Anthro 130

10/7/18

Discussion Points #1

Rosaldo: Introduction (1993), Preface, Introduction (“Grief and a Headhunter’s Rage”)

In the Introduction, Rosaldo describes the efforts to increase diversity in schools, but

critiques how the students were then forced to conform to be included. He pushes for the goal of

diversity and to steer away from the idea that a more diverse room is perceived to have a lower

social status.

In “Grief and a Headhunter’s Rage,” Rosaldo studies the Ilongot culture of the northern

Philippines. The Ilongots have a tradition of headhunting as a way of coping with the rage they

feel with grief. For a while, Rosaldo does not understand the rage they feel, but after the death of

his wife, he is finally able to grasp the power of what the Ilongots were feeling when he

experienced the rage himself. In addition, Rosaldo emphasized the importance of

Anglo-Americans accepting the rage that comes with grief as opposed to ignoring it.

Rosaldo: Part I (“Critique”)

In Part I, Rosaldo describes the importance of ethnographies in order to understand

culture, as imposition of classic norms and categories is not an efficient way of viewing a

culture. As anthropology and social science is reconfigured, anthropologists move away from

generalizing cultures and move towards specifically interpreting different cultures. One problem

with ethnographies is that no way of writing about a culture is neutral and can be viewed as the
only truth. Rosaldo adds that ethnographers must take the criticisms of natives and use them to

shape their analyses, as it is likely the natives have insights that the ethnographers do not fully

understand.

Rosaldo also describes the differences between the North American view of death versus

most other cultures. In North American cultures, people avoid talking about death as a way of

ignoring their own mortality, while most other cultures have lavish traditions surrounding death.

Finally, Rosaldo describes what he calls the imperialist nostalgia, in which colonialists mourn for

the kind of life they themselves destroyed.

Rosaldo: Part II (“Reorientation”); Part III (“Renewal” minus Ch. 7), Epilogue (“A Raging

Battle”)

In Part II, Rosaldo states that human behavior changes over time and that fixed social

norms are not the only guide to behavior. He also states that culture must be studied from

multiple perspectives, and it is not necessarily the addition of all the perspectives that adds up to

the truth. In addition, Rosaldo states that change is more constant that structure in culture, but

that there are no set stages or sequences that cultural change follows. When anthropologists

complete fieldwork, they lose their sense of clock time and focus on the time defined by the

culture. In addition, narratives are very important for ethnographies despite the fact that they are

often pushed to the footnotes, prefaces, or the small print.

In Part III, Rosaldo describes the importance of objectivity in ethnography while also

showing the problems that could arise from being too close to or too distant from one’s subjects.

He warns against “going native,” which means the ethnographer is becoming a part of the
society, and this is detrimental to one’s fieldwork. Rosaldo states that cultures are not

comparable with any kind of measure in that one cannot be better or worse than the other.

Though it is believed that all cultures are equal, many informally categorize cultures into the

categories that are not supposed to exist. In the Epilogue, Rosaldo highlights the conflict in

American universities over the implementation of certain curricula and programs.

Ember, Ember, and Peregrine (2011)

Ember, Ember, and Peregrine describe the birth of anthropology during the 16th century

when Europeans and native peoples began to interact in Africa and the Americas. These

interaction led to a movement in which Europeans attempted to “civilize” some cultures, thus

damaging some cultural diversity. They also describe race theory, which was the belief that

cultures differed because they were different subspecies of humans, or different races. This

theory rose from the Europeans and their realization that cultures were not only different, but less

“civilized.” However, they also state that though anthropology was born during colonial times in

which race was deemed a defining factor in culture and civilization, anthropologists nowadays

are much more supportive of different cultures.