Talk:Anthropology/Archive 1

Anthropology VS. Sociology
What is the difference between Anthro and sociology? I have read a simplistic view that anthro is for people different from the researcher and socio for people like the resarcher.

The term "sociology" was invented by Comte as applied positivism, and sociology as a discipline has remained strongly positivistic in a strict sense. Anthropology comes out of an entirely different set of traditions, mainly comparative law (sociology is anti-law), anthropo-geography, and Vokerpsychology. The first chair in anthropology was 1869, in Berlin. The people who made up the anthropology at Cambridge when Malinowski went there were mainly appointed in psychology, and in the tradition of Volkerpsychologie. Sociology departments were founded separately, beginning in the 1880s, and by that time the major theoretical icon was Herbert Spencer. Where positivism was consistently aligned with political authoritatianism, anthropology (under these heads and as it coalesced) was consentently aligned with democratic and republican political sentiments. Sociological were first introduced in anthropology in Britain by E. B. Tylor in 1885, and then by Radcliffe-Brown in the 1930s. The institutional section in this article is way off the point. It should be replace by something that fits the title. M Leaf.


 * I was wondering the exact same thing. I'm looking at this and thinking that it's not worth studying because, if I'm right, genetics have something to do with culture, which of course is a duh statement if you look different. However, I see that sociology is the greater of the social sciences because it includes human behavior. I don't really see too much talk about human behavior here. It seems like a bunch of rubbish and looking at really old societies. "Digging through the past". So how can this be one of the greater social sciences? I think I read somewhere that it takes bits and pieces of the other sciences, but I really don't see it mixing them all together for a big picture, which sociology does. --Cyberman 00:45, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Soc is the study of human social interactions, while anthro is the study of humans, including our evolution and development, our language, our culture and our past civilizations. The current article on anthro is terrible, IMO and does not do anthropology justice. They both are behavorial sciences; anthro focuses on the four sub disciplines of physical, cultural, linguistic and archaeology. Sociology focuses on the origins, institutions, organizations and development of society. --JPotter 20:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Physical surroundings? Physical....? --Cyberman 02:20, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * The way I like to think about the differences begins with the 19th century origins of the two disciplines. Sociology traces its roots to the most enduring social policy question to emerge out of the industrial revolution: "With all these positive and progressive changes occuring in society, why are the poor still around?" An early economist name Frederic LePlay in London was the first to articulate the problem and begin systematic investigations of the possible causes. Thus, for me, sociology has its roots in the analysis of class differences. As it has evolved, it has incorporated other problems and research programs, such as gender and race. Yet, class continues to be an enduring framework for understanding the primary mission of the discipline. Anthropology has its 19th century roots in a different problem altogether: "Does it matter in some ethical, moral, or aesthetic sense that people around the world look different from each other?" The earliest anthropologists were physical scientists who try to measure the differences in the way people looked and then tried to relate these differences to behavior. Anthropology has its roots in racial science. A major revolution in the discipline took place in England and the U.S. just before the First World War. Rather than seeing race as the explanation of behavior, anthropologists, especially Boas at Columbia University, but also to some extent Malinowski at University Colle

ge, London, began to see racial thinking as the behavior to be explained. Anthropology has evolved to include issues of class and gender in its analyses, but the deconstruction of the explanatory power of the race concept continues to be the primary motivation for focusing on local communities and global processes. 140.192.149.26 16:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Rotenberg.

In part, the differences between anthropology, sociology, and history are best seen as artifacts of 19th century academic posturing. These disciplines are heavily overlaped. However one way of thinking about it is to notice the names. Sociolology - society - is a top down approach, begining with the notion that there is this society thing in the modern industrial world that can be studied in whole or in its constituent parts and even looked at historically. Anthropology - Anthro (man) - is a bottom up approach that begins with the notion of people and studies them, thier technologies and institutions, across time and space. History - (story) - is also a study of people and society but it is done through the medium of the written word, an examination of the written record of the past.DHBoggs 04:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

When I began studying anthropology at the University of Chicago I asked this same question, and I was told that "anthropology is what anthropologists do." Sounds about right to me! Mayser 19:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the main difference between anthropology and sociology is not in the objects of the research (which overlap tremendously) but in the methods: Anthropological research (socio-cultural anthropology) is based on long-term participant observation, whereas sociology bases itself on structured quantitative or qualitative surveys designed to test a pre-formulated hypothesis. One will rarely find sociological research based on any long term participant observation. Likewise one will rarely find anthropological research extensively based on data gleaned from structured surveys analysed statistically. Participant observation consists of living with the 'natives' and participating in their day-to-day activities in order to 1) identify recurring cultural patterns which take the form of ideas & beliefs, practices, and artifacts; and 2) gain an understanding of the meanings and motivations underlying these patterns. (added by Flo - 18 April 2006)

It is true that sociology relies more on surveys and less on participant observation than anthropology, but that is not a useful distinction. Participant observation is a technique used in all the social sciences, even sometimes in history, and it is certainly used in sociology. Further, the anthropological literature is repleat with the use of surveys and statistics, some branches such as Etnoscience and Cognative Anthropology being particularly dependant on them, not to mention the use to which both statistics and various kinds of surveys are utelized for anthropological linguistincs medical anthropology and, of course, archaeology.DHBoggs


 * I think a major difference is that sociology sees humans as discreet beings seperatable from their activities (culture) and, though influenced by, the creators of culture. Modern anthropology sees humans and culture as a cohesive structure with influence going both ways.  Also, most anthropologists believe in a much more fluid and self-determining relationship between culture, society, and individuals than it seems sociologists do.  Additionally, some anthropologists view this relationship as evolutionary...    So, as a tool for interpreting and manipulating a society within the same society, sociology isthe better tool.  As a tool for understanding a group of people, their culture, their physiological adaptations, their history, and their relatedness to others, anthropology is the best formal tool. Deathbunny 01:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Anthropology Vs. Geography
Could someone explain the similarities and differences between Human Geography and Socio-Cultural Anthropology? I've noticed that many Universities have Anthropology or Geograhpy Departments but they rarely have both. What is the history around this pattern? -Curious


 * First of all, human genetics holds absolutely no factors on your culture. Now, I am an anthropology student, and for the most part, Anthropology deals with the cultural realities that pervade our society; where as Geography looks more at humans within a context of a location, i.e people in Russia's Komi region, or Urban studies. Anthropologists look at the culture of people. They study the phenomenology and look at how biological/medical factors, cultural, regional and physical factors could influence culture. This is also different from sociology. Traditionally, Anthropology dealt with foreign cultures, but not so today; however, Anthropology is closer now to sociology than before. Anthropology (again) is more concerned with the facts surrounding a cultural phenomenon, where as sociology focuses more on the statistics, it's placement within a context and the ability to form a rubric to better understand and fix the social inequalities. You may also wonder: "What importance does anthropology have in our modern context." Well, I'll tell you. Anthropology, since it allows us to understand society, helps us in the Legal, Medical, Business and educational fields. We seem to be blind to the fact that people of various cultures ignore medicine, because their own cosmology may not allow for much room for expirience with it. We also have truency among many aboriginal groups world wide, which alot of times can be explained culturally. Alot of business people employ anthropologists to give them a field research of the business possibilities in a new investment area.


 * "...human genetics holds absolutely no factors on your culture." That's an odd and somewhat incorrect statement.  Human genetics is a major factor in human culture.  Human genetics is a major factor in human behavior.  Human behavior influences culture.  Culture influences human behavior.  Human behavior influences genetics.  Three short examples:  1.  Lactose tolerance after childhood is a genetic adaptation that is a result, over time, of living in a pastoral society.  This adaptation alters cultural practices by changing diets, social structures involving herd animals (including dairy vs. raisng for meat), and the results of a fat-rich diet.  2.  Mate selection is based on health and geneticically heritable traits.  These traits tend to be reinforced, sometimes to extremes.  The side effects of these extremes influence behavior and the cultural activities based on it.  3.  Several recent studies have attributed male homosexuality to genetic or epigenetic sources.  I won't even start on the cultural influences of male homosexuality or the responses to it and/or it's "prevention".Deathbunny 01:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A better explanation is this: Geography deals with all things that are spatially organized, and their organizations and spatial relations (whether human or non-human). Anthropology deals with all dimensions of humanity and humankind. Personally, I think anthropology is ''less' like sociology now than fifty or a hundred years ago. For one thing, anthropologists studied people in their own ("Western") societies for a very long time - Frazer writes about praces in England and Hortense Powdermaker wrote an ethnography of a twon in Mississipi in the 1940s. Moreover, sociology has increasingly becomemore andmore positivies (in the USA, not in the UK), whereas anthropology remains as open to hermeneutics and critical theory, or at least to non-positivist methods of research and analysis, as it was a hundred years ago. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The Leakeys
hello ,,,i am trying to edit Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the Leakeys should be mentioned? I would have expected them to be discussed in at least the British section. While I do understand that they were also Paleontologists, they pioneered much of modern anthropology and archaeology. - David J. B.

