Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism

Introduction

Recent years have seen the rise of several new academic specializations in culture, but for most of it anthropology has been left out in the cold. Turner (1993) claims that this lack of interest in what anthropologist have to offer in the multiculturalism “game plan” is due, at least to some extent, to a lack of effort on the part of anthropologists. At first glance it would appear that anthropologists have yet to make any effort to even try and understand what multiculturalists have in mind, and ignoring this basic principle hardly seems like the best way to get involved. When reading Eriksen (2001) and Wright (1998) however the problem seems to have less to do with apathy and more with ineffectiveness.

Two types of multiculturalism

Once anthropologists have decided to take an interest there is still a long road they’ll have to go down in order to truly be effective (Eriksen,2001; Turner,1993; Wright,1998). For most people the term multiculturalism has become just another name for a political tool used by minorities to have the majority pander to their demands. This may be true for some multiculturalists, but it certainly does not ring true for all and failing to realise that will lead to discontent. Turner defines two main types of multiculturalism based on their approach namely critical multiculturalism and difference multiculturalism. Critical multiculturalism uses cultural diversity as a platform from which to challenge the ruling hegemony. They dispel separatist notions held by all groups concerned in order to create a more egalitarian common culture. Difference multiculturalism on the other hand seeks to separate different groups into groups and cheapen culture till it becomes merely a label that can be indiscriminately applied to people. Turner calls them “fetishists of difference” and the seeming irrational obsession that these multiculturalists have with cultural difference serves to pave the way for a dangerous type of separatism.

Why is this distinction significant for anthropology?

According to Turner anthropology has a far more uniform approach to culture and it would appear that they have been somewhat naïve when thinking about culture and he even likens some of it to difference multiculturalism. This is mostly true when one looks at what Wright calls the “old” idea of culture, where cultures were seen as isolated units, with little or no interaction between them. Turner also claims that this weakness has been present in most anthropological ways of thought from early evolution right down to diffusion. In recent years anthropology has contributed to a more balanced world view and cultural relativism can be seen as an ancestor of critical multiculturalism.

Conclusion

One can hardly blame certain multiculturalists for trying to reify culture; bounded distinct entities are so much easier to work with than people who actually think for themselves. The undeniable political aspect of multiculturalism as seen in Turner makes this even more tempting. The insights anthropology has to offer when handling diversity has so far been severely underdeveloped and it is time for a more practical and direct approach as can be seen from all the works sited.


References

Eriksen, T.H. 2001 “Multiculturalism and Anthropology” in Small Places, Large Issues: An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology, Second Edition p280-281

Turner, T. 1993 “Anthropology and Multiculturalism: What is Anthropology That Multiculturalists should be mindful of It?” in Cultural Anthropology 8(4):411-429

Wright, S. 1998 ‘The Politicization of ‘Culture” Anthropology Today 14 (1) pp 7-15

Transnational Ethnicity

Transnational Ethnicity

Introduction

“In the survival of favoured individuals and races, during the constantly-recurring struggle for existence, we see a powerful and ever-acting form of selection.”- Charles Darwin

There are 6,477,450,857 humans in the world and still there are only six degrees of separation between any two (Wikipedia). The world is shrinking all around us, and being able to adapt to this ever changing environment is the only way for a group to be successful. There are those who’ve recognised the opportunity offered by global connections and are making full use of this growing niche.

Discussion

Up until relatively recently the word “network” was ‘n foreign concept to most people, but this has changed considerably. People are no longer confined to living out their lives on the family farm and are moving further and further away from home in search of a better life and better opportunities (Eriksen, T.H 2001). Ethnic groups are no longer defined by where they live, but rather that of their ancestors (Vertouvec, S 1999). Diasporas especially have successfully exploited the opportunities offered by technology and have build up vast social networks. Vertouvec states that a Diaspora can remain bonded despite their separation through what he calls a “shared imagination”. This connection between individuals thus has far more to do with the way people think than where people live. This is important since it helps explain what ethnicity now means to people.
As always the youth are especially touched by this and it is not uncommon to find young people from diverse “base” cultures consciously selecting factors to accentuate. These conscious choices are influenced at least to some extend by the related advantages offered by being part of that ethnic group. Such favourable conditions surrounding a specific ethnicity also serves as an incentive when it comes to keeping customs alive.

Maintaining these social networks not only helps those living abroad, but also their families at home. Many migrants send money home and even though the individual amounts may be small, they add up to at least $75billion world-wide (Martin 1994 in Vertouvec). For a poor country with limited resources available these remittances offer a valuable lifeline, bringing at least income to impoverished households. This isn’t just a one sided drain however and resources flow quite freely within these social networks, creating a bigger “pool” of assets which people within the network can draw from. These networks serve to create advantageous environments for those involved, with jobs and even marriages being organised within the network (Vertouvec 1999).

Conclusion

Some transnational communities may have been forced into this way of life due to war or other turmoil, but have since made a great success of it. And there are definite advantages connected to belonging to one of these networks (Vertouvec 1999). However membership is not certain and when you go against their wishes you risk being ostracised (Eriksen 2001).


References

Eriksen, T.H. 2001’the Politics of Identity: Nationalism and Minorities’ & ‘the Global, the Local and the Glocal’ in Small Places, Large Issues: An Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology.

Population Reference Bureau, Population Statistics, http://www.prb.org/datafind/prjprbdata7.asp?DW=DR&SL=&SA=1 (07 August)

Vertouvec, S. 1999 ‘Conceiving and researching Transnationalism’ in Ethnic and Racial Studies 22(2)

Wikepedia, Six degrees of Separation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/six_degrees_of.seperation (07 August)

Child Labour Paradox

The Child Labour Paradox


Introduction
In a perfect world, there would be no poverty and no need for children to occasionally contribute to their households. Policy makers tend to believe that this world already exist and fail to take into account the realities of poverty when they are busy writing the laws. Child labour is often seen as a problem found only in developing countries and some even go as far as using the level of dissociation as a measurement for modernity.

Discussion

Ignoring the realities of poverty stricken societies will cause more harm than the child labour associated with it. Goverments are placing modern children in a gilded cage where presumably they are to be pampered and well looked after. In theory grants will be given to any family that needs it, thus eliminating the need for children to work. This would leave children free to attend school, get educated and work. Sadly this theory doesn’t translate nearly as well into practice; child support budgets get cut and there’s less and less money to go around. The implications of these factors are far reaching and you end up with a situation where the parents cannot afford to care for their children, the state is offering limited support and it is illegal for the child to work in order to contribute to their own survival. You’re left with a catch twenty two where somewhere along the line someone will be forced to either break the law in some way or starve. These policies also fail to take into account that our notion of “child labour” is not universal, there are societies where children’s work has become a significant part of their developmental process. For Tonga children working on the family farm is more than a chore in order to get some pocket money, it is important for their very survival. In a world of substince farming few can afford the luxury of sitting back and taking it easy till they’re old enough to work for a living. These children make a valuable contribution to their own family’s survival, without which the outcome would be bleak. Thus denying a child’s ability to participate in their own survival by creating value is far more detrimental than allowing them to work. There are even those who actively defend their right to work. However, labour laws were never meant to deny children’s rights, but rather to enforce them and to protect them from exploitation.

