Chapter Title Anthropological Self

“We are each a product of biological endowments, culture, and personal history. Culture
ideology and cultural events along with transmitted cultural practices influences each of us.
We are each the product of our collective interchanges… We are each a molecule in the
helix of human consciousness joined in a physical world. We form a coil of connective
tissue soldered together by cultural links.”
-- Kilroy J. Oldster

1. Intended Learning Outcomes

At the end of this chapter, the students are expected to have:

1.1 understood the basic concepts in Anthropology and other related topics;
1.2 discussed the similarities and differences on the anthropological
conceptualizations of the self; and
1.3 recognized cultural variations and diversities on culture and self-
formation.

2. Pre-assessment Activity

2.1 Watch a video on different rituals or rites of passage on the self.

2.2 Write an essay about their cultural orientation.

3. Content

What is Anthropology?

"Anthropology is perhaps the last of the great nineteenth-century conglomerate disciplines still
for the most part organizationally intact. Long after natural history, moral philosophy, philology,
and political economy have dissolved into their specialized successors, it has remained a diffuse
assemblage of ethnology, human biology, comparative linguistics, and prehistory, held together
mainly by the vested interests, sunk costs, and administrative habits of academia, and by a
romantic image of comprehensive scholarship."

- Clifford Geertz

The word anthropology comes from the Greek words “anthropos” which means “man”
and “logos” meaning study of. It holds a holistic view of human nature. It is
concerned with how cultural and biological processes interact to shape human
experience.

Anthropology encroaches on the territory of the sciences as well as the

humanities, and transcends the conventional boundaries of both while
addressing questions to the distant past and the pressing present– perhaps with
implications for the future (James L. Peacock). This emphasizes that it is an
academic field for understanding the interconnections and interdependence of
biological and cultural aspects of the human experience in all times and places.
THE CULTURAL CONSTRUCTION OF SELF AND IDENTITY
A. Interplay of “nature” and “nurture

“NATURE” – refers to
genetic inheritance which
sets the individual’s
potential
WHO “NURTURE” – refers to
sociocultural environment

AM I ?

❑ CULTURE – “… complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals,

law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a
member of society.” (Edward Tylor)
✓ Anthropologists have emphasized that culture is not behavior itself but
the shared understandings that guide behavior and are expressed in
behavior.
✓ Culture provides patterns of “ways of life”
✓ Being that culture is diverse, self and identity may have different
meanings in different cultures

❑ LANGUAGE- a set of arbitrary symbols used for communication

✓ VERBAL
✓ NON-VERBAL

B. The Self as embedded in culture

▪ There is a system of inherited conceptions and expressions in symbolic forms
by means of which humans communicate, perpetuate, and develop their
knowledge about and attitudes toward life (Clifford Geertz).
▪ Humans are considered as cultural animals as they create the meanings of
objects, persons, behaviors, emotions, and events, and then behave in
accordance to those meanings they assumed as true.

Geertz’s two important ideas in his attempt to illustrate an accurate image of man:
1. Culture should not be perceived only as “complexes of concrete behavior
patterns- customs, usages, traditions, habit clusters- as has, by and large, been
the case up to now, but as a set of control mechanisms- plans, recipes, rules,
instructions- for governing behavior and,
2. Man is precisely the animal most desperately dependent upon such
extragenetic, outside-the-skin control mechanisms, such cultural programs, for
ordering his behavior.”
 ETHNIC IDENTITY
▪ sameness of the self with others, that is, to a consciousness of sharing certain
characteristics (e.g., language, culture, etc.) within a group.
▪ This identity makes a human being a person and an acting individual.
▪ Peacock believes that the individual is neither a robot nor an entirely
independent self-willed little god but is a cultural individual– existing in freedom
but also embodying that cultural mold in which he/she is cast in his/her
particular society and historical epoch.

Egocentric and Sociocentric views of the self

Egocentric
▪ the self is viewed as autonomous and distinct individual.
▪ defines each person as a replica of all humanity but capable of acting
independently from others.
▪ one who is without regard for the feelings or desires of others; self-centered.
▪ each person is seen as a separate entity with characteristics which reside
within an individual.

Sociocentric
▪ the self is viewed as contingent on a situation or social setting.
▪ view of the self that is context dependent.; there is no intrinsic self that can
possess enduring qualities.
▪ focuses on one’s own social group; socially oriented.

➢ For anthropologist Christie Kiefer, THE JAPANESE POSSESS A

SOCIOCENTRIC VIEW OF THE SELF. INTERDEPENDENCE BETWEEN
THE PERSON AND THE GROUP IS MORE VALUED THAN
INDEPENDENCE.

➢ Chinese American anthropologist Francis Hsu attributes A SOCIOCENTRIC

VIEW OF THE SELF TO THE CHINESE. CHINESE PRIORITIZE KIN TIES
AND COOPERATION.

➢ AMERICANS TEND TO BE EGOCENTRIC. THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY

SHOULD BE ASSERTIVE AND INDEPENDENT.

