Anther 170 week 3
Anther 170 week 3 ANT 170
Popular in Cultural Anthropology
Popular in Cultural Anthropology
This 13 page Class Notes was uploaded by Madison Hewson on Saturday September 24, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to ANT 170 at Central Michigan University taught by McLean, Athena in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 4 views. For similar materials see Cultural Anthropology in Cultural Anthropology at Central Michigan University.
Reviews for Anther 170 week 3
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 09/24/16
1 Ant 170, Lecture 6, wk 3b Constructions of Otherness: Race as one form Concepts: Concept of Race as a form of "Otherness” ; History of Race concept; Eugenics movement; Nature/ Nurture and the IQ debate/ Scientific Racism; and the clinal evidence against biological race. Race as a form of “Otherness” The Historical and Social Construction Race as a form of "Otherness" If an idea is found to change over time or between cultures, it is said to be "socially constructed". This means that it is produced by people, whose ideas/products differ over time and between cultures. Race is a concept that we will show to be "socially constructed." First, we will examine historically how the concept of "race" has varied over time, and is a fairly recent concept. Then we will look at cultural variations in how it is constructed. I. History of race and racism Roger Sanjek, in one of your readings, said that we must historicize race and racism. Why is that? To understand why, given the destructive uses to which these terms have been put, and the repeated challenges against their scientific basis, they continue to reemerge and die so hard. A. Race as a young idea The concept of race did not exist before the late 1400s. One of the first times it was mentioned was in 1600 in Francois Tant's Thesor de la Langue Francaise. It appeared in only five different places during the 1600s (Montagu 1965, cited in Lieberman 1997, ' "Race" 1997 and 2001: A Race Odyssey'). Before the 1500s the world was not race conscious and lacked any incentive to be so. (Linton q1936, cited in Sanjek 1994:2). Anthropologist Ralph Linton describes (in Sanjek) how because transportation was limited, people did not discover others from the other end of the world. Gradations in physical change were gradual with geographical region (something called clines, which we will be discussing in more detail later). Thus the physical differences between one group and those they caled "barbarians" was not marked. And where physical differences were more extreme, this still did not lead to a concept of race. Even the Crusades did not make Europeans race conscious. B. Colonial expansion: the beginning of race What do you think happened during the late 1400s that prompted the development of the concept of race? With the colonial expansion that began in that period. It is not surprise as Loring Brace notes (in Sharon Begley's 1995 article) that the standard races represent peoples who lived at the end of the European trade routes -- Africans, Asians and American Indians. But why have a concept of race? The utility of this divisive concept is depicted in the words of a British colonialist, Gilbert Murray: "There is in the world a hierarchy of races...[T]hose nations which eat more, claim more and get higher wages will direct and rule the others, and the lower work 2 of the world will tend in the long-run to be done by the lower breeds of man. This much we of the ruling colour will no doubt accept as obvious". (quot’d in Sanjek 1994, p.1) Its roots, (Sanjek, p. 2) thus lies in conquest, disposition and exploitation of people for which race has served as ideological justification. As Sanjek observes (citing Linton), Europeans were not satisfied with accepting their dominance, but needed to find a justification for it. Race and the implicit human differentiation or racism implicit in it (superior/inferior) offered that justification in concrete biological, and therefore scientific terms. So racism and the concept of race were nonexistent before this European expansion. C. Differences between race other distinctions separating human social groups 1. Race is globally and culturally inclusive. It includes peopole throughout ther world and divides them all into a specified set of categories based on skin color. 2. Culture and skin color were not highly associated prior to 1400s. 3. Caste- untouchable status in India is not at all related to racial constituiton, (although I understand that, perhaps because of work and marriage patterns, they tend to be somewhat darker). Still it is not racial difference, but social ascription at birth that determines their status. Nevertheless, the consequences are the same. 4. Even slavery was not related to race in the pre 1400s period. a. Before European expansion in the late 1400s, slave and slaveholder could -- and did -- frequently exchange status. b. And usually, they were of the same physical type. It was a matter of who were the victors in various battles. c. In ancient Egypt there were a wide variety of skin colors at all social levels; social class was not devided ont he basis of color. Similarly enslavement was not done on the basis of color. d. In the pre-colonial period slaves were derived from within the social group or from nearby populations. Europeans did not enslaving sub-Saharan Africans until the 1660s. D. Racism within biology and anthropology