The most influential languages - (New) chart

Last week César Hidalgo's team in MIT released a new pretty cool study showing relationship among languages. For those who don't know who is César Hidalgo, he is a physicist specialized in Social Network Analysis (SNA). So why a physicist is studying languages? Basically because he does data analysis. That methodology isn't exclusive of physics, but also social science (economics, sociology, psychology, anthropology, geography), chemistry, biology, etc. It is a pretty cool field that I'm already writing a article about it, soon.

Going back to linguistics, what is this study awesome?. Well, they've collected data from three different sources: multilanguage articles in wikipedia, multilingual users in tweeter and books translations. With that, they've built this chart or map of influences and they got what follows:

In this map every arrow shows information translated from a language to another. The arrow thickness means amount of flow. Please notice that some connections are just one-way, while there are languages that aren't connected directly. There is when some languages as english, french, russian or spanish act as hubs. Then sometimes to pass info between two peripheral languages, the info must jump through several languages (with some info losses in the process). In that way those languages become very influential, getting faster info, but also become "bridges", connecting other languages.

While it is true that we could calculate the exact number of influence that every language has, is enough just have a look to the map to figure it out.

Any interesting conclusion? Many. First, if we compare influence against GDP of native speakers, there is no relationship. Second if we do the same against number of native speakers, the same, not a clue. Such influence isn't related to quantity. Then, such hypothesis about chinese will be the new english as frank language, well, not yet and not soon. Chinese - at least for internet data (which is the main communication system these days)- is still too peripheric.

Hungry for more conclusions?, serve yourself - it is an interactive chart!-  http://language.media.mit.edu/visualizations/books

Sources:

http://news.sciencemag.org/social-sciences/2014/12/want-influence-world-map-reveals-best-languages-speak
http://www.chidalgo.com/

When inequality is the problem

There is a large argument about inequality these days. When some say that it doesn't matter, total wealth is the important, other dudes, as Joseph Stiglitz or Paul Krugman (both Nobel laureates), say that matters and is a fact that the gap between rich and poor is growing. Many people have been experienced it, as movements as Occupy Wall Street, Indignados and other demonstrations have shown us. But what is the deal about it? Here two deep insights into the issue.

Inequality in poverty: Impeding Development.

In the book Why Nations Fail, the economist Daron Acemoglu and the political scientist, James Robinson, try to answer the question why some countries are wealthy while others are stuck in poverty. Their answer lays on something we have talked before, and could be considered part of culture: Institutions.

Although in the first place they reject plain explanations about culture, they thought about it like "ideological issues", as a work ethic or wealth ambition. They noticed that places with same culture actually have different income, as Nogales town in the US-Mexico border, a "mexican culture" town splitted in two, with one side rich (US) and another side poor (Mexico). Or Korea, a country splitted in two, one very rich (south) and other very poor (north), but with same cultural basis. So they relay their explanations in something more specific: political institutions (+economic institutions). To put it simple, there are two kinds: extractives (poor countries) and inclusives (rich ones).

For these two famous researchers (the gossips say that Acemoglu will be Nobel Prize soon), extractive institutions are those that have typically a group called "elite" that extract wealth and resources from the rest of the society. Thus, the rest of the society loses all incentives to be more productive, because more effort doesn't mean enhance of profit for them, but for the elite. Besides this elite will do everything possible to preserve their privilege as discourage any innovation that can produce a dynamic society (fear of creative destruction). It also will destroy in advance any opposition or competition to their power.

Sadly, oppressed people will continually try to free themselves despite elite efforts, turning the system in very unstable society. And if one group achieve overthrow the elite, it is likely that they fall into "the iron law of oligarchy", and the victorious group become the new elite, holding privileges and keeping extractive institutions with the rest. Power tends to corrupt, isn't it?

Forced work fields of Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. While Khmer was looking for terminate with elite power and colonialism in Cambodia. Once in the power, they emphasized extractive institutions, they even killed 2 millions of people. Others extractive institution examples are feudal servilism, slavery and most common, oligarchies of crony capitalism.

However if such revolution is widespread and inclusive, there is a chance to create institutions to put a limit on political power of new rulers (as, but not necessarily, division of power, effective power alternation, voting system) and open opportunities to everyone can influence policy, creating changes and dynamism. Inclusive institutions are created and that allows improvements and innovation. The benefit is more likely to be distributed by individual o collective effort, so there is incentive to improve productivity, and talents of people will be better distributed, leveraging different part of the whole society. Then, there is less institutional inequality and no distortion on a system that could be caused by a too powerful elite.

When queen Elizabeth I of England was introduced to the first spinning machine design, she was astonished, but she rejected to give a patent to their inventor. She said that machine does the job of 10 workers and 10 workers without a job do revolts. Thus, she, as a queen, should avoid riots, in order to maintain the order and her head over her shoulders. Everything changes after Glorious revolution in 1688, when parliament (with widespread interest representation) granted patents to many invents which led to industrial revolution.

The book also point out that such political institution allows a more fair scenario and economy growth, destroying inefficient economies and creating some new and better (creative destruction). Of course there should be a political guarantees to maintain economic inclusive institution, like markets, as such. For instance, an accessible justice system in which the less powerful were in the same stance than the most. By all means, it is possible that the economic system tends to segregation, specially if there is no political guarantees, specially if inclusive economic institutions aren't backed by inclusive political institutions.

