Second Critical Review

This critical review is in response to "Writing Against Culture" by Lila Abu-Lughod.

Abu-Lughold focuses on the main distinction between the self and the other in this piece, specifically through anthropologists, feminists, and "halfies". There is a fine line between self vs. other and power vs. inferiority. Through each of these studies, as professions attempt to expand their knowledge on cultures other than their own, they consequently create the other. But this is also limiting in their creation of boundaries - why do separate countries need to be separate entities? There will always be some crossover between what we define as different cultures, as people are not physically separated from each other nor are they unaware of societies that exist beyond their immediate proximity. At this point in time, with our methods of communication and transportation, almost no one in the world is completely isolated and ignorant of the fact that somewhere there exists a people different from him/herself. But Abu-Lughold discusses how such differences cannot be defined by concrete terms, as ways of mankind really exist along a spectrum with no distinct borders. I like how she discusses how in order for one to find or discover his/herself, the other must exist. The self and the other depend on each other. This could be an explanation as to why people seem to take comfort in labeling both themselves and their peers. Maybe mankind has a tendency to segregate to feel more secure about their selves.

This made me wonder, what is the threshold for defining someone or another culture as different? Obviously similarities and differences exist across all realms of culture, from nations to states to towns to individuals. So when do people decide to call something different? There is an infinite number of characteristics that constitutes each individual, which is why we really exist on a spectrum. But this spectrum can't really be a two dimensional line from black to white, it must extend into all dimensions to really represent all that defines a single being. It strikes me as odd that people can be turned off by a single trait in a single being. Or, vice versa, people can be attracted to a single trait in a single being. So bringing this back to the discussion of the self and the other, how does an anthropologist successfully immerse him/herself into a new society to study their culture? Must the anthropologist possess certain traits to be accepted into this new society? Is it really possible for an anthropologist to be treated as a member of this society, even if the society perceives him/her as different?