i>shaped by culture; our upbringing, socialization, experiences, and the norms and values of groups we have grown up within.<\/p>\n When we conduct research in any form, who we are (our personality, our beliefs, values, knowledge, morals) and our position in our social worlds (our identities) will\u00a0<\/i>impact the way we interpret different people and places. This is not a bad thing, so long as we pause to notice it, since sometimes, as this short video<\/a> points out, we are not aware of how our personal biases shape our thinking and interactions with others. A commitment to reflexivity is about constantly asking questions about ourselves, as well as the people we are learning about, researching with, or writing on. This is covered, with a focus on research, in our section on positionality<\/strong><\/a>, which also mentions the \u2018insider\/outsider\u2019 quandary.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Part of reflexivity, and useful for decolonising as well, is critical thinking. In social anthropology and other disciplines, critical thinking is about developing a certain attention towards power relationships<\/strong> and how they shape human worlds.<\/p>\n When we talk about power, we don\u2019t mean only physical force wielded against another person or group. We also include the less obvious ways in which a society might govern people’s actions, e.g. through social or cultural norms <\/i>and expectations<\/i><\/strong>, or certain discourses<\/strong><\/em> – <\/i>which are powerful systems of ideas, often linked to particular institutions. This can relate to all sorts of things, such as what a \u2018successful life\u2019 should look like, what \u2018healthy bodies\u2019 should look like, or what makes a \u2018family\u2019. Social anthropologist\u2019s can use ‘discourse analysis’,<\/b> among other tools, to make these taken-for-granted ideas visible. This video<\/a> gives a short but insightful summary of what this is and what it can reveal about how ideas act to shape our worlds.<\/p>\n Even in places where multiple cultures are present (i.e. most places!), there is typically one \u2018dominant\u2019 culture or set of ideas, and one term that helps explain this is hegemony<\/strong> – a concept well explained in this video<\/a> by humanities vlogger Tom Nicholas (2017). \u00a0It helps us make sense of the wider political contexts\u00a0<\/strong>people live their lives\u00a0in. For example, in this 7 min video<\/a>, Dr. Alpa Shah practices critical thinking when she unpacks assumptions behind ideas of ‘development’ and ‘equality’ linked to the global hegemony of capitalism – using an ethnographic<\/strong> lens to draw on specific examples of local lifeworlds among the Adavasi peoples in India.<\/p>\n It is also important to know where our own positionality<\/strong> places us within the cultural hegemony we identify – do we fit or agree with the prevalent norms in our society, or do we feel alienated by them? Do we find ourselves relating to a certain ‘counterculture’, or do we find ourselves at home with the wider \u2018status quo\u2019? If so, we might need to work hard to ‘defamiliarise’ ourselves from the norms we are used to, in order to see who benefits and who is disenfranchised from the way a particular society is ordered.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Culture To think like an anthropologist, we need to make sense of the ultimate buzz-word in our discipline: \u2018culture\u2019. As this video explains, culture is a complex entanglement of both things (objects, people etc.) and ideas (norms, values, and symbols). […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":32972,"featured_media":0,"parent":51,"menu_order":2,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-82","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/anthnav\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/82","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/anthnav\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/anthnav\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/anthnav\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/32972"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/anthnav\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=82"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/anthnav\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/82\/revisions"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/anthnav\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/51"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/anthnav\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=82"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Holism<\/b><\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/anthnav\/files\/2020\/03\/Screen-Shot-2020-03-23-at-11.44.10-AM.png\")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/anthnav\/files\/2020\/04\/Arjun_Appadurai_2009_cropped.jpg\")
<\/a>Emic\/Etic<\/b><\/h4>\n
<\/h4>\n
Social Constructionism<\/b><\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/anthnav\/files\/2020\/03\/Gallery-shot-1024x537.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nDefamiliarisation<\/b><\/h4>\n
Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativism<\/b><\/h4>\n
Decolonising Ourselves
\n<\/b><\/h4>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/anthnav\/files\/2020\/06\/Ihuma\u0304tao_25_July_2019_-_3.jpg\")
<\/a>\n
\n
Reflexive Practice<\/b><\/h4>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogs.otago.ac.nz\/anthnav\/files\/2020\/03\/self-reflect-300x200.jpg\")
<\/a>Critical Thinking<\/b><\/h4>\n