Friday, March 10, 2017

ENGLISH: sample writing 04

CULTURE

(Written and submitted as a final requirement in Anthropology course/subject)

If you ask 20 anthropologists about the definition of culture, you will get 20 different definitions. Nevertheless, these definitions would just highlight more or less the same thing. Culture, although defined broadly most of the time, has main characteristics. These characteristics are related to the article of Rosaldo, Idology, Place, and People without Culture, specifically in analyzing the three cultural stages. Also, the definition of culture mentioned in the said article makes it difficult to assume that there are “Zones of Cultural Invisibility” in the context of migration.   
            Culture has several important characteristics. First, it is learned. Culture is not inherent to our human biology as human beings (Ott and Mack 2009, p. 125). The nature of a human is acquired or learned through social interaction. One basic example is the type of food that people consume and the way they eat it. The second characteristic of culture is cumulative. According to O’neil (2012), each human generation has capability to discover things and make better technologies.  These new information are added to the ones discovered in previous generation. The tools that are in trend before like the tape recorder, camera, and telephone can now be found in the mobile phone. The third characteristic of culture is adaptive. Societies are able to adapt but selective on what to adapt. Culture is adaptive to context like environment and political economy. One example is the Ampalaya and Kangkong. These vegetables do not exist in cold places. For political economy, one example is the position and responsibility in the household; the father is responsible in giving money to the mother. Another characteristic of culture is shared. Culture is practiced by particular communities or groups. In Philippines, cultures differ according to region. Cebuanos practice culture different from the Kapampangans. Culture gives identity and a basis for comparison. The cultures of Catholics and Muslims give them identity and their own culture becomes the point of reference for comparing themselves to one another. The sixth characteristic of culture is transmitted. This is concerned with the cultural or biological transmission or continuity from generation to generation. Example is the custom of most Chinese in marriage. Although some are not following this anymore, most traditional Chinese parents still prefer their children to get married only to another Chinese. They strictly implement this rule especially when their ancestors firmly followed it. The last characteristic of culture is symbolic. It is a result of shared symbol systems that allow people to communicate meaning to one another. For instance, in Philippines, when one sees a jeepney, it automatically suggests that it is a symbol of transportation. 

            The characteristics of culture mentioned have relation to Rosaldo’s article, specifically to the three cultural stages. For the first characteristic, culture is learned; the four groups- Negritos, Hunter-horticulturalist, Wet and Dry Rice Cultivators, and the Lowlanders learned their own culture through socialization with the members of their particular groups. This characteristic of culture is very visible in the case of the Filipino lowlanders where they learned culture from the colonizers, particularly the Spaniards and the Americans. The next characteristics are cumulative and adaptive, and these are related to the social revolution. The technology of the groups in pseudo-evolutionary ladder transforms and develops. The mobile Negrito hunter-gatherers used tools like stones for their survival. The horticulturalists learned to be sedentary and used hand tools for the cultivation of their crops, and the lowlanders belonged in the post-industrial phase (Boundless N.D, par. 1-4).  Another characteristic of culture is shared. The four groups in the pseudo-evolutionary ladder practice certain culture with the people similar to them. The Negritos have their culture which is not shared or practiced by the Lowlanders nor the Ifugaos or Ilongots. Culture gives identity. The Negritos and the Lowlanders have the identity of being “people without culture.” This label becomes the basis for comparison between the “people with culture” and “people without culture.” However, they still have their own separate identity as Negritos and as Lowlanders (i.e Negritos are precultural while the Lowlanders are postcultural), and the same applies to the Wet and Dry Rice Cultivators and the Hunter-horticulturalists as “people with culture.” Another characteristic is transmitted. The culture of each group is transmitted from generation to generation. The last characteristic is symbolic. Language is one of the symbols that represent each group in the pseudo-evolutionary ladder and each of them has their own language. The most spoken language is the language of the Lowlanders since they occupy the greatest part of the scale.             
Culture, according to Rosaldo (1988), is defined by difference. The differences help in making one culture noticeable to others. This brief definition of culture makes it difficult to assume that there are “zones of cultural invisibility” in the context of migration since there will always be a disparity among people. The degree or the amount by which a person differ may vary from small to big, but nobody is similar to another person in all aspects. Thus, culture visibility is formed. This can be proved through the article of Anika Liversage, Gender, Conflict, and Subordination within the Household: Turkish Migrant Marriage and Divorce in Denmark and the article of Josefina Tondo, Popular Religiosity and the Transnational Journey: Inscribing Filipino Identity in the Sto. Niño Fiesta in New Zealand.