First revert
I reverted to the previous version. Here is why: the most recent change deleted holism and added transculturation as a subheading. But holism shouod not be deleted -- it is a defining concept in anthropology, if you look at virtually any intro textbook the word will be highlighted in the first or second chapter. Since it is a term anthropologists use to define their field, it ought to be in the article. Transculturation, on the other hand, is a minor (thought important) concept in anthropology. The section following the header, "transculturation," was about a lot more than transculturation, and I think transculturation is too specific a concept for much discussion in a general article. It certainly should be linked. I made sure that the set of anthropological topics links includes transculturation Slrubenstein


 * As Slrubenstein has correctly asserted, holism is a defining concept in anthropology. -- NetEsq 00:55 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

POV Issue
I have removed a short section of three paragraphs from the article. I have pasted them here but first I will explain my reasons for doing so which are five. First, I feel that quotes in an encyclopedia article about anthopolgy should come from known anthropologists. Karl Marx was a progresivistic political philosopher, not an anthropologist, not even remotely. I fully appreciate that many anthropologists adopted a Marxist perspective and that Marxism provides a rich theoretical source in all the social sciences, but the same can be said of biology, economics, Darwinism, theology etc. Quoting Darwin on general anthropological theory would be equally inappropriate, for example. Further that "peoples" experience is increasingly atomized begs the question of what people. Western People? All p eople? These are subjective Points of View and one of the strengths of anthropology is that it demonstrates differences in cultural response making such a universal statement seem unlikely, problematic. It is further questionable, if true, that this is indeed "one of the greatest paradoxes". Third, the quote itself discusses the global spread of industry; it does not say anything about the atomization of traditional groups or make any causal link between the two phenomena. Fourth, the claim of "increasing" class/religion/race conflict begining in the 16th century has no empirical grounding. One can argue the opposit, that ethnocentricism and intolerance have decreased with increased contact as exemplified by the eradication of slavery and the birth and growth of the civil rights concept. That new cultural expressions arrise through contact is unquestionable, but that they are "confusing and disturbing" is an ambiguous and subjective statement that clearly depends on who and what you are talking about. And last, the paragraphs strongly promote a theoretical perspective that believes progress is an inherent characteristic of evolution; a VIEW that Darwin himself, and many contemporary theorists was/are very much opposed to. Here is the section I removed:DHBoggs 16:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * These intellectual movements in part grappled with one of the greatest paradoxes of modernity: as the world is becoming smaller and more integrated, people's experience of the world is increasingly atomized and dispersed. As Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels observed in the 1840s:


 * All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe.  In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes.  In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations.


 * Ironically, this universal interdependence, rather than leading to greater human solidarity, has coincided with increasing racial, ethnic, religious, and class divisions, and new – and to some confusing or disturbing – cultural expressions. These are the conditions of life with which people today must contend, but they have their origins in processes that began in the 16th century and accelerated in the 19th century.

Inserts
Homo Paranthropus Australopithecus Kenyanthropus Ardipithecus Orrorin Sahelantropus 0-x-- x   x         x       1-x-- x         x              x   2-x-xx--- x           x               x         x            x               x         x            x               x 3---xx---x--- x           x               x         x            x               x                      x 4x--- x                                                                                 x                                                     x 5

x                                                               x 6--x-x--- x                                                                         x                                                                          x 7x---

| millions of years

ASCII picture from, where should i put it? --Nerd 08:34 Apr 6, 2003 (UTC)

Don't put it anywahere until you have looked at all the relevant articles on human evolution (e.g. Homo sapiens) -- many have this sort of information already. I also caution against putting a chart like this in it as it as not all paleoanthropologists agree on the taxa, and the dates are constantly changing. Slrubenstein

Capitalisation of names of sub-fields

I don't want to change anything yet because I'm a bit rusty on Wikipedia etiquette, but the way I read Naming conventions (capitalization) the sub-fields should appear like Cultural anthropology etc, that is, the second word should not be capitalised. Should I change the names of sub-fields to fix the capitalisation? --Claudine 23.may.2003


 * I agree, please do. - Patrick 11:52 23 May 2003 (UTC)

Done --Claudine

The article begins "The neutrality of this article is disputed". I'm expecting to find the dispute on this Talk page, but it's not. Can that line be removed?

Also, "As one social theorist has observed ..."? Slrubenstein, who, where, and when was it? If no-one knows, remove the quote, or I'll be tempted to quote m yself as "one important thinker" in random Wikipedia articles. :-)
 * I have found and included the attribution. Since I do not know who you are, I cannot say for sure that the source is as important as you, but I know that they are more important than I ;) SLR

That's just the biggest example of how that "Anthropology in the broader context" section (broader than what, exactly?) could probably be trimmed by 50 percent or more without losing anything important. As another example, instead of "transcends the opposition between", why not say "includes both"?


 * because "includes both" does not mean the same thing as "transcends the opposition;" to transcend an opposition is to go beyond it, to include an opposition is to reproduce it. SLR

Sections I'd like to find here (note to myself, or whoever else gets there first): -- Mpt 07:08, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
 * History
 * Methods of study
 * Major theories in anthropology


 * I think the article provides a fair coverage of the history, although of course it can be improved. But in general, I disagree with this suggestion, because the history, methods, and theories of the various fields of anthropology differ.  I agree that there should be lots of history, methods, and theory, but I believe it makes more sense to put it in the specific articles on cultural, physical anthropology &c. SLR


 * Take a look at the article's history. I inserted the neutrality disclaimer after another Wikipedian made the assertion that this article was POV.  I don't agree with this view, and the other Wikipedian has not returned to defend his position, so feel free to remove the neutrality disclaimer if you are so inclined. -- NetEsq 16:22, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why was the ASCII-pictre deleted? The Original was made Public on Nature.--Nerd 19:15, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * see the explanation above; at best it belongs in a different article Slrubenstein

politics of anthropology
I deleted this sentence, which at the least needs work:
 * Over the past sixty years anthropology's increasingly leftist disposition has made intelligence work 'politically incorrect,' although changes to the American Anthropological Association's code of ethics have actually loosened restrictions on such work.

First, I think it is poor style to rely on "political correctness" as an explanation. The shift refered to can be ascribed to two forces in my opinion: the relationship between eht anti-Vietnalm war movement and anthropology in the US signalled in part by Hymes edited volumne on reinventing anthropology, and second, the fact that in the post-colonial period native peoples around the world have much more autonomy and can decide whether or not anthropologists can work among them, thus discouraging anthropologists from activities (such as spying) that could get them in trouble with their hosts. The first cause predates political correctness (as popularly understood) the second may be pragmatic or rooted in a pragmatic notion of ethics. Second, the statement about the AAA code of ethics needs some work. My recollection is the code still explicitly states that the reseaercher's first obligation is to the host community. Am I wrong? In any event, I think clarifying details are needed here, Slrubenstein

First, yes, it is poor style to refer to 'political correctness' and I will try to rewrite it :) But in general rather than just cut stuff out, wouldn't it be better to have added to the wikipedia by including say, the content of your post to the entry itself rather than the talk page?

Second, the sentence uses "anthropology's increasingly leftist disposition" as an explanation of why "Intelligence work is 'politically incorrect'" rather than the other way around. So in fact there is no appeal to 'political correctness' as an explanatory concept.

Vietnam was relevant for anthropology but in fact anthropologists did intelligence work there as well (see the kerfuffle in the New York Review of Books). Dell's book is part of a regular feature of anthropology in the United states where every twenty years a young generation demand an anthropology that is more 'relevant' than that of their professors. Hence it is part of an ongoing dynamic of 'increasingly leftist disposition' (although, to be sure, often a politically quiescent kind) rather than a 'before and after' shift.

As for the idea that formal political independence gives local peoples more power over who works with them, the Yanomami controversy pretty much lays that idea to rest. The biggest step forward in ensuring informed consent from informants has come from changes to human subjects testing requirements in powerful countries. Fourth world peoples are often not well served by independent governments headed by national majority ethnic groups, and the postcolonial state, often lacking in capacity and resources, is hardly a guarentor of grassroots empowerment.

Finally, the discussion of the AAA code essentially correct:


 * "Over the past several decades the explicit condemnations of secretive research have been removed from the AAA's code of ethics--the principles of professional responsibility (PPR). In 1971 the PPR specifically declared that "no secret research, no secret reports or debriefings of any kind should be agreed to or given" by members of the AAA. By 1990 the attenuation of anthropological ethics had reached a point where anthropologists were merely "under no professional obligation to provide reports or debriefing of any kind to government officials or employees, unless they have individually and explicitly agreed to do so in the terms of employment." These changes were largely accomplished in the 1984 revision of the PPR that Gerald Berreman characterized as reflecting the new "Reaganethics" of the association: In the prevailing climate of deregulation the responsibility for ethical review was shifted from the association to individual judgments. As anthropologist Laura Nader noted, these Reagan-era changes were primarily "moves to protect academic careers...downplaying anthropologists' paramount responsibility to those they study." The current PPR may be interpreted to mean that anthropologists don't have to be spies unless they want to or have agreed to do so in a contract. A 1995 Commission to Review the AAA Statements on Ethics declared that the committee on ethics had neither the authority nor the resources to investigate or arbitrate complaints of ethical violations and would "no longer adjudicate claims of unethical behavior and focus its efforts and resources on an ethics education program."" -David Price, Anthropologists as Spies

uh.... ok I'm done now :) Rex 18:11, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorrym, I am not pursuaded. If you insist on presenting these views in the article NPOV policy requires that they be presented as views, not as fact. But perhaps you misunderstand my points. First (and perhaps least) I still take issue with the "left-wing" terminology. Informally, I think I know what you mean and think I agree but it is poor style for an encyclopedia article because it rasies the question, "left wing" in what sense? better to provide a more specific and concrete account than rely on this catch-phrase. But to address your substantive points, i do think you misunderstand my point about Vietnam. I did not mean that all anthropologists objected to anthropologists serving as spies during the Vietnam War. i thought this was clear from my invoking Hymes' book, which specifically criticizes anthropologists' work for the US government during the war. My point was, it was a reaction against that collaboration that led to Official AAA condemnation and the growth of a general change in the sense of professional ethics. Next, I simply disagree with your dismissal of the effect of local group autonomy. The Yanomamo case actually supports my point because at the time of Chagnon's fieldwork they had not regional political authority. But this is not the case today and in manyh other parts of the Amazon, the US, Australia, etc. The need for local approval today -- not just from the host country or colonial governments but brum indigenous peoples is not the only factor in this phenomenon, but it is most definitly an important factor. I am sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was not referring to host statyes (I agree with your point about host states/governments), I was referring to local and regional quasi-autonomous organizations that represent the interests of native peoples independent of states. This is clearly what many anthropologists at various roundtables and panels on ethics at the last several AAA meetings have been responding to (among other things). I agree that the rise of IRBs is a factor, but I do not think it is the main factor especially since most human subjects review processes institutionalize a liberal notion of individual consent that may be culture-bound and not sufficient when dealing with societies with both collective identities and collective instruments of representation. Finally, Price aside, a quick look at the AAA statement on Ethics states very clearly that: the current statement does not supersede earlier dtatements and resolutions; that the anthropologist's primary responsibility is to the people studied; that anthropological findings should be made public (as long as the privacy of human subjects is maintained); and finally that anthropologists should not do covert work for their own government. If you want to represent Price's view, we also must represent this other view. I deleted the passage in question because I felt what I was deleting was short but needed to be totally rewritten. I am glad that I did not rewrite it at the time because, seeing how we disagree, you would surely have objected. If it was you who wrote what I took out, I wanted first to see if we could reach an accommodation. Perhaps we can, still. If you accept the points I make here I invite you either to rewrite this passage, incorporating the above points -- or put in the views you wish to express in a way that leaves room for me to add these points myself, and I will do so. Slrubenstein

First: I think we have very different and detailed (as well as nuanced) points of view about the history of anthropology and the ethics of fieldwork in out-of-the-way places. Second: my entire contributions to (and indeed, creation of) this section were meant to unPOV earlier, anonymous contributions to the article which stated baldly that anthropologists were leftist Jewish spies. Why should I argue with your unPOVing it further when I'm already unsympathetic?!? We both agree (at least sufficiently for the purposes of a general article) -- I just didn't feel it polite to cut out what the other person put in its entirety and tried to flesh it out in the spirit of accomodation. Its tempting to carry out this argument in the context of wiki edits because it is so interesting (and we do disagree on some points), but I don't think its in the best interest of the wiki. So maybe on IRC or something.

