Suchergebnisse

The term 'national identity' implies homogeneity, but field research shows that the members of a nation are very heterogeneous in their conceptions of their own national identity. How then can we speak of a national identity when there is significant diversity among the members of a nation? I rely on concepts of 'first order' and 'second order' components of identity to resolve this question. First order concepts are constructed from the top down by the cultural elite and second order concepts are precipitates of behavior from the bottom up through personal experiences. I also rely on the importance of situated knowledge as the way identity is understood in social practice. Situated knowledge used by ego in social interactions. Situated knowledge creates a common national (or cultural) identity when ego knows not only that alter knows what ego knows but that ego "knows that alter knows that ego knows that alter knows." It is this third order "Knowing" that creates, expresses, and maintains a national identity that is actually practiced in everyday life. I conclude by noting that a socially just inclusive model of national identity has to be based on this "third order" understanding of national identity.

Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology. H. Russell Bernard. ed. Walnut Creek. CA: AltaMira Press. 1998. 816 pp.

Cultural models play an important role in the generation of the individual's behaviour. A proposal is advanced to consider cultural models as fundamental units of analysis for an approach to culture that goes beyond the dichotomy between the individual (culture only in mind) and the collective (culture only in the social realm). The genesis of the concept of cultural model is traced from Kant to contemporary scholars

The article presents a detailed and methodologically systematic description of the Lithuanian kinship system. A study of kinship relationships was conducted in order to describe the formal and pragmatic structure of the modern kinship system as it is conceptualized by different generations of Lithuanians. We show how this system both remains a formal system, but the salience of kin types changes across different generations. The authors of the article are aware that there are many formal methods of kinship analysis, but a semi-formal research method that priviledges a pragmatic 'bottom's up' approach is used in order th analyse kinship as an interpersonal and dynamic rather than static system. Our free list methodology was chosen because of its emic perspective that allows for comparative etic (i.e. statistical) cross-generational analysis.The results of our research show that Lithuanian kinship systems are not only holistic, but also holographic, and the main structure with its attendant terminology is flexible and adaptive to the requirements of different generational concerns such as courtship, mating, parenting and being grandparents. The results confirm a premise of the anthropological sciences – that thoughts are expressed in language and language (as thoughts or concepts) in turn shapes behaviour. This idea is given credence and supported by our study: the observed approach to change is a non-linguistic result, i.e. it is determined by behaviours, experiences that fall into the linguistic category, and shapes them not according to an imaginary monolithic configuration, but according to individual experience and relationships. Based on the data, it can be concluded that they reflect different collective conceptualizations of kinship – both blood-related and marital kinship. The study found that different behavioural requirements create assumptions for emphasizing appropriate social relations; it is particularly noticeable that the displacement of certain kinship names in the periphery is associated with a corresponding absence of kinship relations. The results also motivate a subsequent study that would look at testing the behavioural systems between kin that are indicated by this study.