 Today we'll be talking about anthropology and culture, but we will be using these as an introduction to theoretical frameworks that we will be using for our Philippine arts subject, Phil Arts 1. So let's start off with discussing what exactly is art. Art comes in many various forms. Some people view art as paintings, some people view art as dances or performances, some people view art as films or books and literature. The definitions are broad and depending on who's saying what, of course their definitions may also vary. But of course, before I guess we learn to agree and disagree on what exactly our various definitions of art are, I would like to talk a little bit about the hedonic and eudaimonic effects of art. Basically, the differences between a hedonic way of looking at art or a eudaimonic way of looking at, well, the effects of art is that one views art as a form of escapism that distracts from the more important things. And the other one views art as something that educates something that elevates and improves mankind. This actually started from early philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. This was a case of teacher teaching the student and then student perhaps surpassing the teacher. I guess that depends exactly on which viewpoint you would agree more with. But Plato used to talk about art as simply being for art's sake, whereas Aristotle kind of agreed or believed that art was something that was more elevative. So in order to fully understand art, I think we need to look at all of its various aspects and dissect it using these facets and various lenses. And that's why we're going to begin with the lens that is anthropology and culture. Anthropology and culture, according to Luc Lasseter, is rather difficult to consider on its own. So basically you cannot think of one without the other, primarily because anthropology, especially modern anthropology, is concerned mostly with understanding biology and human culture within itself. So there goes the debate of anthropologist versus culturalists. So over the years we have had many various theorists who have come to agree and disagree on the nature of anthropology and of culture. So the former, which are anthropologists, define culture as a particular way of life, whether it's of a people, a period, a group, or of humanity in general. Whereas the latter asserts that culture is the abstract noun which describes the words and practices of intellectual and especially artistic activity. Of course, if we look at our earlier 18th century artists, our theorists, such as Vico and Herder, Vico being Italian and Herder, or Yuan Herder being German, they believed that, well, they kind of agreed more with the culturist view, whereas the anthropological view was taken up by later theorists such as Paul de Majo in the early 2000s. Now the distinction between culturalists and anthropologists does actually begin to dissolve if we acknowledge that the valuations of art and culture cannot actually detach themselves from the social context and relations in which they take place. The nature of anthropology and culture is the fact that one affects the other and the other one also does the same. Of course, modern anthropology flourished in the 20th century and people believe that there were four exact sub-disciplines to this. First is the biological, or also called physical anthropology. Second is archaeology. Third would be linguistic anthropology. And fourth is cultural anthropology. Now let's dissect these one by one, just to get maybe a more basic understanding. So biological or physical anthropology focuses on human biology. So this is the evolution of man, whether it also includes the evolution of diseases. So it's a lot to do with the physical and biological aspects of the changes that man has gone through throughout the years. Archaeology, similar to the first one, also thinks about these changes, but rather than centering on humans themselves, it rather centers on human technology or the artifact. So although both include digging up graves or maybe digging up archaeological digs and coming up with evidences, one is more to do with the human and therefore maybe it would be a dig with bones, whereas the other one would be digging up archaeological artifacts that they could then use. Of course, these artifacts aren't catalogued and used specifically for the idea that it would talk about the artifact itself, but rather what this artifact does, what its purpose would have been, or how in a way it would have affected human society and then led society to act or think in a certain way. The next one is linguistic anthropology. So this concentrates on language and how language through its evolution in the years has actually helped shape man. Some of the earliest forms of history were only noted through language. Written culture came much, much later. Verbal language was one of the first ones and one of the many ways many societies would talk to each other. Actually in this day and age there are still many cultures in the world that do not actually have any written form of language, but rather simply communicate and talk via language and therefore the whole idea of studying this is what we would consider linguistic anthropology. And of course, lastly, is cultural anthropology. As I said, today's lesson will probably focus on this the most. However, cultural anthropology talks about people, its relationships. People's relationships with each other and how these relationships inter-effect each other and how these in turn shape the way men think, the way men speak, the way men interact with each other and the way we can actually as theorists, as academics, as students can learn more about the human condition through cultural beliefs. Before we go there though, I also sort of want to touch on the concepts that organize these subfields on a larger whole. So next we have the idea of holism versus comparativism. So holism is a perspective that emphasizes the whole rather than just the parts. So it's looking at the macro level of everything and how everything interacts. Comparativism is simply the search for similarities and differences between and among human beings in all of their biological and cultural