However, there some minor editing to do to iron out the entry as it reads right now (this disagreement has improved its quality I think), so do watch for my work there and edit it as u see fit. Rex 04:44, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I just deleted a paragraph that I did not write, but which was ascribed to me. However, I do appreciate your reply.  I had no idea about the jew-spy allegation and am glad you picked up on it and dealt with it.  I am glad you think the article is improving.  I look forward to reading your further contributions and hope that in those cases where we may differ we can work towards an accommodation, Slrubenstein

Unfortunately, Kevin MacDonald's scientific criticism of politics of anthropology as a part of a mainly Jewish leftist strategy has been cancelled by Slrubenstein.It's easy to cancel any uncomfortable criticism calling it "anti-Semitic".Cal State Prof. MacDonald's argumentation is well-founded, unemotional and accepted by many of his  American colleagues and worlwide. He answered his critics in a well-founded unemotional way, too, weakening the counterarguments essentially. Is Wikipedia also a part of this media manipulation described by MacDonald?

Wikipedia is not part of the media manipulation described by MacDonald because 1) Wikipedia is not part of a manipulative conspiracy and 2) MacDonald may not describe a manipulative conspiracy. Please feel free write whatever you like. If you are the same person who inserted the earlier comments about John Barker and Price, you will see that your contributions have led to discussion which has improved the page - thanks for that. However you'll also note that in each of these cases neither Barker nor Price ended up being particularly good sources for claims of a 'mainly Jewish left wing conspiracy'. Barker very rarely mentions Boas in his book 'Race', which is outdated in any case because it entirely predates modern genetics. The reference to Price resulted in a conversation that concluded that against the original claims posted here that anthropologists and Jews have historically been widely employed in the intelligence community. I'll take a look at MacDonald's work in more detail shortly, but judging from what's on his website it seems like a close examination of his argument might reveal a position more nuanced (although still possibly objectionable) than your representation of him. I thank you for your contributions but in the future you may want to examine your sources more closely to ensure they actually support your points. Thanks. Rex 20:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC) Baker is not outdated, to discuss the morphology of the 40 human races it is not necessary to refer to genetics, Baker has mentioned this "trick" of the Boasians,too. Funny is the first part of your argumentation ("petitio principii"):"Wikipedia is not part of the media manipulation described by MacDonald because 1) Wikipedia is not part of a manipulative conspiracy (...)" It seems to be a typical "Boasian" argumentation.


 * Here are two links on MacDonald


 * Slate:"Evolutionary Psychology's Anti-Semite"
 * Scholarship as an Exercise in Rhetorical Strategy: A Case Study of Kevin MacDonald's Research Techniques.  AndyL 22:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "Prof. MacDonald's argumentation is well-founded, unemotional and accepted by many of his American colleagues and worlwide. "

Name them. AndyL 22:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) MacDonald's view cannot be weakended essentially. As long as I cannot write about it or the AAA's involvement in secret service activities I repeat my above question. involvement in secret service ac

I want to reiterate that you are absolutely allowed and even encouraged to write whatever you like on this page -- anyone can contribute to the wikipedia. I have worked to incorporate your changes by editing the parts I found problematic and elaborating on those that I thought were worthwhile. This is how wikipedia works. Your contributions have improved the quality of the page. But no-one on wikipedia is allowed to write just what they please without being answerable to their fellow contributors, who edit contributions based on their accuracy, coherence, and the staet of expert knowledge in this area. I personally think I've gone out of my way to be accomodating. If you think that you are being censored or otherwise treated unfairly, then there is a [Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution] process that you should feel free to undertake.

Substantively: AndyL has provided substantial evidence of MacDonald's shortcomings to which you have not yet responded with any sort of evidence. If there is more that you would like to say about the secret service, please do so - although on this score contributors have sufficient evidence to alter your original claims and we've heard nothing more from you on the subject. Your main feeling seems to be that you just really really don't like Franz Boas. But as is mentioned (twice) in the article, Boas's activism and opposition to the race concept are public knowledge today and he sought great publicity for them during his lifetime. Given this fact, it's hard to see why his work should be labeled a 'conspiracy'. Rex 22:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The bottom half of the politics section seems to be (a) irrelevant to the section and (b) written in an inappropriate style (lots of references to 'we' and some value judgements made). Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in this field could clean it up? Kylotan 14:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

What is Littlefield 1982?
The anonymous anti-Boasian troll has repeatedly attempted to demonstrate the Kevin B. MacDonald's account of the Jewish conspiracy to destroy western civilization is backed up by 'a study by Littlefield et. al.'. It this really accurate? Anonymous Anti-Boasian, could you please tell me what that is a reference to? Because if it is to "Redefining Race: The Potential Demise of a Concept in Physical Anthropology" then I am going to remove it because it does not mention MacDonald at all, nor does it suggest anything other than the centrality of Boas to American Anthropology, atopic explicitly discussed in this article. Thanks, Rex 22:59, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Support" MacDonald's view means: it makes similar conclusions. Are you not accustomed to scientific writing ? And why have you removed "Baker" again ? Is this being slow on the uptake part of the strategy mentioned above ? On whose payroll are you ?

I don't really see the value of having the blurb about MacDonald in the article; it is hardly one of the major debates within the discipline. At the least cough up a proper citation of the 'support'. (the article mentioned by rex is in Current Anthropology > Vol. 23, No. 6 (Dec., 1982), pp. 641-655; and I don't see how it supports MacDonald's position). If the anonymous poster has another article (perhaps by another littlefield?) in mind, please post a citation. Ph0rk 18:58:18, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

Continuing to accomodate the anti-Boasian troll

 * sigh* Littlefield's article (I assume I have found the right one) points out that Boas had an enormous impact on the institutional context of academic anthropology and that this impact explains the coverage of the concept of 'race' in textbooks. This is a separate issue from the idea that Boas pursuing a strategy to destroy western civilization in order to assure the victory of 'The Jews'. The wikipedia article already mentions Boas's prominence and opposition to the notion of race. I cut the reference to Baker (and am editing it again) because it was tacked on to a discussion of monographs by British social anthropologists, where it clearly does not belong. The fact that you no longer claim that Baker's book is an attack on Boas indicates you agree with the original reason I deleted it -- it does not support the claim you make. Also please note that Baker's professional speciality was cytology, not anthropology as you have claimed in the past. I am once more removing allegations that the American Anthropological Association /directly/ worked with the CIA in the 1950s. The wikipedia now has a detailed discussion of espionage and anthropology (including a discussion of Operation Camelot). If there are details of /direct/ collaboration of the CIA and the AAA I'd like to see them. As much as I respect your right to continue editing this page, if this sort of continued, baseless re-insertion of claims over and over continues I am going to opt for mediation and, if that fails, arbitration. Thanks Rex 21:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree to you that I'm a troll because of the following: 1.) Littlefield's study reveals the high percentage of Jews, women and third world scientists in Boasianism. Boasianism does not weaken the power of gentile Europeans in general as depicted by MacDonald,but especially the power of European males. All groups that have an interest in that destruction can be found in Boasianism, not only the Jews as focused on by MacDonald. 2.) I have never doubted that "Race" by Baker has been  t h e  greatest attack on Boas ever. The fact, that he was a cytologist primarily did not hinder him to be a great anthropologist, too, as acknowledged by other important anthropologists. 3.) The AAA has been directly involved in secret service activities.(cf. "www. thenation.com"): " The American Anthropological Association also secretly collaborated with the CIA. In the early 1950s the AAA's executive board negotiated a secret agreement with the CIA under which agency personnel and computers were used to produce a cross-listed directory of AAA members, showing their geographical and linguistic areas of expertise along with summaries of research interests. Under this agreement the CIA kept copies of the database for its own purposes with no questions asked. And none were, if for no other reason than that the executive board had agreed to keep the arrangement a secret." 4.) Your strategy is similar to the one applied by some Jewish critics of MacDonald. The discussion  of some details is arranged in a manner to evoke the impression that the essential thesis of MacDonald or me would be wrong. 5.) I have got the impression that you are mere ideologues who try to censor me in an un-American way.


 * I'm not involved in this article, but even without knowing the details I can agree that red-flag goes up when an anonymous editor repeatedly makes significant changes without explaining them. If I may make a suggestion: get yourself a username and explain your changes. Even without changing the content of your edits, that will make your behavior seem more honest and understandable. My two cents.  Cheers,  -Willmcw 05:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1) I stand corrected on the relationship between the CIA and the AAA and have made changes in the article to that effect. 2) Baker: I do not doubt that Baker was a highly emminent cytologist. I do however think it is inaccurate to label him an anthropologist when this was not his primary field. Race hardly ever mentions Boas and is not a sustained polemic, or even a deep engagement with Boas's work. It is a comprehensive summary on the literature on the physical anthropology of race as it has been practiced up to that time and is obviously an important work in that regard. 3) As for Littlefield et. al. they write about the "elite nature of anthropology in the period before 1960" and that "in spite of anthropology's commitment to the study human diversity, its practitioners were quite homogenous in terms of class origin and social background. Few women or individuals of minority background were represented in the profession" (645 of the article). They argue the shift in the way textbooks cover race is due to society-wide shifts in demographics that occurred two decades after Boas died. 3a) Littlefield also reveals that most people who argue that race is real are white southern Christian men who were first, last, or only children. Does this indicate a conspiracy on the part of white southern Christian men? No. The same could be said for people who do not believe that the race concept is valid. 4) I apologize if you took offense at being called a troll. If you would register for an account on Wikipedia then I would have a name to call you. Rex 06:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If I had not remarked Baker, MacDonald and Littlefield, the article would have remained totally manipulative. Boasianism is unscientific, Baker's overwhelming amount of details falsifying Boasianism cannot be denied. The whole Wikipedia is obviously leftist.But all leftists and Boasians will be tread on their heels because of their false, manipulative and destructive leftist ideology leading to the hidden holocaust of the Europeans in the inevitable,final clash of cultures in Europe.

