While Foucault sees power as ubiquitous and beyond agency or structure, Bourdieu sees power as culturally and symbolically created, and constantly re-legitimised through an interplay of agency and structure. The main way this happens is through what he calls habitus or socialised norms or tendencies that guide behaviour and thinking. Habitus is the way society becomes deposited in persons in the form of lasting dispositions, or trained capacities and structured propensities to think, feel and act in determinant ways, which then guide them (Wacquant 2005: 316, cited in Navarro 2006: 16).Habitus is created through a social, rather than individual process leading to patterns that are enduring and transferrable from one context to another, but that also shift in relation to specific contexts and over time. Habitus is not fixed or permanent, and can be changed under unexpected situations or over a long historical period (Navarro 2006: 16):Habitus is neither a result of free will, nor determined by structures, but created by a kind of interplay between the two over time: dispositions that are both shaped by past events and structures, and that shape current practices and structures and also, importantly, that condition our very perceptions of these (Bourdieu 1984: 170). In this sense habitus is created and reproduced unconsciously, without any deliberate pursuit of coherence without any conscious concentration (ibid: 170).Bourdieu, P. (1980). The Logic of Practice. Stanford, Stanford University Press.Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. London, Routledge.Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Capital. J. G. Richardson. New York, Greenwood Press: 241-58.Gaventa, J. (2003). Power after Lukes: a review of the literature, Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.Moncrieffe, J. (2006). The Power of Stigma: Encounters with Street Children and Restavecs in Haiti. IDS Bulletin 37(6): 31-46.Navarro, Z. (2006) In Search of Cultural Intepretation of Power, IDS Bulletin 37(6): 11-22.VeneKlasen, L. and V. Miller (2002). A New Weave of Power, People and Politics: The Action Guide for Advocacy and Citizen Participation. Oklahoma City, World Neighbors.Wacquant, L. (2005) Habitus. International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology. J. Becket and Z. Milan. London, Routledge.Habitusrefers to lifestyle, the values, the dispositions and expectation of particular social groups that are acquired through the activities and experiences of everyday life. Perhaps in more basic terms, the habitus could be understood as a structure of the mind characterized by a set of acquiredschemata, sensibilities, dispositions andtaste.[1]The particular contents of the habitus are the result of the objectification of social structure at the level of individual subjectivity. The habitus can be seen as counterpoint to the notions of rationality that are prevalent within other disciplines of social science research.[2]It is perhaps best understood in relation to the notion of the 'habitus' and 'field', which describes the relationship between individual agents and the contextual environment.The concept of habitus has been used as early asAristotlebut in contemporary usage was introduced byMarcel Maussand later re-elaborated byMaurice Merleau-PontyandPierre Bourdieu. Bourdieu elaborates on the notion of Habitus by explaining its dependency on history and human memory. For instance, a certain behaviour or belief becomes part of a society's structure when the original purpose of that behaviour or belief can no longer be recalled and becomes socialized into individuals of that culture.Loc Wacquantwrote that habitus is an old philosophical notion, originating in the thought ofAristotle, whose notion ofhexis("state") was translated intohabitusby the MedievalScholastics. Bourdieu first adapted the term in his 1967 postface toErwin Panofsky'sGothic Architecture and Scholasticism.[3]The term was earlier used in sociology byNorbert EliasinThe Civilizing Process(1939) and inMarcel Mauss's account of "body techniques" (techniques du corps). The concept is also present in the work ofMax Weber,Gilles Deleuze, andEdmund Husserl.Mauss defined habitus as those aspects of culture that are anchored in the body or daily practices of individuals, groups, societies, and nations. It includes the totality of learnedhabits, bodily skills, styles, tastes, and other non-discursive knowledges that might be said to "go without saying" for a specific group (Bourdieu 1990:66-67) in that way it can be said to operate beneath the level of rationalideology.According to Bourdieu, habitus is composed of:[s]ystems of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures, that is, as principles which generate and organize practices and representations that can be objectively adapted to their outcomes without presupposing a conscious aiming at ends or an express mastery of the operations necessary in order to attain them.[4]

1. The concept habitus has aspects in common with the sociological concept of culture. However, there is much greater emphasis on how our day to day interpretation of our world is affected by the complex set of social structures within which we live.

2. This means that our 'habitus', or the 'common sense' way we interpet the world is massively affected by the very specific gender/class/age/ethnic/ industrial/ political/etc strucures which defines who we are, how we think.

Because it (the habitus)has an infinite capacity for generating --thoughts, perceptions, expressions and actions-- but within the limits set by the historically and socially situated conditions of its productioneg our consumerist society .

In other words all the taken for granted aspects of what we calll'common sense' eg :this is normal/this is natural/this is how the world is now ..which influence the ways we talk, behave, act, interract, judge,and develop possibilities

3. So our thoughts, perceptions etc are not the result of our absolute individual freedom of thought. . However nor are we just 'puppets' of our habitus, absolutely dominated by it. Instead our habitus tends to generate "all the 'reasonable, 'common-sense' behaviors which are possible within the limits of these regularities,"

4.One way of at least partially escaping this control that history has over us is to use what CW Mills has called the sociological imagination.

5. Moreover,the concept of habitus includes the Marxian concept of 'dialectic' or contradiction. i.e. the world out there doesn't work smoothly, there are paradoxes, contradictions between the dominant 'common sense' perspective and our actual experiences. It's this that gives us some freedom of thought however much we might be unknowingly controlled by our dependence on our 'taken for granted' assumptions of how the world 'is'.

