History of AnthropologyANTH 501

8/29/13

OBJECTIVE: Learn and understand history of Anthropology.

Questions to be answered in the course: What defines Anthropology as a field, ties it together?

o Humanityo Culture! (Contested now, some reject the concept of culture for

lack of concise, agreed-upon definition. Wilson disagrees- without it we wouldn’t have a field.)

Where does culture begin and end? Where to put boundaries? Is not an empirical phenomenon, in and of itself.

o Maybe we don’t all need to share the same thing – give space for different approach +6

o 0………’/;hes, while accepting membership under the umbrella of “anthropology”.

Who are we in the grander scheme of anthropology?o Subfields? – Biological/Physical, Linguistic, Social/Cultural,

Applied (frowned upon), Archaeology What is our methodology? How do we practice? Common ideology?

Patterson: Framing the development of anthropology in a sociopolitical context,

via a critical approach. He’s a Marxist. Anthropology is a set of questions and practices. Attempt to raise awareness of Anthropology’s past through a Marxian

lens. Criticizing Anthropology’s place in the structures of power. Understanding the driving forces behind the shaping of the discipline. Anthropology born of government agencies in the U.S – its governance

shifted from the Dept. of War to the Dept. of the Interior. Anthropology’s role in the government much more influential in the

19th century; declined over the years as it shifted into the private sphere.

What we do now is creating “notions” or images of people, of who they are. These images will be employed to define groups in public spheres – use caution. Our words are powerful.

Second Treatise of Government – Lockeo Citizenship = cultivation of the lando Native Americans didn’t cultivate, therefore were not citizens

Resettling NAs and teaching to farm – Jefferson et al REALLY think they’re doing the right thing. o A lot of bad is done in the name of good.

Racism pandemic in the day of the Founding Fathers.o Even the most progressive of the bunch espoused/accepted these

ideas.o Different time = different culture. Histro-centrism akin to

ethnocentrism.o Boas – suspend own morality to study others unlike you for the sake

of the scientific exercise. (Cultural relativism)

Class Notes: 9/10/13

Chapter 2 – Patterson (from 9/12/13) Errors of fact

o Boas: Came to the US because he couldn’t get a job in Germany 15 years to find a permanent academic position Boas’ radicalism – not so radical in reality. Quite

intellectual – driven by ideas Not anti-evolutionist

Historical particularist – desires precise bits of information

o AAA not organized in 1919, but 1930.

Important takeaways of Chapters 3 & 4 Race integral in the shaping of the U.S.

o Who has the power? Gender, race, ethnicity, religion, class, etc.– all defining factors. Not all discussed in the book in significant detail.

o “I’m just American.” Is a statement of ethnicity and culture. Project Camelot- question of anthropology in the public sphere.

o Knowledge as power, tool of power. Politics. 1950’s – anti-fascists punished for ideology (fascism antidote to

communism, basis of Spanish civil war.) What is and what isn’t studied- feminism?

Political Economy of Anthropologyo Reference to political economy in which it asserts that politics

and economy are causal and the effects of other forces.o Must be looked at together. To do one without the other is a

disservice.o Both causal and affected- but there is no set relationship

between the two.

American Anthropology attempts to be holistic. Many people do altruistically which cannot be explained by selfish

motivations. Just do things “because it’s the right thing.”o Even the biggest scrooge will do something that “flies in the

face of capitalism”. To understand anthropology as a force in the shaping of American life,

you’ve got to see it from a political-economic perspective (Patterson). About the big picture of its evolution.

o Must understand feedback mechanism- dialectics – this is the process of the birth or evolution of ideas through discussion. Evolution of social form.

Marxists would say that dialectics is a way of understandingwhy people do what they do – physical manifestation of ideas.

o Whenever something exists that we want to understand and is important, we should see it as a thesis or argument, a statement of itself as something that matters or demands attention.

Once something exists, it creates the conditions for its opposite.

If we know it exists, we know what isn’t it. It has identifiable properties, structures and definitions, and so those of its antithesis also become apparent.

In between, however, a synthesis can arise- a compromise. Itreplaces the thesis. Arises out of the interaction, or feedback mechanism. This is the dialectic approach at work.

Methodological tool that helps you explain the topic athand.

Causality cannot be presumed – must show how through interaction, the “thing” was born. Didn’t simply springfrom the ground.

Thesis -> antithesis -> synthesis -> new thesis New forms, institutions are born from this process. The production of a synthesis is largely absent between

prominent schools of thought. They tend to stick to thearchetypal “good cop, bad cop”, or black and white.

Culture – what is it? What is it not? Who’s an anthropologist? Intelligence worker/researcher?

o PhD? Masters? Profession? Your own projection of yourself? New Deal – 1930’s – US became socialist in order to save the economy. Tennessee Valley – gave massive new employment to archaeologists. Before WWI era of rampant, unrestrained industrial progress and

capitalism. In the period before FDR, big capitalists (Carnegie, Rockefeller,

etc.) considered themselves as “robber-barrens”, also philanthropists – wanted to give back to societies.

Anthropologists, mostly, accepted the money gratefully from the capitalists because the government wouldn’t fund private research institutions.

Anthropologists have done lots of good and bad things – profession hasbeen caught in a perpetual identity crisis.

o In the beginning, largely motivated in order to understand/salvage the (culture of) Native Americans before it disappeared.

o Anthropologists in Japanese Concentration Camps1.2. Impact of forced movement3. Impact on future American life

o Worked for OSS (future CIA) Know your history so maybe you’ll be a bit wiser when you have to make

that moral-ethical decision later on yourself.

In the institutional development of anthropology:o Institutions got funded on the basis that they conform to the

will of those giving the money.o Based on capitalism that needed to understand “the other” and

their culture as a basis for understanding the way they acted. Allowed to pave the way for the implementation of capitalism.

Also developed from within/below, motivated by the pursuit of knowledge, scholarliness.

o Other societal changes 1930’s- idea of community study took root. Testament to the kind of

moral-ethic-political-economic decisions that were faced by the new Anthropological profession.

o Intersection of policy, government, university and the ideas of the new field.

o Studied locality and culture, where you live. Also focused on connections with other communities. How culture takes root in localities. Sense of self derived from group they were raised with. “Know they’re not them.”

o Ivies, other big names (Klukholm, Parsons) began to differential between departments. Promoted an interdisciplinary approach.

o Redfield – Merida – folk-urban continuum.o Began to study Americans (Middletown, Boston). We can use

principles of this multidisciplinary discipline to study “ourselves”. Actually studied lower classes.

Nori Nader – says we should use the tools of anthropology tostudy elites.

Anthropologists began to reflect their own ethnic backgrounds in theirwork.

Began to ask, what is the role of language in culture? o Culture is composed of symbols, meaning, and behavior. o Recurring set of patterns of culture –Benedict.

Sapir – developed both anthropology and linguistics simultaneously – both were cut of the same historical cloth. Language is at the core ofculture, and people have culture.

o People behave differently because of the way they’re raised, whatthey learn.

o Psychology closely linked at this point in time – culture shapes the individual. The individual is always in tension with the group.

Forces of change in War and Post-War eras on Anthropology: Anthropological organizations established for supporting the war

effort and stopping communism from spreading after the war. What to do with the new nations of the world after the decay of

colonialism? How do we keep them on our side? Some called this a form of neo American imperialism –

replaced former colonial imperialism. “Democracy” at any cost.

Modernization – American capitalism, democracy, and markets. 1920’s - British influence on methods of fieldwork In the 1960’s and 1970’s American anthropology, for the 2nd

time, Anthropology was being influenced by forces outside America

Latin American – Dependency theory – no matter what theAmericans tell us (Latin Americans), we’re not being “modernized” and developed. We’re being kept subservient to and exploited by the capitalist core.

Capitalism is a system of politics and economics. In order to understand the local, you have to understand the

world as a whole. Systemics of national bodies that are enhancing or hindering capitalist economic development, depending on the nation state.

Neoliberalism – tickle down economics Andre Gunter Frank – political economy

Difference between modernization and development Not synonymous – modernization does not necessarily

equal good for all Anthropology says -It’s more about the quality of life,

those who are left behind. Those trying to make due in the face of all of these international economic forces.

What happens at the local level matters! Books to read:

Rise of Anthropological Theory – Marvin Harris GI Bill – guaranteed education for returning soldiers.

o Knowledge of the random places in the world, acquired special knowledge and entered anthropology

Class Notes 9/12/13

Continuation of previous lecture…Tip: Go back to Patterson’s sections on each person we discuss subsequentlyto get his perspective.

1960’s-1970’s America Changes in American life reflected in American anthropology.

o And vice versa! Anthropology part of the public sphere. In 1960’s-70’s it was the fastest growing major in the university.

o 800 Anthropology Majors at CUNY Alternate culture was a hot topic among young people.

o Traveling made widely available – accessibility Culture seen as an agent of social/economic/political change

Points to take away from Patterson Ch. 5: Different ways that the sub-disciplines approached the issue of

evolutiono Hasn’t been resolved commonly amongst anthropologists - divisiveo Evolution closely intertwined with Marxismo At one point archaeologists were the “keepers of the flame” of

evolution Professionalism of the field:

o From the 1940’s – present the way anthropologists draw together, then subsequently split apart/specialize again into parts is an ongoing process.

o American society recreates and shapes the politics of the field of Anthropology

Interests reflect the times – race, gender, sexuality hot topics of today

o Gender balance of the field Previously male-dominated. Now more balanced.

Product of shifts in American society Often touted as being very open to women and minorities.

o Anthropology still considered as a bit “out of step” with predominantly capitalist society.

