Grace Hartley

Ways of Knowing in the Social Sciences

Professor Flynn
January 30th 2016
Midterm Short Essay Responses
Prompt 1
The signs of Carmens issues were her persistent tantrums and nightmares. The more
immediate and obvious causes were recent familial conflict - her father had beat her mother in
front of her, then she was separated from her father figure. The refuge they took with her
grandmother was bittersweet; Carmens mother and grandmother had unresolved issues of their
own, due to the mother being left in El Salvador when the grandmother came to the U.S. After
this first conflict resulted in the disappearance of her father, the conflict between her mother and
grandmother caused Carmen to fear a second disappearance of an important family figure especially after her mothers threats to move out during fights. On top of this, young Carmen is
the only Spanish speaker class (aside from one older girl she doesnt get along with), creating yet
another kind of separation in her life; a social and cultural separation from her peers.
A secondary, less direct issue in her life was the civil war that tore apart the previous
generation. Her grandmother fled her native land after the insidious disappearance of a close
friend - a suspected abduction to do with the war. Without proper funding or knowledge of
American life, the grandmother was unable to send for her daughter (Carmens mother) for many
years, which the daughter resented and considered herself abandoned. Perhaps due to this
abandonment, the daughter rebelled and never finished high school, which her mother (Carmens
grandmother) resented because she had given her the opportunity to get an education and it had
been thrown away. This situation resulted in three generations of people feeling let down or
betrayed and, as a result, mistrustful of others.

In both cases, the young child lost an important family figure, and felt the threat of losing
another. The Civil war is a loose parallel with Sams Jewish heritage - it is a history of violence
and fear tied to the family through their culture and ethnicity (for Carmens family, it is more of
an event; for Sam, it was a historically unending persecution). On top of this, both families were
uprooted from their early homes to less cruel places, shaking the young childrens sense of home,
or belonging somewhere. The previous brutality experienced in the families, both ancestral and
comparably recent, shaped their view of their relationship with society/others in a way that
caused them tension and unrest. They felt the need to defend themselves, or adopt the practices
they were used to seeing or hearing of, and developed more violent tendencies. This familial
struggle is not personal, and others recognize Sam as a Jew, or are unable to converse with
Carmen in her native tongue, creating a social issue as well, and a cultural insecurity.
For Carmen, going back to the root of the conflict and resolving things between the
mother and grandmother eased the tension, and Carmen was able to sleep better. As for the more
social issues, Carmens mother helped bridge the language gap by volunteering in Carmens class
so she could interact with her peers more easily. Similar to Sams case, Carmens case was
approached not only by analyzing internal conflict, but by looking at the external influences of
culture and society, and in this way her solution was far more comprehensive.

Prompt 2
Erikson's theory of development focuses on 8 stages of binary identity evolution
(Erickson, 1993) - it can be narrow in its application, and has the implication of being written for
a modern, western audience. The Japanese theory of relationship development concentrates more
on the progression of close relationships, which still parallels its Western identity theory
counterpart because Japanese culture does not have such an extreme fixation on individuality as

Western culture does; for them, the close relationships are a more integral part of ones identity.
The Navajo have the most spiritual approach to identity development - while they do depend on
a certain level of social science, there is a reliance on religious/spiritual intervention throughout
development.
One of the key aspects in each theory is their focus on the individuals relationship to
society, and how that helps foster identity. Erickson looks at the internal effects of external
stimuli, claiming that an individual is formed through their reaction and interpretation to whats
going on around them - especially regarding how people act. He concentrates on how the
individual is formed rather than how a member of a group is formed. The Japanese theory
emphasizes harmony (Rothbaum, 2000); the development of close relationships is not just a
factor in identity development, but the key. This is the opposite of the Western/American idea of
individualism and extreme independence. The Navajo placed great emphasis on the importance
of ones surroundings, not as simple stimulus to react to, but as a living entity to be respected and
understood. These similar structures involving social development also sort the theories out
based on the value they place on the state of their surroundings, ranging from the relative
indifference of the Western theory to the utmost respect of the Navajo.
Another structural similarity is their reference to what the ideal product of these stages is.
Unsurprisingly, Erickson referenced relationships very little and described the ideally developed
person as able to reflect on their life with contentment. The Japanese theory spoke more of a part
of a whole: someone who functioned well in society. The Navajo took this even a step further,
claiming the ideal person was in a leadership position (Chisholm, 1996), doing whatever was
best for those around him. This once again shows the difference in respect for surroundings that
each theory and culture has, considering Western focuses on individual satisfaction, and the
Navajo seek the fulfillment of all.