complexities. So it's sort of pitting one against the other to find out what are the things that maybe bind them together or what are the borders that essentially set them apart. So there are many ideas to sort of understanding holism and comparativism and I'm going to go through some of them. The first one is when we talk about culture as being learned. So rather it is inscribed in someone's biology. Culture, when taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. This is a text that was mentioned by Edward Burnett Taylor. He mentions that culture is a shared and negotiated system of meaning. So essentially culture is better understood as a process. People like you and me constantly negotiate meaning with ourselves and with others. I'm going to sort of go through examples that may help you understand this a bit better. So let me start with the example of family culture. In order to look at this, then we need to look at a family culture. After all, family is the very first and most basic sect of society in which we learn. If you want to see what type of music an individual likes, look to see what their parents like. Chances are if your mother likes a certain type of music, you will probably have acquired the same sort of taste for music. Of course, understandably as you grow older, as you evolve, you may pick and choose different types of music of your own, but right at the very beginning it was that initial influence which would have probably opened your eyes to the idea of music. The same goes for maybe habits in eating. Now take for example the average Philippine meal setup. If people were to have a meal in the Philippines, I know everyone would be familiar with the idea of the Lazy Susan. It's that round circular center table that exists within the table where food is placed and you can easily twirl it around so people can access the different foods. If the Lazy Susan does not exist, Filipinos are still quite used to having food placed on the table, whether it's rice, the different types of food that go along with rice, salads, dessert, everything is placed there and it's a free for all. Now I want to sort of map how British culture or Western culture has something that's completely different, vis-a-vis Philippine culture. Now in the West, the way they serve and plate food is very, very different. Here, as I said, we're used to food being put on the table and being made available for all. In Western societies like Britain, what they do is they keep their plates in the oven to keep warm and then they would plate up the food separately, dissected in a way and they would serve it. Now very different. Now there are a lot of differences in why this exists and a lot of it is culture. In Britain, a long time ago, the difference between eating warm or cold food could mean the difference between life and death. People needed to keep warm and therefore it was essential that food would be eaten warm because it would maintain body temperature. Now here in the Philippines, where it is absolutely warm all year round, there is absolutely no need for something like this. And of course, there is probably also the idea of how the different cultures and attitudes also work. Filipinos are very family-centered. Everyone likes to be connected with everyone else, whereas in the UK, individuals are exactly that, individualistic. That's why they don't like their food touching, they like it separated. Here in the Philippines, we pile all our food on a plate and it doesn't matter. Imagine a fiesta. Every single amount, every single bit of food that you see is available there and yet it doesn't matter. You would pile a salad next to spaghetti, next to adobo, next to a piece of cake and lechiflan for dessert. They'd all be touching each other. To a Westerner, it wouldn't make much sense, but to a Filipino, it doesn't take away from the value of food. Another is the idea of culture as you grow up. So we talked about family being the basic unit. Next would be the unit which is your school, your education, whether it's university culture, whether it's any academic culture that you have. Of course, ideas is that as the broad scope of your experiences grow wider, so do what you actually relate to. So as a child, you relate to your family. As a student, you then relate to the immediate culture around you. Of course, there are friends and the people you surround yourself with, but there's also the idea of a university culture. It's not just the place where you go to learn things that are entirely academic. A lot of our beliefs, a lot of the ways in which we think, the ways in which we act are also dictated by our university culture. There is the idea that in a certain university, there is a stigma of how students may act a certain way. And in another university, it may be the complete opposite. But regardless of how you view these, a UP student per se would always be proud of calling himself an Isco or Isca. An Ateneo student would be proud of calling himself an Atenista. However, at the end of the day, there are differences that are recognizable to the students themselves and what they recognize with, as well as outside people looking in and judging the cultures that exist within these universities. But these are all part and parcel of the same idea. The next idea is national culture. So national culture is the idea where one identifies with a whole as a collective. So if you take, for example, a Filipino, if you identify as being Filipino, if you are proud or identify yourself as being Filipino, then you would consider things like whether you are adaptable, someone who is able to confront adversities in life and adapt to it, or someone who considers themselves very happy in situations that are dire and difficult, something that a Westerner may not easily do. Or whether it's as simple as recognizing that you are someone who is willing to take their shoes off before you step through the door of someone's home as a guest, or the fact that you would enjoy a dobo, over any four course, five course, six course meal that is offered by a great chef. So these are different things. And of course, they are also identified differently. What you may consider yourself as part of a culture