This could be the case for China and Singapore, in which inclusive economic institutions are under extractive political system. Then, economic growth won't last. Repeating rapid economic growth under extractive institution (as it happened with URSS in the '50, '60 and '70s), but unsustainable in time. Even under inclusive political institutions there are other threats, as it happened with the trust crisis in 1890 and financial crisis in 2008 in US, while markets created high concentration of wealth (inequality), making american democracy tremble.

Unfortunately, when some countries became rich because of their new inclusive institutions, they have increased global inequality. Because their powerful influence among the rest, it led to colonialism. It is a kind of inequality that has left rich countries as extractors of natural resources of the rest, preventing the development of their own inclusive institutions, supporting local elites to keep the world status quo.

Inequality in wealth: Impeding Well-being.

The epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, in the book "The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger", give us some reasons to worry about inequality.

If we take some data of economic income per person and compare it with data about well-being (mainly health, more familiar issue for the authors) will see there is a relation between income and well-being. That is, the higher the income per person in a country, better welfare. However, this relation is completely blurred over $ 20,000 per capita, when add to more money does not ensure any improvement.

However, the researchers took the data of the rich countries and compare with inequality of income rather than plain income. Its result is quite impressive. Among high income countries, the well-being increase when inequality decrease.

The authors explain some effects of inequality in well-being through permanent stress (cortisol levels). As they say, inequality generate stress. People is more worry about others opinion, is more insecure and depressed. They develop some feelings of superiority and inferiority, which impacts on health and also on well-being, not just the poorer, but also with the rich. Have you ever felt the pressure of social inequality? the anguish of constant comparison?

Sources:

Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, 2009 ,The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger.
Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, 2012, Why nations fail.

8 rules to avoid environmental disaster

An interesting point of view to understand culture is see it like social arrangements that allow us survive, adapt and live in a natural or social world. These sets are above of individuals, are contracts, set of rules, values, customs, limits that we enforce to ourself - consciously or not- to achieve some goals. Are institutions.

Sorry folks, but institutions aren't buildings. Instead of that, are a set of rules.

For example, marriage institution is a set of rules that limit sexual relationships, heritage, alliances between families or groups. It installs a kind of link and sets rules, that helps to avoid conflicts about reproduction right, and keeps some values (some societies is about love, in other childs, or family, status, whealt, etc).

There are political institutions, as democratic vote, or economic ones, as markets. All of them regulate our actions. How we behave, which strategies are available to reach our goals. There were people that thought there are as many institutions as social needs. While others thought that institutions were imposed and because of historical reasons... But How is this related to environment?  

The tragedy of the commons

In 1968, Garrette Hardin published in Science magazine an hypotetical situation: A common grassland (resource), which is used by several farmers to feed their animals. If those shepherds act from an individualistic and rational point of view to maximize their benefit, they will try to put on grassland as many animals as they can. If everybody act like that, soon the common resource will be plenty of animals and they will eat it all, leading to the dead of all animals. It will be different if the resource wasn't common, but divided among shepherds. Then, they will try to avoid over-exploitation, knowing beforehand that no one will use the resources they don't use.

This has been used as an argument to support pro-private-property-rights positions. But the same article said that is just one possible action and it is hard to take in major commons as air (and pollution) and oceans, that couldn't be divided. If we still pushing those commons the tragedy will become innevitable.

But commons are hypotetical, What occurs in real life?

The commons survive.

Some anthropologists researches have shown us that most of the communities with common resources have
several strategies to avoid its overexploitation. They use tabus that forbid fishing or rules that say when to move cattle to other lands to avoid overconsumption. However, many communities transform those rules when they start some commerce and market relationships. Markets encourage intensive exploitation of resources to exchange.

Palau (Micronesia), fishermen have strong norms to limit fishing

The nomad shedherds Bassin (Southern Iran) have rules and rutes very well stablished in order to take care of glasslands

However, in 1990, E. Ostrom (political scientist and Nobel Prize) compiled and compared many cases were communities were successful conserving their common resources. She described a set of institutions that help them make it. Those institutions were specifics rules that community impose and reproduce in next generations:

1. Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external un-entitled parties);
2. Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources that are adapted to local conditions;
3. Collective-choice arrangements that allow most resource appropriators to participate in the decision-making process;
4. Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators;
5. A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules;
6. Mechanisms of conflict resolution that are cheap and of easy access;
7. Self-determination of the community recognized by higher-level authorities; and
8. In the case of larger common-pool resources, organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the base level.

Commons become global

One kind of global institution created to stop global warming and protect our major common -our planet- is Kyoto protocol for climate change. It is an agreement in which every country commit to reduce their emission greenhouses gases. Its aim was reduce global emission on 5%. If the countries couldn't achieve their goals, they will be fined.

However, as Ostrom would say, there is no point if the protocol is not ratified by every country. Sadly USA didn't, despite to be the major greenhouse gases producer. And Canada, seeing they wouldn't achieve their goals for 2012, quit. And the tragedy becomes more real.

Sources:

G. Hardin "Thagedy of the commons", Science, 1968

R. E. Johannes "Words of lagoon: Fishing and marine lore in Palau distric of Micronesia", 1981

E. Ostrom "Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action", 1990

Ember y Ember: Sistemas económicos: ¿Lleva la propiedad comunal al desastre económico?, 2010

http://davidruyet.wordpress.com/

How to survive in large crowds: Cultural techniques.