Field motored by sources of funding Evolution of the relationship between anthropology

institutions/anthropologists with governments and corporations (structures of power, wealth, and influence)

Applied anthropology morphed into “action anthropology”o Cutting edge – had a political motivation/intent

Evolution theories to be discussed1. Darwinian culture2. Leslie White3. Julian Stewarto Important to understand the history of, but not the future of

anthropology Changing dynamics of the field itself – linked to changing dynamics of

academia Professionalism and recreation of professional identity

Chapter 5 – Patterson

Changes in the field: Shift in funding in the field

o Science, government foundations NSFo Winnegran Foundation – 1941 – flourished after the war

Enormous role in development of anthropology Organizes conferences, funds some smaller projects

o SUNY previously funded 97% by the state – 1970 Now 18%

o Changes after 1970 in some ways enhanced higher education Some grants more readily available Archaeologists hired for cultural resource management

Archaeology (public and academic) expanded dramatically as a result

o More people working in the private sector Membership at AAA in 1967 around 4,700

o 1982 – peaked around 8,500o Since then, leveled around 11-10,000o Reflects number of people in the US who identify with this

organization Field work conditions changed in the 1970’s

o Post-colonial era – former colonies not so open to outsiders anymore

o Funding restrictions made it harder to get money to do fieldwork abroad

Government funding policies can shape the kind of money available!

Individual anthropologists “torn” in trying to identify themselves professionally

o Splitting of professional associations Conflict between science approaches and humanities approaches to

anthropologyo Brief crises:

NY Times publicized some of the lamest research topics of anthropologists

This shaped public opinion of the field Senator – ridicule award to what he deemed dumbest research

topic (marijuana and scuba diving)

Globalization Things that could kill us, influenced by globalization (Patterson

ignores):o Infectious diseaseso Climate changeo Pollution

Enlightenment (late 1600’s-late 1700s) A belief that was human reason could counter ignorance, superstition,

and tyranny and to build a better world – much of the basis for tyranny was (1) religion and the church and (2) the hereditary aristocracy, that held a great deal of the wealth and ruled most European nations.

Principal centers were in France and Scotland. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine were

Enlightenment thinkers from the colonies. Many of the ideas were stimulated by discoveries of new peoples and

lands through exploration. Although ideas were creative they were also speculative and

conjectural.o Based on travel accounts, other subjective literature

There was a fascination with ideas about human nature in all its dimensions – its moral, biological, and social dimensions (and these were al connected).

Western Beliefs Prior to the Enlightenment

Closely tied to biblical beliefs The Earth was young (created by god in 4004 BC) Humans were the central living forms on earth Europeans were the model for God’s creation of people and were

superior

Racial beliefs were wither monogenistic or polygenistic The Earth was static and unchanging All contemporary life forms were survivals from Noah’s ark Although the Great Chain of Being (moving from simple to complex order

of creation) or Scale of Nature was a fixed concept, there was a senseof “progress” in God’s pattern of creation as represented by the Scale

The 18th Centure Enlightenment Humans have a capacity for reason or rationality Belief in the perfectibility of mankind Belief in the progress through social change toward rationality Concern with social inequality (the poor, human rights) Criticism of ruling aristocracy Criticism of the church and conventional religious beliefs

o Move away from Theism to Deism (clock-maker God), and also Atheism

Move toward secularismo First time such freedom was permitted in many years, if not ever

Move toward materialist or mechanistic beliefso Refers to looking for material explanations in nature for how

things work Centers of enlightenment thinking were in France and Scotland with

Birmingham, England as a secondary area Enlightenment Age began in the 17th century and flourished during the

18th century Marvin Harris suggests John Locke’s (1690) Essay Concerning Human

Understanding as the beginning of the Enlightenment

Conditions of the Enlightenment No single cause of the conditions leading to the Enlgihtenment

(social, economic, political, intellectual). Francis Bacon (1561-1626) initiated empirical science and the

scientific menthod, and Rene Descartes (1596-1626) applied analytical methods.

Thirty Years War (1618-1648) – religious conflict, devastated parts ofEurope, bankrupted several nation, and raised questions…

Enligtenment Natural Science- Natural PhilosophersTried to incorporate science into social studies

Pierre de Maupertius (1698-1759)o Early evolutionist

Carl von Linne (1707-1778)o Established early taxonomy

Georges Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788)

o Evolutionist with advanced ideas (age of earth, experimental, selection)

Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802)o Evolutionist and intellectual who founded Lunar Society

Jean Lamark (1744-1829)o Evolutionist who developed idea of “inheritance of acquired

characteristics” Samuel Stanhope Smith (1751-1819) (only non-European here)

o Contributed to understanding of human variation Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840)

o Classified races and set up first hierarchy Baron George Cuvier (1769-1832)

o Comparative anatomy and skeletonsLunar Society – met to talk intellectual stuff on full moon nights

In 1765, with some friends, founded L.S. in Birmingham (Midlands Enlightenment)

Active members – M. Boulton (metal manufacturer), S. Galton (Quaker arms manufactuer), J. Keir, J. Priestly (discovered oxygen), J. Wedgwood, J. Watt (discovered/improved steam engine), J. Whitehurst (geologist, clockmacker), W. Withering (discovered digitalis [foxglove]).

Other corresponding members – Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and William Small (Jefferson’s teacher at William and Mary College, who later returned to England). Darwin and Franklin were close friends.

Many were trained at Edinburgh University, all were abolitionists.Enlightenment Social Science

John Locke (1632-1704)o Philosopher (social, economic, political) physician, he has been

identified as the father of classical liberalism. David Hume (1711-1776)

o Early logical positivist (we can only gain knowledge through the senses) interested in acquisition of knowledge through language.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1788)o Idealized the “native” as the “noble savage” and as a member of

an optimal society. Claude Helvetius (1715-1771)

o He developed Locke’s ideas. He was a utilitarian, atheist, and egalitarian who developed theories of the mind.

William Robertson (1721-1793)o He was a Scotts

Anne Robert Jacques Turgo (1727-1781) Marquis de Condorcet Jeremy Bentham

Marquis de Cond.’s Evol. Of Society1. Tribal society2. Pastoral society3. Agricultural society4. Golden age of Greece to alexander the great5. Dark ages to Crusades6. Crusades to invention of printing7. Printing to when “philosophy and the sciences shook of the yoke of

authority”8. Descartes to foundation of French republic

Anthropology and the English. Knowledge of human prehistory was removed form biblical dogma (some

antiquarian studies employed systematic collection and classification) The conjectural classification of race recognized variation in the

human species, but in a typological form Although progressivism was a dominance belief, it was linked to

interests in the rise of civilization and greater rationality. Locke’s’ concept of the mind as a blank slate (modified by

experiences0 opened the door for ideas about the development of different societies / cultures

The doctrine of psychic unity, where there is unity in humanity and its variation results from experience, was revived by Boas more than ahundred years later.

The comparative method of sociocultural evolutionism arose from interests in the changes from barbarism to civilization

There were early discussions about the self and societyEthnology

Ethnology in early 19th century England included the study of physical, linguistic, and cultural/physic characteristics of non-Western, “uncivilized” peoples

James Cowles Prichard was a prominent Quaker physician and ethnologistwho wrote Reasearches into the Physical History of Mankind. He was a monogenicist and believed in the unity of man.

He was a member of the Aborigines’ Protection Society. Ethnology included anatomy, physiology, physical geography, history,

archaeology, and philology. One of the central objectives was to trace the development of

civilization through linguistic (philological) relationships and the origins of racial varieties of humans.

Also interested in Egyptian mythology.

9/18/13

Charles Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution: Biological and Social Thinking

1809-1882

Ethnology Ethnology in early 19th cen. England included the study of physical,

linguistic, and cultural/psychic characteristics of non-Western, “uncivilized” peoples.

James Cowles Prichard (1786-1848) was a prominent Quaker physician and ethnologist who wrote Research into the Physical History of Mankind. He was a monogenicist and believed in the unity of man.

He was a member of the Aborigines’ Protection Society (an international human rights organization funded in 1837, to protect the health and wellbeing and sovereign, legal and religious rights of indigenous peoples under colonial power).

Ethnology included anatomy, physiology, physical geography, history archaeology, philology, and behavior (Prichard was also interested in Egyptian mythology).

One of the central objectives was to trace the development of “civilization” through linguistics (philological) relationships and the origins of racial varieties of humans.

The search for development of civilization was an evolutionary perspective.Stocking identifies ‘ethnology” as a precursor of evolutionary anthropology.

Why Understanding Evolution is Important In Anthropology Several Periods of Interest:

o 19th century ethnologyo Early 20th century- Julian Stewart, Leslie White – multilinear and

unilinear evolution.o Late 20th century – Darwinian evolution and behavioral evolution

Human evolution is both behavioral and biological and our history as a species reflects these processes. It’s very important to consider not only the biological aspects of evo. But behavioral as well.

Little ‘s belief- human evolution is an adaptive system that has contributed to our persistence through time. Behavioral attributes change as a part of the process.

Lots of evolutionary ideas preceded Darwin

o Erasmus Darwino Enlightenment thinkers – interested in organic change, in organisms

– many Lamarckians.o Former beliefs-

Biblical belief that life is static. Easier to understand static than dynamic and changing.

Most of nature is based upon hereditary attributes. View: Improved living conditions. Will not improve character –

character built into hereditance. Status-quo Lower classes and non-Europeans had bad traits. Ranking natural, due to hereditary factors

Nature is a function of environmental attributes. (Lamarckian)View:

Improved conditions and education will improve character. Nurture can triumph over nature. These improvements, through Lamarckianism, can have an

impact over generations. Differences between Lamarckian thinking and Darwinian thinking

Lamarckian- organisms have an inner need to adjust to specific conditions and by continuously striving, they can achieve growth of specific attributes.

o E.g., giraffe that keeps stretching eventually develops a long neck.

o Problem: Inheritance question. How does this benefittranslated into genes to be passed on? Epigenetics.

Many, including Erasmus Darwin, followed Lamarckian thinking.

Charles Darwin Family

o Born in Shrewsbury, near Wales. Wealthy family. February 12, 1809.

o Mother died in 1817 when he was 8.o His paternal grandfather was Erasmus Darwin.o His maternal grandfather was Josiah Wedgewoodo Father married Susana Wedgewoodo Darwin married first cousin, Emma Wedgewood – 10 Children

Educationo First studied medicine at Edinburgh o Studied natural history with John Henslow at Cambridge. Intended

on becoming a clergyman. Work and Adult Life

o Henslow arranged for Darwin to be on Beagle – ship going around the world for exploration. Fitzroy captain.