Conclusion

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. It is something you hear so often that you fail to take it seriously and the same goes for policy makers. Nobody ever sat down and went on a mission to hurt children with child labour laws, but failing to take into account economic and social factors leaves them at risk of doing just that. The west often forgets that their views of the world are not always those of the world and policy makers could go a long way by acknowledging that. The Tonga boy minding the cattle in the Zambezi Valley is not the same as the boy in rags stitching away in a sweatshop and policies should reflect this difference.

References

Levine,S. 1
eO.1996 ‘Paradox of child labour and Anthropology’ in Annual Review Anthropology 25:237-251

Media as a tool for development

Media as a tool for development

Introduction.

Using the media to influence public opinion and gain greater control is not a new idea, governments and various political movements have been doing this successfully for years (Carroll & Ratner: 1999). In certain cases, there have even been those that use media to influence the way a country is run by boosting public awareness (Page:1996). This is where ethnic minorities come in, with skilful use of these available resources, it is possible to not only boost the public’s awareness but also influence their opinion (Ginsburg: 1995; Herman&Chomsky: 1987; Page: 1996).

Discussion.

This new sounding board offers a unique opportunity for minorities to get their point across, but it inevitably comes at a price (Ginsburg: 1995; Banner: 1996). So far, the rewards have been enough to justify possible pitfalls, but constant revaluation will be needed to make sure that this stays true (Rogers: 1996; Ginsburg: 1995). Culture is by no means a bounded entity; interaction will lead to a certain degree of assimilation in both directions (Ginsburg: 1995; Banner: 1996). This is inevitable and even though this is mostly positive, it can also lead to minority cultures losing a certain degree of distinction from the majority (Eriksen: 2001). When your influence rests largely on your ethnic identity, it becomes clear how such a loss will be detrimental to your bargaining ability (Ginsburg: 1995).

However just like all that glitters is not gold, not all interaction leads to a loss of identity in fact some even argue that this leads to an increased distinction (Eriksen; 2001). Thus far, successful use of media has been an invaluable tool to cross cultural boundaries (Ginsburg: 1995; Wright: 1998). When ‘indigenous people’ have become a minority in their own country media provides a ‘soap box’ for these cultures, where their voice can still be heard in the rabble (Rogers: 1996; Ginsburg: 1995). Sadly, such productions have been relatively poorly funded, but even so, it is an effective way to resist domination from outside cultures (Wright: 1995). In this paper, Ginsburg focuses mainly on the Aboriginal people from Australia, but as can be seen from Wright; Chomsky; Banner and Rogers this is certainly not a unique occurrence. Ginsburg also mentions the importance of viewing these phenomena within their particular social and political context and this provides a more holistic view of these interactions.

Such a view addresses not only the occurrence of interactions, but also the mediations that take place between cultures due to these works. By offering a little more insight into their culture, minorities create empathy with their demands by humanising their ‘otherness’ in such a way that they become more real. Initial attempts at such mediation were hampered by an inability to effectively incorporate ‘natives’ own social frame into film representations (Ginsburg: 1995). This lack of insight as well as adaptation on the part of the natives meant that as time passed they wanted to take an active part instead of just being filmed and portrayed the way the producers saw them (Wright: 1998; Ginsburg: 1995). Being actively involved meant not only greater control, but also the opportunity to determine and produce their image (Wright: 1998; Ginsburg: 1995; Rogers: 1996; Page: 1996).

Conclusion.

The use of various means of mass communication by minority cultures enables them to spread awareness, but also gives them greater control over policies that concern them (Ginsburg: 1995; Wright: 1998; Page: 1996; Carrol&Ratner: 1999). By acting collectively, minorities reserve the right for self-determination and offer better resistance to domination imposed by majority cultures (Wright: 1998; Rogers: 1996). Thus ensuring greater control over their own welfare (Eriksen: 2001; Ginsburg: 1995; Wright: 1998)


References

Banner, S. 1996 ‘Written Law and Unwritten Norms in Colonial St.Louis’ in Law and History Review, Vol.14, No.1, pp.33-80

Carroll, W.K. & Ratner, R.S. 1999 ‘Media Strategies and Political Projects: A Comparative Study of Social Movements’ in Canadian Journal of Sociology, Vol.24, No.1, pp.1-34

Eriksen, T.H. 2001 ‘The Politics of Identity: Nationalism and Minorities’ in Small Places, Large Issues: An introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology pp.275-291

Ginsburg, F. ‘Mediating Culture: Indigenous Media, Ethnographic Film, and the Production of Identity’ in L. Devereaux & R. Hillman (eds) Fields of Vision: Essays in Film Studies, Visual Anthropology, and Photography, Berkley: University of California Press

Herman, E. & Chomsky, N. 1987 ‘A Propaganda Model’ in Manufacturing Consent New York: Pantheon

Page, B.I. 1996 ‘The Mass Media as Political Actors’ in PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol.29, No.1, pp.20-24

Rogers, E.M. 1996 ‘Bright Spots in Communication for Development’ presented at the Conference on Communication and Empowerment: Uses of Media and Information Technologies in Developing Countries, Los Angeles, April 11-13, 1996 website: http://www.usc.edu/dept/ancntr/pdcomm/roger.html accessed 16 Sep 2006

Wright, S. 1998 ‘The Politicization of Culture’ in Anthropology Today, Vol.14, No.1, pp.7-15

Word of the day- Garrulous

Garrulous: 1. Talking too much- excessively or pointlessly talkative.2. Wordy- using many or too many words.
Thesaurus- Talkative, voluble,chatty, taciturn (Antonym)
(From Encarta Dictionary:English (U.K.))

Discussion: Wright on culture

Discussion: Wright on culture

Introduction

Wright begins her article by lamenting the complications of the topic she has chosen (Wright 1998: 7). And indeed the controversy around the definition of culture seems to be one of the central themes in most discussions about culture. How do you discuss problems arising from something if you can’t even decide what it is? (Rapport&Overing 2000: 92) Even the simple question of whether culture is our innate ability or acquired has been a significant obstacle (Rapport&Overing 2000:93) So assuming that culture does indeed exist, let us proceed. (Rapport&Overing 2000:94-95)

Compare and contrast Wright’s (1998) account of ‘old’ and ‘new’ anthropological approaches to ‘culture’.

Wright sees the ‘old’ definition of culture as a static ‘thing’ with cookie cutter people walking around doing the same sort of predictable things day in and day out regardless of what’s going on in the world around them.(Wright 1998: 8). The ‘new’ new idea surrounding culture has gotten to the point where people realise that things are constantly changing, with a lot of outside influences pulling a society in different directions. (Rapport&Overing 2000: 96) People inside a society are permanently jockeying for a position where they’ll have enough power to pander their interpretation of their ‘culture’ as the gospel according to all who live in it as well as those who seek to study them. Often using skewed versions of truth and society to do it. (Wright 1998:10)

Explain how ‘culture’, in both of these senses, has been introduced into the domains of cultural racism, multiculturalism, corporate culture as well as culture and development.

