Anthropology and the Revolving Door Policy in Western Society

Anthropology has taken, what seems to be, an inadvertent back seat to the other social sciences. The “soft” sciences, as they have often been called, began their assent into academia with the burgeoning of the Enlightenment. They ploddingly evolved through the mid 1800's; incorporating the more entrenched scholarly pursuits into their methodology. Literary studies, which at the time included historiographies, were mined and harvested to imbue the social sciences with the impression of both brevity and an established academic legacy. Couple this with philology, etymology and a general level of appreciation for the cultural, political and social histories of Classical Greece or Rome and the social sciences were off to a running start.

Two of the emerging fields of cultural studies were sociology and anthropology. They are often confused as near synonyms of each other, which leads to a misunderstanding of their core pursuits. This confusion has led to the amalgamation of their meanings and has gradually ushered a death knoll of sorts for the prosaic application of anthropological theory on modern society. What do we make of the apparent semantic differences between the two sister disciplines of cultural studies: sociology and anthropology? Moreover, how can we salvage the waning importance of anthropological analysis?

In a broad sense anthropology encompasses a study of all characteristics of human societies, including social relationships and evolutionary origins. The focus of anthropology is generally concerned with small groups in a homogenous historical context. Anthropology delves into the folkways, mores and myths insofar as they influence and shape social and cultural structures. Creation myths and cosmologies are the bread and butter of anthropology. Sociology, on the other hand, focuses on larger macroscopic social relationships which tend to involve economics and psychology. The intertwining of 2 or more social sciences within a sociological paradigm allows for a greater frequency of use among academics and journalists. By default anthropology attempts to clarify and describe the underpinnings of a societal framework. Furthermore, it employs those underpinnings to illustrate how cultural institutions are governed. Sociology enumerates the cultural institutions and their formation but with a narrower foundation.

What follows is an attempt put anthropology back on the roadmap of relevance by applying it's cultural diagnostic tools. This exploration will hopefully peel back the layers of the the revolving door policy underpinnings in modern politics. The revolving door policy is the Godhead of a closed circuit, almost plutocratic system by which professionals meander in and out of public service after intermittent appointments either as lobbyists, think tank policy wonks or as CEO's of banks and multinationals. The Godhead of the revolving door policy is, of course, not limited to the exemplars last mentioned. There are many different permutations of the 3 points on the triangle but one steadfast position is that of government. Fundamentally, the revolving door policy is about gift giving, homage and relationship building. From the seminal theoretical work done by Marcel Mauss in his early 20^th century book “The Gift”, it will become clear how similar the mechanics of the (chief) “Big Man” in primitive-preliterate society and modern day revolving door “Big Men” truly are.

Marcel Mauss was the nephew to one of the pillars of anthropology, the Frenchman Emile Durkheim. Mauss' book, "The Gift", chronicles how human relationships are developed, solidified and sustained through mutual gift-giving. This form of gift-giving, where the recipient and the benefactor gain no material or monetary advantage from the artifacts which are bestowed, is referred to as “mutual reciprocity” in anthropological jargon. Mauss employed in his study a cross-cultural methodology, noting gift-giving practices of Polynesians, Northwest Native Americans and Melanesians.

European feudal society has a striking resemblance to this mutual reciprocity, albeit the Lord wielded a sovereign hegemony over the power structure which was not the case in preliterate egalitarian societies. The analogy is, however, still valid. Through a prism of a somewhat romanticized nostalgia, the feudal state indentured the serfs to toil and harvest the Lords estates. The Lord would excise a tax on a portion of the serfs harvest and in exchange the Lord would pledge to defend the serfs in the event of an attack from interlopers. Harkening back to the French Ancien Regime of the 15^th through the 18th centuries, one can observe a classic example of primitive relationship building. The social sciences deem this type of asymmetrical relationship building clientelism.

Clientelism at its core is an exchange of goods, services or tribute for political or social support. Imbedded in the clientelism is an explicit or implicit mandate of quid-pro-quo. Again, in preliterate societies the egalitarian balance precludes an explicit asymmetry. A term which is often used incorrectly as a synonym for clientelism is cronyism. Cronyism shares the tendency of gift-giving but differs from clientelism in the degree it skews the symmetrical balance of the relationships.

