During the 20th century, anthropology has developed following influential people such as Boas. The four subfields existed for a long time as separate fields, but with the direction of examining human culture within the United States, it became important to be holistic. Each subfield contributed greatly as no one field can study the entire breadth or depth of culture and behavior. However, there are forces that are contributing to each field going in its own direction that can lead to a break-up in the future. First, the emphasis on the profession have lead others to concentrate and specialized in their own perspective. Each field also has an increased difficulty to be well versed in all four subfields when there are alliances to other disciplines that relate more specifically to their specialization. Finally, there always seems to be a divide between the science and humanities which has lead to a constant tension within anthropology, which sits on the border.
One reason for the creation of the four-field approach in anthropology is the study of Native Americans, which were seen as disappearing (Darnell 2002:1). John Powell, as an example, has been studying Native Americans through ethnological and linguistic means, and later created a Division of Mound Exploration (Patterson 2001:37, 39). Powell was also influenced by Spencer’s and Darwin’s evolutionism as he studied Native Americans, and then influenced a large part of professional anthropology through publications of field investigations and researchers from different fields (Patterson 2001:40). However, the actual development of anthropology as a four field approach comes during Boas’s time and when anthropology became a profession.
Anthropology became a professio...
... middle of paper ...
..., Bloomington.
Little, Michael A.
2010 Franz Boas’s Place in American Physical Anthropology and Its Institutions. In Histories of American Physical Anthropology in the Twentieth Century, edited by Michael Little and Kenneth Kennedy. Lexington Books, Lanham, MD.
Little, Michael A., and Kenneth A.R. Kennedy
2010 Introduction to the History of American Physical Anthropology. In Histories of American Physical Anthropology in the Twentieth Century, edited by Michael Little and Kenneth Kennedy. Lexington Books, Lanham, MD.
Moore, Jerry
2012 Visions of Culture: An Introduction to Anthropological Theories and Theorists. 4th ed. Altamira Press, Lanham, MD.
Patterson, Thomas
2001 A Social History of Anthropology in the United States. Berg, Oxford.
Trigger, Bruce
2006 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Robbins, R. H. (2014). Cultural anthropology: a problem-based approach (Second Canadian ed.). Itasca: F.E. Peacock.
As a scholar invested in the progression of the field of Native American material cultural studies, I consistently recondition my understanding of both epistemology and the appropriate ways to approach cultural circumstances of the so-called “Other” through personal encounters and the shared experiences of my contemporaries. My own ethical position is forever fluid, negotiated by both Native and non-Native sources as I attempt to find ground in what exactly I intend to do (outside of an occupation) with the knowledge I accumulate. Perhaps the most vulnerable facet of existence in the world of academia is the ease that comes in the failure to compromise one’s own advancement for the well-being of those being studied. Barre Toelken is an encouraging exception to this conundrum, considering his explicit analysis of both Navajo and Western ethics in the case of the Hugh Yellowman tapes. His essay argues for an approach that surrenders the fieldworker’s hypothetical gain to the socio-emotional needs of subjects’ epistemological structure and, most intriguingly, he treats ethnographic materials as praxis rather than data. After years of apprehension with the objectifying habits of cultural anthropology, a discipline internally dithered by the bickering of Science vs. Humanities, I am finally moved to disengage from such authoritatively based methods altogether as a result of Toelken’s example.
There are consistent patterns or themes regarding Native American world views and the differentiation of cultural elements and society. Native Americans retained control of institutional and cultural orders against the assimilation effort because all aspects of Native American societies are interrelated, guided by the broader cultural world views. Each cultural or institutional element is, in fact, overlapped with other elements, so change in one element inevitably affects the broader cultural and social complex. While adopting to a new environment and small changes was possible in the West, where social and cultural elements are separate from each other, Native Americans were faced with conflicts and a potential, large disruption of the existing social orders.
The implementation of the NAGPRA has provoked a ranging conflict in interest between two groups, the scientists on one hand and the Native American tribes on the other. As expressed by Burt, scientists have held that the skeletal remains are a source of information that helps in relating the early and the new world (304). They argue that understanding the human evolution is beneficial to the modern communities as they are able to appreciate their history and origin. Conversely, the Native American tribes are of the views that preserving human remains prevents their spirits from resting. Unrest of the spirits may bring misfortune on the current and future generations. In terms of learning their history, the Native Americans bel...
The collection of articles in American Indian Thought are demonstrating the philosophy that Western and Native American philosophy must been seen as equals and therefore be respected in the field of academia philosophy. This is required as Western Philosophy can only get us so far especially with the manner they dismiss non-propositional knowledge. The articles list a number of manners in order to achieve this such as recognizing the similarities as well as differences of philosophy and westerners to acknowledge the validity of Native American thought.
