Anthropology of Everyday Life: Two Journals Reflections - Essay Example

Anthropology of Everyday Life: Two Journals Reflections Name: Instructor: Course: Institution: Date: Summary The paper by Dennis (2006) explores the activities conducted by human beings in the name of pleasure. He states that most of these activities are done through penetration and while they bring pleasure to the actors, they have their own set of dangers. His idea is to show that the act of smoking was initiated by a small group of people and it spread to other people. It is an act that has its own consequences. The paper by Helliwell (1996) talks of the development of social relations among people in a society. In his work, he states that the society is the structure that molds people’s social lives. This structure depends on the existence of clans, households, societies and lineages. However, Helliwell (1996) states that the households are independent and cannot depend on the society’s structure entirely. His idea is to show that people could have their own set of behaviors even without the influence of their society. Introduction Our everyday life is controlled by what we perceive about life and how we go about our activities. At times, we are forced into activities that have been dictated to us by our society. This creates individuals with different social relations. In a way, it implies that the society in which we live in determines the types of individuals that we become. In addition, we indulge in activities that we consider right and use such activities for our own leisure. Such activities include smoking. While we find the pleasure from the activity, we are not mindful of the dangers that come with the activities we indulge in. in most cases, it is the society in which we live in that determines some of the activities we indulge in. In other cases, the society provides the precautions that should be taken while indulging in the activities; yet individuals still ignore them; like the warnings about cigarette smoking. This paper shall present a reflection of two journal articles by Dennis (2006) and Helliwell (1996). Reflections The articles to be reflected upon talk about the anthropology of everyday life. Dennis (2006) explores the habit of smoking with respect to the pleasures and dangers presented. He has identified that this activity is a common day practice. Helliwell (1996) presents the reasons for certain perceptions about social relations. He explores the perceptions on the existence of social structures and what the structures could do to an individual and their way of living. Through the two journal papers, the way everyday life is perceived by individuals and by the society is explored. In addition, the effect that people’s way of living has on their lives is explored in details. Having read the article by Dennis (2006), the idea that cigarette smoking has effects on the smoker’s life is confirmed. From the beginning of the article, it is clear that the effects of this activity are not visible. The effects are as hidden in the body as the smoke is hidden during inhalation. The article makes me feel that smoking pushes its effects deep inside the body. In a way, it undercuts the body system by getting inside the blood stream and working its way towards slowly poisoning the body. As the article continues unfolding, I get the information that people get pleasure from the exhaled smoke. This smoke is not visible for some extent of the respiratory system. It gets clearly visible at the end of the exhalation process. How, then, is an activity that is deemed dangerous very appealing to people in the society? This question creates the desire to understand more on what the benefits of cigarette smoking are. Another question that can be raised is how people discovered the act. These questions are answered in the article. For instance, it is stated that initially, the body was a separate entity from the world. It implies that the body was an autonomous entity from the world. However, the body was still under the gravitational laws of the world. It is at this point that the answer to one of the question is answered; the question on what benefit smoking has. It is stated that smoking makes individuals get beyond the gravitational limits that have been imposed by the world. But even as one feels out of the world, the reality is that he remains on the surface of the world and remains a part of the world. The answer to how people discovered the act of smoking can be obtained from the article. This is because Dennis (2006) states that the body of human beings extended out into the world from its own entity. By escaping from its entity, it escaped beyond the limits that had been corporeally imposed. This move is the reason people have come up with activities that are working against their own bodies. The unfortunate thing is that the backlashes of these activities happen without their knowledge. It is after they have been deeply affected that they realize they were indulging in dangerous activities. The society has attempted to react to the increased cases of indulgence through advertisements. One critical thing that I have noted from the article is that the adverts are not taken well by the people who indulge in smoking. This is because the adverts show clearly how people smoke, how the smoke gets into their system internally and how it gets into their lungs and cause the negative effects. I have been made to understand that people who indulge in cigarette smoking do not watch the adverts since they believe it has been presented on a negative note. The adverts, therefore, do not serve their purposes