I find it interesting that Benedict refers to Nietzsche multiple times when speaking of the Zuni and the Pueblos in general. She mentions the concept of the over/superman, as well as a few other Nietzschian parallels, but I can't help but notice that the collective nature, and the almost calm/neutral outlook on life is a bit too unindividualistic to be of the Nietzschian persuasion. It's almost as if the Pueblos emphasize the individual just strongly enough to be unique in the emphasis, but they emphasize the whole, the family, the spouse, and the culture enough that the individual could sometimes be lost. It also seems to be a contradiction how the individual may be frowned upon when he strives for better material office in the village. The mental uprising is much more important than the material, and it's quite a feat of human nature to have something so different. It's hard to grasp especially looking at today's society, as well (as Benedict mentions) as other Native groups.
Their Apollonian tendencies are quite amazing, and Benedicts comparison to the ancient societies and cults is impeccable. I don't know if I would have been able to draw the same conclusions myself, but the similarities are very clear, and I'm glad I have had the opportunity to know of such a parallel.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Culture and Modernism
What I find interesting about the Benedict and the modernist authors we've read so far this term is their willingness to understand, and resist, the premise that identity, both cultural and personal, are constructs of society. The opening lines of Benedict's book say, "Anthropology is the study of human beings as creatures of society. It fastens its attention upon those physical characteristics and industrial techniques, those conventions and values, which distinguish one community from all others that belong to a different tradition" (1). The modernists seem to have understood this anthropological truth. What makes their stories interesting to us as readers is that they resist this truth; they fight against it in their texts. In each of the texts we've read so far the characters have been products of their culture, but the interesting ones--the protagonists like Silindu, George Willard, and Mrs. Dalloway and Septimus Smith--were all at odds with the communities they lived in. The "Patterns of Culture" that formed each of these protagonists were deeply ingrained, whether it be in the lonely atmosphere of Winesburg, Ohio, the threatening Jungles of Sri Lanka, or the busy streets of London; but, the link, to make a tired point, is their resistance to the cultural conditions that created them.
The necessity of that resistance was no more apparent at any time in Western history than in the early 20th Century and especially in the post-WWI period. Patterns of Culture was written at a time when nationalism and cultural imperialism were simultaneously exalted and endangered. Benedict argues that "There has never been a time when civilization stood more in need of individuals who [like herself] are genuinely culture-conscious, who can see objectively the socially conditioned behaviour of other peoples without fear of recrimination" (11). She was right, and the modernists, it would seem, were exactly the types of people she was looking for. The modernists, who were obsessed with personal identity in relation to culture, were doing exactly what Benedict proposed and demonstrated, but on a different scale. By focusing on the identity of the individual, as opposed to the culture of a society, the modernists created characters whose humanity was found in their will, not their national or cultural identity. Culture, then, became secondary to choice, and an influence, instead of determining factor, on identity. By examining the individual the modernists embraced cultural influence as a truth, but rejected the finality of its formulation on the psyche. In this way the modernists fought against fascism, nationalism, socialism, and any other -ism that restricted the identity of the individual, and rested firmly on the premise that culture, when it is both understood an resisted, can breed understanding and not discord.
The necessity of that resistance was no more apparent at any time in Western history than in the early 20th Century and especially in the post-WWI period. Patterns of Culture was written at a time when nationalism and cultural imperialism were simultaneously exalted and endangered. Benedict argues that "There has never been a time when civilization stood more in need of individuals who [like herself] are genuinely culture-conscious, who can see objectively the socially conditioned behaviour of other peoples without fear of recrimination" (11). She was right, and the modernists, it would seem, were exactly the types of people she was looking for. The modernists, who were obsessed with personal identity in relation to culture, were doing exactly what Benedict proposed and demonstrated, but on a different scale. By focusing on the identity of the individual, as opposed to the culture of a society, the modernists created characters whose humanity was found in their will, not their national or cultural identity. Culture, then, became secondary to choice, and an influence, instead of determining factor, on identity. By examining the individual the modernists embraced cultural influence as a truth, but rejected the finality of its formulation on the psyche. In this way the modernists fought against fascism, nationalism, socialism, and any other -ism that restricted the identity of the individual, and rested firmly on the premise that culture, when it is both understood an resisted, can breed understanding and not discord.