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
Alfred L. Kroeber once said: “Anthropology is the most humanistic of the sciences and the most scientific of the humanities.” For centuries, anthropologists have studied various cultures in search of answers about humanity. What are other cultures like? How are other cultures different from ours? Why are they different? Anthropology originated from the Greek words Anthropos (human being), and -logia (study). In the field of Anthropology, there are four sub-fields: Biological, Cultural, Linguistic, and Archaeological. Each of these sub-fields can be beneficial to study the theory of evolution, and all of the sub-fields are important in their own respect. However, the biological and cultural fields are, perhaps, more significant than the others regarding evolution.
In his essay, “The Indians’ Old World,” Neal Salisbury examined a recent shift in the telling of Native American history in North America. Until recently, much of American history, as it pertains to Native Americans; either focused on the decimation of their societies or excluded them completely from the discussion (Salisbury 25). Salisbury also contends that American history did not simply begin with the arrival of Europeans. This event was an episode of a long path towards America’s development (Salisbury 25). In pre-colonial America, Native Americans were not primitive savages, rather a developing people that possessed extraordinary skill in agriculture, hunting, and building and exhibited elaborate cultural and religious structures.
the story in the Phillip Whitten and David E. K. Hunter anthropology book of No
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 can teach us about how a race was constructed, about how it is determined, and the similarities and differences between races in different countries of the world. Anthropology can teach you about the Burakumin in Japan, the whites in the United States, and the pretos in the cities of Brazil. Anthropology is all about the “how” and “why” and this is exactly what we need when talking about race, how was it constructed in different countries throughout the world, and why was it even constructed in the first place. Anthropology opens doors to answers that have never been revealed simply because nobody was seeking them. Now that people are seeking them, and exploring new ideas, and living throughout these ideas, they will furthermore answer questions that we have been trying to answer for a long time. According to Smedley “What is so striking about the American experience in creating such an extreme conception of human differences was the role played by scientists and scholars in legitimizing the folk ideas. Scholarly writers began attempting to prove scientifically that "the Negro" was a different and lower kind of human being”. This shows that although anthropologists aren’t always correct, but this just leads them closer to the correct
Park, M.A. (2008). Introducing anthropology: An integrated approach, with PowerWeb, 4th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978–0-07-340525-4
Is necessary to develop the new social sciences because it exists as a result of the impact of two things happening in western intellectual traditions at the being of the 19th century. One is social theorists are becoming more and more interested in generalizing about human nature, its making statements about the general nature of human beings it is not just the history of the English people anymore, it’s the nature of human society. Two, is the impact of science on the thought processes of the European intellectual. What they are saying is that they discovered that science affords them the best results to understand the physical world because human beings are part of it. Science says you will believe only those conclusions that are logically derived from a body of empirical evidence. When you apply the concept of science in the study of human nature, so there is was a problem the problem is that their empirical data is logically insufficient to support any generalization about human nature and their empirical data was such a narrow biased sample, we know mostly about ourselves so if you want to generalize about human nature, you need a truly representative sample of human experience on earth but the existing social sciences aren’t providing it, so we need to get that information, therefore, we invented anthropology to do that. Anthropology is the discipline that is created to fill the informational gaps left by the other social sciences to provide information about all the other people on earth, so that combined with what we already know about us we get a truly representative sample and the truly representative sample provides the logical bases for generalization for human nature.
“Anthropology is the study of humankind and all its manifestations in all times and places. Anthropologists study the biological, cultural, linguistic, and prehistoric aspects of humans” (Smith, Young 7). There are four main subdivisions in anthropology: biological anthropology, physiological anthropology, linguistic anthropology, cultural anthropology. These subdivisions of anthropologists work in all areas on the world, with all ages and periods of time. “Biological anthropology, in many respects, closely resembles the field of biology, except that anthropologists focus on human beings, their ancestors, and their primate relatives, and not on nonhuman life forms” (Smith, Young 10). One of the major subject matters that biological anthropologists
Anthropology encompasses four main aspects in the field: archaeology, linguistics, physical anthropology, and cultural anthropology. All four areas must collect data and find a way to interpret the data collected. Data is then interpreted with the use of theories. The data would be useless to any anthropologist without any meaning. Theory helps an anthropologist choose what data to collect and how to interpret the results. Authors McGee and Warms assert that theory “helps us think about who and what we are as human beings,” (2). Basic understanding of different anthropological theories enlightens anthropologist about different cultures by attempting to understand and learn from each other. Overtime some theories have been disregarded due to