Introduction to Anthropology- 1001A: Assignment 1

Jamie Richards
100730518
TA. Charisma Thomson
SA 501, A03
October 15, 2007
 Introduction to Anthropology- 1001A: Assignment 1

Question 1:

As discussed in the lecture focusing on the rudiments of the “theory of

evolution”, evolution is the process of change within and amongst a population of any

organisms over a given period of time (Rutherford, Lecture 3: Sept. 24/07). Other

important terms were defined such as population which is the interbreeding group of

individuals, as well as species which is when members of a specific organism interbreed

with one another to reproduce fertile offspring. Lamarck stated that organisms can

willfully change to adapt to their physical environment and the changes they experience

are passed on to the offspring which inevitably benefits them. Wallace and Darwin

believed in “natural selection” which is the evolutionary process resulting from the

natural environment acting on traits within a species (main mechanisms leading to

evolution). They also believed this process requires variation as well as reproductive

success. An example of this theory proposed by Wallace and Darwin would be that of the

peppered moth; their natural environment, which was during the industrial revolution,

influenced their colour and heredity. The theories of Lamarck as well as Wallace and

Darwin are the key focus behind the evolutionary theory, which involve the process of

adaptation (Rutherford, Lecture 3: Sept 24/07).

Mendel discussed the theory of the “field of genetics”. This involved the blending

of genetic material, or the “gene” which is a discrete unit of hereditary information that

shapes specific physical characteristics of organisms. He also believed that there are three

forces that produce variation in a gene pool and they are: mutations, which was the

1
change in the genotype through the alteration of genetic material; gene flow, the

exchange of genes between populations as a result of interbreeding; and lastly genetic

drift, which were changes in genetic frequency in a population as a result of random

process of selection (Rutherford, Lecture 3: Sept 24-07).

Human evolution has come a long way. There have been many stages of this

evolution, starting from the primate order, the anthropoidea sub-order to the homininia

sub- tribe which consists of homo habilis, homo erectus, and finally, homo sapiens.

Certain aspects have certainly contributed to the success of these stages of evolution,

such as the modification and growth of human neurons (Rutherford, Lecture 3: Sept 24-

07).
Cultural relativism relates to the theory of evolution in several ways. One way is

that it gives a broader understanding of “other sets of meaning in other terms

sympathetically enough so that it appears to be a coherent and meaningful design for life”

(Rutherford, Lecture 3: Sept. 24-07). It helps to develop a deeper meaning and

understanding as to why people do and act the way they do, say what they say etc.

Another way is that of the concept of human nature which is strongly correlated with the

theory of evolution. To understand how the human species has evolved over time, one

must also understand human nature (Shepherd 1980:159). Cultural relativism is really

the study of human nature with the consideration of different social, economical, and

cultural environments. This would also provide reason and explanation as to some of the

misconceptions regarding the theory of evolution, thus, they are directly related.

Ethnocentrism can be closely related to the theory of evolution. However, given

2
the fact that ethnocentrism is the belief that one’s culture is superior, or the assumption

that the way other people live their lives is improper, puts a damper on the theory of

evolution (Rutherford, Lecture 3: Sept 24-07). As a whole, or together, the human species

has evolved. Physically, mentally, intellectually, anyway you want to slice it, evolution

occurred in the same process to humans. Culture does play a role; however, it does not

have overwhelming significance. Genetically, humans have evolved in the same way and

humans’ innate nature has evolved over time as well. So an ethnocentric view would

suggest that one “sub-field” has developed or evolved better or faster than another, sub-

field being different groups of humans, for example, African Americans, North

Americans, Asian cultures, Iranian cultures etc. Because of the influence culture has on

our intellectual and other such aspects of our being, an ethnocentric view would be highly

anticipated. Aspects such as science, the environment, genetics, heredity etc. have in

correlation with culture, strongly influenced our overall level of evolution. So an

ethnocentric view might say that being raised and to come from a family originating in

North America would give you an evolutionary advance over those who did not. No

matter how fast cultures evolve, an ethnocentric will still maintain their stern bias against

those who may come from somewhere significantly different then where they came from.

