theories & methods of anthropology
DESCRIPTION
Theories & Methods of Anthropology. Part One: Building the Discipline. Evolutionism. AIM: Why did evolutionism fade away?. Evolutionism. Dominate intellectual perspective in the middle of the 19 th century. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
THEORIES & METHODS OF ANTHROPOLOGY
PART ONE: BUILDING THE DISCIPLINE
EVOLUTIONISM
AIM: Why did evolutionism fade away?
Evolutionism
Dominate intellectual perspective in the middle of the 19th century.
Evolutionism eventually overtaken by historical particularism and structural functionalism.
Evolutionism, historical particularism, and structural functionalism were most significant theoretical orientations for almost 100 years.
Evolutionism – Early Controversies Do all human beings have a common
origin (monogenesis) or different origins and developments (polygenesis)? Much of this theory contained racial
predjudice
Basic Features of Evolutionism
Ethnocentric Tended to evaluate cultures of the world in terms of
model of Victorian England Underlying assumption that evolutionism culminated
in England and Europe
Armchair Speculation Early anthropologists did not do fieldwork Relied on data supplied by untrained amateurs Focus was the comparative method, with the
assumption that societies could be arranged into a taxonomy
Basic Features of Evolutionism
Assumption all cultures had gone through same stages of evolution, in the same order
Inevitable Progress Emphasis on progress, order, rationality
KEY FIGURES IN EVOLUTIONISM
Edward B. Tylor (1832-1917)
Born into a wealthy family in London, England
Never conducted in-depth, original fieldwork 1871 – Primitive Culture
Focus on religion Defined religion as a belief in spiritual beings
Argued culture evolved from the simple to the complex Three Stages
Savagery Barbarism Civilization
Tylor stressed the rationale basis of culture Social institutions are driven by reasons, and
customs
Lewis Henry Morgan (1818-1881)
Born in the United States Ethnographic studies focused on Native
Americans 1877 – Ancient Society
Like Tylor, argued society evolved over three stages Savagery
Lower Middle Upper
Barbarism Lower Middle Upper
Civilization Shift from lower to higher stage was
introduction of a significant technological innovation
Morgan also associated with distinction between classifactory and descriptive kinship terminology Classifactory System – same terms that
apply for relatives such as husband and wife may be applied to a wider range of kin
Descriptive Terminology – terms such as father or daughter designate a specific and narrow range of individuals characterized by biological or marital relations.
For Tylor and Morgan, the transition from lower to higher stage meant progress, not only technological sophistication but also in morality. Racist perspective
Terminological Adjustments Savages Hunters & Gathers Barbarians Horticulturalists Civilized People citizens of modern,
stratified states
Herbert Spencer (1820-1903)
Born in England Two Stages of Evolution
Militaristic (central authority) Industrial (individual freedom)
At an advanced stage of evolution, the parts of society (individuals) dominate the whole (the state) rather then the reverse
Believed society evolved from simple to the complex
Some of Spencer’s ideas paved the way Darwin “Survival of the fittest” coined by Spencer
Believed humans subject to same natural laws as non-humans
Eventually society would progress to perfection
Evaluation
Evolutionism placed emphasis on survival of the fittest and with the assumed superiority of the European Provided support for colonialism &
imperialism
HISTORICAL PARTICULARISM
AIM: Why did historical particularism fade away?
Diffusionism
Historical particularism was main argument in America against evolutionism
Main aspect was diffusionism Diffusionism – an aspect of culture, such as
discover of the wheel, religious belief, or marital practices tend to spread from one culture to another, eventually becoming integrated into all of the cultures in a given geographical area No longer need for each culture to evolve through
specific stages in a specific order
Three schools of Diffusionism
Kulturkreise School Explain the development of culture through
migration and diffusion British Diffusionism
Implausable claim that Egypt was source of virtually all cultural traits and innovations, which then diffused to rest of the planet
Short-lived Historical Particularism
Basic Features of Historical Particularism
Focus on one culture (or cultural area) and that the history of that culture be reconstructed
Diffusion Any particular culture was partly composed of elements diffused from
other cultures Culture is a loosely organized entity, rather then a tightly fused
system Culture is to some extent unique Focus on emic analysis Social life is guided by habit and tradition Relativism
Since each culture is to some degree unique, unacceptable to pass judgment on beliefs and actions found in other cultures
Cautious generalizations Emphasis on original fieldwork Inductive procedure
KEY FIGURES IN HISTORICAL PARTICULARISM
Franz Boas (1858-1942)
Born and educated in Germany Focus on importance of culture Concentrate research efforts on Native
people of the west coast of British Columbia Descriptive accounts of potlatch among
Kwakiutl (1897) Rigorous fieldwork standards
Collect native texts, vernacular accounts of aspects of culture
Inductivist Only after masses of solid data had been
collected could stabs at explanation and generalization be made
Impact on American anthropology Taught at Columbia from 1896 – 1937
Trained and influenced a lot of anthropologists
Ruth Benedict (1887-1948)
Trained by Boas 1934 – Patterns of Culture Leading figure in culture and
personality school Believed each culture promoted a
distinct personality type, and that there was a high degree of consistency between cultural type and patterns of emotion
Modal Personalities A statistically most prominent
personality which left room for other types Eventually view emerged that each culture
had several modal personalities
Margaret Mead (1901-1978)
Student of both Boas and Benedict
Selected Samoa to demonstrate overwhelming importance of culture
1928 – Coming of Age in Samoa 1930 – Growing Up in New Guinea 1935 – Sex and Temperament in Three
Primitive Societies
Focused on gender studies in her later years
Evaluation
Boas’s emphasis on: Subjectivity (personal interpretation) Insistence on collection of original texts
(emic) Distrust in grand theoretical schemes Promotion of relativism
STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM
AIM: How did structural functionalism become the dominant anthropological theory?
