Download The Self and the Person in Contemporary Anthropology: A Cultural Perspective and more Schemes and Mind Maps Social Sciences in PDF only on Docsity!
www.nourfoundation.com
TOPIC 3: ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
Dr. Jona Addatu, RGC
“The main purpose of anthropology is to make the world safe for human indifferences” – Ruth Benedict
Social scientists and anthropologists have long recognized the idea that people in different parts of the world view themselves in different ways. These different ways of viewing one‟s self may be attributed to biological or genetic variants and partly to social or cultural variation.
Your racial category, family structure, ethnic affiliation, religious customs, language, social beliefs and values, cultural expression and identification indubitably contribute on your formation as a person, and accordingly, on your self-construal.
These concepts or forces form part of the main subjects of anthropology. What is anthropology? How does anthropology shape your sense of self? Etymologically, the word “anthropology” stemmed from two Greek words, anthropos meaning man and logus meaning study or science. Thus, anthropology is the science of man. It is concerned about the various aspects of the human species, irrespective of time and place, from ancient to the contemporary. Anthropologists are interested not only on how humans have structurally evolved from their animal predecessors but also on how humans transformed and into a culturally and socially adaptive beings. By taking a closer look unto how we have metamorphosed physically and culturally, this unit can help us explore what makes us uniquely different from other living organisms. This topic on anthropological perspective about the self will be finished in 3 hours.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
At the end of this lesson, you will be able to:
- appreciate the science of anthropology and recognize its relevance on elucidating the development of self and identity;
- understand how the sense of self is shaped and influenced by culture;
- elevate awareness and pride on the Filipino culture.
THE SELF AND THE PERSON IN CONTEMPORARY
ANTHROPOLOGY
Are there characteristics and experiences which are inherently common among us? Are there universals in terms of our biological endowments and predispositions? Given the uniformity in terms of our physiology and genetic
profile, are our behaviors and actions rooted from the same drives and passions? And do we share the same biological needs?
With the identicalness of our physical environment and the cultures in which we thrive, can we affirm that all men are alike? These questions about human universals form part of the central themes of anthropology since its inception as a scientific discipline.
In their book, Personality in Nature, Society and Culture , psychologist Henry Murray and anthropologist Clyde Kluckhohn (1953) claimed that “Every man is in certain respects like all other men, like some other men, and like no other man.” This statement pictured how pre-contemporary and contemporary anthropology viewed the human person. The pre-contemporary view of human nature demonstrated sameness, invariability, and universality where man was regarded as identical, constant, and general.
Humans, like all other species, are considered essentially the same regardless of place and time. Thus, they are predictable and can be studied uniformly.
While recognizing the self as an unchanging entity, anthropologists also accept its inherent variability. Contemporary anthropologists subscribe to a more holistic approach in studying the self by looking unto human variety brought about by variations across cultures and variations over time.
They suggest that the human person can be studied from many points of view. And that it‟s only when we study the full range of human phenomenon and consider the inescapable fact that men are in many respects like no other man, can we genuinely appreciate human nature. This calls for a more comprehensive and encompassing approach towards understanding the human person. That is, taking into account all the physical, biological, psychological, social and cultural elements that make up the self.
This pursuit towards a holistic appreciation of the human nature was supported scientifically. For instance, Anthropology Professor Katherine Ewing asserted an integrative stance on the self by defining it as one that which “ encompasses the physical organism, possessing all aspects of psychological functioning, and social attributes ”, (1990:254). Even the neurobiologist Joseph LeDoux described the self as the totality of what an organism is physically, biologically,
Apo Whang-Od Oggay, the Living Legend Mambabatok (Tattoo Artist) of the Butbut Tribe in Buscalan, Kalinga. https://www.pinterest.ph/pin/355010383108304495/?lp=true
Recall some circumstances in your life where you pursued a particular fashion statement or modified your body image because it is what‟s “in” or it is what seems typical based on your cultural context. Did you ever go through tattooing or body piercing because these convey something about your status? Or had you ever been refrained from letting your hair be cut because of some religious beliefs? What about having been restricted of wearing revealing clothes because it is considered a taboo?
If you answered in the affirmative then you probably adhere unto the proposition that culture influences our body image. Consciously or unconsciously, your body image or your perception of your body or that of others is largely influenced by your culture.
Your bodies and what you do with it is a reflection of the life you live and the culture you were accustomed to. Body modifications and embellishments for instance are regarded as part of the norms and representations of some cultures.
The pictures below exemplify how our cultures are projected through our bodies.
A woman from the Mursi Tribe in South Ethiopia, Africa with her profound lip and earlobe plates. https://tatring.com/piercing-types/Have-Mursi-on-the-Lip-Plate
A member of the Bagobo people from coastal Mindanao in the Philippines with filed and blackened teeth.
A woman from the Karen Tribe (also known as Padaung People) of Thailand with heavy brass rings on the neck.
The Self Embedded In Culture
The figure below illustrates a hypothetical self-concept of Mr. Juan Dela Cruz. Given the different roles he assumes, he may be viewed in different ways by people around him. This demonstrates Mead‟s idea that the meaning or the characterization that we ascribe to the self depends on our roles in the society. The self as a basic psychological concept which is commonly assumed to be static and have a universal nature is therefore susceptible to changes depending on social situations and cultural contexts. The self is malleable and can act in different ways depending on circumstances; it is multi-faceted yet unified. As such, the self has to be examined as an entity embedded in culture.
Having interest in cross-cultural understandings of the person, French sociologist and anthropologist Marcel Mauss (1950) substantiated on the notion of person as a cultural category. He used the terms moi (refers to the concept of self) and personne (refers to the concept of person) but underscored the latter in elucidating about personhood. According to him, the person was considered primarily a cultural conception, or a „category‟ of a particular community.
As a social category, the person is said to be socially and culturally constituted that can only be understood in relation to everything else in the society and thus, may be subject to quite substantial, if not infinite, variation. In the hypothetical self-concept map of Mr. Juan Dela Cruz, you might have noticed the different attributes of his personne or the person that he is depending on his social situation. At home, he has to be the affectionate but strict father that he is; he can be a very caring husband to his wife, yet may likewise be wary. At one point, he is regarded soft-hearted but at another, he is viewed as someone firm. This points out to the malleability of his personne depending on his cultural context.
