Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
17-31
Abstract:
A key learning outcome of introductory cultural anthropology classes is for students to develop an understanding
that the world we live in, the way we interpret it, and the decisions we make are culturally constructed. I discuss
the difficulties of achieving this learning outcome when teaching economic anthropology, I review how
introductory anthropology textbooks handle the topic, and I share an ethnographic example that has been very
useful to demonstrate to students that economic motives and rationalities are culturally constructed.
Introduction
I teach a large introductory cultural anthropology class to undergraduate students, primarily freshman. There are
many lessons that I hope to teach my students through the class, but certainly the main thing I hope they come
out of the class with is a new perspective on the power and diversity of culture. The key learning outcome that I
have defined as my goal for the class is that students come to realize that the world we live in, the way we
interpret it, and the decisions that we make are culturally constructed.
Many cultural anthropology classes and textbooks are geared towards achieving this learning outcome. In the
beginning of his textbook, "Mirror for Humanity," for example, Conrad Kottak (2010:vi) provides the following
quote from Clyde Kluckhohn:
Ordinarily we are unaware of the special lens through which we look at life. It would hardly be fish who discovered
the existence of water. Students who had not yet gone beyond the horizon of their own society could not be
expected to perceive custom which was the stuff of their own thinking. (Kluckhohn 1944:16)
In introductory classes we strive to make students aware of that "special lens." The lens is the cultural structure,
the systems of meanings and relationships, through which agents interpret the world. To make students aware of
the power of cultural lenses, it is critical that we show different cultural structures as well as the ways that
individual agents interpret the world through those structures and make decisions.
When we tell our students that we see the world through the lens of culture, we can be sure that many will
dutifully write it down and be prepared to recite it on an exam. However, simple regurgitation of theory is not
the learning outcome we strive to achieve. We want students to understand, not just to memorize. To
accomplish this pedagogical goal in cultural anthropology classes we rely on ethnographic examples. We explain
the theory of culture, but to contextualize the theoretical points it is important to take students "beyond the
horizon of their own society" through ethnographic examples. Rather than just telling students the theoretical
points we try to teach, we use ethnographic examples to show them. Good ethnographic examples do more than
just illustrate the theoretical points, they provide an opportunity for students to apply the theory. They may
provide students with a different perspective on themselves or allow students to see, however blurrily, through
the lenses of others. Students recognize their own cultural conditioning by seeing others who are conditioned
17
Somewhat paradoxically, she then proceeds to explore the idealized production typology complete with
prototypical examples of societies that represent each type. What is more disappointing is that she does not
pursue her point about individual strategies within different cultural structures. How do people decide whether
to be involved in one activity or another? What are their goals, their opportunities, their limitations? How do
they weigh the costs and benefits? Since she does not address these questions, I imagine that most students
assume that the people make the decisions the same way they would, based on profit. Miller tells us about
different behaviors, but she misses the opportunity to show us different motives, goals, and meanings.
It is important to understand the predominate subsistence strategy used in a society. However, few
contemporary practicing anthropologists use Cohen's typology to understand a specific society. Categorizing a
society by subsistence strategy does not tell us very much about the specifics of that society's economy or about
the decisions of individuals within it. As Miller's quote attests, anthropology textbook authors recognize this, but
yet they continue using the typology approach. The main benefit of the typology approach is that it allows the
textbook to present a series of examples of very different societies, which highlight the diversity of ways different
cultural groups have adapted to their environment. Showing diversity at the level of society is useful, but as
Miller rightly points out, it is not all that needs to be understood. In fact, treating the subsistence strategies as
"types" rather than as "strategies" may actually detract from students' understanding the economic structures and
individual options in other societies. Economic production chapters are usually titled "Making A Living",
however, they are presented more like a tour of exotic cultures. There needs to be greater attention paid to how
individual agents make decisions about making a living.
Corad Kottak gives the clearest explanation of what economic anthropologists actually do. In the process, he
stresses the importance of both systems and individuals. He explains that economic anthropology is focused on
two main questions:
1. How are production, distribution, and consumption organized in different societies? This question focuses on
systems of human behavior and their organization.
