Reading Benedict has brought up, for me, the above question. I was particularly interested in her discussion of the Zuni's aversion to violence and warfare (around page 107). She writes that even in situations that in many cultures would lead to violence, like infidelity and property disputes, the Zunis choose other methods of expressing anger and dissatisfaction. She states further that Zuni culture's design specifically aids in the avoidance of such rancor. I was fascinated to read about such a peaceful culture, especially considering the constant violence and conflict the majority of our world seems immersed in (the Palestinian-Israeli conflict comes to mind). However, my cynical side felt doubt as I read--it seemed too good to be true. A husband doesn't like his wife's female relations, so he just packs his stuff and goes back to his mom? And no one really fights over this, and Benedict claims it doesn't create too much tension? Perhaps my vision is clouded by our society's considerable focus on relationships, drama, and subsequent divorce (Jon and Kate Gosselin, who transformed from media darlings to media victims in record time, come to mind here). Culture in 2009 in the United States seems to assume that conflict and occasional violence are innate human traits--not nice ones, but sometimes necessary (former President G. W. Bush's justification for the "War on Terror" comes to mind). It truly hadn't occurred to me that violence might not be innately human, but ingrained through particular cultures. Therefore, the idea that a culture might exist free from (what I see, at least, as) the chains of violence and aggression was appealing but also one I met with great skepticism. I find it hard to release my long-held belief that humans are naturally territorial, jealous, and vengeful creatures. I also wonder if Zuni culture only maintains its relative peace because of its relatively small number of members, and if such a cultural structure would crumble on a global scale.
Interesting, tangentially related sidebar: tomorrow's Oprah (yeah, I know, sorry) features a girl who was somehow raised in a closet or something with no human interaction. She was found at age 6 and had never learned to speak. Similar story to the "wild children" to which Benedict refers, and might be an enlightening test case into what is innate and what is not. Or, since it's Oprah, it might just be a Kleenex-filled tearjerker for the 40-something moms in the audience. Like I said, it's on tomorrow, so time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I really enjoyed this post, Taryn. I agree--such non-violent, non-warlike cultures do seem too good to be true. I am certainly no expert on native American sub-groups, but I have read about, spent time with, and experienced a lot of the SW through a friend who worked many years on the Navajo reservation. Of the three major SW tribes, the Navajo moved around more within the area and were known as raiders (a part of their 'culture.') The Zuni and Hopi tribes were smaller in numbers, and physically isolated themselves to a degree on their mesas (elevated above the desert so they could see the Navajo coming ;-) Culturally, they WERE very laid back and peaceful (unlike even our Plains tribes who were more nomadic and warlike.) All three of the main SW tribes were basically matriarchies so the women did sort of rule the roost. Also the tribes were very communal when it came to possessions and living arrangements so quarrels of ownership and jealousy would most probably have been moot points. If you ever get the chance to get off the Interstate and take some desert roads back into the reservation lands, you still find settlements that retain strong vestiges of the past (however our infusion of alcohol into reservation lands has ravaged the native cultures more than anything else.)
ReplyDelete(I also think you are right-on with your comments re the Arab-Israeli conflict and our War on Terror.)
Ruth
Oprah may be one of the best measures of culture today--at least popular culture. She is certainly one of the more powerful (read "wealthy") arbiters. What has time told?
ReplyDeleteYou raise an interesting question about the local/global. It makes me wonder, more broadly: Is global sustainability possible? Should we consider creating smaller, local systems?