The ‘old’ definition of culture was used to support cultural racism by placing people in separate ‘culture boxes’ if ’ we’ are from this culture and ‘they’ are from that culture then obviously it makes sense to keep us all apart since mixing would pollute ‘our’ culture. (Wright1998: 10) Wright refers to the ‘New Right’ especially when she deplores the use of ‘culture’ to enforce “exclusion, using it as a euphemism for renewed racism” (Wright 1998: 11). In theory multiculturalism should endorse the diversity of different cultures, while still garnering them the respect that would be due people of your own culture (Google definitions 2006). But by promoting diversity, you ‘exoticize’ people from other cultures, making the subsequent segregation that much more effective (Rapport&Overing 2000: 98-99). Which brings us to corporate culture which is often used as just another definition for a mission statement of a company. (Wright 1998:11) Managers are actively employing both definitions of culture in order to gain employees active participation but it’s still done purely for their own benefit (Wright 1998:12). This same theme seems to run through cultural development as a whole, while UNESCO made a valid attempt at promoting a new ethical world with their rapport on creative diversity(Wright 1998:12) but they failed to take into account the “political dimension of meaning making”(Wright 1998:14). Oversights such as these have led to a simplistic view of the world and are insufficient to make any real change. As Wright says:” Levi-Strauss has provided UNESCO with a map of a flat world.” (Wright 1998:13) This makes it clear how much work still lays ahead if anthropologists are to make any real change.

What does Wright mean by “the politicization of culture”?

Quite a few of the more opportunistic politicians are using a slightly altered interpretation of culture in order to lend legitimacy to their own, often oppressing ideas. They claim validity based on anthropology while at the same time discarding the relativism an equality that it stands for. Many campaigns for segregation and discrimination have been based on a platform of ‘culture’. ‘Us’ and ‘them’ have become key words in the blatant manipulation of the concept of ‘culture’. (Wright 1998: 10)

What, according to Wright, is the role anthropologists ought to play with regard to the politics surrounding the use of ‘culture’?

The UNESCO report offered an opportunity for anthropologists to make a difference in this abuse of an innocent concept, but sadly it was severely underdeveloped. As a profession we should start taking a far more active role in protecting the marginalized, from policies building their validity on such twisted interpretations. And maybe we should take a page from these politicians’ books in order to be able to intervene more effectively in such cases in the future. I agree with Wright that some of the ‘edge’ that was present in the earlier forms of this discipline has been lost, and much can be said for taking a far more active approach in the interpretation and implementation of information gained from studies, lest society lose use for us altogether (Wright 1998:14).


References:

 Wright, S. 1998 ‘The Politicization of ‘culture” Anthropology Today 14(1) pp 7-15
 Rapport,N and Overing,J. 2000 ‘Culture’ in Social and Cultural Anthropology: The Key Concepts London: Routledge
 www.media.pearsoncmg.com/intl/ema/uk/0131217666_glo.html (2006-03-03)(google definition search 2006-03-03)

Even your eyes can lie

Never believe everything your eyes tell you.
Because far too often the difference between what
we think is good or evil,
is only a matter of perspective.
 

Wanting, needing and knowing the difference

Wanting, needing and knowing the difference

‘Material goods serve more than just our survival needs;
they meet our culturally defined wants as well” (Spradley 1997: 153)


Human beings are strange creatures; we need only a hand full of things in order to survive namely: water, food, shelter, clothing and companionship (Petroglyph). In theory, this would then mean that if these basic needs were met we would be content. Building on this one would also assume that the way in which these needs are met would have little effect on our happiness (Douglas & Isherwood; 1978). Reality on the other hand tells a completely different story, the way we attach value to an object bears little resemblance to either the production cost or the contribution it makes towards our survival (Foster; 2005). Advertisers have make millions by turning needs into wants (Bisseker; 2002). Sure, you may need a new jacket when winter rolls along, but only clever advertising or a brain tumour would make you spend US$4995.95 (Designer Exposure; 2006) on something that is going to be out of style next season. What we need to do then is look at the way in which we attach value to goods to better understand how our culture determines not only what we want, but also how badly we want it (Jay, 1970; Douglas&Isherwood).

Discussion

You would think that a few million years of evolution would mean that humans were immune to such trivial temptations such as advertising. After all, we did manage to put a man on the moon. Even I fell prey to Douglas&Isherwood’s theory when I went through the reading material. Although I was willing to admit that maybe other people fell into the advertisement trap, I was sure that I was immune. As I slipped into my Guess jeans, put on my YDE t-shirt and donned my Diesel sneakers however, I could feel doubt slowly creeping in through the back door. This made me take a look around and I could not help noticing how just about everything in my room was branded in some way, not even something as basic as toothpaste was left unaffected.

Brands invoke a strange sort of loyalty in the typical consumer, Foster (2005) even goes as far as calling it ‘loyalty beyond reason’. What is it that compels us to spend our hard-earned cash on something that technically either we don’t really need, or we could’ve gotten for a whole lot less? (Jay,1970; Barth,1970; Douglas&Isherwood) Part of the reason will undoubtedly be ‘real’ benchmarks such as quality and value for money, but studies on consumer behaviour shows that habit plays a greater roll that we would care to admit (Foster, 2005; Wikipedia). I am guilty of always buying a certain type of coffee and when there is none available, rather go without or have tea than risk another brand. There is nothing unique about my brand of coffee, you boil the water; add it to the soluble granules and coffee happens. Why then the reluctance to change?

Once a brand becomes imbedded in your routine and way of thinking, it is almost impossible to even think of using something else (Foster, 2005; Douglas&Isherwood, 1978). Until the next one catches your heart of course, when all the loyalty goes straight out the window (Wikipedia). What makes us stick to one brand or later makes us switch to another? One culprit is the influence outside groups such as friends and family have on us as consumers, another would be advertising. Apart from economic factors and actual quality considerations, these are the main reasons for choosing a particular product. Consumer behaviour studies spend vast amounts of time and money on figuring out exactly why we buy the things we do, along with how, when and what. This service is invaluable to producers since knowing what the public wants would give them an advantage when the time comes for them to sell their product (Wikipedia). In today’s highly competitive society, it becomes ever more important to make your product stand out above the rest, thus maintaining and expanding your market share (Foster, 2005).

Before we focus on the different ways this is achieved, let us look at the basic models for consumer behaviour, along with a basic models of buyer decision making. There are two fundamental models of consumer behaviour that can each be applied with varying degrees of success. The first of these is Howard&Sheth, they start by grouping the different stimuli that influence a consumer in the decision making process in order to better analyse their effect. The first; significative, refers to the material aspects of a product/service. The second; symbolic, refers to associations and ideas attached by the supplier. The third; social, refers to the ideology attached to a certain product by a culture and different social groups within this society. In this model, these inputs are seen as complete, with all possible stimuli of being grouped in one of them. The ‘outputs’ will of course then be the result of these stimuli on the consumer’s behaviour, or at least those that you can see. However knowing what influences a customer and what his or her end reaction is to all of this still doesn’t explain why they’ll buy a certain product (service). Howard&Sheth divides this decision making process into two areas. One; perceptual, referring to those involved with getting and managing information about the product (service). Two; learning, referring to the actual accumulation of knowledge, that led to the final decision.

