E315 SSE 71A

COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION

BACHELOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION MAJOR IN SOCIAL STUDIES 3A
PROF. PANFILO CANAY, PH.D

CHAPTER 4 | THE GROWTH OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL THEORY

OBJECTIVES:
 To define what is theory and how can
it be useful. As anthropologists began to accumulate data on different cultures during the 19th
 To name the important theorists in century, they needed to be able to explain the cultural differences and similarities
cultural anthropology since the mid they found. This desire to account for vast cultural variations gave rise to
19th century. anthropological theories. A Theory is a statement that suggests a relationship
among phenomena. Theories enable us both to explain or postulate that certain
 To determine the theories have
behaviors occur as a result of a certain set of similar circumstances in different
anthropologists used to explain
cultures. Theories help to guide one’s research and allow for making sense out of
cultural differences and similarities
a variety of ethnographic information from different parts of the world. A good
among people of the world. theory is one that can both explain and predict. In other words, theories provide
 To apply anthropological theories in models for what we learn and know about cultures and enable us to bring some
solving societal problems. measure of order to a vastly complex world.
Theories are useful in research because they guide empirical (hands-on) research and may contribute to generating hypotheses
(unproven propositions that can provide a basis for further investigation) to be tested in the research investigation.
Anthropological theories attempt to answer such questions as Why do people behave as they do? And How do we account for
human diversity? These questions guided 19th century attempts to theorize, and they continue to be relevant today.
While training, all anthropologists learn about various anthropological theories and the importance of theory in guiding their
research. For example, anthropological theory or theoretical framework (school of thought) is necessary because it provides an
explanatory framework for the research to be conducted on past or present cultures, or in particular topical area. What theory is
chosen, how it is used or why it is used is related to the type of anthropological questions the research is interested in exploring.
Theoretically driven research helps to build new insights in our understanding of peoples’ culture.
Ethnographic anthropologists may be interested in why people of a particular culture share a symbolic understanding of
something that is linked to identity or ethnic. An applied anthropologist may see the importance of symbol by focusing on the
collective attraction to a symbol from a particular segment of a society, and then look for ways the symbol may provide an
understanding of inequality and unequal access to power, capital, and other resources. This applied approach to understanding the
importance of a symbol may lead to the first explanation for social problem and second to developing an intervention to
minimize the disparity emanating from the social problem.
In general both ethnographic and applied anthropologists rely on theory to guide their research and interpret their findings. This
chapter has a brief history of different theoretical frameworks that are at the foundation of anthropology.
EVOLUTIONISM
The first group of early anthropologists suggestedThethefirst group
theory of early
of cultural anthropologists
evolution. Their
suggested the theory of cultural evolution.
Their basic idea was that all societies pass
through a series of distinct evolutionary stages.
We find differences in contemporary cultures
because they are at different evolutionary stages
of development. This theory was develop by sir
Edward Tylor in England Lewis Henry
Morgan in the United States, placed
Euro-american cultures at the top of the
Figure 4.1 Edward Tylor (left) and Lewis Henry evolutionary ladder and “Less-developed”
Morgan (right), 19th century Evolutionists cultures on the lower rungs. The evolutionary
processmore
progress from simpler (lower) forms to increasingly was thought
complexto(higher)
progr forms
k of culture.
Thus the “primitive” societies at the bottom of the evolutionary ladder had only to wait an
indeterminable length of time before eventually rising to the top. It was assumed that all cultures
would pass through the same set of preordained evolutionary stages.
Although this evolutionary scheme appears terribly ethnocentric by today’s standards, we
must remember that it replaced the prevailing theory that small scale, preliterate societies were
composed of people whose ancestors had fallen from God’s grace. Hunters and gatherers, it had
been argued previously, possessed simple levels of technology because their fall from favor had
made them intellectually inferior to peoples with greater technological complexity.
While Tylor (1832-1917) was writing in England, Morgan (1818-1881) was founding the
evolutionary school in the United States. Morgan, a lawyer in Rochester, New York, was hired to
represent the neighboring Iroquois Indians in a land grant dispute.
 After the lawsuit was resolved, Morgan conducted an ethnographic study of the Seneca Indians
(an Iroquois group). Fascinated by the Seneca Indians (who trace their family line of descent and
inheritance rights through the mother’s line only), Morgan circulated questionnaires and traveled
around the United States and elsewhere gathering information about kinship systems among
native North Americans and other native cultures. This kinship research-which may be Morgan’s
most enduring contribution to the comparative study of culture-was published in his book
Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family, in 1871.
Six year later Morgan wrote his famous book, Ancient Society (1877). In keeping with the
general tenor of the times, he develop a system of classifying cultures to determine their
evolutionary niche. Morgan like Tylor, used the categories savagery, barbarism, and
civilization, but was more specific in defining them according to the presence or absence of
certain technological features. Subdividing the stages savagery and barbarism into three distinct
subcategories (lower, middle, and upper), Morgan (1877:12) defined seven evolutionary stages-
through which all societies allegedly passed:
1. Lower Savagery- from the earliest forms of humanity subsisting on fruits and nuts.
2. Middle Savagery- began with the discovery of fishing technology and the use of fire.
3. Upper Savagery- began with the invention of the bow and arrow.
4. Lower Barbarism- began with the advent of pottery making
5. Middle Barbarism- began with the domestication of plants and animals in the Old World
and irrigation cultivation in the New World.
6. Upper Barbarism- began with the smelting of iron and the use of iron tools.
7. Civilization- began with the invention of the phonetic alphabet and writing.
The theories of Morgan and Tylor have been criticized by succeeding generations of
anthropologists for being ethnocentric because they concluded that Western societies
represented the highest level of human achievement. They also been criticized for being
armchair speculators, putting forth grand schemes to explain cultural diversity based on
fragmentary data at best. Although there is considerable substance to these criticism, we must
evaluate the 19th century evolutionists with an eye toward the times in which they were writing.
As David Kaplan and Robert Manners (1986: 39-43) remind us, Tylor and Morgan may have
overstated their case somewhat because they were trying to establish what Tylor called “the
science of culture,” whereby human behavior was explained in terms of secular evolutionary
processes rather than supernatural causes.
We can’t deny that Morgan and Tylor had established the notion (on which modern cultural
anthropology now rests) the differences in human lifestyles are the result of certain identifiable
cultural processes rather than biological process or divine intervention. Moreover, Morgan’s use
of techno-economic factors to distinguish among fundamentally different types of cultures
remains a viable concept.
EVOLUTIONISM IN BRIEF
 All cultures pass through the same developmental stages in the same order.
 Evolution is unidirectional and leads to higher (better) levels of culture.
 A deductive approach is used to apply general theories to explain specific areas
 Evolutionism was ethnocentric because evolutionists put their own societies at the top.
DIFFUSIONISM
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, diffusionism arose and it addressed the question of
cultural differences in the world but came up with a radically different answer. Evolutionsim may have
overestimated human inventiveness by claiming that cultural features have arisen in different parts of
the world independently of one another, as a result in large measure of the psychic unity of the
humankind Diffusionism held that humans were essentially uninventive. According to diffusionists,
certain cultural features were invented originally in one or several parts of the world and then spread,
through the process of diffusion, to other cultures.
Represented by Grafton Elliot Smith (1871-1937) and William James Perry (1877-1949) in
England and Fritz Graebner (1877-1934) and Wilhelm Schmidt (1868-1954) in Germany and
Austria, diffunism had run its course by the early part of the 20th century. To be certain, diffusionists
started with a particularly sound anthropological concept- that is, cultural diffusion- but they either
took it to its illogical extreme or left too many questions unanswered. Few cultural anthropologists
today would deny the central role that diffusion plays in the process of culture change. Smith and
Perry, took this essentially valid concept ad absurdum by suggesting that everything found in the
world could ultimately be traced back to the early Egyptians. Moreover, even though they collected
considerable historical data, the diffusionists were not able to answer a number of important questions
concerning the process of cultural diffusion. For example, when culture comes into contact with one
another, what accounts for the diffusion of some cultural items but not other? What determines the rate
at which a cultural item spreads throughput a geographic region? Diffusionists failed to raise certain
important questions, such as why certain traits arose in the first place. Despite these limitations, they
were the first to point out the need to develop theories dealing with contact and interaction among
cultures.
 DIFFUSIONISM IN BRIEF
 All societies change as a result of cultural dependency of one another
 A deductive approach is used, with the general theory of diffusion being applied to explain specific cases of cultural
diversity.
 The theory overemphasized the essentially valid idea of diffusion.