Taking into consideration the theory of evolution, socio-cultural anthropologists

who study the different cultures and influences on human behaviour may attempt to

explain current social and cultural practices differently than those without any inside

information. Each culture is affected by evolution in different ways as they progress at

different speeds, they adapt to changes differently, and as well as they believe different

3
theories regarding evolution. In a rather ethnocentric view, a socio-cultural anthropologist

may look at North American culture and compare it to that of the culture is Saudi Arabia,

which is uniquely different in many ways. They may suggest that Saudi Arabia’s cultural

evolution is not as advanced as that of North America because our technological

advances, medical advances, scientific advances, etc. suggest that Saudi Arabia are far

behind us as far as evolution. They may also suggest that certain cultural practices are no

longer acceptable as they have not evolved with every other culture, such as cutting of a

person’s hand for stealing something. Here, in North America, if someone is caught

stealing, they are charged with theft and can be given jail time or a rather large fine. It is

no longer acceptable to literally cut someone’s hand off; it is viewed as inhumane and

ludicrous. Such an example would closely examine how one culture is significantly less

advanced and evolved than that of another culture. Socio-cultural anthropologists would

discover inconsistencies amongst different cultures and use the theory of evolution to

compare and examine each culture accordingly.

Question 2:

(i) As discussed in Flanagan’s article on “Our Sexual Constitution:

the link between monogamy and democracy”, there is a commonly accepted or supposed

relationship between monogamy and democracy. Flanagan’s central argument relating to

this supposed relationship is that as much as a polygamous system may achieve a sense

of cultural “blossoming”, it does not, however, work in favour of the growth of

democracy. This is because democracy and monogamy are one in the same; they are

indirectly related to each other. Democratic societies enforce a monogamous marriage

4
because political equality should positively promote reproductive equality (Sanderson

329). He mentions that the multiplication of sexual partners will not increase the number

of children for the women but in fact, for the males. It also sets a standard, for how to

respectfully treat women as human beings rather then objects and to not teach the young

men of society to take any extreme chances to indulge themselves in sexual pleasure. An

implication of Flanagan’s argument regarding the fact that monogamy works well with

democracy is that it is a direct attempt to teach family values and the importance of

respecting women and equality.

(ii) If I had the opportunity to carry out anthropological fieldwork to study the

cultural texts of marriage practices in a particular polity, I would refrain from

approaching it from an evolutionary framework approach as I think it would taint the

entire point of the fieldwork. If I was to observe the marriage practices I would want to

observe and examine what they are like now, the present and it would be almost

irrelevant how they had evolved regarding those marriage practices. If I were to approach

it from an evolutional stand point, I might lose sight of what is really important, such as

what the marriage practices are like now to relate them to other such cultures

accordingly. However, because culture is something that is learned, at some points it may

be useful to apply the evolutionary approach to see what has been learned regarding

marriage practices in different cultures. However, I would want to take the time to get to

know everything and observe everything I possibly could about the current cultural texts

rather than the previous ones. As well as if I were to approach it from the evolutionary

5
framework, I might develop an ethnocentric view as I would view my culture’s marriage

practices as superior because I would know of not only the present marriage practices,

but the past as well. An example of why an evolutionary approach might not be

particularly useful is that of the western marriage practices. It was and still is technically

considered tradition for the bride to be wed in a white wedding dress to show her

innocence and purity as she would have ‘saved’ herself for marriage. Now, in present day

westernized marriage practices, women still wear the white dress but most are not

considered ‘pure’ as they have engaged in sexual experiences prior to their marriage. It is

no longer a tradition to save yourself as that was the main concept behind wearing the

white dress, it has become custom to wear a white dress on the wedding day because it is

the norm, not because of the meaning behind it.

Question 3:

Chagnon, Napoleon A.
1988 “Histories, Blood Revenge, and Warfare in Tribal Population.”
Science Magazine 239(4843):985(8).

The author of this article, Napoleon A. Chagnon is attempting to in a sense, provide

for us, the general public, an example of certain people, natives to be exact, living in a

society full of unimaginable violence. His thesis, then, is that the Yanomami people are

indeed violent and that they capture women to control their reproductive success.

