Purpose Statement
My take-home final asks
students to analyze 20 cases involving potential or actual intervention in the
lives of others, then arrive at general principles to help them decide when
such intervention is, or is not, justified - and then to seek consistency in
the application of their principles.
Description of Activity
Bloom's Taxonomy of
Learning Objectives impressed me when he first wrote it; the idea that some
things are indeed more important than others, that they exist in a kind of
hierarchy, resonated with me, and stuck with me. It must have been that idea
that helped lead me to the conclusions that I reached in my 1981 Faculty
Lecture. Those same conclusions (and Bloom's concept of an intellectual
hierarchy) are embodied in the take-home final question that I give to my
Cultural Anthropology students. I'll attach a copy of last semester's version
so you can see what I mean.
For many years I've felt that teaching (and learning) a bunch of discrete facts
about human cultures is only the beginning of a much more important process.
Students must do that, sure, but I want them to go beyond simple recall of such
facts, and also beyond the "how interesting, how quaint" reaction to
cultural practices that differ from our own. My Faculty Lecture explored my
partial rejection of the concept of cultural relativism, which was still a
sacred cow in the field of cultural anthropology back then - a concept which
tended to promote the "how quaint" reaction, but nothing beyond it. I
won't bore you here with the interminable details of my lecture, but will try
to show you how my take-home final (THF from now on) tries to get students to
go beyond the "how quaint" reaction to some of the higher levels of
thinking that Bloom wrote about.
I ask them in the THF whether we should respect (and tolerate) all cultures and
all cultural practices as they presently exist (which would be the stance of a
pure cultural relativist) - or whether we should ever intervene in other
cultures. When students first enter this course, many of them are decidedly
ethnocentric in their views, but many others have already gone beyond
ethnocentrism to a culturally relativistic point of view. As the course
progresses, and students read about cultural relativism, most of them develop
relativistic attitudes. But as we begin to encounter some cultural practices
that are more difficult to accept (chopping off little girls' fingers, Nazi
death camps, apartheid, clitoridectomy, honor killings), students begin to
wonder if they truly want to respect and tolerate all cultural practices - and
if they don't, can this be done in a non-ethnocentric way? We study values,
too, as a part of any culture - and I introduce the concept of a hierarchy of
values: i.e., that all human beings have many values, but not of equal
importance to us; some values in our personal hierarchy are more important to us
than others. Students are urged to arrange their values in a rank order.
Then, about a month before the end of the semester, I give them their THF, with
about 20 cases for them to react to, in light of their own value hierarchy;
would intervention in each case be justified? Why? What values of yours are
involved?
But having arrived at the intellectual level of evaluation, I want them to go
one step further. I ask them to move from the particular to the general (from
analysis to synthesis), by arriving at general principles to help them decide
when intervention in the lives of others is, or is not, justified. - not just
in the cases that I've given them, but in future cases as well that life will
present them.
Then- the hardest part of all - I ask them to seek consistency in the
application of their principles. I tell them that anyone could decide that this
intervention is justified, that one is not; the real challenge is to come up
with principles that you can apply consistently, now and in the future. If they
can do that, they will be achieving a level of intellectual activity that is
rare in this world. And you know what? - most of my students work very hard on
this assignment, and most of them succeed!
Incidentally, to help them with this assignment I also include in their course
packet something I wrote a long time ago, actually pre-dating my Faculty
Lecture (which was in 1981), containing some of my scattered thoughts that led
up to my lecture. It's presently entitled "Some Miscellaneous Thoughts and
Tough Questions"; I'll attach a copy to this paper.
Henry Bagish
ANTHROPOLOGY 103
TAKE-HOME FINAL EXAMINATION QUESTION
The following question (worth 100 points) is to be answered by you at home,
and turned in on _______________________; if you can type your answer,
please do so; if not, please write as legibly as possible in a blue book.
(NOTE: this assignment will not be accepted late, for any reason; no
exceptions.)