The second model we will briefly discuss is known as the Engel-Kollat-Blackwell model and this follows a more mechanistic approach. They operate in the realm of evolutionary economics, where customers become causative forces operating within set conventions that are easy to pursue and implement. These conventions contain limited information and only a slight capacity for elaboration. This postulates that a customer identifies a certain need and after he or she has decided which group of goods satisfies it, sets a budget and uses this as the main driving force when selecting a particular item for consumption (Wikipedia). This very basic theory fails to take taste and other socially driven driving forces into account as named in Douglas&Isherwood (1978); Jay (1970); Barth (1970); Gell (1988).

These models provide us with part of the how, the actual decision-making process now bears closer examination. There are three possible analytical models for achieving this. These are the economic, psychological and consumer behaviour models. The consumer behaviour models usually a combination between the other two, which is why I chose to discuss it. Perception of a product plays an important part when it comes to choosing that I will now discuss ways suppliers use to influence them. The most prominent one is advertising, that comes in myriad forms and surrounds us everyday (Wikipedia). Another less obvious one is propaganda, either from society as a whole, or specific groups (Douglas&Isherwood, 1978; Foster, 2005; Gell, 1988; Jay, 1970; Wikipedia). I didn’t realise just how bombarded we are by ads until I picked up my October issue of Cosmopolitan and decided to count the pages taken up with full-page advertisements. Cosmopolitan is a popular woman’s magazine that caters for young women between the ages of 18 and 34. They have a total readership of 758 000 so it should give a good indication of how much influence advertising exerts on our lives. The magazine in question had 318pages including the front and back covers, of these pages 156 were taken up by full colour advertisements. Such an advertisement doesn’t come cheap with prices running at R41500, 00 for a single page and R99792, 00 for a double page spread on the first pages (Cosmo Website). No wonder companies go through so much trouble trying to figure out exactly what customers want (Foster 2005).

I also mentioned propaganda, for this essay, I will loosely define it as promotion. In this particular context, I took every time readers were told to buy a product as propaganda, but only counted it when actual prices were named and if I had not already counted them under the general advertisements. This added another 70 pages out of my total of 318 that were attempting to persuade readers to buy certain products. Together with the ‘pure’ advertisements, this meant that just over 71% of the magazine was dedicated to some type of product promotion.

These advertisements are aimed at a specific market and there exists a wide variety of advertisements, all thus aimed at certain demographic groups (Bisseker, 2002). Agencies take into account not only the demand for a certain product, but also the social structures that would support their campaign. This specialization is another way that culture affects the products we choose. Companies would not be able to play on things such as status and social stratification if they weren’t there to begin with (Barth, 1970; Gell, 1988; Jay, 1970; Wikipedia) . By making people feel envious of others and prompting them to emulate those they perceive as successful these companies are not creating a new niche, they are simply exploiting an existing one (Douglas&Isherwood, 1978). This particular technique for example would fail if used on the Muria in India since they have no wish to set themselves apart from the rest financially (Gell, 1988).

Conclusion

There may not be a group of people going around from town to town telling people what to wear and how to think, but that doesn’t mean that our social environment holds no sway in our behaviour. We are bombarded by cultural conditioning wherever we go, be it in the form of television, books or advertising and whether we’d like to admit it or not, it does play a role in the choices we make (Bisseker, 2002; Douglas&Isherwood, 1978; Foster,2005; Jay,1970) . At the end of the day it is still a choice however and nobody can blame a foolish purchase on clever advertisement (Douglas&Isherwood, 1978). Our choices spring from a variety of different factors and stimuli that we analyse to find the right one for us (Wikipedia), thus nobody else can take the blame if we make a mistake. In this essay, I have focussed primarily on material commercial goods, may be in part, because my culture tells me that is important (Foster, 2005).

References

Barth, F. 1970 ‘Management and Stratification’ in Firth, R. (ed.) Themes in Economic Anthropology Tavistock Publications pp.165-167

Cosmopolitain Magazine ‘Cosmopolitain Rate Card:Our Cosmo World’ http://www.cosmopolitan.co.za/main/intros/info/magspecs06/cosmo/cosmo_rate_card_2006.htm 01 October 2006

Designer Exposure, ‘Main Collection: Womens designer coats’ http://www.designerexposure.com/category/26a2/ALL 01 October 2006

Douglas, M. & Isherwood,B 1978 ‘Why People Want Goods’ in The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of Consumption London: Routledge pp.15-24

Douglas, M. & Isherwood,B 1978 ‘The Uses of Goods’ in The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of Consumption London: Routledge pp.56-70

Financial Mail, Bisseker, T. 2002 ‘ Media: It’s not all doom and gloom for the industry’ http://free.financialmail.co.za/report/adfocus2002/media/med11.htm 01 October 2006

Foster, R.J. 2005 ‘Commodity Futures: Labour, Love and Value’ in Anthropology Today 21(4): 8-12

Gell, A. 1988 ‘Newcomers to the world of Goods: Consumption among the Muria Gond’s’ in Appadurai,A. (ed.) The social life of things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.110-138

Jay, L. 1970 ‘Social and Economic Determinants in Behaviour’ in Firth,R. (ed.) Themes in Economic Anthropology Tavistock Publications pp.30-32

Petroglyph National Monument: Teacher resources ‘Needs: What do we need to survive?’
http://www.nps.gov/archive/petr/teachers/needtosurvive.htm 01 October 2006

Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia ‘Consumer Behaviour’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_behaviour 01 October 2006

Wikepedia, the free Encyclopedia ‘Buyer decision process’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buyer_decision_processes" 01 October 2006

Something on development- Why, oh why development?

Why, oh why development?

Introduction.

A major obstacle when it comes to evaluating the success of development lie in it’s dual nature, in most cases there are both benefits and costs involved and ignoring either one causes problems (Barlett&Brown: 1992; Gardner&Lewis: 1996).

Conservatism of cultural relativism, in a development context.

By assuming that all cultural practices and ideas are good, relativists run the risk of denying help to those who might actually want it. It is easy to fail to take into account the society’s own view of their environment by assuming that they are content with their current situation (Barret: 2002; Eriksen: 1995).

Barret’s and Browns lists of benefits and costs of agricultural development.

In this article Barret&Brown outline both the positive and negative effects in three specific instances. The first refers to agricultural intensification in Costa Rica. Positive points mentioned include; increased productivity on every plot, tobacco being profitable earning as much as three times more per acre than their usual produce, more disposable income, that leads to more investment in livestock and lifestyle as well as eating better.
Negative effects include; a larger workload, longer work hours, more capital is needed per acre, increased problems with insects and plant diseases, greater risk and increased stress levels due to the increased risks involved (Barlett&Brown 1992:179-181).