Structural Functionalism
Initial reaction in British anthropology against evolutionism took form of diffusionsim
From late 1800s until 1950s/60s, structural functionalism was leading theory in British anthropology
Basic Features of Structural Functionalism
Organic Analogy Society is like a biological organism, with structures and
functions Natural science orientation
Empirical, orderly, patterned Narrow conceptual territory
Investigations should be restricted to social structure (society)
Rarely paid much attention to art, language, ideology, the individual, technology, or environmental factors
Existing structures and institutions in any particular society contained indispensable functions without which the society would fall apart, and these structures and functions or their equivalents were found in all healthy societies
Basic Features of Structural Functionalism
Significance of kinship system and the family Equilibrium
Society was not only thought to be highly patterned, but also in a state of equilibrium and would re-equilibrate when disruptions occurred
Society exhibited long-term stability Anti-historical
Did not encourage a historical perspective Fieldwork Orientation
Devoted to first-hand, participant observational research
KEY FIGURES IN STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM
A.R. Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955)
Born in England Disciple of Durkheim Powerful theoretician Promoted three stages of scientific
investigation Observation (collecting data) Taxonomy (classifying the data) Generalizations (theoretical
excursions) Believed cross-cultural
comparisons and generalizations were essential to anthropology
Natural science model of society was unable to cope with complexities of social life
Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942)
Born in Poland, but taught in London
Father of Modern Fieldwork Long-term participant
observation in a small community
Research among Trobrianders Remained among them for
four years, setting standard for future fieldwork
Kula Ring
The Kula Ring
Necklaces were exchanged clockwise from one Trobriand island to another
Armshells were exchanged counter-clockwise
Exchange was ceremonial (neither item had any intrinsic value)
Exchanges increased level of interaction and decreased the degree of hostility among the people of various islands
Made bartering for valuable resources possible with others Could not barter with groups you exchanged
necklaces or armbands with Contributed to social solidarity and
prevented squabbles over who got the best deal
Malinowski vs. Radcliffe-Brown
Malinowski placed emphasis more on function than structure Focused more on what institutions actually contributed to
a society Radcliffe-Brown gave priority to social structure
Malinowski argued that the function of institutions was to satisfy biological needs. Radcliffe-Brown saw their function as fulfilling the mechanical needs of society
Malinowski stressed the importance of gathering native texts, or accounts of beliefs and behaviors in native’s own words
Malinowski & Radcliffe-Brown held many of the same views as well
Evaluation
Structural functionalism provided anthropology with a coherent and tidy framework
At its most basic level, procedure only required ethnographers to identify patterns of action and belief, and specify their functions.
Downplayed conflict and almost ignored social change
Structural functionalism suited to maintaining colonial empires once they had been established
CONCLUSIONS
Through the first phase of anthropology, there was a general commitment to establishing a scientific study of culture or society
METHODS
AIM: What methods did anthropologists use through the first phase of theories?
Methods
Methods courses were almost unheard of until the 1960s / 70s
Very little attention paid to ethics 1874 – Notes and Queries
Published by British Association for Advancement of Science in era before anthropologists began to collect their own data
Provided a guide to amateurs, highlighting themes and categories they should focus their inquiries on
The Fieldwork Situation
In the late 1800s, there was a division of labor between the professional anthropologist and amateur fieldworker Anthropologist remained in comfort of the library and museum Amateurs travelled to remote parts of the world collecting
materials By early 20th century, anthropologists themselves began
to do fieldwork At first the emphasis was on fieldwork rather then
participation When 1913 edition of Notes and Queries was published there
was an argument for intensive participant observation studies, to be carried out by a sole researcher in a small population over a period of at least a year
Basic Techniques and Related Elements - Fieldwork
Participant observation Reliance on informants The interview (usually unstructured) Genealogies & life histories Collecting census material Long period of fieldwork Learning indigenous language Emphasis on actor’s point of view
(emic) Emphasis on informal rather than
formal structure Back rather then front stage
Emphasis on validity rather than reliability Validity implies ‘truth’ Reliability just means that repeat studies
will produce same results Limit on size of population Comparative method as alternative to
controlled lab experiment
Inductive research design Reaching conclusion based on
observation: generalizing to produce a universal claim or principle from observed instances
Search for virgin territory Exaggeration of the degree of
cultural uniqueness The more exotic, the better
One’s research site should be as remote and isolated as possible so no other anthropologist will ever check up on one’s ethnographic findings
Fieldwork personality Flexible and perceptive, sense of
humor Strong constitution, good listener
Sustained disbelief Doubt about what people said, about
their explanations for beliefs and behavior…anthropologists had to get to the truth
PART TWO: PATCHING THE FOUNDATION
AIM: How did future theories help to fill in some of the holes of earlier anthropological theories?