AMERICAN HISTORICISM
Began in early 20th century as a reaction to the deductive approaches, under the leadership of
Franz Boas (1858-1942). coming from an academic background in physics and geography, Boas was
dismayed by what he saw as speculative theorizing masquerading as science. To Boas’s way of
thinking, anthropology was on the wrong path. Rather than dreaming up large, all-encompassing
theories to explain why particular societies are the way they are, Boas wanted to put the discipline on a
sounding footing using an inductive approach; that is, Boas planned to start by collecting specific data
and then move on to develop general theories. Boas felt that the enormous complexity of factors
influencing the development of specific cultures rendered any type of sweeping generalization, such as
those proposed by the evolutionists and diffusionists, totally inappropriate. Thus, Boas and his
followers insisted on collecting detailed ethnographic data through fieldwork and at the same time
called for a moratorium on theorizing.
Some of Boas’s more severe critics claimed that this anti theoretical stance was responsible for
hindering the discipline of anthropology as science. Yet, in retrospect, most commentators would agree
that his experience in the area of physics and mathematics enabled Boas to bring to the young
Figure 4.2 Franz Boas, he put discipline of anthropology both methodological rigor (such as in the form of systematic and thematic
cultural anthropology in an
data collection) and a sense of how to define problems in scientific terms. Even though Boas himself
empirical basis.
did little theorizing, he left the discipline on a sound empirical footing so that those who followed him
could develop cultural theories.
The impact Boas has on anthropology is perhaps most eloquently demonstrated by the long list of
anthropologists he trained. As one of the earliest anthropologists in the United States, trained virtually
the entire first generation of U.S. anthropologists. The lists of Boas’s students reads like Who’s Who in
20th Century U.S. Cultural Anthropology: Margaret Mead, Robert Lowie, Alfred Kroeber, Edward
Sapir, Melville J. Herskovits, Ruth Benedict, Paul radin, Jules Henry, E. Adamson Hoebel, and Ruth
Bunzel.
In recruiting graduate students to study anthropology with him at Columbia university, Boas,
from the beginning, was purposeful about attracting women to the discipline. Recognizing that male
fieldworkers would be excluded from observing certain aspects of a culture because of their gender,
Boas felt that the discipline needed both male and female ethnographers to describe culture more
completely. Today, compared to other academic discipline, cultural anthropology has been producing
more female that males, a legacy that we can associate with Boas’s methodological concerns when the
discipline was in its formative period.
AMERICAN HISTORICISM IN BRIEF
 Ethnographic facts must precede the development of cultural theories (induction).
 Any culture is partially composed of traits diffused from other cultures.
 Direct fieldwork is absolutely essential.
 Each culture is, to some degree, unique.
 Ethnographers should try to get the view of those being studies (emic), not their
own (etic).
FUNCTIONALISM
While Franz Boas was putting anthropology on a more empirical footing in the
United States, Bronislaw Malinowski(1884-1942) was also proceeding inductively
by establishing a tradition of first hand data collection in the United Kingdom. Like
Boas, Malinowski was a strong advocate of fieldwork. Both men insisted on learning
the local language and trying to understand a culture from an insider’s view (emic
approach). They differed, however, in that Malinowski had no interest in asking how
a cultural item got to be the way it is. Believing that little could be learned about the
origins
origins ofof
small-scale societies.
small-scale societies, Malinowski
concentrated on exploring how contemporary
Figure 4.3 One of the longest uninterrupted cultures operated or functioned. This theoretical
fieldwork experiences on record, Bronislaw orientation, known as functionalism/functional
Malinowski not only set the standard for theory, assumed that cultures provided various
conducting the fieldwork but also means for satisfying both societal and individual
developed an important new way of looking needs. According to Malinowski, no matter how
at contemporary cultures; functionalism. bizarre a cultural item might at first appear, it had
a meaning and performed some useful function a meaning
for theand performed of
whole-being someuseful function
the individual for
or the
society. The job of anthropologists is to become sufficiently immersed in the culture and
language to be able to identify these functions.
 Not only do all aspects of a culture have a function, but, according to Malinowski,
they are also related to one another. This functionalist tenet to better illustrated that
Malinowski’s own description of the kula ring, a system of trade found among the
Trobriand Islanders. The kula not only performs the function of distributing goods within
the society, but is also related to many other areas of Trobriand culture- including political
structure, magic, technology, kinship, social status, myth, and social control.
To illustrate, the kula involves the exchange of both ceremonial necklaces and
bracelets and every commodities between trading partners on a large number of islands.
Eve though the exchanges are based on the principle of reciprocity, usually long periods of
time lapse between repayments made by trading partners. Alvin Gouldner (1960: 174)
suggested that during these periods, debtors are morally obligated to maintain peaceful
relationships with their benefactors. If this is the case, we can see how the kula ring
maintains peace and thereby functions as a mechanism to social control as well as a
medium of material exchange. Thus, by examining a culture; feature (such as the kula ring)
Figure 4.4 locator Map of Trobriand
Islands, Papua New Guinea in greater depth, ethnographers, according to this functionalist perspective, will begin to see
how it is related to many other aspects of the culture and what it contributes to individual
and society as a whole.
Another form of functionalism was developed by the British anthropologist Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955). like
Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown held that the various aspects of a society should be studied in terms of the functions they perform.
Whereas Malinowski viewed functions mostly as meeting the needs of the individual, Radcliffe-Brown saw them in terms of
contributing to the well-being of the society. Because of this emphasis on social functions rather than individual functions,
Radcliffe-Brown’s theory has taken the name structural functionalism.
The functionalist approach, most closely associated with Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown, is based on two fundamental
principles. First, the notion of universal functions is that every part of a culture has a function. For example, the function of a hammer
is to drive nails into wood, the function of a belief in an omnipotent God is to control people’s behavior, and the function of shaking
hands in the United States is to communicate non verbally one’s intentions to be friendly. The second principle, known as functional
unity, is that a culture is an integrated whole composed of a number of interrelated parts. As a corollary to this second principle, it
follows that if the parts of a culture are interconnected, then a change in one part of the culture is likely to produce change in other
parts.
Even thought anthropologists such as Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown fought vigorously for
the acceptance of the functionalist approach, the most effective revisions of the functionalist theory
came from sociologists, most notably Robert Merton (1910-2003). For example, in his influential
book Social Theory and Social Structure (1957), Merton suggests that although every cultural item
may have function, it would be premature to assume that every item must have a function. As a result,
Merton proposed the notion of dysfunction as a source of stress or imbalance in a cultural system.
According to Merton, whether a cultural trait is functional or dysfunctional can be resolved only by
empirical research.
FUNTIONALISM IN BRIEF
 Through direct fieldwork, anthropologists seek to understand how the parts of contemporary
cultures contribute to the well-being of the individual and the society.
 Society is like a biological organism with many interconnected parts.
 With this high level of integration, societies tend to be in a state of equilibrium; a
change in one part of the system brings change in other parts.
 The existing institutional structure of any society performs indispensable functions
without which the society could not continue.

PSYCHOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
As early as 1920’s U.S. anthropologists became interested in the relationship between culture and the individual.
Radcliffe-Brown, warning against what he called psychological reductionism, looked almost exclusively to social structure for his
explanations of human behavior. A number of Boas’s students, however, were asking some theoretically powerful questions: What role
do personality variables play in human behavior? Should personality be viewed as a part of the cultural system? If personality variables
are part of the culture, how are they casually related to the rest of the system? Wanting to relate some of the insights of Gestalt and
Freudian psychology to the study of culture, the early psychological anthropologists looked at child rearing practices and personality
from a cross cultural perspective. They held that child-rearing practices (which are an integral part of a culture) help shape the
personality structure of the individual, which in turn influences the culture. Thus, they saw an interactive relationship among
child-rearing practices, personality structure, social structure, and culture.
Individuals learn their cultural patterns unconsciously, Edward Sapir (1884-1939) suggested, in much
the same way that their learn their language. Sapir believed that the true locus of culture could be found
within the interactions of individuals. Albeit, Sapir did no direct fieldwork himself in this area of culture and
personality, his writings and lectures stimulated interest in this topic among other anthropologists, most
notably Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead. Psychological anthropology studies the relationship between the
culture and personality, answers such questions as How do the video gaming habits of U.S. children affect
children’s personality structures? And How do these personality structures, in turn, affects other parts of the
culture.