Some of these effects are shared by the shepherds of Sardinia, but here the negative effects are compounded by the fact that farmers primarily from the Barbagia highlands resisted the transition and are now envied by the industrialised majority. The discontent felt by the ‘modern method’ shepherds when faced with longer hours and narrower profit margins are intensified when their lives are contrasted with those of ‘traditional’ shepherds. These traditional shepherds are envied because they are viewed as independent as well as producing a superior product (Barlett&Brown 1992: 181).

When the discussion turns to agricultural development in the rural United States on the other hand, the authors take a dim view. The only perceived benefit from industrialization seems to be that the farmers that do manage to survive now own larger quantities of land. This glimmer of hope is soon tarnished when compared to the multitude of negative connections listed. These include; lower prices for produce, expensive fertilizers and chemicals needed require more capital, rising cost of living and the decline in the overall number of farmers. Add to this the disillusion faced by farmers that have lost their farms due to competition and the dim view seems rather justified (Barlett&Brown 1992: 181).

Does development always improve people’s lives?

Development is not a one size fits all option that you can simply lay over a society’s current way of life and expect to walk away with marvellous results (Eriksen: 1995; Gardner&Lewis: 1996). There have been documented cases where failure to take the cultures own view into account has let to jumbled attempts to help people that never wanted it in the firs place (Eriksen: 1996). A clear example of this would be Eriksen’s discussion of a development project in Ecuador. An attempt was made to improve the production of guinea-pigs, but failing to take into account the symbolic aspect of these guinea pigs along with the burden these new techniques placed on the women, led to a dismal failure.

What are the alternatives?

The idealistic notion that everything inside a foreign culture is good and that we would be better of effectively ignoring them completely doesn’t work either (Barrett: 2002). There is always some form of interaction between cultures that leads to a certain degree of assimilation (Barlett&Brown: 1992). By exposing the farmers to trade, they are also exposed to materialism and refusing to help them survive this unknown landscape would do more harm than good. The role of anthropologists in development is not simply to look down on the companies making mistake and standing on a podium criticizing them from above, but rather to assist developers by offering insight to a culture’s practices and way of life (Eriksen: 1995). Such a contribution should lead to less failed attempts and improve the margin of success with successful ones (Eriksen: 1995; Gardner&Lewis: 1996).



Defining quality of life relativistically.

When an anthropologist becomes too concerned with defining a society and it’s quality of life relativistically, there is a risk of romanticising the culture to such an extent that even culturally harmful practices become glorified (Barrett: 2002). The obsession with being fair can swing in the opposite direction by assuming that all members of a society are satisfied with their current quality of life, regardless of the actual truth (Barret: 2002; Eriksen:1995).

Conclusion.

Development in itself is neither good nor evil, it offers the potential to improve the lives of people, but also carries a certain cost that needs to be paid (Eriksen: 18995; Gardner& Lewis: 1996). At the end of the day though, the onus still rests on the countries that are to be ‘developed’ to decide if the rewards are great enough to justify the price that will have to be paid (Gardner&Lewis: 1996). No matter how good the intentions of the developers, failing to take social structures and participation on the part of the ‘developing’ into account cannot be successful (Eriksen: 1995).


References.

Barlett, P.J. & Brown, P.F. 1992 ‘Agricultural Development and the Quality of Life’ in Podolefsky and Brown (eds) Applying Anthropology New York: McGraw Hill

Barret, S. R. 2002 Anthropology: A student’s guide to theory and method University of Toronto Press Incorporated: Canada pp.157-158

Eriksen, T.H. 1995 Small places, Large Issues London: Pluto Press pp. 243-245

Gardener, K. & Lewis, D. 1996 Anthropology, Development and the Post Modern Challenge London: Pluto Press pp. 93-102

Forever odd- Dean Koontz

I bought this book at the supermarket. so let's just say that my expectations couldn't have been much lower than they were when I started reading this book.
Never the less I just finished reading this and really enjoyed it.
It truly surpased my expectations.
This obviously isn't Hemmingway, so don't go into it expecting an absolute masterpiece. However, it is an entertaining read, filled to the brim with
witty remarks and dead on sarcasm.
It's about a guy (Odd Thomas) who's able to see dead people and
before you start thinking sixth sense, stop right there!
The entire book is written from Odd's perspective and just the way it is told
alone, is enough reason to read the book.
Every page sweeps you along and you're never left in a lull waiting for the next
thing to happen, so there's never enough empty space to get bored.
There isn't too much you could say without completely giving away the plot
, but if you enjoy it when a writer's able to play with his words, then this is for you.

Infinite ants

 

do looks really matter?

This is something that's been needling me for some time.
Do looks really matter when you're choosing a boyfriend,
or even just a potential snog?

I'm not talking about the obvious where you've got some guy with a hump
and eyes at different heights and all sorts of funny things like that.
Everybody felt sorry for the hunchback when he didn't get the girl, but
let's be honest. Nobody was expecting him to in the first place.

In a normal everyday situation where there are two guys interested in the same girl
things become far more complicated. Physical attraction is a fine thing,
but when you're looking for a real relationship, you obviously need a bit more.
Or in my case, a lot more. This is a painfully obvious fact that even I have come to
realise and to a certain extend accept.

We all know that 9 times out of 10 the guy who's not quite that hot will be the one that wil
take care of you no matter what. He's the one that wil bring you orange juice when you're
feeling ill and the one most likely to love you even without your make-up. The gorgeous one
won't give you as much attention, or as much respect. He'll forget to call, and expect you to
be grateful when he does.

Why then is it so difficult to remember all of that
when the gorgeous guy is looking into your eyes and your knees are going all wobbly.
There's a big difference between knowledge and actual acceptance, and at this stage I'm
struggling a bit to find the courage to take the leap from one to the other.
It may be that courage isn't what's lacking from the equation. Then what is?

This connection affects not only our relationships, but also various other aspects of our
day to day lives. We know vegetables are good for us and that we need to live a
certain way in order to be healthy. This is not news.
Yet we still wolf down that second helping of pudding, with extra chocolate sauce.

Knowing... And doing... Worlds apart.

This time though, I actually did it.
I picked the nice guy. Who treats me like a princess and truly cares about me.
I still get a bit of the wobbles when the gorgeous one plays his little flirt game,
but I honestly think I've made the right choice.
Let's just hope that this time, I'll stick to it.

Making sense of anthropology 1

Making sense of anthropology


Eriksen starts his text with a quote from T. Ingold “Anthropology is philosophy with people in.” This later proves to be an invaluable starting point in his discussion about what it is that Anthropologists really do. Anthropology looks at all the complexities within human culture and social interaction and from this vast selection of knowledge seeks to define just what it is that makes us all human at the end of the day. This complex study is unique in all the humanities studies, and no wonder, with so many things that underlie even the most common terms, like culture. It‘s clear to see why only the very foolish or very brave would even attempt it.

