Only $35.99/year

Anthropology 1350 Exam 1

Terms in this set (198)

These questions involve the distribution or epidemiology of deviant behavior. They are important questions because the variables associated with particular behaviors often suggest causes. If gender, for instance, is associated with a particular set of behaviors, then biological variables might be suspected. Males, for example, tend to be more at risk for being both offenders and victims of violent crimes in the United States. Yet cross-cultural studies on the whole indicate that different variables are involved in many deviant behaviors. Suicide in the United States has always been primarily a male behavior. Since record-keeping began, males across all ages and ethnicities are the most frequent victims of suicide in the United States. Yet in many other societies, like China, female suicides outnumber males, and among the Gainj of Papua New Guinea, as we shall see in Lesson 4, suicide is an exclusively female act confined to married women ages 20 to 49.

In the United States, problem alcohol abuse (e.g., excessive consumption and frequent intoxication), to take another example, is usually associated with psychological variables like pessimism, fatalism, dissatisfaction, frustration, and so forth. Yet in Southern Italy, as we will learn in Lesson 5, it is not. In places like Zurich, Switzerland, urban life is not associated with crime and violence as it is in the United States. It is clear from your reading of the Bayley article that deviant behavior is starkly different in United States than in the Japan, a country which is very much like the United States-industrialized, modernized, globalized, and urbanized. I would suggest that it is instructive to recall how order prevailed over chaos and altruism over greed during the 2011 earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster that struck Japan. Compare this with the murder, looting, mayhem, and madness that gripped New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina: two similar societies, experiencing similar catastrophes, but responding in drastically different ways. How might you explain this culturally, especially after reading the article by Bayley?
Mead makes a cross-cultural comparison of the troubled, dysphoric, and often rebellious teenage girls in the United States in the 1920s, with the far happier, more well-adjusted Samoan teenage girls during the same period. In the case of Samoans living in American Samoa in the South Pacific, teenage girls enjoy a carefree, casual life where conflicts and poignant situations are avoided. By contrast, in the United States "adolescence was characterized as the period in which idealism flowered and rebellion against authority waxed strong, a period during which difficulties and conflicts were absolutely inevitable"

In Samoa, teenagers are not faced with the bewildering array of contradictory choices in types of religion, standards of morality, vocations, and reference groups that Americans are. Sexuality for the Samoan is pleasurable, natural, and with the exception of the chief's wives and daughters, freely pursued. In addition, in the United States "the close relationship between parent and child, which has such a decisive influence upon so many in our civilization, that submission to the parent or defiance of the parent may become the dominating pattern of a lifetime, is not found in Samoa" (p. 153). In Samoa, with much larger households, emotions are more diffuse and less specialized. In these households, "...there are half dozen adult women to care for them and dry their tears, and half dozen adult males, all of whom represent constituted authority..." (p. 153).

The seventeen year-old girl does not wish to marry...It is better to live as a girl with no responsibility, and a rich variety of emotional experience. This is the best period of her life. There are as many beneath her whom she may bully as there are others above her to tyrannize over her. What she loses in prestige, she gains in freedom. She has very little baby tending to do. Her eyes do not ache from weaving nor does her back break from bending all day over the tapa board. The long expeditions after fish and food and weaving materials give ample opportunities for rendezvous...Marriage is the inevitable to be deferred as long as possible." (p. 41)

The results of Mead's research do not bode well for a theory of adolescent problems that emphasizes hormones, the onset of puberty, and the acquisition of secondary sex characteristics. Certainly, Samoan adolescents undergo biological puberty and development, just as adolescents do in the United States, and everywhere else in the world for that matter. But the psychological and behavioral response is obviously very dissimilar. If dysphoria is in fact a biologically driven sine qua non of adolescence, then why don't teenagers in all societies experience puberty that way? Far more important to Mead's theory than biology, as an explanation of behavior and psychology, is the culturally constituted social environment and individual experience. How, we may ask, can adolescent psychology and behavior, itself a variable as shown by Mead, be explained by the constant attainment of the biological status of puberty? As Mead herself observes, "If the same process takes a different form in two different environments, we cannot make any explanations in terms of the process, for that is the same in both cases. But the social environment is very different and it is to it that we must look for an explanation." (pp. 145-146)

Of even greater significance, in my opinion, than the empirical or existential issues of "adolescence" worldwide, Margaret Mead's study boldly highlights the heuristic value of cultural anthropology's comparative method in helping to sort out and edit theoretical generalizations and stereotypes. This is especially so, as Mead herself has repeatedly demonstrated in so many of her studies (e.g., Mead, 1935), when biological characteristics are invoked as causal explanations of people's psychological functioning and behavior.

