Week 2 Discussion — Describe First, or Judge First? — Traditional alternative (no AI)
Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.
Hook
Every group runs on rules nobody wrote down: when to stand, when to stay quiet, who speaks first. Insiders follow them without thinking, and newcomers often judge them before they understand them. This week you met culture as a whole learned way of life, norms, values, and symbols, and the method of describing a practice before judging it.
Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.
Option A: Pick an unwritten rule from a place you know well (a family meal, a team, a workplace, a club, a group chat). Describe it the way an anthropologist would, naming the norm, the value it may protect, and any symbol tied to it. Then argue: should a newcomer who finds the rule strange be expected to follow it, and where does your own ethnocentrism show up in how you first described it?
Option B: Someone argues that cultural relativism, describing a practice in its own terms before judging it, makes people too slow to object to anything. Do you agree? Use the running fieldwork site's bell rule, an illustrative market of 24 stalls, or an example of your own, and use cultural relativism, moral relativism, and ethnocentrism to argue your position: what does describing first protect, what could it delay, and what would change your mind?
There is no single right answer here. Describing first can make a judgment fairer, and it can also be used as an excuse never to judge. Pick the option you actually care about, and tell us your reasoning.
Expectations
Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.
AI use: this version of the discussion uses no chatbot. Write your post and your replies from your own reasoning, in your own words.
Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):
- Say which option you chose.
- For Option A, name the place by its kind, never by people's names, describe the rule as a norm, name the value it may protect and any symbol, and say whether a newcomer should be expected to follow it; for Option B, say whether you agree, and name what describing first protects and what it could delay.
- Use at least two of this week's terms (norm, value, symbol, ethnocentrism, cultural relativism, moral relativism) correctly.
- Give your judgment, with a reason.
- Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.
Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):
- Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
- A substantive reply does more than agree: describe the classmate's rule in its own terms if they judged it first, offer a comparison with a different group's rule, or point out where cultural relativism was read as "anything goes". "Nice point!" on its own does not count.
What a strong post looks like:
I chose Option A. On my volunteer fire crew, nobody eats until the oldest member sits down, and no one ever wrote that down. The norm is waiting; the value it may protect is respect for experience, and the empty chair at the head of the table works like a symbol. When I joined, I first called it old-fashioned, which was my own ethnocentrism talking. I think a newcomer should learn the reason before deciding, but I would still want to ask newer members whether it feels fair to them.
Notice how it names the place by its kind, describes the rule as a norm with a possible value and a symbol, catches the writer's own first judgment, and says what it would still ask. That is the bar.
Participation rubric
This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.
| Criterion | Full credit | Partial credit | No credit |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of the initial post (4 pts) | A specific rule or the market's bell rule, described in its own terms, with a clear position supported by a reason or an example | A position is present, but the description is thin or the reason is vague | Missing, off-topic, or no position taken |
| Use of course concepts (3 pts) | Uses norm, value, symbol, ethnocentrism, and cultural relativism precisely, keeping the method apart from moral relativism and "anything goes" | Uses a term loosely, or treats relativism as "anything goes" | No course terms, or used incorrectly |
| Engagement with peers (3 pts) | Two or more substantive replies that extend or challenge a classmate's reasoning | One substantive reply, or replies that only agree | No replies, or "I agree" with nothing added |
Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.
Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com