2 year voyage planned – ended up being 5 years (1831-1836). This was his only fieldwork experience – Galapagos, New

Zealand. Father objected at first, later persuaded. Returned in 1836 – matured during experience. Developed ideas as he went along. Transmutation of species,

Natural Selection (after reading Malthus), overturned staticviews of life on Earth.

Argued with captain Fitzroy due to fundamentalism.o Never had a real job – wealthy.o Elected to Royal Society at young ageo Published many books.o Sketch of ideas on natural selection in 1844o Worked on Cirripedia (barnacles) between 1846-1854o 10 year old daughter Annie died in 1851 (age 42)o Published Origin of Species in 1859 (age 50)o Published Descent of Man 1871 (age 62)o Died in 1882, buried in Westminster Abbey near Isaac Newton’s

tomb (age 73)Social Darwinism did not originate with Charles Darwin

Darwin was extremely cautious in whis writing about humans, but he wasinterested in them.

Darwin was well aware of the competition built into the free-enterprise capitalism of the 19th century (it probably influenced his model).

o Only one part of Origin of Species addresses humans. “Much light will be shed on the history of humans as a result of these findings.”

Rather it was Spencer (1820-1903) who introduced these ideas – Darwin was familiar with Spencer’s writings and other writings on evolution (they corresponded).

Social Darwinism was a complex collection of ideas and values and there is no simple statement that characterizes the concept. Spencer wrote heavily on this.

Nor Did Eugenics originate with Charles Darwin Eugenics is a complex mix of ideas, but is based on the notion that

humans can direct their own evolution and improve the species (and later, the race).

Francis Galton (1822-1911) is an early Eugenicist (he coined the term in 1883).

He was interested in intelligence and heredity and promoted the beliefthat prominent people should reproduce more than “common” folk.

He was a brilliant “polymath” whose lasting contributions were in quantitative approaches to variation.

He was Charles Darwin’s first half-cousin (the two were both grandsonsof Erasmus Darwin.

Today, eugenics is viewed negatively because of racialist atrocities and extreme applications. However, mild forms of eugenics are practiced today (amniocentesis, genetics counseling, in vitro fertilization, etc.

Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) Wrote an Essay on Population in 1798. He stated that unchecked, population growth would always exceed the

growth of the means of subsistence. Controls or checks on growth are “positive checks” (starvation and

disease) that increase the death rate and “preventative checks” (postponement of marriage) that reduce the birth rate.

According to Malthus, these all lead to “misery and vice”. In an 1803 revision, he introduced the concept of “moral constraint”

(voluntary abstinence) which “leads to neither misery nor vice” (only possible in the well-off class, who he believed were intelligent enough to understand and practice constraint!).

He coined the term “Struggle for existence”. Darwin read Malthus’ essay in 1838, according to his autobiography.

Darwin’s Explanatory Model (after Mayr 1991)

Potential Exponential Increase of Pop. (High Fecundity)

Observed Steady-state Stability of PopulationsLimited Resources

Struggle for existence among Uniqueness of the individual Heritability of much of the individual

Differential Survival:hence, Natural

Through Many Generations:

} }

Darwin’s Contributions:1. Evolution as such – change occurs in organisms through time (not

original idea, but he documented it thoroughly from paleontology, animal domestication, comparative anatomy, embryology, and ecology).

2. Common Descent – all organisms are descended from a common ancestor and can ultimately be traced to a common origin (same sources of documentation).

3. Multiplication of species – biological diversity of species occurs through division or brainching, geographical isolation (species not discussed much in the Origin.

4. Gradualism – slow evolutions not salutatory change (given enough time,anything can be transformed.

5. Natural Selection – favored characteristics (adaptation) survive into the next generation (this is the mechanism for evolution)

Differences between Cultural and Biological Evolution Cultural evolution is the acquisition or generation of useful ideas,

values, behaviors, technology, etc. and their transmission from one generation to the next. Generally viewed as progressive.

o Lamarckian – changed within one generation, can be modified Biological Evolution (by selection) is the survival and retention of

favorable (adaptive) traits by their reproduction and preservation. Generally not viewed as progressive.

19th Century Physical Anthropologists Were largely anatomists

Ethnological Society of London (established by Thomas Hodgkin in 1843) Originally from the Aboriginal Protection Society. Members included ethnologists, naturalists, Darwinists, Tylor, Huxley. Members included heterodox individuals who were often from the

dissenting middle class. Drawn fro the intellectual aristocracy – many were members of the

Royal Society. A basis was on Prichardian (James Prichard) ethnology, which placed

great emphasis on molding human types to different environments. Members tended to be monogenist. Women were admitted to meetings. Journal was Transactions of the Ethnological Society.

Anthropological Society of London (established by James Hunt in 1862)

Members were racialist (many were anatomists) Hunt controlled Society (hunt’s view was that races were not modifiable).

Emphasis was on craniology and races – many members were anti-evolutionary.

Members were drawn from traditionally established social backgrounds and were conservative.

Anthropological Society had double the membership o the Ethnological Society.

Members tended to be polygenist. Women were banned from meetings. Journal was Memoirs of the Anthropological Society.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Est. in 1871 by the merger of the Ethnological Society of London and

the Anthropological Society of London to become the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland.

In 1907, “Royal” was added so that it became the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute of Great Britain and Ireland in 1907.

The most distinguished aware from the RAI is the Thomas Henry Huxley Memorial Medal. Recipients have been: Galton, Tylor, Hrdlicka, Mauss, and many others.

Some of Darwin’s Correspondents and Close Colleagues Edward B. Tylor (1832-1917) corresponded with Darin on several

occasions and Darwin read his books. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) initiated correspondence with Darwin, but

Darwin thought his ideas were too speculative. Alfred Wallace (1823-1913) was the co-discoverer of the idea of

natural selection (though separate). Charles Lyell (1797-1875) was the principal geologist of the times and

Darwin’s mentor. Thomas Huxley (1825-1895) was Darwin’s most articulate and forceful

supporter.

DISCUSSION

Lubbock traced backward – starting in the present and working his way further into the past.

o Used the Comparative method (capital C)– substituting contemporary societies for gaps in the way people have reconstructed societal evolution from savagery to civilization.

o Problem: these people probably don’t really represent past societies.

o Contemporary comparative method (little c) – comparing and contrasting sets of data from different groups. We don’t know that much, let’s do case studies to compare variables.

Anthropology was skeptical of this method – we can’t define the variables until we actually go out into the field

Bricks and Cave discovery – England – rich Paleolithic discovery. Revelationary discovery in which individuals.

o Previously, people thought 4004 BCE marked the beginning of the world.

o This discovery destroyed the possibility of this year as the beginning of the Earth.

o Extended people’s boundaries of time.

9/19/13

Marx and Weber – Three main points to remember about their contributions:1. Both evolutionists who tried to show how major change in human history

occurred.2. In many senses, they were both formative of anthropology – it was

created out of a general social science/theoretical position (like allof the subsequent social science disciplines).

3. Their ideas are so important they have been carried on in our discipline in many ways- in both beneficial and hurtful ways. Still applicable today.

Individual must be understood not just by the family to which they belong, but the at the societal level.

The individual is the domain of psychology.

The Enlightenment – impacted all important thinkers of the 19th century

o Everything had a rational explanation. Humans could reason out the solution to problems. This was transformative! Cause and effect.

o Things can be solved using this method. o Accumulated change equals progress. Simple evolved to complex.o The world is made up of material. Materialism.

This was in contrast to idealism, which holds that true change comes through the idea, which can make an impact on the world and effect social change.

Change your mind, change the world.

Marx was unsatisfied with this idea – more than just changing of ideas/minds is necessary in order to create truesocial change.

People who already have the power to effect social change aren’t very likely to change their ways for the sake of the “idea”. They’re already winning.

Marx says more direct, material action is needed. Thesepeople must be removed from preventing social change, via conflict.

Inspired by history – we can learn lessons from this. Materialism

o Materialism states that social change is based on the material change in our existence.

o P roduction, Distribution, Change Production – physical means of survival. Basic needs. We

must find a way to procure these. We must then protect the means of procuring these

essentials.

Karl Marx (1818-1883)o Born to professional wine-producing family in what is now Germany

(Germany did not yet exist in its current form). Never had a job – wealthy family. Became broke later – Engels supported him later.

o No capitalist-industrial middle class here – all large land owning estates.

o His citizenship became Prussian in his teenage years.o His father was a Jewish barrister, but converted to Protestantism

for social benefit.o Marx believed that leaders and intellectuals should sacrifice

themselves for the good of humanity.o 1835- U. of Bohn –studied Philosophy. This was the umbrella area

for all people who wanted to increase level of intellectual scholarly attainment.

Studied Idealism – Hegel. Hegel died 5 years before Marx moved to U. of Berlin (grad 1841). PhD from Jenin.

Hegel believed that all phenomena are processes- you could study everything in motion, but there had to be a way to do that. This could be done by “freezing” it and examining its opposite/antithesis. This could create conditions in which both would be present in the product of the dialectic. Feedback mechanism/cycle.

“The only immutable thing is the abstraction of movement.”

Slow, cumulative change sometimes equals more profound change in the nature of the entity.

PhD in classical materialism. o 2nd doctorate in PhD at Bohn – necessary to become professor.

Internship at radical news papero 1843 – went to Paris

Became involved in worker societies and activism- League of the Just

o Met Engels in Cologne, Germany. Engels was a capitalist.

o 1845 – Prussian gov’t pressured Marx’s family to leave to Brussels.

o 1845-1848- Engels and Marx moved between countrieso 1848 published Communist Manifestoo 1867 – first volume of Das Capital publishedo Death 1883 in London

“Men enter relations that are independent of their will.”o People have social needs that must be met – power, esteem,

prestige.o These conditions multiply and become more complex as humans

evolve socially.o A solution at one level can become a problem at the next.o Culture is (often) unconscious.

Some have more of a choice to effect change in society(thosewith power), other don’t (powerless).

