Bioculturalism and Identity: The Anthropology of “Others” in the Genetic Age
Bioculturalism and Identity: The Anthropology of “Others” in the Genetic Age. The study of “identity” in anthropology has undergone an epistemological shift in recent decades. Anthropologists have long sought to disassociate identity as a fixed object of study arguing that is this concept is purely a product of social performance with a collective nature that arises from the navigation of existing political structures (Sökefeld 1999, Brodwin 2002). However, the recent contributions of human genetics research contrast this stance as identity, or differences, has a biological basis. With the inclusion of genetic studies into discussions of identity formation and reconstruction, anthropology has been prompted to engage new directions in anthropological theory and methodology producing a deeper understanding of how humans engage with each other and with larger group identities (Franklin 2003, Marks 2013, Sökefeld 1999, Brodwin 2002). However, the incorporation of genetic evidence into anthropological discourse is not seamless as it has been met with resistance from several scholars citing its practice as a return to old or revalued conceptions of race, identity, and ethnicity with the potential to incite new divisions rather than its promise to dissolve standing myths about racial, ethnic and cultural identities (Reich 2018). (Tallbear 2013, Reardon and Tallbear 2012). Anthropology has begun to address these concerns through several lines of questioning: How have these recent genetic studies influenced the formation of identities and heritage? What theoretical or methodological frameworks allow anthropology to navigate the aftermath of the genomic revolution? It is this intersection of cultural-biological boundaries that I wish to explore in this research paper. To address how genetic studies have impacted identity, it is essential to first define “identity” in its traditional anthropological sense. For this paper, identity will be approached dialectically, arguing its existence in the negotiation of sameness and difference (Franklin 2003, Marks 2013, Sökefeld 1999, Brodwin 2002). The social formations of race, ethnicity, and indigeneity will constitute much of this discussion with the aim to present how both social and biological factors can permeate into a definition of identity. Following this clarification, I want to further examine the methodological and theoretical exchanges prompted by the inclusion of genetics in anthropology in hopes to discuss a negotiated sociobiological epistemology (Franklin 2003, Meloni 2013). Before proceeding forward, it is necessary to address the consequences of this shift, as some have defined this negotiated framework as a form of biocolonialism and further deconstructs indigenous and disenfranchised identities. I plan to present these viewpoints through the works of Brodwin (2002), Caspari (2010), Tallbear (2012, 2013), and others writing on this topic. Several key themes that will be addressed are the recreation of a white identity, a normalization of the unmarked nature of European and further exoticism of non-European identities, and the undercutting of unity in disenfranchised groups. With the current situation in place, I plan to close this paper with a discussion of several proposed methodological frameworks that navigate these concerns while still pressing forward. The bulk of these are community-based research practices that approaches identity as a biocultural phenomenon and geared towards a shared critical historicity (Tallbear 2013, Bang 2016). I hope to expand this discussion focusing on ancestral and heritage narratives in greater detail. Underlying this topic is an examination of human groupings as a biocultural product. Through a provision of the history and theoretical frameworks that incorporate the biological foundations into the social sciences, concepts of identity, such as race, indigeneity, and ethnicity can be reexamined through a biocultural lens. As anthropology moves towards greater interdisciplinary research, a greater acknowledgement of a biosocial framework can foster more effective communication between disciplines and the communities under study which deepening our comprehension of the human experience. Preliminary Works Cited 1) Bang, Megan, Lori Faber, Jasmine Gurneau, Ananda Marin, and Cynthia Soto. “Community-based design research: Learning across generations and strategic transformations of institutional relations toward axiological innovations.” Mind, Culture, and Activity 23, no. 1 (2016): 28-41. 2) Brodwin, Paul. “Genetics, identity, and the anthropology of essentialism.” Anthropological Quarterly 75, no. 2 (2002): 323-330. 3) Caspari, Rachel. “Deconstructing race: racial thinking, geographic variation, and implications for biological anthropology.” A companion to biological anthropology (2010): 104-123. 