a. By 1700s, scientific efforts were made to classify humans across the globe into natural divisions, supposedly based on biological difference. b. In 1749 the Count of Buffon used race to distinguish color by group. c. Then in 1753, the great Swedish taxonomer Linnaeus made the first division of people according to geographical distribution: Native Americans, Europeans, Asians and Africans. He differentiated them in ethnocentric fashion according to the four humors popular at the time, and the color and moods they symbolized. He associated the 3 Native Americans -- choler (yellow bile) - ruled by habit Europeans -- blood (sanguine or cheerful) - ruled by custom Asians with melancholic (black bile) - ruled by belief Africans, phlegmatic (phlegm) - sluggish, but also capricious and unpredictable Similarly Linnaeus claimed that the European was ruled by custom, the native Am. by habit, the Asian, by belief and the African by caprice. Despite these ethnocentric associations, his four race system was not hierarchical; indeed, he listed Native Americans first. d. Then in 1795 -- Johann Blumenbach, Linnaeus' student, tried to improve on his mentor's classificatory schem. He felt that the four groupings of Linnaeus did not adequately capture Polynesian and Australian peoples. So he came up with a five-class system that added "Malays" to the other four. He also called them different names: Caucasian, Mongolian, Ethiopian, American and Malay races. He is the one who is associated with having carved out the races as we have since defined them. What he did that has been unfortunate ever since is to create a hierarchy with Caucasian at the top and two arms -- American to the extreme of Mongolian in one arm and Malay (Polynesians and Australian Aborigines) to the extreme of Africans on the other. Caucasians Americans Malays Mongolians Ethiopians He began wtht the Caucasians (those from the Mount Caucasus in the Georgian area of Russia) because he thought they were the most beautiful people and that surely that was the birthplace of humankind. He branched out from there. It is unfortunate that he carved out a racial hierarchy because he was among the least racist thinkers of his day, despite his ethnocentric aesthetic bias. A progressive thinker well before his time, he coolected publications of the poetry of American slaves. He also argued: "Color, whatever be its cause, be it bile or the influence of the sun, the air, or the climate, is, at all events, an adventititious and easily changeable think , and can never constitute a diversity of species." Thus he defended the mental and moral unity of all people. It is unfortunate that his new conceptualization of race served to promote a hierarchical understanding that has continue into the present, placing Europeans over all others. E. Early Scientific Racisim in anthropology 1. Samuel Morton (late 1800s) was a scientific racist. He compared brain size among samples of blacks (African )and whites (European) and concluded that whites were superior on this basis. 4 However, Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould (in 1980s) reanalyzed the data and discovered that Morton's scientific racism prevented him from recognizing the overlapping measurements that existed among samples. The African sample was overwhelmingly female and the European sample, largely male, so there was a bias that made the European sample to be larger. There was in fact no link between brain size and races as defined for the samples. Gould wrote about his findings in his book, The Mismeasurement of Man. F. The Status of the Race Concept in Modern Anthropology and critique of Scientific Racism Since Boas, anthropologists have questioned the validity of biological race. Boas, in studying Nortwest Coast Indians durng the late 1800s, found great diversity and flow of culture, language and biological traits. E.G., he discovered that within any tribe, biological traits, like languages, extended well into other tribes. He showed there was actually more variation within cultural groups and races than between them. This led to his important contribution to look at overlap among groups, rather than rigid boundaries separatring them. G. The Eugenics Movement Early in the 20th century there was a movement strong to improve the genetic stock of the people in this country. This was called the Eugenics Movement. In Europe it worked to promoted racism that led to the Nazi efforts to annihilate Jewish and other populations. In the United States , many psychiatrists headed the movement and pushed for sterilization of institutionalized populations and other groups deemed to have inferior genetic stock. It was also responsible for rigid immigration policies that developed at that time directed at limiting eastern and southern Europeans entry into this country. At local fairs, e.g., there were posters arguing in favor of maintaining pure genetic stock and contests for the purest looking families. Pictures. Although Boas strongly opposed it, many scientists advocated such a movement, especially between 1920 and 1940. - My experience with Yale student in decades ago. - CRISPR and the New Genetics –designer babies (See articles under Resources on BB) H. The question of the validity of the race concept was probably most fully articulated in 1942 by Ashley Montagu in Man's Most Dangerous Myth: the Fallacy of Race. But after WW II, eugenics movements started to die out because people saw the horrific genocide that such thinking could result in, and interest in race in anthropology also reduced. In the late 1960s civil rights movements were churning up, & anthropologists began to critically look at the race concept again. In 1970s – 1990s scientific racism emerged again in relating genes to I.Q. I. IQ Debates: Nurture (environment and socialization) vs Nature (genes, inheritance) During the late 1960s and early 1970s, psychologists Arthur Jensen and Richard Hernnstein related IQ, educational and social status were to genes. 