It is likely that you live surrounded by thousands of people in a big city, in a country of millions of people. And it is likely as well that you feel used to it, despite just meet a few. Have you ever noticed all they with you share your life whom you don't know?  They that you cross in the streets, on the bus, or they whom you buy. Some of them that you trust despite you don't even know their names as police officers (whom you trust your safety), banks cashiers (whom you trust your money) or restorant chefs (your food and health). It even seen pretty normal. But all these thinks aren't normal, were developed as "social technologies". Which are such techniques? What enables us to live in large crowds?

Models of Human organization evolution.

Let's check out a little about political evolution analysis to solve this questions. By the way, keep in mind that social evolution doesn't mean "better than" or superiority among societies, but changes across the time, new social adaptations or different complexity within a society. In the other hand, politics isn't just political parties and laws. Politics is the way that humans get organized, solve conflicts, and compete and distributed power

Adrian Bejan and Peder Zane have described evolution as a flow. They compare it with other flow models as rivers. Where flows diverge and converge according environment resistance. To left, satellital view of a river, to right full evolution chart.

There are many models that describe and combine several variables (such as knowledge, population, environment, conflict, culture, etc.) because most are synthetic and systemic. They appeal to multiple factors that reinforce each other, but giving priority to one factor or another. But Which one is the most correct? It will depend on every case. One model could be useful to explain the rise of the state in middle Andes, while another will explain segmentary tribes in High Nilo or corporations structure in USA.


To put it extremly simple we are going to use an "hypothetical group" to make these models work. Then this is a travel that will show us many options, not just one way, as a river flow to the present. So please, take a deep breath and try to forget all that things that you considered "obvious" or "normal", because we are going to places where such a things not even existed.

The hypothetical group.

Imagine a 200 people group, which is in an environment, where they get resources to survive (hunting and gathering). If they can't get enough food, they move. Then, they've had good health and nutricion (no- hygienic problems, a lot of exersice, rich diet), and don't need to work to much to survive. They distribute their products through reciprocity (favors exchange). There is neither specialization, nor bosses. Leadership is spontanious, temporary and depend on the task to be done.


But then, something changes: 1) An increase of population: several effects occur. Group's mobility decreases, getting less chances to get resources (Packing group hypothesis); there are more stomachs to feed (demographic pressure). Likewise, there is more people than we can naturally handle (Dunbar number). With too many unfamiliar faces, reciprocity doesn't work and conflict arises with people that we don't know so well. Further, scarce of resources increase competition and conflict.


2)It is time to make a decision. The group could reduce its numbers, could be divided and dispersed or the population pressure could lead to an innovation (Boserup's Theory), as looking for new food sources (Broad-spectrum theory) or agriculture development. Complementary strategies could be done to keep group cohesion: From a point of view that a group is a net of social relationships, someone - in the middle of that social network with access to many people - could articulate the group (weak ties hypothesis). Because more people is able to trust on him, he can managed it, but he must spend time on that. He becomes specialist, becomes leader/manager (Information theory). Other option is sub-divide the group into categories. Could be done by family names, linages or maybe by age groups. They'll try to reduce complexity of social reality into more simple categories. Also they'll set some norms and rules among those sub-groups. Finally they'll tied them by strong alliances (as marriages) between them.

Flowchart mixing different simplified models, the entire chart is fed back to the flow giving more complexity.

3) Dispersion is just a temporary solution if environment is restricted (as valleys among mountains or oasis on desert). Groups will rapidly found  limits to use such strategies, when they face other groups or the limits of productive areas. They'll divide them continuosly until they fulfill the habitat. Then, any group's expansion will mean reduction for another, that leads to conflict. Groups will avoid their full extintion, and losers will move to another place (competitive exclution). But if there is no more place, losers have to chose between go even further - to marginal territories and look for alternative food sources (Board-spectrum and marginal zone theory)- or submit to the other group (Environmental circunscription). In other hand, whether agriculture was developed, people is able to work more to produce a surplus (which is not possible with hunting/fishing system, where you could extinguish you food source working more hours). That surplus could be managed and redistributed by a  leader (Big man/woman), which gains prestige, that could transform into power (practice/agency theory). Or, the surplus could lead into trade among different groups, and traders become key members reaching high status that could transform into power (Communication media theory). Or agriculture may require to develop planner specialists to organize big irrigations works, and those specialist become leaders in the whole society (hidraulic theory). Or sedentarism makes the group vulnerable and a permanent defense has to be organized (external conflict). All of these specializations could lead to stratification. By itself stratification and inequality aren't stable (nobody wants to be beneath someone else) and tends to dispersion. 

4) In order to hold stratification or leadership some factor could suffer some feedback, like that leadership encourage surplus production and surplus strengthens leaders power. But leadership has to last enough to feedback could occurs. That could be achieved through coercive force (internal conflict) or that the whole group receives or perceives benefits from leadership (Management benefits theory), either by redistribution rol, technical knowledge, defensive, comunication management or ideology, as religion. Any kind of actions that bring legitimacy to leadership and even to the use of physical coercion. Whether this point is reached, it is possible that leadership sets some succesion mechanism, which make it more "permanent".


So far, complexity has taken many forms. The more complex societies with the biggest number of people often take shape as Chiefdoms and States. But there is much more complexity  and diversity to understand. Todays world is looking toward more politic integration, mainly because the same factors that we saw here (economics, demographics, conflict, environment, ideology, etc.).  Like many little changes that become bigger across the time, human organization evolves. Are we able to predict the future of human organization? Would you? Write your bet.