First off Boas was trying to get around the racist outlook of the evolutionary anthropologists like Lewis Henry Morgan and other social Darwinists. Boas was about collecting as much data as he possibly could inorder to get an emic perspective, thus avoiding any colonialist rhetoric, and making anthropology a disicpline about people. Unlike anthropologist before him that avoided the effects of colonialists Boas brought the effects to the fore front. Yes, Boas's approach was subjective rather than objective but that does not mean that it is anymore unscientific than any of the so called hard sciences, which incidentally all involve some sort of subjective interpretation. Just because Boas was a German Jew does not mean that there is some knid of Jewish conspiracy in anthropology. (GRQ in Lethbridge)

Human
Please come help out on Human. Were facing a number of questions regarding a past poll and its results, the positioning of the taxobox and an image, the definition of "Human", if Homo Sapiens should split off into its own article, and even if the "article in need of attention" header is appropriate. I'd like as much expert involvement as possible, if you please. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please help
Will someone please help and cleanup Creation anthropology? There are misstatements and facts and no representation of the mainstream view/critique of creationist ideas. Joshuaschroeder 06:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

announcing new NPOV proposal
This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Questions about the term “Common Era” often arise among anthropologist working in colonial contexts with non western peoples (i.e. most of us). Some anthropologist and archaeologist have come to prefer the fairly neutral “Current Era” whereas others prefer the traditional AD/BC system for sake of clarity. As an Anthroplogist, I am of course troubled by the rise of hegemonic discourse and this dating reinvention strikes me as a particualraly egregious example. I find the use of “Common Era” deeply troubling. I'm no christian (perish the thought), but I have no moral problem using an age old dating system (like AD/BC) based on the rise of some religious figure, whatever their title, be it Christ or Confuscious or Julius Ceasar or whomever; if it is commonly known and used it is not a matter of accepting some religious viewpoint to refer to dates relative to the rise of a historical figure like Jesus or acknowledging the rise of a widespread religion. To be offended by a historically accepted dating system because it was established around a religious figure that we don't believe in is simply overreacting in my view, but if people feel that change is necessary, they should be at least as sensitive to what they are changing it to as they were to what they were changing it from. Calling something a "Common Era" is preaching an occidental viewpoint. To whom is this era common? The answer is - Western Judeo/Christian Imperial powers established and descended from Roman institutions. It tacitly assumes that Europeans, and Euroamericans are really the important people; really the only ones whe matter and there is nothing wrong with claiming an era is "Common" history/culture to everyone who now uses the dating system. I assure you that many people in developing non western nations who use the Gregorian calendar would not think of themselves and their history as having anything in common with Europe or to be participants for the past 2006 years in a commonality with Europeans except perhaps as colonial subjects. Therefore, using "Common Era" amounts to legitimising western colonialism and the orientalist worldview. The term "Common Era" excludes most people on earth and marginalizes everything that is not western history. It is bigoted and I respectfully suggest anyone who uses the term reconsider what it is they are saying and why. I doubt very much that people who advocate this term have ever considered it from this point of view.DHBoggs 05:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

CIA Funding
According to this BBC story, yes, US anthropology students are being funded by the CIA: []. I'll note this in the article unless anyone objects strongly enough. Rattus 21:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this -- the David Price article on this is unclear as to their course of studies. I've put the info back in. Rex 20:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Somewhere along the way (June 05), a note on the Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Program, one aim of which is to provide intelligence officers with anthropological training, was deleted. Does anybody object to it being added back? It has support from a prominent US anthropologist and seems relevant to the Politics section. Rattus 00:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Division
I think the division into four is not recently anymore. Archaeology and linguistics are not a part of antropology, Isn't it that antropology was founded by structuralist linguists? And thus began as a part of linguistics?--212.87.102.237 16:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many schools in the US still have a four field focus, and many more have a focus in 1, 2, or 3 of the subfields at the graduate level while still covering all four at the undergraduate level. There is some debate over whether or not any of the subfields should split from the whole, but at present at least AAA is still a four-field association (five if you count applied anthropology as an extra field, as they do). --- Ph0rk 00:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

US POV?
From a European perspective this article is bit too US-focused. For example:
 * - why deal with US anthropology before British and French anthropology? The logical order would some kind of historical sequence, and though they developed in some independence from each other the US was a latecomer (for example, the Bureau of American Ethnology, which is mentioned, was founded in 1879, and was concerned only with America; wider in scope were the Societe Ethnologique de Paris founded in 1839, or the Ethnological Society of London founded in 1843).
 * - Why highlight linguistic anthropology for special mention rather than other aspects of social anthropology (there's also medical anthropology, ethnomusicology &c)? Is it US anthropology faculty practice?  Better dropped in the front list.  Some mention of Gluckmann and power might be useful.
 * - there ought to be more stress (either here or in the History of Anthropology article) to 19th-century theories of social evolution: though now academically defunct, they were very influential at the time (and remain so in popular culture such as 2001 A Space Odyssey).
 * - Some key figures such as Montesquieu, Rousseau and Henry Maine should be mentioned (the Marx quote is interesting but long and could be excised for space).
 * - The hint ("it would be wrong to see anthropology as merely an extension of colonial rule and European chauvinism, since its relationship to imperialism was and is complex") that with some qualifications anthropology is more or less about colonialism, except in the US which fortunately doesn't suffer from colonialism, is misleading. This needs to say either less or (preferably) more.  Mark O'Sullivan 09:41, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned in the article intro: "In the United States, 'anthropology' is traditionally divided into four fields" - hence the mention of linguistic anthropology (the fourth field).

I'll agree the article is US-centric, though I'd think Europeans would be more confused by the mention of archaeology than linguistic anthropology - given the link between linguistics and French structuralism. Any discussion of the four-field approach would necessarily include linguistic anthropology; though I don't see why that section can't be moved down to the anthropology in the US section. I'd imagine that would require significant restructuring, though. Ph0rk 05:17:00, 2005-09-03 (UTC) ____________

CALL FOR NEW PAGE
It would be useful to have a page on the "institutional history" of anthropology, with an inventory of ethnographic museums, departments, institutes, etc., with their dates of founding, who was their founder if that's significant, and important sources of support, by country (including other than the "big three" U.S., Great Britain, and France). I don't have the expertise to develop a preliminary page, but it would be very useful for both teaching and research. 131.230.131.30 15:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Call to Clean up indexing
Is there some way to clean up the indexing of this discussion? It is confusing. I don't think all of these entries are intended as sub-entries about the Leakeys. I'm new to this format or I try myself.

publication
would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hopefully not, as its lower parts are rather shoddy - there seem to be misplaced or missing headings and some of the text is neither properly editted nor formated. Zocky 15:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * it does not have to be a brilliant prose. Standard articles or Good articles can qualify for publication. it just has to be written good enough and be accurate. -- Zondor 16:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Merge - Ethics and Anthropology
If anyone has access to a copy of Windows on Humanity by Conrad Phillip Kottak, the book cited as a source, it would be good to check that this isn't just a word-for-word copy. It seems like useful info, and the prose is pretty good, although it would need wikification. I haven't studied anthropology, so I'd like to have an expert's opinion on how useful the content is. -- Vary 14:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

help
Anyone who has this page on their watchlist, can you go to Virago? A who is putting forward notions of racial and identifying them with a notion of gender-difference, and I are in a conflict. Fundamentally, I believe he is a racist' his claims about race contradict everything I have read by physical and cultural anthropologists and as far as I can tell, his claims about gender at best seriously distort the literature.

You can see the difference here

On the talk page, start here, and then just read the whole debate.

Comments from others needed. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Eric Wolf
The opening passage of the article attributes a quote to Eric Wolf, but I'm fairly certain that it's by Evans-Pritchard. Can anyone verify this?
 * I don't have an actual citation. But the quote comes from a presidential address he gave at the AAA, and was reprinted as an op-ed in The New York Times.  Of course, if EEEP said something similar, and you are wure, put it in &mdash; it is good to highlight congruences between US and UK anthropology. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

---__________________________________________________________________ I removed an entire block under Politics of Anthropology, simply because the description looked obviously cut and pasted and did not fit in with the style of the subject header. Update: Switched back.. PLEASE look at the styling of the part I removed - it doesn't fit properly.*

Anthropology vs Ethnology
Anthropology and Ethnology are two different fields. However, seeing the state of the ethnological entry, it seems that anthropology, in particular in the US, is used for ethnology. Ethnology became a science in the early 20th century, whilst anthropology was, for example, studied by Kant. I don't think they should be merged, but amazingly, there doesn't seems to be anything relating the ethnology article to anthropology, not a word nor less a sentence. Why ? Lapaz

In the United States, Ethnology is merely another word for cultural or social anthropology. These are not seperate fields, and never really were.DHBoggs 05:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

deleted text
I deleted quite a bit of text that was until recently part of the section called Politics of Anthropology because 1) the description of the four fields is already present earlier in the article 2) it is highly US-centric 3) the text on Boas already sort of covers cultural relativism and holism (and if it doesn't, we can make it more explicit) 4) the tone of the writing in this particular section is not suitable for an encyclopedia article (it comes across a little like an anthro textbook)--Birdmessenger 01:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

removed text on Anténor Firmin
This didn't seem to fit in under Anthropology in the United States: ''Critiquing the same science in the service of racism, Anténor Firmin wrote De l'égalité des races humaines (1885) as a direct rebuttal to Count Arthur de Gobineau’s polemical four-volume work Essai sur I'lnegalite des Races Humaines (1853–1855), which asserted the superiority of the Aryan race and the inferiority of blacks and other people of color. Firmin’s work argued the opposite, that "all men are endowed with the same qualities and the same faults, without distinction of color or anatomical form. The races are equal" (pp. 450). Firmin grew up in Haiti, and was admitted to the Societé d’ Anthropologie de Paris in 1884 while serving as a diplomat. His persuasive critique and rigorous analysis of many of that society’s leading scholars made him an early pioneer in the so-called vindicationist struggle in anthropology. Many scholars also associate his work with the very first ideas of Pan-Africanism.'' Maybe it could be pasted back in somewhere else.--Birdmessenger 12:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why doesn't it belongs there? I haven't add it, however, I did reverse changes concerning "history of anthropology". Why would you want to remove this? You could rewrite it if you think it's not good enough, but suppressing the topic of scientific racism and the examples given (Hottentot venus, Madison Grant, etc.) isn't well founded, is it? Lapaz 16:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Anthropology in the diverse countries
Going through this article I was wondering why there is no explicit mention of anthropology in Germany. No Scheler, no Plessner, no Gehlen, nothing. Astonishing!