Discussion

To better understand what Anthropology is, let’s first look at the name itself. Made up of two words “Anthropos” and “Logos” that were taken from the original Greek, we see that they mean “humanity” and “reasoning” respectively. Thus in its simplest form anthropology can be defined as the “reasoning about humanity”. Second let’s look at the basic term culture. Taken from the Latin “Colos” witch literally means to cultivate we can now say that Cultural Anthropology is the reasoning about cultivated humanity. There are of course many other factors that underlie this study and as we focus upon this study of “cultural humanity” they will become more evident.

Spradley starts his report by criticizing what he calls naïve realism, which is the practice of assuming that all cultures regard reality in much the same way, as well as thinking that everyone ascribes the same meaning to everyday objects. This is clearly false, as van be seen even when two people who presumably share the same ‘culture’ are asked to describe a concept. Eriksen doesn’t directly mention this, but I think it is important to be aware of this type of reasoning, even if only to successfully avoid it. Not everyone sees the world in the same way, and heated debates, even within the confines of the same ‘culture’ illustrates this clearly. Culture is always contested as can be seen in Wright, and these contestations are major catalysts in cultural transformation. There are however certain similarities that can be found when viewing individuals from the sae group. Let us thus define culture as the learned social practices concerning everything from language to the general code of conduct advocated by that society.

It is in fact these rules that concern anthropologists (Spradley). Anthropologist use participant observation as a main method of study (Eriksen) and this has proved to be in invaluable tool in understanding how different cultures operate. It is important to remember that culture is not an “innate” reality of man, we are not born a certain way, and we learn to think by the way society teaches us to think (Eriksen & Overring). There does seem to be a sort of golden thread linking humanity though and it is worth noting that in our constant search for what unites us, we’re still not allowed to simply paper over the differences in society and try to bash everyone around us to fit into our own mould of reality (Eriksen).

This brings us to Ethnocentrism which literally means, judging someone else from our own “ethnos” or cultural perception. If we do it in this way the rest of humanity van only ever be seen as inferior copies of ourselves (Eriksen). Clearly from this standing point we place the rest of humanity at the bottom of the pyramid, with us the “wise west” looking down. This harks back to the 19th Century view of “cultured” European society at the top that had to go out and cultivate the savages (Overring & Rapport). Kipling even went as far as describing colonisation as our duty, to civilise the savages calling it “the white man’s burden”. We have mostly moved on a great deal from this way of thinking and modern anthropologists realize that to effectively understand a society, we must look from the inside. From their point of view, instead of just substituting our own (Eriksen & Spradley).

One of the firs people who cottoned on to this fact was Boas, who saw all people as equally cultural. This small step went a long way in forming our current understanding of culture. It is worth noting however that this was not he same as Orwell’s “Animal Farm” where the rules were changed to “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Boas in reality did seem to come from a noble place in the belief that we should endeavour to see the world from that particular culture’s perspective instead of just overlaying our own. There were of course those that exploited an “innocent” concept, but this was not Boas’ intention. This is incidentally also the starting point for cultural relativism, which states that behaviour within a culture should be judged by that culture’s own standards and beliefs (Eriksen). This can lead some people to believe that, that means we end up with no other option but to approve of every foreign policy (Hatch). Which in turn causes a moral dilemma since you cannot sanely approve of everything that happens in the world regardless of consequence (Eriksen & Hatch). The principle of cultural relativism does not in itself carry any moral principle, but rather asks of us to give everyone a fair chance to be who they are and think the way they do, without judging them unfairly. It may indeed be a flawed ideology as Hatch suggests, but it certainly has merit as a starting point.

Although Eriksen doesn’t embark on a sort of anti-relativist crusade, it is worth noting that he mentions that quite a few anthropologists, who practice relativism in their work, do have very certain ideas about right and wrong in their personal lives. Relativism then is not just abandoning all reason and granting a blanket approval of everything that comes your way, but simply suspending your judgement for long enough in order to be fair.

Conclusion
Cultural anthropology is not a popularity contest with anthropologists at the top giving out marks to decide who’s got the best culture. Eriksen very aptly puts it when he states that “anthropology doesn’t answer the question of who has the best culture – simply because it doesn’t ask it.” Rather it is a question of looking at all the vast complexities in human society and culture and finding between all this diversity the part of being human that ultimately unites us. There may not be a “global” culture that that the media is currently preaching, but we van all do well to step off our pedestal for long enough to see that, just because someone doesn’t think the way we do, doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

they

“THEY”