Cronyism is a tendency to promote friends, family and other semi-familial relationships through the ranks of political or governmental office. These people often are appointed to their positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications. As in the Ancien Regime, the French were well aware of the political benefits of cronyism. So much so they coined the term which we most use today when referring to cronyism: nepotism. It is derived from the French word for nephew and should be nothing new to those familiar with Renaissance politics. Machiavelli's magnum opus, “The Prince”, was based on Cesare Borgia of the notorious Borgia family. Cesare's father/uncle, Pope Alexander VI , was the second true patriarch and architect of this politically savvy dynasty. He was the “nephew” to Pope Callixtus III, who launched the dynasty in the 15^th century. Nevertheless, the exploits of Cesare's tutelage under his father are the bedrock of the infamous credo: “the ends justifies the means.” Cronyism is by design an asymmetrical relationship. The patron or the bestower of the “gift” (position) can requisition a heavier loyalty tax from the recipient because the bestower commands greater clout in the particular political system.

Returning to our original premise; what can anthropology bring to light about gift-giving as way of promoting and solidifying relationships within the Godhead of the revolving door policy? The crux of the analysis lies with an incorporation of the two principles of relationship building through gift-giving: clientelism and cronyism. These two are melded into a closed circuit of mutual reciprocity on a small intimate participant scale. In the short term, the bestower gains a small advantage within the quid-pro-quo balance. However, as the players float effortlessly from commercial appointments to governmental positions and back again in that closed loop, the gains and losses are mutually shared. The “gift” is shared through the tributes which are paid to the various institutions either in valuta or in kind. The bestower's prestige or influence is bolstered by the gift and allows him/her to subsequently bolster the prestige or influence of the recipient. In this way gift-giving to a “Big Man” in preliterate societies is not that dissimilar to gift-giving to an “ex-politician” or “ex-banker” in modern Western society.

List of 5 Persistent Celtic Superstitions

Tikis, relics, talismans, lucky charms, omens or just a personal ritual to hedge your bets against bad fortune; they all are symbolic footholds in a chaotic unpredictable existence. The earliest temple yet discovered is Göbekli Tepe which is located in modern day Turkey. The in situ finds date the temple to it's earliest construction stage at 9000 BC. Preliminary evidence points to a codification of ritualized superstition in the form of animism as seen on the menacing statues of adorning many of the pillars found at the site. The people who built the temple complex were seemingly erecting a sacred area in which rituals could be preformed. Try envisioning the temple as a place where rituals were carried out as a “insurance policy” against possible malevolent supernatural forces which they were otherwise unable to abate or avoid. Both the animal paleozoological and paleobotanical finds at Göbekli Tepe indicate that the architects of this temple complex were still heavily dependent on hunting and gathering and not a fully developed sedentary farming society. 

The standard theories of the development of religion state that a stratified and complex religion (e.g. religious hierarchy) would not exist before a society adopted the technological fundamentals of neolithic revolution into their culture. Klaus Schmidt, the principle archeologist studying Göbekli Tepe, has said about the temple; "First came the temple, then the city". In other words, superstition came before religion. Several millenniums later these aspects of superstition along with technological and cultural traditions spread out over the Eurasian plate by peoples emanating from the edge of Fertile Crescent. The fertile crescent a.k.a the “bread basket of the world” or the “cradle of civilization” is seen by the archeological evidence to be the epicenter of the neolithic revolution which was can be viewed as the birth of the modern era. There were peoples who, like in the case of those who built Göbekli Tepe, were influenced by the advancements of the neolithic revolution but who didn't adopt the sedentary lifestyle needed to evolve into a complex and hierarchal society; i.e cities. 

