Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. Victoria University Student Newspaper. [Volume 39, Number 2. 11th March 1976]

A Beginner's Guide to

page 9

A Beginner's Guide to

Anthropology

Towards a Structural Configerational Approach in Cross-Cultural Comparitive 'Study; Some Problems in the Conceptualisation of Highlands Social Structure.

or; How Anthropology Fails to Save the Bacon of the Alienated Western Intellectual.

Scene - Anthropologist wearing loin cloth and sandshoes enters village. Note book in left hand, stenographers' pencil in other. Approaches 'big man' who is dressed in white shirt and sports trousers, listening to 'Voice of America' over a Sony 3 band transistor, thumbing through latest edition of 'Current Anthropology'. 'Big man' notices anthropologist and extends hand in greeting.

'Hello. I'm your native informant. My name is Andrew Smith but you can call me ego. I received your letter of introduction the other day. They tell me you've come to do in-depth ethnographic research on our society and culture using the structural configurational paradigm'.

Anth. - 'er....yes....of course.'

'Naturally, since reality is socially constructed and as part of that reality we also are social constructions with no intrinsic identity of our own, you will not be interested in our personal existential existance - day to day joys and misery etc - so much as their social significance. This being so, I guess the best thing I could do is show you a few social facts; then you will know all about us and when your thesis research grant ends, you can go home, write about the dialectics of our social life and answer the central question to which anthropology is address, what is man?'.

Anth. - 'er....yes....of course.'

'Well then, let us begin. On your immediate left you will observe our iniation ceremony, where my mother's brother's father's sister's husband's son is being drawn and quartered. This is to signify his passing from adolescence into manhood. Though this is a very real experience to him - since he is suffering extreme agony - as an anthropologist, I'm sure you will agree that such signified events are better comprehended as extrinsically defined relata, rather than as events in themselves; part of the on-going reconfiguration of social signs that is our dynamic social condition, rather than a boy learning that pain is the price of the responsibility that adulthood brings. It's nothing personal you understand, just part of our culture.'

Anth. - 'er....yes....of course.'

'Now, just here is marriage is going on between some cross cousins. Exchange and reciprocity as you probably well know, is the basis of our whole existance in the highlands. Here the woman is being exchanged for some shells and a few pigs. Over there is the pig's house, the wife and kids sleep there too. Not very sanitary, I must admit, but we mustn't be ethnocentric about these things. As I say, they're just part of our culture.'

Anth. - 'er....yes....of course.'

'Over the hill, a ritualised battle is raging. It started generations ago and persists as each side in turn, takes vengence for those killed in the previous battle. We won't bother to go and see it, if you've read about one you've seen them all. As I'm sure you will agree, it's hardly peculiar to our area alone. Going to see it would only allow you to see the actual killing and bodily mutilation of individuals and this is scarcely necessary for you to recognise war as a common place reality in our lives. Suffice it for you to note, it's just another everyday part of our culture'.

Anth. - 'er....yes....of course.'

'And over here we have a mother feeding her baby and the house-hold pigs alternately from the same breast. She is suffering from malnutrition and has had too many children already. If she lives through the next child birth she may well be forced to commit infanticide - especially if it's a girl - because of economic pressure and scarcity of resources. An yes, I forgot to mention; the baby she has now may well catch disease or contract sores from the mother's breast because of the pig's salivating. Yaws are also a problem in this respect, but their asthetic repulsiveness and personal discomfort need neither worry nor distress you, since this would be a value judgement on your part, above and beyond that called for. Your participation in our lives is after all, in the final analysis, to facilitate your observation of us for your thesis. Mind you, the personalised touch is in vogue these days, though from your point of view I can't think why. Think of the enormous advantages the more distanced, rational mentalistic approach offers. With all that is human reduced to 'social facts' any need for personal committment or action is alleviated. Why bother to change things for the better good, when 'better' and 'good' are culturally defined relative terms? And what basis is there for social action anyway, when all that you see, is for you, just part of our culture?'

Anth. - 'er....yes....of course.'

'Well, I guess that's just about it; except for one last thing. In order" to let you develope your participant observation technique to a greater degree, we have decided to give you soc a demonstration of our indigenous cooking - an area of vital relevance to anthropology, and, as I'm sure you will agree, a very important part of our culture.'

Anth. - 'er....yes....of course.'

'Good! I'm so pleased you agree. Since we prefer the cooked to the raw we are now going to skin you alive, place you over the fire to roast, tear you limb from limb, eat your flesh and give your bones to the pigs. It's nothing personal you understand, just part of our culture'.

Anth. - 'er.........

