Ethics Of Research Reading Exchanging Perspectives Spectatorship Write a out line of this essay. Including your ideas, body, conclusion etc.please put the | Homework Answers

Ethics Of Research Reading Exchanging Perspectives Spectatorship Write a out line of this essay. Including your ideas, body, conclusion etc.please put the details as much as possible. Course Title
Student Name
Institution Affiliation
1
Response Paper
Close Reading
The close reading paragraphs for this response paper are the first paragraph on page 466 of
‘Exchanging Perspectives’ and the second paragraph on page 75 of Sturken’s Cartwright
Spectatorship.
The first paragraph on page 466 of ‘Exchanging Perspectives’ argues that since animals and other
creatures were once humans, they continue to be humans ‘behind the scenes.’ The main idea is
based on an indigenous theory that is based on the stance that the way humans perceive the animals
is entirely different from how the animals perceive human beings. They see every creature as they
are, humans as humans, animals and animals, and trees as trees. When it comes to spirits, seeing
them is an indication that everything isn’t normal. Predator animals view humans as animals (prey).
Game animals see humans as spirits or predatory animals. Both animals and spirits, however,
perceive themselves as humans, and their own habits as their culture. They view their food as
human food, their physical features as cultural decorations, and their social systems as reminiscent
to human institutions (De Castro, 2004).
The second paragraph in Sturken’s Cartwright Spectatorship is intriguing because of its emphasis
on how adults can regress into a childlike state by watching a mirror-like screen in a darkened
theater. According to the author, viewers temporarily lose their ego and identifies with the ‘world’
on the screen, the same way an infant behaves in front of a mirror. They own the bodies on the
screen, but it is not the bodies that they identify with the most; they are more influenced by the
cinematic screen. These views of regressive behavior in front of a mirror-like cinematic screen in
a darkened theater don’t concur with the premises brought forward by Sigmund Freud’s
psychoanalytic theory (Cartwright, 2008).
2
‘Exchanging Perspectives’ focuses on the correlation between human perceptions of animals and
vice versa. It is an intriguing stance as most of the premises it is based on cannot be proven entirely.
There is no proof of how spirits and animals perceive themselves, their food or their culture. Spirits
are unreal beings which are only present in people’s imaginations. Moreover, animals cannot speak
out about their feelings or perceptions; with their brain patterns and functions the only things that
can be studied. Therefore, I find the information about how animals and spirits perceive humans
and themselves very intriguing. Shamanism, or Perspectival multinaturalism as the author calls it,
is, therefore, a highly unreliable concept. I believe that the Amerindian notions about how humans
perceive other beings is a myth just as the author objects; but as far as myths go, it is a rather
intriguing and unrealistic of all the myths I have come across.
Sturken’s Cartwright Spectatorship has to have some credibility in it because it is closely linked
with Freud’s psychoanalytic theory and has some credible psychology arguments. Being in a
darkened theater room watching a mirror-like screen can make one lose almost all connections
with reality and regress into a childlike condition as the author puts it. The intriguing part is the
realization that the child in us never goes away and can be brought back by some specific
occurrences like the one discussed in the article. Our perception of ourselves can change with the
situations we are in, sometimes involuntarily or unconsciously.
The two articles, together with the other readings, are based on some form of perceptions and how
specific occasions influence them, whether they are myths about evolution and species, or credible
psychological functions of humans, animals and other living or non-living beings. I would strongly
recommend these readings to people who are interested in learning more about human and animal
psychology as well as myths and facts about the origins of knowledge among several creatures and
beings.
3
References
Cartwright, L. (2008). Spectatorship, Power & Knowledge. In Moral Spectatorship:
Technologies of Voice and Affect in Postwar Representations of the Child. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
De Castro, E. V. (2004). EXCHANGING PERSPECTIVES: The Transformation of Objects
into Subjects in Amerindian Ontologies. Common Knowledge, 10(3), 463-484.
doi:10.1215/0961754x-10-3-463
Foucault, M. (2013). Archaeology of Knowledge. doi:10.4324/9780203604168
Course Title
Student Name
Institution Affiliation
1
Response Paper
Close Reading
