Teaching Sister Wives: An Exercise in Contextualization

Look!  Pretty, happy, polygynous women!  Sisters....belonging to one mister.  I don't know how many of you have been dealing with this one in your classes this past year.  I guess the show is now in its second or third (?) season on TLC.  I know that this past year, as we have covered the kinship/marriage chapter in both my Cultural Anth and General Anth classes that students have been bringing it up in class discussions (and to a lesser extent that Big Love show on HBO).  Of course, being as students are all unique and individual they have different takes on it but it does seem that by that point in the semester, most are afraid to be too judgmental because of me snarking at them about that whole cultural relativism thing for a few months.  There, also, seems to be a bit of that interpretive drift stuff involved:  the more you watch it the more you think that it seems reasonable.  Anyway, I have quite a few students who watch the show and find themselves wondering….”wait, is this good or bad?” 

Full disclosure:  I admit to being more than a little irritated by that smug, self-centered husband Kody the few times I have watched it.  (The things I do for my students.)  Dude is driving a two-seat Lexus convertible while his wives are making do with broke-down Suburban things.  But, except for those gosh-darn pesky feelings that the wives, occasionally, allow themselves to feel but then quickly tamp down; they are all so gosh-darn happy.  Get the point?

Anyway, Sister Wives has caused me to speak a bit more about polygyny both in my online and in my face to face classes.  What follows in the paragraphs below, more or less, are the issues I try to bring up to explain things.  But then I, eventually, realized after explaining all that in those paragraphs below, that it is a good moment to add two additional points to push them beyond a simple view of the role of cultural relativism in our discipline.  First, you can't really understand complex issues like polygyny (of for that matter polyandry) by only looking at the emic perceptions of the participants of from only the views of one extended family unit:  its is the society-wide perspective that, also, most be understood.  Let's all chant:  cultural context; cultural context; cultural context.  Second, maybe...just maybe...it is okay to judge or, at the very least, it is okay to explore the consequences of some behaviors on that wider group.  And then we can all be happy hating on Kody.  Works for me.

Here goes (and feel free to correct me when I am wrong.  I probably am.)

Polygyny has some interesting consequences for a society.  Since male/female ratios tend to be about 50/50 in the world when left to "natural" forces.  (Edited for clarification:  interesting aside:  the full complexities of human sex ratios still have some mysteries to be uncovered.) When one man marries say 4 wives, then three men, theoretically, do without.  If this is a repeated pattern in a society this tends to drive up the marriage age for men--they have to wait to get married and drives down the marriage age for women--they are married off young because they are in short supply and, thus, desirable.  Society-wide over time you get a pattern of older men with multiple wives and younger men without any wives.  This is what you see with the Maasai, for example.  And some men will, always do without.  Powerful older men end up dominating the society and women (girls) get apportioned to them.

The societal problem that often results (and all societies have problems that they deal with because of their structural organization; one of ours, for example is the race/poverty issue) is a large number of young men who can, potentially, cause trouble for their elders.  After all, the women may find them more attractive than their elder husbands.  The solution of the Maasai for many years was to send the young men away to do other things; cattle raiding/warfare, for example.  This used to work better for them in the past but now that you can't go out to kill a lion because of that whole endangered species thing, there are issues.  Thank goodness, there are jobs available for Maasai moran with American Express.

In America, there are a few areas where some Mormon sects (not part of the mainstream church) still illegally practice polygyny; like you see on the show Sister Wives.  Interestingly enough, those areas end up with a surfeit of young men.  These young men tend to be viewed by their small, local groups as "bad"; a convenient view for the elder men to encourage because they threaten those elders.  Social workers in Salt Lake City, for example, report that young men from these communities often show up in the city, chased out or dumped off by those older, more powerful men.  The guys are a problem because they often have not been educated in a way that employers find attractive.  Also, many of the young men have internalized the idea that they are “bad” so they tend to act out.  Here is a basic newspaper article published a few years ago from the Denver Post that lays out the issues in terms students can understand.  There is even a Wikipedia entry under "Lost Boys" on the subject.

