storyboard: a panel or series of panels on which a set of sketches is arranged depicting consecutively the important changes of scene and action in a series of shots (as for a film, television show, or commercial)

The word anthropology dates back to the late 16th century, but it was not until the 19th century that it was applied to the academic discipline that now bears its name. In the United States, this field of study is typically divided into four distinct branches: physical (or biological) anthropology, archaeology, cultural (or social) anthropology, and linguistic anthropology. Anthropology is from the New Latin word anthropologia (“the study of humanity”) and shares its ultimate root in Greek, anthrōpos (“human being”), with a number of other words in English, such as anthropomorphize, philanthropy, and misanthrope.

Cultural anthropology is a branch of anthropology focused on the study of cultural variation among humans. It is in contrast to social anthropology, which perceives cultural variation as a subset of the anthropological constant. A variety of methods are involved in cultural anthropological, including participant observation (often called fieldwork because it requires the anthropologist spending an extended period of time at the research location), interviews, and surveys.[1] Edward Burnett Tylor One of the earliest articulations of the anthropological meaning of the term "culture" came from Sir Edward Tylor who writes on the first page of his 1871 book: "Culture, or civilization, taken in its broad, ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society."[2] The term "civilization" later gave way to definitions given by V. Gordon Childe, with culture forming an umbrella term and civilization becoming a particular kind of culture.[3] The anthropological concept of "culture" reflects in part a reaction against earlier Western discourses based on an opposition between "culture" and "nature", according to which some human beings lived in a "state of nature".[citation needed] Anthropologists have argued that culture is "human nature", and that all people have a capacity to classify experiences, encode classifications symbolically (i.e. in language), and teach such abstractions to others. Since humans acquire culture through the learning processes of enculturation and socialization, people living in different places or different circumstances develop different cultures. Anthropologists have also pointed out that through culture people can adapt to their environment in non-genetic ways, so people living in different environments will often have different cultures. Much of anthropological theory has originated in an appreciation of and interest in the tension between the local (particular cultures) and the global (a universal human nature, or the web of connections between people in distinct places/circumstances).[4] The rise of cultural anthropology took place within the context of the late 19th century, when questions regarding which cultures were "primitive" and which were "civilized" occupied the minds of not only Marx and Freud, but many others. Colonialism and its processes increasingly brought European thinkers into direct or indirect contact with "primitive others."[5] The relative status of various humans, some of whom had modern advanced technologies that included engines and telegraphs, while others lacked anything but face-to-face communication techniques and still lived a Paleolithic lifestyle, was of interest to the first generation of cultural anthropologists. Parallel with the rise of cultural anthropology in the United States, social anthropology, in which sociality is the central concept and which focuses on the study of social statuses and roles, groups, institutions, and the relations among them—developed as an academic discipline in Britain and in France.[6] The umbrella term socio-cultural anthropology draws upon both cultural and social anthropology traditions.[

A matriarchy is a social unit governed by a woman or group of women. It isn't certain that a true matriarchal society has ever existed, so matriarchy is usually treated as an imaginative concept. But there are societies in which relatedness through women rather than men is stressed, and elements of matriarchy may be stronger in certain societies than they are in most of the Western world. And most of us can point to families in which a woman has become the dominant figure, or grande dame, or matriarch.

Patriarchy is a social system in which males hold primary power and predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property. In the domain of the family, fathers or father-figures hold authority over women and children. Some patriarchal societies are also patrilineal, meaning that property and title are inherited by the male lineage. Historically, patriarchy has manifested itself in the social, legal, political, religious and economic organization of a range of different cultures.[1] Even if not explicitly defined to be by their own constitutions and laws, most contemporary societies are, in practice, patriarchal

Matriarchy is a social system in which females hold primary power, predominate in roles of political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property at the specific exclusion of men, at least to a large degree. While those definitions apply in general English, definitions specific to the disciplines of anthropology and feminism differ in some respects. Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal, but some authors believe exceptions may exist or may have. Matriarchies may also be confused with matrilineal, matrilocal, and matrifocal societies. A few people consider any non-patriarchal system to be matriarchal, thus including genderally equalitarian systems (Peggy Reeves Sanday favors redefining and reintroducing the word matriarchy, especially in reference to contemporary matrilineal societies such as the Minangkabau[1]), but most academics exclude them from matriarchies strictly defined. In 19th century Western scholarship, the hypothesis of matriarchy representing an early, mainly prehistoric, stage of human development gained popularity. Possibilities of so-called primitive societies were cited and the hypothesis survived into the 20th century, including in the context of second-wave feminism. This hypothesis was criticized by some authors such as Cynthia Eller in The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory and remains as a largely unsolved question to this day. Some older myths describe matriarchies. Several modern feminists have advocated for matriarchy now or in the future and it has appeared in feminist literature. In several theologies, matriarchy has been portrayed as negative.

So Zoya Akhtar is the Oracle of Delphi? I'm not sure....but she's that thing -- that element -- in her -- that-word-that-always-eludes-us -- yep, that thing -- that trait -- is in her. I think so with real chaste piety and absolute, unwavering faith.

Hmm. You've a fetish for nicknames? Right?

Yep. So she's what?

I don't know. But I really wanna go to her Facebook page and snipe at her with blatant vile -- you know, really viciciously that she's a: Socratic paradox NOT Self-proclaimed or self-professed atheiest. Honestly, I don't know that combo particularly but my Shamanic Intuition doesn't seriously dissuade me from carrying-out -- this sudden, impulsiive, spiky, barbed rage and outburst -- this dare-devilry -- this audacious -- bayonet-charge-of-sharp-words.