Deconstruction(French:dconstruction) is aliterary theoryandphilosophy of languagederived principally fromJacques Derrida's 1967 workOf Grammatology.[1]The premise of deconstruction is thatallof Western literature and philosophy implicitly relies on ametaphysics of presence,[2][3]where instrinsic meaning is accessible by virtue of pure presence.[4][5]Deconstruction denies the possibility of a pure presence and thus of essential or instrinsic meaning.[6][7]Derrida terms the philosophical commitment to pure presence as a source of self-sufficient meaninglogocentrism.[8]Due to the impossibility of pure presence and consequently of instrinsic meaning, any given concept is constituted and comprehendedlinguisticallyand in terms of itsoppositions, e.g. perception/reason, speech/writing, mind/body, interior/exterior, marginal/central, sensible/intelligible, intuition/signification, nature/culture.[9]Further, Derrida contends that of these dichotomies one member is associated with presence and consequently more highly valued than the other which is associated with absence.[10][11][12][13]Deconstruction reveals the metaphysics of presence in a text by identifying its conceptual binary oppositions and demonstrating the speciousness of their hierarchy by denying the possibility of comprehending the "superior" element of the hierarchy in the absence of its "inferior" counterpart. Denying an absolute and intrinsic meaning to either element of the hierarchydiffranceisrevealed(rather thanproposedas an alternative[14]) according to Derrida.Diffranceis a Derridaeanneologismthat is the antithesis of logocentrism, it is a perpetual series of interactions between presence and absencewhere a concept is constituted, comprehended and identified in terms of what itis notand self-sufficient meaning isneverarrived at[15][16]and thus a relinquishment of the notions of intrinsic and stable meaning, absolute truth, unmediated access to "reality" and consequently of conceptual hierarchy.[17][18][19][20]To situate deconstruction within philosophy in general, it is a critique ofIdealism[21]and a form ofantifoundationalism.[22][23]In terms of heritage, style and conceptual framework (namelyphenomenological[24][25]), deconstruction is within the Continentalas opposed to analytictradition of philosophy.[26]

Clifford Geertz's "Thick Description" explained (summary)One of the key terms in Clifford Geertz's anthropological theory is that of "Thick Description". Following Ryle, Geertz holds that anthropology's task is that of explaining cultures through thick description which specifies many details, conceptual structures and meanings, and which is opposed to "thin description" which is a factual account without any interpretation. Thin description for Geertz is not only an insufficient account of an aspect of a culture; it is also a misleading one. According to Geertz an ethnographer must present a thick description which is composed not only of facts but also of commentary, interpretation and interpretations of those comments and interpretations. His task is to extract meaning structures that make up a culture, and for this Geertz believes that a factual account will not suffice for these meaning structures are complexly layered one on top and into each other so that each fact might be subjected to intercrossing interpretations which ethnography should study.

In "Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture" Geertz outlines four parameters for an adequate "thick description" and a study of culture:1.Interpretative study:since anthropology is a semiotic endeavor, cultural analysis should be an interpretative practice which traces the manner in which meaning is ascribed. The raw observational material collected by an ethnographer is not sufficient if we are to achieve a thick description of a culture.2.The subject of interpretation is the flow of social discourse.Interperative ethnography according to Geertz should produce the codes required for decoding social events.3.Interpretation deals with extrovert expressions.Data collection and interpretation are limited to what local informants can tell us. Therefore the thickest of descriptions can only be based on extrovert expressions of culture.4.Ethnographic description is microscopic.According to Geertz ethnographic findings describe local behaviors and truths as serve as an ethnographical miniature. We always view specific and contextualized happenings, and these make up the thick description.Inanthropologyand other fields, athick descriptionof a human behavior is one that explains not just the behavior, but its context as well, such that the behavior becomes meaningful to an outsider.The term was used by theanthropologistClifford Geertzin hisThe Interpretation of Cultures(1973) to describe his own method of doingethnography(Geertz 1973:5-6, 9-10). Since then, the term and the methodology it represents has gained currency in thesocial sciencesand beyond. Today, "thick description" is used in a variety of fields, including the type ofliterary criticismknown asNew Historicism.In his essay "Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture" (1973), Geertz explains that he adopted the term from philosopherGilbert Ryle, specifically his lecture "What isle Penseurdoing?"

InThe Interpretation of Cultures,Clifford Geertzoutlines in broader sense the job of anethnographer. The ethnographers role is to observe and analyse a culture by interpreting signs to understand deeper meanings within the context of that culture. He asserts that the essentially semiotic nature of culture has implications for thesocial sciencesin general and political science in particular. His idea of culture is taken fromKluckhohn, where he feels culture is1) the total way of life of a people;2) the social legacy the individual acquires from his group;3) a way of thinking, feeling, and believing;4) an abstraction from behaviour;5) a theory on the part of the anthropologist about the way in which a group of people in fact behave;6) a storehouse of pooled learning;7) a set of standardized orientations to recurrent problems;8) learned behaviour;9) a mechanism for the normative regulation of behaviour;10) a set of techniques for adjusting both to the external environment and to other men;11) a precipitate of history;12) a behavioural map, sieve, or matrix.Geertz prescribesinterpretinga cultures web of symbols by1. Isolating its elements,2. Specifying the internal relationships among those elements and,3. characterize the whole system in some general wayaccording to the core symbols around which it is organized, the underlying structures of which it is a surface expression, or the ideological principles upon which it is based.According to Geertzs, ethnography is by definition thick descriptionan elaborate venture in. By example of winking, Geertz observes howin order to differentiate the winking from a social gesture, a twitch, etc.we must carefully analyse the action in terms of both the particular social understanding of the winking as a gesture, the real intention of the winker, and how the the meaning of the winking action itself is interpreted.In his first chapter inThe Interpretation of Cultures, Clifford Geertz discusses the role of the ethnographer. Broadly, the ethnographer's aim is to observe, record, and analyze a culture. More specifically, he or she must interpret signs to gain their meaning within the culture itself. This interpretation must be based on the "thick description" of a sign in order to see all the possible meanings. His example of a "wink of any eye" clarifies this point. When a man winks, is he merely "rapidly contracting his right eyelid" or is he "practicing a burlesque of a friend faking a wink to deceive a an innocent into thinking conspiracy is in motion"? Ultimately, Geertz hopes that the ethnographer's deeper understanding of the signs will open and/or increase the dialogue among different cultures. [M. Murphy]