Indeed, we could assert that whenever a claim is made that some attitude or behavioral disposition is "normal, typical, or natural" for human beings in general, following Margaret Mead, a cross-cultural perspective needs to be employed.
Approximately one-third of murder victims and almost half the offenders are under the age of 25. For both victims and offenders, the rate per 100,000 peaks in the 18- to 24-years-old age group.

Young adults have the highest homicide victimization and offending rates; and homicide victimization rates for teens and young adults increased rapidly in the late 1980s.

For children under the age of 14, homicide victimization rates are the lowest of all age groups, the lowest level being in 2000.

For teens 14 to 17, the homicide victimization rate increased almost 150 percent from 1985 to 1993. Since 1993, the victimization rates for teens have declined to levels similar to those of from 1976 to 1985.

Offending rates for 14-17 year olds and 18-24 year olds increased dramatically in the late 1980s, while rates for older groups declined.

Young adults (18 to 24) have historically had the highest offending rates.

After many years of decline, the average age of both victims and offenders has leveled off. The average age of the victim is greater than that of the offender. The average age of the offender is less than the victim. Younger victims were more likely to know the offender than older victims.

The age distribution of homicide victims and offenders differs by type of homicide. For the years 1976 through 2005 combined, almost one-fourth of the victims of gang-related killings were under the age of 18.

The number of homicides of children under the age of 5 increased through the mid-1990s and has recently declined. The infanticide rates have remained fairly stable or declined for all the major ethnic groups. A parent is the perpetrator in most incidents of infanticide in children under 5; most victims and offenders are male.

With regard to eldercide, for persons age 65 or older, both the number of homicides and homicide victimization declined after 2000 and has stabilized.

Homicides committed by younger offenders are more likely to involve multiple offenders.
Someone kills themselves every 40 seconds, someone is murdered every 60 seconds, and someone dies in a war every 100 seconds.

For every person who dies, another 15 to 20 suffer grievous physical harm.

The murder rate in Colombia was nearly 85 deaths per 100,000 people for ages 10 to 29, compared with about 1.5 per 100,000 throughout much of Europe.

Murder rates in Japan, Ireland, and Iceland are among the lowest in the world, around 0.5 cases per 100,000 people per year; the rate in the United States is among the highest of developed countries, around 5.9 in 2004, with rates in larger cities sometimes over 40 per 100,000. 666,160 people were murdered in the United States between 1960 and 1996.

An estimated 520,000 people were murdered in 2000. The toll included 199,000 people between the ages of 10 and 29 who were killed by other young people, a disproportionate share.

Among people aged 15 to 44, murder accounted for 14 percent of deaths among men and 7 percent among women.

Fighting and bullying are common in the 15 to 44 age group, and alcohol, drug abuse, and easy access to firearms play a major role.

Homicides in this same age group have soared in the United States, many Latin American countries, and the former Soviet Union but stabilized or decreased in much of Western Europe and Canada.

Almost half the women who are murdered are killed by their current or former husband or boyfriend. In some countries, the rate is as high as 70 percent. In Europe, women comprised almost 80 percent of all people killed in 2008 (offender usually a current or former partner).

About 57,000 of the homicides in 2000 occurred among young children, who often died from head injuries or suffocation resulting from abuse.

Men face a much higher risk of violent death (11.9 per 100,000) than women (2.6 per 100,000), although there are variations between countries and regions. Globally, some 80% of homicide victims and perpetrators are men.

Worldwide, 468,000 homicides occurred last year. Some 36 percent of all homicides take place in Africa, 31 percent in the Americas, 27 percent in Asia, 5 percent in Europe, and 1 percent in Oceania.
There have been many investigations into how to best deter homicide. Much of this research has focused on capital punishment. Overall, the results appear equivocal. It has been shown, for example, that homicide rates are higher in death-penalty states than in non-death-penalty states. But is this cause or effect? Is the homicide rate in death-penalty states higher because violence is sanctioned by the State or is it because there is a greater perceived need to protect the public in states with high homicides rates by retaining or imposing the death-penalty?