Should we have respect for all cultures, and all cultural practices, as they
presently exist? Or should we ever intervene in other cultures? Arrive at a
principle, or a set of principles, that would help you decide, on a
consistent basis, whether intervention in the lives of others would be
proper in the case of any four of the following:
1. The Indians at Vicos, Peru.
2. Abolishing warfare among the Dani of New Guinea ("Dead
Birds").
3. Indonesian prohibition of chopping off little girls' fingers
among the Dani.
4. Indonesian prohibition of men slicing off portions of their
ears among the Dani.
5. The American circumcision of baby boys.
6. The African practice of clitoridectomy as a puberty rite. (See
341.481 M666r #47)
7. Your teacher sending steel tools to Weyak and Pua.
8. Your teacher sending clothes to Weyak and Pua
9. Your teacher giving aspirin to Asian nomads.
10. Nazi killing of six million Jews and five million non-Jews.
(See Article 4)
11. Neighbors intervening in the stabbing of Kitty Genovese,
Queens, U.S.A.
12. Summer Institute of Linguistics missionaries in the Amazon
Jungle.
13. Banning bowhead whale hunting by Eskimos.
14. Smallpox vaccinations by the U.N. in Ethiopia. ("The Nuer")
15. Male chauvinism in the U.S.A.
16. Male chauvinism elsewhere in the world.
17. "Animal rights" protest against use of monkeys in research
to
find cure for AIDS.
18. Smuggling of pregnant Arab girls out of the West Bank of the
Jordan.
19. Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait.
20. "Ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia.
How to proceed with this assignment
A. 1. Writing down your thoughts on paper, think about every one
of the 20 cases presented. For each one, ask yourself:
a. Do I feel intervention would be justified in this case?
b. Why do I feel this way? What values of mine make me feel this
way? (Underline those values)
c. After you've considered and written about all 20 cases,write
down all of those values in a separate list.
2. Working with your list from #1-c above, rearrange your values
in rank order (a hierarchy), from most important to you to less
important. (Hint: in a conflict of two values, which would you
choose as more important?) If "tolerance" and "respect for other
cultural practices" are among your values, decide where they fit
in your hierarchy.
3. On the basis of your hierarchy of values, arrive at a
principle, or a set of principles, concerning when (under what
conditions) intervention in the lives of others would be
justified. Some possible wordings:
a. "Whenever _______________, then ______________."
b. "Because I value _________, I would intervene when that
value is threatened."
OVER
4. Decide which four cases from the list you want to apply your
principles to. Be sure that you're being consistent in the
application of your principles. Note that "consistency" doesn't
necessarily mean that you always arrive at the same decision--that
is, always intervene, or never intervene. You might decide to
intervene in Cases 1 and 3, and not to intervene in Cases 2 and 4,
and still be consistent. What is crucial is that you apply your
principles consistently. This could be the hardest part of the
assignment, but it's also the most important, if this exercise is
to be useful to you in your life. (If you find you're not being
consistent, it means you need to re-examine your principles.)
Whenever you decide in favor of intervention, think about how you
would intervene -- what form intervention you should take.
B. Now you're ready to write the assignment. It must (in order to earn
full
credit) follow this outline:
I. Your original rough draft work for A-1 (a, b, and c)
above. It need not be retyped, but it must be legible, and every
one of the 20 cases must be addressed.
II. Your list of values (those that are relevant to the
question of intervention) arranged in the rank order of your
heirarchy of values. This list must include all of the values
mentioned in B-I above; it may very well include other values as
well. Be sure to define your values carefully. Please underline
each value.
III. Your principles concerning intervention: Be sure to
state clearly how your values lead to your principles; make their
relationship explicit. (See A-3 above).