Anthro Wikiproject?
I was wanting to start a wikiproject for anthropology. Is anyone interested? Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 11:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I just made a proposal on the "list of proposed wikiprojects" page. If you're interested, you can sign up at our entry and on the temporary project page. Thanks. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 21:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionary anthropology
It appears that evolutionary anthropology is just a redirect to the evolution page. Should this be redirected to anthropology, or does it deserve to have its own page developed? Thanks. &mdash; RJH (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It should probably go to a disambiguation page, with links to human evolution and sociocultural evolution. There is a vast literature both on hominid evolution that is rightly anthropological, but also on cultural evolution, including of course the historical approaches, but also a substantial and growing body of work on the application of mathematical tools such as cladistics and genetic models to understanding processes of cultural (memetic) change. Rattus 15:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That works, at least for now. Perhaps it will be expanded into a full page at some point? Thank you. &mdash; RJH (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"criticism" of Kevin MacDonald
Anon keeps inserting a short mention of this criticism of Jewry (or whatever) into a section on the politics of anthropology, where it sticks out, probably because it's entirely irrelevant to that section, which deals with discussions that have occurred within the discipline. I'm going to remove that passage every time I see it (without violating 3rr) until anon presents a better explanation of why it should be in the article in that form. --Birdmessenger 01:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction
Directly below the introduction we see a blurb on why Social and Cultural anthropology is different, is this necessary? At the least it seems out of place. This seems to have been corrected. Mccajor (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Four Fields Approach
The inclusion of the "Four Fields Approach" as an American aspect of anthropology is very America-centric. I think it should have its own section not linked to country.


 * Agreed. It was a problem when it was listed at the top of the article as though four-field anthropology was the international consensus, but it was probably too limiting to list it under the US-specific section, given that for a variety of reasons Boasian four-field anthropology has been internationally influential in the structuring of the discipline.  Zenauberon 16:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The four-field approach has been scarcely influential in the rest of the world, and is regarded as typically US approach, not a general one. I think that in order to avoid a US bias we should keep it in the US section. Anyway anyplace is fine by me as long as at the beginning of the paragraph is clarified the origin and actual diffusion of the idea.--BMF81 23:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But I think it does that now, no? (If not, I'm certainly not opposed to more edits to make the origins and actual diffusion clearer.  But I do think it drives home the point as written.)  Zenauberon 23:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

request for comments
On race and intelligence, please Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

the anthropology page and the anthropology wiki banner have nice photos. However these photos, isolated as they are from any other visual context, are an exoticization of the "primitive". Imagine a photo of a stockbroker instead. Beyond that the idea that a single emblematic image can serve as a visual summary of "anthropology" is untenable. When there is a fully developed anthropology article there should be lots of images. But for now, lovely as it is, the Yao initiation photo needs to go. 121.128.102.250 09:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I modified the greek etymology in the brakets, which was Anthropo, with the correct Anthropos. Check it out as I guess I added the last 's' with a latin character instead of a greek one. Thanks.87.7.227.143 00:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)AdP

Madison Grant
Why is Madison Grant not included in the article about Anthropology in America?

Madison Grant is not a significant part of the tradition of modern sociocultural anthropology or of the modern study of human evolution. He would appropriately be mentioned in the article Scientific racism, or if appropriately contextualized, in the section on racial and eugenic theories in History of Anthropology. Mccajor (talk) 18:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Link Scrubbing
While I happen to agree that the list of links had grown too long, the recent scrubbing of all links and replacement with the dmoz template is the most extreme measure suggested under WP:EL, and is supposed to be an intermediate step:

"Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. If you find a long list of links in an article, you can tag the 'External links' section with the linkfarm template. Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the dmoz template."

Any explicit attempt to reach consensus has never taken place, as far as I can see. I haven't reverted the edit - like I mentioned I largely agree with the deletions, and am not particularly a fan of linkspam myself. But I think some discussion is warranted. For my part, I would like to see links restored to a couple of the major international anthropological associations. Zenauberon 15:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree to restore them all. A discussion was needed before such removal.--SummerWithMorons 10:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Anthropology during World War II
This article has a sub-heading, Anthropology after World War II: Increasing dialogue in Anglophone anthropology, but nothing at all about the US Army's extensive use of anthropology during the war, first in the Pacific Theater, then, due to its successful application there, in Europe. This continued, at least throughout the Vietnam Era, with issue of Army pamphlets to newly arriving troops advising them of socially sensitive issues. While I have no sources at hand, I recall reading that post-war assessment by later generations of anthropologists held that their colleagues during the war had gotten their data all wrong; but still later assessments held that this did not matter: use of the anthropological data by occupying troops at least had the effect of causing the troops to behave towards local populations in a consistent manner, to which the locals could then adjust; and also demonstrated that the US cared.
 * The use of anthropology by US and British governments during the 20th century is controversial: at times it probably helped the war/colonial effort, at times it probably mitigated harm to the local populations or eased their interactions with the Western powers, often anthropologists' recommendations were ignored by the military/colonial officials. Some current anthropologists criticize the findings, but often the broad generalizations hold, though perhaps phrased in a language less nuanced than we would use today. A balanced article along the lines of "Anthropology in relation to Western military and colonial efforts", perhaps with a more felicitous title, would be a great addition to Wikipedia if someone wants to work on it. I am concerned that several of the anthropology articles appear to have been written by people whose knowledge of anthropology seems derived from a single course or book on something like critical theory or postcolonialism, rather than a broader understanding of the field and its social and historical context. As I've said elsewhere, some of the articles are the equivalent of an article on modern medicine that spent 90% of their content on leeches and pre-anesthetic amputations. Mccajor (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree but, alas, I haven't even had that one course. I can, however, contribute these links to those who want to follow up. Pawyilee (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Cultural insensitivity is deadly. So where are the anthropologists?
 * A True Culture War'', By Op-Ed Contributor RICHARD A. SHWEDER, October 27, 2007
 * Anthropologists in ideal position to convey the Ottoman Empire's secrets to the US

Human Terrain Team (HTT)
Now, US Army's strategy in Afghanistan: better anthropology reports that anthropology is once again being used in warfare as "Counterinsurgency efforts focus on better grasping and meeting local needs" in Afghanistan, under the rubric of Human Terrain Team (HHT). See also Anthropologists at war. Editors seriously interested in this article need to seriously address this issue. Pawyilee 04:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How about a subsection of "The politics of Anthropology" titled "Anthropology during wartime" to cover both the history and use of the discipline in conflict (colonial, WWII, Vietnam, current...)? James Haughton 03:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "The politics of Anthropology" calls to my mind conflicts between anthropologists, NOT the use of anthropology to advance political objectives in wartime or peace. I'd suggest "'Practical' Uses of Anthropology", but would not object to changing my 'Practical' to your 'Political', especially if it gets written! What I've read of the WW-II use of anthropology was that it helped make peace possible between former combatants, and greatly aided non-combatants, as well. Peace-time use of anthropology can take on many dimensions. Analyzing garbage in a local dump using methods developed for kitchens middens can be used to tailor planning for land use in that community, and also tailor advertising campaigns to sell it commercial products or politicians. Anthropology can be used to make a community and its infrastructure safer and more livable, or more amenable to control, but I live in a remote area with erratic Internet access, can't find sources to support this on the 'net, and most are on library shelves an the other side of the world from me, anyhow. Pawyilee 09:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * PS. Somebody added "politics of Anthropology", and I added my bit abut HTTs under "However". I also added to Operation_Enduring_Freedom: For one U.S. Army response, see The Human Terrain System: A CORDS for the 21st Century. Pawyilee (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This looks good. I removed the link to the blog though--in the edit summary I wrote "per WP:EL" (policy on external links) when I meant WP:SPS  (policy on verifiability and self published sources.  In either case, Wikipedia discourages the use of blogs as sources except in limited situations.  The rest of the addition looks good though. -Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hadn't noticed Anthropologists at War was a blog; nor did I know about SPS. In line with previous discussion, I tucked my edit into Politics of anthropology despite my own preference for Practical Uses of Anthropology. That yearns for an article in its own write, to cover all practical uses, not just in warfare; but is beyond my capabilities to start it. Meanwhile. I'm dissatisfied with the way reference to HTTs is tucked away where it can be easily overlooked. John Paul Vann and Civil_Affairs, cry for development into "Anthropology during wartime". See also Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development; Support--CORDS Pawyilee (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also see links above section heading, just added to discussion of Anthropology during World War II. Pawyilee (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

article of concern
would people who watch this page please review the article, Early infanticidal childrearing, which makes many claims about anthropology and about non-Western societies? I was once involved in a flame-war with another editor, and it would be inappropriate for me to do a speedy delete or nominate the page for deletion. More important, I think others need to comment on it. I engaged in a detailed exchange recently with one other editor here, on the talk page; you may wish to review the discussion but it is getting involuted and I ask that you comment separately. Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Anthropology
I have significantly expanded Template:Anthropology in hopes of adding it to anthropology pages and using it to direct users to anthro-related articles (see sociology, psychology and journalism for other examples of this template use). Comments and improvements would be appreciated. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthropology as the "study of man"
Could some editors comment on this bit in the intro:

The term was first used in print in 1593 to refer to a branch of history which studies the arts, kinship, and practices of man.