There is also evidence that the severity of punishment alone is not a sufficient deterrent to homicide, but that, coupled with certainty of punishment, it is

Finally, there is some evidence that there is a short-term deterrent effect of imposing the death-penalty, but not a long-term one. In essence, immediately after an execution, the homicide rate can decline below average for up to a few weeks, only to rise above the average after that period for another few weeks, thereby canceling out the gains. It is as if potential offenders decided to hold off in the wake of the horror of capital punishment, only to later forget and resume their willingness to murder

The major problem with most deterrence research is the assumption that homicide is a reasoned act. With the exception of a minority of planned, deliberate murders, with malice aforethought, what we have learned so far is that by far the bulk of homicides (nearly two-thirds) occur as emotion-laden, alcohol-fueled outbursts of rage with little or no foresight, planning, or concern with consequences.

Moreover, for the majority, homicide is a one-time act with little or no recidivism. Therefore, "rehabilitation" of murderers is of moot concern.
A rather rare, unpublished cross-cultural study of young males who were raped by older men was conducted in India. The sample consisted of youthful male sex workers in the streets of Bangalore

The study interviewed eighty-eight young boys/men who engage in selling sex to men on the streets of Bangalore, India. They were all in the age range of 16 to 25, of whom half said they were 16 to 18 years old. About 40 percent considered themselves to be kothi (very effeminate males who generally take a "passive" role in sexual acts). About 20 percent self-identified as khoja, a label which generally refers to individuals who identify themselves "not male, not female." Fully adult khojas generally dress as females, and they are usually associated with a guru who is an older khoja. However, as noted in this study, the distinctions between kothi and khoja are not always clear-cut, and some kothis "become khojas" through ceremonies that are supposed to involve castration. In this sample only three or four were castrated. Slightly more than one-fourth of the sample reported that they dress as females when they go out to seek clients for sex.

Krishna is 18 years old. When he was 13, a stranger picked him up on the streets. Krishna remembers very little about the man. He did not understand what was happening. The stranger locked him in a house. Every day the man would put food on the table and say, "Eat," and Krishna would. Krishna could not escape, and when he tried, he was badly beaten. He was terrified of the man. So he would watch TV and sleep. At night, after feeding him, the man would rape him, every night. This happened for a whole year.
1. In 2010 there were 188,380 reports of rape and/or sexual assault in the United States.

2. More than half of rape and sexual assault crimes take place between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m.

3. Females are about 4.5 times more likely to be victims of rape or sexual assault (182,000) than males (40,000).

4. Most victims of rape or sexual assault are females younger than 24 years of age.

5. Most rapes committed against women are committed by an intimate partner (spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend) or someone else they know (friend, family member, acquaintance).

6. More than two-thirds of sexual assault victims reported no visible physical injuries.

7. More than 50 percent of victims and 70 percent of assailants had used drugs or alcohol prior to the assault.

8. Fewer than 20 percent of crimes of sexual violence are reported to the police.

9. Approximately 2 percent of acquaintance rapes are reported to the police.

10. Only 2 percent of reported sexual assaults have been determined to be false reports.

11. From 1995 to 2010, the estimated annual rate of female rape or sexual assault victimizations declined 58 percent, from 5.0 victimizations per 1,000 females age 12 or older to 2.1 per 1,000.

12. Between 2005 and 2010, females who were age 34 or younger, who lived in lower-income households, and who lived in rural areas experienced some of the highest rates of sexual violence.

13. Between 2005 and 2010, 78 percent of sexual violence involved an offender who was a family member, intimate partner, friend, or acquaintance.

14. Between 2005 and 2010, the offender was armed with a gun, knife, or other weapon in 11 percent of rape or sexual assault victimizations.

15. The percentage of rape or sexual assault victimizations reported to police increased to a high of 56 percent in 2003 before declining to 35 percent in 2010, a level last seen in 1995.

16. The percentage of females who were injured during a rape or sexual assault and received some type of treatment for their injuries increased from 26 percent between 1994 and 1998 to 35 percent between 2005 and 2010.

