In this research I will discuss the anthropological theorists of Clifford Geertz and of Julian Steward in regards to their ideas of culture, the environment and specifics related to each theorist ideas such as meaning and behavior. A brief overview of their respective backgrounds will be given to frame the discussion and add context to Geertz and Stewards perspectives .Furthermore, this paper will connect the ways other theorists have influenced Geertz and Steward in shaping their own understanding of culture and theories related to culture. And ultimately compare and contrast the two perspectives to each other. Clifford Geertz is an American anthropologist who’s extensive contributions to the field of anthropology still influence how an anthropologist …show more content…
This does not mean that Geertz was not cognizant of the environment but rather that the findings he was looking for in his field research were more specific towards practices in a culture than broadly speaking about cultures generally. Steward focuses on the trajectory that a given culture’s will take due to their environment and how their societal structure and practice could be influenced in response to this. In regards to field research, Geertz did his anthropological work in various cultures such as the Balinese or in Java where his research on the symbols and meaning in cultural practice were used to describe his theory towards culture (Moore 2012: 242). Steward looks broadly at civilizations to gain his perspective and does not have the same extensive ethnographic experience as Geertz does. This could be due to his focus more on the chronological history of a given society rather than an in-depth look like Geertz did in his research. But this of course does not mean that he did not look at particulars in a given group. Steward as was mentioned before looked at material culture to draw upon parallels and see patterns. Overall these theorist illustrate how cultures can be interpreted in a multitude of ways in their own context and how their cultures can come to have similar practices due to a parallel environment or set of
The field of anthropology looks at culture more analytically than any other social science. Cultural anthropologists are concerned with describing and analyzing societies and cultures as life ways. In attempting to study the life way of the Center members anthropologically, Myerhoff is beginning with the preconceived notion that there actually is a culture that exists among the individuals. It seems that she begins her research with certain assumptions about this culture. However, as her studies progressed, it is clear that she realized that her research would need to be much more intense than she had planned in order to fully unders...
Robbins Burling, David F. Armstrong, Ben G. Blount, Catherine A. Callaghan, Mary Lecron Foster, Barbara J. King, Sue Taylor Parker, Osamu Sakura, William C. Stokoe, Ron Wallace, Joel Wallman, A. Whiten, Sherman Wilcox and Thomas Wynn. Current Anthropology, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Feb., 1993), pp. 25-53
Processual Archaeology, was a movement in the archaeological field that began in the 1960‘s and changed the course of archaeology forever. Anthropologists such as Julian Steward were absolutely influential on many archaeologists and anthropologists during the early 1960s with his theories of cultural ecology which established a scientific way of understanding cultures as human adaption to the surrounding environment (Steward, 1955: 36-38). It was approaches such as Stewards that led eventually led to a rejection of culture-historical approaches to the archaeological record and propelled the ideas of cultural evolution and its reaction with the environment. This approach to cultural systems was essentially a rejection of the culture-historical approach of determinism by suggesting that the environment influences culture but is not a deterministic feature and that both culture and the environment were two separate systems that are dependent on each other for change (Steward, 1955: 36).
When beginning to look at religions and cultures and their intertwining effect on each other, you can see that a religion shapes society, and equally society shapes religion. When comparing the theories of two popular anthropologists, Durkheim and Geertz, I believe that Geertz’s theory is more realistic and reliable than Durkheim’s theory. Durkheim’s theory says that religion is a joined community effort that brings people together like a social glue, and uses the definitions of the sacred and profane to distinguish what makes things religious. On the other side, Geertz’s theory holds that religion is a cultural organization, and showed that religion and society can have an impact on each other, and religion is a set symbols of that promote an emotional response, ultimate meaning, ordering of the world, and marks a special status in one’s life. When examining both theories I saw that Geertz’s theory challenges Durkheim’s theory in the definitions of the sacred and profane, Durkheim’s view of religion as a social glue of society, and Durkheim’s neglection of the individual’s use of religion impacting society.