5 This represented the nature (or biological inheritance) side of the nature/ nurture debate. Jensen promoted a scientific racism -- that black children had poorer I.Q.s than white children because of fixed genetic differences. Even if we could associate intelligence with a set of specific genes (WHICH is doubtful), genes cannot be expressed in the absence of interaction in environments ( fetal, nutritional, stresses, chemical toxins.) and social (quality of contact with others, exposure to language, culture). All genes are expressed phenotypically in environment; (this is the "nurture" argument) J. The nature argument seemed to lose out, but resurfaced again with book, The Bell Curve. in 1994. Richard Herrnstein (now with journalist Charles Murray) again tried to argue that I.Q., educational attainment and social and economic status were genetic. This time they substituted the term "ethnic" for "racial", but their point remained the same. It ignored environmental restrictions that have inhibited the successes of African Americans and argued against funding programs like Head Start to improve social environment and educational opportunities for minorities. K. CMU’s Leonard Lieberman and critically challenged this trend and In 1994 was the keynote speaker at the AAA examining scientific racism in the work of psychologist Philippe Rushton. Rushton W. Ontario U. had written a controversial article in 1991 in the prestigious journal Social Science and Medicine) He differentiated the 3 races according to intelligence and sex drive with Africans having the least intelligence and most sex drive, Asians, the most intelligence and least sex drive and Europeans in the middle. He couched his argument in scientific terminology, but Leonard showed that there was no substance to his argument. (Meanwhile, very politically reactionary foundations supported the work of Rushton (and they paid to give books to every anthropologist and sociologist in the U.S.) Leonard later provided data to challenge the idea of biological race, which we’ll see in a minute. L. EUGENICS Today: debate on CRISPR (the potential to create designer babies) & to find smart genes Assignment for next class: on the debate and ethics of seeking “smart genes” (Helig; Mack and CRISPR) ----------------------------- II. Lieberman’s Argument Challenging the idea of Biological Race. Key Points: 1 Human variation is real. Look around you at the phenotypic differences. 2. BUT, we are still genetically very similar: 99.8% of our genetic makeup is identical. 3. The .2% of that difference accounts for all the phenotypic variation we see. 4. That variation however, does not cluster into distinct distinct groups. If it did, we could call the differences as RACIALLy separate. But we cannot. 5. The biological evidence shows that for any given phenotype (whether hair color, eye color, blood type, etc.), the geographical distribution is unique. This distribution 6 is gradual as you move from one geographical point to another . This distribution is called CLINAL. 6. THERE IS NO CLUSTERING OF PHENOTYPES THAT WOULD SEPARATE ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE FROM ANOTHER. 7. Thus Human biological variation thus occurs clinally, not racially. Now let’s ;look at theevidence. (1). Wwhat would it take to show that there is such a thing as biological race clearly differentiating some populations of human beings from others? It would take our isolating several traits and showing that they vary together in differentiating one population from another. To disprove biological race then would require showing that while a single trait might vary along a geographical distribution, that many traits do not similarly covary -- do not vary as a group in distinguishing one population from another. (2) Now, what would it take to show that there is such a thing as biological race clearly differentiating some populations of human beings from others? It would take our isolating several traits and showing that they vary together in differentiating one geographical population from another. This is called "covariation". To prove there are biological races, one would have to prove that populatons of people have several traits that covary together and clearly distinguish them from other populations that have similar traits that covary together. To disprove biological race then would require showing that while a single trait might vary along a geographical distribution, that many traits do not similarly covary -- do not vary as a group in distinguishing one population from another. We will now provide clinal evidence that challenges biological race. (3) Again, what are clines? Clines are gradual changes s in physical traits in populations, related to corresponding geographical gradations. These relate to frequencies of particular genes (or their phenotypic expression) that vary gradually along geographical gradations. Thus they often relate