0. - 6.. * * u. . * * @v--w* . -.3..@@@ ee@@ S, O U~~ . .. . ~~~~.II. . O . . O .. . . 0 af * ~ ~~~~~~~~~ * ..*.-.... @@@@ @*@* 'p .. . . S.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ... I.* @ @ - J - - * . . . . . . . A a a 0 ;^~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . . . .. . . .. .3 "o {..e~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~. . .._ . .. . . . 9. . . . . ..... ,.. .. . . . a .. a .. . . . . . ..] . . .,s . , .... Z ....................... . . . . . . .. w_) ..6 a . . . . . . _ ., ...... ......... . ]. _. . . . . .. . ., a J {- @ * * * * * * * * * e. . A S- . . . . ;. . . s . * * * * * * * * * * * *. ..*. . ._.V.* . . O *O)**Z = ***#g_ .0 a O ||.@*.@*********~~~~. . .* . .* . . ..-*^**** *~~~~~~ *. @***** . - * *** *** . . . . . . . _ v ** ** @* ** s*o::*A: . _* *******._******.* . . . ._ . . . . z *** *z *** _z *-^ ** *** *_* **. . . . . . . . . . VA Papers. ]~~~~~~~~~~ . . . . . . . . . _ . r s z~~~~~~~~~~~ z. ** . . . * . . . . . . . E z* * ** @ ** *r *__ ** ** ** vA_* s* *. . . . * . . . . . . . s~~~~~~~~~~~~ka . . . . * . . - . * iA in American St d i @ A ; e-, . A. db L e 0 . - - . elp ol 0 d INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS The KroeberrAnthropological Society Papers publishes articles in the general field of anthropology. In addition to articles of theoretical interest, the Papers will welcome descriptive studies putting factual informationl on record, as well as bibliographies and historical documents of anthropological interest. The Society welcomes student research papers of high qjuality. Manuscripts must be typewritten, double-spaced throughout, and submitted in duplicate. Endnotes (the Papers do not employ footnotes) and bibliography should be placed on separate sheets. Prospective con- tributors should consult recent issues of the Papers, or the Americait Anthropologicist, for manuscript style. Authors will receive without charge twenty reprints for their articles. Additional reprints may be ordered at extra charge. Manuscripts should be sent to: Editor Kroeber Anthropological Society Department of Anthropology University of Califoirnia Berkeley, CA 94720 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The Kroeber Anthropological Society gratefully acknowledges the finalnlcial assistance of the G'raduate Division of the University of California. Their support has mnade possible the continuing success of the Papers. Copyright (?)1977 by the Kroeber Anthropological Society. All Rights Reserved. Cover by Jeff Howard (Sec pages 4 anid 83). 'I 0 U 0 0 0. o m m0 so 0 0 hi THE KROEBER ANTHROPOLOGICAL SOCIETY PAPERS Number 49 UNDERGRADUATE PAPERS IN AMERICAN STUDIES Co-Editors Laurence Michalak Linda Draper Published by the Kroeber Anthropological Society Berkeley, California 1977 CONTENTS Foreword Jack Potter .........................................................1 Introduction Linda Draper and Larry Michalak ........................................................ 3 PART ONE: SEX ROLES Nursery School Sex-role Play among Four- and Five-yea-r Olds Amy Goldfarb ........................................................ 7 Cohabitation in a Student Community Sue Lyon ........................................................ 13 The Attitudes of Undergraduate Women Toward Marriage Alice Sung ........................................................ 23 PART TWO: ETHNICITY Ethnic Groups and Boundary Crossers: A Study of Asian-White Relations in a College Dorm Candy Reynolds ........................................................ 31 Portrait of One Japanese-American Family Janelle Sumida ........................................................ 37 PART THREE: SUBCOMMUNITIES The Education of the Deaf: A Sub-Community in the Making Barbara LeMaster ........................................................ 45 The Re-Entry of Ex-Offenders: A Study of a Halfway House Linda Sue Miller ........................................................ 51 Life in a Hare Krishna Temple James Nail ........................................................ 57 PART FOUR: THE ELDERLY An Analysis of Life Histories of the Elderly in a Retirement Home Tracy Williams ........................................................ 65 A Study of the Staff of a Convalescent Hospital Maria Protti ........................................................ 75 Biographical Notes on Contributors ........................................................ 83 Foreword During the Spring Quarter of 1976 a group of talented student teaching assistants and I taught an experimental version of Anthropology 3, U.C. Berkeley's Introduction to Social and Cultural Anthropology. The course emphasized the anthropology of United States culture and society and required original fieldwork by each student as its central focus. Each of the several hundred enrolled students worked under the close individual supervision and guidance of a teaching assistant. Each student was required to select the topic of his or her research by the third week of the quarter, and to turn in an outline to be discussed with teaching assistants and fellow students during the weekly section meetings. In the seventh week of the course, students handed in a first draft of their papers which were read and criticized for both style and content and then returned so that the students had the remaining three weeks of the quarter to do additional fieldwork and to revise and improve their papers. The final papers were of high quality. Two of the teaching assistants in the class - Larry Michalak and Linda Draper - have arranged for the publication of the best papers in this special issue of theJournal of the Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers, which they have edited. I am very proud of the results. Jack M. Potter 2 Introduction Even the best work of undergraduates usually goes unshared - read hastily by a professor or teaching assistant, graded, returned, and consigned to a desk drawer or a wastebasket. In Spring 1976 the students' papers were especially good, since the emphasis of the course was on an original fieldwork project in Ameri- can Studies. The results clearly seemed to merit a wider audience, so we contacted the editors of the Kroeber Society, who shared our enthusiasm for the idea. The next step was to choose the papers from among the 394 completed for the course. Each teaching assis- tant chose the best papers from his or her sections. Several of us then read and independently evaluated the twenty papers submitted in