CULTURAL ECOLOGY
AIM: How did future theories help to fill in some of the holes of earlier anthropological theories?
Historical particularism in America and structural functionalism in Britain proved to be the leading theoretical approaches, dominating the discipline up to World War II
By 1950s & 1960s anthropological landscape had changed Cultural ecology Conflict Theory Social Action Theory (…)
Each orientation, in different ways, attempted to keep the dream of a scientific study of society alive by patching the cracks that had begun to weaken historical particularism and structural functionalism
Cultural Ecology (and Neo-Evolutionism)
Julian Steward developed theoretical orientation about influence of the environment on culture
Eventually grafted into a revitalized version of evolutionism
Basic Features of Cultural Evolutionism
Culture is shaped by environmental conditions Techno-economic factors combine with environment to influence
social organization and ideology Human population continuously adapt to techno-economic-
environmental conditions Culture also shapes techno-economic-environmental factors Emphasis on etic rather then emic data
Meaning is a product of social structure Culture is purposeful and functional De-emphasis on the individual
Social structure, social groups, ecological and technological factors explain culture
Emphasis on etic data Capable of producing causal explanations and laws
Evolutionary context Ecological and technological factors driving force in human interaction, also
fundamental to historical development of society
KEY FIGURES IN CULTURAL ECOLOGY
Julian Steward (1902-1972)
Influenced by Boas 1955 – Theory of Culture Change
Ecology defined as adaption of culture to environmental and technological factors
Less developed the level of technology in a society, greater the influence of the environment Hunting-and-Gathering societies at whim of environment Social organization and population dictated by environment No economic surplus to permit stratification
As level of technology in a society improves, there is greater control over environment, increased economic surplus and population density, and a shift from egalitarianism to class stratification In highly advanced societies, environment ceases to be a controlling
force Cultural ecology loses influence when environment does not matter
Today, environmental factors such as pollution, deforestation, global warming are making people think twice about environment ceasing to be a controlling factor
Not only did environmental conditions shape culture, but each culture was composed of thoroughly practical and useful adaptions to its environment If a foreign culture consisting of agriculturalists and
possessing different social organization was plopped into ecological zone occupied by hunters-gathers, the alien culture (agriculturalists) would have to adapt their social organization and values to survive
Steward divided culture into core and periphery Core consisted of enduring and causal features of culture
Core includes social organization, politics, religion Cannot escape impact of techno-economic factors
Periphery consists of fortuitous or accidental features Includes artistic patterns, fads, quirks Largely independent of techno-environmental base
Steward and Evolutionism
Emphasis on critical role of environment in evolutionary scheme
Rejected notion of unilinear development Particular cultures diverge significantly
from one another and do not pass through unilineal stages
Cultures have evolved along several different lines, at different rates Multi-linear evolutionism
Rejected old assumption that evolution equals progress
Neo-evolutionistsUnilinear vs. Multi-linear
Leslie White (1900 -1975) American anthropologist Emphasized etic rather then emic Saw culture as a highly integrated entity rather then a loose
bundle of traits Assigned contributing priority to techno-economic factors, while
dismissing individual and personality as irrelevant to anthropology
Culture is utilitarian Culture composed of four sectors:
Technology Social Structure Ideological Attitudinal
White believes the symbol has replaced the gene in importance as an explanatory tool We live today in a symbolic universe, guided more by culture than
heredity Distinction between signs & symbols
Meaning of signs is inherent in things; meaning of symbols in things is arbitrary
Culture advances according to increase in amount of energy per capita per year E x T = C (E represents energy, T represents efficiency of tools, C represents
culture) Amount of energy varies across cultures Simplest societies rely completely on human energy
Marvin Harris (1927-2001)
Essentially an armchair anthropologist instead of a fieldworker
Cultural Materialism Focuses on and assigns causal priority to the
material conditions of life, such as food and shelter Before there can be music and poetry, people must eat
and be protected from the elements Human activity organized to satisfy the material
conditions of life is affected and limited by our biological make-up, the level of technology, and the nature of the environment, which in turn generate ideological and social organization responses.
Harris downplayed importance of emic data. People’s consciousness, perspectives,
interpretations, ideas, attitudes, and emotions never explain their reactions.