IV. Your application of your principles to the four cases
you've selected. Whenever your decision is in favor of
intervention; explain how you would intervene. This part of the
assignment obviously has four sections: the four cases (See A-4
above). Don't make the mistake of only doing this part and
omitting Parts I, II, and III or the mistake of just "blending"
them all together. It doesn't work! It will only prevent you from
achieving the consistency this assignment aims at, and you will
earn no higher than a "C-" grade if you blend the sections or omit
Parts I, II, or III! Do all four Parts, clearly Separated, and
labeled. OKAY–WRITE A GREAT PAPER!!!!!!!
HB/gw
April 1996
FRC (Word Proc Center)
Henry Bagish
Some Miscellaneous Thoughts and Tough Questions
(for me and my students in Cultural Anthropology)
Stages of Cross-Cultural Awareness
I. Na@ve ethnocentrism: the attitude that our way is the right
way, the only way, the natural, normal wayÑan attitude that is found
all over the world, originating in the process of enculturation; as
long as we are taught just one way, and know no other, we tend to
accept that way as right.
II. Awareness of the ethnocentric attitude. As we learn of the
existence of other, different ways, and become conscious of the nature
of enculturation, we can recognize and understand the ethnocentric
attitude in ourselves and others.
III. Reaction against ethnocentrism: the discovery of the
principle of culture relativity, which holds that there are no absolute
standards for judging customs, that a societyÕs customs and ideas
should be viewed in the context of that societyÕs culture. A commonly
drawn conclusion is that all cultures and cultural practices are
equally valid, and that therefore we should have tolerance and respect
for other cultures and cultural practices, even if they happen to
differ from our own.
(IIIA. A stage sometimes occurs at about this point which I call
Òreverse ethnocentrism;Ó it holds that our ways, rather than being
better than others, are actually worse than others. This stage is not
uncommonly found among some college students.)
IV. Can there be another stage, beyond cultural relativity? One
anthropologist, Felix Keesing, has written:
ÒThe bald position of relativism as an outlook on life not
only has been called increasingly into question by
anthropologists but has come under attack from philosophers
and others. Robert Redfield, for example, considers that the
viewpoint of Ôethical neutralityÕ is an unrealistic one. He
points out that anthropologists have been comfortable enough
in looking with equal benevolence upon all kinds of values
among small and remote peoples, but are hard put to maintain
the position, say, in the face of Nazism, or of a highly
disorganized culture where the individual may lose his
Ôdesire to live.Õ Raymond Firth, following the same line of
thought, says of such a view that Ôthe affirmation that we
should have respect and tolerance for the values of other
cultures is itself a value which is not derivable from the
proposition that all values are relative.Õ He adds, ÔAn
anthropologist may wish to hold such a position. But if he
does so, it must be on other grounds.ÕÓ
Might it be that some cultural ideas are just plain wrong? Might it be
that some ideas, some practices are actually ÒbetterÓ than others? (If
so, weÕre certainly going to have to be careful how we define ÒbetterÓ
Ð right?) Might there be some significance to the fact that present-day
human culture has changed enormously from what it was in the beginnings
of the human race? Have all these changes been only of a random nature,
or have there been any significant patterns (Òcultural evolutionÓ)?
Might there be some basic reasons for cultural change, for why human
societies give up some of their old ideas and practices and adopt new
ones? Might it be because often (although not necessarily always) the
new is in some significant sense Òbetter than the old? Why has
food-producing largely replaced food-gathering? Why have guns largely
replaced bows and arrows? Why has the metric system largely replaced
inches and yards and bushels and pecks? (Incidentally, did you know
that of the hundreds of nations on Earth, only Burma, Brunei, and the
United States have not adopted or committed to the metric system?)
Some more questions:
What do you believe causes babies: sperm meeting ovum, or spirits in
rocks and trees that enter a womanÕs body if she passes too close by?
Are these sets of beliefs of equal validity, or do they differ? In what
ways? Is your preference for one theory over the other just
ÒethnocentrismÓ Ð or is there something more involved? If so, what?
Is there anything really ÒwrongÓ with slavery as a cultural practice?
Why has most of the world eliminated the practice? If you object to
slavery, why do you? (That is, what values of yours lead you to feel
that way?)