Another purpose perhaps of him doing this research and writing this article could be to

explain and explore further theories of evolution regarding violence and or law

enforcement. The way he describes the mind set behind these people from this particular

culture, is almost that murdering is a hobby, rather than a crime. There are leaders but

6
they do not enforce such law against murdering people from the village, rather they

decide whether it was a retaliation murder or not. His argument is effective in that it

makes those who read this aware of how important any form of law enforcement are and

how differently cultures evolve, especially when it comes to terms relating to violence

and crime. His information with regards to the different tribes and their

practices is up to date as well as very specific which helps to engage the reader more

effectively. However, it seems as though there were a lot of errors in spelling and

grammar which would therefore make it not as reliable as the other articles. As well, he

makes reference to a table or chart, but never provides a chart for the reader. He

concludes in a highly effective manner, as he chronologically takes the

reader through the events in his article, he ends with the fact that finally some form of

police and law enforcement was looked up and will inevitably look into creating some

sort of law against the killing of so many people in those particular villages. Given the

fact that his information and opinions are consistent, I would say that as an author and

information provider, he is very much so reliable.

Fischer, Michael M.J.

2001 “In the Science Zone: The Yanomami and the Fight for
Representation (Part 3)” Anthropology Today 17(5): 16-19.

Michael M.J. Fischer, who is a Professor of Anthropology and Science and has taught

at the University of Harvard, and he was also the director of the centre of Cultural

Sciences, is a very reliable and accountable source. These, which are only a few of his

many accomplishments and talents, are directly related to the information in his article.

He generally writes to a university level student and or the general public as well. He

7
discusses the Anthropological and scientific experiments in which were held by several

other researchers such as James Neel, Patrick Tierney, and Napoleon Chagnon. He gives

his opinion for all of these different outlooks from these people and in most cases

describes all of them as “not being saints”. He effectively argues and persuades the reader

to agree with his opinion, but inevitably gets the notion across that the task of all the joint

efforts of all the researchers was to make all of the “corruptions, oppositions, and

failures” a matter of public awareness in which he felt would allow these to become even

more difficult to continue these practices. His information is very up to date, and in

comparison to Chagnon, may be a more reliable source as his information is on a much

more personal level and researched over a long duration of time.

Maybury- Lewis, David.

1991-2007 “The Yanomami Scandal” Darkness in Eldorado- Archived
Document: Anthropological Niche of Douglas W. Hume
Np(np):np.

In this article by David Maybury- Lewis, he shows just how capable he is and also

how reliable he is because he discusses all of the inconsistencies within the arguments of

Chagnon, Neel, and Tierney and defends them with sufficient evidence to back up what

he is arguing. Maybury- Lewis successfully argued the supposed ‘correct’ way of living

of the indigenous people as opposed to the way Chagnon described them which were that

the indigenous people were very violent and that they treated women as objects. It is

apparent that Maybury- Lewis is aiming to provide this intricate information to those of

whom have read and watched the films created by Chagnon, Neel and Tierney; the

general public. It seems as though he has conducted his research by means of contacting

8
several researchers in which they have provided for him the necessary background

evidence to support his take on the other researchers and their ‘inaccurate’ portrayals of

how the indigenous people, more specifically those of Yanomami, lived. He successfully

convinces his readers to re think their assumptions of the previous researches and

flawlessly designs a new basis for new and accurate assumptions. As per the other two

articles, this article, due to the essential evidence supporting his conclusions and the lack

of evidence in the other articles as well as his out side sources, makes his article more

applicable than the others.

9
 References

Chagnon, Napoleon A.
1988 “Life Histories, Blood Revenge, and Warfare in Tribal Population
”. Science Magazine 239(4843): 985(8).

Fischer, Michael M.J.

2001 “In the Science Zone: The Yanomami and the Fight for
Representation (Part 3)”. Anthropology Today 17(5): 16-19.

Flanagan, Tom.
2007 “Our Sexual Constitution: The Link between Monogamy and
Democracy”. Globe and Mail np(np): A15.

Maybury- Lewis, David

1991-2007 “The Yanomami Scandal”. Darkness in Eldorado- Archived
Document <http://www.nku.edu/~humed1/darkness_in_el_
dorado/ documents/0257.htm>

Rutherford, Blair. “Human Variation: Framing Evolution and Evolutionary Frames”.

Alumni Hall, Carleton University, September 24, 2007.

Sanderson, Stephen K.
2001 “Explaining Monogamy and Polygyny in Human Societies:
Comment on Kanazawa and Still.” Social Forces 80(1): 329-335.

Shepherd, William C.
1980 “Cultural Relativism, Physical Anthropology, and Religion”.
Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion 19(2): 159-172.