India’s Sacred Cow
The refusal of Indians to eat their cattle has often been interpreted as a perfect example of just how irrational cultural practices can be
According to Hindu doctrine of ahimsa, Indians should worship their cattle rather then eat them, even if they are starving. Spiritual obsession obligates material welfare
India’s Sacred Cow Harris suggests… India’s undersized cattle are far less important as a source of food
than they are as a source of power, fertilizer, transportation, and fuel
Undersized, undernourished cattle in India are perfectly suited to difficult environmental conditions they face
Rather then being irrational, it plays a positive and critical economic role in India
John Bennett (1916 – 2005)
Bennett recognized that culture not only adapts to ecological conditions, it also modifies them Key to cultural ecology is
adaption 1969 – Northern
Plainsmen Describing various ways in
which four different groups of people adapted to the same environment
Evaluation of Cultural Ecology
Emphasis on causality and objective conditions, especially technology and the environment, constituted a massive repudiation of historical particularism
Cultural ecology and neo-evolutionism aspired to be scientific, but to achieve that ‘soft’ data such as meaning, emotions, and individual motivation had to be relegated to the sidelines. Does not match up with contemporary
anthropology and its data
CONFLICT THEORY
AIM: How did future theories help to fill in some of the holes of earlier anthropological theories?
Conflict Theory
Structural functionalism was dominant theoretical orientation in British social anthropology right up to the 1950s A healthy society rested on a unified set of
indispensable, universal functions and equilibrium was maintained
Critics complained it puts cart before the horse
Structural functionalism was incapable to cope with social change
Basic Features of Conflict Theory Conflict is normal and widespread
Opposite to structural functionalism Conflict was viewed as abnormal and rare
Conflict knits society together, and thus maintains society in a state of equilibrium
Conflict with an outside group generates internal solidarity
Society consists of criss-crossing identities, loyalties, and strains which ultimately nullify each other, resulting in harmony and integration
Societal equilibrium is the product of the balance of oppositions
KEY FIGURES IN CONFLICT THEORY
Max Gluckman (1911 – 1975)
Guru of Manchester school of anthropology
Gluckman influenced by Radcliffe-Brown
Gluckman argued conflict is essential to social interaction
Society achieves equilibrium, product of conflict People tend to create different
sets of loyalties and allegiances which clash with each other
Criss-crossing loyalties cancel each other out
Lewis Coser (1913 – 2003)
Several scholars, independent of each other, were promoting the same ideas
Overlap with Gluckman Portrayed conflict as normal, widespread, and positive,
contributing to the integration of society and acting as a safety valve for strains that might otherwise build up and tear society apart
Group cohesion due to external conflict In some cases, external conflict is intentionally fostered
by societal elites in order to deflect hostility and tension within a community onto an imaginary enemy
Realistic Conflict Arises from frustration between two or more persons
Non-Realistic Conflict Free-floating frustrations; aggression flies off in all directions,
and rather than resolving the frustrations, aggression is an end in itself
Criticism was conflict model was disguised as an equilibrium model, slightly different then structural functionalism
Evaluation
During the several decades in which structural functionalism had dominated, conflict and strain had been ignored
Conflict theorists emphasize interests which divide people in society unite them, not common values
SOCIAL ACTION THEORY
AIM: How did future theories help to fill in some of the holes of earlier anthropological theories?
Social Action Theory (Interactional Theory)
When conflict theory proved to be an inadequate substitute for structural functionalism, British social anthropologists began to play around with other theoretical approaches
Central message in structural functionalism is that human beings conduct their behavior in accordance with the rules laid down by society Others argued social life is messy and disjointed. People say
one thing but do another; rather than adhering perfectly to the rules of society, they bend, twist, and ignore these rules as self-interest dictates
Theory that emerged had the capacity to cope with both social change and conflict
Referred to as processual, interactional, or transactional model
Basic Features of Interactional Theory
Society is constantly changing Norms are ambiguous and unclear, even contradictory There is a gap between normative order and actual
behavior, which means rules or norms do not explain behavior
Human beings are in constant competition for scarce goods and rewards
Humans must constantly choose between alternatives Emphasis on the individual as a self-interested
manipulator and innovator Emphasis on reciprocity, exchange, and transaction Focus on informal (back stage) rather than formal
structure (front stage)
KEY FIGURES IN INTERACTIONAL THEORY
F.G. Bailey (1929 - _ )
British social anthropologist who worked under Gluckman 1969 – Stratagems and Spoils Bailey challenged assumption that there is a simple, direct
relationship between normative order and actual behavior Assumption fails to take into account the degree to which individuals
manipulate the world around them Most people are guided by self-interest, thread our way between norms,
seeking the most advantageous route Bailey distinguishes between normative and pragmatic rules of
behavior Normative rules – general guides to conduct; make up the public, formal, or
ideal rules of a society Pragmatic rules – deviations from the ideal rules; tactics and strategies that
individuals resort to in order to effectively achieve their goals When pragmatic rules drastically increased, the normative order, or ideals
of a society, must be rebuilt to fit current realities Bailey’s assumption is that pragmatic rules more closely correspond to how
people actually behave
Stratagems and Spoils was an innovative work
The people portrayed by Bailey are not puppets controlled by institutional framework
People are active, choice-making agents locked in competitive struggle
Social structure is dynamic, continuously being reshaped by shifting allegiances, coalitions, and conflicts that characterize human interaction
Social Action model provides an alternative to structural functionalism In addition to laying the groundwork for a new
theoretical orientation, Bailey also provided a vocabulary to articulate it
Jeremy Boissevain (1928 - __)
1974 – Friends of Friends Social life unfolds in the informal arena, where
what counts is one’s contacts – who one knows rather than what one is qualified to do
In reality, people do what is best for themselves
Boissevain believes structural functionalism just documents how people are supposed to behave, not how they actually behave
Everyday life is acted out in an arena of competition and conflict, and social change rather than stability is the normal state of affairs
Fredrik Barth (1928 - __) Norwegian anthropologist 1966 – Models of Social Organization Describes relationship between leaders and
followers as a form of transaction Leaders provide protection, followers allegiance