The close reading paragraphs for this response paper are the first paragraph on page 466 of
‘Exchanging Perspectives’ and the second paragraph on page 75 of Sturken’s Cartwright
Spectatorship.
The first paragraph on page 466 of ‘Exchanging Perspectives’ argues that since animals and other
creatures were once humans, they continue to be humans ‘behind the scenes.’ The main idea is
based on an indigenous theory that is based on the stance that the way humans perceive the animals
is entirely different from how the animals perceive human beings. They see every creature as they
are, humans as humans, animals and animals, and trees as trees. When it comes to spirits, seeing
them is an indication that everything isn’t normal. Predator animals view humans as animals (prey).
Game animals see humans as spirits or predatory animals. Both animals and spirits, however,
perceive themselves as humans, and their own habits as their culture. They view their food as
human food, their physical features as cultural decorations, and their social systems as reminiscent
to human institutions (De Castro, 2004).
The second paragraph in Sturken’s Cartwright Spectatorship is intriguing because of its emphasis
on how adults can regress into a childlike state by watching a mirror-like screen in a darkened
theater. According to the author, viewers temporarily lose their ego and identifies with the ‘world’
on the screen, the same way an infant behaves in front of a mirror. They own the bodies on the
screen, but it is not the bodies that they identify with the most; they are more influenced by the
cinematic screen. These views of regressive behavior in front of a mirror-like cinematic screen in
a darkened theater don’t concur with the premises brought forward by Sigmund Freud’s
psychoanalytic theory (Cartwright, 2008).
2
‘Exchanging Perspectives’ focuses on the correlation between human perceptions of animals and
vice versa. It is an intriguing stance as most of the premises it is based on cannot be proven entirely.
There is no proof of how spirits and animals perceive themselves, their food or their culture. Spirits
are unreal beings which are only present in people’s imaginations. Moreover, animals cannot speak
out about their feelings or perceptions; with their brain patterns and functions the only things that
can be studied. Therefore, I find the information about how animals and spirits perceive humans
and themselves very intriguing. Shamanism, or Perspectival multinaturalism as the author calls it,
is, therefore, a highly unreliable concept. I believe that the Amerindian notions about how humans
perceive other beings is a myth just as the author objects; but as far as myths go, it is a rather
intriguing and unrealistic of all the myths I have come across.
Sturken’s Cartwright Spectatorship has to have some credibility in it because it is closely linked
with Freud’s psychoanalytic theory and has some credible psychology arguments. Being in a
darkened theater room watching a mirror-like screen can make one lose almost all connections
with reality and regress into a childlike condition as the author puts it. The intriguing part is the
realization that the child in us never goes away and can be brought back by some specific
occurrences like the one discussed in the article. Our perception of ourselves can change with the
situations we are in, sometimes involuntarily or unconsciously.
The two articles, together with the other readings, are based on some form of perceptions and how
specific occasions influence them, whether they are myths about evolution and species, or credible
psychological functions of humans, animals and other living or non-living beings. I would strongly
recommend these readings to people who are interested in learning more about human and animal
psychology as well as myths and facts about the origins of knowledge among several creatures and
beings.
3
References
Cartwright, L. (2008). Spectatorship, Power & Knowledge. In Moral Spectatorship:
Technologies of Voice and Affect in Postwar Representations of the Child. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
De Castro, E. V. (2004). EXCHANGING PERSPECTIVES: The Transformation of Objects
into Subjects in Amerindian Ontologies. Common Knowledge, 10(3), 463-484.
doi:10.1215/0961754x-10-3-463
Foucault, M. (2013). Archaeology of Knowledge. doi:10.4324/9780203604168

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Ethics Of Research Reading Exchanging Perspectives Spectatorship Write a out line of this essay. Including your ideas, body, conclusion etc.please put the | Homework Answers
Get an essay WRITTEN FOR YOU, Plagiarism free, and by an EXPERT! To Get a 10% Discount Use Coupon Code FIRST39420
Order Essay
Calculator

Calculate the price of your paper

Total price:$26
Our features

We've got everything to become your favourite writing service

Need a better grade?
We've got you covered.

Order your paper