I changed man to humankind. Anon (who has been vandalizing other articles all day) changed it back to man. A third editor placed "man" in quotation marks. My position is that there is little reason to use gender specific language that has fallen out of favor in anthropology at all unless we are directly quoting something (as is the case with Tylor later in the article). --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking more closely, the claim made in the sentence above appears to violate the policy on primary sources. A second issue is that I have been unable to verify either through Google or JSTOR that the essay cited* has anything to do at all with anthropology. So I'm inclined to delete this sentence altogether.  Comments? --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * * Harvey, Richard (1593) "An astrological discourse upon the conjunction of Saturne and Jupiter 1583 Philadelphus, or a defence of Brutes and the Brutans history 1593 Plaine Percevall the peace-maker of England 1590 (1860)

I think the use of Man could be appropriate precisely because of its datedness, but the sentence in question seems doubtable, so why not remove it entirely, as you suggest? I back that. --Girl2k (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool--I'll nuke it then. If this passage is important to anyone, they should try to find a secondary source that confirms the "first use" claim. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Apartheid?
I am rather perplexed by the two sentences at the end of the current article -

"It has been reported that there has been an "institutional and academic apartheid" between the two sorts of anthropology, the one focusing on the "Other" and the one focusing on the "Self" contemporary society; an apartheid ranging from a "no contact" status to even open conflict. The countries where this was greater were Germany and Norway, but it was also significant in the 1980s France."

There is a direct quotation without a reference, the grammar is not very good and I really have no idea what it means. Moreover, "apartheid" is a hugely loaded word. Could someone please clarify what is going on here so we can make this section comprehensible, or is there a tacit consensus that it is gobbledeegook? Calypygian (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

History of Anthropology
Seems like most of this article is taken up by the history of the subject and by its regional practices. Couldn't something a lil' more general be better for the casual reader? -- some drunk dude.

I agreee with 'drunk dude'. This article needs to say something about anthropology after 1970. You'd think from this article that it's about something that no longer exists.--Girl2k (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Eric Wolf quote wrong? I'm no anthropologist, but "the most scientific of the NATURAL SCIENCES and the most humanistic of the sciences" seems an odd thing to claim (of any discipline.) Google (and wikipedia's own Social Sciences article) seems to think this quote should begin "the most scientific of the HUMANITIES". Could someone more familiar with the subject check this and make amends if necessary? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.101.41 (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC) :
 * You were right. Fixed. It appears to be from: Wolf, Eric R. 1964 Anthropology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. I'll see if I can find a copy for the page number. --Woland (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the word 'anthropology' is first used by Kant. This should be added if it can be confirmed. TheTyrant (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)TheTyrant


 * As far as I can tell you're about 200 years off. It was first coined in 1593 and Kant used it in the late 18th century. I can't seem to find a citation for this but every dictionary I've looked at gives the late 16th century as the time of coinage.--Woland (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Which brings us to the point of why isn't Kant mentioned in the article? He calls for the invention of a science of anthropology in the introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason (first edition).  It's the first time anyone used the term in its modern sense, that I'm aware of.  He shows where anthropology and philosophy touch each other and what each should take on, as disciplines.  I believe that writers like Tolstoy were certainly influenced by the need for detailed description of what would eventually be called "culture."  There's a lot missing from this article.Levalley (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

The article itself reads as if in violation of major anthropology principles. For example, presuming that a nationalistic approach is the way to go...is exceedingly controversial. Anthropology is a wide and holistic field, virtually impossible to contain in a linear fashion (which should be stated). The article should then use a wide range of anthropological topics and examples (and authors) to inform the average reader what anthropology might mean to them.Levalley (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Nordic race
I would be grateful if contributors here could comment on the page Nordic race and associated Talk page. Paul B 23:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Race itself has yet to become a topic. To make it a topic, a section on population genetics would need to be written.  Various views or race would have to be presented.  Given the article's present organization, the entire history of notions of race would have to be reference (although I agree that "race" should be one of the topics at least mentioned here - and key views in anthropology on that topic given, as related in standard textbooks in the field).  Even a short history of anthropological notions of race isn't present - so how could anyone meaningfully add "Nordic race" without...being ethnocentric?  We have to keep this article balanced.  It's not even balanced on its four (or more) subfields...can't get to Nordic race without that...Levalley (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ota Benga
Some of you may be interested in taking a look at Ota Benga, an anthropology related article to which an editor has been adding and re-adding anti-evolution links as references, Answers in Genesis among them. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Major discussions about anthropology
This section seems to be redundant with other material and relies heavily on a single book about urban ethnography for statements about anthropology and ethnocentrism/orientalism in general. It might be better deleted entirely or else incorporated into Controversies in Anthropology above. Any thoughts? Mccajor (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've questioned the "classic" status of this one book (which to me is rather arcane). I tried to rescue the section by making it relate to more general notions in anthropology (like etic and emic), but my talk page reveals the dissent over that.  So, instead of trying to edit it - I'm also in favor of just deleting it.  There is absolutely no reason to single out this one subfield (urban), call it "major discussion," and then not actually get into what is major, regarding it.  It's just a random subfield, especially from the point of view of any non-anthropologist reading the article.Levalley (talk) 05:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

MacDonald and criticism of Boasian anthropology
Would seem like a good, substantial addition to the article. He devotes one long chapter to the criticism in his book (The Culture of Critique). If not under Boasian anthropology, then under a new section called "criticism of boasian anthropology" or "criticism of cultural anthropology" or "criticism of modern anthropology" or some such. It's going to be one or the other. Which one? Zeekropun (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a longstanding consensus on this talk page (or in its archives) that MacDonald's criticism is not notable enough to warrant a section or a paragraph. I'm unclear as to what authority or knowledge of anthropology that MacDonald can claim.  As far as I can tell, he's a racist with an advanced degree in field that is unrelated. I've no particular problem with criticism of "Boasian anthropology" or aspects of it--many have been made by anthropologists within the field.  A section devoted to fringe theories about "The Jews" and their nefarious plots to undermine US interests would violate WP:UNDUE and has no place in this article.  --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're being either deceptive or ignorant. There's no "consensus", longstanding or otherwise, on this talkheader about Kevin MacDonald. There's only this:


 * "Anon keeps inserting a short mention of this criticism of Jewry (or whatever) into a section on the politics of anthropology, where it sticks out, probably because it's entirely irrelevant to that section, which deals with discussions that have occurred within the discipline. I'm going to remove that passage every time I see it (without violating 3rr) until anon presents a better explanation of why it should be in the article in that form."


 * Your character assassination of MacDonald is irrelevant here. And you don't own this place. If there is no rational opposition to the addition which you deleted, I will undelete it. If I wanted to learn about modern anthropology, I sure would be interested in knowing about MacDonald's critique of it. Maybe you wouldn't, maybe you're biased that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeekropun (talk • contribs) 20:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a great deal more conversation about MacDonald there than you have cited. And if I wanted to learn more than I already know about modern anthropology, I would read anthropological scholars.  You're absolutely right, however, that I do not own this article, and I hope some other editors will weigh in here.  My position is that a section on MacDonald has little to do with anthropology and does not belong in an article on anthropology. Inserting such a section on criticism of cultural anthro would violate WP:UNDUE. Absent other input, I'm going to consider the earlier consensus not to include that info as valid. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, here is the relevant part of WP's policy on undue weight:
 * NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority.


 * We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. 
 * If ever a set of ides fit this description, it would be MacDonald's. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 00:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Newsroom hierarchies --Girl2k (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Inclusion of criticism by MacDonald would certainly be giving undue weight. Whats next? We start putting in criticisms from psychohistory ? I think not.--Woland (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "There is a great deal more conversation about MacDonald there than you have cited." What I cited was all there was on this specific talk page. If you think there is more, go and have a look, and cite it. Devoting a short paragraph to MacDonald's criticism isn't putting "undue weight" on it, considering there is a prior assertion under the section the MacDonald was deleted from which asserts that Boasian anthropology was politically active. It was politically active all right. If you keep insisting on the "undue weight" excuse, I think I'm going to have to create a whole criticism section with all sorts of other critics to carry some of the weight, so it won't soon be undue, since it won't soon be weight at all but like a small foot note, yet still there. I'm not claiming it deserves as much attention (although some might say it deserves more), hence only the small paragraph, for now. You're just suppressors of information with your scared rhetoric. You want me to summon twenty editors to support me? A hundred? I can do that if that's what you want. Is it?Zeekropun (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if you don't think MacDonald qualifies as an anthropologist, you might want to examine what sort of Ph. D.s and professorships anthropologists usually have or have had. Here is MacDonald's quite impressive curriculum vitae: http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/VITA2005.pdf Zeekropun (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh,dude, please try to remain civil and  assume good faith. People will be more likely to listen to you and accept your ideas instead of just thinking that you're a troll.--Woland (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Anthropologists (usually) have advanced training and degrees in anthropology. My understanding is that MacDonald doesn't. That's all I meant.
 * There is a policy that you might want to read regarding the "summoning" of editors to defend one's preferred point of view in a talk page discussion. Stating you intend to canvass in this manner is highly inappropriate and will not result in any changes to this page that you want. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

McDonald knows so little about Boas and his real work - and was trying to become famous through his critique - that to include him on a page already totally out of balance in terms of what it says about anthropology would be terrible.Levalley (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Clearification & Reclassification Needed
This wikipedia article is a mess. It needs some major clean up and re classification.

It should be noted there there are Different types of anthropology.

Cultural anthropology should not be confused Physical anthropology. They are in different worlds. One study human cultures while the other study human remains.

Maybe the article needs to be broken up into two totally seperate wikipedia articles?

--Bill


 * It is simply not true that they are two different fields. Many, many anthropologists do some of both - although it is true that most people who specialize (and not everyone does) specializes in one or the other.  There are lots and lots of texts that do both and physical/biological anthropology also studies contemporary humans.  Chagnon is a physical anthropologist - he went to collect blood from the Yanomamo.--Levalley (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley
 * Chagnon was not a physical anthropologist. He was a cultural anthropologist. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're wrong. He eventually became known as a cultural anthropologist.  Look at his funding for his Yanomamo work!  Look at what he was hired to do (Draw blood!)  He describes himself as a sociobiological anthropology (google it).  Read more biographies of Chagnon or call him on the phone.Levalley (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

June 11, 2008
 * Hey Bill, This article is kind of about Anthropology as an umbrella discipline and if you'll notice it does get into the different types of anthropology under the Four Fields Approach section. This should maybe be written into the intro section or maybe towards the beginning? --Woland (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think anthropologists must be reluctant to edit Wikipedia - or don't have enough time to do it. This article is awful. As I thought about it, I realized that none of the central ideas or concepts of anthropology as an academic discipline are presented, there is no actual definition of anthropology, no scoping out of its relationship to other disciplines, how it actually arose, nothing about the Frankfurt school (which would help explain the obsession people have with Boas), no contextualization of poor Boas, really really poor mention of the world's two first professional anthropologists (Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown), almost nothing about the world's greatest living anthropologist, Claude Levi-Strauss, and no mention of the fundamental formative schools of anthropology that gave rise to the several subcategories that Wikipedia does see fit to mention (like ecological anthropology). Anthropology may be viewed as either including or closely related to semiotics as well. Clifford Geertz's main contributions are not mentioned, the link to his one book is not to what most would say is his seminal work, Marshall Sahlins pops up too much, I can't believe there are NO references to the history of anthropology as done by Marvin Harris. The article makes Benedict and Mead sound like hacks and fails to mention anything about anthropology either as an academic discipline with a history as a discipline OR as a field of study. Where are the terms "cultural relativism," "holism," "ethnography," "participant-observation," "fieldwork," "going native," "social structure," "culture," "diachronic analysis," "kinship systems," and other key concepts that comprise the field (and cross the four subfields in many cases). None of these words would have attained their modern meaning without anthropology doing what it did - in the 20th century. Herodotus is arguably a progenitor of anthropology - but he does not claim himself to be an anthropologist (Plato and Pythagorus actually say they ARE philosophers; Herodotus calls himself a traveler and an historian and a student of politics). Thank goodness someone correctly notes - here on the talk page, I believe - the origin of the word. It would probably died an early death as a word were it not for Kant.

Rewrite needed. Levalley (talk) 07:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

request for people who watch this page
After all uncited material was deleted - leaving only a stub - I did a major overhaul of Incest taboo. Hoping that it rises to our standards for good anthropology related articles, would people who watch this page mind looking it over, making any obvious improvements or commenting on the talk page? Thanks, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

List of years in anthropology??
There's no WP:Anthropology so nowhere else to ask this except on a category talkheader....does anyone have any idea why List of years in anthropology even exists? Please see Talk:List of years in anthropology. I found it while searching to see if there was an Anthropology WikiProject because of the article in the next section, which needs some attention, and anthro seems like a field where someone would have the expertise to edit/recognize/work up the article in question.Skookum1 (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Culture of the Tlingit
Aside from noting that the usual name-format for such an article would/should be "Tlingit culture" (cf. Skwxwu7mesh culture), this article is very prolix and needs structure; see Talk:Culture of the Tlingit as there's a risk that the bulk material here, which is all of the same tone, may be a "lift" and therefore copyvio; if it's not, it's from one author and then is possibly WP:OR or WP:Synthesis. I've also found a few snuck-in vandalisms and there's probably more. There's a wide range of onlien sources, particualrly in googlebooks, on Tlingit culture and history; at the very least it's currently very POV and may warrant at least teh article issues "essay" switch. Is there someone here, or a suitable workgroup, who might take this on? I'm interested in regional history and know a bit about indigenous cultures in teh PacNW, but I don't ahve the depth or teeth to take this on...well, I have the teeth and they're pretty sharp, but I've already bitten off more than I can chew elsewhere so hoping someone can pick up the torch on this one....Skookum1 (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The intro
was grossly misleading. I removed this material:
 * Ethnography is both one of its primary methods and the text that is written as a result of the practice of anthropology and its elements.


 * Since the work of Franz Boas and Bronisław Malinowski in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, anthropology has been distinguished from other social science disciplines by its emphasis on in-depth examination of context, cross-cultural comparisons (socio-cultural anthropology is by nature a comparative discipline), and the importance it places on long-term, experiential immersion in the area of research, often known as participant-observation. Cultural anthropology in particular has emphasized cultural relativity and the use of findings to frame cultural critiques. This has been particularly prominent in the United States, from Boas's arguments against 19th-century racial ideology, through Margaret Mead's advocacy for gender equality and sexual liberation, to current criticisms of post-colonial oppression, and promotion of multiculturalism.

Which I am guessing dates to the short-lived attempt to merge cultural and social anthropology. This material is in and of itself accurate and well-written and I sure wish I knew where to put it into the article. The problem is, it applies to social andthropology and cultural anthropology which, both cultural and social anthropologists would agree, are branches of anthropology and not anthropology itself. We cannot have a lead that describes one part of anthropology and that does not introduce all of anthropology or all of the article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The debate over social vs. cultural is sophomoric and something easily resolved in introductory courses in any field of anthropology within about five minutes (and in various ways, but it's still just lorry vs. truck in the end). It's too bad this language didn't stay in the article - it's much better than what's there and is accurate and seems neutral  It discusses both American and British anthropologists (I'd put Malinowski's name first since without doubt he was the first person to hold a chair in anthropology and a department of anthropology was invented for him to have employment in).  I would add that anthropology (social and cultural) is influenced by observational practices common in the zoological sciences.  I wish you knew where to put it too - you're doing a fine job trying to clean up and improve this article, but it's very hard to fix an already-existing article that has its own trajectory, and I'm noticing, on Wikipedia that this petty kind of debate often results on longterm silences and very poor articles.  Levalley (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley


 * It may be your point of view that the debate over social versus cultural is sophmoric, but this is not how we make decisions at Wikipedia. By the way, wasn't Tylor appointed professor of anthropology in 1896? And Boas in 1899?  These are both before Malinowski.  Why must it be a chair? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll go with Sir Edward being the first professional anthropologist - that makes sense. However, it negates the point about the British calling themselves "social anthropologists," as of course Tylor called himself a cultural anthropologist.  Tylor, in my view, never did traditional anthropological fieldwork, but he certainly did travel and he put forth many of the central theoretical concerns, so that's fine by me.  He was first hired, as you say, in 1896 - which still fits with "modern anthropology" being primarily a 20th century science.  I think the article should be about the modern contemporary academic discipline and not about every attempt at all times of humans to understand other humans.  In 1887, Boas was still calling himself a geographer, but by 1894 was referring to himself as an ethnologist and had obtained jobs in curatorship (so no, it doesn't have to be a chair in anthropology - and that would make Boas a little earlier than Tylor, if it matters.  If, however, Boas is to be considered an anthropologist in the mid-90's, then I think Morgan and Powell ought at least to have a mention.  Boas organized the first real fieldwork expedition (in my opinion) in 1897.  Oddly, his first appointment at Columbia were in physical, not cultural anthropology (it's always been blurry, in my view).  Somehow, the article should make mention of 19th century evolutionists (like Morgan) and then situate modern anthropology as rising in the 90's and becoming established in the first 20 years of the 20th century.  Of the articles on Wikipedia on anthropologists, I think the one on Boas is the best, so leading with him makes sense, wiki-wise.  But you're right - it doesn't have to have a chair.Levalley (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley

P.S. How do we resolve such things at Wikipedia (as the silliness about social vs. cultural) - I know plenty of American anthropologists who call/called themselves social anthropologists, and Brits who did vice versa, so the regional thing remains wrong. Perhaps they don't get resolved and that's why so many articles on main topics of importance don't get improved? That's the way it looks, anyway. I guess it's just a very sloow process. Too bad this got bogged down in that, though. I do not at all agree that most anthropologists would agree the two are "branches," I believe we use the word "branch" (as in dendritic) in a very specific way, as most scientists do. I've herad anthropology described in evolutionary terms as "bushy" rather than "branched." Indeed, Berkeley physical anthropologist Adrienne Zihlman notes the emerging use of other plant metaphors in our science (cactus, bush, tree). I tend to be quite specific and think about which plant will work before using such a metaphor. I'd say cultural and social anthropology are intertwined entities, and to try and separate them is a useless activity, ceaseless, and the two flow into each other, rather than diverge from each other. Levalley (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

I think "human beings" sounds better for the first sentence than "humans," and I don't understand why we need "humans" and "humanity." Is that the state of being human humanity or the other kind of humanity (as in man's humanity to creatures?) Why is the pronoun "its" used? Shouldn't it be "our"? Are there non-humans reading? A potential for non-humans to be reading that we need to take account of?Levalley (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley


 * I did not say mid-1990s for Boas, I said 1999 because that is when he was appointed professor of anthropology. Of course Tylor and other arm-chair anthropologists called themselves cultural anthropologists given 19th century ideologies, but most Brits today call themselves social anthropologists.  There certainly is a difference between social anthropology and cultural anthropology, even if individual practicioners read some of the same books and develop hybrid practices.  As to making changes, one way to start is not to call the work of others "silly" and to assume that it was made if good faith even if it can be improved upon. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say nineteen-90's, either - I figured by now the two of us knew we were talking about the 19th century for Boas! Silly isn't perjorative to me, but I won't use it any more on wikipedia.  Do you have a citation for "most Brits call themselves" social anthropologists?  When I go to meetings and meet Brits, they seem to make the effort to convert their language into Americanisms rather readily - and when they come for employment interviews at our college, they rarely use "social anthropology" - so are you saying that when back home, in their native context, that's what they prefer?  I have a very good friend who is a British anthropologist (now teaching in Holland) but prefers cultural anthropologist (don't know why, will ask her).  Could this be changing?  At any rate, Tylor was a British anthropologist (even if mostly armchair - he did travel, remember) and did he call himself a social anthropologist?  When did the switch take place, in your view?  And, conversely, I had professors at Stanford (two in particular, neither of them British) who called themselves social anthropologists (and of course, several who said socio-cultural).  It's always seemed quite fluid to me, based on years and years of observing anthropologists from many nations.  One of my professors was born in Japan, trained there and in the United States and used both terms to refer to himself.  I wish someone could provide, other than a regional dialectical difference, an explanation of how (for example) the work of Evans-Pritchard is somehow different from the work of some comparable American anthropologist.  That would help elucidate this elusive difference.  Malinowski, R-B and E-P would be core British social anthropologists, am I right?  I'm forgetting now, what do French anthropologists call themselves, in terms of what Wikipedia already says?--Levalley (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley
 * Sorry, it was a typo, I meant mid-1890s - I think that is what you wrote but Boas got the title in 1999. About brits: I think that Geertz, Schneider and Wagner had a big impact on them as an alternative to structuralism when social anthropology was reeling from the post-colonial critique (e.g. Asad 1973) so yes I think there are many British anthropologists drawn towards cultural anthropology although I hasten to add that the cultural anthropology of geertz, Schneider and Wagner is of a very particular type given the lineage (one pre-adapted for British tastes). Tylor was a cultural anthropologist, I think the shift came under Malinowski who was adamant about "social anhthropology" and then Radcliffe-Brown.  As to today, well, I certainly do think the Geertz-Schneder brand of cultural anthropology, and structuralism, appeal to many.  But I am guessing that the people applying for jobs in the US are either drawn particularly to America and American anthropology, or prepare for the interview by brushing up.  My experience in the UK is that most anthropologists very much work in a British tradition and I am talking about lineages; they will cite a US or French anthropologist if he went to LSE and trained under Maurice Bloch ... but the point is will generally cite students of Bloch.  Or whoever was their advisor at Oxford or Cambridge (Needham?  Whomever).  I have heard many say that "sociality" remains their prime theoretical concept and problem, and when I read their work it is evident in much of their work that this is indeed the case. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's one of the best and most practical explanations of the difference I've seen, but I still think it will be opaque to most Wikipedia readers. That's okay, I guess.  I did go look at course outlines and reading lists at Oxford Courses (where they call the program Social and Cultural Anthropology, but also have separate degrees in Social Anthropology), and I have to say, they seem to be reading equally from American and British anthropology (indeed, although I can't say this today because I haven't enough data), first glance appears to show that British anthropology courses use a great deal of American anthropology in them.  For the M.Sc. in Social Anthropology, the requirements are virtually identical to what mine were, at an American university:  MSc in Social Anthropology

* Length of programme: Twelve months * Core and option courses: Part One: I. Fundamental concepts in Social and Cultural Anthropology; II. The social and moral order; III. Perception and experience; IV. Option paper (topic or region). Part Two: thesis (approx. 10,000 words).

Note the inclusion of both Social and Cultural anthropology (and the inclusion of perception as well - same thing we had to do here). This is Oxford's requirements. My cohort was also required to have what they termed "social organization" and another course in "kinship," and in those courses, we read a lot of British anthropology. So, I guess that's why it's hard for me to see the difference. Today, people I graduated with are teaching in London and New Guinea, as well as in the United States, and there are Brits teaching in anthropology all over the U.S. - but I've never heard anyone say they came over to "learn American anthropology" or "cultural anthropology." The broad, evolving toolkit of British and American anthropology (as it says in the Oxford literature) seems quite similar. Is there anything current written on this difference? I thought the discussion had very much died away.--Levalley (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley

Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown considered themselves to be of such radically different schools of thought that they shouted at each other in the halls, went through long periods of ignoring each other, and (according to one account from one of my teachers, which is apocryphal but still interesting), almost came to fisticuffs, although today it's very hard to get anyone to see the difference in their approaches, especially since there are so many more distinctive approaches to arise since then.--Levalley (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)LeValley
 * The difference is very clear when one looks at their understanding of functionalism. By the way, Talcott parsons (who trained Geertz and Schneider) had a model of social action that incorporated both - biological needs and the roles and expectations attached to social roles and institutions ... Thanks for the complement in the explanation.  I see American cultural anthropology as a clear set of theories developed by Boas, Benedict, and Sapir some of which still have currency today; I see the key to cultural anthropology as its being one of four fields.  If the four field approach goes 9as it may) "cultural anthropology" may go too.  I think the key factor though when it comes to your experience and those of others you know is that post WWII structural functionalism dominated both in the US and UK.  Cultural anthropology had a resurgence in the US with the publication of Reinventing Anthropology but it is my sense that US anthropologists read more "UK" "social anthropology" than Brits read cultural anthropology.  How many Brits have read any Radin or Sapir?  Eric Wolf?  How many know who Morton Fried or Elman Service were?  I think we have to start with an honest account ... and then work on a way to explain it to Wikipedian audiences.  I think the big problem is that in believing that the objects of science are real, people go on to reify science itself.  Thus, since the laws of physics are the same all over the universe, physics is the same all over the universe.  Okay, but there is no reason for this to hold for the human sciences.  Even a Malinowskian functionalist would agree that different cultures are different.  Is it such a surprise that American anthropologists have a different way of studying people (using the culture concept) and British anthropologists come up with another way (focusing on the social)?  After mall: if there is any value to Americans reading the books of Brits and Brits reading the books of Americans, it would be because those books are different.  What I mean is, just because Americans eat Chinese food does not make Chinese food American (though I grant it is often Americanized!!) Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think, then, that the difference is more "American vs. British" than cultural vs. social (since both of those second terms are used in both regions). However, if we agree to have American=cultural (somehow, as a way of simplifying) and British=social, etc., we could at least communicate.  I have no idea how you would figure out who, in Britain, had read Sapir or Wolf, but all the European anthropologists I happen to know (a couple dozen) have read them - but that could be because we are in similar subfields and it's unavoidable to run into those names.  We do, after all, attend each others' meetings and read each others' books and articles.  I disagree entirely with your dismissal of the use of the term (so far undefined) "laws" in either physics or the social sciences.  I have my own views on the use of these terms in the sciences (and I consider anthropology to be a science; as you know, not everyone shares this view).  I also consider some aspects of science to be aesthetic or observational, it's not all verifiable.  Your claim that Americans read British books because they are different, but that's not why I read them.  I read them when they are pertinent to what I'm studying.  I don't know who your anthropological friends and citations are, but that's true for virtually every anthropologist I read.  If you're studying kinship systems in New Guinea, for example (I have a particular person in mind who is, I believe, right now the world's expert on that topic), you will read American and British work on New Guinea kinship systems.  If you're studying Walbiri kinship systems, you'll do the same (and that's exactly what you'll see in monographs).  Where are you getting the idea that I'd read (or anyone would read) a British anthropologist merely because he or she was British and therefore "different"?  Who does this?  One might wish to have many different kinds of accounts, but it's been a long time since the two national approaches were so different that merely reading one or the other provided any kind of certainty that one had "different" points of view.  I was trained by people who were not at all heavily influenced by functionalism (indeed, quite critical).  I'm not that young, either.  I'd be very interested in hearing more from you on the two different views on functionalism (British and American) because I think you must be pointing to a time in anthropology in the mid-20th century that isn't well covered in the history of theory books I have on hand (I've got Marvin Harris's book right here, and two others - I'm going to reread them over Spring break and try to figure out what he says about the growth of the two national schools; he has lots of other sources, I'll check 'em out).  Indeed, having a wiki-article on the two different views of functionalism (and, I would presume, structural-functionalism) would be great and a much-needed addition to the anthropology project.  I am not doubting your perceptions, really, I just was not taught to look at it that way, and nearly everyone I read, in anthropology (and I can't possibly read more than a fraction of what is published) has international sources.  Chinese, Japanese and French anthropology have all been quite influential in the areas where I work, and I've seen some things written about the differences among those national traditionals - so perhaps a general article on "national traditions in anthropology" is in order.  We could then note historical preferences in terminology and how they changed over time.  However, this is certainly not a front burner topic for me, as I think the entire issue is, as I've said, waning.  The four subfield thing is similarly (to me) an odd topic.  I know it's used in introductory textbooks all the time - but seriously, where else is it used?  I'm curious.  Do you really think it operates in American academia?  Maybe it does.  Some departments have divided along three subfield lines (physical and archaeology off on their own, linguistics on their own, sociocultural on its own), some have divided on a two subfield basis (physical/archaeological vs. linguistic/sociocultural), a lot depends on budget - not academic will.  But, I use the rubric myself in teaching introductory anthropology - it's a way of introducing the field that works.Levalley (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there are some areas in which we have a genuine disagreement, and some areas in which we may be misunderstanding one another. I think you misunderstood some of what I wrote and I don't mind taking responsibility for it.  Specifically, when I wrote that Americans value British anthropology because it is different, I should have said that scholars typically read the work of another (any other) because that other may think differently, have a different perspective, in short be a source of new insights or ideas different from the ones one already has - and that cultural anthropologists reading works of social anthropology and vice versa may be one example of this.  I view this as compatiblw with your own point, that we read works that we expect to be of use or interest to us because they are related to our own field of inquiry.  At least, I agree with what you wrote, and still believe that there is a value to people, and groups of people, developing different paradigms, metatheoretical interests, or theories people variety is a good thing and people can then learn from one another.  As to laws, I guess here we genuinely disagree.  I share Boas's interpretation of Bastian, that it isn't possible to say whether a cultural universal is a universal because of multiple independent invention or because of diffusion, because if an idea is really good people are just as likely to come up with it on their own or borrow it from others who already have.  Beyond that I am very skeptical of attempts to come up with universal laws of culture.  I know that this is a respectable project in anthropology (e.g. Harris, Levi Strauss) but I just find the other view (which also has a long history in anthropology) more plausible.  Finally, I am not sure why you think I believe that there is an American view of functionalism and a British view of functionalism.  You wrote, "Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown considered themselves to be of such radically different schools of thought that they shouted at each other in the halls .... although today it's very hard to get anyone to see the difference in their approaches" and my next comment was, "The difference is very clear when one looks at their understanding of functionalism."  I didn't think it was a controversial view, that Malinowski and Brown meant different things by "function" and functionalism.  I know Brown taught at Chicago for a while but I never suggested he was an AMerican or his view of functionalism was particularly American.  If you are asking my personal opinion - I am a huge fan of the four-field apporach, but our personal opinions do not belong in articles.  My point was historical: US academic cultural anthropology (with its German roots) developed in the context of the four fields.  British social anthropology did not. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)