Anthropology in Everything, Violence Edition

Hmm. A new meme?

First Chris Blattman asks if peace can be instilled. He reports from a rural training center in Liberia:

The second day of our stay we woke up to a small riot. Supplies of food and soap had been delayed from the capitol, and the excoms had taken to the yard, yelling angrily with the staff and refusing to attend classes. Johnson stood in the thick of them, surrounded by two dozen angry youth, hashing it out.

Within an hour, the youth had settled back to their quarters, their elected leaders were holding a consultation, and were preparing to present a list of grievances to the school administration. Nothing was broken, few egos were bruised, and the excoms' anger and frustration was being channeled into a peaceful and institutional process. Such an outcome, Johnson tells me, would have been unthinkable just two moths ago. But they have succeeded in creating new norms of behavior and dispute.

Then, Dani Rodrik posts about a paper exploring the intersection of soccer, culture, and violence. He notes:

I must say the cultural explanation leaves me cold, even though I do not have a good alternative explanation in its place. If you have ever spent time in cabs in Manhattan, you know that it is pretty hard to distinguish the Russian drivers from the Pakistani ones, or the Israeli ones from the Koreans. They all drive like NYC cabbies, even though the "driving culture" in these countries are pretty different.

In response, I'd ask, could it just be another example of acculturation? I imagine that being a successfull NYC cabby requires certain traits for success (traversing the city in some sort of meaningful time frame and also getting a spot at high-frequency fare sites). Don't these guys depend on the number of fares + tips to make a living? What I mean to imply is, the geography, politics (or at least laws) and culture of NYC create an environment that requires certain characteristics in order to succeed. Success (money) is an incentive. Thus, there is an incentive for cabbies to adapt (turn into NYC cabbies). Environment -> Incentives (economics) -> Acculturation (anthropology).

Societal, cultural, norms, including those of interaction, can be very powerful, but like all normative teachings, can be overcome and retaught. What I really want to know is what would happen if the soccer players were faced off against the 'ex-coms'?

Anthropology in Everything: Ethnography as Hustling

I actually saw this post by Chris Blattman a few days ago, but forgot to post it. In addition to excerpting Gang Leader for a Day, he reflects on his own research:

Like many a researcher I felt the extractiveness of these interviews -- acutely. You tell yourself that the study is for the greater good -- that it will change policies and perceptions for the benefit of all. And indeed I think it has, at least more than I imagined.

Even so, I see now that these interviews were also a hustle. Me, scouring displacement camps for rebel leaders and victims, hungrily asking questions. Them, answering questions in the hopes that I could give them something, would give them something, in return for information. And if nothing else, I was simply a way to relieve the boredom of life in a displacement camp.

He continues,

There is something very morally challenging in field work among the very poor. You fear that you exploit them. With your cleverness, wealth and influence, you think you must also protect them. But Sudhir realizes that he has overestimated his cleverness and underestimated theirs. He is using them for a selfish as well as a greater good, and they him.

In my case I think the power is less evenly distributed. However much I am hustled back, I have much more to give and gain than they do.

Although I haven't done nearly the field work that he or Sudhir Venkatesh have, but I can attest to the worry that comes with it. Any anthropologist, certainly, who doesn't feel this tension in some way is just being intellectually dishonest; anthropology has been used too many times as a facade for colonialism for the potential for abuse to be denied lightly (I realize Blattman is an economist, but the point stands).

Anthropology in Everything: Space Economics

This article by ABC News: 'What You Don't Know About Living in Space' is pretty fascinating in-and-of-itself, but what makes it stand out, at least for Marginal Revolution, where I found it (and I'm surprised this wasn't tagged as 'Markets in Everything'), is the trading in space section(second page):

Money has no value in space. When seven astronauts are living together in a cramped atmosphere the psychology of small isolated groups kicks in. Whoever has squirreled away the most M&Ms, tortillas or coffee has the most bargaining power. Those are items that are most prized at the end of a mission if someone runs short in their own stash. Astronauts' meals are color coded on shuttle missions -- and reliable sources tell ABC News some astronauts aren't above switching the colored dots on their dehydrated meals if they have run out of say, lasagna, on day six and have way too much creamed spinach left.

The question that makes this anthropologically interesting is: why create a barter system; why not share everything equally? Is it simply due to acculturation (these seem to be American astronauts, so they've grown up in a capitalist market economy), or does this provide some deeper insight in to the human mind?

Tyler and his readers ask some good questions as well, although I can only hope that Peter was kidding about the creamed spinach.

Anthropology in Everything, Pathogen Edition

Tyler Cowen, of Marginal Revolution (such a clever name! the blog's, not his) has an occasional series entitled Markets in Everything. It's a feature I love because it's so true, and it really makes me stop to think about incentives, disincentives, and rationality of behaviors, and all that other stuff from microeconomics that still makes me cringe.

The same can be said for anthropology. Anthropology is the study of human beings, and more specifically, our cultures. So not surprisingly, anthropology has insights into everything, or at least everything we care about. However, just like economics, most people don't bother to think about it. So I'm starting my own series: Anthropology in Everything (no, I will not bother being more original).

Starting off this glorious initiative: The germs made us do it! (form societies, that is).

A new study in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B finds that:

Pathogenic diseases impose selection pressures on the social behaviour of host populations. In humans (Homo sapiens), many psychological phenomena appear to serve an antipathogen defence function. One broad implication is the existence of cross-cultural differences in human cognition and behaviour contingent upon the relative presence of pathogens in the local ecology. We focus specifically on one fundamental cultural variable: differences in individualistic versus collectivist values. We suggest that specific behavioural manifestations of collectivism (e.g. ethnocentrism, conformity) can inhibit the transmission of pathogens; and so we hypothesize that collectivism (compared with individualism) will more often characterize cultures in regions that have historically had higher prevalence of pathogens. Drawing on epidemiological data and the findings of worldwide cross national surveys of individualism/collectivism, our results support this hypothesis: the regional prevalence of pathogens has a strong positive correlation with cultural indicators of collectivism and a strong negative correlation with individualism. The correlations remain significant even when controlling for potential confounding variables. These results help to explain the origin of a paradigmatic cross-cultural difference, and reveal previously undocumented consequences of pathogenic diseases on the variable nature of human societies.

Basically, the more prevalent pathogens are, the more likely a society is to practice collectivism, in order to 'provide defence against the dangers posed by pathogens.'

Ronald Bailey at Reason has more of the story.