Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
1
ANTH 100
Fall 2013
Written Assignment
The two works, and in turn their respective authors and the societies they
investigated, that I have chosen to explore for this anthropologic comparison paper
are Ronald Loewe’s Maya or Mestizo?: Nationalism, Modernity, and its Discontents
and Morgan Pitelka’s Handmade Culture: Raku Potters, Patrons, and Tea
Practitioners in Japan. I will start by comparing the two societies described in the
books, a discussion that will focus largely on the beliefs, customs, traditions, and
social institutions established by the members of the respective cultures. Then I will
move on to discuss each author’s approach in their own anthropological
expeditions. This will include not only how they gathered their data, but also under
which theoretical orientation that data was organized and presented.
Though these books focus on locales that are on opposite sides of the world,
interesting parallels as well as contrasts can be drawn between the societies
discussed. I will begin with backgrounds on both works that will make the
comparisons to come, clearer.
In Maya or Mestizo?, Loewe spotlights the Maya of the Yucatan. This
community has long been part of the state's attempt to integrate it into a
modernizing Mexican nation, thereby creating modern Mexican citizens, or mestizos
(Loewe 2010: 1). At the same time, the Mayan villagers have dealt with the
pressures of a globalizing world, first with the demands of maize production and
more recently with increased tourism and the growing influence of American-based
evangelical Protestantism (Loewe 2010: 2). In spite of all these factors conspiring to
2
turn the Maya into mestizo, the small town of Maxcanú has used subtle forms of
resistance such as humor, satire, and language intertwined with their myths and
dances to maintain aspects of their traditional identity (Loewe 2010: 2-7). It is key
to note though that Loewe gives a more contemporary look at this Maya community
caught between the tradition of past and the modernity of the present and future
(Loewe 2010). Nonetheless, he carefully and successfully places Mexico’s history
into his analysis to offering a unique understanding of how one local community has
faced the onslaught of modernization (Loewe 2010).
In Handmade Culture, Pitelka examines the practice of Raku, one of Japan's
most famous arts and a pottery technique employed around the world (Pitelka
2005: 3). Although it may seem simple as a history of ceramics, this book considers
over four hundred years of cultural change during times of both political stability
and socioeconomic turmoil (Pitelka 2005). The lessons from the work are certainly
enhanced by the plentiful illustrations, which are helpful in identifying Raku as a
physical art. He also makes ample use of tea diaries, letters, gazetteers and other
publications to recount the noteworthy history of Raku (Pitelka 2005). Additionally,
Pitelka provides a unique viewpoint as the son of a professional potter and
historian, which is shown by his knowledge of both technical ceramic topics and
historical concerns (Pitelka 2005). Overall, Handmade Culture sheds light not only
on an important traditional art from Japan, but also on the study of cultural history
itself.
I will start first with a similarity that can be drawn between the two societies,
but will also simultaneously contrast the two. Both works describe some sort of
3
influence being exerted on the respective societies from above by the
government/state. In Maxcanú, this overbearing power is the Mexican government,
and in Japan, this overarching power is the warlords who held power in Japan
centuries ago. A stark contrast does present itself though in the role of each power,
as the Mexican government was working against the progress of the Mayan culture
whereas the warlords of Japan were working to bring along the art of Raku (Pitelka
2005; Loewe 2010). In Maxcanú, the Mexican government, or specifically the CDI
(Centro de Desarrollo Indigenista) had the goal of modernizing the Maya and
promoting Spanish, consumerism, and assimilation; the end game for them was
creating modern Mexican citizens out of the Mayan villagers (Loewe 2010: xv). The
motivation behind this push was the belief, rather harsh and scientific, that the
mestizo was at the apex of Mexican history because hybrid species have greater
viability than either of the strains that produced them (Loewe 2010: 3-4). It is safe
to say that these strict natural laws of evolution certainly guided and promoted the
growth of Mexican nationalism (Loewe 2010: 4). The governmental influence on
Raku in Japan began with Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who ruled the Japanese archipelago
as a military dictator in the late 16th century (Pitelka 2005: 14). Hideyoshi was
known for his interest in the cultural realm, and saw the emerging trend of tea
consumption as an opportunity to demonstrate his authority (Pitelka 2005: 14). The
tea gathering gave him a chance to make important social connections to maintain
his power as well as a chance to showcase his wealth when it came to acquiring tea
utensils (Pitelka 2005: 15). To make sure he correctly practiced this art of tea
consumption, he hired Sen no Rikyu, Japan’s most famous tea practitioner (Pitelka
2005: 15). It was Sen no Rikyu who then enlisted Chojiro, a tile maker and potter, to
create for him a radically new style of rustic, undecorated tea bowls; and, so the
story of Raku began in the late sixteenth century with the pairing of these two men
(Pitelka 2005: 16). This connection between tea consumption and the success of
Raku pottery is not a coincidence though. Two characteristics of Raku, low-
temperature kiln firing and solely hand building and carving, made it more
attractive to tea practitioners (Pitelka 2005: 27). The reason for this is that the low-
temperature ceramics conduct heat less efficiently and so are more pleasant to hold
when filled with hot tea; and the unusual sensitivity of the Raku potter when hand-
shaping the ceramic made for a better fit and feel in the palm of a tea practitioner
(Pitelka 2005: 27). Although the roles of each governmental power in the promotion
of each respective culture were reversed, they both had great influence on their own