Benedict/Passage to India Connection
I cannot help but see the ways in which "Patterns of Culture" provides timely ethnographic background to understand the disconnection between British and Indian culture in the sections of "Passage to India" that we watched the other evening. One scene of the film, however, fascinates me more than the others for I have long felt that our unctuous export of a Christian belief system is the most damaging and detrimental cultural aspect we've foisted on any other people. There were many references to religion in the movie bits we saw, but the scene that keeps coming to mind was the one where Adela is in the train being shuttled to the 'trial'--the point at which the rather demonic devil-like creature in painted black-face presses his face against the window next to hers (only to be bludgeoned down). I was intrigued enough to buy the novel (which I do want to read) so I could find out if that scene was included in the text. It was not (at least not at that moment in the narrative). So I wonder about Lean's insertion of it into the film. One could view it as tacit acknowledgment of some of the shamanistic/mystic/devil-worshiping aspects of Indian religion, therefore an open-minded nod to another culture's belief system. Yet the scene was fraught with negative connotations. The face was sudden, monstrous in size, black, unrelenting, unsettling. It was definitely 'other' to a Western viewer and presented in the manner that it was, it was diabolical and scary. So when I read Ruth Benedict's statement regarding religion, "No ideas or institutions that held in the one were valid in the other. . . on the one side it was a question of Divine Truth and the true believer, of revelation and of God; on the other it was a matter of mortal error, of fables, of the damned and of devils," the inclusion of the scene appears to be a graphic act of ethnocentrism. By tapping into a Westerner's stereotype of a dark and primitive religion, Lean created a metaphor for the dark side of Adela's psyche in that moment--her brooding, anst-ridden state of mind. The group of people sequestered within the safety of the bus were veiled in light, the teaming horde of humanity on the outside were cast as a fecund sort of dark evil that could invade the safety of the "true believers." Maybe I exaggerate, but the sheer intensity of the scene makes me wonder. Was anyone else strongly affected by these frames? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Ruth
Ruth
How is culture like an individual?
In reading Benedict's Patterns of Culture, one can see how the author draws several parallels between cultures and individuals. From the ideas of war in Chapter I to the discussions of puberty in Chapter II, it is clear that many seemingly different cultures share more than meets the eye. However, one of her most interesting points that draws similarities between culture and the individual are her ideas on change. Benedict states:
"Changes may be very disquieting, and involve great losses, but this is due to the difficulty of change itself, not to the fact that our age and country has hit upon the one possible motivation under which human life can be conducted. Change, we must remember with all its difficulties, is inescapable" (Benedict 36).
Changes in culture and changes in individuals as they come of age are very similar. The struggle and emotional turmoil that accompany both a changing civilization and an individual have been seen in every text we have encountered up to this point in class. One example in Winesburg, Ohio comes as George Willard attempts to come of age in a small town, but must ultimately leave that town in order to grow, while Winesburg itself struggles through a time of change as industrialization takes over America. This idea is also seen in The Village and the Jungle, the village is being encroached upon by British rule, while the individual Silindu is affected by his own changing family dynamic as he must let go of his daughters. (In the novel we also witnesses the changing role of women in both the family and the society.) Finally, it is seen in Mrs. Dalloway with the impending notion of war that pervades the novel, as well as in the character of Peter Walsh as he contemplates the passage of time and his own mortality.
Benedict goes on to say that "Civilizations might change far more radically than any human authority has ever had the will or the imagination to change them, and still be completely workable" (36). This idea of a balance between change and tradition is one that never seems to be struck in the novels we have covered thus far. To accept the new without rejecting the old seems to be a difficult task to accomplish in any civilization.
"Changes may be very disquieting, and involve great losses, but this is due to the difficulty of change itself, not to the fact that our age and country has hit upon the one possible motivation under which human life can be conducted. Change, we must remember with all its difficulties, is inescapable" (Benedict 36).
