Anthropology

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 6

anthropology, “the 

science of humanity,” which studies human beings in aspects


ranging from the biology and evolutionary history of Homo sapiens to the features of
society and culture that decisively distinguish humans from other animal species.
Because of the diverse subject matter it encompasses, anthropology has become,
especially since the middle of the 20th century, a collection of more specialized fields.
Physical anthropology is the branch that concentrates on the biology and evolution of
humanity. It is discussed in greater detail in the article human evolution. The branches
that study the social and cultural constructions of human groups are variously
recognized as belonging to cultural anthropology (or ethnology), social anthropology,
linguistic anthropology, and psychological anthropology (see below). Archaeology (see
below), as the method of investigation of prehistoric cultures, has been an integral part
of anthropology since it became a self-conscious discipline in the latter half of the 19th
century. (For a longer treatment of the history of archaeology, see archaeology.)
Overview
Throughout its existence as an academic discipline, anthropology has been located at
the intersection of natural science and humanities. The biological evolution of Homo
sapiens and the evolution of the capacity for culture that distinguishes humans from all
other species are indistinguishable from one another. While the evolution of the human
species is a biological development like the processes that gave rise to the other species,
the historical appearance of the capacity for culture initiates a qualitative departure
from other forms of adaptation, based on an extraordinarily variable creativity not
directly linked to survival and ecological adaptation. The historical patterns and
processes associated with culture as a medium for growth and change, and the
diversification and convergence of cultures through history, are thus major foci of
anthropological research.

In the middle of the 20th century, the distinct fields of research that separated
anthropologists into specialties were (1) physical anthropology, emphasizing the
biological process and endowment that distinguishes Homo sapiens from other species,
(2) archaeology, based on the physical remnants of past cultures and former conditions
of contemporary cultures, usually found buried in the earth, (3) linguistic anthropology,
emphasizing the unique human capacity to communicate through articulate speech and
the diverse languages of humankind, and (4) social and/or cultural anthropology,
emphasizing the cultural systems that distinguish human societies from one another
and the patterns of social organization associated with these systems. By the middle of
the 20th century, many American universities also included (5) psychological
anthropology, emphasizing the relationships among culture, social structure, and the
human being as a person.

The concept of culture as the entire way of life or system of meaning for a
human community was a specialized idea shared mainly by anthropologists until the
latter half of the 20th century. However, it had become a commonplace by the beginning
of the 21st century. The study of anthropology as an academic subject had expanded
steadily through those 50 years, and the number of professional anthropologists had
increased with it. The range and specificity of anthropological research and the
involvement of anthropologists in work outside of academic life have also grown,
leading to the existence of many specialized fields within the discipline.
Theoretical diversity has been a feature of anthropology since it began and, although
the conception of the discipline as “the science of humanity” has persisted, some
anthropologists now question whether it is possible to bridge the gap between the
natural sciences and the humanities. Others argue that new integrative approaches to
the complexities of human being and becoming will emerge from new subfields dealing
with such subjects as health and illness, ecology and environment, and other areas of
human life that do not yield easily to the distinction between “nature” and “culture” or
“body” and “mind.”

Anthropology in 1950 was—for historical and economic reasons—instituted as a


discipline mainly found in western Europe and North America. Field research was
established as the hallmark of all the branches of anthropology. While some
anthropologists studied the “folk” traditions in Europe and America, most were
concerned with documenting how people lived in nonindustrial settings outside these
areas. These finely detailed studies of everyday life of people in a broad range of social,
cultural, historical, and material circumstances were among the major accomplishments
of anthropologists in the second half of the 20th century.

  New from Britannica

Centuries ago, people in Southeast Asia developed a fermented fish sauce


called ke-tchup. British traders brought the sauce to England, where
variations were made using ingredients like mushrooms and walnuts, until
tomato prevailed in the 19th century.
See All Good Facts

Beginning in the 1930s, and especially in the post-World War II period, anthropology
was established in a number of countries outside western Europe and North America.
Very influential work in anthropology originated in Japan, India, China, Mexico, Brazil,
Peru, South Africa, Nigeria, and several other Asian, Latin American, and African
countries. The world scope of anthropology, together with the dramatic expansion of
social and cultural phenomena that transcend national and cultural boundaries, has led
to a shift in anthropological work in North America and Europe. Research by Western
anthropologists is increasingly focused on their own societies, and there have been some
studies of Western societies by non-Western anthropologists. By the end of the 20th
century, anthropology was beginning to be transformed from a Western—and, some
have said, “colonial”—scholarly enterprise into one in which Western perspectives are
regularly challenged by non-Western ones.
Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content.Subscribe
Now
Ralph W. Nicholas
History of anthropology

Charles DarwinCourtesy of the International Museum of Photography at George


Eastman House, Rochester, New York
The modern discourse of anthropology crystallized in the 1860s, fired by advances
in biology, philology, and prehistoric archaeology. In The Origin of
Species (1859), Charles Darwin affirmed that all forms of life share a common ancestry.
Fossils began to be reliably associated with particular geologic strata, and fossils of
recent human ancestors were discovered, most famously the
first Neanderthal specimen, unearthed in 1856. In 1871 Darwin published The Descent
of Man, which argued that human beings shared a recent common ancestor with the
great African apes. He identified the defining characteristic of the human species as
their relatively large brain size and deduced that the evolutionary advantage of the
human species was intelligence, which yielded language and technology.

