Concepts of Time

Douglas Raybeck contrasts Western ideas of time and the understanding of time among the villagers in Wakaf Bharu. The aborigines also share a different concept of time. Compare and contrast these three cultural settings of time and explain why you think variation occurs.

            As mentioned in the previous essays, language and culture influence each other to determine how we think about the world around us. Time is included in this viewpoint. In Western culture, time is viewed as occurring in a straight line, progressing from past to present to future, moving without change. For students in Western cultures, perceiving time as anything but a forward progression can be incredibly difficult, because our language and culture reinforces this idea so strongly. Not only that, but American culture specifically is very concerned with timing as well. Punctuality is a highly coveted attribute. We adhere to rigid schedules that determine when we must go to work, go to class, visit the doctor, etc;. We make appointments for nearly everything. In fact, one could view a class schedule as consisting of several pre-scheduled appointments.

            All Kelantanese, according to Raybeck, and the villagers of Wakaf Bharu specifically, have a much looser, present-time oriented understanding of time in which schedules are flexibly scheduled around the Islamic prayer times, which are themselves flexibly scheduled around the work schedule. This seems confusing at first, but really only demonstrates how ultimately unimportant time is in Wakaf Bharu culture when compared to Western culture. Activities that must be done are not hastened, but leisurely completed at the pace of the villager, as he or she is able to accomplish them. As Raybeck learned, scheduling an appointment with a villager could result in the villager appearing anywhere from half an hour early to two hours late, this range appearing to be culturally accepted as punctual.

            However complicated the idea of time may seem in Wakaf Bharu, it is even more complicated among the aborigines of Australia, at least at first glance. According to the aborigines, there is no past, present, or future, but rather all of time occurs simultaneously, operating together. Part of this is because of the aboriginal concept of the Dreaming, the time period spanning the beginning of all time to the time right before human memory. The Dreaming encompasses everything in the cosmos, including time. Through the Dreaming, all things work in concert and are completely integrated, and from this we can see clearly where this integrated, simultaneous nature of time originated.

            These three very different perspectives of time are very interesting to compare and contrast. Why did these ideas of time evolve the way in which they did? Variation in beliefs and ideas in human beings is often the result of regional, economic, and industrial factors. For instance, peasant villages like Wakaf Bharu have a smaller, more limited economy than many of the first-world Western cultures. They also lack many of the industrial benefits – which we think of as being modern – of those cultures. The aborigines are the same, but their regional history differs from that of Wakaf Bharu in that they existed largely isolated until the 1800s, uninfluenced by other cultures, while the Kelantanese did not have that luxury.

Race & Ethnicity

What is the difference between race and ethnicity? Is there a difference between race classification in ancient and modern societies? Why is ethnicity important to an individual and a social group? Define and distinguish ethnic groups from each other in your own society.

            American culture has been very concerned with race and ethnicity for decades, with prejudice against certain races being prevalent and immigration now being seen as a “problem.” Despite all of us being part of the same species, we are often categorized and given or denied certain rights because of our race – an arbitrary social construct formed from the basis of common human phenotypic features, which was formed to oppress people – or our ethnicity – our cultural heritage. Racism has been an issue throughout both modern and ancient cultures, all with different justifications used to oppress other groups of people, though racial classifications differ between the modern and ancient world due to the limited exposure to certain phenotypic traits. Justifications for racism have varied throughout the last several thousands of years, ranging from the ancient theories of the Egyptians and Greeks, to Christian, Social Darwinist, and even Eugenic theories.

            Ethnicity is important to an individual and a social group because it provides a sense of place and an identity that cannot be easily taken away. An Australian immigrant may become an American citizen, but they will always continue to be an Australian. In America, there are hundreds of identifiable ethnic groups – groups who share an ethnicity – and despite many of them having assimilated into American culture, their cultural practices have equally intermingled with American views. For example, the University of Northern Iowa hosts hundreds to thousands of international students from all across the globe, including Chinese, Arabic, and Russian (there are many more than this, but these three I know for certain have large populations among the student body). The majority of these students have assimilated into American culture very well, but their practices have influenced our culture in return. UNI boasts a Center for Multicultural Education, which often celebrates the cultural holidays of different ethnicities, and promotes understanding of other cultures to benefit our own.