17. Between 2005 and 2010, about 80 percent of female rape or sexual assault victims treated for injuries received care in a hospital, doctor's office, or emergency room, compared to 65 percent between 1994 and 1998.

18. Between 2005 and 2010, about 1 in 4 (23%) rape or sexual assault victims received help or advice from a victim service agency. (Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization, 2010, National Crime Victimization Survey)

19. According to the F.B.I. Uniform Crime Reports, in 2012 Alaska had the highest rape rate at 79.7 per 100,000 in the United States. The national average that year was 27 per 100,000. A young male population, long periods of darkness, geographic and social isolation, a high ratio of males to females, and very minimal law enforcement in remote regions have all been invoked as contributing factors.

20. With the exception of Michigan the top ten highest states for reported rape in 2012 are all located west of the Mississippi River. The top five are Alaska 79.7; South Dakota 70.2; Michigan 46.4; New Mexico 45.9; and Arkansas 42.3. The Lowest five are New Jersey 11.7; New York 14.6; Virginia 17.7; Vermont 19.3; and North Carolina 20.3. Missouri ranked 13th at 25.1.
It is obvious from the Sanday article that rape is not a human universal. It simply does not exist in some societies, and it is not an inclination of the "normal male" sexual response.

By far, most males are themselves aroused by a willing and similarly aroused partner, not one who is rejecting and terrified by the real or threatened use of force and violence. In the cross-cultural study of sexual attitudes and practices in sixty societies cited by Sanday (Broude & Greene, 1976), it was found, for example, that with regard to male sexual aggressiveness, males tend to be shy and not make any sexual advances in 23 percent of the world's societies. Instead, it is the female who initiates verbal and physical sexual advances.

There is a considerable range of variation in rape rates from place to place and from society to society. This suggests that there are environmental, situational, and sociocultural variables at work, not universal, species-wide, biogenic factors. Sanday describes many of these specific variables in her characterization of "rape prone" and "rape free" societies.

With regard to the etiology and postulated causes of rape, it is clear, worldwide, that rape is first and foremost an act of violence. As such, it is found highly correlated with other acts of violence: war, homicide, assault, competition, and conflict. Therefore, the same kinds of conditions that foster violence in general apply to rape as well. Among these are insecure economic resources, whether in the form of diminishing amounts of arable land, livestock, wealth, jobs and opportunities, or poverty. Under circumstances of scarcity, competition, and conflict, males tend to be valued for and exhibit increased levels of interpersonal aggression and attempts to achieve mastery and dominance. While it could be argued that this may be adaptive in helping to serve the protective, survival needs of the group from outside competitors, it is as easily argued that it leads to socializing males into a culture of violence that is often turned against dependent members of the in-group, especially children and females.

Another postulated cause is a set of sociocultural factors that serve to bring about a social and emotional segregation of the sexes from each other in most quotidian affairs (work, meals, visiting, child-care, recreation, etc.) and set the stage for a competitive struggle for power and dominance between them. Rather than being viewed as performing valued, cooperative, complementary economic and familial roles, females come to be viewed as competitors to be dominated, even through acts of violence if necessary. This probably explains much of the resentment and perceived threat posed by recent female attempts around the world to acquire suffrage, education, gainful employment, and skills such as operating vehicles. Since these achievements promote self-reliance and independence, they are perceived by many males as competitive threats to their own status, positions, dominance, and control.

Finally, there is a related, culturally-composed attitude that females are somehow the exclusive family property of males (whether these are fathers, brothers, or husbands, etc.). This includes their rights over their sexual and reproductive lives as well as their social and economic lives. This objectification of females diminishes their inherent humanity and helps justify them as targets for male exploitation. Females from socioeconomically underprivileged groups are especially vulnerable. The problem for males, of course, is that this creates an atmosphere of suspicion and danger requiring strict supervision and vigilance that must continually be maintained to guard and "protect" females, both from themselves and from other male predators. This in turn provides the rationale for the institutionalization of such customs as seclusion, genital operations, chaperoning, sequestering, modesty, and restriction of females from public roles, places, and activities. These attendant fears further reinforce the need for male protection and ipso factomale dominance and control.
1. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, across India, 24,923 cases of rape were reported in 2013.