may be viewed by someone externally as very different. Regardless so, it is still a way in which culture is identified. But sometimes we have to remember that our understanding of these negotiated systems can also be the product of what we think we know rather than what we actually know. If I were to ask someone how they would describe someone who is a DND player, some people might answer what even is a DND player. Some people who are familiar with the term may say that I would imagine a DND player to be someone who is quite nerdy, someone who probably hasn't changed their clothes for a week, and someone who is probably not like me or not like the average person. However, they would judge this if they do not themselves know a DND player based on images that they see on the internet, something that they read in a book, something that media projects. A lot of the time we aren't actually aware of these shared cultural meanings, but rather we take these shared cultural meanings based on hearsay or based on information that we actually learn. Now say for example, if I were to ask you to think of someone from a certain religion, if I were to ask you to think of someone who was a Muslim, what would be the first thing that would come to mind? Maybe you'd think of traditional costume, maybe you'd think of prayer five times a day, but sometimes you forget that Muslims can look exactly like us, dress exactly like us, and they would be no different from us. And yet, what is the first thing that your mind jumped to? It would have been a stereotype. So this is probably a very good example of a time when we judge things not based by what we actually know, but rather by what we think we know based on things that are not necessarily directly our own direct experiences. Therefore, I guess, we need to consider that knowledge is the process of learning and discovery, and knowledge is understanding that is gained through experience. It is grasping something in mind with some sort of certainty. So next I would like to talk about oral traditions. These are also a negotiated system that is learned. Here in the Philippines, oral traditions are rife within our society. You have a lot of ways in which stories are told. In the Philippines, especially here in Western Visayas, the fact of the matter is that a lot of our literature never used to actually be having pen put to paper or taken down in words. A lot of them were chanted by traditional chanters that existed within our region. And of course, there is also the difference of how we are taught. Now, if you imagine a Philippine classroom, what you would see would be a setting where in most cases there aren't enough books, maybe chairs, maybe a bit scuffed. It may be a setting where there's not enough. I mean, I'm not saying this of all Philippine classrooms, but a lot of Philippine classrooms, especially ones in far-flung areas, probably do not have as much in terms of facilities. If you juxtapose this, Visavi Western culture, what you have are classrooms where everyone gets an iPad to write things down, reactions are taken on iPads, everything is central heated, it needs to be or else you'd freeze to death. But I guess there's also other things such as the idea that there are different technologies that are available. And these differences, as you can see, can map out the differences between two different cultures. You need to also think of how or the idea that a culture is not just a shared system of meaning. Sometimes it is also a form of knowledge that is passed down. So if you look at the way students learn in Western countries, this would be very different from the way students learn in Eastern countries. It would also mark the difference between how education is processed or how knowledge is processed, because society, the situation, the universal truth that various societies have also dictate how this knowledge is passed down. One very good example that I can give is basically how directions are given. If I was driving along in a Western country, let's take, for example, Britain, I rolled down my window and I asked, could you give me directions to a place called Motrum? Now, if the individual knew what they were talking about, what they would likely say is something like this. Oh, you would basically follow this M62 straight on until you get to the next roundabout. Take the second left, follow the signs till you reach a McDonald's, take your second service exit to the right and you'll be well on your way to Motrum. Probably because every single road in that kind of society is labeled. Probably because every highway has a matching sign and a matching service exit. Now, if it was the same situation here in the Philippines, you could probably imagine that the way someone would ask directions would be, can you tell me the directions to this barangay in Barotak Nuevo? And what you would get is initially why, who are you looking for there, before they even answer where direction you're supposed to be going. Not because they're nosy, well maybe sometimes because they're nosy, but most of the time simply because as a society we like to connect and see how we are able to relate to this person before we are able to sort of help them out. It's establishing some kind of rapport. It's very important and it's part of Philippine culture. And then they would probably proceed to the idea of giving you instructions like carry on down this road and take your second right. When you do, you're going to see a red gate. Ignore that because there'll be six other red gates. When you get to the very last red gate, knock on the door, ask for Marie. She'll have a little daughter who's named Susan. Susan will take you where you want to go because you can't actually get there by car. You need to actually pass through rice fields and patty fields. So that's probably the way instructions would be given here. Of course that is dictated by the kind of society we live in. You cannot pit how you transfer one type of knowledge from one type of culture from the other because two of them are very, very different. The next one is the idea that culture is learned. Now culture is not something that we simply identify with simply because it is. So the notion