WHAT IS ORIENTALISM?HomeWhy The Stereotypes?What is Orientalism?"Orientalism is a way of seeing that imagines, emphasizes, exaggerates and distorts differences of Arab peoples and cultures as compared to that of Europe and the U.S. It often involves seeing Arab culture as exotic, backward, uncivilized, and at times dangerous. Edward W. Said, in his groundbreaking book,Orientalism, defined it as the acceptance in the West of the basic distinction between East and West as the starting point for elaborate theories, epics, novels, social descriptions, and political accounts concerning the Orient, its people, customs, mind, destiny and so on.According to Said, Orientalism dates from the period of European Enlightenment and colonization of the Arab World. Orientalism provided a rationalization for European colonialism based on a self-serving history in which the West constructed the East as extremely different and inferior, and therefore in need of Western intervention or rescue.Examples of early Orientalism can be seen in European paintings and photographs and also in images from the Worlds Fair in the U.S. in the 19th and early 20th centuries.The paintings, created by European artists of the 19th and early 20th centuries, depict the Arab World as an exotic and mysterious place of sand, harems and belly dancers, reflecting a long history of Orientalist fantasies which have continued to permeate our contemporary popular culture.France colonized Algeria from 1830 to 1962. From roughly 1900 to 1930, French entrepreneurs produced postcards of Algerian women that were circulated in France. While Algerian women are portrayed in these photographs as if the camera is capturing a real moment in their everyday lives, the women are actually set up in the photographers studio. As demonstrated in Malek Alloulas book,The Colonial Harem, these photographs were circulated as evidence of the exotic, backwards and strange customs of Algerians, when, in fact, they reveal more about the French colonial perspective than about Algerian life in the early 1900s. This is an example of how Arab women have been exoticized and eroticized for the pleasure of the European male voyeur, as these photographs make visible French colonial fantasies of penetrating the harem and gaining access to Arab womens private spaces.The Worlds Fairs in Chicago (1893) and St. Louis (1904) helped to reinforce Orientalist imagery in the United States. The crossover from European to U.S. Orientalism can be seen in the images from James Buels photographic book that catalogued the 1893 Worlds Fair in Chicago. This publication includes photographs of recreated Arab streets, accompanied by captions that capture the Orientalist thinking of the time. For example, the caption that accompanies the image Egyptian Girl in Street of Cairo refers to the peculiar manners of the Egyptians, and her unsightly disguise. In addition to being written about as an object on display, her characteristics are described as belonging to a backwards culture.Orientalismis a term used by art historians and literary and cultural studies scholars for the imitation or depiction of aspects of Middle Eastern and East Asian cultures (Eastern cultures) by writers, designers and artists in the West. In particular,Orientalist painting, depicting more specifically "theMiddle East",[1]was one of the many specialisms of 19th-centuryAcademic art, and the literatures of European countries took a similar interest in Oriental themes.Since the publication ofEdward Said'sOrientalismin 1978, much academic discourse has begun to use the term "Orientalism" to refer to a general patronizing Western attitude towards Middle Eastern, Asian and North African societies. In Said's analysis, the Westessentializesthese societies as static and undevelopedthereby fabricating a view of Oriental culture that can be studied, depicted, and reproduced. Implicit in this fabrication, writes Said, is the idea that Western society is developed, rational, flexible, and superior.[2]Thelinguistic relativityprinciple, or theSapirWhorf hypothesis,[1]is the idea that differences in the waylanguagesencode cultural and cognitive categories affect the way people think, so that speakers of different languages will tend to think and behave differently depending on the language they use. The hypothesis is generally understood as having two different versions: (i) thestrongversion that language determines thought and that linguistic categories limit and determine cognitive categories and (ii) theweakversion that linguistic categories and usage influence thought and certain kinds of non-linguistic behavior.The idea was first clearly expressed by 19th century thinkers, such asWilhelm von Humboldtwho saw language as the expression of the spirit of a nation. The early 20th century school of American Anthropology headed byFranz BoasandEdward Sapiralso embraced the idea. Sapir's studentBenjamin Lee Whorfcame to be seen as the primary proponent of the hypothesis, because he published observations of how he perceived linguistic differences to have consequences in human cognition and behavior. Whorf's ideas were widely criticized, andRoger BrownandEric Lennebergdecided to put them to the test. They reformulated Whorf's principle of linguistic relativity as a testable hypothesis, now called the SapirWhorf hypothesis, and conducted experiments designed to find out whethercolor perceptionvaries between speakers of languages that classified colors differently. As the study of the universal nature of human language and cognition came in to focus in the 1960s the idea of linguistic relativity fell out of favor. A 1969 study byBrent BerlinandPaul Kayshowed that color terminology is subject to universal semantic constraints, and the SapirWhorf hypothesis was seen as completely discredited.From the late 1980s a new school of linguistic relativity scholars have examined the effects of differences in linguistic categorization on cognition, finding broad support for weak versions of the hypothesis in experimental contexts.[2]Effects of linguistic relativity have been shown particularly in the domain of spatial cognition and in the social use of language, but also in the field of color perception. Recent studies have shown that color perception is particularly prone to linguistic relativity effects when processed in the left brain hemisphere, suggesting that this brain half relies more on language than the right one.[3]Currently a balanced view of linguistic relativity is espoused by most linguists holding that language influences certain kinds of cognitive processes in non-trivial ways but that other processes are better seen as subject to universal factors. Current research is focused on exploring the ways in which language influences thought and determining to what extent.[2]The principle of linguistic relativity and the relation between language and thought has also received attention in varying academic fields fromphilosophytopsychologyandanthropology, and it has alsoIn linguistics, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis states that there are certain thoughts of an individual in one language that cannot be understood by those who live in another language. The hypothesis states that the way people think is strongly affected by their native languages. It is a controversial theory championed by linguist Edward Sapir and his student Benjamin Whorf