Figure 4.5 Edward Sapir

 Ruth Benedict (1887-1948), a student of Boas, was one of the earliest anthropologists to suggest each
society produces its own personality characteristics. In Patterns of Culture (1934) she claimed that each
society unconsciously chooses a limited number of cultural traits and that individuals within society
internalize them through a wide range of enculturation practices. Benedict suggested, this results in
similar ways of thinking and behaving that form a group personality pattern. To illustrate her
perspective, Benedict analyzed the basic personality traits of two societies: the Kwakiutl Indians of the
Pacific Northwest and Zuni Indians of the US Southwest. She claimed that Kwakiutl were an aggressive
people that were prone to excess and competition. In contrast, the Zuni were described as peaceful,
restrained, and distrustful of excesses and disruptive disputes. As you can imagine, Benedict’s ideas
have been sharply criticized as stereotyping. In the end and to this day, little evidence suggests that any
society has a modal or group personality. However characterizing a group by its cultural style continues
Figure 4.6 Ruth Benedict to be of interest to interpretive anthropologists.
Margaret Mead (1901-1978), a student of both Boas and Benedict, was one of the most
prolific writers in the field of culture and personality. After completing her graduate training under
Boas and Benedict at Columbia University, Mead became fascinated with the general topic of
growing up- enculturation- and the emotional disruption that seemed to accompany adolescence in
the United Sates. Psychologists at that time maintained that the stress and emotional problems found
among US adolescents were a biological fact of life and occurred at puberty in all societies. But
Mead wanted to know whether this emotional problem was the result of being an adolescent or being
an adolescent in the US. In her first book Coming of Age in Samoa (1928), she reported that the
permissive family structure and relax sexual patterns among Samoans were responsible for a calm
adolescence. She concluded that emotional turbulence among adolescents in US was culturally
rather than biologically based based US adolescent sexuality was (at the time) strictly monitored.
Mead turned to the question of gender roles. Based on her research among the Arapesh, Tchambuli, Figure 4.6 Margaret Mead
conducting fieldwork in
and Mundugumor of New Guinea, she attempted to demonstrate that there were no universal
Admiralty Island in 1953.
temperaments that were exclusively masculine and feminine. Mead reported that among the Arapesh
both men and women had what Westerners would consider feminine temperaments (nurturing,
cooperative, non-aggressive, maternal). Both Mundugumors men and women displayed exactly the
opposite traits (ruthless, aggressive, violent demeanor), whereas among the Tchambuli there was a
complete reversal of the male-female temperaments found in north American culture. Mead
concluded in her Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies (1935) that our own
Western conception of masculine and feminine is not genetically based but rather is culturally
determined.
PSYCHOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY IN BRIEF
 Anthropologists need to explore the relationship between psychological and cultural
variables
 Personality is largely the result of cultural learning, but there is no modal cultural
personality type for a particular society.
 Universal temperaments associated with males and females do not exist.

NEOEVOLUTION
As early as 1930’s. Leslie White (1990-1975), a cultural anthropologist trained in the Boasian tradition in collecting detailed
ethnographic data on an emic approach, regenerated the theories of the 19th century evolutionists (Tylor and Morgan). White believed
that culture evolve from simple to increasingly more complex forms and that cultural evolution is as reals as biological evolution. White
said that Tylor and Morgan had developed a useful theory, but they lack the data to demonstrate it. White’s contribution to anthropology
was to suggest the cause (driving force) or evolution, which he called his “basic law of evolution.” As the amount of energy harnessed
annually increases or as putting energy to work becomes more efficient, a culture evolves.
In White’s Neoevolution model, culture evolves when people are able to increase the amount of energy under their control. For
most of human history, while people were hunters and gatherers, the major source of energy is human power. But with the domestication
of animals, and the invention of agriculture, the steam engine, the internal combustion engine, and nuclear power humans began to
dramatically increase the levels of energy at their disposal. For White, the significant equation was C5 ET, where C is the Culture, E is
the energy, and T is technology. Therefore, White’s mathematical equation offers and explanation of the mechanics for cultural
evolution. Cultural evolution is caused by advancing levels of technology and a culture’s increasing capacity to “Capture Energy” and
control it.
Julian Steward (1902-1972) rejected the particularist
orientation of Boas. He was interested in the relationship
between cultural evolution and adaptation to the environment.
But White’s approach (whole of human culture)was far too
general for Steward. For him, the main problem with White’s
theory was that it cannot explain why some cultures evolve by
having more energy under their control, whereas other do not.
One way of characterizing the difference between these two
prominent neoevolutionists is that White was interested in the
Figure 4.6 Julian Steward with Chief broad concept of culture and Steward was more interested in
Louis Billy Prince while seated outside developing propositions about specific cultures or groups of
of a wood buidling. Developed the cultures.
Cultural Ecology.
 Steward distinguished among three types of evolutionary thought. First, unilinear evolution (Tylor and Morgan), which
attempst to place particular cultures into certain evolutionary stages. Second, Steward called White’s approach universal evolution
because it is concerned with developing laws that apply to culture as a whole. Third, Steward called his own form multilinear
evolution, which focuses on the evolution of specific cultures without assuming that all cultures follow the same evolutionary
process.
Steward held that by examining sequences of change in different part of the world, one could
identify paths of development and some limited casual principles that would hold true for a number
of societies. Steward selected areas of the world that had produces complex societies (civilizations),
such as Egypt and the Middle East in the Old World, and Mexico and Peru in the New World. In all
of these cases, Steward tried to show certain recurring development sequences from earliest
agriculture to large, complex, urbanize societies.
Steward’ approach was base on analysis of the interaction between culture and environment.
He argues that people who face similar environmental challenges (such as arid or semiarid
conditions) are likely to develop similar technological solutions, which lead to the parallel
development of social and political institutions. Even though environment is the key variable in
Steward’s theory, he was not an environmental determinist because he recognized the variety of
human responses to similar environmental conditions. He proposed the cultural ecology by
focusing on the relationship among people, environment and culture. It is a theory to which many
anthropologists rely on today as they begin their research in political ecology.
NEOEVOLUTION IN BRIEF
 Culture evolves in direct proportion to their capacity to harness energy.
 Culture is shaped by environmental conditions.
 Through culture, human populations continuously adapt to techno-enviromental
conditions.
 Because technological and environmental factors shape culture, individual (personality)
factors are de-emphasized.