that something is is not applicable. Culture is something that we learn from our parents. It is something that we learn from our schools, which kind of ties into some of my earlier examples. But it's also the idea that everything you believe in or everything that you think sets you apart as unique as part of your identity is not actually that unique in the same way that it is actually learned. What makes you unique is how you take this various facets of your culture and apply them to yourself. However, these individual facets themselves are learned. Take for example, table manners. In one society you may consider table manners as something where you would never eat with your mouth open. You would never chew with your mouth open. That's just wrong. It's barbaric. A lot of you would probably say, Ew, why would I do that? Because you were brought up to think that it is bad manners to do so. However, in a completely different society, what they may see is that you should eat with your mouth open. You should burp really loudly in appreciation after eating certain types of food because that is how you show proper appreciation for food that you have just received. And it's not even just about manners or how someone dictates their certain actions. It even goes down to something as basic as taste. Taste is actually also learned. I am sure someone who is Filipino who is used to a lot of food, having a lot of spices, a lot of flavor, would go to a Western country and after a few days get really, really bored because they would consider meals to be extremely bland. That is not simply because they are Filipino. It's because as Filipinos in this culture, they have over the years been taught and learned to actually appreciate taste in that way. Let me take Balot, for example. A lot of individuals or a lot of Filipinos are known for eating Balot. A lot of Westerners would consider this as really, really gross because why would you eat a chick that is about to hatch but because it's been cooked, it's okay. Now I find that the taste, acquiring a taste or a flavor for Balot is actually also learned. I am sure, I can give an example of what I did when I was younger, an instance that happened to me when I was younger and I'm sure many people can relate. Now when I was younger, I used to remember my uncle's drinking around the table and Balot used to be one of the things that they used to love to eat with or to accompany what they're drinking. They used to call it Pulutan. As a young kid, I was curious, I'd never tried Balot before and I'd say, you know, what's that? What does it taste like? I remember an uncle of mine cracking open the Balot and saying, here, you know, try it. I took a look at it and I wasn't actually sure if I really wanted to try it. But the next thing that he says, go ahead, drink it. And I did. So I swallowed it and then after that, I still wasn't sure of the taste. I actually thought I didn't like it. But the next thing he said was, tastes great, right? So, you know, as a kid, you nod your head and say, oh, yeah, it tastes great. And over the years, we are conditioned to actually believe that we like a certain thing. Of course, not every Filipino loves Balot. Of course, not every Filipino identifies with a double. However, if you are exposed to something over and over and over again, the chances are you will either learn to love something and then your identity is then something that is connected to that or taken away from that depending on how you battle against or embrace these things that are eventually taught to you. This process of learning, whether it's taste, whether it's table manners, whether it's the general idea of how we accept a difficult situation and get over it, this is all a process that is called enculturation. So often it refers to the passing of cultural knowledge to children. But enculturation is also something that is continuing process. It is constant and it goes on through our lives. What we may learn today is something that we relearn tomorrow. It doesn't necessarily mean that something you identify with today that is part of what you consider your culture today may also be something that you consider as part of your culture tomorrow. Why? Because of the next idea, that culture is also practice. Culture is considered as practice. It's not just something that you're taught. It's not just how knowledge is transferred. It's not simply a shared and negotiated system of beliefs and meaning, but it's also something that you practice every day. And also the whole idea of culture is not simply how you see a certain thing and how you practice a certain thing, but also how you then recognize this practice when you come into contact with someone from a different culture. So let me give the example of saying hello in France versus saying hello here in the Philippines. In France a lot of people would say hello. They would kiss each other on both cheeks or simply if they were walking down the street they would probably say something like bonjour, good morning, or whatever it is that they want to say. However, here in the Philippines, we find that unless you are maybe in a university setting and you pass your teacher, so you feel like you have to say good morning, ma'am, or if it is someone that you know, say for example the idea that it is a neighbor that you are aware of, the chances of you walking by a complete stranger down the road and saying good morning is much less because they would probably consider you a weirdo for trying to initiate conversation when there was nothing that actually tied you to each other in the first place. Yet saying hello or good morning to someone in France is actually quite common regardless of whether they are aware of each other's existence or this may be the very first time they met. That is a cultural difference. I mean we're supposed to be really friendly but it's not every day where you get on the jeep and you say good morning to every single person on the jeep or hello. Most of the time, you know, you try and avoid eye contact, look at your phone or try and do something that you know would make you avoid having to make any sort of eye contact with the other person. Another example, delivering post