order to select the best ten. Next each student whose paper was chosen for publication worked with a graduate student to pro- duce the final versions presented here. All together, the process of selecting, revising, and printing the papers has taken nine months. The topics chosen by the students seemed to us to fall under four headings. Part One of this issue in- cludes three papers on sex roles. Amy Goldfarb addres- ses the question of how and when children are socialized into male and female roles. The author draws a surprising amount from observing and inter- viewing children at play. Sue Lyon is interested in the increasing occurrence of cohabitation, especially among college students. Based on a set of interviews, she suggests that cohabitation may involve a new stage in post-industrial courtship and marriage practices and a redefinition of traditional sex roles. Alice Sung discusses the relationship of different variables - such as family background, age, religious affiliation and type of university residence - to undergraduate wo- men's attitudes toward marriage. She gives five con- trasting case studies to illustrate the range of opinions she found. In Part Two, two students deal with aspects of ethnicity. Candy Reynolds analyzes Asian-White rela- tions in a student dormitory. Her account of how people categorize each other and interact across ethnic boundaries is directly relevant to the severe problem of group relations in America today. Janelle Sumida traces the experiences of three generations of a Japanese-American family in what is essentially an account of acculturation accelerated by cultural op- pression. The essays in Part Three have a common focus on subcommunities. Barbara LeMaster argues that lan- guage ability and self-image among deaf children are closely related to whether the child is a product of deaf or hearing parents. She demonstrates how a particular school for the deaf socializes students into a separate subcommunity in American society, defined by its de- pendence on a unique linguistic system. Linda Miller's paper is a sympathetic presentation of an unusual world-view - that of people getting out of prison. Through life histories and observations at an urban halfway house she shows the dangerous double-bind that we impose on ex-convicts.James Nail describes life in a Hare Krishna temple from the devotee's perspec- tive. He is particularly interested in the values that motivate the members and in the structure of their daily activities. The two papers in Part Four are both concerned with the predicament of the elderly in American soci- ety. Tracy Williams gives life histories of five residents of a Berkeley rest home and demonstrates that a diver- sity of backgrounds is subsumed into the common condition of age. Maria Protti approaches the topic from the vantage point of the staff of a convalescent hospital. Through interviewing people in differentjob categories, investigating the pay scales and hierar- chies, and observing the conditions in which the staff functions, she presents a rather stark view of their demeaning work and its ultimate influence on the elderly under their care. Some anthropologists have speculated on the ques- tion of what anthropology would be like if, instead of arising from a specific historical context, it were to be reinvented today. In a way these articles are an answer to that question: anthropology was reinvented by these students last spring -just as it is reinvented each time an introductory class is taught. Provided with a mini- mal basis in fieldwork methodology, the students were encouraged to apply it to their own problematic in- terests and to follow their own insights. The essays which resulted have a number of com- mon points. The students were all quick to respond to contemporary American social problems and to select contexts close to their personal experience. Another feature shared by the papers is that they contain no literature reviews and few reterences to other studies. The data are all first-hand and the analyses are independent - unaided but also unprejudiced by the work of previous researchers. One aspect of the pap- 4 ers which does vary a great deal is style. Some of the students adopted a frankly subjective "first person" approach while others wrote in a "third person" mode. A final point is that the students in our sections had a keen awareness of the ethical implications of their work. In several cases where teaching assistants wanted to nominate papers for inclusion, students felt ethically compelled to decline. For example, one stu- dent wrote an excellent paper on interethnic dating patterns but withdrew it at the last minute out of con- sideration for the privacy of his informants. Still another student phonedjust before we went to press to delete a quarter of her paper. She had checked with all her informants for permission to publish (even though she was using pseudonyms); one informant had been reluctant, and so she promptly struck out a key section of her data. In this and in other ways, our students taught us a lot. Many people had a part in the production of this issue. Jack Potter designed and taught the course that produced the papers, and led one of the discussion sections as well. The teaching assistants and other graduate students who helped select and edit the pap- ers were Pat Chavez, Diana deTreville, Micaela di- Leonardo, John Grant, Nancy Gray, Lane Hirabayashi, Nancy Lutz, Beverly Stone,John Stough, Fred Walden, Mira Zussman, and ourselves. We would also like to acknowledge the other undergraduates in the course, who in the weekly section meetings pro- vided encouragement, suggestions and criticism for each other's work, demonstrating that even a large class can be a sharing expereince. We think these papers reflect a fresh approach to anthropology and an extraordinary amount of en- ergy. Tony Dubovski, a graphic design instructor in the architecture department, suggested that we have an undergraduate design the cover for the issue. He in- troduced us to Jeff Howard, also of the architecture department, who extended our theme visually on the cover. We are grateful for his enthusiasm, energy and creative approach to graphic design. Albany Press produced the cover and in addition Noel Boaz, of the Kroeber Society and Judith Ogden composed several of the drawings, charts and maps included in the text. Heliographics did the typesetting and were very pa- tient with a pair of novice editors. Linda Draper and Laurence Michalak