FRENCH STRUCTURALISM
Claude Levi-Strauss (1908-2009) focused on identifying the mental structures that hold social behavior. For him, ethnology
(comparing culture) tends to be more psychological or cognitive than sociological.
His approach was based on science of linguistics. Many linguists hypothesized that grammars are pre-programmed in human mind.
Likewise, Levi-Strauss claims that codes programmed in human mind is responsible in shaping cultures. Cultural differences occur,
because these inherent mental codes are altered by environment and history. He recognized that in the final analysis of mental structures
of all humans is the same. The content of a cultural element may vary from one society to another, but the structure of these elements is
limited by nature of the human mind. Levi-Strauss re-introduce his own version of the psychic unity of humankind first put first by the
diffusionists.
For Levi-Strauss the one of the basic characteristics of human mind is that it is programmed to
think in binary oppositions or opposites. All people have the tendency to think in terms of pairs of
opposites such as male-female, hot-cold, old-young, night-day, and right-left. These dichotomies give
shape to the culture. Consider for example, Levi-Strauss's interpretation of totemism, a belief system
found in many parts of the world that states a relationship bet ween social groups (such as clans or
lineages) as aspects of the natural world (plants and animals). Levi-Strauss suggested that totemic
belief are complex mental device that enable people to classify the unit of their culture and relate
them to the natural world. For example, in the northwest of US some American Indian group label
their ancestral lineage as the bear, wolf and eagle clan.
His structuralism has been criticized for being overly abstract. Because his theories are not
inclined to empirical testing, many anthropologists have rejected them. Even though French
structuralism does not appeal to any empirically oriented anthropologists, Levi-Strauss as made a
major contribution by directing our attention to the relationship between culture and cognition.
FRENCH STRUCTURALISM IN BRIEF
 Human cultures are shaped by certain pre-programmed codes of the human mind,
 Theory emphasizes repetitive structures rather than sociocultural change.
 Rather than examining attitudes, values, and beliefs, structural anthropologists
concentrated on what happens at the unconscious level.
 It is assumed that the human mind categorizes phenomena in terms of binary
oppositions.
ETHNOSCIENCE
Ethnoscientists attempt to understand a culture from the point of view of the people themselves by speaking to them directly about
their culture and language. Proponents are Ward Goodenough (1956) and William Sturtevant (1964)
In order to make ethnographic description more accurate that in the past, enthnoscientists try to describe a culture in terms of how it
is perceived, ordered and categorized by the members of that culture (anemic approach) rather than by imposing the categories of the
ethnographer (etic approach). Traditionally Western ethnographers used categories from their own cultures for describing another
culture. Whereas most middle-class North American would divide all of the items in the fresh produce department of a supermarket into
either fruits or vegetables, people from some other cultures would not. Whereas English speakers have different words for turquoise,
aqua, and teal, other cultures might include them all under a single color term, and still others would have thirty or more different words
for .
 for various shades of blues and greens. Whereas some cultures have different linguistic categories for
mother’s bother’s daughter and mother’s sister’s daughter, US these two family member are called
cousin. Thus the primary aim of ethnoscience is to identify the implicit rules, principles, and codes
that people use to classify the things and events in their world.
Ethnoscientists have been criticized for the reason that (1)through admitting that it may be desirable to get the natives’ viewpoint,
some anthropologists feel that one’s own conditioning and preconceptions make it impossible to get into the minds of culturally
different people, (2) even if it is possible to understand another culture from the natives’ point of view, how do ethnographers
communicate their findings to others in their own group? (3) if every ethnographers described specific cultures using native categories,
there would be no little or no basis for comparing different societies. (4) it is extremely time consuming. To date ethnoscientific studies
have been completed on limited domains of culture, such as kinship terms and color categories. The completion of an ethcoscientific
study of a total culture would go beyond the time capabilities of a single ethnographer. Despite its impracticability, the ethnoscientific
approach has served as a useful reminder of a fundamentally sound anthropological principle; People from different cultural and
linguistic backgrounds organize and categorize their worlds in essentially different ways.
CROSS-CULTURAL MISCUE
ETHNOSCIENCE IN BRIEF A major legacy of the Ethnoscientits
 This theory attempts to make ethnographic description more accurate and replicable.
is that they remind us to use the
 Ethnoscience describes a culture by using the categories of the people under study native categories (emic view) when
rather that by imposing categories from the ethnographer’s culture. understanding people from other
 Because it is time consuming, ethnoscience has been confined to describing small culture. We can get ourselves into
segment of a culture. trouble if we assume that people
prom diff. Cultures categorized the
world around them exactly as we do.

