Review
Lecture 1
Important people
Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406):
- Adopted Aristotelian argument that humans are inherently social.
Humans differ from animals because they need tools and weapons
to survive
- Tools and weapons depend on reason, accumulated knowledge, and
cooperation among humans
- Attributes differences among groups not to birth but to geographical
and material circumstances
- Like Durkheim he thought that small groups have better social
solidarity
- For instance, Bedouin are mobile and so do not have many
posessions but have a strong sense of social solidarity (asabiyyah)
- In agriculture societies, there is specialization and division of labor
and not such a strong sense of solidarity -> the society gets more
complex
He might be considered the very first social scientist who spoke about
social development
Encountering differences:
- Encounters with new sorts of peoples led to their subjugation, as
well as the need for their categorization
- Initially, Thomas Aquinas and Catholic theology viewed Native
peoples as imperfect humans and, therefore, natural slaves (in an
Aristotelian sense) to Europeans
-
Other responses:
- Spanish theologian Bartolome de Las Casas (1474 – 1566) redefined
natural slaves as natural children, allowing benevolence to “save”
them and make them civilized Christians
o They are by nature the most humble, patient, and peaceable,
holding no grudges, free from embroilments, neither excitable
nor quarrelsome. These people are the most devoid of rancors,
hatreds, or desire for vengeance of any people in the world.
Some people said “They are people too, who can be molded in to
Christians”, they don’t
see them as less developed, they just need to be educated
This is the missionary thought
Francis Bacon (1561-1626): leading figure in the development of the
scientific method
- ‘Go for nothing that by distant voyages and travels which have
become frequent in our times many things in nature have been laid
open and discovered which may let in new light upon philosophy’
,Thomas Hobbes (1578-1679), saw the “state of nature” as a war of “all
against all” in which life is “nasty, brutish, and short” -> these thoughts
fall into the ignoble savages category -> people were seen as without
society
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778):
- Wanted to classify nature according to the “Great Chain of Being”
- Four human races: Americanus, Europeans, Asiaticus, Afer
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach(1752-1840):
- Physician naturalists who built on LInneaus’s taxonomies and used
comparative anatomy to classify races
- Claimed that there were five races and popularized the name
Caucasian
- Monogenicist, believed four of the races degenerated from
Caucasion
For Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), indigenous peoples contained the
innate goodness of people who had not been spoiled by civilization
The climate explanation: geography and ‘national culture’:
- Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803) often called the ‘father of
nationalism’
- Formulated the idea of ‘national culture’, or what came to be known
as ‘national character’
- For Herder and others after him, climate and geography determine
the historical uniqueness of culture
Important information
A paradigm is a set of beliefs within a field that establishes standards of
scientific investigation. It does this in three ways:
1. It defines the problems considered relevant for research – what is
considered worthy of explanation
2. Is sets forth a tentative explanation of those problems
3. It establishes rules and standards for scientific procedure
A paradigm determines at any time within a field what are relevant
data, what is
considered an acceptable method of investigation, and how
observations are interpreted
A theory of Moberg
,Anthropology is a product of western European thought -> be aware of
this
They study the non-western
Ancient Greeks -> were the first one with a word for others (barbarus),
who weren’t as sophisticated, good and development as them
Another Greek (Herodotus) tries to understand to particular kind of
differences in a
nonjudgmental way
The noble savage paradigm was especially significant. Many of the
peoples encountered by European explorers were described as being in a
“state of nature”. Positively, this was described as:
- Earthly paradise
- Simple, innocent life
- Lack of developed social organization and civil society
- Frank and open sexuality: nakedness, beauty of the women
Other idea the ignoble savage:
- Negatively, this same simplicity and closeness to nature was seen as
inhuman, too close to animals
- Cannibalism was a common theme
- The lack of governments and states was seen to be a lack of society
and uncivilized
Great Chain of Being: in some version, humanity is between angels and
the animals on a stairway ascending to God
18th century explanations: Monogenism vs polygenism:
- Monogenism: All races descend from Adam and Eve
This meant that all races had common ancestors
Saw “savages” as human
- Polygism: races have separate origins (the racist explanation?)
Contradicts the Bible
Became prominent in the 19th century, when European was
spreading
Proposed absolute difference between Westerners and others
Working group notes
- Article: Hall - the west and the rest
Some people said “They are people too, who can be molded in to
Christians”, they don’t see them as less developed, they just need to be
educated
This is the missionary thought
, These two explanations were competing and created a problem for
theology -> if these people are Christians why did the bible not write
about them
There was a thought -> all good things come from Europe (the West)
Emergence of “the West” -> see article
Discourse
A discourse is something that you use
A discursive formation are all the words and statements you use to
describe the West
Within a discourse you can have different positions, or even opposite
positions, but it needs to have some types of coherence it can’t be and
democratic and dictature
The statements within a discursive formations can be contradicting to
each other
A discourse can be different per person, but the language is common, the
most important things are the same, we choose to use different words but
it is the same language
A discourse and discursive formation are almost the same
You can debate within a discourse
It doesn’t matter which position you have to the discourse but as long as
you speak of the west and the rest you agree with it
Ideology depends on things being true or false, a discourse is not true or
false
A discourse becomes true when it effects the reality, terrorists of freedom
fighters is not true or false but the name you use has effects on the world.
If you describe people as terrorists you create a discourse. It doesn’t
matter if a discourse is true or a false it makes us see a group of people in
a way -> the discourse of terrorists makes us see the people as terrorists
only. A discourse doesn’t only affect peoples worldview it also affects
peoples actions
An ideology is true or false, but with a discourse the question about true or
false doesn’t matter a discourse has a amount of power
Questions
Why could monogenism be considered the ‘kinder racism’?