“It is not the consciousness of man that determines their social existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.”

o Parameters internalized and we are compelled to act in their accordance.

o Our ideas are material

Mode of production – fundamental mechanism that motored human social evolutionary change.

o Definition: Interaction between forces and the relations of production

o Tool mixed with knowledge of how to use the tool in order to satisfy our needs.

o Social organization of work is the relation of production. Land, raw material, capital, labor, entrepreneurship The moment at which people start to organize labor –

division of labor in which there are specialists emerges. Before this pure “egalitarianism” exists.

Stages of social evolution1. Communal ownership - egalitarian2. Ownership of resources – pastoralism and agriculture. Growth of

population created new conditions for resources to be organized in a more efficient way. The forces and relations are not in sync with eachother. Major shift is needed. Mode of production is therefore the motor of the dialectal process

that generated a solution – materialism. Need to reproduce socially – population will continue to increase.

o No growth, no new people.o New mode of production needed.

Theory should be predictive – should help us explain not only the current, but anticipate the future.

o Marx’s theory did this. He thought Communism would be the solution and that the workers of Europe would start a pan-Europe revolution. He was wrong.

o He failed to consider importance of national identity that is stronger than class.

Dialectal and Historical laws produced historical materialism.o Laws:1. Quantity into quality2. Unity of opposites3. Negation of the negation – if you know what’s good, you have to

know what’s bad. Marxian - people who use historical materialism in scholarship –

intellectual only Marxist - historical materialism to effect social change – must act on

it Political economy refers to both groups.

1. Derives mostly from Marx and Engels2. Marx and his materialism were very influential in the

evolutionary perspectives of the 20th century (20’s-70’s). Archaeology, cultural anthropology.

3. Wolfe’s point- social theory can and should be seen to be holistic. There can be a way of tying disciplines together. But social theories differ in how social-cultural-economic-political.

Material things, including our self-perceptions, determine social-cultural things. The way we see ourselves is a material factor.

Marx said proletariats were not class-conscious enough to effect change for themselves.

It’s very difficult to study class as an anthropologist without reference to Marx and Weber.

Max Weber (1864 – 1920) Born in Berlin, activist mother – middle class Economics lecturer One of founders of modern sociology along with Durkheim – founded

separate disciplineo Noticed people attach meaning to their actions

The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalismo Certain protestant sects are germane and this is the key to

capitalism – New England, England, Germany (places of Protestantism)– bases for successful springs of capitalism.

o Money, accumulation of capital, is seen as proof of one’s hard work and virtue – wealth is God-like.

Wealth represents this desire to be God-like.o Capitalism was a byproduct of religion, not done on purpose.o Capital is wealth that generates more wealth.

Metaphor of social and cultural capital The best way to use wealth is to invest it – hide wealth

1. Founder of Verstehende school of learningo Injected that we must understand, in a political economy way,

people’s reasons for doing in order to understand why they do things

o People might not be able to articulate this consciouslyo People often do things that seem irrational to the observer, but

are perfectly rational to the person doing them. They make perfect sense in their own cultural context.

2. The western model is only the western model – not universal and can’t expect others to conform to it.

3. To do social science, you have to talk to people to understand why people do things. You can’t presume by their gender, class, etc.

Concepts he coins became the key terms of sociologyo Classeso Statuseso Groupso Religious groupso Party

Individuals form groups in 5 main ways1. Classes – groups of people recognize their common material

interests2. Status groups - Recognition of common ideal interests (cultural

groups)3. Religious group- common world view4. Community – family, kin5. Parties – political and otherwise - organized

Values Meanings

9/24/13

We must place these thinkers in their political context – Marx and Engels were caught up in a time of revolution.

o Europe had just developed the idea of a bourgeois revolution – the French had invented it

o This idea was exported by France into the German psycheo Napoleon played a point in this exporting – imperialismo National ideology has its roots in imperialism.

Nationalism born of the empire. How can the good of a nation come out of the evil of an empire? How

can evil give birth to good?o At the height of the British imperial era the British truly

believed they were doing the best thing for the worldo Social and cultural evolution – civilization is at the apex.

Thus was England in its imagination of itself In the 1840’s – bourgeois revolutions

o We, the nation, can rule ourselves – no need for monarchy. In inventing the nation, we may be inventing new forms of

exploitation, inequity, and hierarchy.o The exploited will have to overcome these oppressive forces.

Marx, etc. are trying to understand these new movements

When we go into the field we will learn from “primitive” people – not just about the past, but also about ourselves.

o Marcel Mauss didn’t go into the field, but he encouraged his students to go.

The founders of sociology/anthropology, etc. have helped us define ourdisciplines.

o All asked one simple question – what is society? Relationships among people – roles Agreement, contract Group sharing an (imagined) worldview Always changing, evolving, dynamic Created through actions, but these restrain us

Durkheim – society is an irreducible concept.o This is highly refuted

British anthropology took off by following Durkheimian theory (social anthropology)

American didn’t like this so much – thus cultural anthropology If the term “society” hadn’t been coined by the Romans, it would have

had to have been invented in order to:

o Describe how individuals work together as pieces of a larger whole – group dynamics

o Thesis – antithesis – delineate us vs. themo Guide actions, actions linked to other actions – strategies that

have the intended consequences. Theorists of the 19th century thought that there were things not yet explainable with the toolspossessed at the time – not religion, but science.

“Science of Society”o Society- people who live in groups

Where is the boundary of a society?o Economic, demographic, political analysis is not sufficient to

describe what’s happeningo Instrumentalism – theoretical approach that suggests that all

humans will strategize their material benefits/conditions. You only do what benefits the self.

Problem – people often do things that only benefit others (directly). Parents sacrifice for children.

Altruistic behavior reveals that there’s something deeper We do what’s right for the group (family, society, etc.).

But… this still comes back to benefit the individual somewhere down the line.

o Individuals living in groups Political, economic purposes part of the mix of how to

describe – but something missing. “Rational” is relative to the society – why? Culture. Culture – no society exists without it.

o Society is the frame of analysis to describe most of what happens.

Must we define the boundary? Not necessarily for daily use. These theorists were trying to develop tools to describe

what they were seeing – children of the Enlightenment. Needed to describe cause and effect.

Commonalities of these theorists: Many Jewish Many from borderlands – between Germany and France – many

wars claiming the land for themselves – constantly fluctuating between identities and nationalities

Durkheimo I am we – we can’t have one without the other.o Important impacts:

Impact – Structural functionalism

His ideas became the intellectual basis for comparative method in England, ethnology in France, and Structuralism inFrance.

He established the social as the analytical context Dealt with elementary forms – e.g., religion

Used data from whatever source for comparison Viewed these elementary forms as independent of time

and spaceo Secondary school teacher – no posts for sociologists because he

invented it.o Ended up helping the birth of sociology in Franceo Works

1893- Division of Labor in society 1895 – Rules of the Sociological Method 1897- Suicide 1912- Elementary Forms of Relgious Life

o Nee Sociologique – movement – cannot understand without understanding French society

o His doctoral thesis was on “primitive” social organization – perspective of solidarity

Armchair anthropology – didn’t directly collect data Assumed these societies were “simple”

o Theoretical contributions “We cannot understand society through the understanding of

an individual’s mind” nor goals or intentions. “The organization of society was more than just the

aggregation of individuals – has a reality in its own right – sui generis.” – irreducible

Individuals are products of their society. People are socialproducts.

“Society – science of institutions, their genesis, and theirfunctioning.”

Whole is greater than the sum of its parts Relations that groups enter into create things in that

society that individuals alone cannot create – the combination is key.

An individual is only possible through social relations. We inherit this set of social relations – culture. Ways of acting, thinking about ourselves, ect.

Individuality is socially induced.o A. Suicide – 1897 – he demonstrated that social conditions are

necessary for people to want to live and die.

Suicide would seem to be the ultimate individual act – in fact a social relationship

Rates of suicide remain constant within a society, but are different from society to society.

Suicide rates cannot be explained by psychological and otherindividual reasons – must be understood by the relationship/integration of an individual within a group.

You can see when a group is in disorder – suicides rise. People whose integration into society is either too great or

too little are more likely to destroy themselves: Egoistic – person lacks strong supporting ties. Single,

unmarried people. Also higher in protestant societies because of the emphasis on indivudalism. Lower rates incatholic societies.

Anomic – orientation of group broken down. In times of social stress and breakdown, this state of anomie will result. Unrealistic expectations and behaviors. Can’t understand themselves- no more rules to follow or to orient oneself by.

Altruistic – sacrifice self for the good of the group. WWII in Europe – very few incidences of American soldiers throwing themselves on grenades to save the others. Marines in the south pacific (Japan) did – Japan inspired more sense of group cohesion than the Germans – directly attacked.

Identification, solidarity – the relationship among individuals within groups, and the relationship of groups with other groups.

Solidarity is the dynamic of the group – dynamic. Whole is greater than sum of its parts. Patterned ways of organization:

1. Mechanical – undifferentiated – individual has all the skills necessary to survive. Age and gender are the only distinguishing features. Why? Solidarity. You can produce more to ensure your own survival –

children. Making friends who will help you out.2. Organic – specialization, differentiated.

o B. Social Facts Seem agreed, a given, accepted by all universally without

disagreement In the eye of the observer

o C. Conscience collective (some call this culture)

Who we are, who we are not Defines the responsibilities that come with belonging to the

group

Marcel Mausso Background

Durkheim’s nephew Like his uncle, an armchair scholar Founder of the French field of ethnologie Ethnology is the field of French cultural anthropology His students did field work

o WWI – most everyone in sociology went to war and perishedo Sociology already an accepted field – Mauss could do whatever he

wanted to keep it going. Comparative study of peoples Field work his students did led to the founding of

Ethnologie Awareness of historical formations

o Major publication – The Gift Gifts are:

Exchange is the building block/cement of society and enhances social solidarity

Replicates esteem, status Creates obligation Giving a gift means accepting one in exchange Gift exchange creates obligations Gifts are social facts, and symbolize other social

facts Make us consider relationships across time and space Debts, obligations, expressions of honor Relationships of solidarity Total social phenomena – define who we are in contrast

with others For some groups: When you have something, you can’t keep it

– the only value it has is in being passed on. Must be passed in a certain direction.