They’d have to kill him, and sooner rather than later. “How could you let this happen?” Anne hissed as Jeremy sat down. He was far to calm considering the predicament they were facing. But then again, that was Jeremy in a nutshell. With his blonde hair , hazel eyes and the kind of confidence other people would pay good money for. She’d been against his initiation from the start for this very reason, overconfidence having been the downfall of far too many people who had their sights set on world domination. Anne did not in fact have any plans for world domination, nor did anyone else in the organisation. If only her present company had similar insight there might’ve been some hope for him. She didn’t have long to muse however. “I’ve got everything under control.” He said in a stage whisper and she might have given him the benefit of the doubt had he not winked at her after saying it. She nodded and left it at that and as he paraded out of the room she vowed to take a personal interest when the time came to terminate Jeremy’s contract. His arrogance after a mistake that could ruin them all was an affront to her.
His recruitment came as a matter of necessity rather than choice and it seemed that it was a choice they were going to regret. If things went even more pear shaped then at least she would have something on Charles. Charles was average, average build, hight and features but this belied a mind like a diamond, sharp and with a slightly chilly edge. The worst part about him was that he ended up making you think like him. He didn’t use mind control or any of the wonderful little conditioning tricks you see in movies, instead he just manipulated you in such a way that you ended up changing yourself.
“We’ll need someone to take the fall then.” Anne was almost surprised when she heard her own voice. She silently cursed herself for falling into the trap and thinking like the rest of them, but she also knew such a risky operation would need a fall man. Charles didn’t say anything, he just smiled at her and Mark and nodded. There were times when she hated him simply because he was always so knowing, and there were other times when she hated him because he was such a jerk. Jerk or no, he was also one of the best, a brilliant mind in such an unassuming package that no one ever saw what was there. Charles had been part of them far longer than either her or Mark and even though he never said anything, every knowing smile served to remind her of the fact. “I have someone in mind.” He said in his usual calm monotones. At that moment without even knowing why, this infuriated Anne. Then she realised, she’d played right into his hands yet again! He was so good at reading and steering people that he could pull your strings without lifting a finger. What’s worse is part of her wanted to comply to win his approval, knowing full well this was the only way to get allowed into the inner circle.
People who were allowed into the organisation were always top of their class, the kind of people who could do anything they felt like. The endless ability to follow their dreams wouldn’t be enough though, the organisation needed people they could steer. A certain lack of direction coupled with a brilliant mind were key ingredients to their success. The hardest part about ruling the world, was convincing people that you were the right person for the job. And that’s what they did, they ruled the world. This is not to say that they sat somewhere in a dark and quiet room plotting away over the troubles of mankind, in fact darkened rooms were out of the question. They operated in plain sight during daylight and were far more effective than conspiracy theorist could ever imagine.
Now, ruling the world might seem like a nifty idea when you’ve had a couple of drinks and you’re sitting around building castles in the sky with your friends, but in truth it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. There is no one person sitting somewhere on a throne ruling the world, nor were there a group of people in dark robes plotting by candle light, there was simply them. Sitting in a rather drab office building in South Africa of all places! Mark had been excited when Charles came to him, but this soon faded when he walked in the first day, right into Anne. She was annoyingly beautiful and after five minutes in her company he felt like an absolute idiot. Maybe it’s the way she always seemed to be talking at you instead of to you, but to be fair Mark had never been very good with women. Anne had been recruited two months before Mark and even though she recognised her own uncertainty in his eyes she was far to suspicious of people to let up. The memory of that first confusing week was still fresh in her mind, and after she’d given him a gruff brush off she did at least feel a little guilty. All of this was less than a year ago, but it seemed like a lifetime. The people they had been were long gone and had been replaced by suspicious paranoid individuals and even though he suspected that this was barely a switch for Anne, for him it had been an enormous leap. He was right in a way, Anne had always been weary of people but she wasn’t nearly as tough as she was pretending to be.
Charles did the recruitment, usually taking potential candidates to a local coffee shop and inviting them “to join a little club he belonged to that sported some powerful people.” Jeremy was half under the impression that he was joining some sort of country club up until his first meeting. There were a group of people sitting around a table, calmly discussing which country was bordering on a war and which ruler needed to be taken care off. He walked in and got introduced to three people even though there were twelve in the room, when he asked who the others was an elderly woman simply replied:” We are They.” He never thought the world could be run this way, but as soon as he realised what he’d joined he started plotting ways to gain even more control. Jason it has already been mentioned was one of those rather unfortunate people without insight, making him even more of a perfect choice. The trick was never to rule the world, but rather gaining full control of those who do. Nobody in the inner circle wanted to be the one standing in the spotlight waving a sceptre. They wanted to stand at the back, pulling the ruler’s strings. Far enough at the back in fact that if or should I say when a scandal came, they couldn’t possibly be connected to it. There are times when some wayward ruler tried to point a finger at them, but even though drowning men clutch at straws, this has precious little effect on their salvation. Nobody would believe a fallen ruler when he claimed that twelve people from Africa made him do it, people were far too clever for that. This disbelief made them even more effective and made a laughing stock of anyone unwise enough to speak out.
Jeremy had never been a mastermind when it came to keeping secrets, but the speed with which he blurted out this one really was quite ridiculous. He was burning to tell someone from the very minute he walked out the front door and since even Jeremy had enough sense to realise the possible repercussions of such a comment, he decided to tell his younger brother Ben. He knew Ben was trustworthy and he was so proud to have been taken up by such an organisation he just had to tell someone. He barely made it to his apartment before he punched the number on his phone. “Guess what I did buddy!” He said even before the customary ‘How are you?” etc. “ I don’t know, why don’t you tell me” Ben replied, he wasn’t in the mood for any of Jeremy’s boastful rants. Jeremy told him and he went through all the obligatory ooh’s and aah's without really believing any of it. Ben knew that Jeremy was full of flights of fancy and he had no reason to believe that this was any different.
This all changed a couple of weeks later when Jeremy told him about a war they were planning on causing in the middle east, he hadn’t taken any notice of it at the time but when the news came on that evening he had a change of heart. There had been no real reason for the Americans to invade Iraq, but there it was all over the news along with some fabricated story about terrorism. As time passed there were even more stories involving war, stock markets and for some reason cheese that Jeremy leaked to him and as he listened it became clear that his brother was in way over his head. Originally Ben just took solace in the fact that Jason was still very low in the ranks and as such unlikely to get into too much trouble, but when Jeremy started boasting about a possible presidency he knew something was up. He hinted a few times but it soon became clear that nothing short of a neon sign would be needed to reach his brother. Jeremy was so caught up in his own illusions of greatness that he was convinced of his own invulnerability.
“I don’t think you should trust them Jeremy.” Ben hadn’t meant for it to sound like an order, but he was on edge and apparently this was how it came across. He knew it the moment he saw the flicker in his older brother’s expression. Jeremy may have gotten better at hiding his emotions, but he still had a long way to go before he would be able to hide them from someone who’d known him his whole life. Originally he thought Jeremy was joking when he’d first told him he’ been approached by them. As this whole thing started spiralling out of control it started looking like a joke gone south. Jeremy was bright enough, but having a high IQ is rarely enough of a counterbalance for arrogance. He lacked the common sense and street smarts that even hermits were born with. Don’t be fooled however, when it came to public relations he had charm in spades. Whatever else Jeremy lacked, he was always good with people. This along with his boundless ego was why he wasn’t all that surprised when Charles came to him with a little ‘offer’. Fresh out of Varsity with a law degree that he’d only just managed to obtain he was hardly a prime candidate for a top secret organisation. However, a natural born narcissist like Jeremy had no qualms about believing that he alone had the right stuff for the job. “You’re just jealous you petty child!” Jeremy screamed as he charged out of the room. He didn’t even stop to listen to the rest of what Ben had to say, convinced that his brother was somehow the one that was out to get him.
He never noticed the car that was following him around, nor did it ever occur to him that his cell phone might be tapped. It’s a sad truth of the world that people are often important instruments in bringing about their own demise. They knew that he had told his brother and they weren’t impressed at all. Anne didn’t know why she got chosen to talk to Jeremy since she had raised concerns about his suitability from early on. She couldn’t help feeling like Charles had it in for her, but she also knew better than that. Jason was a macho, egotistical idiot and she was simply the right person for the job. She rung him up and told him to come see her in her office and gave her P.A strict instructions not to interrupt them once he came. Jeremy showed up fifteen minutes late and by the time he sauntered in she was ready to grab him by his throat. “We know about your indiscretion.” She said as soon as the obligatory pleasantries were exchanged. Strangely enough Jeremy didn’t argue or even ask how, he simply said :” I trust him completely, he’ll never talk.” “I’m inclined to disagree.” She snapped as she threw the newspaper on the desk, it was open on page 3 along with a headline that read “CONSPIRACY EXPOSED”. She was livid and Jason’s complete lack of understanding was just adding more fuel to the fire. “We can only be glad the editor didn’t put much faith in your brother.” “It’s only a varsity newspaper!” He cried indignantly, but she could hear the slight trebble in his voice. She decided then; They’d have to kill him, and sooner rather than later. Jeremy was becoming more than just a security risk, he was turning into an embarrassment. Today it was a short story in a varsity newspaper, but tomorrow who knows? Anne wasn’t a big fan of murdering families and the whole bullet to the head cliché was a little old, but he had left her no choice. Besides, it was a surprisingly effective way of making sure that secrets stayed secret. They’d been around for long enough to know that a little leak today could break the dam tomorrow and she wasn’t about to let this pompous little man ruin it for all of them. She still waited almost an hour before calling ‘the cleaners’ since murder was still not fully on her menu. The call ended up lasting less than ten minutes, and when she put the phone down she took a deep breath and started with her paperwork. At least now things could get back to normal.