FEMINIST ANTHROPOLOGY
It was developed along side the wider women’s movement in the 1960s-70s and
rooted to psychological anthropology from Mead and Benedict. The feminist critique
of anthropology and past theoretical orientations was centered on the fact that
anthropology and and past orientations was androcentric (male-centered). Even
women were put under the anthropological lens, they were often portrayed as passive
objects rather than as prime players in the mainstream of social life.
As a long-overdue corrective to this neglect marginalization, a misrepresentation
of women in anthropology, feminist anthropology called for a systematic reanalysis of
the role women play in the social structure. As recounted by Micaela di Leonardo
(1991), feminist anthropologist in 1970s responded enthusiatically to the challenge of
reanalyzing and rewriting previous ethnographies “as if gender really mattered”.
Figure 4.6 Louise Lamphere doing fieldwork. Feminist like Louise Lamphere (1974), Sherry Ortner (1974), Eleanor Burke
She was the president of American Leacock (1978), and Michael Zimbalist Rosaldo (1974) among others tried to
Anthropological Association (APA). rectify this male biased by focusing on women’s position in the society. Early studies
concentrated on explaining female subordination. concentrated
Many of theon explaining
recent studies,
female
have
subordination
looked at the social construction of gender, work
and production, reproduction and sexuality, body image, and how gender influences economic, political, social power.
Although feminist anthropology is very diverse there are basic features. First, feminist anthropology takes as a given that gender
is an important, albeit previously neglected, variable in studying any aspect of cultural life. Second, the feminist critique rejects
positivism because the language of science (hypotheses, empirical) is seen as repressive and serving the interest of the elites. Instead,
feminist enthographies are more subjective in their perspective. Third, this antipositivist approach leads to preference for qualitative
methods (subjectivity, dialogue bet anthropologists and the informant), so as to eventually better understand the inner world of women.
In fact, most feminists avoid the term “informant” because it implies an unequal relationship between the anthropological “expert” and
the subordinate “layperson.” Instead, the feminist methodology seeks to eliminate status and power differences between the resaercher
and the subject, thereby creating more equal and collaborative relationship. Finally, there is a little or no attempt in feminist
anthropology to assume a value neutral position; it is aimed at consciousness raising and empowerment of women and in the words of
Stanley Barrett (1996: 164) “unapologetically promotes the interests of women.”
Anette Weiner is an excellent example of a feminist anthropologist who returned to look at none other than Malinowski’s classic
study of the Trobriand Islanders. According to Malinowski, Trobriand men gave gifts of yams to their sister’s husdand. He then viewed
this as a type of tribute to her sister’s husband family. But Weiner had a different view on this, she found out that, because the yams are
given in the wife’ name, the gift is as much a symbol of the high value placed on women as it is symbol of power and status for men.
Malinowski failed to record that this gist of yams had to be reciprocated. The recipient of the yam was expected to give directly to his
own wife a unique form of wealth consisting of women’s skirts made from banana leaves. If the husband failed to do so, his own
brother-in-law might reduce or eliminate his gift of yams, which then affect the husband status of becoming a big man. Thus, in
Weiner’s restudy of Trobriand culture, she showed that men are dependent on women for their status power than Malinowski’s
previous description.
FEMINIST ANTHROPOLOGY IN BRIEF
 All aspects of culture have a gender dimension that must be considered in any balanced
ethnographic description.
 Feminist theory represents a corrective to male bias in traditional ethnographies.
 Feminist anthropologists are more subjective and collaborative in their research, rather
than objective and scientific.
 CULTURAL MATERIALISM
Marvin Harris (1972-2001) cultural materialism is the theoretical position based on the
concept that material conditions or modes of production determine human thought and behavior.
According to this approach, the primary task of anthropology is to provide casual (cause and effect)
explanations for the similarities and differences in thought and behavior found among human groups.
Materail constraints are distinguished from mental constraints, which includes human factors like
values, ideas, religion, and aesthetics. Harris sees the material constraints as the primary casual
factors accounting for cultural variations.
Harris has been criticized for devaluing the importance of ideas and political activities as
sources of cultural change. But Harris recognized these and said that they have secondary role related
to cultural changes: ideas and political ideologies can either accelerate or retard the process of change
but are not themselves causes of the change.
This theory relies on etic approach methodology- one that assumes the viewpoint of the
anthropologists rather than the native informant. It uses scientific method, logical analysis, testing of
hypotheses, measurement and quantification. Using this, cultural materialists attempt to explain the
similarities and differences among various sociocultural structures by focusing on material and
economic factors.
Cultural Materialists reject the Marxist notion of capitalism by an empowered working class. It does not have a political agenda
and is committed to scientific study of culture. At the same time Harris is critical of cultural idealists, anthropologists who rely on an
emic approach (natives’ point of view and use ideas, values, and ideologies as the major explanatory factor for thoughts and
behaviors.
CULTURAL MATERIALISM IN BRIEF
 Materail conditions determine human thoughts and behavior.
 Theorists assume the viewpoint of the anthropologist, not the native informant.
 Anthropology is seen as scientific, empirical, and capable of generating casual explanations.
 Cultural materialism de-emphasizes the role of ideas and values in determining the conditions of social life.