Not all we do is for self-aggrandizement Total prestation (gift)

o Must give, accept, and repay gifts. Gifts are a social relationship. Material expression of

social ties. General reciprocity – essential to conscience collective

(some call this culture)

Every society has rules about giving and receiving gifts Gifts can start or continue a relationship Symbol, manifestation of a relationship The gift leads to other actions – it starts a chain

reaction Some societies place gift giving at the center of society

o Two other relationships that Mauss’ thing inspired: Redistribution – thing comes in, another goes out

Political prestige and esteem Sacrifice has benefits for the people who sacrificed

something Potlatch – NW Coast – ridiculous levels of giving stuff –

rules of giving The value of the giving is in the act of giving – not

in the object itselfo Are economic rules universal or social?

Substance of the economy is based on culture Some tribe lets excess food rot as sign of wealth A capitalist would never throw away their wealth

Claude Levi-Strauss – structuralisto Alliance most important element of society

9/26/13Kinship in Anthropology – An Iroquois “tribe” in 1914

Studies began mid-late 19th century, focus until mid-late 20th century “Inventor” of Kinship –Luis Henry Morgan, followed by Levi-Strauss Morgan – Systems of Consanguinity and the Human Family

o Primary work with Iroquois Anthropological description of other cultures has traditionally

focused on 4 domains:1. Economics/ecology2. Politics3. Religion4. Kinshipo Since the inception of culture concept, kinship studies have most

distinguished anthropology from other social sciences. Kinship has structured studied of the other three domains.

Why is/was Kinship so important?o Kinship constructs the social group (descent theory)

Kinship provides the baseline for human existence. It is universal, constituted in the biology of reproduction.

Kinship basics are M & F (parent), husband & wife (spouse), S &D (child), Z & B (sibling).

Recruitment as a social person is determined by birth/kinship

Rights and responsibilities in simple societies (as many others) are defined by kinship

o Fictional kinship – being “adopted” into a society in order to understand one’s relation to them – don’t know how to act if there’s no defined relation

Marilyn Stratherno For at least Europeans, kinship has been considered part of

nature. It is immutable – something you cannot do anything about.You cannot change your kind and your obligations to them any morethan you can change your genetics.

Alliance Theoryo Besides creating the social group (with rights and

responsibilities of members) kinship/marriage determines alliances between/among human groups, organization a vast social landscape.

o Exchange of women (or men) so kinship is a system of communication subject to the same structural constraints as language and probably all “systems” of meaning.

Kinship s the basis of affect. Blood is thicker than water. Kinship provides the idiom in terms of which the other primary domains

of culture (economics, politics, religion are organized). Gender and kinship are considered mutually constituted domains.

o Nature of gender is assumed to follow from reproduction in traditional kinship studies

Kinship dominated the cultural anthropology from the late 19th until the late 20th century

Within anthropology, kinship studies refers to the patterns of social relationships themselves, as well as the study of he patterns of social relationships in one or more cultures. Over its history, anthropology has developed many closely related concepts for describing kinships: descent, descent group, lineal (direct) vs. collateral (cousin), lineage, kindred, affine, cognate, consanguine, agnate, matri-, partri-, ambi, lateral, lineal locality, virilocal, uxorilocal, avunculocal, and fictive kinship, etc.

o Within these usages of them, there are different theoretical approaches – esp. descent theory and alliance theory.

Kinship “Algebra” Symbols for snthropological notations of kindship (one of several similar systems) Δ Male Female

Lewis Henry Morgan “invented” kinship as a domain of anthropological study. His great discovery was that kinship terms were not just words,but that each kinship nomenclature constitutes a system based on a social logic. Different kinship nomenclatures employed different organizational principles and they are not simply “natural” outgrowthsof the facts of procreation.

Kinship terms had been familiar to protoanthropologist for a long time–esp. philologists

By the 16h c scholars engaged in philology Deciphering ancient inscirptions and text – comparative philology –

study of the rlatinships among languges Primary approach identify similar phonetics of words with same/similar

meaning – cognates (implied a shared…) Comparative philologists sought to determine relationships among

languages and to reconstruct history and prehistory. (This was especially important in the Americas were there was no written past)

Philologists developed a basic word list to compare languages for cognates.

Considered by Europeans to be universally necessary vocabulary, existing in every langue making such words less susceptible to outsideinfluence. Food terms, important animals, utilitarian objects, etc.)

Similarities between Sanskrit and various European languages were first noted in the early 16th century.

Classification into Indo-European family. Speculation about a common ancestry language, proto-Indo-European form

which all descended. New ideas about history. Languages were related and could be classified. Past relationships

among “nations” cold be investigated by the study of their languages.o Thomas Jeffersono Stephen de Ponceauo Catherine of Russia

Anthropological kinship as a domain for investigation was “invented’ by Leis Henry Morgan

Discovery: kinship terminology in foreign languages was not just words, but components of a logical and systematic semantic domain, composted of reciprocal terms, based on different logics for the classification of relatives among different cultures.

Morgan was inspired by Iroquois kinship and its differences from English.

Discussed in his first book: the league of the Ho-deno-sau-nee or Iroquois(1851)

Morgan did anthropological fieldwork among the Iroquois and other North American cultures, e.g., American Southwest) and collected information from all over the world.

Kinship questionnaire sent around the globe for Morgan by the Smithsonian Inst. He collected, organized, and interpreted all this kinship terminology, eventually producing: Morgan, Lewis Henry 1871 Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family.

o Distinguished 2 major types of kinship nomenclature: Classificatory – merged lineal and collateral relations in

various ways Descriptive – differentiated lineal and collateral relatives

Various other principles were also recognized: sex generation, affinity

10/1/13

Victorian Anthropology – Evolution and the comparative method: Spencer, Morgan, Tylor and Others

Victorian Era (1837-1901)o 1807 – slavery abolished in England; 1833 in British empireo 1833 – Child labor lawso 1837 – Victoria crowned queen, population of U.K. was

approximately 20 million (pop. Doubled by 1901)o 1851 – Great Exhibition (Crystal Palace) openedo 1852 – Compulsory small pox vaccinationo Industrial revolution in full swing (trade and exploration)o Colonial expansion (Canada, Australia, Africa, India, Far East)o Changing Class Structure (commercial/industrial class)o Economic prosperityo Period of religious conservation following the liberal climate of

the Enlightenmento Development of science institutions

Great Exhibition (1851)o CP housed the Great Exhibition in Hyde Park (London), which was

to demonstrate the economic, industrial and military of England.o Conceived by Prince Albert, housed more than 13,000 exhibitso This was a tribute to the success off the industrial revolution

in England – more than 6 million visitors Early 19th Century Questions

o Religions/origins – did religious teaching represent the truth ofhuman origins?

o Race/ethnicity- what were the relationships among the various groups of people of the earth? How did “races” come to be so different in appearance and customs (behavior)?

o Savages/civilized – what were the origins of civilization and thecivilized peoples of Europe?

o Language/philosophy – where did languages come from and what is their history?

o Culture/customs – what are the relationships of culture traits toone another? 9independent invention vs. diffusion)

o Time/duration – how much time did it take to move from a monogenic origin to the degeneration of non-civilized groups? Vs.How much time did it take to move from a polygenic origin to the present status of racial difference? How old were foundations of civilization?

o Space/geography – how did geography/climate contribute to monogenist differentiation?

James Cowles Prichard (1786-1848)o Born into a Quaker family, trained in medicineo Wrote Researches into the Physical History of Mankind in 1813o Founded British branch of anthropology and ethnology that

included: philology, anthropology, mythology, biblical criticism,philosophy of the human mind, and comparative anatomy and physiology.

o Progressivist (savagery to civilization), diffusionist (linkages among different societies), and he believed in the “psychic unityof man” (we are all born with the same capacity which is modifiedby the environment).

o His basic “agenda’ was to use science to prove religion as described in the Bible, and to demonstrate that humanity was united in time and in space (Quaker doctrine)

Beliefso Origins of races were biblical- either monogenism (single

creation then degeneration) or polygenism (multiple creations)o Scale of nature or ladder of perfection – was a belief in a

linear progression of creation from the simplest living creaturesto more complex living forms to humans to angels (races were hierarchically arranged from Africans at the lowest to Europeans closest to the angels).

o Hierarchical classification of nature arose with Linnaeus – simply organizing life according to God’s creations and the Scaleof Nature

o Classification has value and shortcomings – the value is in systematic ordering of information a shortcoming is that most

classifications include a hierarchy with rank included (better/worse)

o Typological views – fixed and unvarying types (“pure” races, where the principle sources of variation were caused by mixing)

o Eurocentrism – Europeans superior by virtue of their intellectualand moral superiority, and their advanced civilization.

o Male centrism – males were superior to superior to females in intellect – this was hereditary and “fixed” in the population

o Biological (physical attributes) of different population – were inseparable from behavioral and cultural (and moral) attribute – in defining races, these were considered fixed and hereditary (Boas decoupled (disengaged) “Race, Language, and Culture” in response to these early beliefs).

1830-1850o Ethnology – dominant paradigm in early 19th c. (equivalent to

today’s Anthropology)o Prichard – promoted integration of ethnography, philology, and

racial studies to promote monogenism.o Comparative Anatomy – dominant life science, contributed ideas to

racial studies.o Racism – prevalent in England where most anatomists and physical

anthropologists were polygenists – later physical anthropologistsbecame separated from the mainstream of evolution in both ethnology and biology (this persisted until the early 20th century)

o Ethnologists and Biblical scholars – monogenists whereas those who rejected biblical beliefs and the anatomists were polygenists

o Degenerationists – found in philology, anatomy, and ethnology. Biblical dogma concerning the age of the earth was being challenged

o Prichard’s death – decline in ethnology o Ethnology – based on scholarship by some (Prichard) and field

experiences by others (Wallace)o Enlightenment developmentalism – (1700s) led to biblical

degenerationism (1700s and early 1800s) which led to evolutionismand progressionism (late 1800s)

Comparative Method: 19th century and later 20th century were different – Stocking stated: p. 15 – “the idea that in the absence of traditional historical evidence, the earlier phases of civilization could be reconstructed by using data derived from the observation of peoples still living in earlier “stages” of development…” is the comparative method. Context is progressive and evolutionary.

o Problem – done in simplistic way – very limited information. Too many missing variables, too much generalization (all hunter gather societies can’t be lumped together) (Boas)

Inuit and NW Coast groups – very different cultures – just happen to be hunter-gatherers.

Some important conceptso Progress, progressive development – pervasive human value. Social

progress and biological progress.o Comparative method – two meanings: comparative method (kind o f

social uniformitarianism) and comparative method (simply comparing societies).

o Lamarckism – many dimensions, seductive, optimistic,, “soft heredity” (Cultural Evolution)

o Eugenics – improving the society/race by influencing its hereditary makeup. Several components:

(1) Social/racial improvement (2) Individual/family improvement (3) Involuntary/selective breeding (fertility) (4) Involuntary selective elimination (mortality).

o Double image of “savagery” – “primitive, ignorant, brute” on the one hand, or “noble savage,” on the other.

Lewis Henry Morgan (1818 – 1881)o Grew up in Upstate NYo Trained as a lawyer while conducting field work with the Iroquoiso Moved to Rochester at age 26 in 1844o Published League of the Iroquois (Hodenosaunee) in 1851o Moved to Michigan in 1858, studying the Beaver and Ojibwa Indianso Published Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human

Family in 1871o He was elected to the National Academy of Sciences and was the

first Chair of section H (Anthropology) of the AAS, both in 1875o Published Ancient Society in 1877o He was the most prominent anthropologist in the U.S. prior to

Boas. Morgan’s scheme for the evolution of society (look up elsewhere for

complete version)o Compiled with questionnaires and interviewso Conjectural, speculative – rather absurd for the most paro Progressive and evolutionalry

Periods:o Civilization – phonetic alphabet, literary records – Ancient and

Moderno Upper Barbarianism – manufacture, Homeric Greeks

o Middle Barbarianism – animal domestication, irrigationo Lower Barbarianism - potteryo Upper Savagery – bow, potteryo Middle Savagery – fish subsistenceo Lower Savagery – fruits and nuts

From Anciaent Society 1877o Primary institutions – are:

Subsistence Government Language The family Religion House life and architecture Property

o Stone, bronze, and iron age sequence of Danish archaeologists is useful for classifying objects of art, but his framework better represents the “progress of knowledge”

o “Arts of Subsistence” highly speculative: Fruits and roots in a restricted habitat Fish subsistence Cereal horticulture Meat and milk subsistence Unlimited subsistence through plow agriculture

o Structure of the family – was also speculative: The Consanguine Family (brothers and sisters married) The Punaluan Family (classificatory brother-sister marriage-

cousins) The Syndiasmian Family (beginning monogamy) The Patriarchal Family (polygyny) The Monogamian family (the family of civilization)

o Rates of change of “progress” have changed – the period of Savagery probably lasted about 60 percent of human prehistory.

John Lubbock, Lord Avebury (1834-1913)o He lived close to Charles Darwin in Downe and a frequent visitor

at Down House as a boy – strongly influenced by Darwin and a later supporter

o Followed his father into banking; elected to Parliament (promotedscience in schools and protection of ancient monuments).

o Published: Prehistoric Times (1865), On the Origin of Civilization (1870), Scientific Lectures (1874), Chapters in Popular Natural History (1882). He contributed to both archaeology and natural history.

o He coined the terms Paleolithic and Neolithic

o He was an early supporter of preservation of archaeological siteso Progressivist – progress towards civilization

John Ferguson McLennano Scottish lawyer who worked in Edinburgh and then later in London.

Contracted TB as a youth.o Strong interest in science and evolutiono Armchair anthology (fair amount of speculation).o Strong believer in parallel evolution of all societies (same

pathways). He was a social evolutionist who employed the “Comparative Method”

o Primitive Marriage 1865 – he was interested in marriage practicesand rules and kinship – promiscuity + female infanticide -> scarcity of women -> exogamy -> wife capture + polyandry -> matrilineality -> endogamy -> monogamy

o Hence, the first system of kinship was matrilineal. Herbert spencer (1820 – 1903)

o He was an autodidact, materialist, Progressivist, evolutionist, libertarian, social theorist and philosopher who believed strongly in individual freedom, separation of church and state, limited government, and universal suffrage.

o He was born in Derby. His father was a liberal intellectual who ran a progressive school, and was Secretary of the Derby Philosophical Society (founded by Erasmus Darwin in the 1790s).

o Published Social Statics in 1848 and a pamphlet in 1852 defendinga theory of organic evolution (seven years before the Origin of Species was published). He used the term “survival of the fittest” in the book, Social Statics.

o He had limited formal education, but following publication of hisfirst book, he began to move in intellectual circles.

o Published Principles of Psychology in 1855. In it, he explored the physiological basis for human psychology and argued that the human mind was subject to natural laws. In this and other works, he used biological models for human behavior and society.

o He first used concepts such as superorganic (anticipated concept of culture), structure, function, and system, and he wrote about structural functionalism (society represents system that has structures and functions).

o He believed a society represents a certain level of social evolution based on its structural differentiation

o Tried to find universal law Social Darwinism originated with Herbert Spencer

o It was based on a Progressivist view of society where members of western society were more fit than other societies and then had

priority and power to dominate or control these less fit societies

o Darwin, however as extremely cautious in his writing about humans, but he was interested in them

o Darwin was well aware of the competition built into the free-enterprise capitalism of the 19thcentury,

“The Evolution of Society” circa 1879o He uses a biological model or analogy or an organism for society

as a progressive differentiation of structure and function.o Both organisms and societies have: continuous growth, structural

complexity, interdependent parts, long lifetime, and inherited character (social continuity0.

o He discussed “social growth” Edward Burnett Tylor (1832-1917)

o He was raised in a prosperous Quaker family and was ill as a young man

o While traveling for his health he met Henry Christy, an amateur ethnologist, in Cuba and the two went to Mexico in 1855. This wasthe only field experience he ever had.

o Based on these field travels, he wrote Anahuac, or Mexico and theMexicans, Ancient and Modern in 1861.

o He published Researches in to the Early History of Mankind in1865, and primitive culture in 1871.

o He was elected to the Royal Society in 1871 and in 1875 was giventhe honorary degree, doctor of civil laws at Oxford.

o 1883 he was appointed Keeper of the University Museum and Reader in Anthropology at Oxford in 1884, and Professor in 1896. He was knighted in 1912.

o He published an introduction to anthropology, entitled Anthropology in 1881.

o He developed and defined the concept of culture as “that complex whole which include knowledge, belief, art, moral, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a memberof society.”

o He developed ideas on cognitive evolutiono He first used statistics in comparative studies in 1899 on laws

of marriage and descento He made major contributions in religion: 3 stages were animism,

polytheism and monotheismo Tylor was a unilinear evolutionist and believed that all

societies progressed through equivalent stages.

o He believed that there wee functional an non-functional components of culture, where the non-functional components were the survivals from earlier stages of evolution

o The survivals were the key to understanding past characteristics of society

o Tylor also believer in the psychic unity of mankind. This conceptcan be interpreted in a variety of ways but fundamentally means that people everywhere have a commonality of cognition and are able to produce similar “elementary ideas”

“Psychic unity” as a concept developed during Enlightenment and skips up through Adolf Bastian to Franz Boas

States all humans share same psychological and cognitive makeup, and that regardless of race, we are behaviorally thesame

For Edward B. Tylor, psychic unity justified Comparative approach since humans and human societies did experience similar cultural trajectories (linear evolution)

For Franz Boas, psychic unity indicated that humans had a similar capacity for culture, but the cultural outcomes werenot identical.

Lesser figures:o Henry Christy (1810- 1865)o Henry Thomas Buckle (1821-1862) – History of Civilization in

Englando Henry Sumner Maine – comparative law, Ancient Lawo Francis Galton - evolutionisto Alfred Russel Wallace – “scientific traveler”o Lane Fox Pitt-Rivers – Museum at Oxford

Stocking’s Attributes of Sociocultural Evolutionismo Sociocultural phenomena are governed by laws science can discovero These laws operate uniformly in the past as well as n the presento The present grows out of the past by continuous processes w/o any

sharp breakso This growth proceeds from the simple to the complexo All people share a single psychic nature (unity)o Motive force of sociocultural development is found in the

interaction of this common human nature and conditions of the external environment

o The cumulative results of this interaction indifferent environments are manifest n the differential development of various human groups

o These results can be measured, using the extent of human control over external nature as the primary criterion

o Other sociocultural phenomena develop in correlation with scientific progress

o Other sociocultural phenomena develop in correlation with scientific progress

o Human groups can be objectively ordered in a hierarchical fashiono Certain contemporary societies approximate the earlier stages of

human development.o In the absence of adequate historical data these stages may be

reconstructed by a comparison of contemporary groupso Results of this “comparative method” can be confirmed by

“survivals” in more advanced societies of the forma characteristic of lower stages

Professionalization of Anthropologyo Fred W. Voget’s 1973 Scientific Specializations

The exponents of a discipline usually express a strong senseof difference by contrasting their special subject matter with that of others. (Native peoples and space and time)

A special theory of reality and of “causal” explanation is claimed, even though these may not be made fully explicit. (Developmental progressivism/evolutionism)

Claim is made to distinctive methodology (comparative with small c)

A special set of factual materials ins assembled that contrasts with those employed in related disciplines (sociocultural, physical/biological, prehistoric, linguisticcharacteristics of humans)

o Bohannan And Glazier’s 1988 Anthropology in Mid-1800s Retained a holistic view of humankind

(temporal/spatial/social/biological). Established as its subject matter “primitive” peoples Established the discipline as an “empirical” science Studies were conducted in the “field”, that is, the place

where its subjects resided.

10/3/13

Orthogenesis - progress, direction in evolution Herbert Spencer – interested in establishing natural laws – both

social and organic evolutiono Progress, laws

Franz Boas, Race, and Early Growth Studies Jewish, German, grew up in a climate of relatively low Anti-Semitism

o 1888 Began work on Indians of North Pacific Coast under the auspices of the Committee of the British Association For the Advancement of Science. Met Stanley Hall who offered him a job atClark Uni. In Mass.

o 1889-92 – Position at Clark; initiated 1st longitudinal study of the growth of Worcester school children.

o 1892 First PhD in anthropology in the US awarded to AF Chamberlain on Algonquian Mississauga Indian language; first papers on growth in Science

o 1892-1894 – Appointed chief assistant for anthropology exhibits, World Columbian Expo, Chicago (under Putnam)

Didn’t get the job at U. Chicago or the Field Museumo 1894- First use of the correlation coefficient in anthropology

Large sample sizes - complexo 1895-1905 – Held position at the American Museum of Natural

History, NYC Had connections here in NYC

o 1897 – Director, Jessup North Pacific Expedition (Bering Strait Native Americans –Inuit, NW Coast & Siberians)

o 1898 – First US Growth Standards publishedo 1900-30 Editor, Publications of the Jessup North Pacific

Expeditiono 1905-36 Academic position at Columbia University

Personal connections – uncle knew president and offered to subsidize Boas’ salary

o 1907-42 Editor, Publications of the American Ethnological Societyo 1908-24 Editor, Journal of American Folkloreo 1908 Began study of European Immigrantso 1911 Published The Mind of the Primitive Man – Psychic unityo 1911-12 Published Changes in Bodily Form of Descendants of

Immigrants Around 18,000 people measured

o 1911-12 Director, International School of American Archaeology and Ethnoogy (began stratified excavations in Mexico)

o 1911-41 Editor, Handbook of American Indian Languages (4 volumes)o 1913-36 Editor Columbia University Contributions to Anthropologyo 1914 Surgery for cancer of the cheek trip to Puerto Ricoo 1917-39 Editor/founder International Journal of American Ling.o 1918-? Associate Editor, American Journal of Physical

Anthropologyo 1927 Published Primitive Arto 1933 First spoke out about the Nazis

Against US involvement in WWI, but thought US was justified in joining WWII to stop Hitler - wasn’t listened to- deemed biased since he was Jewish

o 1936 Cover of Timeo 1938 Published General Anthropologyo 1940 Published Race, Language, and Cultureo 1942 Died, December 21st at a luncheon in NYC literally in Claude

Levi-Strauss’ arms. World’s Columbian Expo (Chicago’s World Fair) 1892-1894

o Built on the shore of Lake Michigan, the Chicago Exposition celebrated the 400th anniversary of Columbus’ discovery of the New World.

o In 1891, Boas Agreed to help Frederick Ward Putnam (at Harvard) in preparations for the Chicago Fair by preparing charts of Native American “bodily dimensions”

o Boas then hired 8 Clark and Harvard students plus more than 40 missionaries, army and navy doctors, Indian agents, and teachers to measure Native Americans throughout North America. The work began the summer of 1891 and continued through 1893.

o After conflict with G. Stanley Hall, Boas left Clark university to take a position in the fall of 1892 as Assistant to Putnam at the World’s Columbian Expo

o More than 16,000 Native Americans were measured (3.0% of the total population alive at that time – est. 530,000)

Salvaging what was left of the Native Americans Richard L. Jantz’s reanalysis of Boas’ native American data

o In the early 1980’s, Jantz read a comment by T. Dale Stewart in a1973 publication about anthropometric measurements that Baos collected of Native Americans.

o More than 15,000 data sheets were found in the basement of the American Museum of Natural History in NYC. 3,000 more data sheetswere found among Boas’ papers at the American philosophical Society in Philadelphia.

o 12 measurements were taken – 6 of the head and 6 of the body.o In addition, Boas instructed the measurers to gather information

on pedigree and family data, which later studies have used to estimate genetic association.

o About 25 papers have been published on these data.o Jantz identified Boas’ questions linked to these data:

What are the principal characteristics of Native Americans? Can a number of types be distinguished among them? Does the distribution of types give a clue to the ancient

migration in North America?

Does intermixture result in any negative effects? American laws forbade intermixture at this time

Does the mixed population differ from the unmixed? He was interested in type, population, variation

o Jantz calculated that Boas measured about 2,100 subjects, himself, between 1890 and 1897. (4 months full-time effort)

o Although Boas used the term “type,” he was really interested in variation. Hence, his attention to large sample sizes.

o Studies were possible of secular change, geographical associations, sexual dimorphism, and genetic/phenotypic relations.

In physical (biological) anthropology, Boas’ major contributions were in race and human growth

o Interests in race were connected to interests in growth because he became aware of the developmental plasticity that contributed to adult characteristics.

Developmental Plasticity – flexibility in humans and other living being that are related to the process of growth from conception to maturation

o Interests in growth were both to debunk the rigid, fixed categories that defined races, but also probably because it was interesting and mathematically challenging.

o Hence, there were humanitarian (egalitarian) and intellectual interests that probably motivated him.

He was well-prepared for growth studies from several standpoints:o He had been trained by Virchow in anthropometrics in Berlin and

had used these measurement methods for the Eskimo, Bella Coola, and other research

o He was careful and logical in his research design, and attempted to control for variables which would produce variation in the results

o He appreciated the value of statistics and was skilled in their use, which was crucial in dealing with very complex relationships

Boas’ Early Growth Studieso Longitudinal growth of Worcester, Massachusetts children was

begun in 1891 when he was at Clark Universityo He observed variation in what he called the “tempo of growth”

growth rates – some children grew more rapidly than otherso He argued that social class differences led to these growth

differenceso The logical conclusion he drew was that if the social environment

produced changes in child growth, then the adult “type” was not

fixed and that the probability of a “deviation from type” was high.

o All of these ideas, based on empirical data from the growth studies, were published in Science between 1892 and 192 and were applied to the immigration study.

Boas’ Study of European Migrantso In 1900, prevailing view was that human race were fixed “types”,

with adult forms strictly reflecting hereditary processes.o Concepts of racial “purity”, Caucasian superiority (especially

Western European), and dangers of racial mixing were widespread. Also the question of migration policy

o Principal objective in physical anthropology was defining and describing races and placing them in some sort of hierarchy.

o Little was known of heredity and the science of genetics was in its infancy.

o Boas was one of the few who challenged these ideas because his intuitive sense of “plasticity” during growth leading to environmental effects in adults

o The ideas that came from all of his growth work were applied in the design of the study conducted for the US Immigration Commission

o The US Immigration Commission study was initiated by Boas in March 1908, was completed in 1910, and was published between 1911and 1913

o Boas’ plans were spelled out in a letter to the Commission: The essential question to be solved seems to be the

selection that takes place by immigration, the modificationsthat develop in the children of the immigrants born abroad, and the further changes that take place in the children of the immigrants born in this country; and the effect of intermarriages in this country. It would be necessary to investigate all these problems, not only be a determination of the adult type, but also particularly by the development of the children of these various classes.

o Measurements of head dimensions and height were taken of thousands of Bohemians, Poles, Hungarian, Slovaks, Eastern European Jews, Sicilian, and Neapolitans. Comparisons were made of children by age at immigration and those who were native U.S. born. Boas’ results laid to rest, forever, the belief that body characteristics were invariant (only under hereditary control), by demonstrating changes in head form (cephalic index), increasestin height of immigrant children, and a negative relationship

between family size and the average heights of children within the family.

Flexibility – changes between generations The 21st century conflict

o Sparks and Jantz (2002) transcribed the raw data, reanalyzed it and reported that the data did not demonstrate plasticity.

o Gravlee, Bernard, and Leonard (2003) independently transcribed the data and reported that Boas’ study did demonstrate cranial plasticity.

o As with many anthropological conflicts, the combatants dig in their heels and do not try to resolve the conflict!

o Relethford (2004) demonstrated that they were both right/wrong byshowing that there was some change (plasticity) but that the basic relationships among the groups remained the same (genetics).

o Had they done their homework, they might have understood that Boas had come to the same conclusion years earlier, when he stated:

These changes do not obliterated the differences between genetic type but they show that the type as we see it contains elements that are not genetic but an expression of the influence of the environment. (Boas, 1936)

Results of Boas’ Study of European Migrantso Cephalic index – round-headed = higher values; long-headed =

lower valueso Only 2 populations shifted their positions (Hebrew, Scots), while

one population stayed the same (Polish) Boas’ Growth Studies

1. He discovered irregularities of Henry Bowdich’s data on height inwhich some distributions were asymmetrical and that, he concluded, were due to changing rates of growth (“tempo of growth”)

2. He demonstrated that longitudinal growth studies were much more valuable than cross-sectional studies

3. He produced the first National Growth Standards or norms based on90,000 children between ages 5 and 18 years from Oakland, Toronto, Boston, Milwaukee, Worchester, and St. Louis

4. He used statistical correlation on the Worcester longitudinal data shortly after Karl Pearson developed the correlation procedure in the UK

5. Concept of physiological (developmental) age and observations that males were behind females as early as 5 years of age about 1908 (based on tooth eruption). He described this in a 1912

paper. This is the last growth paper in his early period of studies.

6. Based on the migrant study, observed that children (working classin poor) from large families tended to be smaller on average thanthose of comparable age from small families.

7. At age 72 (1930) he picked up the line of research on growth of adolescents who had been studied longitudinally. He initiated theuse of the “maximum growth age” (age of peak velocity) during adolescence.

8. Observation that children from the Horace Mann School f Columbia University had become larger between 1909 and 1935 (now known as the secular trend in growth). He attributed this to changes in social and economic conditions leading to modification of the “tempo of development” of children.

All of this very original work on child and adolescent growth resulted form his remarkable ability to conceptualize.

Boas’ Students in Physical Anthropologyo Why didn’t he train students? – Generally bad luck.

183 Publications in Physical Anthropology10/8/13

20th Century Concepts of Race and Human Variation, and Post-WWII Physical Anthropology

Principal figures in physical anthropology at the beginning or early part of the 20th century

o Leonce-Pierre Manouvrier (1850-1927) – anatomy, skeletal biology,human paleontology, anthropometry. Took over Paris school of anthropology.

o Franz Boas (1858-1942) Plasticity, growth, race, statistics.o Rudolf Martin (1864-1925) anthropometry, somatology, handbook.