Self-interested individuals manipulating values and norms to their own advantage, choosing between alternative strategies, and establishing relationships and alliances governed by reciprocity, with the whole process feeding back on and transforming the value system and social organization
Advocated a focus on the processes that produce structural form Central to this is the capacity of people to make
choices End products are patterns of behavior which are
formed and reformed over time
Victor Turner (1920 – 1983)
British cultural anthropologists Studied under Gluckman Worked on symbolism, ritual, and rites of passage Turner analyzed three types of conflict:
Conflict between principles of social organization Contradictions embedded in the social structure
Conflict between individuals and cliques striving for power, prestige, and wealth Inconsistent, even contradictory, norms exist side by side People must select and discard norms most advantageous
to their interests Internal conflict between egoism and altruism (selfish
or social motives)
Max Weber (1864 – 1920) Influenced by Marx According to Weber, society consisted of 4 quasi-
autonomous spheres - economic, political, legal, religious – and ideas, beliefs, and values had an independent causal impact on human conduct
Weber made important contribution to study of power, authority, the state, bureaucracy, class, and status
Weber believed there were significant differences between natural and the social sciences
Weber defined social action as intentional, meaningful, and oriented to others
The only real or concrete phenomenon was the individual human act Social institutions are not concrete realities, instead, they
consisted of a plurality of actors who only have a high probability of interacting for a particular purpose
Social Relation – two or more persons guided by meaningful conduct and oriented to each other Bridged the gap between actor and social institution.
Evaluation
Social action or transactional model can be traced back to the Manchester school presided over by Gluckman Trained Bailey, Boissevain, and Turner
Gap between what people say and what they do, or between rules of behavior and actual behavior
Incorporated conflict into framework
Critique
By concentrating on the intricate and complex maneuvers of individuals and coalitions, focus is lost on the larger social structural context
Fail to take history into account, and the degree to which it explains the present
Macro-Micro Dilemma How to achieve a sensitive, detailed
analysis of the local situation while simultaneously bringing into play the wider structural-historical context
Nature of anthropological theory changed dramatically from phase one to phase two, the pursuit of science remained the same
METHODS
AIM: What methods did anthropologists use through the second phase of theories?
Method
Cultural ecology, social action theory, and conflict theory tried to keep true to scientific Unintentionally made goal of science more
difficult Conflict theorists rejected assumption of
unified central value system Social Action writers promoted the image of a
choice-making, manipulative actor, and the porous, shifting social structure
Phase Two begins to see first gaps between theory and method
Methods Literature
Majority of anthropology professors of the time belonged to the sink-or-swim school Rather then being provided with techniques, students were advised to take lots of
notes and participate Young anthropologists began to write about their own fieldwork experiences
and set off an explosion of publications on ethnographic method Goal was make open and public what has been previously closed and mysterious ‘How To’ textbooks
Qualitative methods became very popular Profiled qualitative methods as a distinctive research approach, and gave it some
legitimacy Much of this literature was published by American anthropologists
Students learned methods by actually doing research, which was basically the attitude of earlier anthropologists
Purpose of methods literature was to demystify the fieldwork process, to render it more scientific Slight problem degree to which one’s data and interpretations are shaped by
one’s informants Two different informants can result in two radically different ethnographies Also pointed out role played by chance and accident in fieldwork
Cast doubt on anthropology as science
Fieldwork Situation
Most of the basic assumptions and elements of research that existed in phase one continued into phase two, with some modifications
Greater emphasis was placed on theory, and fieldwork became shorter
Students were encouraged to narrow the focus of their studies, and to concentrate on limited number of sharply defined problems rather then trying to cover everything
Recognition that outside social and historical forces always penetrate and shape the small community and must be taken into account
Recognition that cultures being studied were no longer primitive Interview emerged as a principle technique Increased emphasis on the ethics of fieldwork Greater sensitivity to ethical issues (rationalization)
Anthropologists began to accept they did not have a right to intrude on people’s lives Demand for research to be useful Fieldworkers to make research goals explicit Seek permission from and respect the privacy of people
New Rules of Thumb for Fieldwork
Use multi-methods, not just participant observation and informants Keep daily diary on methods Appendix on methods in report, thesis, or book
Information for the reader to understand methodological approach Keep data separated
Distinction between actor’s and observer’s interpretation is usually blurred Clearly identify native analytic concepts and observer analytic concepts in report,
book, or thesis Select research project on basis of a problem to be solved, rather than an area or
tribe to investigate Leading up to WWII, anthropologists looked for virgin territory
Let the research problem dictate your choice of methods Learn to count
Quantitative data…more specific then “more, less, a lot, a little” Provide universities in countries where research is conducted with copies of one’s
publication Part of new ethical stance
Assure informants represent all sectors of a community Do fieldwork abroad and at home
Formal Analysis
In the American school there was an even greater effort to introduce more systematic research procedures
Formal analysis supposedly was able to provide a scientific explanation of mentalist data Sometimes labeled cognitive anthropology
Formal analysis can be written off as a quick blip on the anthropological record with few followers
Case Study One: A West African Utopia
Challenge of impression management Age, sex, ethnicity, country of origin, religion, etc. all will have an impact
Four distinct research roles Complete participant Participant who observes Observer who participates Complete observer
Managing deviants First individuals who cozy up to anthropologist tend to be deviants, people
who for some reason or other are marginal in their communities Participant observation is crucial Need informants to interpret what you have observed and provide
information to which you have not had access Moral &Transactional informants
Moral based on trust and friendship; transactional informant is paid Nothing ever works out as planned Critical turning point – an event or situation that has determined whether
the project continued or was abandoned How do you know when to stop your fieldwork?
