even though their arguments may be outdated, they are perfect
examples of just how subjective perceptions can contribute to the ills
of society, i.e. racism and supremacy.
It should not be the job of the anthropologist to impose beliefs,
structures, or any other aspect of their culture onto that of the culture
being observed. It is (and this was my main calling towards cultural
anthropology) to immerse, observe, and inform ìoutsidersî of other
cultures. I feel anthropologists studying culture should serve the role
of messenger from a certain culture to all other cultures, not as a
teacher to the culture being studied. The observed culture does not
choose the anthropologist to study them or impose on them the
guidelines of the Anthropologists culture. It is the anthropologist that
chooses to observe a culture, and it should be his/her goal to let
outsiders know about this culture through first hand accounts not
opinions. I saw evidence of this again in Conquergoodís, The Heart
Broken in Half. Through this work, I feel he shows that it was not his
primary goal to exploit or impose upon the lives of these young people.
In ways, I feel, his primary goal was to simply have their story be heard
so that others can relate before it is too late. He was showing us that
these kids could be our own children in the techniques they use to
survive. Granted the means may differ but the goal is the same.
Dwight Conquergood serves as the autobiographer, or as mentioned
before as the messenger, and tells the audience an objective life
story, as opposed to telling the observe how to change or live their
lives.With this in mind, culture to me is everything from within a group
of people that makes them unique as well as relatable to other
societies. I think that overall it is not the actions that determine a
certain cultureís uniqueness; the means by which they perform these
actions are much more significant. For example, it can be said that
within each society basic functions exist cross-culturally; these would
include: eating, sleeping, reproduction, survival, and ultimately death.
The thing that distinguishes each particular ìcultureî from another is
the means by which these and other functions are carried out or
performed. One of the easiest but most morbid ways of explaining this
would come through the different aspects of dealing with death. Each
culture acknowledges death, but the means by which they deal with it
vary just as the causes of death vary. In, The Heart Broken in Half,
Conquergood shows us the way in which the gangís way of dealing
with death takes into account and recognizes the familyís way of
coping with death: a funeral in the particular faith and any ethnic
traditions. However, the gangs also have their own rites and practices.
In honor of a fallen brother, a ìwallî will be put up in their memory. A
ìwallî in this sense is a spray painted memorial or shrine with the
appropriate symbol, the deceasedís name followed by R.I.P.
I think it is important for us also to remember that within each culture
there can exist other cultures, i.e. UPS man by day, Hellís Angel by
night. Another example could be anthropology itself. Anthropology
would be an overall culture within the Higher Education society; but
within anthropology there are subcultureís, i.e. archaeology, that are
part of the overall yet distinct enough in their own right, making them a
culture within a culture. Geertzís, Thick Description, exemplifies the
meaning of this by presenting the different trains of thought or
interpretation of what makes up a culture. When all is said and done
they will all still have their different views but have in common their
overall relation, that being the culture of anthropology.
I hope that now it can be seen that the closer we become to knowing
one particular culture, subsets emerge connecting many cultures into
an overall culture known as, humanity.
FILMOGRAPHY
Conquergood, Dwight. The Heart Broken in Half.
Cade Feeney
Anthropology W120
MW 10:10-11:30
Gladfelter 240
GEERTZ and CONQUERGOOD: OBJECTIVE vs. SUBJECTIVE*
(* written during Fall 2002 semester for Anthropology W120 taught
by Prof.Molly Doane)
This was one of my first papers while at Temple.
It is a comparison/contrast paper focusing on a particular written work by
Clifford Geertz and a film by Dwight Conquergood. Culture is the focus and
how we as people within culture interpret it. Through readings such as,
Thick Description by Geertz, and films such as, The Heart Broken in Half
by Conquergood, the viewer/reader/audience can see how culture is not
always those things that are different from the familiar, rather the differences
that are similar within all humanity. The goal of anthropology is to concentrate
on the cultural aspects of the field,bringing together the physical and
cultural. Not to discredit or disregardarchaeology and other physical
elements of the field, but my primary concernis within the cultural realm
of anthropology. With this in mind, I feel, the ultimategoal in anthropology
should be to bring to light all the differences among peopleso as to
come to a better understanding of our similarities. To be looking solely
for similarities within cultures, it seems as if the differences take on a
negativeconnotation. This can be seen in the film by Dwight Conquergood,
The Heart Broken in Half. A viewer from the suburbs or rural community
maycome up with, and rightfully so, a negative opinion toward the way this
particulargang lives and interacts within their society. The viewer may not
be accustomedto fully integrated neighborhoods, where one group still
predominates. Not tosay that there would still be segregation prevalent
in these or any neighborhoods, but maybe their neighborhood is not as
run down or violent as the one shownin the film. Through these shades
only negative differences can beacknowledged. However, if the viewer looks
at the positive differences, suchas the integration of neighborhoods,
the bonds shared by brothers, and the struggle for survival that they face
everyday so that their children will not have tobe brought up in the same
conditions, then they might be able to relate orwant to relate to this group
in similar ways. Even though it would not be fair tosay that everyone,
at some point in their life has or will be confronted with
some sort of struggle, but the differences of struggle are unique to
each culture. So even if that is the one similarity, no matter how different
the degreeof struggle, it can serve as a point of relation and therefore
has achieved a point of connectionbetween participant-observer-and
audiences.
Hopefully, the ideal goal of every anthropologist is to be objective,
whether it is in coming up with a particular focus or presenting the
findings and information of that subject. It is my opinion that even
though a goal may be objective the content may in fact come across to
the reader or viewer as subjective. In Geertzís, Thick Description, he
may be read into as being very arrogant, wordy, and subjective in his
ways of looking at and portraying culture. Yet I feel the fact that he
includes and acknowledges other trains of thought, shows that at his
root he can be very much objective. In my opinion to be truly subjective
one proves their objectiveness by acknowledging that there is an
opposing view or another way of looking at something or someone.
Just as subjects and cultures vary, so does the observer and the
audience or students that read or view the research as a tool within
their field. In ways I feel it is the audience that will ultimately label a
work to be objective or subjective. This is not to say that those within
the field are all objective and that it is the reader that deems them
subjective, for many of the early scholars in the field were extremely
subjective in their portrayals of indigenous cultures, even if it was a
result of the society as a whole with the notion of supremacy and
dominance. But, overall in the modern era of anthropology, the only
subjectivity I encounter is through out dated theories of late nineteenth
and early twentieth century Caucasian middle class males. This is not
to say that we should disregard the work of all early anthropologists;-