Are all cultural practices equally valid, valuable, and worthy of
tolerance and respect? What about head-hunting? Does it make it
acceptable if itÕs a sacred, religious practice? Might oneÕs
perspective differ if it happens to be your head?
What do you think about male chauvinism? Ð when practiced by male
Americans? Ð when practiced by males in the rest of the world?
What about racism? Ð when practiced in the U.S.? Ð in South Africa?
Does it truly make no difference what people believe in, just so long
as they believe in something?
Or do beliefs have important consequences in the lives and behavior of
human beings?
Well, then, are some ways ÒbetterÓ than others? Here are a few
suggestions for possibly defining the term Òbetter:Ó Something might be
ÒbetterÓ if:
Òit has greater survival valueÓ
Òit is more efficientÓ
Òit yields greater utilization of energyÓ
Òit is more practicalÓ
Òit gives more controlÓ
ÒI prefer it, because it accords with one of my values
(and if I can persuade enough people to share this value with
me,
I feel the world would be a better place).Ó
More questions:
Are all cultures perfectly adapted to their environments? Are any?
Is any culture perfect? Ð all good? Ð or all bad?
Does any culture fulfill everyoneÕs needs?
Can any culture be improved?
How can cultures be improved?
How do cultures get improved?
Questions concerning intervention:
Which of these statements express your down-deep-honest values?
ÒLove thy neighbor.Ó
ÒI am my brotherÕs keeper.Ó
ÒI am not my brotherÕs keeper.Ó
ÒI feel compassion for my fellow man.Ó
ÒEveryone should mind his own business.Ó
ÒEveryone should be free to do his own thing.Ó Ð But isnÕt there
supposed to be a qualifying phrase tacked onto the end of that:
ÒÉas long as he doesnÕt interfere with the freedom of othersÓ?
What if he does interfere with the freedom of others? Ð then
what?
What are the various forms intervention can take? Is it always
just armed force?
Is our intervention being proposed practical? (That is, is it
achievable Ð and at reasonable cost?)
Can you ever change just one thing?
What about the problem of unanticipated consequences of a cultural
change? Does this problem involve another decision: is the intervention
worth the risk of unanticipated consequences? Further question: is it
true that sometimes you canÕt afford not to take certain risks? Is a
decision not to intervene really a decision in favor of the status
quo?
Remember the slogan ÒThereÕs no such thing as a free lunchÓ Ð or, for
every good deal in this world you pay a price. Example: freedom is
great (I happen to think so, anyway) Ð but it does have its costs:
confusion, having to think, decisions, responsibilities. Everyone has
to weigh costs compared to benefits, for everything in life. Does
ÒprogressÓ consist of trying to maximize benefits while attempting to
minimize costs?
Lots of questions, huh? IÕm sure there are many, many more. Good luck
in answering them.
HB/gjb/Nov.99/FRC
Henry Bagish
ANTHROPOLOGY 103
TAKE-HOME FINAL EXAMINATION QUESTION
The following question (worth 100 points) is to be answered by you at home, and
turned in on _______________________; if you can type your answer, please do
so; if not, please write as legibly as possible in a blue book. (NOTE: this
assignment will not be accepted late, for any reason; no exceptions.)
Should we have respect for all cultures, and all cultural practices, as they
presently exist? Or should we ever intervene in other cultures? Arrive at a
principle, or a set of principles, that would help you decide, on a consistent
basis, whether intervention in the lives of others would be proper in the case
of any four of the following:
1. The Indians at Vicos, Peru.
2. Abolishing warfare among the Dani of New Guinea ("Dead Birds").
3. Indonesian prohibition of chopping off little girls' fingers among the Dani.
4. Indonesian prohibition of men slicing off portions of their ears among the
Dani.