Case Study Two: The Radical Right in Canada
Influence of anthropologists background and bias
Conclusion
The theoretical literature, the methods of literature, and actual fieldwork had begun to head in different directions, a trend that picked up speed in phase three
PART THREE: DEMOLITION AND RECONSTRUCTION
Theory
For the one hundred years prior to the 1970s, the discipline of anthropology of swung back and forth between hard and soft versions of science Objective conditions such as technology and environment Subjective conditions portraying people as robots controlled by a rigid
social structure, or active, manipulating agents in an ever-changing universe
Goal throughout was of a scientific study of society Emergence of structuralism, postmodernism, and feminist
anthropology basically discarded science Structuralism – questioned positivism, emphasis on empirical data,
evidence, confirmation of a hypothesis Postmodernism & Feminists – questioned fieldwork. Ethnographic fieldwork
accused of gender and cultural bias, as powerful and privileged academics misrepresented the lives of natives and women for the benefit of Western males.
Aim was not to patch up scientific foundation of anthropology as in phase two…phase three aimed to dismantle discipline and start over again
STRUCTURALISM
AIM: Why did structuralism appear?
Structuralism
Structuralism in the 1960s and 1970s was a theoretical perspective with a distinct methodological approach
Offered an alternative to positivism
Basic Features of Structuralism
Deep structure vs. Surface structure Structuralists examine the underlying principles and variables (deep structure) that generate
behavior instead of empirical, observable behavior (surface structure) Structuralists focus analysis on deep structure, where the range of key variables is more confined
Primacy of unconscious over conscious What motivates people lies beyond their consciousness at the level of deep structure
Etic vs. Emic analysis Structuralism places priority on etic analysis. Relegates to the explanatory sidelines the individual human being, whose motives and
actions are seen as largely irrelevant and merely a distraction to the researcher Structuralism sometimes described as having an anti-humanistic orientation
Emphasis on synchrony vs. diachrony (change) Structuralists are concerned with repetitive structures Different forms of social organization are produced over and over again by the underlying
principles Reversibility of time
Distinction drawn between chronological (historical) and mechanical (anthropological) time Chronological time is cumulative; events unfold across history Mechanical time is repetitive, events unfold across space
According to structuralists, social organization supposedly is reproduced generation after generation
Basic Features of Structuralism
Transformational analysis Assumed different institutions of human existence – economic organization, marriage systems, architecture,
ritual – are transformations of each other, manifestations of the same finite set of underlying principles Linguistic analogy
Aspects of culture derive their meaning in the context of the overall system of relationships in which they are embedded
Various cultural institutions constitute codes or messages that anthropologists decode, to tell us what they are saying
Focus on mental life Emphasis on belief systems, cognitive maps, and oral and written thought Main focus on mythology, understood as a distinctive ‘language’ or ‘code’ that reflects the way the human brain
operates and articulates fundamental themes, dilemma's, and contradictions in life Neurological reductionism
Behind the level of observable behavior (surface level), lies the principles that generate everyday interaction Assumption culture is modified and restricted by the operations of the brain, which are thought to be universal across
humankind Structuralists strive to detect the impact of the brain on cultural organization
Dialectical method The brain is assumed to operate in terms of binary oppositions
Nature-culture bridge Is there any difference between humans and other animals?