Sources:

T. Lewellen , 1994, Introdución a la antropología política

D. Kurtz, 2001 Political Anthropology: Power and paradigms
Lewis and Jurmain, 2012, Understanding Humans: An Introduction to physical anthropology and archeology
B. Trigger, 2003, Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study
M. Fried, 1960. On the evolution of social stratificiation and the state
Ferraro, 2009, Cultural anthropology: An Applied Perspective.

Culture and environment: the myth of environmentalist ancestor III

As we saw on a previous article, big civilizations and populations put a lot of pressure on environment, that could lead to practice some brutal activities in order to survive, as war and cannibalism. But How some people make their life with minimum impact on environment?

The tribe and infanticide

Well, we already checked that no-impact is imposible, even for our ancestors with limited technology. So, some people decide to keep population control to minimize their impact and get some kind of "ecological balance", as actual hunter-gathers do. By the way, is likely to belief that actual hunter-gathering tribes live like stone age times, but isn't true. Actual tribes live very often in marginal landscapes (as desert and jungles) with few resources basicly because they were running away from "modern civilizations" or "colonialists" looking for enslave them. In such a context "ecological balance" should be sharp.

Their strategy is keep population below environment feed capacity. Among Bushmen, Richard Lee has documented their strategies to keep their numbers low, added to other physiological effects resumed by M. Cohen. Their strategies are:

• Long breastfeeding period that prolongs prolactin secretion on mothers to delay ovulation (18 months up to 48).
• Abort by chemical o mechanics means (include drinking toxic beverages or beating belly)
• Mother's poor nutrition (lack of fat delays menarche and decrease fertility)
• Increase physical effort, as long walk to gather (increase prolactine production)
• Coitus control
• Infanticide.

Infanticide cover a wide range. From direct murder to simply negligence. The baby could be strangled, drowned, hit against a rock or abandoned outside. More often, the child will die for a mother's negligence. Maintain a demographic balance has a high cost.

Buschmen family: They are good parents but some sacrifice has to be done.

All these cases (Maori impact, Aztecs cannibalism and war and Bushmen infanticide) lead us to think about that myth of ancient people living with total harmony with their environment is an idealized and romantic situation, and false. But regardless of what we do, either in small groups or agricultural or industrial civilizations, all of us we have impact and must live thereby. Don't think that is going to relieve you from responsability, instead is realize of our impacts on environment. The sacrifices that had be done, we hope neither as the aztecs nor bushmen, but a change in our life style.

Furthermore, Ancient cultures has to be valued by itself (remembering  they faced similar problems as we do) and not for ethnocentric ideas that we put on them. Let's learn from they.

Sources:

http://envirohistorynz.com/2009/12/15/impacts-of-the-maori-on-the-environment/
http://frentepopulardejudea-nenya.blogspot.com/2011/11/haciendo-el-indio-la-falsa-carta-del.html
Cohen M.K. 1994. Demographics and human expansion.
Harris M. 1986 Cannibals and kings.

Crime and culture: Death penalty effects

In order to solve conflict, human beings used several means But there is one specially controversial, old and drastic: Death penalty. While crimen are an universal issue, punishment and law (or social norms) change from culture to culture.

Within small social groups social sanction and pressure is enough to solve conflicts, while violence is often more commonly used to solve conflict among groups than inside them. Usually conflicts between two groups will be solve by blood payment, where offences are collective rather than individual, and people try vengance death by death, leading to an escalation of violence. But in dense populations with formal organization, as a State, conflict between individuals are much more common. That is the main reason for conflicts where solve by some authority and formal codes (although it is not always the case). In these situations the most common penalty is death

Best explanation for that is in those societies there is little specialization, the possibility of organizing prison is not a real option. Hammurabi's code is great example (famous "eye for an eye") used to applied death penalty in any case of death. But an extreme case is Draconian code in ancient Atenas, where every crime was punished with death, even the little ones. Other examples are given by stoning for adultery (which is still in use) is a kind of collective death penalty. But in societies where specialization is more intensive is less likely its uses. However, is commonly practiced in many part of the world and even in modern societies.

Death penalty map: Red, country with death penalty; Organge: with but has not been used since a long time; yellow: with but just for special occations (as in war times); blue: fully abolished.

Social response and polemic

When a social system becomes more rational and specific, punishment becomes diverse and allows specifity of sentences (with aggravating and mitigating). Furthermore emergence of humanism (human enhancement) in some societies have contributed to decrease the use of death penalty. However death penalty remains as a popular method and is in the eye of storm if is possible abolish it or not.

According to criminologist, social response to serious crimes awake emotional and punitive reactions on people. People often claim for maximum punishment or as a way to finished a problem it seen has no solution. The main argument is individualist and emotional: "if were your son, what would do you do?" or "There is no possible rehab for such a kind of people, just death left". But Can a penal system be based on emotional response?

Arguments pro and con are many, specially from a moral point of view as if is right takes someone's life in the name of justice or is just simply vendetta. However I am going to focus here on some practical issues.

1 -Punishment, Retribution, Treatment, Prevent.

According to penology science, the main funtion of a penalty is restitution of law, in order to accomplish it has to fill these 4 concepts:

Punishment: death penalty is pretty effective. There is less escape probabilities. Is easy too apply in many context.