HUMANISTIC ANTHROPOLOGY
Although founders of this discipline (in 19th and early 20th century) attempted to put it on solid scientific footing by giving logical
explanation of human behavior and cultural pattern. In the 1970s and 80snumber of anthropologists see cultural anthropology as more
of a humanistic enterprise than a scientific one, having more in common with art and literature than with biology or psychology.

INTERPRETIVE ANTHROPOLOGY
Advocated by Clifford Geertz (1926-2006), interpretive anthropology is a major force in the
area of anthropology. Geertz take more descriptive approach by examining hoe the people themselves
interpret their own values and behavior. Culture can best understood by listening and recording the
ways in which the locals explain their own customary behavior. Similar to ethnoscience and feminist
anthropology, interpretive anthropologists are into emic, rather than etic. For Geertz, the job of the
anthropologist is not to generate laws or models that will predict human behavior because these
prediction tend to ignore the complexity of human cultures. Rather, Geertz and others concentrated on
cultural description, literature, folklore, myths and symbols and their findings in the form of “thick
description.” In interpretive ethnographic accounts, we generally do not read about anthropologists
doing their fieldwork or any interaction while collecting narratives or daily routines.
Interpretive anthropologists believe that they can never adequately describe another culture, but
essentially articulate their own culture’s response to the “other.” In Anthropology as Cultural
Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences, George Marcus and Michael Fischer
(1986) contented that there are some ethnographies written with such detail that one almost feels as
though they are reading literature. Western-trained anthropologist do not know what they are seeing or
hearing to know how to adequately interpret actions or talk. For example, you will find learning
Spanish in a classroom does not make one fluent in Mexican culture. Years of living in Mexico may
help , but one is still not a native of the culture and never fully understand some of the subtle nuances
recognized by members of the culture. Social scientists who critique the interpretive approach do so
because this form of anthropology rules out any possibility for generalizations, for comparisons
between cultures, and for building on the cumulative nature of anthropological knowledge.
INTERPRETIVE ANTHROPOLGY IN BRIEF
 Interpretive anthropologists take a more descriptive approach by examining how the people themselves interpret their own
values and behavior.
 They use thick description to describe a culture they observe.
 Often anthropologists are not present in the written account of the research process.

POSTMODERNISM
Postmodernism grew out of the traditions of structuralism, feminist anthropology and interpretive anthropology. The basic tenet
of postmodernism is that the “modernists” (scientific anthropologists) are extraordinarily proud to think that they can describe,
interpret, and give meaning to the lives of people from other cultures. The modernists’ enterprise for much of the 20th century, they
claim, was based on the privileged status of science (held by most developed countries) and reflected the basic power imbalances
between wealthy countries and those developing countries where most anthropological research was conducted. It is nearly
impossible, they contend, for predominantly white, male, Euro-American anthropologists to step outside of their own culture
 impossible, they contend, for predominantly white, male, Euro-American anthropologists to
step outside of their own culture so as to produce an objective view of another culture.
Postmodernists hold that all ethnographic accounts are subjective because they are continued by
the experiences and personal histories of the ethnographers. Instead of the ethnographers being the
sole authority, postmodernists call for a collaborative approach like the feminists to the study of
culture. Written ethnography should have multiple contributors, creating dialogue between the
anthropologists and the people being studied. They contend that through this dialogical process will
meaning and interpretations emerge.
Similar to interpretive anthropology, another tenet of the postmodernist involves the rejection of generalizing from data and
developing predictable theories. By emphasizing the uniqueness of every culture, postmodernists view culture as a changing set of
individual meanings that require continual reinterpretation. According to postmodernists, for anthropologists to think that they can
single-handedly develop general theories of culture that have any level of predictability is both misguided and unethical. It is
misguided in a sense that it can not be done and unethical because grand theories tend to support the dominant ideology that
promotes order and consistency at the expense of individual autonomy and variation.
The postmodernist perspective is scientific and designed to weaken anthropologists to their own views and values as well as
those of the informant. They aadvocate combing self-knowledge with knowledge of the people under study so that anthropologists
learn something about themselves as they are learning about the culture of the informant. In the book of Ruth Behar a Cuban
American anthropologist of the University of Michigan, “Translated Woman: Crossing the Border with Esperanza’s Story”
(1993), she tells how she started her research by listening to the life story of Esperanza, a Mexican woman she had befriended. But
before Behar knew the story of Esperanza, she began to question aspects of her own life and work, including the role of the
ethnographer, the validity of comparing her life with Esperanza’s, and her achievement as an affluent and successful academic. The
book turned out to be two life stories rather than one.
The most radical postmodernists contend that because objectivity is impossible and all interpretations are relative,
generalizations are unjustified, thus anthropology should be treated as literature instead of as science. In fact, purists believe that all
anthropologists and their research will be subjective in nature and their interpretation will be on their own cultural lens. Today,
many anthropologists reject generalizations about cultural differences and similarities. Even though postmodernism had undergone
many critique, their own critiques realized that they raise the consciousness of all anthropologists to consider issues such as how we
generate knowledge, how we come to know what we think we know, and whose story we are telling in ethnographic accounts- their
or ours.
POSTMODERNISM IN BRIEF
 Postmodernism calls on anthropologists to switch their focus from cultural generalizations and predictable laws to
description, interpretation, and the search for individual meaning.
 Ethnographies should be written from several voices-that of the anthropologist along with those of the people under
analysis.
 Postmodernism involves a distinct return to cultural relativism.

