Category Archives: key words

03/27/11

What is Anthropology?

An Anthropology Student’s Response to Familial Interrogation

by Deanna Ikari

Last weekend I went to my aunt’s birthday party. I don’t often go to family gatherings, and as a consequence of my frequent absences, my family – aunts, uncles, cousins, all older – felt entitled to the standardized interrogation regarding my current and future plans, naturally beginning with what I’m studying in school. I told my relatives that I’m majoring in anthropology.

“What’s anthropology?” was, unsurprisingly, the first response.

“Is it the study of bones?” was the second, equally expected query.

Speaking with fellow anthropology classmates, I have found that my family’s ignorance is not atypical. It is from a desire to alleviate this ignorance, perhaps an anthropological pursuit in itself that this article stems.

Anthropology as defined by American anthropologist Franz Boas, consists of four main subfields: archaeology, physical anthropology, linguistics, and cultural anthropology. Archaeology concerns the material remains of human cultures. Physical anthropology or biological anthropology as it is also known, looks at human evolution and is perhaps the reason for my relative’s question about bones. Linguistics seeks insight into culture by examining language structure, and cultural anthropology, arguably the largest field, takes a holistic view of the myriad of human activities and beliefs subsumed under the heading “culture.”

Cultural anthropology began as a discipline almost exclusively concerned with studying peoples who were then referred to as “primitive” and were largely located in the colonies of European countries. Colonies in Africa, Asia and South Asia and indigenous groups in North America were seen as ideal field sites for participant observation, a characteristic technique of anthropology and the primary means for cultural anthropologists to gather their information. Participant observation involves the anthropologist living among the group being studied. In doing so, he or she participates in activities and observes what is taking place while thinking critically about the interconnections between the various activities.

Many anthropologists have voiced the opinion that by learning about other cultures, we, the anthropological community that was until recently primarily situated in the West, can use our knowledge to critique our own habits and culture. This notion is expressed by Marcus and Fischer in their book, Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human Sciences. Perhaps the most famous anthropologist to advocate such practice was Margaret Mead whose work on adolescence in Samoa is entitled Coming of Age in Samoa: A Psychological Study of Primitive Youth for Western Civilization. Margaret Mead’s ethnography was published at time when the nature versus nurture debate was a major topic of academics, and Mead’s work placed her firmly in the “nature” camp. In Coming of Age in Samoa, Mead explains how Samoan girls experience adolescence as far less antagonistic than Westerners, and consequently that the turbulence of adolescence was not a biological phenomenon but a cultural one. Her findings influenced Benjamin Spock, a well known paediatrician.

In the past, groups residing in the colonies, such as the Ju/’hoansi in the Kalahari Desert were seen as pristine, untouched by Western civilization. For that reason they were considered to be prime candidates for ethnographic research. Today anthropologists take a very different view. Anthropologists now recognize the interconnections that exist between all cultures, and have become especially keen in exploring the effects that colonialism, the practice that initially facilitated their research. Here anthropology can be interdisciplinary, explicating practices that outsiders such as political scientists or aid agencies might not fully comprehend. Consequently, anthropologists are often seen working in tandem with such policy makers in former colonies such as Africa. For example, in South Africa it has been suggested that the spread of HIV/AIDS is related to the relative lack of agency that women possess to refuse sexual advances. A number of anthropologists have explored this relationship and its historical and cultural qualifiers. Their work demonstrates why a simple solution, such as making condoms more readily available, is not in itself sufficient.

Anthropology began as the study of what were then perceived as strange and primitive peoples, and as some have argued, aided and abetted the implementation of colonialism. Since then, anthropology has broadened its horizons of research, and in doing so has encountered and correlated efforts with other disciplines such as sociology and political science. Whether with application to the anthropologist’s country of origin or that of the people being studied, anthropological insight can be used to knowledgeably determine public policy. When my family asked me what anthropology was, my own response was somewhat less than eloquent; my definition was vague at best. Having taken time to carefully consider what exactly I am studying and to what end, I believe in the future I will be much more prepared to answer the inevitable question, “What is anthropology?”

02/22/11

Innocent Anthropology?