This rudimentary process of influence from one culture to another is called diffusion. Diffusion is basically the transference of a cultural “artifact” from it's place of origin to another place. This process is manifested in such exchanges involving population migrations, trade, war or diplomatic contact. Often diffusion has an undertone of conquest as denoted by technological dominance. This anthropological theory has been altered and refined to become what it now deemed acculturation. Acculturation encompasses, therefore, the same mechanisms for adoption of new cultural traits from a dominant society interacting with a subordinate culture but with out an a priori malevolent intent.

One such group on the fringes of the neolithic European landscape was the ubiquitous but disparate category of people known collectively as the Celts. Celtic European occupancy traces back more than 2500 years and spans a territory from Eastern Europe, Greece, Spain, Northern Italy, Western Europe, England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. The Celts are considered to be the first major Indo-European peoples to spread across all of Europe. They apparently migrated begrudgingly due to pressures from other Indo-European groups such as the Germanic, Greek and Latin peoples. The Celts were a pre-literate society whose culture was preserved mainly through oral tradition. The sparse written accounts of the Celts are those of classical authors; chiefly the Greeks and Romans.

Accordingly, due to the late pacification and ensuing subjugation of Ireland and Scotland as well as other pockets of recalcitrant “pagans” in Europe, some vestiges of ancient celtic traditions in the form of superstition persisted. Some of those superstitions are so ingrained in our lives we neglect to realize the origin and meaning of the superstition. Here is a list of 5 Celtic Superstitions that have been with us for thousands of years and don't seem to be going away anytime soon. So, if the languid state of current world affairs has you in a pragmatic conundrum my advice would be to follow the Celt's lead.

Wishing Wells

The precise origins are obscured by history, yet there is archeological evidence to suggest that the practice of offering up money to water dates back to the period of the Roman occupation of Britain. The county of Northumberland is home to the Coventina Well where thousands of coins have been excavated. The minting dates on the coins range from the first through the fifth century AD. Due to the fact that the Coventina Well was discovered amidst apparent temple ruins the conclusion archeologists have drawn is that the offerings were made as part of a religious observance.

Mirrors

The superstition that ones soul could be absconded with by nefarious supernatural forces if ones reflection was seen in water predates the mirror. Accessing the original time frame of this superstition is almost impossible. Logic dictates that the superstition of a broken mirror's shards ensnaring the soul and the harbinger of bad luck is probably just a continuation of the aforementioned older superstition. The arbitrary length of time before the misfortunes are lifted comes from the Romans belief that seven years are needed for life to regenerate. This one is a superstition wrapped in a superstition.

Touch or Knock Wood

There are diverse explanations as to why touching or knocking wood developed into a superstition. The explanation which conforms to possible Celtic influence is the one discussed here. Celtic mythology held that faeries, pixies, brownies and other woodland little people used trees as their homes. Presumably, by knocking on the bark of a tree would awaken the slumbering faerie folk allowing them to hear your plea for a good favor. Simultaneously the knocking prevented the more malevolent and evil spirits of the woods from eavesdropping on your plea to the faeries and potentially sabotage it. The modern variation of touching or knocking wood to stave off ill fortune may have been adapted by the early Christians from the Celts. The early Christians attributed wood to being a symbol of the Cross on which one of their primary deities was sacrificed. Touching the Cross would imbue them through transference with the protection of their god.

Four Leaf Clover

Although the origins may be traced to the Celtic (Druid) priests throughout Europe, the survival of this superstition is chiefly due to its prevalence in modern Irish folklore. The scarcity of four leaf clovers contributed to their mystical quality among the Druids. The clovers were a viewed as tools to pry open the esoteric third-eye which allowed the Druid to initiate contact with the spirit world. Once in the spirit realm the Druid was able to consult the deities as a shaman on behalf of his people.