Changes in culture and changes in individuals as they come of age are very similar. The struggle and emotional turmoil that accompany both a changing civilization and an individual have been seen in every text we have encountered up to this point in class. One example in Winesburg, Ohio comes as George Willard attempts to come of age in a small town, but must ultimately leave that town in order to grow, while Winesburg itself struggles through a time of change as industrialization takes over America. This idea is also seen in The Village and the Jungle, the village is being encroached upon by British rule, while the individual Silindu is affected by his own changing family dynamic as he must let go of his daughters. (In the novel we also witnesses the changing role of women in both the family and the society.) Finally, it is seen in Mrs. Dalloway with the impending notion of war that pervades the novel, as well as in the character of Peter Walsh as he contemplates the passage of time and his own mortality.
Benedict goes on to say that "Civilizations might change far more radically than any human authority has ever had the will or the imagination to change them, and still be completely workable" (36). This idea of a balance between change and tradition is one that never seems to be struck in the novels we have covered thus far. To accept the new without rejecting the old seems to be a difficult task to accomplish in any civilization.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
What is Innately Human?
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Parameters of Western Culture
I'm curious to see how others would attempt to encapsulate such an immense project as defining Western Culture. I find it very interesting that Benedict chooses to focus on the more minute, centralized, yet varied primitive cultures. These groups rely on distinctive cultural characteristics to carry on daily life, one closely linked to the land, spirituality, and creativity. Where does the West reach for its sense of dailiness, spirituality, artistic merit in a constantly changing world? Obviously the moderns tapped into the primitive culturescapes and in some instances the influence is reciprocated. With that said, I believe a series of questions is in order.
Do the moderns affiliate with the primitive as a neatly articulated culture, as people, and/or subjects (not exclusively in the imperial sense) and does their assimilation of otherness distort or disrupt the utility of primitive culture as it adheres in its own element? Is primitivism a cultural grab-bag used to revitalize moments of sterility in Western artistic tradition?
Furthermore, how do we define Western Culture, Americanness, Nationhood? Is being American simply sharing a land mass with other people or are there cultural demarcations setting us apart? What is homogenous about Americanness or Westernness? How about flags, tanks, spaceships, fences, planes, dogs, wives, kids, pies, hunting, honky-tonk, suburbia, malts, McDonalds, baseball football basketball, cowboy hats, personal freedom, models, beer, celebrities, reality shows, and the list could, but needn't, go on. These terms are all very arbitrary and, I know, cliched, but I think people still associate with this crap on some level. So, is there anything authentic about the experience of being in and of America? Are these the emblems comprising the Modern American totem?
Maybe culture is more suited to families or small groups, which may or may not reflect any type of idealized, national cultural consciousness. Maybe it's more suitable for culture to exist in the local rather than on a national level, especially in a place as diverse and (un)consciously fragmented as America.
I'm very interested in contemporary pop music and its endless permutations. Today, many American bands are resorting to a revitalized folk tradition which incorporates many of the technological advancements of the age (loop stations, recorders, samplers etc.). This creates a multi-layered sound which, paired with elements such as spiky, West-African guitar riffs, hand-claps and multi-part harmonies, begs for a revisitation of music as a communal experience while also consolidating sound as community property. This conflux of influences fixes the music in the ahistorical.
Sometimes I wonder if this is a new way to initiate what one critic calls an "unrooted internationalism," or what Dave Longstreth of the Dirty Projectors humorously refers to as "ethnomusicological folk music." In some ways I think of it as the purest use of technology for pleasure in shared experience.