Lecture 1
Important people
Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406):
- Adopted Aristotelian argument that humans are inherently social.
Humans differ from animals because they need tools and weapons
to survive
- Tools and weapons depend on reason, accumulated knowledge, and
cooperation among humans
- Attributes differences among groups not to birth but to geographical
and material circumstances
- Like Durkheim he thought that small groups have better social
solidarity
- For instance, Bedouin are mobile and so do not have many
posessions but have a strong sense of social solidarity (asabiyyah)
- In agriculture societies, there is specialization and division of labor
and not such a strong sense of solidarity -> the society gets more
complex
He might be considered the very first social scientist who spoke about
social development
Encountering differences:
- Encounters with new sorts of peoples led to their subjugation, as
well as the need for their categorization
- Initially, Thomas Aquinas and Catholic theology viewed Native
peoples as imperfect humans and, therefore, natural slaves (in an
Aristotelian sense) to Europeans
-
Other responses:
- Spanish theologian Bartolome de Las Casas (1474 – 1566) redefined
natural slaves as natural children, allowing benevolence to “save”
them and make them civilized Christians
o They are by nature the most humble, patient, and peaceable,
holding no grudges, free from embroilments, neither excitable
nor quarrelsome. These people are the most devoid of rancors,
hatreds, or desire for vengeance of any people in the world.
Some people said “They are people too, who can be molded in to
Christians”, they don’t
see them as less developed, they just need to be educated
This is the missionary thought
Francis Bacon (1561-1626): leading figure in the development of the
scientific method
- ‘Go for nothing that by distant voyages and travels which have
become frequent in our times many things in nature have been laid
open and discovered which may let in new light upon philosophy’
,Thomas Hobbes (1578-1679), saw the “state of nature” as a war of “all
against all” in which life is “nasty, brutish, and short” -> these thoughts
fall into the ignoble savages category -> people were seen as without
society
Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778):
- Wanted to classify nature according to the “Great Chain of Being”
- Four human races: Americanus, Europeans, Asiaticus, Afer
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach(1752-1840):
- Physician naturalists who built on LInneaus’s taxonomies and used
comparative anatomy to classify races
- Claimed that there were five races and popularized the name
Caucasian
- Monogenicist, believed four of the races degenerated from
Caucasion
For Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), indigenous peoples contained the
innate goodness of people who had not been spoiled by civilization
The climate explanation: geography and ‘national culture’:
- Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803) often called the ‘father of
nationalism’
- Formulated the idea of ‘national culture’, or what came to be known
as ‘national character’
- For Herder and others after him, climate and geography determine
the historical uniqueness of culture
Important information
A paradigm is a set of beliefs within a field that establishes standards of
scientific investigation. It does this in three ways:
1. It defines the problems considered relevant for research – what is
considered worthy of explanation
2. Is sets forth a tentative explanation of those problems
3. It establishes rules and standards for scientific procedure
A paradigm determines at any time within a field what are relevant
data, what is
considered an acceptable method of investigation, and how
observations are interpreted
A theory of Moberg
,Anthropology is a product of western European thought -> be aware of
this
They study the non-western
Ancient Greeks -> were the first one with a word for others (barbarus),
who weren’t as sophisticated, good and development as them
Another Greek (Herodotus) tries to understand to particular kind of
differences in a
nonjudgmental way
The noble savage paradigm was especially significant. Many of the
peoples encountered by European explorers were described as being in a
“state of nature”. Positively, this was described as:
- Earthly paradise
- Simple, innocent life
- Lack of developed social organization and civil society
- Frank and open sexuality: nakedness, beauty of the women
Other idea the ignoble savage:
- Negatively, this same simplicity and closeness to nature was seen as
inhuman, too close to animals
- Cannibalism was a common theme
- The lack of governments and states was seen to be a lack of society
and uncivilized
Great Chain of Being: in some version, humanity is between angels and
the animals on a stairway ascending to God
18th century explanations: Monogenism vs polygenism:
- Monogenism: All races descend from Adam and Eve
This meant that all races had common ancestors
Saw “savages” as human
- Polygism: races have separate origins (the racist explanation?)
Contradicts the Bible
Became prominent in the 19th century, when European was
spreading
Proposed absolute difference between Westerners and others
Working group notes
- Article: Hall - the west and the rest
Some people said “They are people too, who can be molded in to
Christians”, they don’t see them as less developed, they just need to be
educated
This is the missionary thought
, These two explanations were competing and created a problem for
theology -> if these people are Christians why did the bible not write
about them
There was a thought -> all good things come from Europe (the West)
Emergence of “the West” -> see article
Discourse
A discourse is something that you use
A discursive formation are all the words and statements you use to
describe the West
Within a discourse you can have different positions, or even opposite
positions, but it needs to have some types of coherence it can’t be and
democratic and dictature
The statements within a discursive formations can be contradicting to
each other
A discourse can be different per person, but the language is common, the
most important things are the same, we choose to use different words but
it is the same language
A discourse and discursive formation are almost the same
You can debate within a discourse
It doesn’t matter which position you have to the discourse but as long as
you speak of the west and the rest you agree with it
Ideology depends on things being true or false, a discourse is not true or
false
A discourse becomes true when it effects the reality, terrorists of freedom
fighters is not true or false but the name you use has effects on the world.
If you describe people as terrorists you create a discourse. It doesn’t
matter if a discourse is true or a false it makes us see a group of people in
a way -> the discourse of terrorists makes us see the people as terrorists
only. A discourse doesn’t only affect peoples worldview it also affects
peoples actions
An ideology is true or false, but with a discourse the question about true or
false doesn’t matter a discourse has a amount of power
Questions
Why could monogenism be considered the ‘kinder racism’?