Rabbits Foot

Possessing a rabbit's foot talisman is so deeply engrained in Indo-European culture that assigning an origin to the superstition quickly becomes a fools errand. It is believed by some mythology scholars to have been practiced by Celts several thousand of years ago. This is only conjecture based on the Celtic belief that the rabbit or hare spent so much time underground allowing for more frequent contact with the underworld. Another explanation would be their association with fertility and rebirth. The Christian holy day of Easter has its roots planted in the ancient Celtic celebration of the birth of Spring. Rabbits, hares, chicks and eggs are all part of the rebirth symbolism connected to Spring and Easter. Furthermore, structural anthropologists deem the hare or rabbit as embodying a duality of good and bad which manifests itself in origin stories centered around twins. Claude Levi-Strauss, the late proponent of Structural Anthropology, states that the rabbit represents the twins because of its mouth being equally split down the middle: harelips. The twins in mythology emerging from the hare's mouth embark on different adventures one good and one bad. To possess the good (right) foot and to dismiss the bad (left) foot of a rabbit would garner the owner with symbolic power over the evil twin. 

Spinoza's Chutzpah

Synching up the profane and the sacred

 

     When I made the decision as an undergrad to pursue a minor in Anthropology instead of a double major along with History, my philosophical world view was disassembled, rearranged and pieced back together. But in a positive way. It galvanized the dissimilar and sometimes incongruent paradigms which oozed back and forth between the hard and soft science classes at the university. One of the prerequisite courses was an introduction to Anthropology of the Family. Although the course was as interesting as the professor could eek out in a 4 month stint, ultimately it proved to be underwhelming at best. By default I was able to enroll in this course but the course I really wanted to follow to satisfy my requirements was Medical Anthropology. At the time, youth was my driving force like a fire in the belly which spurred me on and didn't accept disappointment. I told myself that if I couldn't follow the lectures, so be it; but I was going to study the book and handouts which were listed. 
 

      The title of the book eludes me now but the contents of the book; its basic tenets, the gist of the narrative, fascinated me to the point of obsession. Primitive cultures, now abandoned for the p.c. Pre-literate moniker, was and still is the first stepping stone in American and European Anthropology education. The early 20^th century paradigm shift in Anthropology from the concept of “other” to “different” is still prevalent and woven seamlessly into today's curriculum. Pioneering anthropologists like Franz Boas taught a second generation of pioneering anthropologists to throw off the shackles of Social Darwinism and study indigenous cultures as unique and intrinsically equal cultures. Without being laden down in nominal conclusions of good and bad, anthropologists like Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead spearheaded the Relativism movement in the social sciences. Mead's seminal work on sexuality; “Coming of Age in Samoa”, shown a light on a sexually repressed Western Culture. Franz Boas, in his forward to her book, illuminates what Mead's work represented; “Courtesy, modesty, good manners, conformity to definite ethical standards are universal, but what constitutes courtesy, modesty, very good manners, and definite ethical standards is not universal. It is instructive to know that standards differ in the most unexpected ways." This was what the textbook from Medical Anthropology was espousing at its core; knowledge and wisdom are two separate concepts which are universal to all cultures but differ in meaning within various cultures. 
 
      The example which rattled my brain as most poignant and epiphanic was not from some far flung exotic Polynesian island; it was from New England USA. In the winter months when Northern climes are subject to but seldom reported epidemics of flu those areas utilize home spun remedies to combat and stave off the demoralizing secondary infections. One of those remedies is called Grog. Apparently the word grog stems from the British Vice Admiral Edward Vernon who was know as "Old Grog". The libation was formerly a mixture of alcohol and fruit juices and spices which rationed to sailors as a means of avoiding drinking stagnant water and preventing scurvy. Sailors being sailors the rations were often gulped down prematurely leaving them little recourse but to drink the algae ridden water. The solution was to dilute the mixture with water which stretched the rations for a longer duration. Initially a maritime drink it is found all over Europe and the Western world. It is documented to even have an equivalent in Fuji, no doubt unintentionally introduced by seamen on shore leave. Regardless, the New England variant was a combination of vinegar, honey and occasionally alcohol. The ratio of ingredients shows a dichotomy at work; bitter and sweet made palatable by a jigger of alcohol (exact amount may vary). Of course, the honey has a dearth of nutritional goodness and the alcohol can lull the sick and afflicted into a nice slumber. I believe the vinegar might give the illusion of a medicinal wheelhouse. If it doesn't taste bad then it's probably not helping. 
 