2. What motivates people in different cultures to produce, distribute or exchange, and consume? Here the focus is
not on systems of behavior but on the motives of the individuals who participate in those systems. (Kottak 2008:369
italics in the original)
With regard to production, all of the textbooks address the first point in essentially the same way, the production
typology. However, there is some lingering hesitancy to address the second point. Undoubtedly, this hesitancy
has its roots in the formalist substantivist debate. As Ferraro and Andreatta (2010:178) acknowledge, "the
relationship between the formal science of economics and the subspecialty of economic anthropology has not
always been a harmonious one". This is an important point, because the "formal science of economics" makes an
explicit assumption regarding the answer to Kottak's second question. According to formal economic theory,
rational economic agents are motivated to maximize their profit. However, as Kottak points out,
"anthropologists know that the profit motive is not universal"(2008:370). The fact that people in different
cultural contexts have different economic motivations is one of the key insights of economic anthropology. This
is not to reopen the formalist substantivist debate, and it is certainly not to take the substantivist side in that
debate. Formal economic theory has a contribution to make, however, the assumption of a universal profit
motive does not fit with the ethnographic data. The factors that motivate economic behavior are in some ways
universal, in some ways cultural, and in some ways personal. This is a critical point that must be established in an
introductory anthropology class (or textbook) to achieve the key learning outcome that the world we live in, the
way we interpret it, and the decisions that we make are culturally constructed.
22
26
Figure 1: Cornelio saves money by carefully applying fertilizer to each bean plant by hand
Figure 2: Cornelio inspects his harvested beans. He had already set aside two 50kg bags for his family. He
designated these thirteen 50 kg bags for sale in the market.
Normally, beans sold for fifteen pesos per kilogram in the regional market. However, I had just been to the
market and knew that the price had gone up to eighteen pesos per kilogram. I mentioned the current price to
Cornelio. Since the price of beans was a favorite topic of conversation in San Pablo, I was not surprised that he
already knew it was eighteen. He agreed that it was a good price.
I knew from previously talking to Cornelio and other farmers that typically they would not sell their beans all at
once. Rather, they only sold their beans bit by bit as they needed money. Since the dried beans have a long shelf
life it normally makes little difference when they sell them. However, since the price was higher than normal I
was curious about whether he would decide to sell all of the beans he had designated for the market at once or
whether he would stick to the pattern of selling them bit by bit as he needed money. As he showed me his
27
Conclusion
A pedagogical goal that I share with most anthropology teachers is to teach in a way that helps my students truly
understand rather than just memorize material for a test. The learning outcome that I hope to achieve in my
introductory cultural anthropology class is that students come to realize that the world we live in, the way we
interpret it, and the decisions that we make are culturally constructed. I hope they come away from class with a
29
References
Cohen, Y. A. (1968), Man in Adaptation: the Cultural Present, Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co.
Ferraro, G. and Andreatta, S. (2010), Cultural Anthropology: An Applied Perspective, 8th Edition. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Gezon, L. and Kottak, C.P. (2012), Culture, New York: McGraw Hill.
Gmelch, G. (2003 [1978]), 'Baseball magic,' in D. A. Harper and H. M. Lawson (eds) The Cultural Study
of Work, Oxford, UK: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 181-191
Haviland, W. A. Prins H., Walrath D., and McBride B. (2005), Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge, 11th
edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Kluckhohn, C. (1944), Mirror for Man: A Survey of Human Behavior and Social Attitudes, Greenwich, CT:
Fawcett.
Kottak, C.P. (2008), Anthropology: The Exploration of Human Diversity, 12th edition. New York: McGraw Hill.
----- (2010), Mirror for Humanity: A Concise Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, 7th edition. New York:
McGraw
Hill.
Lee, R. B. (1969), 'Eating Christmas in the Kalahari,' Natural History, 78(10): 14-22.
Mazur, E. (2009). 'Farewell, Lecture?' Science 323.
Miller, B. (2011), Cultural Anthropology, 6th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Pearson Education.
Nanda, S. and Warms, R.L. (2009), Culture Counts: A Concise Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
----- (2011), Cultural Anthropology, 10th edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Polanyi, K. (1968), Primitive, Archaic, and Modern Economies, Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Sahlins, M. (1972), Stone Age Economics, Chicago: Aldine Atherton.
Service, E. R. (1966), The Hunters, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Weber, M. (1930), The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. London: Routledge
Wolf, E.R. (1966), Peasants, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Woodburn, J. (1968), An Introduction to Hadza Ecology, in R. Lee and I. DeVore (eds), Man The Hunter,
Chicago: Aldine, pp. 49-55.
31