4) Franklin, Sarah. “Re-thinking nature—culture: Anthropology and the new genetics.” Anthropological theory 3, no. 1 (2003): 65-85. 5) Genetics Working Group. “The use of racial, ethnic, and ancestral categories in human genetics research.” The American Journal of Human Genetics 77, no. 4 (2005): 519-532. 6) Marks, Jonathan. “The nature/culture of genetic facts.” Annual Review of Anthropology 42 (2013): 247-267. 7) Meloni, Maurizio, Simon Williams, and Paul Martin. “The biosocial: sociological themes and issues.” (2016): 7-25. 8) Reardon, Jenny, and Kim TallBear. ““Your DNA Is Our History” Genomics, Anthropology, and the Construction of Whiteness as Property.” Current Anthropology 53, no. S5 (2012): S233-S245. 9) Reich, David. Who we are and how we got here: Ancient DNA and the new science of the human past. Oxford University Press, 2018. 10) Sökefeld, Martin. “Debating self, identity, and culture in anthropology.” Current anthropology 40, no. 4 (1999): 417-448. 11) TallBear, Kim. “Genomic articulations of indigeneity.” Social Studies of Science 43, no. 4 (2013): 509-533. 12) Wolpoff, Milford H., and Rachel Caspari. “Paleoanthropology and race.” A companion to paleoanthropology (2013): 321-337. Bioculturalism and Identity: The Anthropology of “Others” in the Genetic Age
Paper 2: Persona
assignment writer Paper 2: Persona.
Hello Professor,1. I will post the question of the essay for you with all the requirements needed for it, so please read it carefully and follow everything my teacher want for the essay.2. I want you to write it all with your own words and I don’t need any plagiarism please, because I want to get a good grade on it.3. Read the requirements more that one time and respond to what the teacher want step by step.4. I want you to write 5 pages with MLA and I need it all organized please.5. I will send you picture at the end please read it carefully before you start writing the essay to get the requirements needed for the essay because it’s very important to take a look at it before you start writing the essay.6. Good luck and please follow everything needed for the assignment. Paper 2: PersonaPurpose:This essay assignment will allow you to location, evaluate, and synthesize information from sources representing diverse perspectives in order to construct an argument that follows the Toulmin Model of argument. The topic of the argument will be about Persona. You’ll write an argument answering this question: What steps do you think an individual should take to influence how others perceive them?Skills:The purpose of this assignment is to help you practice the following skills that are essential to your success in navigating arguments you’ll encounter in your academic, professional, and personal lives. In this assignment you will:Demonstrate your understanding of the Toulmin ArgumentAvoid problems in logic through your argumentIncorporate sources of value to youUnderstand the distinction between inductive, deductive, and analogical reasoningKnowledge:This assignment will also help you to become familiar with the following important content knowledge in critical thinking and reasoning:That there are approaches to argument that contain specific elements that we can defineThat an argument gets into more nuanced depths than simply be “right” or “wrong”Tasks:To complete this assignment you should:Before you start writing, think about the tools you use to communicate with others how you want to be perceived. Also think about how you want people to see you, and what you do to evoke that view. Where are there consistencies or contradictions? between the tools you use and your desires?On 3/11, in class, be sure to have a working draft, with at least what you see as your Grounds, Warrants, and Claims is for your paper. The grounds should be a text, something that can clearly be cited, which you’re responding to. As Karbach writes, “the grounds are the foundation of the argument,” and that foundation must be solid (82). The fact is established by a clear text. If you don’t have a specific text, you should have a very clear statement that has context, like the example on page 85. The statement is about people in a specific job (“waitresses”) under specific circumstances (“who make a dependable wage”) who are facing a specific challenge (“will be less likely to leave present employment”) and the claim is responding to that. Think about what specific grounds you have in your paper.You’re trying to write an argument that answers this question: What do you think has the biggest influence on how others perceive an individual? This is not a personal essay, though it might include personal narrative elements. One example might be something like this: “The biggest influence on perception is physical style, and how that’s presented in online spaces.” That is an inductive argument, moving from a specific tool to a much larger concept. Be aware of how your argument is Inductive, Deductive, or Analogical.In