Retribution: When a crime has victims, retribution can calm emotional frustration damage, but generaly speaking, death is not retribution (nothing is coming back) and further, it can increase damage. Death is not going to bring someone back to life. Instead people close to criminals are going to lose someone.

Treatment: No rehab to criminals through death. Unless, ofcourse, you have some esoteric-or-religious beliefs. Good karma.

Prevent: It is possible, but not conclusive data exist to prove it. But ofcourse, a dead criminal is a criminal with 0 probabilities to does it again (Unless, esoteric again, does it from the beyond). However data about it is confuse, because an alternative penalty is life imprisonment and has same effect. In the same scenario is about deterrence.

2 -Deterrence murder and other crimes

Most intituive pro death penalty argument is its deter effect in who commit  crimes. In USA the discution is specific on homicides (probably because USA has the highest murder rate in the developed world).

Following some studies (M. Summers, 2007; Paul H. Rubin, 2006; Hashem Dezhbakhsh and Joanna Shepherd, 2003) we can find a statistic correlation between executions and murders decrease (some even try to count how many lifes are safe by every execution). But in the other hand, articles as John J. Donahue ("Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate" in the Stanford Law Review, 2005) found that those kind of studies fail, making spurious statistic correlations and shows how other factors are more important in murder numbers than executions. Other studies confirm that (Jeffrey A. Fagan, 2006) and remark there is no conclusive data or possible correlation between rate murders and executions, with rigorous studies and bigger data samples (Tomislav Kovandzic, 2009; John Lamperti, 2010). Even there is no conclusive data that prove death penalty deter any criminal rate (Daniel S. and John V. Pepper, 2012).

This seems to be a widespread view among criminologists. Following the sociologist Michael L. Radelet (2009), 88,1% of specialists think that death penalty doesn't deter murders, or not more than life imprisonment. Even there is many that belief that produce contrary effect. Death penalty increase murders rate.

USA Murder rates by State. The average murder rate is lower in no-death penalty states.

An argument given by pro possitions - Based in rational choice theory- is that a criminal will avoid commit crimes when he calculates his Cost/benefit (and death penalty could be considered total loss). However, if we extend this argument based on data, we realize that murders aren't often calculated. On the contrary, runaway or elution does it, which can increase violence. A murderer will try to avoid his punishment, as it cannot be worst, nothing will stop him to commit other crimes (as other murders) to runaway from justice, meanwhile if the punishment is imprisonment, there is a chance to reduce sentence or at less not make it even longer, if he surrender to justice .

3 -Legitimacy of violence

Other possible explanation is "legitimization of violence". According to the anthropologists Carol and Melvin Embar, one culture could stimulate violent behavior among individuals following how the whole society performs. One society that goes to war frecuently, will have higher crime and violence rates. This could be the case for USA, as we said, has the highest murders and violence rates among developed countries. Analysts had said that personal ownership of firearms and american government foreing policy, that has been in constant wars since independence, have done this to the country. But How this effect works?

Basically, State is an importan legitimacy source and a reference to their citizens. When a State use death penalty is sending the message that kill is a legitimate way to solve conflicts. A State performs with the example given and claim for itself a right that forbids to its citizens. Such contradiction is even worst if the source of that legitimity are its own citizens (when they vote), as is the USA case.

4 -Economic cost: Death penalty vs life imprisonment.

A final consequence is the cost of having the application of the death penalty. In general the decision to take a life is increasingly controversial and therefore the trials in which this penalty is usually given are very long to avoid errors, as it is an irreversible sentence. It also encourages the parties to carry trials until the last stages of appeal. The result is an expensive trial.

A study by Judge A. Alarcon and Academic P. Mitchell (2011 ) in California showed trials that resulted in death sentences since 1978 have cost the state more than four billion dollars. According to the authors, the abolition of the death could save more than 170 million per year. While the Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice (2008) determined that the actual cost of the system was 137 million annually, while the replacement of the sentences to life imprisonment would mean a cost of 11.5 million per year. Cheap, isn't it?

Sources:

Marchiori, Hilda, 2004, "Criminología: teorías y pensamientos"
Brown, Esbensen y Geis, 2013, "Criminology: Explain crime and its context"
Ember y Ember, 1994, "War, Socialization and interpensonal violence"
deathpenalty.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000983
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

Culture and Environment: the myth of environmentalist ancestor II

On a previous article I told you how ancient people caused great impact on environment of New Zealand (of course modern european settlers caused a much bigger) and in the rest of the world. But large ancient civilizations does as well. That impact was so huge that they put a lot of pressure on their lifestyles and sometimes created a collapse of their civilizations

Cannibalism And War

One of biggest ecological devastation stories that ends in social devastation is about mesoamerican civilizations. it is believed that Olmec civilization collapsed because a drought and other ecological reasons. But the most sad is aztec's history. Very often related to a high developed society and technology (irrigation, astronomy, maths) with a structured empire.

Cannibalism is a documented practice all over the world and we could find some patterns on it. Is pretty common that cannibalism as cutural practice is related to religion-ritual practices. Sometimes a kin from who we are trying to consume their vital force. Sometime is an enemy, a prisioner offered to the gods and their thirst of blood. This last one is the main reason for aztecs, who used to go to war to get prisioners to sacrifice to gods, specially in bad times as poor harvest.