Liversage’s article supports the notion that there are no “zones of cultural invisibility” in migration. In terms of the constitution of the household, according to the narrative of Halil, the male migrant-spouse, he came to an extended household, particularly a matrilocal one. This type of household is uncommon in Turkey. Aykan and Wold (2002) mention that 95% of the people who are living in an extended family in Turkey are patrilocal. The access to public space also serves as an example. In Turkey, men usually spend quality time far from the household, usually with other men without worrying about their wives. However, in Denmark, the access to public space is affected by the wife, specifically in the case of Halil. His wife controls his mobility by commanding him to go back home (Liversage 2012, p.1129). Moreover, Halil expected his wife to accomplish every domestic task because this is what is usually done in Turkey. However, since both of them are working, his wife also expected some sharing of chores. This can be considered as a collision between Turkey and Denmark gendered norms in the household. Halil, as a man, demands his right to be served by the woman at home. In the situations mentioned, it is apparent that despite having the same nationality, the difference in the culture of two Turkish is still visible in both of their eyes, especially in Halil’s.

            The next article also supports the same idea. Tondo (2010) states that diaspora is often heterogeneous. The Filipino diaspora’s social and cultural variety makes it difficult for the migrants to unite (Werbner 2004, p. 547).  However, religion takes part in uniting Filipino migrants through a mutual or shared faith experience, and devotional prayers. Here, the “visibility” of culture is apparent in terms of religion. Since culture is defined by difference, the difference between the non-Filipino Catholics and the Filipino Catholics gives the latter a sense of self-identity (as Filipinos, which the migrants only realize when they migrate) as it highlights the distinction between their own culture and the culture of the non-Filipinos. Some basic examples mentioned in the article are the religious icons and the Sinulog. According to Tondo (2010), there is a presence of religious icons or relics in a Filipino Catholic home which one cannot find in the home of Anglo-European New Zealander Catholics. Moreover, popular religious traditions which are celebrated by the Filipino Catholics like the Sinulog, make way for the declaration of a shared religious tradition and social identity. In celebrating fiestas like the Sinulog, homeland and diaspora are symbolically tied, creating a new space and a new identity as Filipino Catholic devotees in a foreign land. Hence, in the perspective of a Filipino migrant, he can clearly see the difference between his own culture and the culture of non-Filipinos. Like what was mentioned previously, culture gives identity and a point of reference for comparison in terms of similarity, or, in this case, difference, validating that there is a “zone of cultural visibility.” 
 Culture, more than the usual plain explanation associated with it, has several characteristics that should be considered. These characteristics play important role in analyzing the precultural, cultural, and postcultural stages in Philippine culture. Also, it is hard to presuppose that there are “zones of cultural invisibility” in the context of migration. The events mentioned above prove that the difference among people will always be evident, may it be in terms of the way of upbringing, environment, or religion. Thus, culture, which is defined by difference, will always be visible in the context of migration making it difficult to assume that there are “zones of cultural invisibility.”                  





REFERENCE LIST



Aykan, H. and Wolf, D.A. (2002). Traditionality, Modernity, and Household Composition: Parent-child Coresidence in Contemporary Turkey. Research on Aging, 22(4), 395-421. Retrieved July 5, 2015


Boundless (N.D). The Four Social Revolutions. Retrieved July 5, 2015 from   https://www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/social-change-21/sources-of-social-change-139/the-four-social-revolutions-761-3396/


Liversage, A. (2012). Gender, Conflict, and Subordination within the Household: Turkish  Migrant Marriage and Divorce in Denmark. Routledge. Retrieved July 6, 2015 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2012.681455


Ott, B. and Mack, R. (2009). Critical Media Studies: an Introduction. Wiley. Retrieved July 7,  2015 from http://as.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-140516185X.html


O’neil, D. (2012). Characteristics of Culture. Anthro Palomar. Retrieved July 7, 2015 from  http://anthro.palomar.edu/culture/culture_2.htm

Rosaldo, R. (1988). Ideology, Place, and People without Culture. Wiley, 3(1), 77-87. Retrieved  July 5, 2015 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/656310


Tondo, J. (2010). Popular Religiosity and the Transnational Journey: Inscribing Filipino Identity  in the Sto. Nino Fiesta in New Zealand. Routledge. Retrieved July 6, 2015 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14442213.2010.513401


Werbner, P. (2004). Chaotic Diasporas. Encyclopedia of Diasporas, eds M. Ember, C.R. Ember,  & I. Skoggard, Springer, 545-552. Retrieved July 5, 2015




No comments:

Post a Comment