The method of producing the necessities of life (whether for health, food, housing or needs such as education, science, nurturing, etc.).The Mode of Production is the unity of theproductive forcesand therelations of production. Production begins with the development of its determinative aspect the productive forces which, once they have reached a certain level, come into conflict with the relations of production within which they have been developing. This leads to an inevitable change in the relations of production, since in the obsolete form they cease to be indispensable condition of the production process. In its turn, the change in the relations of production, which means the substitution of the new economic basis for the old one, leads to more less rapid change in the entire society. Therefore, the change in the Mode of Production comes about not through peoples volition, but by virtue of the correspondence between the productive relations to the character and level of development of the productive forces. Due to this, the development of society takes the form of the natural historical change of socio-economic formations. Conflict between the productive forces and the relations of production is the economic basis of socialrevolution.n the writings ofKarl Marxand theMarxisttheory ofhistorical materialism, amode of production(in German:Produktionsweise, meaning 'the way of producing') is a specific combination of: productive forces: these include humanlabour powerand available knowledge given the level of technology in themeans of production(e.g. tools, equipment, buildings and technologies, materials, and improved land). social and technicalrelations of production: these include the property, power, and control relations governing society's productive assets (often codified in law, cooperative work relations, and forms of association), relations between people and the objects of their work, and the relations between social classes.Marx regarded productive ability and participation insocial relationsas two essential characteristics of human beings and that the particular modality of these relations incapitalistproduction are inherently in conflict with the increasing development of human productive capacities.[1]

Definition:The mode of production is a central concept inMarxismand is defined as the way a society is organized to produce goods and services. It consists of two major aspects: the forces of production and the relations of production.The forces of production include all of the elements that are brought together in production from land, raw material, and fuel to human skill and labor to machinery, tools, and factories. The relations of production include relationships among people and peoples relationships to the forces of production through which decisions are made about what to do with the results.AdsField(French:champ) is one of the core concepts used by French social scientistPierre Bourdieu. A field is a setting in whichagentsand theirsocial positionsare located. The position of each particular agent in the field is a result of interaction between the specific rules of the field, agent'shabitusand agent's capital (social,economicandcultural).[1]Fields interact with each other, and are hierarchical (most are subordinate of the larger field ofpowerandclassrelations).Bourdieu sharedWeber's view, contrary to traditionalMarxism, that society cannot be analyzed simply in terms of economic classes and ideologies. Much of his work concerns the independent role of educational and cultural factors. Instead of analyzing societies in terms of classes, Bourdieu uses the concept offield: a social arena in which people maneuver and struggle in pursuit of desirable resources.

Foucalt vs. Marx

Abstract: The problem of power was of great importance in Michel Foucault's philosophical work. He parted clearly with the marxist interpretations of power relations, arguing that power is not essentially something that institutions possess and use oppressively against individuals and groups. Consequently, Foucault tries to move the analysis one step beyond viewing power as the plain oppression of the powerless by the powerful, aiming to examine how it operates in day to day interactions between people and institutions. In this sense, the power is more like something that acts and operates in a certain way, it's more a strategy than a possession Foucault sees it as coextensive with resistance, as a productive factor, because it has positive effects such as the individual's self-making, and because, as a condition of possibility for any relation, it is ubiquitous, being found in any type of relation between the members of society. Keywords: power, discipline, individual, resistance, production

