Anyway, to completely switch
gears: I do celebrate Christmas. Furthermore, I am more likely to say “Merry
Christmas” than “Happy Holidays,” because that is how I was raised. Despite the
utterance of mere habit, I do actually enjoy Christmas, or at least the
nostalgia of it.
Having moved a couple dozen
times, it’s no wonder that many of the traditions my parents attempted to start
never actually became fruitful. We tried Twelve Days of Christmas, where we
open a small present each night for twelve nights preceding Christmas. We tried
opening a single present on Christmas Eve. We tried stringing together 25 rings
of construction paper, and tearing one off for each day, starting on December 1st. The one thing that I know we did every Christmas, without
exception, was listen to my father read the Christmas story from the Gospel of
Luke.
And you know what? Even after
admitting my loss of faith, even after realizing that the Christmas story is
told four different ways by four different apostles, even after relinquishing
any kind of trust I had in Bronze Age goat-herder myths, even after knowing
that the holiday was appropriated from pagan religions, even after coming to
the conclusion that Jesus was more than likely an ideology rather than an
actual person…I don’t really mind it. This blows my undergraduate mind: How can
a tradition be practiced with no useful function? What good does it do for me?
Perhaps I should read more Geertz and Turner.
Regardless, there is but one
Christmas story as far as I’m concerned: Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. It seems that every so often, I realize more and
more things that I love about the book. When I was a kid, it was the
combination of darkness and Muppets. When I was a teenager, it was the allure
of the mid-19th century industrial revolution. Later on, I might’ve
said that I loved the story of a man changing his worldview to one of progress –
and in one night, no less! This year, I realize that Dickens has typified an individual’s
case of…can I call it “Boasian enlightenment?”
That is, once Scrooge has
considered the breadth and depth of his situation (and that of the middle-,
working-, and lower-classes) he understands why it is important for him,
especially in his economic and social position, to have a change of heart.
Scrooge, by the end of the novel, is a relativist. This was no mere rehabilitation,
as I might have suggested a few years ago. Scrooge may have been backed into a
corner by reason and evidence, but he could have done what the stubborn do:
ignore it. No, Scrooge brought something else to the table that makes this much different: He was able to recognize and admit that he was wrong. (I will now
state with great bias...) That is a virtue of science! (And now with less bias...) It is the key to change.
Understanding. It really is the
core of what we, as anthropologists, hope to see in privileged peoples, isn’t
it? As an undergraduate, the textbook example is anyone predating the 20th
century and the way they describe “primitive” rituals as they are practiced by “savages,”
or how certain physical anthropologists have attempted to prove an innate
inferiority of non-whites. As a social networker, I read examples of this
misunderstanding all the time, from Satoshi Kanazawa’s hurtful Why Are Black Women Rated Less Physically Attractive, blah, blah, blah to Ed Rybicki’s shameful Womanspace
to Gene Marks' senseless If I Were a Poor Black Kid. In A Christmas Carol,
Dickens really has written a microcosmic account of the key to peace on earth
and goodwill: contextual understanding. I wonder if Dickens had any influence
on Franz Boas?
No comments:
Post a Comment