What Is Anthropology?

“Anthropology is the study of what makes us human” (American Anthropological Association n.d.). It is the scientific and humanistic study of humanity in its widest sense, from the evolution of humans to contemporary human societies. If you can think of a topic related to human beings, there is probably an anthropologist who at some time and in some place has studied it.

The earliest anthropologists tried to study all aspects of humans, how they lived, their language, their biology, and their past. However, it became apparent that no one anthropologist could adequately study all these aspects of a human group. In response, four “fields” (specializations) developed: cultural anthropology, biological anthropology, linguistic anthropology, and archaeology.

Anthropology as an academic discipline has its roots in the Enlightenment and 19^th-century Romanticism. During this era, the idea developed that social groups have ways of living, including communication and customs, that distinguish one group from another. Also during this time, the modern concept of race, social classes, evolution, and ideology emerged, all concepts that are still discussed in anthropology today (Heyman 2006,166).

The discipline of anthropology developed in Europe and North America. The earliest anthropologists, sometimes referred to as ‘armchair anthropologists,’ often relied on secondary accounts of human groups provided by travelers such as missionaries, military personnel, and government officials as a data collection method. Primary data collection did occur but would not become the standard until the professionalization of the discipline in the early 1900s. The 20^th-century saw the development of anthropological standards of research, including the establishment of a code for ethical research (Heyman 2006).

How does anthropology differ from other disciplines that study humans?

Anthropologists are often asked how anthropology differs from academic disciplines such as sociology and history. There are similarities, for instance, anthropology focuses on human behavior at the individual level, which can also occur in history, while sociology often focuses on group behavior and the interaction with social structures and social institutions. Sociology is also solution-focused while traditionally anthropology has been more focused on understanding human diversity. However, applied anthropology is a rapidly growing field and is focused on both understanding social inequities and working alongside affected peoples to develop culturally-relevant solutions to problems identified by those peoples.

The things that unite the fields of anthropology also differentiate the discipline from others:

• Culture. There are two ways to think about culture within anthropology. One is a on a micro-level: each social group, or culture, has its own way of life. The other way is on a macro level with culture as an overarching concept that states that social groups have a set of behaviors that are learned, shared, symbolic, and integrated.
• Holism. This concept also refers to a couple of different things. First, anthropologists understand cultures (micro-level) as a blueprint for living, a system that ideally provides its members with the way to respond to any given situation. It assumes that the various parts of culture are interrelated, and it is the objective of anthropology to describe and explain those interrelationships. Second, anthropologists take a holistic approach to the study of humans. What this means is that anthropologists think that to understand the human condition it is necessary to look at the whole condition, not just one part, i.e., look at their “…past, present, and future; biology, society, language, and culture” (Kottak 2017: 3).
• Comparative analysis: Anthropologists compare and contrast cultures. Not to try and suggest that one culture is better than another, but to try and explain similarities and differences. For instance, if studying two hunting and gathering groups with different types of technology, the anthropologist will compare and contrast the groups to explain why different technologies are employed—what different stressors might have led to the development of the various technologies.
• Cultural relativism: Cultural relativism is an approach that stresses the attempt to understand cultural behavior within its cultural context. This has often been interpreted as all behaviors are valid within their cultural context, or “any set of customs and institutions, or way of life, is as valid as any other” (Kanarek 2013, 2). In contemporary anthropology textbooks, cultural relativism is promoted as “the moral and intellectual principle that one should withhold judgment about seemingly strange or exotic beliefs and practices” (Welsch et, al. 2017: 12). Some claim that cultural relativism is an outdated concept promoting tolerance for tolerance’s sake. In the past, cultural relativism was emphasized to stress the need to be objective in research; however, in recent years, cultural relativism has come under fire within the discipline as a method that excuses the worst of human behavior:

It is in practice that cultural relativism sanctions the worst manifestations of violence and oppression. Cultural relativism accomplishes this is two ways. First, it makes the innocent morally defenseless against those that wish to do them harm. Second, it morally sanctions the actions of the aggressors (Kanarek 2013:10).

