I read the book when I was in my Master Degree years ago. I forgot what edition I was reading, but the most recent one, its ninth edition is still a good way to start into Anthropology. Being an outsider to Anthropology, well it's not my major.....but still, I think.... reading this 'colorful book' (colorful in the sense of 'hyper-content of real cases portrayed in it) really gave me a somewhat a nostalgic kind of feeling of the old times when I was still at school learning the first stages of opening up my mind into Anthropology.
Okay, I’d rather say that upon reading the first 13 pages of chapter one, I was compelled to think of the movies I enjoyed. That is the way how I understood the content. First, the role of anthropologists as mentioned in the chapter reminded me of Avatar; especially about how a botanist-anthropologist played by Sigourney Weaver weaved her way seamlessly into the life of Navi people in Pandora. Even she made a book about it. <In this case, the anthropologist has somewhat succeeded to be the ‘author’ of the society he/she investigates>. And that is what an anthropologist would have done—at least that is what I think.
Second, when the chapter talks about the cultural rules (pg. 12) we, humans, have, but other animals do not, I could not help but to think of TLOTR (The Lord of the Ring) movie. It is said that human behavior is governed primarily by cultural rules, not by the need of immediate gratification. For instance, humans do not eat the minute they become hungry, rather they cook the food first. Animals, lions for instance, eat their prey after a successful hunt.
This is what brought me to think of a particular scene in TLOTR. In the movie, there was a used-to-be hobbit/human(?) named Smeagol who turned into a Gollum—an animal-like creature—who liked to eat raw meat. He apparently forgot the fact that he used to cook food in his previous life as hobbit/human. When Frodo, his master, cooked the fish he gave him, he cried and yelled that he rather smashed and crushed it since it would be fresh and juicy. Well, I know that it is just a movie—a science fiction—but to some extent, it does have some traits about what separate human (Hobbit in TLOTR) and animal (creatures). In a rather ironic way, Gollum and Smeagol are the same entity (person?). <Enjoying movies and seeing the cultures portrayed in them are also ways to understand the real culture. I think it is also a good way to understand the terms or concepts that sometimes I find it hard to comprehend>.
That is what came to my mind upon reading this chapter.
Now, talking about serious stuffs, I find some notions that are worth-understanding: first, about the concept of cultural universals. Although humans posses different cultures, e.g. languages, we have fundamental similarities. Take my 4 year-old daughter for instance, she came to Korea a year ago without speaking a single Korean word, let alone sentence, she now mingles with other Korean kids being a bilingual. I wonder if this is what Chomsky meant by a theory of universal grammar which enables infants to cognitively learn the complexities of grammar (pg.13).
Now, I would like to comment on a notion about some members of society disagreeing to the analysis and the publication of information about their society as portrayed by the anthropologist (pg.2). In this case, I would like to mention a book written by a famous anthropologist, Clifford Geertz, who wrote ‘The Religion of Java’. Irrespective of the wittiness and elaborate portrayals, it is—still—considered as a bit controversial for (among) Javanese people, but surely it was and is still a mysteriously amazing book for non Javanese (other Indonesians from other ethnics, westerners, students in America, Europe, and other countries). I am a Javanese myself and happened to be a Moslem, too. So, reading this book gave me somewhat a mixed feeling. Rather than complaining about his (in)famous categorization of Javanese into three categories: santri ‘religious and devout person’,abangan ‘not so-religious(?)’, and priyayi (blue-blooded royal-like or like ‘yangban’ in Korea); I would rather say that in the 21st century, Geertz’s accounts should be seen as a classic rendition of what Javanese was all about in the 1960s or up to the late 90s.
Most Javanese ( I say most because I am sure that some would blatantly or proudly and deliberately associate themselves with one of these) would hesitate or never consider themselves into one of those categories. Of course, I do think and acknowledge that there are abangan in Java, for sure. But I find it ridiculous at times. Even now, it is hard to find priyayis any more. Or wait, they may disguise themselves with some sort of positions so as to blur the term priyayi, oh well...who knows!! Even, I never heard (or I’ve been oblivious) that the remaining Sultan in Jogjakarta wanted to be addressed as the priyayi. Then....?
So, upon reading this chapter, I confirm myself that culture indeed evolves and keeps changing. The Javanese people as the active agents have evolved and at the same time reworked and re-created their culture up to this 21st century.
But then again…although I somewhat disagree to Clifford Geertz, as I read the first chapter of Tapestry of Culture, <pg.13> I come to think of it, in this way:
“Should the Javanese thank Clifford Geertz because he has uncovered/postulated the cultural rules that even the Javanese themselves may be unaware of?”