However, cannibalism is usually practice as something casual, in Aztec empire was daily. As described by Marvin Harris, it was hundreds of thousands of sacrifices documented in the number of human skulls found in Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital. Harris wonders what motivates such carnage. On the one hand there is an especially strong ecological predation in the Mesoamerican region which became in poor crops. The sacrifice was a way to implore the gods for better crops . But it also adds a more practical explanation.

Based on the Harner's study, Harris explains that mesoamerica lacked in domesticated animal species that provide protein to the diet. The products of hunting and domesticated turkeys were exclusive of elite, so the sacrifices served to distribute proteins to population and avoid political and social collapse.

Cannibalism is often a part of the myth of the agressive savage, usually related to war, famine and the moral vacuum (although false as well). However, we see it has also been practiced in high civilizations product of human impact on the ecosystem itself, especially in populous societies.

How does some communities do to control impact of population on environment? On next article

Migration: Cultural contact

Certainly I was writing a more complete article about migration, but I can't just pas this wonderful chart up. The chart represent global migration and it was developed by geographers Guy J. Abel and Nikola Sander. It is a clear example of our inter-conected world and culture relations, and remark the importance of cultural diversity understanding. But be aware, migration isn't a new phenomena, big migrations had happened through all human history, and one of big migrations happened during XV and XX by europeans.

This Chart is unique in the way that represent migration. Degrees on the circle represent total mobile population while lines are population flow. Two things to put out of your mind, migrants are not necessarily poor people and many are students getting degrees or profesionals and businessmen looking for new business and markets.

First general observations

Two things. The biggest population flow is between South Asia and Middle East, probably because huge investment on energy in that place. Second, biggest flow among two countries is Mexico-USA, this cause of labor and economic relations. This is very important to get understanding of global economy and it base on internationalization of labor relations and social cost.

Here interactive Chart, play with it!

Full paper in Science here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6178/1520.full

Culture Science IV: Neuroscience

The neurosciences are actually a complicated set of disciplines. From neurobiology to cognitive psychology. But, the element that unite them is the brain. All study the brain, either to unravel its physical- chemical processes to discover certain behavioral traits. It's not weird that they was found in front with the culture. This science has had a popular boom thanks to technological advances, especially from fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) that lets you see what we had no idea before, inside a brain while it works.

The Brain Shape Culture

To understand culture we must first know how brain works. We know for example, which is made as a complex network of neurons that transmit electrical signals to various specialized areas in the cerebral cortex or other subparts. We also know that is divided into hemispheres that control different functions of our personality, but let's see what appear to be key to understanding how culture works:

1 - Visual Perception: By estimations, our visual capacity occupies over 30% of the brain cortex, is a central and complex element. The human brain receives from the eye a incomplete image, stained and inverse, is the brain that is responsible to rebuild those signals into a readable image and makes it auto-completing the information it receives with the previously stored information. This feature is essential because allows us to identify faces and read visual aspects about the others, as markers of social status all at once. First impressions count.
 

2 - Memory: Two memories exist: short and long term. The first is so mutable that does not tolerate more than 2 to 7 elements nor for more than 6-30 seconds. The second one recorded only the important,so as the vision, the brain auto - complete the rest of the information that we need to know. But the long term memory is highly plastic, and is modifiable each time a memory is invoked, as can be seen in the following experiment. Such plasticity is able to force significant changes in brain structure, even in ways that not only involve memory.
 

National Geographic: Test Your Brain Episode 3... por procrastinator87

3 - Language: the ability to communicate through signs, designated in Broca's area (spoken language) and Wernicke (understanding language), it is vital to understand the culture, but as the vision, we are able to distinguish shades and harmonies (Tour of Heschl). As such sarcastic tone or alarm, let us understand that paralinguistic communication supplementing meaning.
 

4 - Mirror neurons: Due to an error in an experiment with monkeys in 1996 at the University of Parma, Italy, researchers found that humans and other animals possess mirror neurons, in other words, empathy. What is surprising is that brain activity is exactly the same between a subject eating and other looking to eat. In the brain, there is no difference. This development allows us to imitation learning and socialization. Our brain is developed to generate that connection with others and be able to read emotions expressed in the faces of the other (hence our keen ability to interpret), is undoubtedly the biological basis of communication and culture.

Culture shapes the brain

But brain and culture not only have a linear relationship, both feed back. And the ability of the brain can manifest culture and contain certain fundamental aspects of it, the culture also changes brain structures. The experiences and the environment in which we live build our mental structure. Not only think differently, our brain be organized differently! but beware, the brain with new experiences is changing, as well as culture does. Do not represent a fixed reality.
 

Many anthropological studies have proved (or disproved) universality of Human Psychology, putting them to the test in the field in different cultural contexts, and also had captured and described hundreds of individual processes in such cultures, but no one had seen what worked in the brain.
 

A study by MIT and Stanford University verified these observations through the famous fMRI , applied to U.S. population and newly migrated from eastern Asia. Their findings found that different brain areas were activated compared to the same stimulus, found that Americans were more individualistic and dominant, while Asians were developing more comfortably and submissively collective .

Another observation very common among different cultures are the colors. The Eskimos had more than 9 words to refer to the white of the snow, where an observer from another culture just looks white. In the other hand Himba  confuses green from the blue, for theirs is the same color, a little experiment here.