The pioneering anthropologist Edward Burnett Tylor concluded that as intelligence


increased, so civilization advanced. All past and present societies could be arranged in
an evolutionary sequence. Archaeological findings were organized in a single universal
series (Stone Age, Iron Age, Bronze Age, etc.) thought to correspond to stages of
economic organization from hunting and gathering to pastoralism, agriculture, and
industry. Some contemporary peoples that remained hunter-gatherers or pastoralists
were regarded as laggards in evolutionary terms, representing stages
of evolution through which all other societies had passed. They bore witness to early
stages of human development, while the industrial societies of northern Europe and the
United States represented the pinnacle of human achievement.

Darwin’s arguments were drawn upon to underwrite the universal history of


the Enlightenment, according to which the progress of human institutions was
inevitable, guaranteed by the development of rationality. It was assumed that
technological progress was constant and that it was matched by developments in the
understanding of the world and in social forms. Tylor advanced the view that all
religions had a common origin, in the belief in spirits. The original
religious rite was sacrifice, which was a way of feeding these spirits. Modern religions
retained some of these early features, but as human beings became more intelligent, and
so more rational, superstitions were gradually refined and would eventually be
abandoned. James George Frazer posited a progressive and universal progress from
faith in magic through to belief in religion and, finally, to the understanding of science.

Lewis Henry MorganCourtesy of the Union College Archives at Schaffer Library,


Schenectady, New York
John Ferguson McLennan, Lewis Henry Morgan, and other writers argued that there
was a parallel development of social institutions. The first humans were promiscuous
(like, it was thought, the African apes), but at some stage blood ties were recognized
between mother and children and incest between mother and son was forbidden. In
time more restrictive forms of mating were introduced and paternity was recognized.
Blood ties began to be distinguished from territorial relationships, and distinctive
political structures developed beyond the family circle. At last
monogamous marriage evolved. Paralleling these developments, technological advances
produced increasing wealth, and arrangements guaranteeing property ownership and
regulating inheritance became more significant. Eventually the modern institutions of
private property and territorially based political systems developed, together with
the nuclear family.

An alternative to this Anglo-American “evolutionist” anthropology established itself in


the German-speaking countries. Its scientific roots were in geography and philology,
and it was concerned with the study of cultural traditions and with adaptations to local
ecological constraints rather than with universal human histories. This more
particularistic and historical approach was spread to the United States at the end of the
19th century by the German-trained scholar Franz Boas. Skeptical of evolutionist
generalizations, Boas advocated instead a “diffusionist” approach. Rather than
graduating through a fixed series of intellectual, moral, and technological stages,
societies or cultures changed unpredictably, as a consequence of migration and
borrowing.
Fieldwork
The first generation of anthropologists had tended to rely on others—locally based
missionaries, colonial administrators, and so on—to collect ethnographic information,
often guided by questionnaires that were issued by metropolitan theorists. In the late
19th century, several ethnographic expeditions were organized, often by museums. As
reports on customs came in from these various sources, the theorists would collate the
findings in comparative frameworks to illustrate the course of evolutionary development
or to trace local historical relationships.

The first generation of professionally trained anthropologists began to undertake


intensive fieldwork on their own account in the early 20th century. As theoretically
trained investigators began to spend long periods alone in the field, on a single island or
in a particular tribal community, the object of investigation shifted. The aim was no
longer to establish and list traditional customs. Field-workers began to record the
activities of flesh-and-blood human beings going about their daily business. To get this
sort of material, it was no longer enough to interview local authority figures. The field-
worker had to observe people in action, off guard, to listen to what they said to each
other, to participate in their daily activities. The most famous of these early intensive
ethnographic studies was carried out between 1915 and 1918 by Bronisław
Malinowski in the Trobriand Islands (now Kiriwina Islands) off the southeastern coast
of New Guinea, and his Trobriand monographs, published between 1922 and 1935, set
new standards for ethnographic reportage.

Émile DurkheimPictorial Press Ltd./Alamy


These new field studies reflected and accelerated a change of theoretical focus from the
evolutionary and historical interests of the 19th century. Inspired by the social theories
of Émile Durkheim and the psychological theories of Wilhelm Wundt and others, the
ultimate aim was no longer to discover the origins of Western customs but rather to
explain the purposes that were served by particular institutions or religious beliefs and
practices. Malinowski explained that Trobriand magic was not simply poor science. The
“function” of garden magic was to sustain the confidence of gardeners, whose
investments could not be guaranteed. His colleague, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, adopted a
more sociological, Durkheimian line of argument, explaining, for example, that the
“function” of ancestor worship was to sustain the authority of fathers and grandfathers
and to back up the claims of family responsibility. Perhaps the most influential
sociological explanation of early institutions was Marcel Mauss’s account of gift
exchanges, illustrated by such diverse practices as the “kula ring” cycle of exchange of
the Trobriand Islanders and the potlatch of the Kwakiutl of the Pacific coast of North
America. Mauss argued that apparently irrational forms of economic consumption made
sense when they were properly understood, as modes of social competition regulated by
strict and universal rules of reciprocity.
Load Next Page 
Information from your device can be used to personalize your ad experience.
Do not sell my personal information.

You might also like