On the flipside, I'm not sure what any of this music has to do with the styles it incorporates from around the world. And finally, what does it mean for American artists to revert back to a "folk" culture--especially one where the music or art perhaps doesn't carry the same utility as it did in its natural environment or historical context? I don't want to stray any further so I'll end with something tangible. Enjoy the links.
http://pitchfork.com/tv/#/episode/221-yeasayer/1
http://pitchfork.com/tv/#/episode/247-dirty-projectors/1
http://pitchfork.com/tv/#/episode/1984-vampire-weekend-at-pitchfork-music-festival-08/3
http://pitchfork.com/tv/#/episode/17-pitchfork-music-festival-07/16
http://pitchfork.com/tv/#/episode/17-pitchfork-music-festival-07/5
http://pitchfork.com/tv/#/episode/7-pitchfork-music-festival-08/19
http://pitchfork.com/tv/#/episode/1989-animal-collective-at-pitchfork-music-festival-08/3
Do the moderns affiliate with the primitive as a neatly articulated culture, as people, and/or subjects (not exclusively in the imperial sense) and does their assimilation of otherness distort or disrupt the utility of primitive culture as it adheres in its own element? Is primitivism a cultural grab-bag used to revitalize moments of sterility in Western artistic tradition?
Furthermore, how do we define Western Culture, Americanness, Nationhood? Is being American simply sharing a land mass with other people or are there cultural demarcations setting us apart? What is homogenous about Americanness or Westernness? How about flags, tanks, spaceships, fences, planes, dogs, wives, kids, pies, hunting, honky-tonk, suburbia, malts, McDonalds, baseball football basketball, cowboy hats, personal freedom, models, beer, celebrities, reality shows, and the list could, but needn't, go on. These terms are all very arbitrary and, I know, cliched, but I think people still associate with this crap on some level. So, is there anything authentic about the experience of being in and of America? Are these the emblems comprising the Modern American totem?
Maybe culture is more suited to families or small groups, which may or may not reflect any type of idealized, national cultural consciousness. Maybe it's more suitable for culture to exist in the local rather than on a national level, especially in a place as diverse and (un)consciously fragmented as America.
I'm very interested in contemporary pop music and its endless permutations. Today, many American bands are resorting to a revitalized folk tradition which incorporates many of the technological advancements of the age (loop stations, recorders, samplers etc.). This creates a multi-layered sound which, paired with elements such as spiky, West-African guitar riffs, hand-claps and multi-part harmonies, begs for a revisitation of music as a communal experience while also consolidating sound as community property. This conflux of influences fixes the music in the ahistorical.
Sometimes I wonder if this is a new way to initiate what one critic calls an "unrooted internationalism," or what Dave Longstreth of the Dirty Projectors humorously refers to as "ethnomusicological folk music." In some ways I think of it as the purest use of technology for pleasure in shared experience.
On the flipside, I'm not sure what any of this music has to do with the styles it incorporates from around the world. And finally, what does it mean for American artists to revert back to a "folk" culture--especially one where the music or art perhaps doesn't carry the same utility as it did in its natural environment or historical context? I don't want to stray any further so I'll end with something tangible. Enjoy the links.
http://pitchfork.com/tv/#/episode/221-yeasayer/1
http://pitchfork.com/tv/#/episode/247-dirty-projectors/1
http://pitchfork.com/tv/#/episode/1984-vampire-weekend-at-pitchfork-music-festival-08/3
http://pitchfork.com/tv/#/episode/17-pitchfork-music-festival-07/16
http://pitchfork.com/tv/#/episode/17-pitchfork-music-festival-07/5
http://pitchfork.com/tv/#/episode/7-pitchfork-music-festival-08/19
http://pitchfork.com/tv/#/episode/1989-animal-collective-at-pitchfork-music-festival-08/3
Reading Questions for Ruth Benedict's Patterns of Culture (1934):
1. Consider Nischik's "characteristics of contemporary understanding of culture" (on handout and in article) in relation to Benedict's concept of "culture."
2. What does Benedict consider "a desperate need in present Western civilization"?
3. Why do anthropologists turn to "primitive" cultures? What do the social sciences of Western civilization ignore?
4. How is a culture like an individual?
5. What is wrong with Spengler's picture of world civilizations?
1. Consider Nischik's "characteristics of contemporary understanding of culture" (on handout and in article) in relation to Benedict's concept of "culture."
2. What does Benedict consider "a desperate need in present Western civilization"?
3. Why do anthropologists turn to "primitive" cultures? What do the social sciences of Western civilization ignore?
4. How is a culture like an individual?
5. What is wrong with Spengler's picture of world civilizations?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