BBC Short Video (7 min)

However, still begs the questions, where is the culture is stored? In the human brain there is no specific place where we can read the cultural codes, but separate elements, language area, memory area, area of abstraction, but not a reader of social status, custom, norm. The possibilities are in the organization of the brain. The structure of the brain is the neuronal dimension of culture or, as noted by Roger Barthes, be it in external relations of  brains, in exobrain. The culture would be in those connections among brains a supra-organic dimension, where the culture would be stored. Culture is the extension of neural networks of the brain.

Sources:
Barthes R. Anthropology of the Brain
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/techtalk52-14.pdf  http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/psychology-0111.html

Analysing culture: Respect

Ethnocentrism: Issues for a (cientific) analysis of culture

Studying cultures as "a particular collective mind set of a particular social group", has an issue. If each person belong to a culture, their own mind set, so does the person who is studying cultures. That means you could try to measuring other culture with your own cultural values, and that wouldn't be objective neither cientific. Measure cultures with your own cultural values doesn't help you to understand others, because different cultures have different goals in life. Doing that, you only get an obvious and selfish conclusion: your culture is the best and you are the best person under your own rules! That has no sense and is called ethnocentrism.

Ethnocentrism is not only for those who research cultures, that happen too with everyone who has to face others cultures. In some sense, ethnocentrism is useful to keep coherency with your own culture (if people don't feel comfotable in their own culture, there is a problem, right?). But too much ethnocentrism conduce to racism and xenophobia. But often just give us more simple problems or tons of headache. As happened with WHO (World Health Organization), when they tried to vaccinate african people for first time. African parents avoided vaccinate their sons because bacteria and virus weren't part of their cultural explanation of illness and disease. Furthermore they who had done it, had experienced fever and other symptoms. Even some thought that whites were trying to kill them. Ethnocentrism made that WHO thinks western medicine had the same status in Africa than within western societies as European, Australian or USA. While africans response was rational - because in their experience nothing good had come from white people- WHO blamed unrational response and ignorance. Result: Failure. A failure that could be avoid from cultural relativism perspective.

Cultural relativism

One solution is given by historic particularism. Following this thought- basis of culturalism-, the key concept is cultural relativism. That means to analyze a culture we have to do it in their own frame, considering all their elements and how their interact. Each culture has their own context and history and it cannot be compare with others without pay attention to this frame. Every culture can only be interpreted in their own context that allow us to a cientific approach and reduce (but not delete) researcher bias.

In that way we can explain why !Kung in subsaharian Africa still practice "hunting and gathering" despite know agricultural technics. If we put their economy in their context (environment) we can see that Kalahari desert is not a place for agriculture. Following Howell and Lee calculations, to get the health and diet that !Kung already have, they only must work 3 hours per day while their agricultural neighbors have to do it for 10 hours and  have worse health. Who is more efficient? However Namibia and Botswana governments have put pressure to make them change their lifestyle and making them work more, forcing to adopt agriculture and cattle farming. Today !Kung have to face poverty and social issues.

Relativism problems

In many regions in Africa and Asia there is a islamic branch that used to practice female circumcision, which is clitoris mutilation when women reach adult age (that could be 12 years old). This means women have to face this painful tradition because the social beliefs of clitoris is a masculine feature that has to be eliminated. Just because is a cultural practice, their practioners accuse their detractor to be ethnocentric and defend their position basis on culture, despite the brutal torture.

Another example was south african apartheid. Where M.W. Eiselen used cultural relativism to justify social segregation between whites and blacks. His position was apartheid (segregation) protects cultural identity and integrity of africans cultures, where weren't desirable their westernization, because could cause social desintegration.

Does relativism applies to those situations?

Possible dilema solution

First we have to understand cultural relativism is an analysis tool to get a deeper understanding inside a context but not justify any practice just because is a cultural traditions. Often happens that after an analysis we get a contradiction. And that is what happen in the first case. Women are not agree but they cannot avoid it because they live in a masculine culture and have no power to change it. Nevertheless some changes have come. Same happen in the second case, when apartheid was abolished.

Justify hastily and without context a practice just because belong to a cultural tradition is bad as ethnocentrism and is not cultural relativism but moral relativism. Culture allows human adaptation because is dinamic, change across the time. That means is no argument to defend any behavior, but as a system, as a context. Cultural relativism doesn't forbid us to get an opinion, after deep analysis, and want some change.

Ferraro y Andriatta, 2010, Cultural Anthropology: An Applied Perspective.
Harris M. Cultural Anthropology
Kuper A. 2001, Culture: Anthropologist' Account

Culture Science III: Cultural Studies and Communication Theory

Cultural Studies

Another academic tradition which studied culture was Cultural Studies. Born from History (as discipline), specially among social historians, and some literature studies. Their founders (Raymon Williams, E.P. Thompson, Stuart Hall, Richard Hoggart among others) tried to bring cotidianity and culture toward historic analysis. Basicly they kept the line of Frankfurt School about mass culture, but they enriched it bringing some aspects of conflict theory. They see culture as modes of living and values system within a particular time, but also as a collective feeling formed by history inside a context.

It was Williams who introduced the Ideology Theory of Althusser and Gramsci into the analysis. Basicly this theory said that "ideology" is a layer of society made of ideas, among  those culture is part of. This layer is in conflict by different social actors who try to establish an "hegemony" or, said it in other way,  get control of all the layer (which produce naturalization of those ideas). Following that theory, Williams said through that conflict the culture is created across the time. He identified:

• Dominant Forces: which bring structure to the cultural system
• Residual Forces: they were formed in the past but are still present
• Emergent Forces: New values and adaptations.

