Cultural Anthropology free essay sample

Cultural Anthropology All Anthropologists have different definitions of Culture. Just like how everyones Culture is different. Some Anthropologist used other Anthropologist definitions of Culture. In this paper I am going to talk about three Anthropologist who in some ways defined Culture the same but also very differently. Those Anthropologist are Edward B. Tylor, Clifford Geertz, and Conrad Kottak. I am also going to talk about my understanding of Culture. Tylor defined Culture the best out of anybody. His defintion was complex whole which includes knowledge,belief,art,morals,law,custom, and any other capabilities and habits aquired by man or member of society. Tylor applied ideas of higher against lower Culture for a theory on the evolution of religion. During this process he redefined Culture as different sets of activity characteristics of all human societies. His defintition was holism of the humanly created world from material Culture to social places to knowledge and meaning. Looking at these proverbs although thought provoking, does not help us understand them any better. The ambiguity of the metaphor intended is hard to read into as it has created a paradox in itself. So to begin with perhaps we can look at how people live together and how the phrase neighbourhood can mean far more than just a geographical place. Neighbourhoods are constructed with far more than just a space, and most of which are unseen, but, which are universally acknowledged. These ‘unseen’ rules are part of the social order that we are all a part of; how we behave in certain situations, to people and places. Being a neighbour means being ruled by certain customs and unspoken rules. A good way of finding out what these customs are is to ask people themselves, social scientists have conducted many surveys in the UK asking ‘what makes a good neighbour’ and time and again they come up with the same set of answers. Willmott’s survey found that ‘Neighbours are expected to have a ’general disposition towards friendliness’ while at the same time, respecting others’ ‘need for privacy and reserve’. Making Social Lives, Chapter 6, pg. 253). Again, similar questions have been posed across the world, and findings were the same. This paradoxical situation states that being a good neighbour is a fine balance between the public and private domain. A study produced in 2004 came to the conclusion that most neighbours communicate out of doors (Making Social Lives, Chapter 6, pg. 255), if they were to see a neighbour they might pass the time of day with them, but they would not ‘neighbour’ in each other’s houses. The outside of a person’s house seems to be fairly neutral ground, whereas the inside is far more private. Kate Fox (social anthropologist) backs this statement up with her findings; she states that the front garden is a ‘grey area’ where people can interact without being intrusive (Making Social Lives, Chapter 6, pg. 256). Although certain rules are universally acknowledged, others are not. In some other cultures/societies the rules governing their behaviour are considerably different. An example can be found in anthropologist, Stanley Brandes work. He moved to a small village in Spain to study the local resident’s habits and customs. What he found there was markedly different from the UK. For instance in the UK doors and windows and in some cases fences are the things which separate private and public domains, whereas in Spain he found that residents kept their door ajar all day which allowed neighbours to come and go as they please, and even shared their televisions with others in a communal fashion (Making Social Lives, Chapter 6, pg. 260). The villagers seemed to almost be afraid of privacy, being reserved actually made others uncomfortable. On the face of things Brandes assumed the village was a close knit one, ‘a large family’, but on closer inspection he discovered that what seemed at first to be an open, friendly environment was in fact one built of mistrust and surveillance. By allowing one another access to their homes and lives, residents were able to keep tabs on one another to ensure there was no scheming or underhanded behaviour. Even though Brandes research in Spain and others taken in the UKseem on the surface to be very different, we can still reason that both are run by a set of unspoken rules used to regulate how people live together. Looking more closely at what the ‘fences’ represent in the title question I would now like to turn to social psychologist Elizabeth Stokoe work on neighbourhood disputes. She was examining the response of neighbours to particular sounds and noises; particularly that of sexual intercourse, and her findings were very interesting. She discovered that it wasn’t so much the volume of the intrusion as the content (Making Social Lives, Chapter 6, pg. 264-265). This was seen as an intrusion, the sound is a very private one, and to hear it conjures up a number of issues. Firstly, it is a violation to the person hearing it, it also can have the effect of making them feel like a voyeur, and cause huge embarrassment. However, bringing up such a complaint is fraught to say the least, and for all involved. The perpetrators involved could feel violated too, and even accuse neighbours of eavesdropping. It is a situation that needs very careful mediation, and is vital to making and reinforcing the social order of neighbourhoods. So, why do fences make good neighbours? If we follow the unspoken rules of our particular community, it ensures that all residents feel safe and content. If however we choose as individuals to do something out-side of the norm there will be consequences. The harmony of the neighbourhood will be upset, and it will need to be repaired to continue the on-going accord.