to ethnic groups residing within the same area. ( Clines are believed to provide better indicators for genetic consistency. This is because they provide some understanding of evolution and differentiation to local selective pressures by a population ) (4) Transparancy Demonstration 1. Covarying Pretend Traits: Let us suppose that there were such biological traits that covary. How would they look? Transparency 2: Navels: insies, flatsies, outsies Shows (1) highest freq. of insies are in W. Europe ane W. Africa/ 2 " " " flatsies are in Central Europe, W. Asia and E. Afrtica 3 " " " outsies are in e. Asia, Australia and Oceania Transparency 3: Fingernails: convex, straight and concave Shows (1) convex: W. world 2 flat: middle 3 concave: E. 7 Trasnsp.4: Hair type: ba;d/ top hair/ full head 1: bald: W. wordl 2. top: Cenral world 3. full: E. world Place transparencies 2,3,4 on top to show that the tree traits covary: Where You find one variation of a treat, there is a similar geographical variation of the other two.Point out that this is fictitious. Transparency 5: temperature gradient map Isotherms : lines that separate one gradient from another: show mean terperatures for July, based on equatorial location. Note that population clines represent similar lines connecting frequencies of phenotypic traits (such as skin color or genes, such as sickle cell). But clines don't have to vary in a continuum, but can decrease and increase. Transparency 6: distribution of color by gradients. Run N and s, // to the equator : dark, med,light Transparency 7: stature: short, medium, tall (with some pygmoid groups) does not run north and south, but nonlinearly In Afr, change from sout to n in terms of short (w. some pyg) to tall (w. pyg) to med to tall to med. No obvious pattern elswhere either Transpanrecy 8: hair form: crikly/curly, wavy /stright, straight Runs n and s in Africa but e and w in Eurasia Transparency 9: face size Runs opposite: e and w in Africa, but n and s in Eurasia PLACE 8 and 9 over each other: Clearly each tratit has its own distribution : no cavariation Tr. 10: shows sicle cell Tr. 11: HLAB gene began in N. Asia, less in rest of Asai Aust ane W Africa/ not at all in Europe Tr 9 and 10 show that Genetic traits also have independent distritutions. They do not covary/. Conclusion: If clines do not covary in their geographical distribution, then racial boundaries do not exist. Thus human variation occurs clinally (with every phenotype having its independent geographical distribution. It does not occur racially. Ant 170, Lecture 5, wk 3a We have looked at cultural practices that may seem strange and different ways of regarding them (e.g., ethnocentrically or more relativistically. However, how might we feel when we actually experience a very different culture? This is what is called “Culture shock.” We'll begin today by discussing the culture shock Thai student NatadechaSponsel experienced when she came to the US and ask you to consider some of your own experiences of culture shock. Then we will shift to some very important issues about how anthropologists come to know what they know about other cultures. So, Pornee NatadechaSponsel's Culture shock on American Culture from an outsider Very often, Americans think "culture" is what other ethnic groups have. We don't see that we too have culture. The short article on by Pornee NatadechaSponsel, who is Thai, shoes how American habits and practices stood out as odd to her, in contrast to her own. She experienced what it was like to be an outsider or “other.” What were some of the things that struck Pornee about American culture? How did it differ from her cultural practices. Why does she think America is an individually oriented culture? What evidence does she give? What happened when her Thai friend met a woman at the East/ West Center where she worked? -------------------------- We have examined what culture is, some of the challenges anthropologists face in studying cultures, and the methods they use to study them. We will now look into the theories that guide their research and the philosophies of knowledge that shape their theories and investigations. Those philosophies of knowledge are called "Epistemologies" (which mean theories of knowledge. I.EPISTEMOLOGY /THEORIES of KNOWLEDGE How do anthropolologists know what they know about other cultures and peoples? A. Epistemology is concerned with understanding what is going on in the world. It begins with particular assumptions. For example, Do you assume that human beings act certain ways because of certain laws of nature or society? (If you assume this, you are likely to believe that human cultures can be studied by the same scientific methods used to study nature). This would lead you to a positivist epistemology) or Do you assume that human beings act certain ways because of their unique nature as conscious social agents active in producing their world? (This would demand a different study approach) one I am loosely calling a critical or critical/moral. 