I just read this; and I believe she's this kind of aptitude:

‘The most vicious of the self-styled Socratics was Critias, not only the leader of the oligarchs who seized control of Athens in 404, but a prolific writer on political-philosophical subjects.

Hmm.

When did this begin huh?

This started in the 19th century. Righto?

There's a poet. His name was: Arthur Joseph Munby. And, one of his poems -- there's this: true eclectic mind.

So, Miss Zoya Akhtar's Twitter Bio should be: A girl with true eclectic mind. Mind-blowing eh?

She's someone who'd -- who subliminally or surrepitiously follow René Descartes' school-of-thought -- you know, all those, morale-killing -isms particualry for people like me -- I find really intimitidating. Maybe she knows it. Or Maybe she doesn't I don't know. And, I know one thing that I try not to assume anything either about myself or anyone else -- even, if you're doing so -- be loud about it. In a polite, subdued way. In strict compliance with cultural sensitivities -- nauances -- subtelities et cetra. It's like a naive hunch of a wannabe-writer about a writer -- he hardly knows in a real conventional, real-time, conservative sense of the word -- but, something vaguely like the 100th Monkey's Universal Phenemenon. And, such real serious stuff keyed-in -- lucidly -- seriocomically -- in a synopis-like form -- simple words -- FAQ-like format. Explorative learning for me. Heuristics. She might read it. Or She mightn't. But I shouldn't let that discourage me. With less vested-interests. Sincere unconditionality -- trial and error -- sort of writing exercise -- she might or mightn't find hilarious or amusing...or heriocomical or tragiccomical voayages -- or misadventures -- of this self-professed Sindbad....a rookie-Blogger's blunders and fiascos.

I might be wrong. Point-blank. Real colossally. But it's okay. That's not deplitating self-esteem but subtle arrogance -- masquerading -- in its infancy. Period. Sorry. Full Stop.

Here's a précis -- concise obsession of Arthur Joseph Munby: Here we go:

Munby had a lifelong fascination with working-class women, particularly those who did hard physical labour. His favourite pastime was wandering the streets of London and other industrial cities where he approached working women to ask about their lives and the details of their work, while noting their clothes and dialects. The observations were recorded in his journals. He was an amateur artist, and his diaries contain sketches of working women.He collected hundreds of photographs of women who worked at collieries, kitchen maids, milkmaids, charwomen, acrobats and so on. His diaries and images provide historical information on the lives of working-class Victorian women. Much of his obsession is hinted at in his last book, Faithful Servants: being epitaphs and obituaries recording their names and services (1891). His papers are housed at Trinity College, Cambridge, there is a list of his papers on the Cambridge Janus website

I think Miss Zoya Akhtar has the same inclination -- mind frame. Blah-blah-blah.

Her movies i.e. basically -- primarily -- a manuscript -- a brainchild -- in it's most simplest -- fundamental -- definition -- her perception -- her interpretations of everything-around her -- and, the most important really real inquisitive question we'd be asking her to ourselves is that: Why does she write? What for? Are those a sort of medicinal leech kind of thing for us -- something mutual -- symbiotic -- a cathatric thing for her too -- or it's gedankenexperiment: an experiment carried out in thought only. Her courage is that she gives that visualization or whatever -- a tangible form -- in the form of script or whatever first that obviously and of course -- leads to a distinct visual message -- for a broad -- our masses -- i.e. our movie. Of course, with some bells-and-whistles --- and, all that -- to keep it you know -- for sort of movie-goers -- functional-illiterates or concerned critics -- or armchair-experts.

For instance: Some good chaps -- trying really serioulsy and sincerely to help uncontacted tribes from this and that. She's also doing the same work. Basically all of us -- good samiratans -- or this or that. We bascially chip-in -- help someone in distress...that means she's compassion. And, that's the core -- kernel -- essence of humanity and, ad infinitum. Now, that's a really real disbeliever eh? Believe me eh?

One more thing:

The German word Weltanschauung literally means "world view"; it combines "Welt" ("world") with "Anschauung" ("view"), which ultimately derives from the Middle High German verb schouwen ("to look at" or "to see"). When we first adopted it from German in the mid-19th century, "weltanschauung" referred to a philosophical view or apprehension of the universe, and this sense is still the most widely used. It can also describe a more general ideology or philosophy of life.

So this is her Weltanschauung.

Maybe she Blogs as well on Blogger Dot In or someother provider -- She may or maybe -- what's that eh? Yep, Twitter -- micro blogging righto. I'd lurk around -- and a clumsly ice-breaker -- so you are a writer eh? I don't know you. But, I Blogged about your Dad. That's like zillions of years ago. And, Wikipedia is place riddled with rumormongers -- they're like your Mom is from my place. The IT-Capital of India. The FlyOver-city of India.

That's all for now. Novajo. A tribal variant that means there's-no-word-for-goodbye-in-our-language.

Post script: Say Hi to your Bro. He's grit. Spunk. And, blah-blah-blah.

Post Post script: For more cut-throatish -- criticisms et cetra. Please visit my Blog:

Write to me. Or Don't. Now, that's your prerogative. Exercise it. Now, that's freedom. Now, ad infinitum. By the way, I write some real dreaful renegade-rhymes. I'm a rhymester.Pliagrism is an unforgivable vice -- all our Brobdinagians forbid us from -- us or er-drat-ahem-me Just me Lilliptutians-like me. Our unsaid, unspoken protocl i.e. a set of rules i.e. ad infinitum . . . .

Do you bump into Deepika eh?