2. Official data in India show that rape cases have jumped almost 875 percent over the past 40 years - from 2,487 in 1971 to 24,206 in 2011.

3. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, 221 rape cases were reported in Mumbai in 2012. But figures provided by the government show that there has been a rape reported to police every day in Mumbai between January and March this year. The average number of reported rapes in a month in 2013 in the city rose dramatically to 30.33, from 19.25 in 2012.

4. Delhi Police said the number of reported rapes in the capital had jumped from 179 for the first 3½ months of last year to 463 for the same period this year.

5. The gang rape of a 23-year-old woman in a bus in New Delhi in December sparked public outrage. The victim of the New Delhi attack later died in a Singapore hospital. The outcry quickly grew over her case and expanded to include widespread concerns about women's safety and inequalities, triggering demonstrations in various cities.

6. A recent case to draw outrage involved a 7-year-old girl who was raped in the toilet compartment of a train in central India.

7. In March 2013, in a camp near a forest in the state of Madhya Pradesh, a group of men beat a Swiss husband and raped his wife. A court sentenced these six men to life in prison.

8. In April 2013, a five-year-old girl in Hyderabad was abducted and raped repeatedly. She was found semiconscious three days later with severe head injuries.

9. In May 2013, a week after the news of a child rape sparked protests in India, hospital officials confirmed the rape of another girl. The 4-year-old died from cardiac arrest at Care Hospital in Nagpur, India. A 35-year-old man has been arrested and accused of sexually assaulting the girl.

10. In a recent report, the Asian Center for Human Rights cited statistics that it said showed 48,338 child rape cases were reported in India between 2001 and 2011. The report said the number of cases rose from 2,113 in 2001 to 7,112 in 2011.
Considering these alarming statistics, what then are some of the postulated reasons and causes? Many appear to dovetail consistently with the article by Sanday. We must be aware from the outset, however, that India is a regionally and ethnically diverse nation, much like the United States. Generalizations applying to all of India can, therefore, be misleading, erroneous, and filled with exceptions. It is also important to recognize that many of the attitudes and practices concerning females are changing, especially among younger males. Nonetheless, many studies have shown that the situational and sociocultural characteristics we have described in our section on the etiology of rape and that tend to both characterize rape prone societies and enhance the risk of female rape can be found to apply in India (e.g., L'Armand et al., 1981).

First and foremost is the notion that female chastity is paramount and essential not only to a woman's personal honor but to her family's honor as well. Loss of chastity, whether it is voluntary or involuntary, is equated with premarital or extramarital consensual sex. Raped married women can therefore be divorced on these grounds. Virginity is required at marriage and becomes the exclusive property transferred from the wives' family to her husband. In other words, females, and especially their sexual and reproductive capacities, are the property of males. As will be described in Lesson 6, in the past, women were often expected to immolate themselves, along with other property, on their husband's funeral pyres (sati). Although this has changed, conservative attitudes consistent with this persist.

Objectified as property, females are controlled by males who can exert their dominance in almost any way they choose, including through physical force and violence. According to a recent study survey, 24 percent of Indian men have committed sexual violence at some point in their lives, and 20 percent admitted to having forced their wives or partners to have sex. In contrast, only 2 percent of Brazilian men and 9 percent of men in Chile in the same study have indulged in sexual violence. The findings suggest that men in all countries, except India, support more equitable relationships and opportunities between women and men. Age plays a factor too, with young men showing more support for gender equality and more just treatment of women. Among its results, the study also found that men who view women as their equals are more likely to be happy, communicate well with their partners, and have better sex lives. A 2012 report by UNICEF found that 57 percent of Indian boys and 53 percent of Indian girls between the ages of 15 and 19 think wife beating is justified. A recent national family-health survey also reported that a sizable percentage of women blame themselves for beatings by their husband.

Numerous data show that related to this is the low and unequal status accorded females in India. A recent Reuter's report of G-20 countries of the best places for women in terms of strong policies against violence and exploitation combined with good access to education and healthcare make Canada the best G-20 country to be a woman; infanticide, child marriage, and slavery make India the worst. Saudi Arabia, incidentally, was the next worst. Females in India tend not to be preferred at birth and are seen to be a burden (especially because of a dowry that must be paid at their marriage), and responsibility. Their subsequent lives are expected to be encompassed by the domestic sphere.