Focused on method and compilation of techniques in anthropology.o Arthur Keith (1866-1955) comparative and primate anatomy, human

paleontology, posture and locomotion. o Ales Hrdlicka (1869-1943) anthropometry, osteometry, origin of

native Americanso Raymond Pearl (1879-1940) population biology, human biology and

health, statisticso Earnest Hooton (1887-1954) skeletal biology, criminal

anthropology (relationship between physical characteristics and behavior), human constitution, racial history – trained most of the generation of physical anthropologists

Derived sub-fields of biological anthropology

o Growth and development from Boas’ research and his later migrant design

o Anthropometrics and osteometrics from Manouvrier, Hrdlicka, and Martin

o Primatology from Keith and Hootono Paleoanthropology from Keith and Krdlickao Statistics from Boas and Pearlo Demography, population biology, genetics and epidemiology from

Pearl American school of anthropology

o The American school of anthropology was a polygenist and racist system of beliefs based on the idea of white racial superiorirty.It is also linked to what is known as the “scientific racism” andused to support the practice of slavery in the US. Three main proponents of the American school were: Samuel Morton (Philadelphia, craniology, physician), Louis Agassiz (Harvard, biologist), and Josiah Nott (Columbia, SC, physician).

Josiah Clark Nott (1804-1873)Louis Agassiz (1807- 1873)Samuel G. Morton (1799-1851)

Craniology & Race TypologyFrance:

Notes on Key Events hand outo Montagu wrote book early on – Man’s Most Dangerous Myth – about

race. Argued that race be replaced with ethnicity.o Cold Spring Harbor – whence Davenport’s eugenics cameo Livingstone – pioneering study in Liberia – studied Malaria and

Sickle cell. Demonstrated that subsistence and culture were contributing to changes in gene frequency in a population. When populations moved into West Africa and began to cultivate, they allowed standing pools of water to exists – increase populations of mosquitoes – selective preference for those with sickle cell because they didn’t get malaria.

}Paul Broce (1824-1880) ->Lence-Pierce Manouvrier (1850-1927) at the Ecole

Ideas return to the US with Hrdlicka

o Cline – gradient – some things are clinal, some are clustered Wenner-Gren (Viking fund) Summer Seminars (1946-1951

o Sherwood Washburn sought Paul Fejos’ support for a 6 week programfor young professionals and students

o Fejos also provided support for the new Yearbook of Physical Anthropology that reported on the Summer Seminars and reviewed the literature for the year

o Gabriel Lasker edited the Yearbook. Both Lasker and Washburn wereamong the more progressive physical anthropologists in the profession.

o They were enthusiastic about reducing the emphasis on race and descriptive anthropometric measurements, while incorporating scientific design and evolutionary theory into the research

o Summer seminars were in the vanguard and help in NYC at the Viking Fund offices.

1950 Cold Spring Harbor Symposiumo The 15th Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative Biology,

entitled Origin and Evolution of Man was held from Friday June 9 to Saturday June 17, 1950 (9 days, 1 session/day). The attendance was 129, and of these attendees, 25-30 were anthropologists, others were geneticists, biologists, scientists, from the Institute, and a few from spouses of the participants. Funding was from the Carnegie Corporation (who funded the Cold Spring Harbor Institute) and the Viking Fund (later to be the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research). Organizers were Theodosius Dobzhansky and Sherwood L. Washburn.

“The New Physical Anthropology” in 1951o The process of primate evolutiono Scientific study of human variation (use of the scientific method

– hypothesis testing). Had been used in other fields effectively,but not yet in anthropology.

o There was to be a return to evolution and Darwinism. o But with genetics, and where races must be studied as population,

not types.o Physical anthropologists could contribute to studies of

migration, genetic drift, and selection.o One of the important objectives was to study the adaptation of

form to function [linked to Washburn’s interest in functional anatomy].

Anatomy is descriptive field- functional anatomy explores how the parts work together.

Attacks against the race concept

o Those who objected to the concept of race did so on two basic grounds: 1 that its typological concept was counter to an understanding of human population variation, and 2 that race implied a hierarchy and was always tied to racism.

o Ashley Montagu wanted to change the term to ethnic group from theearly 1940s. Montagu had played a central role in drafting the UNESCO Statement on Race in 1950 and was an outspoken opponent ofracism and racial typology since that time.

o Livingstone was supported by Loring Brace, but not by Theodosius Dobzhansky.

o The geneticist, Theo, fought against racism but believed firmly in the population concept, and that race should be conceptualizedas population.

o Good references: Man’s Most Dangerous Myth, The Mismeasure of Man, The Evolution of Racism, Human Biodiversity, Race in North America, “Race” is a Four-Letter Word.

Summary AAPA Statement on Biological Aspects of Raceo Preamble – general principleso 11 points as revisions of the 1962 UNESCO statement1. All humans living today belong to a single species2. Human differences are both hereditary and environmental3. Pure races do not exist. There is much variation4. There is geographic variation reflecting item 25. Humans cannot be classified, there is no major discontinuity6. Evolutionary, environmental and random forces have contributed to

human variation; no basis for inferiority or superiority f groups.

7. Migration has contributed to variation and also to commonalities.8. Gene flow and other processes lead to the continual rise and fall

of local populations.9. Marriage depends on individual genetics; therefore no basis for

restricting intermarriage.10. No concordance between biological and

culturally defined groups.11. Equal capacity for culture; no basis for

racism. Summary AAA Statement

o Human populations are not biologically distinct groups.o Little disagrees – there are distinctions that make groups

interestingo No lines of division among groups because of gradients/clines.o “Physical variations in the human species have no meaning except

the social ones that humans put on them”

o “’Race’ was a mode of classification linked specifically to peoples in the colonial situation and to justify the retention ofslavery.”

o “Leaders among European-Americans fabricated the cultural/behavioral characteristics associated with each ‘race’, linking superior traits with Europeans and negative and inferior ones to blacks and Indians”

o 19th century beliefs proposed that Africans, Indians and Europeans were separate species (polygenism)

o “’Race’ as an ideology about human differences was subsequently spread to other areas of the world” and used for controlling colonized people

o False racial myths connecting biology and behavior and heredity arose.

o Culture is learned from infancy and independent of genetics.o “all normal human[s]… have the capacity to learn any cultural

behavior”.o Summary: “’racial’ worldview was invented to assign some groups

to perpetual low status… [and] present-day inequalities between so-called ‘racial’ groups are not consequences of their biological inheritance but products of historical and contemporary social, economic, and political circumstances.

10/10/13 Cumulative effects of things that don’t seem like they matter

o Why don’t they seem to matter?o These changes can occur quietly and suddenly appear if not paying

attentiono E.g., Watching comedies in Ireland – Frasier & Friends

What happened to “hello”? “Hey” suddenly popular. Some form of salutation exists and is necessary as a

conversation starter, but shifts. What makes an idea seem “good” to so many people?

o How are they marketed, spread?o Who decides?o Politics and power are now very important in contemporary

anthropologyBoas 1858-1942

Boasians – “culture change” – had to have an idea of what culture was and how to study change. Some wanted to apply their understanding, others said no, just seek to understand.

Culture and Context, Methods and Ethnology

o Ethnology in the 1930’s – field research, studying culture ethnographically, understanding comparative study of culture

o Ethnography – recording this Anti-cultural evolutionist, anti-diffusionist

o Believed laws of social life are discoverableo Evolution plays a part in creating a world in which those laws

are discoverableo No evidence that evolution applies to all people, which is a

necessary conditiono Boas demanded an inductive method – need evidence before bold

assertions can be made. Fieldwork absolutely necessary. The best you can do is know the history, but there are

issues with this- Many societies didn’t have written records Individual perspectives not necessarily objective or

accurate 1915-1940 –dominant theoretical stance in American cultural

anthropology was history and ethnology.o Boas and his students never called it historical particularismo Marvin Harris coined this term.o History is necessary because its result is the present.

It’s okay if it’s tainted by personal perspective – bias is also telling

o Boas didn’t believe in unidirectional evolution. The fact that things are similar is a problem to be solved,

but not evidence of a shared source Shouldn’t assume we know something just because the theory

says so – have to have evidence to back the claim up – can’ttheorize without evidence.

o Boas says Culture is integrated – history creates the presento Culture – many sources, not just one

Particular histories cannot be constructed without written history, but similar traits of culture can be compared to understand the distribution of culture

Language, tools, marriage – manifested themselves in patterns

BUT! There’s remarkable distribution within the pattern These differences are just as important as the

similaritieso No matter how similar USA and Canada look, one

“knows” immediately that they are different Traits and trait complexes

Many parts all integrate, work together to form cultureo Clark Whistler – culture area. Boundaries within

which certain culture traits are found 3 factors Boasians believed mattered:

o Environmento Psychological factors – role of individual within

a group. Different societies really have differentcharacters, and within that individuals are varied.

o Historical Connections Boas thought the data they were collecting would be the

general laws for human/cultural developmento But knew more information was needed, history

needed to be understood before any induction couldbe made

Explanation, explication = theory? Explication – flesh it out, show its character,

relationships, connectionso Not trying to explain

Boasians not interested in explaining origin or use of culture – just wanted to show how cultural traits were used and how it works in real life

o How to live the life in that place Cultural Relativism

o Some consider this to be a very important idea – cannot be judgedby someone who is not in that culture

Kroeber (1876-1906) “Last generalist of Anthropology” Civilization and culture

o Kroeber must mean something a little bit different than culture Society is different from culture Culture is larger than the individual

o Boasians – triad of society, individual, cultureo Reaction against individual as a manifestation of culture –

culture passively deposited Cannot study ethnology without studying history

o Kroeber says that ethnographers are by definition historianso Ethnography still best understood as local history

Can’t be replicated, reproduced Superorganic – life of their own, culture only regulated by culture,

cultural change can only be explained by things that make cultural change (uh, duh)

Cultural Configurationo Pattern

o Teleology?

READ 18 PROFESSIONS AGAIN – pick a few that you think are retarded