The Story of a German Girl - Assignment Example

number Question Agency versus Structure Liesel Meminger, a 12-year old German girl, was given to a family in one of the least-known areas in Germany during the second World War. She grew up poor and she was given to one of the poorest families in the area. During the peak of the war, food was scarce and her foster family had too little that they resulted to having pea soup every meal. This pushed the child to become a thief but instead of just stealing food, she also stole books, ergo the title The Book Thief. This book was written by the Australian author, Markus Zusak. This, however, is not going to tackle on the book or the author but on the mere idea that the main character, Liesel, resulted to stealing. Hitherto, one needs to clarify this result: was she pushed to stealing because of her social structure or was it her choice? In anthropology, this question can be shaped and reformed into one of the most famous debates in this field: what drives human action? Is it the social structure in which the human exists, or the agent, wherein the human action is due to decisions and free will? Not so long ago have I had the fortune to enter such a debate with some friends. The main subject of the debate was: was one of our friends actions due to her environment or was it her decision? I, honestly, believed that it was because of her environment and apparently her ability to deal with it was all because of how her environment shaped her. Therefore, going back to Liesel, I would say that her stealing was caused by her choking environment. In other words, its the social structure that shapes the human actions. Likewise, theorists such as Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Marvin Harris would also agree in such notion. Social structure, in the simplest definitions, would be the arrangement of human relations in a society. At the same time, social structure would also be the environment in which humans exist. In this environment, it could either be the society or of the biological, physical or chemical origin (Harris). Now, going back, Marx, being one of the key theorists in anthropology, looked at human actions based on the interest of the individual itself. He gave the idea that an individual formulating ideologies force these ideas to the society in order to reshape the society where this individual grew up in. Incidentally, these ideologies formed by the individual came from the ideas presented by the society. In other words, Marx was trying to point out that humans would not be altering their society if, in the first place, they were not introduced to such structures. For example, would an individual know that he or she did not like the color red if he or she was never introduced to the color in the first place? Durkheim supports Marxs claim but he made. He elicits that the social structure is due to the human needs and is divorced and even devoid of any human ideals. In other words, Durkheim points out that any human perception is merely a consequence of the exact ideals of the society. Rules were made not because someone thought of them but simply because the society sees it needed by its individuals. Harriss theory, commonly known as the cultural materialism, says that (1) all parts of the society is interraleted wherein when one changes everything also changes and (2) the environment limits any human action. Harriss thought is that in a given society, every part of it has a big effect on the bigger part. In Harriss perspective, the entire society is a working machine. If one part of that machine is not functioning properly or if that part is rusty, the entire machines advantage would lower and the machine would eventually be filled with rust. At the same time, this machine is limited by its resources. So, if there is only diesel available then this machine has to run in diesel. If the society is mainly filled with coconut then the society runs by the coconut. The lack of this resource would make the society suffer. On the other hand, it was Liesel who thought of doing the action. It was her, alone, who said that she would result into stealing, using her poverty as a mask to shield her. In other words, her actions are not run by her environment but by her own decisions and her own will to do them so. Anthropologists such as Max Gluckman and E.E. Evans-Pritchard defend that the agency or the human thought is the reason for human action. At the same time, liberalists also agree that the state, or the environment itself, has no right what-so-ever in dictating the actions of the individual. The agency in all sense would be related to the individual—the will, the intention or simply the choice of a single human being. For Gluckman, the idea in a society or that is given by the society originates from the individuals belonging to that society itself. For example, the individual would not know that the color of an apple is red unless another individual did not say that it is red. Therefore, the ideas in that institution or structure are due to the thinking and ideals of the individuals. At the same time, Evans-Pritchard added that the actions of an individual shapes the society, in other words, it is the thinking and the ideals of that individual that dictates his or her actions and no one else. In the simplest terms, these theorists simply say that “humans live only for themselves.” The thoughts and the actions of an individual is not dictated upon anything else except for the decsions of that individual. Now, going back, Liesel Memingers actions and my friends actions, could either be because of their environmental constraints and pressures or simply because they decided to do what they felt like doing or they simply decided to follow what they think was right as dictated by themselves and by no one else. Human actions are brought about by different factors and this struturalist thought of simply separating them into 2 is just one of the many debates in anthropology. Most theorists, actually, do not settle for only