Gerald Sider is well known for his critical commentary on both the failure of anthropological practice and the simultaneous possibility that an anthropological eye has for noting the potential for progressive engagement through critique. The blog, Zero Anthropology, picks up a recent article by Sider and presents a critically supportive reading of Sider’s attack on naive anthropology.

My thanks to the new magazine, AnthroNow, for placing the article by Gerald M. Sider online in its current issue (vol. 1, no. 1, April 2009), titled: “Can Anthropology Ever Be Innocent“. This turned out to be quite a valuable and relevant article for me, in helping me to reconfigure what ethnography can mean, and what it might look like, in the shadow of the national security state and the so-called “long war against extremism” (which, of course, exculpates American state extremism). My sole function below is to produce a list of the sections I extracted that strike me in particular as most important to my own work, with occasional commentary. Sider’s words are in block quotes, and all bolding is mine unless otherwise noted.

Read the full post from Zero Anthropology Blog here.

01/3/11

Writing Reflections

In many of the classes I teach students are asked to write weekly reflections on course readings and discussions. Students are instructed to:

write a short paragraph at the end of each week in which you reflect upon and critically appraise what you have learned – no longer than one page, double-spaced. Use the following questions as a reflective guideline:  What have I learned this week?  What were the key concepts presented?  How are these concepts linked to ethnographic data (or not, as the case maybe)?   Does this new information make sense to me?  And, How might I apply this knowledge in a novel/different situation?

The objective is twofold: (1) to practice observational writing (that is, to describe to some effective key events that one is participating in) and, (2) to engage in a form of self-reflection and assessment of what one has learned.  Getting starting with reflective writing is often difficult as it is not simply descriptive nor is it argumentative or purely analytical. To help with this I have posted an example of an effective reflection.

This reflection is from a graduate method’s course.  Please consider how the author moves from the class discussions and activities to an issue that caused her to reflect and evaluate her own feelings and understandings.  You will also note that the author critically reflects on the incident described in terms of its relevance to her research.  This reflection meets all three reflection objectives: to reflect on the material presented in readings and lectures each week; to develop critical insight, and; to engage in a process of self-evaluation.

Today we finished discussions on the ethnographies and also talked about the ethics stuff.  The interesting thing came out of the ethics review, I think I mentioned last time, was re-contacting the interview participants.  I should somehow get back to the participants and provide them with either some sort of venue to evaluate or criticize or confirm my interpretations.  Also, some sort of formal thanks you for their efforts.  That’s important.  I have to look into the ethics of using a list of veterinarians that I have complete access to but is not public knowledge.  I never would have dreamed that it was a problem.

We had an interesting discussion in class today about tacit versus explicit knowledge.  It’s hard to know which is which sometimes.  Sometimes you assume that people know what you are talking about.  Sometimes you assume that you know what they are talking about because of your tacit knowledge.  Confusions can easily happen – so that’s a good lesson to learn.

The most interesting thing that happened today was the discussion around a classmate’s pet dog. The dog met an untimely death by being run over by a deaf person because he was a deaf dog.  The thing that struck me the most was my reaction versus the rest of the class. I guess when you see pain and misery due to episodes like this you no longer find them humorous, no matter how ironic.  You can’t laugh any more.  Anyway the whole thing upset me quite a bit.  But it is a good lesson because I can’t let myself get in that position during an interview.  Its ridiculous really, it clouds my view of things.  So I have to remember that not everyone has my experience or my feelings for animals.  That goes for veterinarians as well.  The other thing though that affected me was a comment that was made afterwards: “people shouldn’t have pets or keep pets;” something to that effect.    My immediate reaction was defensiveness.  Although I’ve been a vet in many different fields and my project does not exclusively involve pets, my work life does include pets and there are a number of very good reasons why people have pets. My defensiveness prevented me from acting on my concern and asking him why my classmate made the comment.  She may have a very good reason for saying that people shouldn’t have pets.  In an interview situation, I will have to try to be open and receptive. If something confuses me or doesn’t make sense or sounds critical or any of the above, then I should, rather than becoming defensive, try to determine exactly what is going on.  Our viewpoints may not be that much different but if they are, I should find out why they are and ask for clarification.