In that way, Williams could introduce notions of conflict, difference and contradiction, but above all, a notion of dinamic culture, something that change through the time. That allowed him to make a difference between the organic popular culture in pre-industrial England and current mass culture. Stuart Hall would add later that more than just make a difference we have to say that the organic popular culture ceased to exist because the modes of living that produced it had ceased to exist.

Communication Theory

Another great contribution was use communication theory to analyse the culture, specially, mass culture. In 1971, UNESCO commissioned a study to understand tv effects on population to Stuart Hall. He said that in cultural transmission was several process involved. Mainly a codification process (the message has to be created with references to reality and inside of a given cultural context) and decodification (receptor made their interpretation based on their own references of reality and their own analysis), so formally, there is three reading options:

• Dominant: The message is read exactly it was codify (Unlikely)
• Negociate: The message is negotiated (most usual)
• Opossite: The message is read inside another alternative interpretation frame.

In that way, Hall was allowed to say that media and mass culture have no control effect over their audience, but their contents are negotiated. Today is ease to prove it, because TV use the rating system, they are concern about what audiences want to see. Channels and producers propose contents, but public decide their success or failed.

Who is reponsible for rubbish television?

Of Course, all of this started the introduction of new concepts as credibility, consensus (and an argument about if is natural or naturalized rather than socially constructed) and the rol of the social media on it and in the cultural reproduction and legitimacy construction.

Source:

During, S, 2005, Cultural Studies A critical introduction

Culture Science II: Sociology

As we said in the previous article, anthropology, as science of human adaptation, is not the only one interested in culture. Sociology does it as well. But is not mainly interested in diversity among different societies, as anthopology does, rather than is interested in diversity within one specific society.

The main focus of sociology is the complex industrial society. Their origins were among philosophers and economists. On it, it has tried to study the difference among people of their own culture and society.

Cultural difference inside the society.

In the begining, sociologist had studied high culture, high knowledge, high arts, high educations and high manners among high class. Many through written culture of elites, specially history, because it was the main source of data. But soon they realized that low class had developed their own culture, a popular culture, non-written, orally, that offered resistence, sense of belonging, but at the same time, conformity with a social system.

For Bajtín, carnaval is a popular culture manifestation that used to  practice "inversion": The king was the joker, the joker was the king. Everyone could play to be whatever they want to be. Is it a pressure relise for social tension?

In other hand, another approach was developed by Frankfurt School, where Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer realized about a new kind of culture, product of social transformations of industrial age. They added to the typical analysis of high culture and popular culture, the concept of mass culture. Produced in the industrial way (newspapers, magazines, cinema, television, radio, discography), their aim was keep mass of people in control and acquiescent. A kind of continuous propaganda to manipulate public opinion, keep them ignorant. But not all Frankfurt thought the same. Benjamin saw it different, he thought mass culture as a new opportunity for a more pluralistic culture.

 Mickey mouse was an analysis object in order to study mass culture: While Adorno said that make mass stupid, Benjamin saw on it a example of a new time, the humankind laughing of technical progress.

Of course this argument and the crossing between popular and mass culture was very interesting, even going outside of sociologist's analysis and talking to others like history and comunication theory.

Sources

Bajtín, M., 1965, Popular culture in middle age and renacensse.

Burke, P., 1978, Popular culture and Modern europe.

Zubieta, Ana María, 2000, Cultura popular y cultura de masas: conceptos, recorridos y polémicas.

Culture science I: anthropology

Many disciplines have faced the "culture issue", many more have used it as explanation to theories. Culture has been use by many disciplines as economics, politics science, art studies, literature and linguistic studies, policy makers, psychology, sociology, human geography, cultural management, history, medicine, biology and so on. Even many entrepreneurs and sport coaches use it. And of course, probably you and me trying to give an explanation of some thing that we don't fully understand.

But the most obsessed discipline with culture concept is, probably, anthropology. Even some define it as culture science. But that is not exact. Anthropology is the behavior science that study human adaptation, evolution and diversity. And that is why culture is so important for anthropologists.

Anthropologists think in culture as the way that humans adapt to their environment. They inscribe their vision of culture on the version that talk about costums, norms, modes of living, a mind set. They say that humans adapt their environment through their biology, but mainly through their culture. Technology, knowledge, costums, everything helps to adapt them to their environment. In that way, culture explain diversity, but also evolution, as that something that change across the time.

Culture as System

In bali, the rice  fields design are determin by religious factors (like do a proper ceremony), environmental factors (amount of rain) and social factors (colective work is organized acording wedding alliances). Here, culture, is a very integrated system.

The concept has been very central for anthropology, so some people think that the discipline started with it. This could be right in USA, where the discipline began with a school called culturalism. Founded by Franz Boas, this school thinks that in order to understand humankind we must learn their lenguage, costums, way of living. We must relate all aspect of social life like human ecology, linguistic, history, social organization, mode of production, mithology, beliefs. All that organized as a system. We call this point of view Holism.

For culturalists, culture is a proper unit of study, different to "psychi" for psychologists, basicly because is colective instead individual. Culture is shared customs, behaviors, mind sets. All related with different and interconected variables. A whole product, a whole system. So culture study is very complicated thing, like the concept itself, but at the same time very interesting. Let see what has to tell us.