Question

Which one of the following best explains the “additional complexity” that the example of the incense burner illustrates regarding personhood for the Classic Maya?

• A. The example adds a new layer to the nonbinary understanding of personhood by bringing in a third category that shares a similar relation with the previous two.
• B. The example provides an exception to the nonbinary understanding of personhood that the passage had hitherto established.
• C. The example adds a new layer to the nonbinary understanding of personhood by bringing in a third category that shares a dissimilar relation with the previous two.
• D. The example complicates the nonbinary understanding of personhood by bringing in the sacred, establishing the porosity of the divine and the profane.
• A. The clay incense burner with spiky appliques was categorised only as a person and not as a tree by the Classic Maya.
• B. Classic Maya songs represent both humans and non-living objects as characters, talking and interacting with each other.
• C. The personhood of the incense burner and the stone chopper was a function of their usefulness to humans.
• D. Unlike modern societies equipped with mobile phones, the Classic Maya did not have any communicating objects.
• A. A futuristic society that perceives robots to be persons as well as robots because of their similarity to humans.
• B. A tribe that perceives plants as person-plants because they form an ecosystem and are marked by needs of nutrition.
• C. A tribe that perceives its hunting weapons as sacred person-artefacts because of their significance to its survival.
• D. A tribe that perceives its utensils as person-utensils in light of their functionality and bodily needs.
• A. They understood the stone implement and the incense burner in a purely human form.
• B. They believed that animals like cats and dogs that live in proximity to humans have a more clearly articulated personhood.
• C. They depicted their human healers with physical attributes of local medicinal plants.
• D. While they believed in the personhood of objects and plants, they did not believe in the personhood of rivers and animals.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The given passage explores the Classic Maya understanding of personhood, which is quite different from the binary view often seen in modern contexts. In the Maya worldview, personhood was not limited to human beings but included nonhuman entities as well, based on their experiences and roles in social activities. This approach suggests a nonbinary understanding of persons that allows entities to be both persons and something else, thereby challenging traditional binary classifications. The specific example mentioned in the passage is the incense burner, which adds insight into this complexity.

The correct answer is: The example adds a new layer to the nonbinary understanding of personhood by bringing in a third category that shares a similar relation with the previous two.

Explanation:

• The passage illustrates the Classic Maya's perception of personhood as nonbinary, where entities can hold multiple roles or identities simultaneously.
• The incense burner is categorized as both a person and a tree, which introduces another category into the theoretical framework used to understand personhood.
• By sharing a similar type of relationship with the already defined categories (e.g., human and nonhuman persons), the incense burner demonstrates how additional complexity arises from the introduction of yet another dimension within the existing nonbinary understanding.
• This realization broadens the realm of 'persons' in the Maya perspective, reflecting a more intricate network of relationships and categorizations.

Answer 2

The question asks for an option that, if true, would invalidate the purpose of using the iPhone example as discussed in the passage about the Classic Maya concept of personhood. In the passage, it is mentioned that nonhuman entities in Maya culture could be considered persons, and this personhood was not dependent on any connection or utility to human beings but on their own inherent properties and social roles.

The iPhone example in the passage is used to illustrate a contrast between modern and Classic Maya perception of nonhuman personhood. In modern context, an iPhone is seen as potentially having personhood due to its connection to a human owner. In contrast, for the Classic Maya, personhood did not depend on such human connections but was a more democratized concept, focusing on the object's inherent characteristics and community participation.

Considering this setup, an option that would invalidate the iPhone example as a contrast is: "The personhood of the incense burner and the stone chopper was a function of their usefulness to humans." This statement implies that, like the iPhone, nonhuman objects in Maya culture derived their personhood from their utility or connection to humans, contradicting the passage's depiction of non-tethered, democratically assigned personhood.

Answer 3

The passage discusses the Classic Maya's understanding of personhood as extending beyond human beings to include nonhuman entities. The Maya recognized personhood as something that could exist in conjunction with other identities or functionalities, without being exclusively human. Personhood was characterized by certain bodily needs and participation in social activities, reflecting a nonbinary and democratic worldview where humans were just one type of person among many. 

The core idea emphasized is that entities could be considered persons if they exhibited personal requirements (e.g., hunger, tiredness) and engaged in community obligations (e.g., communication, ritual observance). Importantly, these nonhuman persons did not derive their personhood from their connection to humans.

Given this understanding, the closest worldview among the options is that of "A tribe that perceives plants as person-plants because they form an ecosystem and are marked by needs of nutrition." This reflects the Maya's perspective, as it suggests recognizing nonhuman entities (plants) as having personhood based on their natural characteristics and participation in an ecosystem, much like how the Maya viewed objects and elements as persons due to certain needs and social roles.

Answer 4

The question requires us to determine which option would not undermine the democratising potential of the Classic Maya worldview regarding personhood. The passage explains how the Classic Maya saw personhood, extending it beyond humans to include nonhuman entities like objects and plants based on their experiences and social roles. Importantly, personhood was nonbinary and not necessarily connected to humans. The correct answer would describe a scenario that aligns with this inclusive view. 
Consider each option:

1. They understood the stone implement and the incense burner in a purely human form.
   This could undermine the Maya worldview because it makes those objects solely human-centric, which contrasts with their broad and inclusive concept of personhood.
2. They believed that animals like cats and dogs that live in proximity to humans have a more clearly articulated personhood.
   This might suggest a connection of personhood to humans rather than an inherent quality of the animals themselves, which could undermine the Maya's understanding.
3. They depicted their human healers with physical attributes of local medicinal plants.
   This supports the inclusive and integrated view of personhood, as it implies humans and plants share characteristics, aligning with the Maya view of entities being persons as well as something else. Therefore, this option does not undermine their worldview.
4. While they believed in the personhood of objects and plants, they did not believe in the personhood of rivers and animals.
   This is contrary to the Maya's extensive view of personhood and could undermine their worldview.

Thus, the option that would not undermine the democratising potential of the Classic Maya worldview is: They depicted their human healers with physical attributes of local medicinal plants.