      This explanation is the HOW. This is what it would tell us empirically, scientifically. But to the those drinking the grog it is only the WHY which is important. The disparate properties jumbled together work because they work together well. This is maybe over simplified and tautological but it led me to continue to extrapolate on pre-literate societies and their ethnobotanical remedies. A healer or a shaman or a witchdoctor in a pre-literate community has a mind numbingly expansive knowledge of his or her immediate pharmacopeia. Much like the New England grog maker, the healer, shaman or witchdoctor mixes and blends a variety of plants, roots and herbs and often hallucinogens to aid in the recovery of a ailing tribesman. The chemistry, biology, and scientific underpinnings can be studied and understood giving us the HOW the remedy worked. That doesn't satiate a cosmology where the profane and sacred are inexorably intertwined. The need to complete the whole must have a WHY. Those pre-literate societies might assume that a deity is embodied in a plant or root and through a concisely dictated ritual resulting in drinking the liquid, a spirit is released which goes forth and heals. The WHY doesn't negate the HOW. It forms a set; an ethical circuit which satisfies the sacred and the profane and ipso facto brings structure. This allows for an individual within a society to experience moral cohesion below the surface tension of empirical reality. 
 
      How and Why are therefore cut from the same cloth but remain in the western world at odds with each other. For example, take the words demonstrate and inspire. Etymologically demonstrate is taken from Latin meaning “de = proove/monstrum = divine, sacred” but it has been bastardized into meaning empiricism: science. Inspire derives from the Latin word inspirationem which connotes breathing. At its root it incorporates the word spirare which is where we get the word spirit. The act of blowing and inhaling would allow us to ingest the sacred. So are science and mythology doomed to be at rivaling ends of our ethical world view? We can stoically marvel at the universe and proclaim that there must be some sort of intelligent design for such complex sequencing of DNA as proven in the multi-celluar life forms we call humans. There are, however, numerous flaws in the design which make me reluctant to believe in an omnipotent and benevolent greying old man perched on a cloud who's counting the number of fire ants who die in order to keep the biosphere in balance. The fact that life is sustained by killing seems to me to be a major flaw. Science supplies us with a progression of replicable hypotheses which allow us to comprehend the HOW of evolution. They tell us what mechanisms are at work selecting certain traits. Which of these traits may be helpful in the long run but also which ones are benign or antique but continue to be passed down from our homo sapiens ancestors who first interbred with Neanderthals. Like the archaic genes for small brains or the still valid but rapidly fading gene for red hair. 
 
      The total of nature's wonders in the vastness of diversity on this blue marble or the greater cosmos, either perceived or theorized like dark energy and dark matter, causes me to add credence to Spinoza's view God and the divine. Spinoza theorized a God who exists and is abstract and impersonal. The nutshell of Spinoza's believe in God is that the profane and the sacred are one in the same and exemplified by nature. All the cosmos and all the terrestrial beings are part of a God who is the sum of the universe and nature and not of a guardian overlording it. Spinoza was, uncharacteristically for the Jewish faith, excommunicated because of his heretical philosophy. Thankfully he was able to fused together the HOW and the WHY eloquently and holistically and in a neat and tidy philosophy; albeit posthumously. 
 
      If we accept the union of the sacred and the profane as being equally beneficial to our moral and ethical development we can begin to pose more stringent philosophical questions. When we ask ourselves one of the quintessential philosophical question : “what is death?” Intrinsically and by default the HOW alone becomes moot and irrelevant. The WHY usurps our self-reflective brain power and takes over the philosophical high ground. Will it be that the sacred provides us with solace not only in preparation for death but also moral support for those we leave behind? Science is not devoid of its WHY deliberation. Let's assume that most of the educated population believes in the Big Bang theory. In doing so we a priori concedes that we are all made from the same interstellar flotsam and jetsam that was spewed out over the universe at the moment of the Big Bang. If we agree to those two criteria then the WHY for science becomes easy. We humans just as all organic matter will return to the cosmic dust fragments from whence we came.

     Bridging the gab between the HOW and the WHY will make the derisive camps of the profane and sacred irrelevant and at the same time reduce a heap of metaphysical stress on all of us.