body paragraphs, makes points that help you elaborate on the statement you’ve made (the statement is your argument/thesis), defining what you’re using as your grounds, and what warrants you’re relying on to make the argument.Incorporate sources/evidence as needed and incorporate those in MLA format. Use at least three sources in your paper.Decide where Backing, Qualifiers, and Rebuttals are necessary, and incorporate those.In a conclusion, attempt to end in a different place than where you began, remembering that a paper is about a progression, where you move to a new place by the end of it, rather than merely restating the initial thesis.Cite all sources in a Work Cited page at the end of the paperInclude a reflection at the end of the paper that answers these questions:
What motivated you to make this argument (another way to think about this might be: what is your exigence?)What do you see as strengths in the paper (give a specific example from what you’ve written)?What would you like specific feedback on? (Please do not say “my writing in general.”)Submit that document here in CanvasCriteria for Success:You’ve written a paper about how you think has the biggest influence on how others perceive an individual; the Toulmin model is followed, and it’s clear what the specific elements are, and how the reasoning of the paper is structured; a heading is on the first page, along with a title; there’s a clear introduction that makes a statement/argument/thesis; body paragraphs are clearly structured to advance that point, whether it’s deductive, inductive, or analogical; 3 sources/evidence are incorporated where necessary; MLA format is used both in text and also in a Work Cited page at the end; a reflection follows the works cited; the paper is submitted by 11:59pm on 3/18.In Paper 2, after your Work Cited page, I’m asking you to write a reflection. You’ll reflect by writing answers to these three questions:What motivated you to make this argument (another way to think about this might be: what is your exigence?)What do you see as strengths in the paper (give a specific example from what you’ve written)?What would you like specific feedback on? (Please do not say “my writing in general.”)
Paper 2: Persona
Blue Monday Strip by Rebecca Horn: Themes and Techniques
Blue Monday Strip by Rebecca Horn: Themes and Techniques. Artist: Rebecca Horn. Title/Date: Blue Monday Strip, 1993. Materials: Typewriters, ink, metal, and motors. Dimensions: 192 1/8 x 137 inches. Site: Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum. Provenance: Gift of the artist. Introduction to Blue Monday Strip by Rebecca Horn The work of Rebecca Horn is appealing to many in the art world. To me, it is appealing in ways that I, as a fellow artist, find particularly compelling; although we work in different media, a common theme seems to resonate when I observe her work and compare it to my own. There is a sense of the fleeting nature of our corporeal existence against a background of the mundane details of life. Her works are animated, though in a much different way than my own art is ‘animated’ The sense of activity and movement I see in her work is something that is appealing and energizing. It brings to mind the limitations of the human body, yet at the same time it brings to light the concept that human activity goes on, even though we as individuals do not. According to one biographer/critic, Horn’s work is ‘located in the nexus between body and machine’, and it ‘transmogrifies the ordinary into the enigmatic’ (Ragheb, 1993). Horn’s ability to do this with such deft yet subtle precision is part of her appeal to me as a practitioner. She can take everyday objects and juxtapose them with such uniqueness that viewers look at them in new ways. Doing this within my own medium is something I can strive for, and hope on some level to achieve; what she has done with her sculpture, in her unique way, sets a standard I can aspire to in my own chosen medium. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Blue Monday Strip, a 1993 piece that was a gift from Horn to the Guggenheim Museum in New York City. Blue Monday Strip: Salient characteristics of Form and Content Horn’s piece, Blue Monday Strip, was actually a gift that the artist bestowed upon the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York City. This dynamic work measures, in inches, 192 1/8th by 137, and is composed of ‘everyday’ (although some are somewhat dated) materials: older, or ‘vintage’ typewriters, ink, metal, and motors. A crucial aspect of this particular piece is that it is mechanized, so there is movement: it is essentially, animated, and in quite a literal sense. As an animator, this is a feature that is important to me. Ragheb has described Blue Monday Strip as a group of ‘vintage typewriters’ that ‘are liberated from the orderly office world and set akimbo, transformed into an unruly lot whose keys chatter ceaselessly in a raucous dialogue’ (1993). The monotony of the droning typewriters is clearly symbolic of the relentless sameness that was at one time experienced by the secretaries who operated them each week, starting on the first day of the work cycle—the ‘blue Monday’ An occasional splotch of blue paint—presumably ink? Might we go so far as to say sweat, or possibly tears?