I think a class that studies those who believe in UFOs would definitely be worth of an anthropology class.
You bet. That's exacly what an Anthro teacher of mine is doing. ^_^
Well, to be honest,not exactly: UFO sightings are just one subtype of the phenomena he proposes to approach more with attentiveness and less with skeptiscism, especially in the study of religion. Basically, his point is that people believe in something, UFO's as alien visitors for example, this fact - the believer, not necessarily the object of belief - is significant in itself and worthy of study.
While as humans we can strongly believe or disbelieve in intelligent extraterrestrial life circling our little planet Earth, anthropologists have no business in proving or disproving the actual existence of it - that's the job of physicists and other natural scientists. For anthropologists, it is the act of belief, the reason, the manner, and all other intricacies, that matter.
I described his view in a short story at my universities anthro department blog, but unfortunately this post is in Dutch and google translate does a very crappy job.
And regarding bias: we are all biased in one way or another. Consider the idea expressed in one of the previous comments that lawn mowing is a "normal" activity. Yes, for some of us, it is. But for people not grown up with the idea of short-mowed lawns, it may seem as alien an activity as sighting UFO's.
I agree, autism is not retardation. Everyone has a slightly different way of thinking and being, whether because of genetic or experiential variability. Some of us do not get on well with their social environment, because they differ too much, or on the wrong points, from the cultural norms. But the "problem" is in the incompatibility, not in one side or the other. When it's one against many, however, the minority (or the ones with least legitimacy) will become regarded as "abnormal", as people who have a certain syndrome, though we might just as well say everyone else has a "syndrome".
It even doesn't have to be a minority. The situation may be much more complex than a black and white division. If only enough people keep on carrying an ideal that never totally fits anyone, and if they keep on hiding their own "imperfection" because they are afraid to be "deviant", the ones who do show the despised traits - because they are too different, maybe, to be able to keep up the appearances, or because they feel imprisoned by what society imposes on them and, consciously or unconsciously, chose to do away with it - will still end up to be considered less fit, less worthy. Even these persons, for whom the ideal turns out to be a very negative thing, often keep on supporting it, by thinking they are "different" and "unable to attain" it.
And there the labeling comes into play. A person may be relieved to find out he's "autistic". It may help him to get recognition, support and understanding from people around him, and his family and friends may be relieved and better able to give him a place. But it can also promote a negative self-image, rigidly structure other people's reactions - as if the person they deal with is only an instance of the "autist" type and noting else - and thereby impose yet another regime of norms and expectations on the "deviant" person. As long as the person concerned is happy with that - not problem. But we have to keep in mind the label is very much a self-fulfilling prophecy. At he same time as it is a road to a more or less culturally accepted way of being, it is a powerful device for society to keep the labeled person in check, even if never consciously designed for that purpose.
As such, the label is a cultural construct, not a reflection of unquestionable, empirical reality. The only way to escape the restrictive simplifications imposed by the label, is to realize it's existence and to transcend it, to face what it hides, what lies underneath, in all it's complexity. Even though a full understanding is not withing human reach, we can try and use more sophisticated, colorful, and - precisely because such an understanding is unattainable - fluid and open conceptions.
As for autism, while i'm aware that it is reified by scientific research, by standardized diagnosis, descriptions, therapies, statistics, organizations and popular conceptions, i'd argue that it's still a model, that there is no such thing as the ultimate autist, but only people, *human beings*, to whom this model, even if not fully applicable, is applied - and *ascribed*. As i said, and as everyone who knows an "autist" will probably agree with, people labeled autists are persons and should be dealt with as persons, not as a personage from a psychology manual, popular book or expert's description. Manuals will never fully describe what a person is like. They may be helpful, but only if we remain open to different realities, if we are willing to see the person we are dealing with not as an example of a certain category, but as a human being just as much, and on the same level, as ourself. I think the world would be a better place if we tried to do so, if we tried to be understanding to each other, regardless of alleged "syndromes", and to find ways - not in general, codified on a high level, but on the ground, in practical situations - so that everyone can feel okay with his or her place in society. It's idealized, i know, but we can try our best...
Slashdot Mirror
For a non-native English speaker like me, it's useful to know the right spelling. Thanks for the information.
