“A reflection in understanding culture, society, and politics”

There are many ways in understanding culture, society and politics. In the PDF file that
is given, I have seen and known many definitions, anthropologists, and other sentences in
which it gives me a deeper meaning in it. I have read the Articles 1, 2 and 3 that embodies what
is anthropology, sociological imagination, politics and its relation to us and democracy. First is
anthropology, based on the PDF, it is said there that the meaning of anthropology is “the study
about humans”. Also, I have known the difference of social and cultural anthropology. That
social anthropology is the study about human societies and that cultural anthropology is the
knowledge about cultivated humans. I have seen the connection between the society and
culture with regards to social and cultural anthropology. In a way, it seeks to find the equilibrium
within the differences and sameness. I learned that anthropology is diverse in nature, but it also
looks for the connection of humans. In a way that anthropology of today has a wider variation of
studies than the anthropology that they had before, it can also be classified on its themes or
within observations. And, that it varies more or overlaps some human sciences that could help
us differentiate the whole definition of anthropology itself.
When I read the meaning of ethnocentrism, I have seen the problem in having it within
us in looking on or giving perspectives when it comes to culture, society and politics. This topic
strikes me the most since it tackles about it meaning which is, putting one’s ideas or beliefs
within the center in giving thoughts to other ideas or subjects. With ethnocentrism, I learned that
we put ourselves at the top of our imaginative hierarchy that makes us superior to others. This
really is a problem since we will be unfair in putting or making decisions at different subjects
because we all have varied thoughts within us. I have learned too that cultural relativism that
states that “the doctrine that societies and cultures are qualitatively different and have their own
unique inner logic” is not literally the opposite of ethnocentrism for it doesn’t have intellectually
moral scale. In some parts of the PDF, it also tells the sociological imagination is says” it
enables us to grasp history and biography and the relations between the two within society.
Since this is about society culture and politics, it also tells the difference in troubles and issues. I
have learned that a trouble is about dealing private matters and issues are not just about private
matter, it deals in public affairs. I have also learned how to differentiate the two.
At the last part, I have seen more terminologies and names that is interrelated to this
topic. Aristotle states here that A human being is a political animal; is not human but at beast or
a God if he could live outside the state. My comprehension here is that he is pertaining that
human beings need politics to live and if he could live outside the state, he can rule over
himself. I have learned that the view of Aristotle on that quotation is not applicable in the view of
today. Since he only looks for the small city-sates, it is not applicable to empire states or nation
states. It also states here the meaning of politics and that politics is “any activity involving
human beings associated together in relationship of power and authority where conflict occurs.”
I saw the basic attributes towards politics too, the active participation, rejection and indifference.
I saw that active participation doesn’t necessarily occur if the domain is smaller. And that
rejection is about rejecting the politics because you believe that you’re the only one who can
help oneself. There are also skeptics, cynicism and etc. In conclusion, I have learned different
terms and different peoples, the views and meanings. And that politics is like a liquid that is
needed to flow and is needed to grow, so as society and culture.