Joseph-Marie Degerando was a revolutionary, French philosopher who transcribed one of the original guidelines for the study of anthropology in the year 1800 titled, I: Societe des Observateurs de l’Homme in French, and translated into English as, The Observations of Savage Peoples. According to the author of the introduction and translator of his work into English, F. C. T. Moore, Degerando’s guidelines were a “capital work of anthropology” (Moore, U of CA Press. p. 2). Whether Degerando provided the most accurate guidelines for the study of humans is argued; however, his work was certainly influential as it served as a foundation for the science of anthropology. In fact, Moore declares there are consistent similarities between the anthropological recommendations of Degerando and those practiced by modern day anthropologists (Moore, U of CA Press. p. 4-5).
historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values; Culture systems may, on the one hand, be considered as products of action, and on the other as conditioning elements of further action.”
The world of anthropology is tightly woven into research of humans and their cultures. One of the most important principles of the Code of Ethics of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) is found in Part III, Section A, Number 1: “Anthropological researchers have primary ethical obligations to the people, species, and materials they study and to the people with whom they work.” (American Anthropological Association, 2009) This main principle helps to guide social scientists through a maze of ethical dilemmas such as if and how the research itself may harm or otherwise impact those with whom they are studying. While the purpose of the research may be to gain knowledge of the plight of a certain individual or group of individuals, by the extension of the sharing of this knowledge the person or persons being studied may draw unwanted attention. By utilizing the Code of Ethics, the framework has been established so that the researcher is guided “to consult actively with...
Schultz, Emily A. & Lavenda, Robert H. 2005, Cultural Anthropology, 6th edn, Oxford University Press, New York, Chapter 3: Fieldwork.
In her book Around the World in 30 Years Barbara Gallatin Anderson presents a convincing and precise representation to the many aspects that go into the being a cultural anthropologist. Her visually impacting story follows her around the world throughout her personal career. The attention to detail and thorough explanations make the reader feel as though they too are an anthropologist.
In his essay, “What is Culture?”, Kluckhohn explains the differences and similarities amongst world’s peoples. To support his explanation of the differences and similarities he provides the concept of culture. It is difficult to give this concept a precise definition because the word “culture” is a broad term. Kluckhohn allows the reader to understand the concept of culture by providing examples of cultural differences along with some anthropological evidence to support his views.
It analyzes similarities and differences in various cultures and societies. Culture is learned and affects our perception of the world throughout our life. Overtime, a sense of cultural superiority is formed amongst individuals who are constantly exposed to their own culture. Anthropology can help eliminate culturally based biases, also known as ethnocentrism. It is a common practice we all in engage in when evaluating other cultures, however, by practicing anthropology this allows us to learn about other cultures by placing themselves into the cultural environment allows us to learn the traditions and customs by experience. Marjorie Shostak`s study of the !Kung people revealed that they organized themselves differently than Western cultures, which included solving conflicts with discussion, communal behavior, and basic living traditions. Moreover, by interviewing and living in this cultural environment, Shostak was able to empathize with the !Kung people and she also considered that all humans share an emotional life, which is important when studying the history of our human
Anthropology is concerned with studying human beings, both in the past and present. From another perspective, Anthropology is the study of the “Other” or of populations whose culture is different from one’s own. The questioning of these differences in prior centuries led to theories of inherent biological distinctions between Westerners and non-Westerners as well as divisions in evolutionary characteristics of their cultures. Michel-Rolph Trouillot, in a chapter of his book entitled “Anthropology and the Savage Slot: The Poetics and Politics of Otherness”, argues that Anthropology as an academic discipline acquired these theoretical outlooks before its emergence as an actual discipline. As a result, “Anthropology fills a pre-established compartment within a wider symbolic field, the ‘Savage’ slot” (Trouillot 2003:9). By utilizing the resource of Trouillot as well as Moberg, Perry, and Moore, I will illustrate that the Savage Slot and the “Savage” or “Other” are theoretical concepts fashioned with the creation of the West and consequently the field of Anthropology.
In his article “Culture Is Ordinary”, Raymond Williams defines culture, based on his knowledge, and experience –which would, as he defines, would be his culture. He starts his article with simply giving a definition according to his understanding by telling what is and is not culture, and continues with the reasons he doesn’t agree with some of Marxist ideas of culture, and that of F. R. Leavis’. While giving reasons for his disagreements, he gives solid examples from both people he knows and doesn’t know.
Boas, F. (1930). Anthropology. In, Seligman, E. R. A. ed., Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences. Macmillan: New York.
Kroeber, A. and C. Klockhohn, Culture: A Critical Review of Concept and Definition New York: Vintage Books, 1989.