Language & Culture

How does language influence culture, and vice versa? What are the theories of language acquisition we have discussed? What is the difference between linguistic relativism and linguistic determinism?

            Language consists of verbal symbols that represent common ideas, allowing human beings to exchange those ideas with little difficulty. It allows people to communicate and to retain their cultures through the transmission of culture from one generation to the next. Culture and language heavily influence one another through this transmission and the adaptations of the culture itself. For example, the Inuits have several words for “snow,” the Sami people have several words for “family,” and Americans have several words for “money,” indicating that the language has been influenced by the importance of those ideas in those particular cultures. Similarly, language influences cultures in how we use language to teach children traditions, rules of society, social roles, etc;.

            Throughout the years, several different theories of language acquisition have come into being. John Locke proposed the Blank Slate theory, which states that humans are born with the capability to receive and process complex content and use language, but only after we are exposed to it. Locke believed that we literally were blank slates without language until exposure to it occurred. On the other hand, B.F. Skinner proposed the theory of Operational Conditioning. He said that infants learn language through positive and negative feedback, reinforcing the use or non-use of language through rewards and consequences. Finally, Noam Chompsky proposed Pre-Wiring of the Brain, saying that humans are pre-wired to acquire language skills, effectively developing language regardless of exposure or feedback. For example, some twins have developed their own personal languages, and this data only supports Chompsky’s theory. He also said that languages change and modify between the generations, resulting in colloquialisms, turns of phrase, etc;.

            Language operates through linguistic relativism and linguistic determinism, two very different mechanisms used to understand language in culture. Linguistic relativism refers to how relevant the language is to the culture. This explains why Inuits have so many words for “snow” – because it’s incredibly relevant to their culture! On the other hand, linguistic determinism refers to how the language that we use determines the way in which we view and think about the world. Our thoughts, in essence, are influenced by our language. This explains why native English speakers are often confused by ideas that are expressed in other languages, especially when those ideas do not lend themselves to translation into English.

Why Is Sex Fun?

            This question, one of many that all parents hope never to hear from their children regardless of age, is one that author Jared Diamond exposes rather quickly as being not what it seems in his book of the same title. At first thought, one might think that sex is fun because otherwise, who would want to have children? That is the point at which the anthropologist realizes the true depth of this deceptively easy question: after all, passing on genes and producing offspring is the name of the evolutionary game. The more reasonable question to ask is why are all of the players of this game – humans in particular – playing by different rules?

            Anthropology teaches us that one cannot be ethnocentric in studying other cultures, and Diamond suggests that we also not be “human-centric,” when it comes to studying our species’ reproductive patterns in comparison with those of other species. This suggestion is for the better, considering how very unusual humans are reproductively.

Why are we so unusual? Human beings tend to live in pair-bonded couples that occupy a larger territory shared by many other pair-bonded couples, co-parenting their offspring – which have the longest period of parental dependence in the natural world. We share our pair-bonded couple behavior with songbirds, who, like humans, often participate in extramarital copulations in order to produce more offspring (males), or produce offspring with better genes (females). No other primates participate in this behavior, either existing in harem or promiscuous mating systems or as mated pairs that have their own territory (as in Gibbons). Songbirds also co-parent their offspring, as neither parent can provide enough for the chicks alone, much the same as in humans. However, songbirds develop faster than human babies, and are out of the nest before most toddlers can even walk. Even chimpanzees, our closest genetic relatives, begin learning to become as self-sufficient as members of a troupe can be once their mothers begin to wean them.

This means that humans are expending a lot of biosynthetic energy when it comes to reproduction. A nine-month pregnancy is nothing compared to the twenty-two month gestation period of elephants, but human offspring must be cared for constantly until at least their teens, when they begin learning to become independent of their parents. This is longer than any other species, and can put biological strain on both parents in addition to the potential of strained resources. And that doesn’t even take into consideration that the child may not biologically be the father’s offspring, in which case the father loses out, having spent his efforts on the genes of a rival male while sacrificing his ability to go produce offspring with other mates.

Humans have a concealed ovulation, meaning that females are not aware of when they are ovulating, which results in sex at any time during our ovarian cycles and fewer offspring. This could be the fundamental reason why we view sex as being fun – we can have it at any time, unlike the vast majority of the rest of the world’s species of animals. There are many theories as to why we evolved in this manner, two of which are complete polar opposites: the daddy-at-home theory of Richard Alexander and Katharine Noonan, and the many-fathers theory of Sarah Hrdy.

The daddy-at-home theory suggests that concealed ovulation evolved as a means of keeping males in the home and creating a co-parent situation; increasing the chances of survival of offspring with little doubt as to paternity, while sacrificing the ability to father more offspring with other females. On the other hand, the many-fathers theory suggests that concealed ovulation would allow a female to mate with all of the males in a group, creating the possibility that any of them could be the father of the resulting child. This would lower aggression in the group among males, and would prevent the possibility of infanticide, since all of the males could be led to believe that they had sired the offspring.

Diamond suggests a mixture of these theories as being evolutionarily correct. He states that humans began in harem reproductive systems, originally with slight ovulatory signs – it would be visible that the woman was ovulating – to make reproduction more efficient. Their ovulation evolved to become concealed to confuse paternity, as in the many-fathers theory, and later their mating systems evolved into monogamy, allowing the concealed ovulation to keep daddy-at-home. After reading this book, I agree with Diamond’s take on concealed ovulation, as his suggestion of the two both being true is presented in a very logical argument that follows what we understand of evolutionary patterns and natural selection.

Additionally, humans are the only species in which females undergo the shutdown of fertility known as menopause, a phenomenon that has been observed in large numbers only in baleen whales, but not universally as in humans. The benefits of menopause far outweigh the costs, including the ability of the postmenopausal woman to provide more for her existing children and grandchildren than for a new baby. Since every new birth creates a higher risk to the survival of the mother and subsequently the infant, menopause is a biological way of helping women to pass on their genes more effectively. It also provides a means of passing on information, knowledge, wisdom, etc;, as in the example of the Rennellese woman who was the only remaining survivor of the hungi kengi cyclone of 1910. Her tribe had a higher chance of surviving another cyclone because of her knowledge than would a tribe without a survivor to pass on the memories.

Finally, human beings advertise their reproductive potential just as much as any other animals on the planet. This is largely in the form of our bodies, with the most honest qualities being muscles and fat in men and women respectively. Men who are muscular in healthy amounts, and women who have fat in healthy amounts, are viewed as being more attractive. A muscular male can defend his mate and children, and is likely to be more physically fit than a less muscular male, while a woman with a healthy amount of fat in her breasts, hips, and buttocks advertises that she will be more capable of birthing, feeding, and probably raising offspring. Since Diamond points out the delicacy of the human face – it is susceptible to most diseases, disorders, etc; – it warrants mentioning that the face tells us not only a little bit about the physical condition of the person, but also – as mentioned in class – how much testosterone or estrogen a person has. Estrogen creates feminine features, such as bigger eyes, lips, and a smaller chin and jaw, while testosterone creates masculine features, such as a broader jaw and larger chin.

So, why is sex fun? Millions of years of evolution have given humans the ability to copulate whenever they want with less risk of offspring, though behaviorally humans tend towards co-parenting so that when offspring do occur, there is less effort on the part of any one parent raising the child that will be with them for over a decade before it begins to fend for itself. There may be some extramarital thrills along the way, or perhaps they will meet someone who advertises qualities that they are attracted to and settle down with them, but I believe that sex is made fun in part because of the evolution it has required to get to this point. After all, if sex weren’t fun, who would want to have children?

Bibliography:

Diamond, Jared. Why is Sex Fun? The Evolution of Human Sexuality. 1st ed. New York: Basic Books, 1997. Print.