Prompt 3
One point Rogoff (Rogoff, 2003) revisits again and again is the diversity (not good-tobad spectrum) of culture across humanity. It is an amalgam of experiences, nearly impossible to
measure in the objective sense - each cultural experience has subjective value that functions by a
set of rules and deeply ingrained understanding specific to that culture. These rules - mores,
laws, social conventions - vary in depth and meaning, from culture to culture. While their
specific connotations can be a tad ambiguous, their significance and power is almost blinding once immersed in a culture (especially from birth), certain customs and attitudes, whether
consciously recognized or not, will remain with an individual constantly. For example, Western
cultures find it strange and unhealthy for a child to co-sleep with their parents after a certain age,
while many other cultures consider it cruel and unusual to separate a child from their parent
before adolescence. It is hard to say which is an objectively better practice, considering different
factors - are we concerned with the parent or child? Do we want the child to be more
independent, or trusting? Are independence or trust direct results of co-sleeping or sleeping
alone? Every custom is open to this kind of analysis, and with every factor involved - including
the preferences and culture of the analyzer(s) - it is nearly impossible to find a definite, objective,
good for every practice across every culture. Rogoff discusses this in far more comprehensive
depth in his piece, illustrating the difficulty in finding one best way.
Understanding another persons way of life in general possible once one lets go of their
own ethnocentrism, or understanding another persons way of life often alleviates the desire to
find the one best way. Ethnocentrism is the belief that your culture is superior to another, and
this is easy to do when you dont know a thing about anothers way of life, assuming your way
of life is the only way to live. Once you have understood the existence of the wide varieties of
life, the value and pleasure and struggles of each, it becomes easier to understand why people do

what they do. And once you understand and judge these practices to be of equal significance of
your own, you will most likely also realize your judgement is of little significance.
Prompt 4
There are many direct and indirect benefits of obedience. Generally speaking, obedience
can be defined as the willingness or ability to cooperate under someone else will for their
purposes, regardless of whether or their purposes or will coincides with your immediate
objective. In a way, it is similar giving another person ones own will. For example, the obedient
child would clean the fire pit after school like their father told them, despite their own desire to
go to their room and eat sweet rice cakes. The fathers purpose is a clean home and a wellbehaved child, while the childs goal right then is physical comfort. The fathers goal is more
productive which debatably gives it more merit, but it is his authority over the child causes the
child to ignore their own immediate objectives. The authority of the parent stems from the childs
conditioning from birth to see them as powerful figures, and the parents ability to provide for or
deprive the child of their wants and needs. Of course, there are many exceptions to this basic
model, and there will be exceptions in every model, but this is based off the most general
principles of parenthood.
The actual benefits of obedience are numerous. Functioning under the assumption that
the parent does want to follow the 3 goals of parenting (Levine, 1974), the first benefit of
obedience is its direct result: subsequent realization of the 3 goals. If the parent wants the child
to live, develop a personal identity, then develop in society, an obedient child will do these things
and the parent will have accomplished their goals. Of course, this is a very straightforward way
of looking at it and there is much more to such a complex relationship, but at a basic level a
parent is a mentor able to give the child knowledge (subjectively good or bad knowledge) the
child doesnt have yet, and if the child is obedient, the child is at least willing to absorb these

lessons. Because we are functioning under the assumption the parent wants the child to do well,
we are functioning under the assumption that the obedient child will benefit from obeying their
parent; i.e. the child that cleaned the fire pit learned to be industrious as opposed to being lazy
and eating in his room. On a much larger scale, this example illustrates that obedience teaches a
child to function better in society by recognizing authority like a teacher, employer, or police
officer, moving them closer to the second and third goal (primarily the third). And obviously
obeying a person who has your safety in mind will keep you safer (the first goal).
The second goal is also furthered by the bond of obedience. When a child ignores their
parent, the parent is most likely upset by this and tension may arise in the relationship if the
disobedience continues. Conversely, a bond can be reinforced by a cooperative attitude, and the
child will (most likely) find more open affection and love from their parent, resulting in healthier
relationship models later in life. Once again, these are all very broad conjectures about a very
complex relationship, but it is impossible to address every exception (or really very many at all)
in a short response essay.
Works Cited
Chisholm, J. S. (1996). Learning respect for everything: Navajo images of development. In
Images of childhood (pp. 167-183). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Erikson, E. H. (1993). Relevance and relativity in the case history: A neurological crisis in a
small boy: Sam. In Childhood and society (pp. 23-47). New York: Norton.
Levine, R. A. (1974). Parental goals: A cross-cultural view. Teachers College Record, 76,226-23
Rogoff, B. (2003). Orienting concepts. In The cultural nature of human development (pp. 3-36).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Rothbaum, F., Pott, M., Azuma, H., Miyake, K., & Weisz, J. (2000). The development of close
relationships in Japan and the United States: Paths of symbiotic harmony and generative

tension. Child Development, 71(5), 1143-1146.