Sociology

'Sociology is a science which seeks to explain and understand human action and interaction says one introductory sociology textbook. What does this mean? For the benefit of those starting in sociology this year, or who are entering a second or third confusing year in the department, "The Committee of Nine" has written a sociology of the sociology department.

In 1973 the Department of Sociology was considered to be one of the most radical of its kind in New Zealand. Now, in 1976, it has gained a reputation for conservatism second to none. Why has this change taken place?

In 1973 the Sociology Department employed 9½ academic staff members (one staff member was employed ½ time in two departments), all of which fitted into many of the opposing camps that had emerged internally within the Department.

Fierce debates were conducted between the varied perspectives held by members of the various camps. Students in this year tended to develop a good understand of various sociological perspectives because of the ferocity with which the debate was conducted. The largest camp within the Department was known as the 'Conservatives'. It consisted of three members - significantly (as far as students were concerned) they were the least influential of all the camps within the Department.

During 1973 many of the staff members had very promising futures, some had published quite extensively, others were looked upon as being the 'bright young men' in New Zealand sociology... .... their academic futures were assured.

Now in 1975 the Department of Sociology employs 9½ staff members - only 3½ of whom were employed by the Department in 1973. Three of them belong to the group which was labelled the 'Conservatives' in 1973! The divisions which existed within the Department during 1973 no longer exist.... the Department (or at least 94% of it) presents a relatively united face to students. How does a sociologist explain this remakable transformation of the Sociology Department - a transformation from conflict to consensus, a transformation which has occurred within the space of two years?

The 'Conservatives' (representing 86% of the academic staff who have been employed by the Department since 1973) have played a major (possibly covert) role in the selection of new staff...... as all new staff members selected are characterised by their conservatism (even though many of them would wish to deny this).

All new staff members are in extremely weak positions with regard to any future employment as sociologists. None have published major works, many are in their first teaching jobs, none have made the impact of the teachers of 1973. In other words the staff have to toe a particular line if they are to have any future in the academic world if they want promotion at Victoria they have to be conservative (the only two promotions in the Department during the 1970's have been those of (believe it or not) two of the conservatives!!). If they want jobs outside Victoria University they will require (in the absence of good publications) good references or MA's and Phd's from Victoria. Such degrees or references will not be forthcoming if a particular line isn't followed. If they buck the system and refuse to toe the line they will be frozen out of the Department by the conservative power clique - one of the major reasons why Victoria's Sociology Department lost many of the staff it had in 1973.

In 1975 the Department of Sociology is characterised by its conservatism, this conservatism having been brought about through an interaction of two factors, (1) a particular staff selection procedure, and (2) subtle coercion.

What can we predict on the basis of the above analysis, about the Sociology Department in 1976?

The Department, we predict, will remain conservative in orientation. Major sociological questions and debates will be ignored. Lip-service will be paid to non-conservative sociology and nonconservative staff and students will be frozen out of the Department. Little New Zealand material will be taught in courses (two-thirds of the staff aren't New Zealanders).

Students at all levels will be dissatified with the lack of opportunity for critical thinking. Drop-out rates will remain high. Nearly everyone who completes their required course work will pass their course (provided their sociology is not too radical).

In other words, if you think Sociology at Victoria University will stimulate you, or give you cirtical insights into New Zealand, or any other Western, society, you are dreaming. There is no chance of that happening given the present conservative unity of the Department.

Finally, this analysis, like any piece of scientific work is not definitive. We believe that we have isolated the true nature of the Sociology Department in this article. It is now up to other sociologists to challenge this view with different analysis. We challenge the Department to come up a viable critique of this article.

Quality of lecturing Lecturer's interest in course Workload N.Z. Content Ability to develope critical thought in course Lecturer's Approachability General Comments
101 3 4 4 5 4 4 Should be better than in 1975, when it was a disaster. Need for good essay topics.
202 4 3 3 4 5 5 Very lazy lecturer. Returns essays with marks only. Uses same lectures every year.
204 2 3 3 3 4 3 Self-confessed right-winger. Gives entertaining unsociological lectures - should be a geography lecturer, not a sociologist.
205 5 4 3 4 5 Boring lectures, with quite good content Should improve an presentation.
206 3 3 3 5 3 3 This course will probably ignore many major questions.
207 3 2 3 5 4 2 Little said about this course in the prospectus.
301 3 4 2 - 4 4 A bore.
303 4 1 3 5 2 3 Course outline looks over-ambitious in the extrem.
304 2 1 2 4 3 2 Excellent content in lectures.
305 2 1 1 2 1 2 If you're not interested in Marx, or hard work, do something else.
307 4 4 3 4 2 4 Little known about M. Hill who is taking ½ of course.

Scale: 1-5 (1=High 5=Low)