Humans as classifiers Central to structuralism is contention that what makes humans unique is capacity for classification
Reduced models Types of culture or categories of culture reduced to most simplistic, elementary properties
Primitive culture contains basic elements that characterize human existence everywhere
KEY FIGURES IN STRUCTURALISM
Claude Levi-Strauss (1908 – 2009)
Structuralism in anthropology was almost single-handedly established by Levi-Strauss
Challenged empirical, positivistic tradition, arguing that culture is more like a language or logical system of signs than a biological organism (analogy used by structural-functionalists) Implication was epistemological and methodological
approach favored in natural science was not appropriate for anthropology
Several reasons, according to Levi-Strauss for not focusing on surface structure At the level of observable human interaction there are too
many facts, too much going on At the empirical level there is a degree of randomness that
makes systematic analysis exceedingly difficult When investigating cultural life, the focus is on
underlying principles which generate the surface patterns, not the patterns themselves
Levi-Strauss always tried to reduce data to binary oppositions
Best known for his imaginative analysis of mythology Assumed that myths constitute a kind of language Myths are vehicles which supposedly take the analyst close to the
workings of the brain Concerned with what myths indicate about the brain ‘operations’ Not so much in what humans think as in how they think
Rejected basic methodological principle beliefs and behaviors must be explained in their specific cultural context One version of a myth is not better then another Attempts to explain myths that occur in one part of the world with
those that are found in other parts of the world In mechanical time, cultural materials such as myths do not
progress chronologically; they are simply reproduced across space
Consists of decoding the messages in a cultural institution, and tracing these codes as they are transformed from one institution to another
Edmund Leach (1910 – 1989)
Trained by Malinowski Political Systems of Highland Burma (1965)
Drew a distinction between actual behavior and anthropological models used to explain it.
Everyday behavior is dynamic, messy, driven by choice, contradiction, power
Anthropological models, in contrast, are always equilibrium models Provide a sense of orderliness in an otherwise chaotic
universe Leach’s achievement was to retain a fundamental
feature of structural-functionalism, the notion of equilibrium, while simultaneously promoting social action model contained in Malinowski’s work
Evaluation
Levi-Strauss placed big question about humankind back on the anthropological agenda…what does it mean to be human? There are no superior societies Threw out conventional, positivistic science Argued structuralism constituted the appropriate scientific
procedure for the investigation of culture Defined social structure not as a general representation of the
empirical world, but rather as an abstraction or model in which variables consist of logical relationships between things instead of things themselves
In the 1960s & 1970s, Levi-Strauss was probably most highly regarded anthropologist alive
Given his popularity, it is amazing how quickly structuralism fell out of favor Dealt almost exclusively with mentalist data, failed to relate data
to material world, and sidestepped major social and political issues
POSTMODERNISM
AIM: Why did postmodernism appear?
Postmodernism
Although Levi-Strauss thought he was still engaged in scientific work, it was radically different version of science Non-positivistic & non-verifiable
With postmodernism, no longer was the case of science being unobtainable due to technical obstacles
Postmodernists regarded fieldwork as a political activity whereby powerful Westerners have traditionally represented (or misrepresented) the lives of non-Westerners, depersonalized and objectified them as scientific specimens
Basic Features of Postmodernism (Interpretive Anthropology)
Challenge to anthropological authority Arrogant for anthropologists to assume they have capacity and responsibility to describe, interpret, and
represent lives of people in other cultures. Assumption is people in other cultures lacked capacity to speak for themselves.
Dialogical and polyvocal approaches Complex dialogue between ethnographer and ‘the natives,’ a joint venture out of which meaning and
interpretation emerge. Anthropologist lets go of some authority and allows for voices from research subjects. Ethnography as a literary text
Can be analyzed in terms of tone, style, and literary devices. Can be analyzed using the tools of literary criticism. Focus on interpretation and meaning rather than on causality and behavior
Culture is regarded as a system of signs and symbols, a complex of meanings. Anthropologist joins forces with ‘the natives’ and interpret it.
Trend away from grand theory and generalization Positivism is regarded as both inadequate and immoral. It cannot cope with the vision of culture as an endless
complex of changing and contested individual interpretations and meanings. Postmodernists, in contrast, emphasize the particular and the unique, valorize (give validity to) ‘the other’
(subjects of the research), and are comfortable with an image of social life that is inherently fragmented, disjointed, and incomplete.
Renewed emphasis on relativism Relativism, pioneered by Boas, emphasized uniqueness of each and every culture. Simple view that customs had to be understood initially in their specific cultural context and it was unacceptable
to comment on the moral worth of customs, especially by comparing them negatively to those in one’s own culture.
Author-saturated rather than data-saturated ethnography Author has taken center stage – how the author ‘knows’ a culture and interprets data, how meaning is
negotiated between researcher and the researched, self-conscious musings on the subjective experience of fieldwork.
KEY FIGURES IN POSTMODERNISM
George Marcus & Michael Fischer “Interpretive Anthropology” Social life must fundamentally be
conceived as negotiation of meanings Importance of relativism –subjective
value according to differences in perception
Clifford Geertz (1926 – 2006)
American cultural anthropologist “Thick Description” essay (1973)
“Believing, with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of a law but an interpretive one in search of meaning.”
Interpretive anthropology aims for ‘thick description’ by generalizing deeply within cases.
Emphasis on texts and writing and the switch from structure causality to meaning and interpretation. “Anthropological writings are themselves interpretations.”