POLITICAL ECONOMY
A major theoretical framework that have been used by many applies anthropologist is
political economy. Dating back 18th century, Thomas Malthus, Karl Marx, and Adam Smith who
started political economy. Today famous scholars closely aligned with this framework are Eric
Wolf, Pierre Bourdieu, Sidney Mintz, Philippe Bourgois, June Nash, and Marshall
Sahlins.
Anthropologists whose research relies on this framework explain the relationship between
economic production and political processes. It often use when there is a hierarchical social order
with one group dominating another in a culture and among cultures. Conceptually it leads to multi
scaled research that can start in a local village, connect to a more dominant regional government,
and reach all the way to the international arena.
Political economy scholars challenge capitalism for its inequality and the effects it has on
local people, ethnic minorities, the poor, and disfranchised. In Eric Wolf’s work “Europe and the
People without History” (1982) provides an in depth account of the political economic
Figure 4.7 Eric Wolf perspective in anthropology. The emphasis a political economic perspective was based on the
response
responses of people controlled by elite groups. Others anthropologists detailed how political and economic structure govern a labor
force, or worker and capitalist relations, or discussions of war. Anthropologists find political economy helpful to examine the
increasing presence of poverty and the limited access to education, health care, and unemployment. Other like Pierre Bourdieu
(1977) use this framework to examine the production of cultural meaning and symbols. For Bourdieu, a society’s cultural
construction of meanings and symbols has political and economic interests, especially when there is conflict over the meanings or
when they prove to be annoying in their interpretation.
Political economy has the potential to be widely used to frame research that focus on social injustice, human rights, and
marginalization, which is appealing to applied anthropologists. It guides the research process to unravel the political and economic
barriers, to confront them, develop project, get it funded, and implement it. It also has application in business, education, health care,
development and urban planning. For example, medical anthropologist might use political economy approach to examine
malnutrition, unequal access to health care, and diseases related to poverty.
Just like other theory, Political economy was critique. One is that some research is void of economics, and it places roo much of
its emphasis on policy, , the political structure, and power and control over others. In other cases, there is sufficient economics in the
research but insufficient political structure or it is apolitical. So it depend on the interest of anthropologist and the nature of the topic.
 POLITICAL ECONOMY IN BRIEF
 Political economy at its core examine the abstract issues of conflict, ideology, and
power.
 An ethnographic approach to political economy tends to be descriptive.
 An applied approach using a political economy framework focuses on making a
difference for marginalized or disenfranchised groups of people.

POLITICAL ECOLOGY
Political Ecology is the study of power relations among groups and how they are linked to the biophysical environment at the
local, state, national, and international level. Scholars in this theory examine relationship among political, economic, and social factors
with environmental issues and changes within a community and beyond. By paying attention to environmental interests, knowledge,
beliefs, values and practices of social groups, applied anthropologists and others can differentiate how resources are used, misused,
and overused according to ethnicity, gender, and race or other factors.
Historically, political ecology focused on marginalized conditions affecting the developing world. Political ecology incorporates
political economy into its theoretical construct and then goes one step further by including the environment on an equal playing field
as the political structure or economic systems. It addresses issues of power and recognizes the importance of explaining environmental
impacts on cultural processes as part of the political and economic context. For example, political ecology examines how unequal
relations in and among societies affect the use of natural environment. Resources (clean air, oil, tress) and in wide ranging ecological
settings like coastal areas, deserts, are complex and get even more complicated when subsequent policy and regulatory actions favor
certain group over others.
Anthropologists who integrate ecological social science with political economy, their work might emphasize topics like
sustainability, conservation, and social movements. The use of political ecology sees environmental degradation as a cause and effect
of social marginalization .
Anthropologists who had contributions in political ecology are Eric Wolf, Michael Dove, Susan Stonich, Artuto Escobar, Susan
Crate, and Susan Paulson.
POLITICAL ECOLOGY IN BRIEF
 Political ecology is the study of power relations among groups and how they are linked
to the bio-physical environment at the local, state, national, and international levels, a
multi scalar approach.
 The use of political ecology sees environmental degradation as a cause and effect of
social marginalization. Scholars whose works uses the political ecology perspective
examine relationship among political, economic, and social factors with environmental
issues and changes within a community and beyond.
 Political ecology is use to examine how unequal relations in and among societies affect
the use of the natural environment and its resources (i.e., access to water, fish,soils and
land, oil, trees and timber, biodiversity, clean air) and marginalization of those with less
access.

THEORY, PRACTICE AND PRAXIS

PRAXIS IN ANTHRPOLOGY
Integrating theory with practice is known as praxis and serve as a means to produce new knowledge. Applied anthropologists use
praxis when combining their approach in data collection, data analysis, and application to an applied project. Applied business
anthropologist Marietta Baba reminds us, “praxis carries with it a strong sense of social critique that we find in political economy and
political ecology, whereby people with whom anthropologists work may be liberated from the exploitive and alienating circumstances
of their lives.” Praxis provides a balance that include theory, method, and application. Anthropologist Jim McDonald reminds us that
in striving Praxis, we always need to keep in mind the ethical considerations of our work and the people with whom we consult and
interact.