5. The American circumcision of baby boys.
6. The African practice of clitoridectomy as a puberty rite. (See 341.481 M666r
#47)
7. Your teacher sending steel tools to Weyak and Pua.
8. Your teacher sending clothes to Weyak and Pua
9. Your teacher giving aspirin to Asian nomads.
10. Nazi killing of six million Jews and five million non-Jews. (See Article 4)
11. Neighbors intervening in the stabbing of Kitty Genovese, Queens, U.S.A.
12. Summer Institute of Linguistics missionaries in the Amazon Jungle.
13. Banning bowhead whale hunting by Eskimos.
14. Smallpox vaccinations by the U.N. in Ethiopia. ("The Nuer")
15. Male chauvinism in the U.S.A.
16. Male chauvinism elsewhere in the world.
17. "Animal rights" protest against use of monkeys in research to
find cure for AIDS.
18. Smuggling of pregnant Arab girls out of the West Bank of the Jordan.
19. Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait.
20. "Ethnic cleansing" in Bosnia.
How to proceed with this assignment
A. 1. Writing down your thoughts on paper, think about every one of the 20
cases presented. For each one, ask yourself:
a. Do I feel intervention would be justified in this case?
b. Why do I feel this way? What values of mine make me feel this way?
(Underline those values)
c. After you've considered and written about all 20 cases,write down all of
those values in a separate list.
2. Working with your list from #1-c above, rearrange your values in rank order
(a hierarchy), from most important to you to less important. (Hint: in a
conflict of two values, which would you choose as more important?) If
"tolerance" and "respect for other cultural practices" are
among your values, decide where they fit in your hierarchy.
3. On the basis of your hierarchy of values, arrive at a principle, or a set of
principles, concerning when (under what conditions) intervention in the lives
of others would be justified. Some possible wordings:
a. "Whenever _______________, then ______________."
b. "Because I value _________, I would intervene when that value is
threatened."
OVER
4. Decide which four cases from the list you want to apply your principles to.
Be sure that you're being consistent in the application of your principles.
Note that "consistency" doesn't necessarily mean that you always
arrive at the same decision--that is, always intervene, or never intervene. You
might decide to intervene in Cases 1 and 3, and not to intervene in Cases 2 and
4, and still be consistent. What is crucial is that you apply your principles
consistently. This could be the hardest part of the assignment, but it's also
the most important, if this exercise is to be useful to you in your life. (If
you find you're not being consistent, it means you need to re-examine your
principles.) Whenever you decide in favor of intervention, think about how you
would intervene -- what form intervention you should take.
B. Now you're ready to write the assignment. It must (in order to earn full
credit) follow this outline:
I. Your original rough draft work for A-1 (a, b, and c) above. It need not be
retyped, but it must be legible, and every one of the 20 cases must be
addressed.
II. Your list of values (those that are relevant to the question of
intervention) arranged in the rank order of your heirarchy of values. This list
must include all of the values mentioned in B-I above; it may very well include
other values as well. Be sure to define your values carefully. Please underline
each value.
III. Your principles concerning intervention: Be sure to state clearly how your
values lead to your principles; make their relationship explicit. (See A-3
above).
IV. Your application of your principles to the four cases you've selected.
Whenever your decision is in favor of intervention; explain how you would
intervene. This part of the assignment obviously has four sections: the four
cases (See A-4 above). Don't make the mistake of only doing this part and
omitting Parts I, II, and III or the mistake of just "blending" them
all together. It doesn't work! It will only prevent you from acheiving the
consistency this assignment aims at, and you will earn no higher than a
"C-" grade if you blend the sections or omit Parts I, II, or III! Do
all four Parts, clearly Separated, and labelled. OKAY–WRITE A GREAT PAPER!!!!!!!
HB/gw
April 1996
FRC (Word Proc Center)
Materials Needed
The take-home final, and
the pages entitled "Miscellaneous Thoughts and Tough Questions".
Application
This activity is woven
throughout the semester, and one class period is devoted to an explanation of
the assignment.
this web page was created
on 11/11/99 at 7:57:32 PM
and modified on 11/12/99 at 4:20:47 PM