❑ IDENTITY TOOLBOX- refers to the “features of a person’s identity that he or she

chooses to emphasize in constructing a social self.”

One of the components of the self is identity. There are two types of identity:
independent and interdependent. Independent identity is defined by individual
traits and goals while interdependent identity means connections with others, it is
social not personal. But identity can also be represented in many ways which
includes language, religion, beliefs, traditions, arts and even their ways of making
a living. For example, one’s identity can be linked to one’s ethnicity or ethnic
origin. According to Tajfel (1981), ethnic identity has been defined as one’s
knowledge of membership in a social group and the personal meaning associated
with that membership. Typically, ethnic groups have interdependent identity
because they value the “we” feeling rather than “I” which usually happens in an
individualistic society (Buntod, et al 2020 p. 11).

An example of this is personal naming which a universal practice with numerous

cross-cultural variations establishes a child’s birthright and social identity.
 Another perspectives on the formation of social identity is ARNOLD VAN
GENNEP’S THREE-PHASED RITE OF PASSAGE:
1. Separation – people detach from their former identity to another.
2. Liminal – one has left one identity but has not yet entered or joined the
next.
3. Incorporation – the changes are incorporated into a new identity to
elaborate rituals and ceremonies like church weddings, debutant balls, and
college graduations.

So, therefore, one’s identity or the conceptualization of the self is not inborn. It is
something people continuously acquire in life.

Understanding Human Diversity

Anthropologists have particular ways of approaching their studies. They compare
differences among human societies to get an understanding of human and cultural
diversity. They also study the full breadth of human existence, past and present.
In addition, anthropologists try to appreciate all peoples and their cultures and to
discourage judgments of cultural superiority or inferiority.

A. Making comparisons
B. Examining many perspectives
C. Avoiding cultural bias

Western concept of the self

Premise:
1. Self is autonomous, unitary and stable.
2. Self is defined in terms of the following aspects:

o Western Self as Analytic

▪ The whole is understood when differentiated into parts.
o Western Self as Monotheistic
▪ Monotheistic – characterized by the belief that there is only one
Supreme Being
▪ The belief in one Supreme Being coexisting with the universe
condensed the supernatural and human capabilities into bipolarity
of both qualities of existence and categories of identity or
experience (e.g. beautiful / ugly, kind / cruel, strong / weak, body /
soul, love / lust)
o Western Self as Individualistic
▪ Western individualism exhibits the coexistence of favorable and
unfavorable conditions inherent in personal freedom.
o Western Self as Materialistic and Rationalistic
▪ Western way of thinking is focused on material “things” and favors
a rational-empirical approach over magical and superstitious
explanation of immaterial “things”.

• David Ho (1995) described the Western Self as an individualistic self

that is deeply aware of itself, its uniqueness, sense of direction,
purpose and volition.
• If all things are well, the self-achieves coherence and stability over time.
Eastern concept of self

Four Great Systems

1. Hinduism
2. Brahman – absolute reality
3. Atman (soul or spirit) – identical to Brahman
4. Vedanta – characterizes human suffering as a result of failure to
realize the distinction between the true self (permanent and
unchanging) and the non-true self (impermanent and changes
continually)
▪ The goal of man is to have knowledge of the true reality –
Brahman.
▪ Law of Karma is the most important doctrine of Hinduism.
Individual actions will lead to either a good or bad outcomes in
one’s life.
▪ Karma does not end with a body’s death, so its influence may
extend through incarnation of the soul.
o Buddhism
▪ Siddharta Gautama (Buddha) – founder of Buddhism
▪ Budh – awake
▪ Every person has a seed of enlightenment, but the seed should be
nurtured.
▪ Four Noble Truth:
• Life is suffering
• Suffering is caused by attachment to desires
• Suffering can be eliminated
• Elimination of suffering is through the practice of the
Eightfold Path (Right view, Right aspiration, Right speech,
Right action, Right livelihood, Right effort, Right mindfulness
and Right concentration)
▪ Man is just a title for the summation of the five parts (matter,
sensation, perception, mental constructs, and consciousness) that
compose the individual, however, each of the parts distinctly is not
man.
▪ Man has no self.
▪ There is nothing permanent but change.
▪ The ignorance of the impermanence of everything may lead to an
illusion of selfhood.
▪ Ignorance = cause of life’s misery
▪ Perfect moral intellectual knowledge – eliminates the cause of
one’s misery and being awakened from the illusion of selfhood.
▪ The ideal is to experience Nirvana – a state of transcendence – can
be achieved through meditation
o Confucianism
▪ Golden Rule – “Do not do to others what you would not want others
to do to you.”
▪ Basic virtue of proper conduct is knowing how to act in relation to
others.
▪ Five Cardinal relationships: between ruler and minster, between
father and son, between husband and wife, between brothers, and
between friends
▪ The self is known as a relational self.
▪ The individual’s greatest mission is to attain self-realization.
▪ Self- cultivation – instrumental in achieving self-realization
▪ Could be accomplished by knowing one’s role
in the society and act accordingly.
▪ The individual is set to respond to what is socially required rather
 than to one’s personal needs and goals.
o Taoism
▪ The self is an extension of the cosmos
▪ Self is described as one of the limitless forms of the Tao (Nature-
the foundation of all that exists)
▪ The perfect man has no self
▪ Selflessness is attained when the distinction between “I” and “other”
dissolves.
▪ The selfless person leads to a balanced life, in harmony with both
nature and society.
▪ Taoists believe that simplicity, spontaneity and harmony with nature
should govern one’s life.
▪ There should be unity and harmony among opposing elements: the
Yin and Yang