—breaks the monotony. The ability to breathe life into inanimate forms in such an effective and dramatic way is something that I, as an animator, find truly compelling. Another feature of Horn’s work that appeals to me is her sense of perspective; her work is based in reality—a quantifiable and verifiable reality, as I would like mine to be. In other words, much of modern art has been criticized for its abstract qualities; often a sculpture or painting will be impossible to describe until we read the title. Then we can say, ‘oh, yes, it’s clearly a pear, anyone can see that’—when in reality it looks nothing like a pear at all. Horn’s work does not have this type of abstractness: its primary components are easily identified as typewriters, but because of the mode of presentation, we are forced into seeing them in a new way. As Winterson has written, ‘art has the knack of helping us to see what we would normally miss. . . Artists see better than we do, and help us to look twice. Horn’s way of seeing is to go past the sensible, obvious arrangements of objects and people, and rearrange them in a way that is not obvious at all’ (Winterson, 2005). In this specific piece, the objects before us are authentic, but they are in an unusual setting, one which calls attention to them and forces us to consider them in unusual ways. Blue Monday Strip is, as the title suggests, a ‘strip’, or section, of a life that includes not just one, but several typewriters. What does this suggest, other than an office? An office on a blue Monday? A setting in which individuals—most likely women—find themselves trapped again and again, Monday after Monday, with little likelihood of change beyond the Saturday and Sunday that separate the weeks. This is the kind of thought process I would like to spark with my own work—it need not be mysterious to the viewer; it need be nothing more than what it appears to the average eye. But to those who care, or dare, to look, it will suggest ideas and themes in subtle, yet consciously planned ways. As Ragheb says of Horn’s sculpture, the viewer can see a disorganized row of machines and nothing more; or, he or she can see something further. One can feel the drain of wasted lives, the emptiness of disappointed hopes, the frustration of unfulfilled desire, by taking a second look at the forlorn collection of typewriters: ‘Whether mechanomorphic bodies or anthropomorphic machines, all of Horn’s works are fraught with sexual allusions and the ache of desire’ (Ragheb). Horn’s career has spanned over three decades, and though she has experimented with form and theme throughout, she has returned again and again to somatic themes. At times, her work is a celebration of the body, in respectful, awed praise of its power; at others, it seems a reproachful and cynical statement on the treachery of the body. Ideas, Practices, and Issues Relating to the Body Horn’s early reading stirred an interest in Surrealism and the absurd; this was further inspired in young adulthood, when she was introduced to the works of Franz Kafka and Jean Genet, and by the films of Luis Buñuel and Pier Paolo Pasolini (Ragheb). The absurdist philosophies of Kafka and Genet, and the obscure themes of Buñuel and Pasolini, are evident to a great extent in all of her works. Yet what affected her life and her work most was what she has interpreted as a betrayal of her own body. In an interview with Jeanette Winterson last year, Horn described two of the key events that caused a change in the course of her life and work. First was the onset, at age 20[i], of a serious lung condition. This was the result of working, by her own account, unprotected, with glass fibre. No one had told her that it was a dangerous material. As a result, after a period of intense work, while living in a cheap hotel in Barcelona—‘one of those hotels where you rent rooms by the hour’—she found herself dangerously ill. During this unfortunate period, she also found herself alone—both parents had died. ‘I was totally isolated’, she told Winterson. To recuperate, she was forced to spend time in a sanatorium, a setting in which her sense of isolation was magnified. This enforced period of extended rest became an experience that ultimately led her to consider the workings of the body in a new way. She began to view the body it in terms of isolation and vulnerability. ‘That’s when I began to produce my first body-sculptures. I could sew lying in bed’ (qtd. in Winterson, 2005). What resulted from this period were a series of designs ‘that would extend her body’ explains Winterson (2005). Apparently, this was more than a reactionary phase, as Horn continued on this trajectory after her release from the sanatorium. Back at art school, she worked with soft materials, such as prosthetic bandages and padding, creating protective, cocoon-like pieces. Works from this early period include Finger Gloves (1972), Pencil Mask (1972), and Black Cockfeathers (1971). According to Winterson, ‘isolation becomes a message in a bottle; the viewer can retrieve what is inside’ (2005). Eventually Horn gravitated more and more into performance art, but instead of abandoning the body-extension sculptures, she used them as part of her performance (Ragheb). The limitations of the body, and of one’s time on earth, are apparent even as the actions of Horn’s mechanized sculptures suggest endless time. There is a beauty in the symmetry of Blue Monday Strip, a duality in the suggestion of the mundane in a setting of what appears to be perpetual motion. To express animation through inanimate objects is to do the unexpected, particularly in Horn’s chosen format. This is what I would like to achieve in my own art. Conclusion: A Contextual Investigation All art is contextual in that it is dependent upon its environment. What it is, as well as the time in which it is brought into existence, are both aspects that must be considered when assessing its value. Art that relates to the body is unique in the sense that although our individual bodies have a limited amount of time on this earth, the body, such as it is, is perpetual. It will always exist, though each of us as individuals has a limited time span on this earth. The work of Rebecca Horn is appealing in a timeless sense; one gets the feeling that it will be appreciated and valued even in the far distant future, in a time when machines such as ‘typewriters’ have ceased to play a role in society, other than as a symbol of the past. Her work is relevant in ways that I, as a fellow artist, find significant and familiar—and this familiarity exists despite the fact that we work in media that are altogether different from each other. Despite this difference, a common theme exists and seems to resonate when I observe her work and consider it against my own. Though we work with different materials, there is a common theme, a sense of the fleeting nature of our corporeal existence against a background of the details of life. Her works are animated, though in a much different way than my own art is ‘animated’. The sense of activity and movement I see in her work is something that is appealing and energizing. It brings to mind the limitations of the human body, yet at the same time it brings to light the concept that human activity goes on, even though we as individuals do not. Doing this within my own medium is something I can strive for, and hope on some level to achieve. As Ragheb has written, Horn’s work is ‘located in the nexus between body and machine’, and it ‘transmogrifies the ordinary into the enigmatic’ (1993). I would take these even further; Horn’s ability to find a niche between body and machine has been accomplished with dexterity and precision, yet at the same time with a subtlety that lends itself to individual interpretation. This, in essence, is the crux of her appeal to me as a practitioner. She can take everyday objects—typewriters, motors, ink, bits of metal—and juxtapose them in such unique ways that viewers look at them in ways that are new and yet familiar at the same time. References Cork, Richard. 2005. ‘Rebecca Horn invades our senses’. Times Online, Weekend Review, Arts, May 21, 2005. Retrieved from http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,14933-1620638,00.html Ragheb, J. Fiona. ‘Rebecca Horn’. Retrieved from http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/artist_bio_66.html Smith, Roberta. 1993. ‘Review/Art; Fountains of Mercury, a Piano Spitting Out Keys: Sculpture as Dramas’. New York Times, July 2, 1993. Retrieved electronically on 5/12/06 from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE3D81E3BF931A35754C0A965958260Blue Monday Strip by Rebecca Horn: Themes and Techniques
Please answer the following by numbers w/ supporting references
Please answer the following by numbers w/ supporting references.
1. How have companies, like Pandora, used marketing to improve customer satisfaction and loyalty?2. How has GE unified its various brands under one marketing umbrella (or brand)?3. How has Twitter gone from a US-based company to a global entity?4. What are some specific branding guidelines for small business?5.Contrast consumer and organizational buying behaviors.6.Evaluate business to business buying behavior.7.Analyze post purchase processes, consumer satisfaction, and metrics to evaluate customer loyalty.8.Explain organizational behaviors taking into account business to business and business to consumer buying behaviors.
Please answer the following by numbers w/ supporting references