one side. They explore both sides and try going against them seeing that each side—structure and agency—both have their strong points. Question 2: Epigenetics of Culture Epigenetics, in biology, is known as the external derivation of attributes by any living organism (Alberts). In simpler terms, genes are not only dictated by what you get from your parents but also what you can activate from your environment. In other words, the environment and your habits, or simply the society and the culture of the society, can be written in your genes. Therefore, it is possible to trace the history of culture in ones genetic tree. Culture is basically defined as something that each person learns from each other (Rogers 819-839). In this partcular essay, culture is defined as the nature of the society. Based on White (335-356), culture is due to the different energies tranferring within the society. The energies in a society shapes the kind of culture the society would have. If the energy is basically hyped, the culture is therefore hot since there is an increased collision of molecules. This hot culture means that there is an active participation of each member of the society or even each part of the society. At the same time, if there is less collision, therefore the culture is relatively cold. In other words, the culture is not entirely embraced by the society and this means that there is a transfer from one culture to another. The question therefore is that if the culture changes will previous cultures still show? As what Harris pointed in his theory—cultural materialism—the environment is where the energy in a society is driven from. Along with the environment would be the materials and products produced and sold to and within the society. If the environment is introduced to cigarettes, the society, as what structuralists point out, would then be a smoking society. Now, scientific studies have shown that if the parents of a progeny smoke there is a chance that the progeny itself would be smoking as well and this could be passed on to the next filial generation. This is because the gene for smoking has been embedded on the genetic make up of the individual, making it permanent (Marczylo et al). In other words, even if the culture changes, the culture of the previous societies would still have an impact on the society at hand. These impacts, not just on the physicalities such as fashion, food and whatever trends there are, are found on the genes of the next generation. So, if smoking was a “hot culture” during the 1930s it may have cooled down in the past years but it is still part of the culture of the society since it is still found on the genes of some members of the current and probably in-coming individuals of the society now. Aside from smoking, some researches also found that even the use of illegal drugs were also found in the genes. In most cases, it is believed that parents who abused the use of drugs bore children with a high probability of also abusing drugs. The idea there is originally because what the child sees is what the child does, as a result of the structural anthropology theory. The child is pressured to do what he or she thinkns is right because the structure dictates that it is correct until eventually, as what Marx said, the child would realize that what he or she does is wrong and therefore formulates his or her own ideas and then tries to force it in the society. Even though it is correct that some children do not result in drug abuse seeing that it is wrong, others still end up abusing drugs not because of choice or social pressure but because the drug-abuse gene is already found in their genetic make up (National Institue on Drug Abuse). Like most genes, however, epigenetic genes may also not show up as our attributes or characterstics. However, we are carriers of such epigenetic genes therefore we are still capable of passing it on. In other words, if these environmentally derived genes do not show up in this generation it is likely that it would show up on the next. Culture is then, not only as what the society dictates it to be. Even though it usually starts with that, the societys culture is also dictated by the biological being of their individuals. If we were to take that the society changes when a part of it changes therefore it is also fair that we take that a society will not change unless any part of it does not change. In this case, even if all parts of the society did change there are still parts of the society or the culture itself that does not change. The answer to the question that this essay was answering would then be, yes, the previous culture will still show and still influences the present culture. This influence, however, is not only on the physica attricbutes of that culture but also the exat characteristics of the individuals in that society. At the same time, if in this moment that expected change in the culture did not show up that does not mean that it is lost forever. In the next change of culture they may come back and increase the collisions of molecules in the energy around the society. Therefore, we should be aware of the types of habits we would want to pass down or the type of environment we would want the next generations to see. We are not sure when these hyped up cultural failures that we have experienced would show up again and simply repeat the cycle. Works Cited Alberts, B.Molecular biology of the cell: Reference edition. New York: Garland Science,2008. Print. National Institute on Drug Abuse. "Does Addiction Run in Families?" N.p., Web. . Harris, M.Cultural materialism: The struggle for a science of culture. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press,2001. Print. Marczylo, E L., A.A. Amoako, J.C. Konje, T.W. Gant, and T.H. Marczylo. "Landes Bioscience Journals: Epigenetics." N.p., May 2012. Web. . Rogers, AR. "Does biology constrain culture?"American Anthropologist 90.4(1988): 819- 831. Web. White, LA. "Energy ad the evolution of culture."American Anthropologist 45.3(1943): 335- 356. Web. Read More