Human Origins: The Case to Include Social Anthropology
Year: 2016
Type: article
Abstract: In many countries social or cultural anthropology is practised as an independent discipline, quite separately from its related disciplines.The disciplines assumed to be related traditionally include prehistoric archaeology, biological or physical anthropology, and linguistic anthropology or anthropological linguistics.The differences in name often imply subtly different understandings of the nature of the subjects.For example, whereas "biological anthropology" implies a broad biological understanding of humanity, the older term "physical anthropology" tends to suggest a narrower vision, namely one focused on fossil anatomy, to the exclusion of modern genetics."Social anthropology" is the more common term in Europe, whereas "cultural anthropology" is the more usual designation in the Americas.My preference for the former term reflects the reaction against the idea of "cultures" as monolithic, countable entities on both sides of the modernist/ postmodernist divide, especially in the United States of America in the 1990s [Kuper 1999; Abu-Lughod 1991].However, it also reflects a different perception of the interrelated ideas of "society" and "culture".In Europe, especially in the British Isles, society is the main concern, whereas anthropological traditions throughout the Americas have always been more firmly rooted in culture.It is as if there is not a single notion of "anthropology" but a plurality of "anthropologies".Why then should one aim to reduce these to a single discipline?That, in a way, is our problem.The problem arises precisely when anthropologists seek to explain things like society and culture across the boundaries anthropology has drawn for itself.This is especially true in studies that seek to explain
Author: Alan Barnard
Language: English
Subfield: Anthropology
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W2460228263