Questions from Presentations by Author’s Name
Jean Comaroff, Body of Power, Spirit of Resistance
1.
The Tishidi rituals are an attempt to change the real world by changing the world of
symbols. Which world do you think written history contributes more to, symbols or
reality?
2.
The Tishidi zionists seem to ignore the fact that their church was founded by
Westerners. Do you think that this tendency is a defense mechanism to protect the
symbols they were raised with?
3.
The struggle for control is an underlying motif in Comaroff’s discussion of the Tishidi
people (chief’s control of water, man’s control of nature, British control of South African
inhabitants, religious dominance, etc...). Discuss the benefits and disadvantages of
discussing the history of a people in terms of who controls what versus who is telling
what. How might an emphasis on control shape history both extrinsically and
intrinsically?
4.
Is the interaction of diverse influences in the present day lives of the Tishidi descendants
(eg. Zionist church vs. Christianity vs. initiation rituals) better characterized as a struggle
between conflicting forces, or as a transmission of past culture into a new cultural
environment? Given Wolf’s argument that people ignore cultural connections in favour
of cultural differences, how do you think he would have responded to this question?
5.
How has the adoption of some Christian ideas influenced the status of the Tishidi
women? Discuss using examples.
6.
What aspects of the Jewish-American Zionist movement of the 19th Century are seen
among the Tishidi people?
7.
How can a religious tradition based on a Jewish movement be perceived as Christian by
the Tishidi people?
8.
As the people adopted aspects of the colonizers religions, how did the meanings of
these religious concepts change?
9.
Would you agree with Comaroff’s claim that the adoption of colonial fashions by various
religions is a form of resistance against the colonial power? Please discuss your
position.
10.
When the missionaries came, they incorporated Western culture into the Tishidi culture.
Had the missionaries not come, could the Tishidi people have become exposed to
Western culture through other forms?
11.
With females tending to the agriculture and being associated with nature, this shows a
connection to Grand Theory. Are there other examples within the Tishidi culture that
support this theory?
1
12.
From the historical texts and resources that Comaroff uses, do you think that her
ethnography is legitimate and supportable? Are her resources reliable considering they
are second hand texts or personal interpretations from a bias source?
13.
Does Comaroff choose appropriate information from the Tswana peoples’ past that
effectively connects them to their future relatives - the Zion sect? Does she dwell too
much on their historical past or become to analytical of their daily lives and living
spaces? Could she have focused on other elements that would have made her text
more effective?
14.
Is ritual necessary to maintain power relations in the profane realm of everyday life?
15.
Could the integration of western values and materials be seen as embodied history while
at the same time a textual one as found in the form of a book?
16.
As a form of resistance against the affects of colonialism, the Tishidi practice Zionism
(as opposed to Christianity, brought to them by missionaries). However, Zionism is
neither a non-Christian/non-western religion, nor is it a religion stemming from the earlier
indigenous religion of the Tishidi. Is it possible for people to effectively resist using the
tools of their oppressors? Is resistance more effective if the oppressed uses the tools or
languages of the oppressor? Or is this an admission/acceptance of oppression?
Is authoritative knowledge (such as written history or religion) used intentionally as a
way of controlling or asserting power over other people? Is it possible to counter one
group’s authoritative knowledge with another’s? Or is one inevitably dominant?
Maurice Bloch, From Blessing to Violence
1.
How does ritual make us human in the eyes of our state?
2.
When do we see people as sexual beings in the west?
3.
Bloch’s characterization of the circumcision ritual of coastal Madagascar as a political
barometer suggests that ritual is plastic and sensitive to cultural pressures, and implies
that ritual’s interpretation of the past is a vehicle for transmission of culture rather than
transmitted culture itself. Does this observation contradict Bloch’s presentation of ritual
as a symbolically stable means of transmission and preservation of religious history?
4.
Discuss how our own rituals are simultaneously a transfer and a creation of historical
knowledge. Compare and contrast how context influences which of these two aspects of
ritual is emphasized, drawing on both Bloch’s ethnography and your own experience for
examples.
5.
In what ways are the symbolic “parents” involved in the circumcision ceremony of the
Merina people similar to good-parents in many European cultures?
6.
The real parents of a child involved in a circumcision ceremony throw candy which is
fought over by the guests who believe it will ensure their fertility.
2
7.
How is this practice similar to or different from the common practice of throwing
bouquets at Canadian weddings?
8.
Do you see any features specific or inherent to Christianity, as it was presented to the
people, that were absorbed into the ritual? If so, describe any changes that occurred.
9.
How did this ritual reflect the politics of the state? Please explain.
10.
The Merina practice circumcision even though it is frowned upon by Christians.
Circumcision can therefore be seen as an opposition towards Western beliefs. In what
other forms might the Merina oppose Westerners?
11.
When circumcision was first introduced to the Merina, it was practiced only by royalty
and high nobility. How has the ritual of circumcision changed in its practices from
nobility to everyone else?
12.
If ritual is seen as a “barometer” of political situations could myths be seen as a source
for the history of political influence on a local level?
13.
To ensure a successful circumcision, and to avoid injury, seemingly outside players have
a role. The parents must abstain until the child’s wound is healed. People may not wear
red clothes to the ritual. Are these merely superstitions or reflective of a broader belief
of how people are connected within that culture?
14.
Are there any rituals or coming of age/puberty customs where females are the center of
attention? If not, why?
15.
If there are more than one male going through the circumcision ritual, does the value of
that ritual decrease? Or does it benefit the custom (i.e. more witnesses, more money,
more community spirit)?
16.
How much control does the state have over ritual? While a state can ban a ritual, does
ritual then cease to be of value, or does the meaning of ritual change? Who gives
meaning, and therefore validity to ritual?
Is acceptance into a social group the only reason for ritual, or are there other factors? Is
it fair to say that while ritual may have religious or political meaning, is it primarily a
social institution?
Elizabeth Tonkin, Narrating Our Pasts
1.
How might societies that depend on oral history be at an economic and technological
disadvantage to societies with written history?
2.
Is written history generally more empirical and less moral than oral history?
3.
Tonkin discusses how the Sasstown people construct oral history from pre-existing
genres, i.e. culturally specific conventions that could be characterized as ‘story
prototypes’. Discuss how this idea relates to the more general thesis that people
3
construct themselves from pre-existing, culturally specific conventions that take the form
of collective memories (‘cultural prototypes’).
4.
The heroic boasts of the Glao people are mirrored in many instances on Euro-centric
cultures. What are some examples of this?
5.
What are the fundamental differences between a written and an oral narrative?
6.
Tonkin argues that oral history is neither more nor less likely to be accurate than written
history, and that both forms of history represent an attempt to create identity through
memory. However, the fact that written history is often more institutionalized, for
example, than oral history, contributes to a different set of processes shaping the
production of written history. Are there important ways in which written history should be
differentiated from oral history? Support your response.
7.
Do eyewitnesses create events or describe them? Defend your position.
8.
Do you agree with Tonkin’s claim that written and oral histories are equally valid?
Please discuss your position.
9.
With mass media, information can be conveyed to a larger number of people in a short
time span. How has mass media affected oral communication and its significance?
10.
If people make sense of history through representation and interpretation, how does oral
history differ from written history? Is one more important than the other?
9.
Would a culture with a consistent tradition of oral history have a more pronounced sense
of group identity that a culture with a tradition of tracing history textually?
10.
Tonkin states that it is not possible to accurately transcribe oral history due to the
number of specifics omitted such as the inability to adequately capture pauses, stresses,
and chanting. Using this line of reasoning, would Tonkin see written history as a
complete bastardization of events, with oral history being closer to an accurate account?
11.
In accordance with the oral history, what would happen if two people saw the same thing
happen but had two different interpretations of the event? Often it is our prior knowledge
that helps shape the world around us, so how can two different people with two different
pasts have the same interpretation of an event?
12.
In a society where oral history and storytelling are common in daily life, is it possible for
history to have a major role in the present and future? Or is it the events of the present
that are shaping concepts of history? Does the nature of oral versus written history
factor into this?
As the venue and person relating a history influence the style in which it is told, is it
possible that the history (or conceptions thereof) are also influenced? Does the status of
the person relating history, or the nature of the venue affect the validity of history?
4
13.
Is the Jlao history a true history; is it factual historical data? These people base their
history on an oral tradition, so how can they ensure that the history tellers are recalling
the events correctly and passing the information on accurately.
Sidney Mintz, Sweetness and Power
1.
Mintz asserts that “Culture is production.” Are all cultures glorified economics?
2.
Mintz asserts “we are what we eat.” Would human societies be much different if people
were more carnivorous or vegetarian as a species?
3.
Drawing on insights you’ve gained from Trouillot’s Silencing the Past, discuss whether or
not the macropolitical/economic nature of Mintz’ analysis of sugar as both cultural
product and cultural production silences the individual’s contribution to history.
4.
Why did Britain first rise to the fore as a sugar consumer?
5.
Is it possible for sugar producing nations to harness the power of the sugar trade? Why
or why not?
6.
Both Sweetness and Power and Strathern’s After Nature focus on topics the authors feel
are central to identity as a way of explaining the development of identity (Mintz focuses
on the history of what is produced and consumed; Strathern focuses on the history of
kinship systems). Discuss how this technique guides (and perhaps limits?) the
development of these respective ethnographies. [I know this straddles two
presentations, but...]
7.
Mintz argues that what we consume defines our identity. One can take an opposite
position of our identity defining what we consume. Choose a view and defend your
position. If one was to take the opposing view one might consider food taboos such as
pork, beef, or alcohol.
8.
One of the critiques of Mintz’s ethnography is that it is a social history with potential for a
good ethnography. Either defend this position or argue that the book does have a valid
basis and argument such that is can be considered a successful ethnography.
9.
Did other Western nations develop a similar obsession with sugar as England did? Did
they develop this need for sugar as the same time as England, or did they take
England’s example and adopt it?
10.
What factors, other than economic ones, could have contributed to the sugar
consumption frenzy? What was it about the English culture that allowed sugar to be so
easily incorporated into it?
11.
Mintz declares that what we eat shapes our identity. In contemporary western culture
sugar is hidden in the foods we eat. This is but a symptom of food production being
separated and alienated from consumption. Is this alienation creating new identities or
reducing the impact of consumption on our identity formation?
5
12.
Sugar is still widely used despite its unhealthy image. Does this create a clearer image
of the extensification of power relating to sugar than viewing the consumption of sugar
when the view of it was healthy?
13.
Is the consumption of sugar a created industry? As sugar is used in many processed
foods, and often in addition to addictive substances (Coffee, Tea, Alcohol) is it fair to say
that sugar is an opiate of the people? Do people intentionally choose to consume sugar,
or are they largely unaware of their consumption? How does this affect the previous
statement’s validity?
How has something we consume (sugar) shaped not only personal identities, but
societal and cultural identities? Is it fair to say that the processing, consumption and
trade of sugar has shaped nations and likely the world?
14.
You made many references to the saying, ““You are what you eat.” If this is so, how do
you explain Queen Elizabeth’s prestige and honor, yet address her blackened teeth? Is
she lower class when it comes to hygienics, but upper because class of her accessibility
to sugar?
15.
As a group, you agreed that this was not a well written historical and anthropological
text. How do you think Mintz could have avoided this problem? Add more
anthropological data? Sequential historical data? Less sociological data?
Marilyn Strathern, After Nature
1.
What aspects of a child’s society makes them more individual than adults?
2.
Would reproduction without intercourse be an evolutionary advantage or disadvantage to
humans as a species?
3.
Illustrate how Strathern’s discussion of kinship is both after nature (drawing on concepts
about nature and what is natural to explain kinship) and after nature (investigating what
concept of kinship we are left with following the dissolution of nature as a concept). How
does this relate to the picture Strathern paints of history as being both drawn from the
past and representing what happens after the past (the present and the future)?
4.
Strathern argues that social thought both contributes to and is shaped by the current
social environment, and, what is more, that this is the process driving cultural change.
How can Strathern’s theory of change be represented in terms of contemporary
evolutionary theory? Is such a representation appropriate? Offer an alternative
interpretation (suggestion: use Tonkin’s ‘Memory creates us and we create memory’),
5.
What has allowed the English to maintain aristocratic class divisions long after those
divisions have lost their social contract connotations?
6.
Why have the English maintained the practice of primogeniture?
7.
Strathern claimed that more technology resulted in less nature. Defend or oppose this
idea using specific examples.
6
8.
Explain Strathern’s argument that reproducing old ideas creates change.
9.
How does technology alter the reality of individualism in terms of, both, itself and its
relationship with kinship?
10.
What roles do nature and culture play in kinship, and how would these kinships be
affected by a change in either of these roles?
11.
Does Marilyn Strathern’s emic standpoint to an analysis of middle class, English kinship
systems in the late twentieth century forgive the seemingly “armchair” approach to the
book?
12.
Are social groups (i.e. society, kinship) necessary for valuing nature in its own right?
13.
Is it possible to effectively analyse one’s own culture and society? Is the amount of
intimate knowledge a person may have overshadowed by their own subjectivity?
Does the advancement of reproductive technology necessarily mark a major change in
kinship structures? Is the choice used in choosing a sexual partner different from a
choice used in choosing a sperm donor? Is a parent given more/different information
about the development of their child?
7