Erickson, Street and such

These readings build upon the last. It is good to know aht the idea of culture as a static entity, as a view of "other," has been discredited. It shows me that my jaded idea of anthropology should likewise be updated!

When I actively read texts, my nature is to find objections or questions and expound upon them. So my blogs wil necessarily be filled with counterpoints, but that does not mean that I object to the entire thing.

So here is one counterpoint from Erickson's chapter: on pages 34-35, there is a discussion of high and low culture. I know that these notions have gone out of favor, but notions of popular versus some sort of refined culture still linger for many people (hopefully not for ethnographers). These distinctions are equally as shortsighted as seeing culture as a noun. In fact, they are adjectives used to characterize that noun, therefore limiting the dynamic sense of the idea of cultural ranges. The analogy of weeds worked for me here. Low, weedy culture may be in fact highly valued medicine in another. So these "patterns of sense-making" seem irrelevant. So is the phrase "ordinary people" on the top of page 35. What are ordinary people? Relative to what?

Second issue with this chapter is the discussion of "faking it" on page 37 under the Emtion discussion. I hope we can analyze that section, as it makes no sense from my perspective of working with an oppressed group. What does he mean by faking it?

Another difficulty with this chapter for me is the section of Culture Change and Loss-Not Loss. I understand the notion that some particular, old lifeways have adapted to include new ideologies, and that this doesn't in any way mean that the ethnic identity of those people has changed. But are there not some aspects of these lifeways that do in fact disappear altogether? Parts of those buckets are indeed empty, or perhaps, the old metal bucket has been chucked for a plastic one. I think of the example of the disappearance of natural medicine people ... in the particluar group I work with, there is no one left who is a practitioner of that medicine, and areas of land where the medicinal plants once grew are now flooded under water by the construction of a dam. Much of that knowledge is gone forever. Sure, there had been some documentations, and ancient stories with such references to medicine are still told, but no one can go and see a Seneca medicne practitioner, almost no one knows how to revive that practice. Plastic bucket now.

Last part of this reading that forced a question is the discussion around page 51 about invisible and visible cultural knowledge, and how both need to be valued in school systems. Makes sense. What I wonder is this: If we are teaching writing, how do we make our assessments of student writing reflect both types? Isn't writing as a product more of a visible manifestation? What aspects are invisible? How do we incorporate that into teaching and evaluation?As far as the first chapter of the Heath & Street book goes, I will ask questions particular to the people with whom I am working. On page 16 is the summation of group identity, on which I may focus with my group. The authors explain that ethnographers should recognize and document how traditions have changed over time, and how the insiders' beliefs about what is happening may not reflect what they actually do. Good. But what if the group origins have not been traced over time? How do we make comparisons of things when the older aspects are unknown?

And I do wish to contest a few general statements on page 17, even though these are very small details of this chapter. They say, "Institutions of religion and government depend on permanent written records of their authority and achievements." Not always. Some groups still practice in a chiefly oral way ... some people still value the oral skills of religious leaders, and written expression is taboo. Enough said.