Foucault thinks that it is wrong to consider power as something that the institutions possess and use oppressively against individuals and groups, so he tries to move the analysis one step beyond viewing power as the plain oppression of the powerless by the powerful, aiming to examine how it operates in day to day interactions between people and institutions. In the first volume of Histoire de la sexualit he argues that we must overcome the idea that power is oppression, because even in their most radical form oppressive measures are not just repression and censorship, but they are also productive, causing new behaviours to emerge. As opposed to most marxist thinkers, Foucault is concerned less with the oppressive aspect of power, but more with the resistance of those the power is exerted upon. For example, the marxist thinker Louis Althusser studied mainly how people are oppressed by the state institutions and how they build themselves as individuals through the mystifying action of the ideology8. While for Althusser individuals are just puppets of the ideological and repressive apparatus and power is seen as acting from top downwards, Foucault proposes an alternative model in which power relations dissipate through all relational structures of the society. This enables him to build a model of the daily and mundane manners in which power is exerted and contested, as well as an analysis centered on the human individual as an active subject, not as a simple object for the power. Usually, power is understood as the capacity of an agent to impose his will over the will of the powerless, or the ability to force them to do things they do not wish to do. In this sense, power is understood as possession, as something owned by those in power. But in Foucault's opinion, power is not something that can be owned, but rather something that acts and manifests itself in a certain way; it is more a strategy than a possession: Power must be analyzed as something which circulates, or as something which only functions in the form of a chain . . . Power is employed and exercised through a netlike organization . . . Individuals are the vehicles of power, not its points of application.9This way of understanding power hat two key features: a) power is a system, a network of relations encompassing the whole society, rather than a relation between the oppressed and the oppressor; b) individuals are not just the objects of power, but they are the locus where the power and the resistance to it are exerted10 Mark G.E. Kelly thinks that these features can be further nuanced. In his opinion, Foucault's view of power, as presented in Surveiller et punir. Naissance de la prison, involves the following features: 1. The impersonality, or subjectlessness, of power, meaning that it is not guided by the will of individual subjects; 2. The relationality of power, meaning that power is always a case of power relations between people, as opposed to a quantum possessed by people; 3. The decentredness of power, meaning that it is not concentrated on a single individual or class; 4. The multidirectionality of power, meaning that it does not flow only from the more to the less powerful, but rather comes from below, even if it is nevertheless nonegalitarian; 5. The strategic nature of power, meaning that it has a dynamic of its own, is intentional.11Together with these, says Kelly, other features can be identified but they are not present in the cited work, but in Histoire de la sexualit: power is coextensive with 8 Cf. L. Althusser, (1984), Essays on Ideology, London, Verso. 9 M. Foucault, (1980), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 19721977, London: Harvester Press, p. 98. 10 S. Mills, (2003), Michel Foucault, London, Routledge, p. 35. 11 Mark G. E. Kelly, The Political Philosophy of Michel Foucault, London, Routledge, , 2009, pp. 37-38. resistance12, it is productive i.e., it causes positive effects , and it is ubiquitous i.e., it can be found in any type of relation between the members of society, being a possibility condition for any relation13. Conceiving power as strategy and not as possession means to think of it as something that has to be exerted and not something that can simply be acquired It is not localized exclusively in certain institutions or individuals, but it is rather a set of relations dispersed throughout society: I am not referring to Power with a capital P, dominating and imposing its rationality upon the totality of the social body. In fact, there are power relations. They are multiple; they have different forms, they can be in play in family relations, or within an institution, or an administration14. This view directly contradicts the marxist one, which regard

food tabooshttp://books.google.com.ph/books?id=7RrHZfJSXjYC&pg=PA535&lpg=PA535&dq=harris+and+douglas+on+food+taboos&source=bl&ots=0Znds0m7kQ&sig=Is3FJEcVkkE1WN4R-0WfOC_HIA0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GoNKUuDQBa2aiQf0xIHgDQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=harris%20and%20douglas%20on%20food%20taboos&f=false

More recently,Marvin Harrisposited that pigs are not suited for being kept in the Middle East on an ecological and socio-economical level; for example, pigs are not suited to living in arid climates and thus require more water than other animals to keep them cool, and instead of grazing they compete with humans for foods such as grains. As such, raising pigs was seen as a wasteful and decadent practice.[75]Another explanation offered for the taboo is that pigs areomnivorous, not discerning between meat or vegetation in their natural dietary habits. The willingness to consume meat sets them apart from most other domesticated animals which are commonly eaten (cattle, horses, goats, etc.) who would naturally eat only plants.[77]Mary Douglashas suggested that the reason for the taboo against the pig in Judaism is three-fold: (i) it trangresses the category of ungulates, because it has a split hoof but does not chew the cud, (ii) it eats carrion and (iii) it was eaten by non-Israelites.[78]

Marvin Harris (Good to Eat 1985)argues for an economic adaptation Israelites cut down woodland for agriculture and destroyed natural forage for pigs pigs had to be fed grain thus competing with humans pigs were not useful for plowing, milk or wool Food taboo established because pigs were too costly Mary Douglas( Purity and Danger 1966)argues for a symbolic reason all societies classify foods as unclean or clean some items are anomalous and treated as unclean clean, edible animals should have cloven hooves and chew cud pigs have cloven hooves but dont chew cud Tabooed because didnt fit into category

Attachment TheoryThe Importance of Early Emotional BondsByKendra Cherry, About.com GuideAds: Children Psychology Child Psychology Journal A2 Level Psychology Help Psychology Psychology Definition