the what if machine

The “what if” machine


What a marvellous invention, surely of all the things that he had ever come up with this was one of the best. The idea came to him late one night after a dismal round of poker with the fellows, and once it had entered his head there as no shifting it. He was going to invent a “what if” machine, something that could tell you what would happen when you made certain decisions. Surely if he had a machine that could tell you what the future held he would be safe from poker rounds that left him with nothing but a yellow button in his pocket and no money for a taxi. If it hadn’t been for Albert he would’ve had to walk home, with his injured pride in tow. Dr.Drew Sharp was a shrewd man, who wore a grey overcoat, sensible shoes and rarely smiled. This doesn’t mean that he was unfriendly however; mostly he was just too preoccupied to know what was going on around him. He had a brilliant mind, and even though it was insulated from reality by about a meter of cotton wool he was still a charming, if strange fellow.
The night in question had been spent at Lord Lawrence’s house, even though what exactly he was Lord over remains a mystery. Every Wednesday evening was poker night and the lads took turns to host this event, anxiously collecting greasy snacks and waiting in anticipation till it was their turn. Hosting the poker night was a great honour and carried the extra bonus of ten pounds credit when playing began. Originally they only played for chips, but sooner or later someone would suggest making things “interesting”. Which of course meant playing for money, and such things rarely end well. The fact that Albert was the one who suggested it might go some way in explaining why he offered Drew a lift home even though he lived in the other side of town, but it does not do to speculate unduly over the motives of benefactors. Drew had never been very good at poker, but time and time again optimism triumphed over experience and he stepped into the trap of a little wager. The evening followed its inevitable course, with whiskey flowing freely, smoke choking up the room and people betting more than they were willing to loose. When his pockets were finally empty it came as a bit of a shock, but even more so when all that his rummaging produced was that yellow button, and not only because he couldn’t remember owning a yellow garment ever since he had been old enough to choose his own clothes.
With this nasty little wakeup call, the evening came to an end and people started going their separate ways. The car ride home lasted all of ten minutes, but for Albert it felt like an eternity and he was glad when the old house finally came into view. He pulled up to the curb and was secretly relieved when Dr.Drew didn’t invite him in for coffee. “Chin up old chap, it’ll all look better in the morning!” he quipped as Dr.Drew got out and the grunt he got in reply prevented any more words of wisdom for the evening. Dr.Drew left the car, silently fuming and when the key wouldn’t turn in the lock he cursed the universe for conspiring against him in such a clearly unsporting manner. It was while he was making his tea that the idea finally struck, and once it struck it stuck.
Early the next morning he started working on his “what if” machine, fiddling with nuts and bolts and other equally uninteresting bits of machinery till the early hours. In the end he had something resembling a very psycadelic TV set. The screen was normal enough, but all the bits and blobs surrounding it made it look like something a druggy might invent on a bad comedown. When the time came to test it his hands were trembling slightly, not because he didn’t think it would work, but because he seriously suspected that it would. He slowly pressed the red button the screen became a fuzzy blue colour, he reached for the speaking tube and slowly brought it closer. For some obscure reason now that it had been built he had no clue what to ask it, so he went upstairs to go make some tea instead, hoping that inspiration would find him along the way. Only when he was sitting in his favourite chair did he notice the time, and when he did he promptly decided to head of to bed instead.
The next morning he went about his daily tasks with the ‘what if’ machine practically forgotten and it might have remained that way had his favourite TV show not ended with the dreaded “to be continued” message. These always annoyed him immensely and in this case served to remind him of the “what if” machine standing downstairs. Having finally gotten his question he headed towards the machine and when he saw the faintly accusing blue screen staring back at him he felt a pang of guilt for leaving it on all night. Still, no problem he took the speaking tube and said:” What is going to happen in the next episode?” The machine made a rumbling noise and the screen went black for a few seconds, suddenly images flashed across the screen and there it came, next week’s episode. The detective ended up catching the crook and now that Dr.Drew had proof that his machine worked the possibilities were endless. He went to bed, but even as he dreamed he was preoccupied with questions to ask the machine.
At first his questions were mostly about television programmes, but before long the novelty of this soon started to fade and he turned to it for the more important things. Dr.Drew’s “what if” machine became the little extra insight that every amateur investor dreams about. He made a few choice investments that naturally yielded the best possible returns and within a couple of months he had managed to turn a reasonable income into quite a lavish one. Being a scientist he had never been overly interested in money, but everyone likes having a little bit extra around the house and since he never hurt anyone he couldn’t see the harm in using the machine this way. He even went as far as providing a few tips to his closest friends, and even during thorough questioning he never let on where he had gotten his information. The world lay before him, and from where he stood it was brimming with possibilities.
Like any other addiction this one started slowly, and though this was no chemical it was no less dangerous. Of course he never noticed it, and he might still have denied it even if you asked him today but after a while people started to comment. He spent days following the possible outcome of doing this or that and knowing the outcome somehow numbed the drive to actually do the things. There seemed little point of asking anyone out when you already new exactly how the evening would go and even less so when an evening of mediocre conversation would be the only outcome. When he did manage to go out he would be upset with people for things that they might say if he made certain comments and since nobody else knew about the “what if” machine he often left people feeling perplexed. There are few things as confusing as a fight about something you’ve never said, even if the content did ring true. Being away from the machine held no solace as his mind would be racing about the possible outcome of any choice that was made. The uncertainty drove him mad and often he would rush back and double check every little move. This seemed to be the only way to ensure that he would never make mistakes. He’d never been a fan of mistakes anyway and now that he had a way to avoid them completely he became ever more preoccupied.
Now, it’s all very well if you live in a world of your own, providing you take the time to step out from time to time in order to connect with the rest of humanity. But, what’s the point of talking to people when you already know what they are going to say? Conversations became tiresome and life started to look like a “re-run” without the benefit of a fast forward button to slash the boring bits. His obvious impatience during conversations caused a lot of distress and even more so when he told someone to keep quiet since he already knew what they were going to say and didn’t care for it. All but his closest friends limited their interaction to the most basic, how’d you do’s in fear of his snappy replies. Even then he did not stop; instead he locked himself in his study “living” a life that in actual fact was slowly crumbling around him. It took a long time before the doorbell eventually stopped ringing and he scarcely noticed when it did.
They found him about a week ago, all alone still sitting in front of the machine. I don’t know if anyone ever saw the announcement, but the only people who turned up for the funeral were close family and the people that were paid to be there.
Pity he never found out that living life for yourself is the only thing that makes it worth living.

virgin no more

My first posting on the blog. Whoohoo!
Been raining cats and dogs for most of the day, so I might as well do something useful with my time.
Quite excited about it all and really looking forward
to sharing all my thoughts with the world.
They may not always be right.
They may not always be admirable.
BUT
They'll always be honest.
Hope everyone out there is having a great day!