This criticism relates to moral relativism but tends to ignore that the practice in anthropology is to use cultural relativism as an approach to help us better learn about and understand cultures (Johnson 2007). Johnson (2007) states that,

…cultural relativism does not equate with moral relativism in the negative sense…the attitude of objectivity (cultural relativism) toward other cultures leads not to something as bland or neutral as moral relativism, but instead to a much stronger notion of moral values, values that can and should be acted upon by the anthropologist.

A culturally relative approach should lead anthropologists to a better understanding of why behaviors are practiced within a specific culture (Welsch et.al. 2017). Whether or not the anthropologist approves of the behavior is immaterial to their understanding of why it is practiced. Being culturally relative in this sense also should not prohibit the anthropologist from taking a stance or working on a human rights issue, which has been a criticism from postmodern anthropologists.

• Biocultural perspective. Anthropologists have been studying the interaction of human biology and culture for over a hundred years. They have been interested in how human behavior is related not only to genetics, but to both the natural and cultural environments that people live within.

The Four Fields

American anthropology is traditionally organized into four fields: cultural anthropology or sociocultural anthropology, biological or physical anthropology, linguistic anthropology, and archaeology. Each field is further organized into topical or regional specializations such as in cultural anthropology you will find people specializing in the anthropology of religion or medical anthropology while in archaeology you will find people specializing in prehistoric or historic archaeology or even something like geoarchaeology. It is not unusual to find anthropologists from different fields collaborating on research projects. For instance, archaeological projects often employ cultural anthropologists who are studying the people living in the vicinity of their archaeological projects in the hopes that the living people’s patterns of behavior will help them to better understand the archaeological data. You may also find cultural and biological anthropologists working together to understand patterns of behavior linked to disease transmission.

Cultural anthropology

Cultural anthropologists focus on extent (living) communities. The earliest cultural anthropologists focused on describing non-industrialized cultures—how they communicated, how they organized into social groups, like families and political groups, how they fed themselves, what they believed and more, as anthropologists attempted to identify patterns of human behavior. Today’s cultural anthropologists now have research questions they are trying to answer about the specific communities they study such as how social groups impact identity and economic status or how economic development impacts human health. In recent decades, cultural anthropologists have begun studying industrialized societies as well as non-industrialized societies, broadening our understanding of the human experience.

Linguistic Anthropology

Linguistic anthropology developed within cultural anthropology but separated into its own field in the mid-20^th century. Linguistic anthropologists study language, both verbal and non-verbal, from its earliest origins to its structure to how it is used within communities. Patterns of language used help linguistic anthropologists understand such things as identity, status, and connections between social groups. Studies of the evolution of language also help to identify connections between social groups, and additionally help us to understand how language developed over time, both biologically and socially.

Archaeology

Archaeology also grew out of cultural anthropology. Archaeologists try to answer many of the same questions as cultural anthropologists and, in fact, early archaeology was descriptive in the same manner as cultural anthropology. Today, archaeologists have specific questions they are trying to answer using the material remains of past societies. For instance, an archaeologist might be trying to determine how the local environment shaped the economic system of the community that occupied the site. There is a growing use of archaeological research to help us understand modern societies’ behavior especially as it relates to consumption and environmental degradation.

Biological Anthropology

Modern biological anthropology emerged during the mid-19^th century as people began to scientifically explore the origins of humans. Modern evolutionary theory, developed from Darwinian evolution, is the cornerstone of the field. This field is often called physical anthropology. The use of the terms by anthropology departments may indicate the focus of the department—physical anthropology may indicate a focus on paleoanthropology and primatology, the study of non-human primates, while biological anthropology may indicate a focus on human biology. No matter which phrase is used, it indicates a research approach that incorporates social and biological data. “The two primary concept areas that tend to hold biological anthropology together are human evolution and human biosocial variation…” (American Association of Biological Anthropologists n.d.). Biological anthropologists may specialize in human evolution, human biology, primatology, or forensics in order to better understand the biological diversity of humans.