Securely attached children tend to have caregivers who are responsive to their needs.Image by Jeff OsborneAdsNew Jamba Kids Mealwww.jambajuice.com/jambakidsmealGet the New Jamba Kids Meal w/ 2.5 servings of fruit & veggiesErik Erikson Researchwww.Questia.com/Erik_EriksonOnline books, journals for academic research, plus bibliography tools.Schizophreniawww.earthhouse.orgUnique Mental Health Care Treatment Hope for Mental Health IssuesSee More About attachment styles the psychology of love attachment theory mary ainsworth john bowlbyAdsPlanning Bhutan Tour?littlebhutan.comWe are a Tour Operator from Bhutan. Travel to Bhutan with Little BhutanPersonality Quizwww.Facebook.comOnline Tests, Quizzes and Surveys On Various Subjects. Sign Up now!Attachment theory is focused on the relationships and bonds between people, particularly long-term relationships including those between a parent and child and between romantic partners.What is Attachment?Attachment is an emotional bond to another person. PsychologistJohn Bowlbywas the first attachment theorist, describing attachment as a "lasting psychological connectedness between human beings."Bowlby believed that the earliest bonds formed by children with their caregivers have a tremendous impact that continues throughout life. He suggested attachment also serves to keep the infant close to the mother, thus improving the child's chances of survival.The central theme of attachment theory is that primary caregivers who are available and responsive to an infant's needs allow the child to develop a sense of security. The infant knows that the caregiver is dependable, which creates a secure base for the child to then explore the world.Ainsworth's "Strange Situation"In her 1970's research, psychologistMary Ainsworthexpanded greatly upon Bowlby's original work. Her groundbreaking"Strange Situation"study revealed the profound effects of attachment on behavior. In the study, researchers observed children between the ages of 12 and 18 months as they responded to a situation in which they were briefly left alone and then reunited with their mothers.Based upon the responses the researchers observed, Ainsworth described three major styles of attachment: secure attachment, ambivalent-insecure attachment, and avoidant-insecure attachment. Later, researchers Main and Solomon (1986) added a fourth attachment style called disorganized-insecure attachment based upon their own research. A number of studies since that time have supported Ainsworth'sattachment stylesand have indicated that attachment styles also have an impact on behaviors later in life.Why Attachment MattersResearchers have found that attachment patterns established early in life can lead to a number of outcomes. For example, children who are securely attached as infants tend to develop strongerself-esteemand better self-reliance as they grow older. These children also tend to be more independent, perform better in school, have successful social relationships, and experience less depression and anxiety.Patterns of AttachmentCharacteristics of Secure AttachmentSecure attachmentis marked by distress when separated from caregivers and are joy when the caregiver returns. Remember, these children feel secure and able to depend on their adult caregivers. When the adult leaves, the child may be upset but he or she feels assured that the parent or caregiver will return.When frightened, securely attached children will seek comfort from caregivers. These children know their parent or caregiver will provide comfort and reassurance, so they are comfortable seeking them out in times of need.Characteristics of Ambivalent AttachmentAmbivalently attachedchildren usually become very distressed when a parent leaves. This attachment style is considered relatively uncommon, affecting an estimated 7-15% of U.S. children. Research suggests that ambivalent attachment is a result of poor maternal availability. These children cannot depend on their mother (or caregiver) to be there when the child is in need.Characteristics of Avoidant AttachmentChildren with anavoidant attachmenttend to avoid parents or caregivers. When offered a choice, these children will show no preference between a caregiver and a complete stranger. Research has suggested that this attachment style might be a result of abusive or neglectful caregivers. Children who are punished for relying on a caregiver will learn to avoid seeking help in the future.Characteristics of Disorganized AttachmentChildren with adisorganized attachmentoften display a confusing mix of behavior and may seem disoriented, dazed, or confused. Children may both avoid or resist the parent. Some researchers believe that the lack of a clear attachment pattern is likely linked to inconsistent behavior from caregivers. In such cases, parents may serve as both a source of comfort and a source of fear, leading to disorganized behavior.The Stages of AttachmentResearchers Rudolph Schaffer and Peggy Emerson analyzed the number of attachment relationships that infants form in a longitudinal study with 60 infants. The infants were observed every four weeks during the first year of life, and then once again at 18 months. Based upon their observations, Schaffer and Emerson outlined four distinct phases of attachment.1. Pre-attachment Stage:From birth to three months, infants do not show any particular attachment to a specific caregiver. The infant's signals such as crying and fussing naturally attract the attention of the caregiver, and the baby's positive responses encourage the caregiver to remain close.

2. Indiscriminate Attachment:From around six weeks of age to seven months, infants begin to show preferences for primary and secondary caregivers. During this phase, infants begin to develop a feeling of trust that the caregiver will respond to their needs. While they will still accept care from other people, they become much better at distinguishing between familiar and unfamiliar people as they approach seven months of age. They also respond more positively to the primary caregiver.

3. Discriminate Attachment:At this point, from about seven to eleven months of age, infants show a strong attachment and preference for one specific individual. They will protest when separated from the primary attachment figure (separation anxiety), and begin to display anxiety around strangers (stranger anxiety).

4. Multiple Attachments:After approximately nine months of age, children begin to form strong emotional bonds with other caregivers beyond the primary attachment figure. This often includes the father, older siblings, and grandparents.While this process may seem straightforward, there are a number of different factors that can influence how and when attachments develop. First is the opportunity for attachment. Children that do not have a primary care figure, such as those raised in orphanages, may fail to develop the sense of trust needed to form an attachment. Second, the quality of care-giving is a vital factor. When caregivers respond quickly and consistently, children learn that they can depend on the people who are responsible for their care, which is the essential foundation for attachment.Problems with AttachmentWhat happens to children who do not form secure attachments? Research suggests that failure to form secure attachments early in life can have a negative impact on behavior in later childhood and throughout the life. Children diagnosed with oppositional-defiant disorder (ODD), conduct disorder (CD) or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) frequently display attachment problems, possibly due to early abuse, neglect or trauma. Clinicians suggest that children adopted after the age of six months have a higher risk of attachment problems.While attachment styles displayed in adulthood are not necessarily the same as those seen in infancy, research indicates that early attachments can have a serious impact on later relationships. For example, those who are securely attached in childhood tend to have good self-esteem, strong romantic relationships and the ability to self-disclose to others. As adults, they tend to have healthy, happy and lasting relationships. For more information, see this article onattachment styles.Did you enjoy this article?Sign up for the freePsychology Newsletterto get the latest psychology updates and to learn more about diverse topics including social behavior, personality, development, memory, creativity and much more.Subscribe today!ReferencesAinsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978).Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Bowlby J. (1969).Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss.New York: Basic Books.Schaffer, H. R. & Emerson, P. E. (1964). The development of social attachments in infancy.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 29, 94.The Attachment System Throughout the Life Course: Review and Criticisms of Attachment TheoryErin J. LeeRochester Institute of Technology

Attachment theory is one of the most studied aspects of psychology today. Bowlby and Ainsworth's attachment models are common references in attachment theory research. The attachment model explains infant behavior towards their attachment figure, during separation and reunion times. It is believed that attachment behaviors formed in infancy will help shape the attachment relationships people have as adults. Some psychologists, such as Harris and Field, disagree with this idea. Harris believes that too much emphasis on how a child "turns out" should not be placed on the parents. Harris disagrees with the nurture assumption as well. Peers have a lot of influence on a child's personality, just as the child's environment does. Field also criticizes the attachment model because believes there are many limitations to it.

Review of Attachment TheoryThere are different views on attachment theory. The first and most well known view on attachment theory is that of J. Bowlby, who is known as the father of attachment theory. He believed that attachment begins at infancy and continues throughout life and there are several innate behavioral control systems that are needed for survival and procreation. The attachment and exploration systems are central in his attachment theory (Elliot & Reis, 2003). An infant will first establish a strong attachment with its primary caregiver, who will be the infant's base of exploration. It is an infant's innate behavior to want to explore new things, but when a child reaches away to explore and becomes in danger or scared, the primary caregiver will be its secure protection base.Bowlby established the foundation for Ainsworth's attachment theory. Like Bowlby, Ainsworth also believed in the control systems but went a step further with the Strange Situation, which splits attachment up into three types: secure, avoidant, and resistant. The secure type is when an infant seeks protection or comfort from their mother and receives care consistently. The mother is usually rated as loving and affectionate. The avoidant type is when the infant tends to pull away from their mother or ignore her. The mother is usually rated as rejecting of the child's attachment behavior. The resistant type is when the infant tends to stay close to their mother. The mother is usually rated as being inconsistent in their care (Fraley & Spieker, 2003). The Strange Situation is has become standard practice in psychology today.Infants Form Attachments With ParentsAttachment begins in infancy and lasts throughout a lifetime. A newborn baby immediately needs someone to take care of them. This person may be a parent, a sibling, or a nanny, but whoever it is, there will be a bond formed between them. Bowlby and Ainsworth both believed that this primary caregiver is the one that will most shape the child's personality and character. The primary caregiver is usually the mother and strong bonds are formed within minutes of giving birth. It is important for the new parents and baby to be alone together right after the birth to establish a strong bond. If there are too many individuals in the room right after birth, the natural process of attachment can be disrupted and this can have long-term effects on the relationship between the child and parents (Klaus, Kennell, & Klaus, 1995).The mother automatically has some kind of bond to the child because she carried it for 9 months, but early contact is important in forming strong bonds between them. A study by Klaus and his associates, shows that children whose mothers are given an extra five hours of contact a day for the first three days of life have significantly higher IQ scores. These children score higher on language and comprehension tests by age five, than children whose mothers are not given extra time. These mothers show more soothing behavior towards their infants, made more eye contact with the child and had more physical contact (as quoted in Trowell, 1982). Another study by O'Connor and his associates involved 301 low-income mothers. For the first two days of life, the control mothers had only thirty minutes of contact with their infant every four hours for feeding, while the other mothers had an extra six hours per day with their infants. Follow-ups showed that the significantly more control children had been admitted to the hospital for things such as abuse and neglect (as quoted in Trowell, 1982).The mother and infant have an automatic bond, but the father must establish a bond after the child is born. It is very important for the father to be involved in the delivery of the child and to be available to the infant in case the mother cannot hold the child right away due to other circumstances. Studies have shown that fathers who have early contact with their child have a stronger attachment with them in the months following the birth. Strong attachment between father and child is shown through physical contact and while holding the child, they face each other (Klaus, Kennell, & Klaus, 1995). Interactions between mother/child and father/child are also quite different. When the mother-infant interactions are observed, the mother is seen as nurturing and affectionate towards the infant, whereas father-infant interactions deal more with affiliation and play (Geiger, 1996). Fathers have a more physical relationship with the child while the mother's relationship is more verbal. It has been shown that the fathers play interactions are more exciting and pleasurable to children than play interactions with the mother (Geiger, 1996).It has been said that parent-child bonds are the most important in forming the child's personality. Babies are programmed at birth to be interested in the social world around them. It is assumed that they learn much about the world through their caregivers and therefore their caregivers must have much influence on their personality and their sense of others.Criticisms of Attachment TheoryNature Versus Nurture: The Nurture AssumptionOne of the main critics of Bowlby's attachment theory is J. R. Harris. People assume that kind, honest, and respectful parents will have kind, honest, and respectful children and parents that are rude, liars, and disrespectful will have children that are the same way. This may not be the case according to Harris. Harris (1998) believes that parents do not shape their child's personality or character. A child's peers have more influence on them than their parents. For example, take children whose parents were immigrants. A child can continue to speak their parent's native language at home, but can also learn their new language and speak it without an accent, while the parents accent remains. Children learn these things from their peers because they want to fit in (Harris, 1998).Nature is the genetics that parents pass down to their child, and nurture is the way the parents bring the child up. It is a common belief in psychology that "nature gives parents a baby: the end result depends on how they nurture it. Good nurturing can make up for many of nature's mistakes: lack of nurturing can trash nature's best effort" (Harris, 1998, p. 2). Harris (1998) disagrees with this statement because she does not believe that nurture should be labeled as a synonym for environment, which it is in many psychology textbooks and papers. Using these two words interchangeably leads us to assume that what influences a child's development, along with genes, is parental up bringing. Harris calls this thenurture assumption. She disproves this assumption by showing that what children learn in the home may be irrelevant in the outside world. For example, identical twins separated at birth and brought up in separate homes are more likely to have the same habits, hobbies, and styles than identical twins raised in the same household. This shows the power of nature but not of nurture.If a child is brought up in a crime-ridden area, they will be susceptible to committing these same kinds of crimes. This is because of the high rate of peer pressure and the want to fit in to the group. Even if the parents try to bring up their children the best way possible, chances are that if they associate with delinquents, they will become one. But if you take a child headed down the wrong path and move him to new environment such as a small suburban town, chances are he will get himself on the right track, because he is trying to fit in with a new peer group (Harris, 1998).Most everyday people like to believe that their parents shape their character so that when something in their life goes wrong, they can blame it on their parents. Parents should not be to blame. Up until a couple hundred years ago, people lived in groups that extended far beyond the nuclear family. So children were influenced by a number of people, not just their parents. People also need to realize that a lot of personality traits come from their genes, not their parents nurturing, as this can be seen in the separated twin studies (Harris, 1998).Children will not use everything that they learned from their parents. In some social settings, these lessons may not be correct or embarrassing to use. Children learn how to behave, for the most part, from other people in their social group. Adults do the same; they act more like the people in their social groups rather than their parents.Children from the same parents reared in the same home are no more alike than if they were raised in separate homes. Even if parents try to raise two children the same way, they will still behave differently from each other (Harris, 1998).The nurture assumption leads parents to believe that if they mess up somehow in raising their child, they will mess up their child's life. Parents are sometimes held responsible if their child commits an illegal act. Take a headline such as "Fifteen year old John Doe is accused of killing his neighbor." People are likely to start saying things such as "where are this child's parents?" or "how could somebody raise such a violent child?" when, according to Harris (1998), parents may have no control over their child when it comes to something like this. They can raise their child in the most loving home, yet he can still become a violent person.Limitations of the Bowlby-Ainsworth Attachment TheoryThe main idea of Bowlby's attachment theory can be summed up by the following, "...observation of how a very young child behaves towards his mother, both in her presence and especially in her absence, can contribute greatly to our understanding of personality development. When removed from the mother by strangers, young children respond usually with great intensity; and after reunion with her, anxiety or else unusual detachment" (Bowlby, 1969, p. 3). This idea, however, has several limitations.The first limitation is "model attachment is based on behaviors that occur during momentary separations (stressful situations) rather than during nonstressful situations. A broader understanding of attachment requires observation of how the mother and infant interact and what they provide for each other during natural, nonstressful situations" (Field, 1996, p. 543). How children and mothers interact together and not stressed shows more of how the attachment model works than how the child acts when the mother leaves and then returns. Behaviors directed towards the attachment figure during departing and reunion times cannot be the only factors used when defining attachment.Another problem with the attachment model is that "the list of attachment behaviors is limited to those that occur with the primary attachment figure, typically the mother. However, other attachments are not necessarily characterized by those same behaviors" (Field, 1996, p. 544). Children have attachments to other people other than their mothers, but they do not show this attachment the same way. For example, children may cry or follow their mother when they are getting ready to leave them, but for a sibling or peer they may just become fussy or unable to sleep. Also, the attachment model behavior list only includes blatant behaviors, but there may be physiological changes during separations and reunions.The last limitations to the attachment model is that the mother is viewed as the primary attachment figure, when in fact, a father or sibling can have the same type of attachment with the infant at the same time. This relates to adults having more than one primary attachment, such as to their spouse and child. This leads to the last limitation in the attachment model that "attachment is confined to the infancy and early childhood period, ending, as noted by Bowlby, during puberty. It does not consider attachments that occur during adolescence (the first love), during adulthood (spouses and lovers), and during later life (the strong attachments noted between friends in retirement)" (Field, 1996, p. 545).After considering these limitations, Field (1996) came up with her own attachment model as described here:A parsimonious model of attachment would need to accommodate multiple attachments to a variety of figures at different stages of life. We have used a more psychobiological approach in formulating a model that focuses on the relationship between two individuals and what they share and what might then be missing when they are separated. In this model (Field 1985), attachment is viewed as a relationship that develops between two or more organisms as they become attuned to each other, each providing the other meaningful arousal modulation, which occurs in separation, invariably results in behavioral and physiological disorganization (Field, 1996, p. 545).ConclusionsI have reviewed the basic ideas of attachment theory and criticisms of attachment theory. Agreeing with Harris (1998), I believe that parents should not be totally held responsible for the way their child develops. They should be held responsible to a point, because after all, they did give them their genes and they do have some influence. But children rely more on their social group in the shaping of their personality and this must be remembered. Also, Field (1996) has brought out some good points when discussing the limitations of attachment theory. The mother is not always the primary attachment figure, so it cannot be assumed that she always will be.