in a country like the UK. Now a lot of the time, you know, you get postmen or postwomen, they knock on your door, they give you your parcel and they start conversation. Something like are you going to poetry night on Friday or hi, how are you today? And you have an actual conversation and that conversation seems like it's quite on level with each other. It doesn't matter whether the person who opened the door is a doctor and the person who's delivering the post is a postman, the postman will not feel like he is in any way, shape or form inferior or cannot hold up a certain type of conversation with that doctor. Here in the Philippines, we have an unspoken in a way class system where people would judge other people based on how they act or react to other people in a certain way based on that cultural understanding or that class understanding. A lot of the times, you know, if someone delivers mail, they would pretty much hand over the mail and unless, again, there is that idea that you know your postman because it's the same postman who's been coming for years, the chances are, yes, you might have a conversation with them. But if it's a delivery guy from a courier service that you've never seen before and the chances are you'll never meet them again, you'll probably never even bother speaking to them. And then, of course, there are expressions. Next example would be perhaps expressions of brotherhood, of camaraderie and friendship in countries like Sri Lanka. So in Sri Lanka, it's quite normal to see young men hold hands regardless of their gender or how they identify with their gender. It's quite common that there's no social stigma attached to this. So I have known friends, I have a Sri Lankan friend, and when he used to meet another one of his friends from Sri Lanka, the first thing they would do is clasp each other's hands and they'd carry on talking and throughout the entire conversation they would still be holding hands. Now that's probably not something you'd see as often here. I'm not saying that young boys or men would be unwilling to hold each other's hands here. However, in the Philippines, a man holding hands with another man would probably hold too much of a stigma for them to be comfortable with doing that through an entire conversation. As a matter of fact, you know, they try and make handshakes as swift and as quickly as they possibly can because of a certain idea that sometimes they aren't even comfortable with just the idea of touching each other. Now some people say, you know, maybe this is something to do with how they view as an individual. But you know, it's how society has molded them to believe that a certain action is acceptable or unacceptable in one kind of society. Essentially, interpreting experience refers to both the ways we interpret the experience of the self within a particular culture and also how we encounter and experience others, whether they are of a similar culture or a different culture entirely. And that's why, you know, when we think of in a broader scale the idea of culture and how, you know, this knowledge has passed down, how it has learned, it is something that's really important to consider travelling. I think travelling opens and broadens the mind because when we consider everything that I've talked about today one of the important takeaways that we must remember is that human behaviour in itself does not carry meaning. So in and of itself, it doesn't actually have to mean anything in particular. Eating with your mouth open doesn't have to be a bad thing. Walking down a street naked doesn't have to be a bad thing. A shouting at someone and punching them in the face probably did not hold meaning in itself until a specific society said it's wrong to punch someone in the face. It's wrong to shoot a gun to kill someone. It's wrong to eat with your mouth open. It's not good manners to talk when someone else is talking. It's not the straight thing to hold another person's hand if you were of the same sex or the same gender. Now these are things that are taught throughout time. In and of themselves, you know, you aren't born and think that something is wrong. You are born and as you grow in your families, in your culture, in your society, ideas and beliefs that you develop also grow along with you. One example that I like to say is people in Western society say that guns are the cause of a lot of different troubles in that society and that is the very same society that encourages their children to play computer games that probably have various levels of killing people with guns in order to pass the entirety of the video game. So if you think about it, all of us are born and encultured into a previously existing composite of traits, whether they're aesthetics, values, beliefs, traditions, or customs that in turn compel us to act, think, and behave in a specific and prescribed way. However, studying culture and studying art thereafter is a way where we need to think holistically. So it's a way where we think and see parts as whole, where we try to grasp the broader context and frameworks within which people behave and experience things. One of such frameworks is culture, something which we've discussed today. Anthropology is concerned not only with holistically analyzing the place of humans in society and in nature, but also and especially with the way humans construct cultural frameworks in order to render their lives meaningful. That is probably the same way that I would like everyone to think about art as we study art over the next few weeks. What makes art in itself? Is it a product of culture? Is it a product of knowledge? Is it a product of many of the things that I have shared with you today? Let me end with something a theorist once said. This theorist was called Arthur Schopenhauer. He said that every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world. So travel, open your minds to various ideas. Open your minds to various cultures. Even if you do not adapt that culture, even if you do not agree with that culture, being open to the possibility that it may have its own merits opens the possibility to you learning something very new, whether it's looking at culture or anthropology or art. Thank you.