1 B. Epistemologies (or theories of knowledge) shape the particular anthropological theories we develop, the kind of questions we ask, the and the methods we use to answering them; they also affect the kinds of questions that a theory we use does not permit us to ask. C. The Dominant epistemology in social science and anthropology's study of the "other" has been positivist. It draws its assumptions from the study of nature. D. In reaction to the limitations of this knowledge, an alternative epistemology, roughly called "critical" has emerged over the last few decades to challenge positivism. Let's look at features of both. (1.) Positivsm versus Critical theiries of discovering knowledge in social science Positivism Critical approaches naturalistic (adopts scientific approach moral approach to studying people of natural sciences and society required researcher must be neutral researcher must be engaged only objective data (e.g., external subjective data (e.g., feelings) behavior) matter also matter valuefree (amoral) values are relevant ahistorical history is important reductive (some data are inclusive (larger layers of data, not relevant) such as the political context, matter) generalizes to universal focuses on specific case purpose is instrumental purpose is to gain meaning goals of predicting and controlling emancipatory/ human freedom nomothetic (assumes societies follow idiographic (assumes societies natural laws) and thus can be studied are moral and must be studied by as one might study the natural world interpreting human actions within a particular social context) E. Does accepting the approaches of a critical researcher introduce bias into one's study? No, attention to subjective data does not mean going into a study with a bias. On the contrary, it means expanding one's data set to include more inclusive phenomena to gain a fuller explanatory picture of what is going on. This could in fact serve to eliminate bias. F. Positivism and Critical theories provided two radically contrasting approaches for gaining knowledge about the world. A positivist would structure her/his anthropological investigations very differently from a critical researcher. He/she would admit fewer kinds of data, would take a different stance with regard to the persons being studied and would use the data toward different ends. G. Advantages of Positivism: large clinical research trials 1. Beneficial for large scale studies 2. Lends itself to quantification and objective measurement 3. Useful in experimental research design with large groups of people 2 a. Used in clinical designs, e.g., comparing drugs, vs therapy, vs both in large groups of people over time b. Helps to show what works best for future treatment c. A kind of predicting to control H. Disadvantages of Positivism in studying cultures 1. Not useful for small site studies with smaller numbers of people and indepth study 2. Not useful in trying to understand the complexity of the context 3. Not useful in trying to simply gain an understanding about the culture and meaning of its practices 4. More critical indepth approaches are needed III. Three Early Anthropological theories Let us now look at three early anthropological theories, keeping in mind the contexts (including colonialism) in which they were produced. We will start by examining the assumptions of each theory for studying other people. As we examine them, (1) Consider whether their assumptions were more positivist or critical epistemologies, or theories of knowledge;Then also consider (2) the historical, (or political and economic) contexts in which the theory occurred and remained popular and how the idea may have reinforced and/ or challenged events (like colonialism, eugenics, immigration practices) that were occurring. I. Cultural evolutionism occurred in the late 1800s. It assumed that cultural development progresses over time. Assumptions of cultural evolutionists a. all cultures follow natural laws in developing according to the same sequence of stages. (e.g., savagery/barbarism/civilization) (The particular number and type of stages varied from writer to writer, but they all accepted the idea of a definite sequence of stages.) b. progress was inevitable/deterministic/follows natural laws (Does this sound critical or positivist?) positivist! c. that Western civilization represented the ultimate state of progress this offered the justification for colonial powers to invade and overcome other cultures (a manifest destiny) d. Some evolutionsists believed in the biological and moral similarity of all people ("the psychic unity of mankind" ; others did not. Why do you think this was a dominant theory at the end of the 1800s? (It was compatible with ideas of Western superiority with Western people being most evolved.) II. Functionalism took over in the 1920s1970s and became the dominant paradigm for studying other cultures. Asad (in the enrichment reading on BB) is critical of functionalism. 3 a. Functionalism argued that all aspects of a culture work together to contribute to the harmonious functioning of the whole culture. b. Functionalism regarded cultures as integrated wholes (& claimed to be holistic) every aspect of the culture "functioned" to maintain the whole system. c. Thus functionalists looked at a native culture in terms of well balanced harmony. Any change introduced should be done in a way to prevent disruption from this harmony. Thus,they often advised colonial governments as to how to create policies in another culture with the least amount of disruption (e.g., in taxation, recruiting labor, or attempting to replace a native tradition). Rather than looking critically at the context context, they tried to find ways to have the colonized people better to adapt to colonialism itself. Thus anthropologists used functionalism effectively to help the colonial administration of colonized peoples. d. but while it