And there is even a recently released film called Sons of Perdition which shows the consequences for children.  It was shown this month on Oprah Winfrey's new television network OWN.  A basic review of the documentary was published at the beginning of this month at the Washington Post.  It is on my list of things to watch this summer so I can't really comment, yet.

After all that, I try to get the students to discuss that "is it good or bad" issue after they realize that the show doesn’t show the full picture of polygyny.   Hopefully, while they may realize that anthropology doesn’t necessarily try to answer that question because of the dictate of cultural relativism BUT anthropology doesn’t argue that you don’t have the right as a person or as a society to make judgments.  In fact, one of the advantages of anthropology as a discipline is the way it forces you to look at issues not from a personal or individual point of view but from a society-wide perspective.  I think we would all agree that polygyny isn’t the “victimless” practice of free individuals making free choices that the show tries to depict.y

So, anyone else facing questions about the show?  Are you going with the "its all good" philosophy?

Pushing back against Islamophobia

My daughter (readers of the blog know that she is a college student at the University of Texas) is in Beirut. She is in an intensive summer Arabic program at American University in Beirut. She has, also, been doing some research for her senior honors thesis in the History department at UT which she will be completing this coming year. I am very proud of her.

Back home, when I share that information, I am greeted with the type of comments and looks that define the world of an anthropologist outnumbered and outgunned in Texas, America, U.S.A....all the way....

Let's tell this one through visual culture, today. Here is what they are thinking:

and here she is in Beirut:

So far, so good. But then the summer is still young. Plenty of time for her to acquire a few labels. /sarcasm.

Seriously, though. I have the care of her car and I was pleased to find that she left behind some of her CD's acquired at UT. My current favorite is by Omar Offendum, a Syrian-American poet and rapper. I am trying to figure out ways to integrate his work into my Cultural class. Here is some of his work courtesy of YouTube. The first is a somewhat personal expression of the bicultural/bilingual realities of being an Arab-American. Some of you may recognize Paul Anka's Destiny being used here as the driving tract. Paul Anka was of Syrian/Lebanese descent:

Here is a clip of one of his live performances of Damascus:

And here he is performing his poetry which allows you to appreciate the beauty and complexity of his lyrical construction:

I speak no Arabic but this Arabic language version of Langston Hughes' The Negro Speaks of Rivers moves me as much as the original poem:

I've known rivers:
I've known rivers ancient as the world and older than the
flow of human blood in human veins.

My soul has grown deep like the rivers.

I bathed in the Euphrates when dawns were young.
I built my hut near the Congo and it lulled me to sleep.
I looked upon the Nile and raised the pyramids above it.
I heard the singing of the Mississippi when Abe Lincoln
went down to New Orleans, and I've seen its muddy
bosom turn all golden in the sunset.

I've known rivers:
Ancient, dusky rivers.

My soul has grown deep like the rivers.

More to come....
Edited 10:20 to replace incomplete video posting with two live performance selections.

Tutaendelea...we will continue...

I see the viagra sellers have been keeping everyone occupied in my absence. I will be trying to find my way back to my voice in the coming weeks. There have been some rather significant issues at my institution. I made myself a promise when I started the blog that I wouldn't have it become a personal bitch session for me and that I would post out of a sincere desire to share about teaching anthropology. I haven't felt able to do that so... I didn't. I think I can now but I feel a bit rusty so I appreciate your forbearance as I feel my way back. Bas.

Fun Stuff: Have We All Seen This?

The Beatles and Anthropology

Thanks to one of our/my readers with the note "best example about assumptions in anthropology". I quite agree. Entitled Beatles 3000. Have a bit of a giggle.

Heaven, Heaven is a Place, a Place Where Nothing, Nothing Ever Happens

For those of you wondering how its going in the great State of Texas, where we rewrite textbooks to suit our own views of the world and we continue our attack on that evil "theory" of evolution. I can report that we are quite successful at our stated goals: our descent into ignorance is complete.

This morning, in my online Archaeology class, this post showed up:

In the beginning of this class, I thought that it would be a very interesting class due to the fact that I love history & research. I was always fascinated by all the different theories of the human ancestry & our own origins. I have now come to realize that unfortunately for me, it has become nothing more than a graduation requirement. The book is informative & makes me question many things taught in our own history, however I do not agree with this section of the book, as it goes against everything that I believe in & study in my religious preferences.

In the book on page 39 it shows what is perceived as our own human ancestry family tree. It shows that we started out as ancestors of great apes & slowly evolved over time. As the text states, "there are controversies over what to call these first hominin forms & how to identify them," the concept that humans came from apes is what their so-called science classifies it as, but there are so many other factors that are not mentioned. I agree that there are a lot of similarities but there is so much that is left unsaid. This portion of the sections was very hard for me to read let alone write about. I disagree with the book in every aspect on this particular subject & find it rather offensive for people to even such a thing & call it human origins....

In modern times most people are ignorant of our own origin of existence & there are so many different versions of the story I sometimes find it hard to keep track. This section did nothing more than give me yet another version of the story, & I personally don't believe a word of it. However, it did bring up some interesting points that made me question our know history about the Native Americans being the first inhabitants of this land. If we supposively evolved from apes based on their theory than how do they know that the original bone fossils were not Native Americans before they too evolved to what is known as a modern Native American? I believe that this is all based upon their own assumptions. I believe that what they found was real, but they assume what is true & hold no facts as to what really happened & how it all really started. I don't believe that we will ever know the real truth.

As I go through this book I find many different scientific discoveries that are amazing but they hold no truth, we know only what the fact tell us and they don't tell us how it all began or why only that something did in fact exist. You can't argue with science & facts obviously, but I will argue they assume our origins based on finding that prove nothing more than an existence with no proof of whether it was human existence or not.

Check, please.

Since this is making the rounds, I am posting it up. It makes me feel better:


Keep fighting the good fight, we in the trenches applaud you.

The Extra Credit Question: No Stupid in Anthropology

Anybody tired of this one? I am teaching only online this summer. We just started Summer II--one semester in 5 weeks. Used to be that meant lecturing for two+ hours a day, now it just means fielding emails and discussion board posts for a couple of hours every day. Given the amount of time required to type a response to a simple question, I find myself wondering if this is truly an advantageous trade-off. Its just so much easier to answer a question in person than in writing. Not only is all the tone gone from writing--it requires a more careful response to get the tone right--but their questions often require more than just a factual answer, they require some kind of perspective and advice about their learning processes.

The sad part is that they never ask about anthropology. Its always some other issue they contact you about. Case in point, is the extra credit question; like the one I just got. The student took the first chapter quiz--one of many quizzes and one of many assignments, including discussion board posts-- and didn't do as well as she/he wanted. Rather than arrive at the conclusion that they needed to prepare better/work harder/study more, he/she fires off the inevitable "do you offer extra credit" email.

Kill me now. Not willing to commit murder to put me out of my misery? *Looks around*. Anybody, anybody? Didn't think so. So, now I have to answer this thing, *shudder*, and in such a way that I don't reveal my frustration and irritation. Its there, trust me. And, in such a way that I encourage she/he to succeed without enabling. And, honestly, I can't tell if she/he needs reassurance that he/she can succeed or a good swift kick in the pants so they will get off his/her ass and get to work.

And back to my rant....what is wrong with these students, today.......etc, etc, etc. Lead-based paint. The World's Most Beautiful Sociology Professor just yelled at me: "They're stupid, Pam. They are just stupid." I hate being an anthropologist because I am pretty sure we aren't even allowed to believe that. We are supposed to respect and value each one of them, aren't we? Aren't we? Somebody remind me of that because I am leaning the sociology way: they are soooooo stupid. Apologies to all you sociologists out there. I needed a label and, today, you are it.

Twenty Minutes Not Wasted: How to Teach the Big Picture

Super great TED talk just up:




Now, I know you are going to think I am excited at the technological possibilities mentioned at the end--the ones for integrating many peoples into an Open Education experience. Or maybe you think I am worked up about the continuing relevance and power of LECTURE, even in the largest of groups. And, yes, that did totally work me up. BUT more hot than that was the wonderful teachable moment which shows to our students the relevance (that word again) of anthropology. It is so easy to add Anthropology into the mix here. Or add this into a course on Anthropology. Fundamentally, we want students to understand that the people's of the world are our window into viewing the different possibilities of the essence of an idea. What is marriage? How are differing views of its essence reckoned by the full spectrum of humanity? Way cool and, totally, usable for Distantly Learning.

Oh, and check out Michael Sandel's website at www.justiceharvard.org. He has a talk on cannibalism http://www.justiceharvard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11&Itemid=8which I am off to watch. You know how we Anthropologists love a good cannibalism lecture (stereotype alert).

Score One for Our Side

James Franco reprimanded for texting in class. Juicy details here.
Guess, his spidey-sense failed him. Okay, I thought that was pretty funny. (Although, truthfully, I had no idea who James Franco is, good thing the article told me.)

Babies: The Film

For Mother's Day, my daughter and I went to see the new French movie, Babies, made by well-known international filmmaker, Thomas Balmes.

It was a rather remarkable and engaging "nature" film about the first year in the life of four infants from Namibia, Japan, the United States, and Mongolia. I say "nature" film because there is no narration in the film and the focus is at baby/subject-level. The focus means that you spend so much more time "seeing" the babies as unique and different personalities, even though the cultural content of their development is so radically different. The least ethnocentric of viewers will, probably, walk away with glimpses of Hattie's (U.S) calm, quiet self; Mari's (Japan) drive and determination and resultant frustration(my daughter shared this: the blowing of fuses when motor skills don't match internal desires?);Ponijao's (Namibia)languid curiosity, and Bayar's (Mongolia) limitless happiness and charm.

There is ample fodder for judgement and I imagine the less anthropologically-initiated will be shocked at the visible dirt which is the Namibian existence, the casual breast-feeding of Ponijao's mother, and the human/animal intimacies of life amongst pastoralists (both Namibia and Mongolia).

I have to admit to being less than pleased with one aspect of the film. Balmes has stated in interviews that he sought to show different societies in an almost hierarchy of relationships with nature from the stark existence of Namibia to the crowded quarters of Japan. He succeeds in that vision but the cost is a depiction of "Africa" which is going to be strongly re-enforcing the "primitive". The bleak Namibian desert landscape, the pastoral life, and remote location coupled with images of Ponijao casually picking a discarded bone from a pile of dirt and refuse and chewing on it in her first few months of life is really reinforcing the "savage" and not exactly a representational picture of life in Africa.

But the nice bit: pay close attention for you shall see that Ponijao is never alone. Surrounded constantly by her extended "family" it is impossible to determine the relations of the women and children who love and care for her. (Side note: no father is ever seen.) That resonates Africa for me. I was grateful for the short time my own daughter got (at the age of 4) to run with a pack and be cared for as one of many.

And then, I comforted, myself on the stereotype front, with a giggle: "we", the collective American generic, must suffer the vision of little Hattie struggling to escape baby sing-along with weird mother-nature-earth chant. While the group's sing-along earth mother offers a chant to the Earth and Dad follows obediently along, Hattie flees the circle and pulls determinedly at the door. My sentiments, exactly, Hattie. San Francisco: need I say more. You won't find that stuff in Texas or New Jersey. LOL.

Unlike, Ponijao, Hattie spends much time alone with one parent. Not for her the touch--loving and abusive--of an older sibling or playmate. Nor for Mari either. Our "developed" babies interact in carefully structured worlds isolated in strollers, distracted by toys, lectured at with books with titles like "No Hitting", rather than rolling in the earth and pulling the penis of our older brother.

I am uncertain what students might take away from the film but I can see some rather extensive discussions revolving around all this issues. One way to "get into" them is probably to approach the discussion of concepts of safety and danger. I imagine most students will be instantly struck with the different standards of supervision the different babies experience. The film maker has commented on his own role in the process; having been asked the inevitable "when would you have interfered" when faced with toddlers tangled in between the legs of goats and cattle.

There is a rather extensive support site for the film here. And go see it. Its a really nice change of pace in a hostile and unhappy world.

""