to some people. Another important aspect that has surfaced from this article is the analogy of smoke and breath. It has been stated that as smoke and breath have ben loathed to be located, they experience movements and during this movement, they occasion various corporeal intertwinements that the world has. This means that there are various other intertwinements that exist in the world. From the reading by Dennis (2006), it is clear that individuals moved into the world and left their independent state. It is through this intertwinement that they have been influenced by many things that are out in the world, some of which are dangerous to them. Even as they get influenced by the world, it is no doubt that the social life experienced by these individuals is influenced by the social groups that the individuals find themselves into. The reading from Helliwell (1996) has expanded the perception of people’s social life. Every reason has been provided to prove that the way people behave is influenced by the society they live in. first, the human individual was considered as an autonomous creature with his own subject of experiences and meanings. However, with time, they have been influenced by their social structures. The paper has taught me that the society acts to structure the actions of individuals and make them suited to the environment in which they live in. Groups have been stressed to be lying at the center of the social relations that exist among people. Based on the Western anthropologist perception, I can perceive social entities with higher facticity. This perception holds that it is the structure rather than the process that matters most in the development of individual’s character through social groups. However, my perception on the effect of social groups as the key to development of certain characters has been altered by Helliwell’s idea that the effect of information that is based on viewing should not be neglected. This means that people could get their characters through vision of what is before them. It is this notion that has been the reason for Helliwell’s opposition to the idea that there could be the existence of discrete groups. Such groups, according to Helliwell (1996), are not the central reason for the social life that is experienced by certain individuals. With this new perception in mind, I can conclude that there is a great disparity between the indigenous reality and the anthropological analysis. This implies that the analysis done by anthropologists is not the reality of the matter. It is based on theoretical perceptions with many assumptions on what the real picture of the matter is. One of the assumptions that they make is that whenever there is a quest for order, there is the loss of anything that resembles disorder. It means that pursuing order is done in one fixed way that does not incorporate the existence of disorder. Helliwell feels that for order to exist, disorder should be considered so as to observe what effects it has and to find out how to rectify it by creating order. Therefore, analysis of the reality presents a surprising finding where the anthropological perception could be rendered fictive. The exploration of the Dayak society has broadened my understanding of how the social group could not be the reason for people’s social life. The analysis has shown that this society lives in a kinship kind of setup. Therefore, the household is taken to constitute the social structure. As noted, the household has always been stated as the bearer of the social structure. Whenever the kin groups were absent, the primary social grouping was constituted relative to a dwelling and was taken to be highly discrete when perceived from the social relations point of view. Interestingly though, the long houses in the ethnography of this community had household apartments that were independent. This means that without considering the appearance, the households are entities that are structurally discrete. The households are therefore independent in a way. This means that using the notion of a household setup to insinuate the relation that exists between a social group and the social life of an individual is not a realistic approach because the groups are in fact independent when viewed in depth. It implies that the people could be together in the household but have different social lives. The reading also brought another perspective to social life; that external factors indeed affect the way people live. From the exploration of the Dayak society, it has been stated that neighbors in a society regulate and monitor the relations that occur in their hood. Therefore, the anthropological approach to social life has some truth to its theory. Conclusion The way people live is determined by their environment. Even so, it is the people who for the environment that later controls how they live. Analysis of the social life of individuals by Helliwell (1996) has shown that this notion should not be taken to be 100% correct since there are instances where individuals are independent and they determine their own social life. It must be noted that when people get influenced by activities based on their approach to the world, they could face hidden consequences, as noted by Dennis (2006). List of References Dennis, S. 2006, Four Milligrams of Phenomenology: An Anthro-phenomenological Exploration of Smoking Cigarettes, Popular Culture Review 17 (1): 41-57. Helliwell, C. 1996, Space and Socially in a Dayak Longhouse, In M. Jackson (ed.) Things as They Are: New Directions in Phenomenological Anthropology Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, pp. 128-147. Read More