I think a class that studies those who believe in UFOs would definitely be worth of an anthropology class.
You bet. That's exacly what an Anthro teacher of mine is doing. ^_^
Well, to be honest,not exactly: UFO sightings are just one subtype of the phenomena he proposes to approach more with attentiveness and less with skeptiscism, especially in the study of religion. Basically, his point is that people believe in something, UFO's as alien visitors for example, this fact - the believer, not necessarily the object of belief - is significant in itself and worthy of study.
While as humans we can strongly believe or disbelieve in intelligent extraterrestrial life circling our little planet Earth, anthropologists have no business in proving or disproving the actual existence of it - that's the job of physicists and other natural scientists. For anthropologists, it is the act of belief, the reason, the manner, and all other intricacies, that matter.
I described his view in a short story at my universities anthro department blog, but unfortunately this post is in Dutch and google translate does a very crappy job.
And regarding bias: we are all biased in one way or another. Consider the idea expressed in one of the previous comments that lawn mowing is a "normal" activity. Yes, for some of us, it is. But for people not grown up with the idea of short-mowed lawns, it may seem as alien an activity as sighting UFO's.
I agree, autism is not retardation. Everyone has a slightly different way of thinking and being, whether because of genetic or experiential variability. Some of us do not get on well with their social environment, because they differ too much, or on the wrong points, from the cultural norms. But the "problem" is in the incompatibility, not in one side or the other. When it's one against many, however, the minority (or the ones with least legitimacy) will become regarded as "abnormal", as people who have a certain syndrome, though we might just as well say everyone else has a "syndrome".
It even doesn't have to be a minority. The situation may be much more complex than a black and white division. If only enough people keep on carrying an ideal that never totally fits anyone, and if they keep on hiding their own "imperfection" because they are afraid to be "deviant", the ones who do show the despised traits - because they are too different, maybe, to be able to keep up the appearances, or because they feel imprisoned by what society imposes on them and, consciously or unconsciously, chose to do away with it - will still end up to be considered less fit, less worthy. Even these persons, for whom the ideal turns out to be a very negative thing, often keep on supporting it, by thinking they are "different" and "unable to attain" it.
And there the labeling comes into play. A person may be relieved to find out he's "autistic". It may help him to get recognition, support and understanding from people around him, and his family and friends may be relieved and better able to give him a place. But it can also promote a negative self-image, rigidly structure other people's reactions - as if the person they deal with is only an instance of the "autist" type and noting else - and thereby impose yet another regime of norms and expectations on the "deviant" person. As long as the person concerned is happy with that - not problem. But we have to keep in mind the label is very much a self-fulfilling prophecy. At he same time as it is a road to a more or less culturally accepted way of being, it is a powerful device for society to keep the labeled person in check, even if never consciously designed for that purpose.
As such, the label is a cultural construct, not a reflection of unquestionable, empirical reality. The only way to escape the restrictive simplifications imposed by the label, is to realize it's existence and to transcend it, to face what it hides, what lies underneath, in all it's complexity. Even though a full understanding is not withing human reach, we can try and use more sophisticated, colorful, and - precisely because such an understanding is unattainable - fluid and open conceptions.
As for autism, while i'm aware that it is reified by scientific research, by standardized diagnosis, descriptions, therapies, statistics, organizations and popular conceptions, i'd argue that it's still a model, that there is no such thing as the ultimate autist, but only people, *human beings*, to whom this model, even if not fully applicable, is applied - and *ascribed*. As i said, and as everyone who knows an "autist" will probably agree with, people labeled autists are persons and should be dealt with as persons, not as a personage from a psychology manual, popular book or expert's description. Manuals will never fully describe what a person is like. They may be helpful, but only if we remain open to different realities, if we are willing to see the person we are dealing with not as an example of a certain category, but as a human being just as much, and on the same level, as ourself. I think the world would be a better place if we tried to do so, if we tried to be understanding to each other, regardless of alleged "syndromes", and to find ways - not in general, codified on a high level, but on the ground, in practical situations - so that everyone can feel okay with his or her place in society. It's idealized, i know, but we can try our best...
What this means for the main s