Geertz continues to regard interpretive perspective as a science
Evaluation
Criticisms against Postmodernism Postmodernists demand that the author as the sole authority step
down, that books be dialogical, recognizing all voices that are involved Critics believe this goal is not feasible
Postmodernism may amount to a post-fieldwork model If research, especially in our own cultures, is unsound both on epistemological
grounds (how can we ‘know’ the other) and on ethical grounds (what right do we have to represent the other), why not just give up on it completely?
Postmodernism, with its heightened sensitivity to ‘the other,’ and its critique of positivistic, colonial anthropology, appears to be radical, even revolutionary.
Sometimes contended that there are no standards in postmodernism, that one cultural account is as good as any other, that anything goes.
Views postmodernism primarily as a power play, with academics jockeying for influence, mobility, tenure, and promotion.
FEMINIST ANTHROPOLOGY
AIM: Why did Feminist Anthropology appear?
Feminist Anthropology
Academic feminism has been paralleled and fuelled by the ongoing actions and changes in the empirical world, notably in connection to the women’s movement.
Anthropology has provided the basis for exploring numerous issues significant to feminism, such as whether gender roles and female oppression have been universally the same or culturally diverse.
Basic Features of Feminist Anthropology
All social relations and knowledge is gendered Gender must be included alongside class, status, role, power, and age
as a basic term Distinctive epistemology
Research should be a collaborative, dialogical affair Subjectivity (bias) is associated with females, and is superior to ‘male’
objectivity (neutrality) Urges female scholars to incorporate their own subjective experiences
of oppression into their research projects Distinctive ethics
Primary purpose of research is to empower women and eliminate oppression
Anti-positivism Language of science is regarded as the language of oppression.
Positivistic research is said to serve the interest of elites. Value-neutrality, even if possible, would be ruled out, because feminist
research unapologetically promotes the interests of women
Basic Features of Feminist Anthropology
Preference for qualitative methods Empathy, subjectivity, and dialogue supposedly allow the investigator to
understand the inner worlds of women, helping them to articulate and combat their oppression
The life history A specific qualitative technique, was very prominent in the social sciences
before WWII, had been rediscovered by feminist writers. Seen as a means to give voice to people, vividly to capture institutional and
historical forces as they impinge on and are experienced by individuals. Female essence
Provides a counter-balance to misogynist representations Universal sexual asymmetry
Anthropology has proved to be fertile ground for examining two key questions. Has gender inequality existed in all cultures at all times? Has gender inequality increased or decreased as human societies have moved
through history? Anthropology of women versus feminist anthropology
Anthropology of women was the forerunner to feminist anthropology
KEY FIGURES IN FEMINIST ANTHROPOLOGY
Marjorie Shostak
Nisa: The Life and Works of a !Kung Woman (1981) Wanted to find out what it meant to be female
among the !Kung Some people question the ethnography because
the fact that only in the two-week period before Shostak’s departure did the focus on the woman called Nisa crystalize.
Apparent lack of deep rapport, and the businesslike arrangement (Nisa was paid for her interviews) that Shostak was forced into with Nisa in order to obtain her cooperation, raise considerable doubt about the validity of the central theme of the book; Nisa’s obsession with sex
Gives voice to and humanizes a !Kung woman
Elvi Whittaker
Canadian anthropologist 1994 - “Decolonizing Knowledge: Towards a
Feminist Work Ethic and Methodology” Concerned with the representation of women
by men Relationship between men and women is
comparable to that between the colonized and colonizer.
In both, Western, white, heterosexual males have imposed their world view on the other (women and colonial peoples)
Feminism and Marxism
Both center on issues of inequality and oppression, with women compared to natives
Marxists charge feminism with promoting gender at the expense of class, resulting in an analysis that props up the ruling class.
Feminists accuse Marxism of being male-oriented approach that serves the interests of men by promoting class at the expense of gender, obscuring women’s rights.
Feminism and Postmodernism Both concerned with the issue of
representation Feminism – woman’s voice Postmodernism – multiple voices
Evaluation
Although there are a several varieties of feminism, they all start off from the assumption that conventional social science has been male-biased
Four reactions to this… Don’t do anything
How most social scientists have responded Add women when convenient to one’s
analysis Women-centered research Non-sexist research
METHOD
AIM: What methods did anthropologists use through the third phase of theories?
Method
With the emergence of postmodernism and feminist methodology, science took a pounding Hope was qualitative research would be
seen as rigorous and explicit as quantitative research
Methods Literature
Major change was the emergence of literature on the use of computers in qualitative research
Software programs are no substitutes for the researcher’s insights and interpretations
Tendency to exaggerate scientific quality of their reports , assuming that because they have used a computer their work must be valid
The Fieldwork Situation
In phase three, there was a huge gap between the theoretical and methods literature
By the 1990s, a few changes in the fieldwork situation had become apparent Life history had been revived as the principle technique Comparative method was not dead
By phase two it had been recognized that no community was isolated and that the external forces that impinged on it had to be taken into consideration
By phase three, outside forces didn’t just intrude into the small community; they were an essential part of the community
Tendency of shorter field work continued from phase two into phase three
FIN