claimed to look as society as a Whole it ignored history past social, and political contexts that could explain how the culture came to be. So was it positivist or critical? Positivist! (Because it ignored these contexts, it was not truly holistic, despite its claims.) Why was fuctionalism dominant during this period of later colonialism? (Because it was compatible with the colonialists desire to maintain harmony reduce disruption in the colonized world) A third theory, developed by Franz Boas began to move us away from positivism. III. historical particularism in fact was a reaction against evolutionsim: intended as a powerful corrective of evolutionsim. Franz Boas (at Columbia University from 18891937) and died in the 1940s., had profound influence in the development of modern anthropology. Boas (1) appreciated: the historical complexity of cultural development (2) rejected the idea of lawlike stages of cultural evolution (3) valued data specific to a particular cultural area. He also challenged any beliefs in racial superiority or the notion that race determines culture. (e.g., he objected to phrenology, which used the shape of a person’s head to determine whether he was sufficiently intelligent to immigrate to the U.S. during the early 1900s). So was historical particularism positivist or critical? Critical! Because it sought complexity of understanding in history, not discovery of social laws. Now anthropologists applied these theories in studying groups of people who were seen as very different (“other”) from them. (See Pandian on BB.) 4 I. The Study of the "Other" A. Why would anthropology need to turn to "the other" a. Western thought is largely associated with Christianity and Judaism. b. For Christians, the "true self" is fashioned in terms of a perfect Christian God. c. Aspects of the "untrue or demonized self" were associated with sin or fall from grace. These were dichotomized (or separated) from the "true self". The dichotomy of the Western self symbolized grace vs. sin, good vs. evil, normality vs. abnormality d. Yet certain common features of human experiences of sexuality, greed, weakness were viewed as alien to God, and therefore alien to the "true Western self" The need to be "true" meant rejecting part of human experiences as invalid. e. Anthropology looked to the "other" (nonWestern people) as a way of integrating these dichotomized aspects – with European exploration in 1500s f. Thus Anthropology was born out of a need of the West to dichotomize the self and the need of the Westerner to reconcile the true and untrue self. B. But the way that anthropologists regarded the savage "other" changed over time. 1. During the late 1400s and early 1500s nonWestern people (native Americans and Africans) were regarded as subhuman. 2. Later 1500s the Pope declared the native Americans to be fully human. (through the efforts of priests like Las Casas.) 3. During the Enlightenment, the 17th and 18th centuries (1600s and 1700s) – the savage other was seen as a “living fossil” of Western people. a. the psychic unity of mankind was accepted during that time i. This meant that all people (Westerner and "savage") shared the same mind, which followed the same laws of reason ii. The “savage” had the capacity to become civilized iii. the biological and moral similarity of all people was accepted b. The savage was viewed as "noble" during this time in contrast to abuses by the State and Church in Europe during the Enlightenment 4. However, by the 19th century (1800s), the "psychic unity of mankind" was less accepted a backward trend! a. Civilization had technologically advanced to the point that civilized Europeans no longer felt similar to primitive peoples, whom they now viewed as inferior b. Primitive peoples were now negatively associated with nature needing to be tamed c. The Western world view had become biologized (and racialized) Thus West was seen as civilized because "the Western mind had evolved biologically"(p. 58). The human mind was seen to have itself 5 changed with different stages of human development or "progress"(pp. 57 9). (This was the theory of Cultural Evolutionism) There were now many different minds and they were not equal (the savage mind of the "other" of course being seen as inferior). this led to thinking of people in terms of superior and inferior races the period when Eugenics Movement was strong II. The "Crisis" in Anthropology Yet the study of "the other" had problems that were part of the crisis that developed in the by the 1960s in anthropology. The big source of the crisis was functionalism, which continued to dominate theory at the time. 1. By the 1960s, after the end of colonialism , anthropologists looked at the problems with the colonial world and wondered how they may have contributed to them. Many of them, e.g., Talal Asad (in your suggested readings) felt the problem continued in contemporary anthropologists who insisted on remain objective in order to be "scientific". Thus there was a reaction against positivism and a push for a more critical, moral science. 2. Also, changes were happening in postcolonial societies, that functionalism could not explain. Thus it also failed as a theoretical approach. This is why beginning with the 1960s, anthropology looked critically at itself and its positivist tradition and began to develop alternative critical approaches to understanding cultural phenomena. 6
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'