Comparison of Western and Eastern Approaches

Dimension Western Thought Eastern Thought

Emphasis Distinctions and Commonalities and
oppositions harmonies
View of Self Egocentric Sociocentric
Theological View Monotheistic Polytheistic (Pluralistic)
Cultural Framework Individualism Collectivism

Reading Selection

COPING WITH CULTURE CLASH

Anver Versi

Have you ever felt like pulling out your hair in frustration because somebody you
are doing business within another country keeps messing you about? They don't return
your calls promptly, they do not stick to the schedule, they say they will do something
today and then don't do it for several days, they make unreasonable demands, they
are rude in their communications- the list can go on and on. "Why can't people just get
on with business normally instead of making life more difficult than it already is?" is the
exasperated cry from any number of executives. The trouble, as more and more
international executives are finding out is that both parties are 'getting on with business
normally' but what is normal for one is abnormal for another.
Another phrase for this is ‘culture clash' or 'culture shock'. Culture clash has cost
international companies billions of dollars in lost business and led to the sinking of
otherwise sea-worthy enterprises. It took a long time for international business to
realise that business culture is not a one-size-first-all phenomenon. Different parts of
the world have different business cultures, and these are so normal as far as they are
concerned that they just cannot understand why anybody else would want to do things
differently. There is a name for this - it is called ethnocentrism.
My way is the right way! Ethnocentrism means 'my way is the right way' but since
it is subconscious, you are not aware of it - you simply think of it as 'normal' so when
people do things differently, you start to pull your hair out because 'you just can't
understand why they are messing me about.' This inability to understand the other's
business culture has cost multinationals so much that many have now put 'culture
awareness' at the top of their management agenda. In the US it is called 'diversity
awareness' and it is considered so important that diversity gurus are being paid as
much as $50,000 per session to speak at conferences.
Africa is probably at the top of the pile in the culture-clash stakes. Take for example
the time-fixation of Westerners or people of Western origin. They are always looking
at their watches and become very upset when someone does not keep an
 appointment. They talk of 'African time' which means that the person you are expecting
will be there when he is there - never mind what time he said he would come. He may
come early, on time, later or even tomorrow. He is here, so what is the problem?
This might seem a trivial issue, but it excellently typifies the culture-clash between
the West and Africa. It has long, now dimly remembered roots. The Western 'time
culture' grew out of two factors. One is the short growing and harvesting season (spring
and summer) before the dead winter months. This leads to a sense of urgency and
therefore the conservation of time.

Clocking in, clocking out

The second and more important factor was industrialization and mass production.
Work was broken down into simple, repeated, mechanical tasks. Management was
involved trying to produce as many units as possible within a time frame. It was a
question of clocking in and clocking out. Management watched the clock to see how
many units were produced per hour, workers watched the clock to see when their shift
was over. Although machinery has now mostly replaced people, the habit has
remained.

Another legacy of industrialization was that tasks became more important than the
people performing them. This gave rise to a system of depersonalization - the position
or post was what counted, not who filled it. Institutions thus became more important
than personalities.

In Africa on the other hand, with year-round growth possible, it was ridiculous to split
time into hours and minutes. You thought in terms of seasons, of periods of rainfall.
You waited for the crop to ripen. You used the time in between to carry out urgent
chores or fulfilling your social and communal obligations. The crops would grow when
they would, the rain would come when it did - there was little you could do to hasten
the process. But the needs of people around you were urgent so you gave them priority.

We see these traits today in modern Africa just as we see the culture clash between
the time-starved Westerner and the time-rich African. Who is to say which is the better
business culture? And if the point of business is to enhance the quality of life, and if
the African feels it is more important to make a detour to visit his sick mother before
meeting the Westerner to discuss something which will not happen for a long time, who
can quarrel with him? Each has his value system and his priorities, and both are
justified within their cultural environments. These different culture clashes are not
limited to business. In the West generally, who you are is not important, what is
important is your function.

In Africa, who you are is more important than what you do. After all, anybody can do
what you do - but what you do only becomes meaningful because you are doing it. And
what is the point of doing something, or obtaining a position of influence if you cannot
help your relations, your friends and your neighbors?

Individualism versus collectivism

In the West, individualism rules because the state acts as your family'; in Africa
collectivism rules because only your relatives will look after you in trouble.

As the diversity gurus in the US are finding out, if you understand where the other
person is coming from culturally, you can work out a modus operandi. If you don't, you
will not only lose your hair, but maybe also your shirt. So, a good rule might be when
in Africa, do as Africans do.

Source: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Coping+with+culture+clash.-a085701714