The Emerging 5th Field

Applied anthropology, or the practice of using anthropological knowledge to help address social problems, is a concern for many anthropologists. It has been around since the early 20^th-century; however, the focus of applied anthropology has changed. In its earliest incarnation, the concept was practiced by the United States Bureau of American Ethnology to promote research on Indigenous Americans. The US government used this research to develop policy related to indigenous peoples. The actual phrase ‘applied anthropology’ was first used for Oxford University’s program to train colonial administrators. For the next century, the phrase was usually used to describe the use of anthropological knowledge in a bureaucratic context. This, along with the fact that the work was outside of academia, caused applied anthropology to be overlooked for decades. However, applied anthropology has always contributed to methodological developments and pointed the way to emerging areas of research, including medical and nutritional anthropology. Today, applied anthropology is an emerging 5^th field, with more anthropology departments instituting applied programs. Areas of study run the gamut of the other four fields: cultural resource management, public archaeology, health and medicine, economic development, forensic science, and primate conservation (Willigen 2013). You will learn more about applied anthropology in another chapter.

Each of the fields requires interaction with human groups. This necessitates a balance of objectivity and cognitive empathy. What is cognitive empathy? It is simply understanding. It is the ability to step out of one’s personal perspective to attempt to understand a different one. It is the practice of cultural relativism. Anthropologists practice this every day. Anthropologists attempt to study cultures without bias. Of course, we recognize that everyone has biases; however, anthropologists attempt to recognize their own biases and identify how it might be affecting their analyses. Many anthropologists employ the participant observation method pioneered by Branislaw Malinowski to try to move past their biases and identify the group’s reasons for their behavior. You will learn more about participant observation in the reading on field methods.

References

American Anthropological Association. n.d. “What Is Anthropology?” Accessed February 25, 2022. https://www.americananthro.org/AdvanceYourCareer/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=2150.

American Association of Biological Anthropologists. n.d. “What Is Biological Anthropology?” Accessed February 28, 2022. https://physanth.org/career/career-biological-anthropology/.

“Anthropology.” 2008. In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2nd ed., edited by William A. Darity, Jr., 116-125. Vol. 1. Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA. Gale eBooks (accessed February 25, 2022). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3045300088/GVRL?u=wash_main&sid=bookmark-GVRL&xid=f248a9b0.

Bodenheimer, Rebecca. 2019. “Anthropology vs. Sociology: What’s the Difference?” Accessed February 25, 2022. https://www.thoughtco.com/anthropology-vs-sociology-4685772.

Heyman, Josiah McC. 2006. “Anthropology, History of.” In Encyclopedia of Anthropology, edited by H. James Birx, 165-168. Vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference, 2006. Accessed February 25, 2022. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3452100066/GVRL?u=wash_main&sid=bookmark-GVRL&xid=a6e8bc88.

Johnson, Thomas H. 2007. “Cultural Relativism: Interpretations of a Concept.” Anthropological Quarterly 80(3). Accessed February 25, 2022. https://go-gale-com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=wash_main&id=GALE%7CA168547248&v=2.1&it=r.

Kanarek, Jaret. 2013. “Critiquing Cultural Relativism.” The Intellectual Standard 2(2): 2-14. Accessed February 25, 2022. https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=tis.

Kottak, Conrad Phillip. 2017. Anthropology: Appreciating Human Diversity, 17^th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Ma, Mitchell. 2021. “Teaching Empathy with Anthropology.” TeachingAnthropology.org (blog). September 10, 2021. https://teachinganthropology.org/2021/09/10/teaching-empathy-with-anthropology/.

Park, Michael Alan. 2014. Introducing Anthropology: An Integrated Approach, 6^th edition.

Rafferty, Kevin A. and Dorothy Chinwe Ukaegbu. 2011. Faces of Anthropology: A Reader for the 21^st Century., 6^th edition. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Welsch, Robert L., Luis A. Vivanco and Agustin Fuentes. 2017. Anthropology: Asking Questions about Human Origins, Diversity, and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

Willigen, John van. 2013. “Applied Anthropology.” In Theory in Social and Cultural Anthropology: An Encyclopedia, edited by R. Jon McGee and Richard L. Warms, 25-28. Vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference. Accessed February 28, 2022. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3737500020/GVRL?u=wash_main&sid=bookmark-GVRL&xid=b2aa83de.

Image Sources for Banner

Cultural: https://unsplash.com/photos/OzH_el01MEI

Gorilla: Charles J. Sharp, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Archaeology: Dougald O’Reilly, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Hominin: Photo by Brett Eloff. Courtesy Profberger and Wits University who release it under the terms below., CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons