Download Think about it - Homework Market





This quiz is open book/open notes.
Please use only the course books and Modules to answer your questions (not
Internet sources - points will be deducted for Internet sources)
Don't forget to cite your sources where appropriate
Quiz 1 covers material from the following::
Module 1; Robbins Chapter 1
Module 2; Robbins Chapter 4
Module 2; Robbins Chapter 2
Short Answer
Respond to 1 of the following short answer questions. Your response should be
at least 1-2 paragraphs long and written in full sentences.
Question: Describe the concepts of ethnocentrism and cultural relativism. Please give
one example of each.
Essay Question
Answer following essay question. Your response will be graded in terms of
accuracy, completeness, and relevancy of the ideas expressed. For full points,
your answer should be written in complete sentences and be at least 5
paragraphs long with a recognizable introduction, and conclusion. Support your
statements with specific examples from the course material, cite your sources
both within the text of your essay and at the end of your essay.
Question: How do anthropologists contribute to solving human problems? Include how
the anthropological perspective and anthropological approach enhance social work,
education, and medicine
These are modules 1 and 2:
1. What Is Anthropology?
The Subject Matter of Anthropology
Anthropology is the study of what it is to be human in the past and present, the things about
people that are the same, and the things about them that are different. Anthropologists try to
understand and describe the way in which humans think and behave and why we think and
behave as we do. They help us recognize that much of what we think and do has been learned
from the cultural worlds we walk in and that others do not necessarily experience or understand
the world in the same way we do.
To understand humanity, anthropologists must study all of humanity, not just the most familiar
or convenient human populations. Anthropology is cross-cultural. It seeks to understand how life
is lived, experienced, and interpreted in different settings and at different times. It also seeks to
understand how different people's unique histories and positions in larger contexts, such as the
global economy, shape their lives. By studying people in their own contexts, anthropologists
guard against conclusions that may be true for some, but not all. Anthropologists resist
assumptions that any particular behavior, idea, or way of being is "natural" unless they are sure
that no others do it, think about it, experience it, or interpret it differently. They challenge
ethnocentrism wherever and whenever they find it.
Think about it:
Ideas about where infants should sleep can reflect notions of the "ideal" person a
society is trying to develop. Many Americans, for example, highly value
independence, individualism, and personal space and think, therefore, that infants
"must" learn to sleep in their own cribs, often in their own rooms. People from other
traditions, however, may find this practice cruel. Where do you think infants should
sleep? Why? What does your opinion say about your values and traditions?
The Development of Anthropology
Historically, many have written about the ways of life of "others." For example, Herodotus wrote
about different groups of people in the ancient world, Marco Polo wrote about the people he
encountered in his travels, and the early European explorers and missionaries wrote about
people in the Americas. Despite this long tradition of "amateur" anthropology, anthropology as
an organized academic discipline is only about 130 years old. In Europe and the United States in
the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the increasing ability to travel to faraway places
and the realization that, although there was enormous diversity among peoples, we are all
members of the same species allowed the discipline to flourish.
Though anthropology first developed in this Euro-American context and Western anthropologists
studied "exotic" peoples in faraway places or traditional peoples whose ways of life were
changing rapidly with modernity, anthropologists now come from all over the world. They bring
their different perspectives to their research and often turn an "anthropological gaze" on either
their own cultures or on the Western cultures in which the discipline originally arose. As one
might expect, through its attention to diversity, anthropology has also attracted diverse scholars.
Women, for example, have been among anthropology's pioneers perhaps more than in other
disciplines. Think of Margaret Mead, an anthropologist who is famous for her studies of culture
and personality, particularly adolescence and gender roles, as just one instance.
Think about it:
Leo Chavez, an American anthropologist whose family migrated to the United States
from Mexico generations ago, wrote an ethnography about the lives of recent
immigrants to California. Do you think it is necessary for an anthropologist to come
from the "same" background as the people she or he studies? In your opinion, how
close in background do you think Dr. Chavez and his informants were? To what
extent would their common ethnic origin help or hinder his study?
How Is Anthropology Organized?
The Four Fields and Two Dimensions of Anthropology
Anthropology is organized into four fields―archaeology, cultural anthropology, linguistics, and
physical (or biological) anthropology―though each makes use of the insights of the others, and
all are linked by common themes. Each of these fields has two dimensions, theoretical and
applied, though again, this division is somewhat arbitrary because applied anthropologists use
and contribute to theory, and theoreticians consider real-world data as they build theories to
explain what they observe.
Archaeology studies the "stuff" people leave behind as they live and die. This "stuff" includes not
only the remains of materials people make and use, but also, for example, the traces of their
diets, diseases, and processes of living.
Think about it:
Archaeologists often study "garbage" such as food scraps, bones, broken pottery,
artistic "mistakes," discarded objects, even bodily waste. What do you think a future
archaeologist would say about your way of life based on your garbage?
Cultural anthropology (also called social anthropology or sociocultural anthropology) studies
learned and shared ideas and behaviors, how these come to be, how they change, and how
"culture" shapes what people think and do. (We will discuss in more depth in topic 2 below the
concept of culture as it is variously understood by anthropologists.) The following list compiled
from the sections and interest groups of the American Anthropological Association indicates some
of the topics cultural anthropologists are interested in. These include feminism, law, politics,
education, agriculture, psychology, religion, work, development, urban and rural life,
globalization, media, gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender issues, AIDS, alcohol and drugs,
bioethics, disabilities, and emerging diseases as well as every geographic area of the world.
Anthropologists specialize in certain issues or geographic areas or both, but as this list implies,
whatever is part of the human experience is grist for at least one cultural anthropologist's mill.
Linguistic anthropologists study human languages, both past and present. They describe
languages, study the ways in which languages change and develop, and look at various forms of
communication among people. By studying their languages, linguistic anthropologists help us
understand what is important to different groups of people and how they make sense of their
world.
Physical anthropologists (also called biological anthropologists) study the interaction between
culture and biology in human life, primatologists study nonhuman primates (primatology),
paleoanthropologists study the evolution of primates including humans, and molecular
anthropologists study genetic relationships among people. Forensic anthropologists are often
experts on human anatomy and biological structures and may conduct research to solve crimes.
Medical anthropology cross-cuts all of the four fields of anthropology. For example, consider
research on infectious diseases. Physical and cultural anthropologists try to understand the
relationship between culturally patterned beliefs and behaviors and the transmission of HIV. For
instance, an anthropologist might ask, How do ideas about sexual abstinence, fidelity, and
condoms affect behaviors that in turn affect whether an individual becomes infected with HIV (a
biological condition)? Archaeologists look for evidence of infectious diseases and the ways people
coped with them through what they have left behind, and linguistic anthropologists study the
different terms different people use for such diseases, their treatments, and outcomes, and the
discourse related to them.
Think about it:
In Uganda in the early 1990s, HIV was called the small insect of SLIM (their term for
AIDS), whereas in Western (and other) cultures, we call the agent that causes AIDS
a "virus." We understand viruses differently than we do insects. Such different terms
can indicate different ways of thinking about and understanding this pathological
agent, and these ideas, in turn, can influence what people do to avoid acquiring it.
Anthropological data from Uganda indicate that many people at this time transferred
to HIV their ideas about other insect-born infections, such as malaria. Thus, some
people believed they would not get "the small insect" if they stayed indoors in the
evening.
Can you think of an example of when you applied ideas you already had when you
were trying to comprehend something entirely new? How do you think this type of
thinking affects the "truth" of what you "know" about the new phenomenon?
Another example from medical anthropology illustrates both the applied and theoretical
dimensions of anthropology. "Critical medical anthropologists" use ideas from world systems
theory to investigate the effects of the world capitalist system on human health in various
settings. Although their studies increase our understanding of the political and economic factors
that lead to differential health outcomes and thus build theory, their findings are also used to
develop interventions designed to improve health in specific populations.
Think about it:
Anthropologists reported that narcotic analgesics (painkillers) are now commonly
marketed in American inner cities and that their use leads to serious health and
psychiatric consequences. They described those who use these drugs and the ways
they are marketed and sold. Why do you think knowing more about the people who
use certain drugs and how they obtain them could help control the problem?
Unifying Threads
The four fields of anthropology are unified by their emphasis on holism, a historical perspective,
universalism, and a cross-cultural comparative approach. All anthropologists are committed to
understanding human phenomena in context. That is, anthropologists recognize that nothing
occurs in a vacuum and that a researcher must be familiar with the whole to understand the
particular. By the same token, anthropologists know that the present is a product of the past and
that the yesterdays of a place and of a people must be known to understand the todays and
tomorrows. Anthropologists also respect the universal humanity of all those they study as well as
the connections between humans and other primates. Finally, all anthropologists are committed
to studying all cultures, subcultures, and microcultures and comparing them to document and
understand commonalities, differences, and changes.
The Position of Anthropology within Science and the Humanities
Human beings are complex biological and cultural organisms, and anthropologists integrate
approaches from both science and the humanities to understand them and to convey their ideas
and their lives to others. People, for example, must eat and drink to survive, but think of the
myriads of foods and drinks there are and the countless different behaviors, ideas, and
experiences that accompany this biological necessity. For example, a "scientific" anthropologist
may quantify how food is apportioned differently between men and women in diverse settings.
They may ask, Are men allotted more high-protein food in certain cultures and if so, what are
the health outcomes of this difference? On the other hand, a more humanistically oriented
anthropologist may seek to understand and represent the ways men and women feel about these
differences. As further evidence of anthropology's humanistic perspective, anthropologists may
be interested in the arts different people make, the literature they write or speak, and the values
that give meaning to their lives.
The Relationship between Anthropology and Other Academic Disciplines
Anthropology is unique in its holism; it considers every aspect of what it is to be human.
Therefore, every other discipline is useful to anthropologists. They learn from political scientists,
molecular biologists, economists, physicians, historians, lawyers, psychologists, physicists,
writers, neuroanatomists—in other words, from everyone. While anthropologists learn from other
disciplines, they also question whether the theories and conclusions of other disciplines apply to
all peoples or just to certain people. Thus, by investigating diversity, anthropology provides an
essential corrective to the very human tendency of so-called "objective" researchers to see the
world through their own inevitably biased lenses. Of course, anthropologists are humans, too, so
they must look at their own and each other's work as well to identify and eliminate the
ethnocentric biases they find.
How Do Cultural Anthropologists Do Their Work?
Major Types of Studies in Cultural Anthropology
Cultural anthropologists produce different products according to the requirements of their
research questions and, importantly, according to funders' needs. They write books, journal
articles, and reports and produce films, recordings, and television or video programming.
Traditionally, cultural anthropologists lived for an extended time (sometimes years, off and on)
conducting fieldwork among an "exotic" people (at least to Western eyes), participating in the
daily life of the people as they observed it. They learned and used the language, perhaps
focusing on specific aspects of the people's lives according to the anthropologists' own interests,
biases, or guiding theoretical framework. Eventually they produced ethnographies that described
and analyzed the people's way of life.
As the need for anthropological input into public health and international and domestic
development projects has increased, much ethnographic work has become even more issueoriented, focused, and brief. Sometimes "rapid assessments" are conducted rather than
extended fieldwork. Consequently, anthropologists, although still producing comprehensive
ethnographies, also write relatively brief reports, articles, and monographs and may even
condense their findings into one-page executive summaries that policymakers and program
officers can easily digest and use.
Finally, "new" ethnographies often examine what the anthropologist brings to his or her research
and explore the ways the ideas, attitudes, or values of the anthropologist affect the eventual
product. Sometimes, instead of being set in only one place, "new" ethnographies examine an
issue in multiple places and from multiple perspectives.
Think about it:
An example of a "new" ethnography is Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing's Friction, which
explores global connections and the friction that results from different people's
interests "bumping up" against each other. Her ethnography of the timber industry,
indigenous resistance to the industry, and global environmentalism is situated in the
many sites necessary to tell her story: villages in the rainforest, corporate offices,
and nonprofit agencies across the globe. Tsing also acknowledges her own
allegiances and understands that, rather than being an objective observer, she is
part of the story she tells.
Anthropologists also produce cross-cultural comparisons called ethnologies. Ethnologies often
focus on specific issues, looking at how different groups of people approach and deal with various
living situations.
Think about it:
Brigitte Jordan compared birthing practices in the Yucatan, Sweden, the
Netherlands, and the United States in her classic work, Birth in Four Cultures. For
example, she found that to Mayan women, birth is "hard work" properly performed
at home. To many women in the United States (and often to biomedical
professionals) birth is a medical event fraught with peril that must occur in a
hospital to best secure the safety of both mother and child. In her ethnology, Jordan
did not attempt to prove that one way is "better" than another. She tried only to
document variations and to understand the logics underlying them.
What do you think of this approach? Do you think there is a "right" way to give
birth? If you were a health-care worker in a different culture, do you think it would
be helpful to understand your patients' or clients' ideas and behaviors surrounding
childbirth?
The Methods Cultural Anthropologists Use in Their Work
Anthropologists have a varied tool kit available to them to answer their research questions. They
are well-known for their qualitative research approach, though they use both qualitative and
quantitative research methods. Anthropologists often ask open-ended questions that allow
people to respond however they wish and say as much as they want to say. Anthropologists call
the people they study informants or consultants to emphasize the expertise of the people and
the fact that the people are the experts rather the "subjects" of experiments or "respondents" to
a survey with forced-choice questions.
Anthropologists, however, often use and help develop surveys that are based on previous openended research conducted to determine the range of answers appropriate in the particular
setting in which the survey will be used. They may also use interview guides rather than
preformatted questionnaires, and they may allow an informant to venture into any subject that
may be illuminating.
Also, rather than questioning a fixed number of people, anthropologists often follow "trails"
wherever they lead, interviewing people previous informants have suggested would be helpful.
On the other hand, unlike journalists, anthropologists are often concerned with making sure they
interview enough informants to capture the range of variation in responses, and they use
scientific methods to obtain representative samples when their research questions call for this
approach.
Think about it:
All anthropologists must "enter the field"—that is, they must begin research in a new
environment where they may be strangers and may be subject to suspicion if not
outright hostility. Alternatively, they may enter the field "at home," where a new
dynamic may be introduced into already established relationships.
Elizabeth Fernea accompanied her anthropologist husband to a remote conservative
Shiite village in Iraq in the early 1960s. She balked at wearing the traditional abaya,
the black garment that conceals women's entire bodies. To Fernea, the garment
symbolized what she considered to be the second-class status of women in this
culture. She quickly found, however, that she was very uncomfortable without it.
When she wore it to her first social gathering with women in the village, her hostess
pronounced her "polite."
If you were to live in and study another culture, how do you think you would handle
expectations that you conform to customs that conflict with your beliefs?
Anthropologists are often interested in uncovering both emic and etic points of view―that is,
they try to identify the point of view of the people being studied as well as other "outside"
perspectives. For example, surveys often ask demographic questions that divide people into
groups according to age, education, income, marital status, religion, and ethnic group or race.
These are standard etic categories, typically agreed upon by Western researchers as important
markers of difference. On the other hand, people may or may not identify themselves according
to these categories, and they may also have other (emic) categories for grouping people, such as
clan, political group, musical style, sports teams they follow, and so forth. Indeed, they may not
think in terms of differences among people at all.
Anthropologists ask their informants to detail their life histories, fill in blanks, draw pictures and
maps, tell them which things go together and which things don't, appear on videotape and
audiotape, participate in focus groups, todemonstrate how they make their art and artifacts,
perform their operations, cook their food, and surf the Web. In other words, anthropologists ask
their informants to show and tell what it means to live their particular lives. Depending on the
data they have collected, anthropologists may use statistical or qualitative data-analysis software
to analyze their data.
Think about it:
Arthur Kleinman, a psychiatrist and one of the most important figures in medical
anthropology, recounts why he became a qualitative researcher. Early in his career,
he administered a survey to the parents of young adults with schizophrenia. The last
question asked parents to rate the impact of the illness on their families on a fivepoint scale ranging from "Very Severe" to "None."
One mother wrote at the bottom of her questionnaire something like this: I will
answer this question, but you will never understand anything from my rating. This
illness has not had a "very severe" impact on my family; it has murdered my family.
What do you think is the difference between asking people to rate or otherwise
assign a number to their experiences or feelings and asking them to explain or
describe them? How might asking open-ended questions contribute to our
understanding of phenomena?
How Does Cultural Anthropology Contribute to Solving Human
Problems?
Anthropology's Contributions to Health Care, Education, and Business
Anthropologists conduct research and gather information that contributes to many fields,
including health care, education, and business. In all these fields, anthropologists help
professionals understand and work successfully with people who do not necessarily share their
ideas or behaviors.
An enormous amount of work has been done in health care, for example. Medical anthropologists
conduct cross-cultural studies of everything possibly related to health and illness and behaviors
related to them. They study health-care systems, including Western medicine, and the
relationships between patients and healers in many different settings. They may act directly as
"brokers" between patients and biomedical health-care professionals to help ensure that care is
delivered in appropriate ways to people whose ideas and behaviors may not mesh well with
biomedical ideas. They may help integrate traditional healers into Western medical practices, and
they may study different treatments and health-care outcomes, comparing ideas and behaviors
around the world. Medical anthropologists know that people come into health-care encounters
with many established ideas and behaviors and that interventions to improve people's health will
not be successful without understanding the people practitioners hope to serve.
In education, anthropologists may help teachers understand different learning styles and
behaviors of those they are trying to teach. For example, children in certain cultures may be
taught not to look at or speak to adults, but their American teachers may not understand this
cultural behavior.
In business, anthropologists may help marketers understand consumers, they may help product
developers understand people's needs and how they actually use products, and they may help
managers understand their organization's culture and help them implement beneficial changes.
Actual and Potential Contributions of Anthropology to Solving Social Problems
Anthropology is concerned with life as it is actually lived. Anthropologists want to find out what
people actually do, rather than what they say they do. They ask people why they behave as they
do. Anthropologists participate in the lives they observe and allow what they observe and
question to emerge naturally rather than from preconceived assumptions. They talk to people
and allow them to bring up and elaborate on topics that a conventional survey might not include.
Through embedded, holistic research, anthropologists deliver reliable and valid findings that are
firmly grounded in reality. Policymakers use these findings to design programs to alleviate social
problems in both domestic and international settings. Additionally, because anthropologists are
uniquely trained, they are particularly useful program evaluators who can understand how a
program is really operating. Furthermore, because they are trained to "expect the unexpected,"
they are likely to unearth programs' unintended consequences, both positive and negative. The
more such contributions are appreciated, the more anthropologists will be able to contribute.
Just as they are now routinely included in planning and evaluating public health and
development projects, policymakers must include them when they plan initiatives related to
national security, war, and peace.
2. What Is Culture?
How do Anthropologists Understand Culture?
The Characteristics of Culture
There may be as many definitions of culture as there are anthropologists, but all definitions
incorporate certain ideas. Culture is learned rather than instinctual. Sometimes people
deliberately teach the ideas and behaviors their group deems appropriate, "normal," or
commonsensical. Humans, however, often absorb ideas and behaviors unconsciously and are
unaware that they are learned and that not all humans share them. This fact implies another
characteristic of culture: culture is shared, whether by a few in a small subculture, such as an
ethnic or religious group, or a microculture, such as an organization, or by members of an entire
nation or other geographic entity.
Difference is another hallmark of culture. If everyone in the world thought or behaved in one
way, the idea or behavior could be said to be "natural" rather than cultural. Additionally, culture
varies and is dynamic; it changes through time, though not all members of a culture change in
the same ways or at the same times. Furthermore, the transmission of culture requires
language, including "primitive" forms such as simple signs and vocalizations, to convey meaning.
The language requirement implies a final commonly accepted characteristic: culture is expressed
through symbols, which are anything that stands for something else. Words, images, artifacts,
behaviors, and other symbols are culturally produced, enacted, and interpreted in learned,
shared, and varied ways. Though other animals may also demonstrate learned, shared, and
varied behaviors, it is the highly elaborated, incredibly rich symbolic aspect of human culture
that makes it unique.
The History of the Concept of Culture
People have been aware that they learn, share, and transmit this learning for a very long time,
but an anthropological concept of culture only began in the nineteenth century. Sir Edward Tylor
(1871, Kroeber and Kluckhohn 1966:81) defined culture as "… that complex whole which
includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom and any other capabilities and habits
acquired by man as a member of society" (1871." Since then, the concept has changed from
Tylor's "laundry list" of the elements of a culture to an understanding that culture is deeper than
behavior we can observe.
Today, there are many concepts of culture arising from different theoretical approaches, though
as just noted, these concepts incorporate some fundamental themes. For example, some
anthropologists understand culture as responses to the objective material conditions in which a
population lives, and others think of culture in terms of the subjective ideas that direct people's
attempts to make sense of their worlds.
The following figure, through quotations from various noted anthropologists, shows how the
concept of culture has changed over time.
Evolution of the Concept of Culture
Benedict (1929): … that complex whole which includes all the habits
acquired by man as a member of society (1966, 81).
Linton (1936): … the sum total of ideas, conditioned emotional responses,
and patterns of habitual behavior which the members of that society have
acquired through instruction or imitation and which they share to a greater
or lesser degree (1966, 82).
Mead (1937): Culture means the whole complex of traditional behavior
which has been developed by the human race and is successively learned by
each generation. A culture is less precise. It can mean the forms of
traditional behavior which are characteristic of a given society, or of a group
of societies, or of a certain race, or of a certain area, or of a certain period of
time (1966, 90).
White (1943): Culture is an organization of phenomena—material objects,
bodily acts, ideas, and sentiments—which consists of or is dependent upon
the use of symbols (1966, 137).
Kroeber (1948): … culture might be defined as all the activities and nonphysiological products of human personalities that are not automatically
reflex or instinctive (1966, 91).
Herskovits (1948): … refers to that part of the total setting [of human
existence] which includes the material objects of human manufacture,
techniques, social orientations, points of view, and sanctioned ends that are
the immediate conditioning factors underlying behavior (1966, 84).
Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952): … Patterns, explicit and implicit, of and
for behavior acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the
distinctive achievement of human groups, including their embodiments in
artifacts (1966, 357).
Geertz (1973): … set of control mechanisms—plans, recipes, rules,
constructions (what computer engineers call "programs")—for the governing
of behavior (1973, 44).
Source: All except Geertz, 1973, are quoted in Kroeber and Kluckhohn, 1966.
How Do Anthropologists Study Culture?
Anthropological Studies of Various Cultures
In a traditional holistic study of a culture, anthropologists look at features of the physical
environment in which the group of people lives. These features may include climate, natural
resources, and geologic features. They investigate the ways people earn a living, the tools and
other materials they use, and the economic institutions they have developed to survive.
Anthropologists study the social structure—that is, the relationships people are born into or form
and the rules that govern these relationships. These rules may concern the rights, obligations,
and expectations associated with each relationship. Anthropologists also study political,
educational, and religious relationships and institutions as well. Finally, they study the shared
sense that holds the group together, their ways of viewing, experiencing, and interpreting their
world.
More anthropologists today are conducting focused studies to understand specific cases. In these
studies, anthropologists may study only one aspect of a culture intensively, but they also
examine how this aspect fits into an integrated, contextualized whole.
How Anthropologists Compare Cultures and the Usefulness of this Approach
Anthropologists sometimes generate theories or explanations of why people think and act as
they do and the conditions under which they think and act in particular ways. To build these
"grand" theories, it is important to look at ideas and behaviors and the factors that affect them
on a worldwide scale. Only then can theorists generalize about humanity. For example, a theory
that explains how states developed cannot be based only on the circumstances surrounding one
state's development because the factors may be very different for others.
To help anthropologists theorize, the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) are available on the
Internet. These files contain ethnographic and archaeological information on 400 different
societies, classified into over 700 categories. Anthropologists can ask questions and test
hypotheses about warfare, gender inequalities, child abuse—nearly any human issue. Even if
most anthropologists today no longer try to make sweeping generalizations about all humanity
and instead focus on how culture operates in local settings, they will include cross-cultural
comparisons in their work to highlight diverse human responses to and interpretations of similar
phenomena.
What Is the Role of Culture in Human Life?
The Role of Culture in Human Survival
Culture has allowed humans to live successfully in nearly every possible environment. The
ranges of many other species are usually restricted by climate and the availability of specific
foods required for survival. Humans, on the other hand, have learned to exploit nearly all
available resources in an environment and have invented ways to live in seemingly hostile
environments with few resources of their own. For example, we do not have natural fur coats like
other mammals that live in the cold, but we do have coats, houses, and heating systems. We are
still subject to natural forces, however, and some of our cultural adaptations may not work well
in the long run. History is full of examples of cultures that have not survived.
Today, for example, human activity may be altering global climate in ways that may not be
conducive to our long-term survival. There are five factors that may contribute to or prevent
environmental collapse:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
environmental damage
climate change
hostile neighbors
friendly trade partners
the society's responses to its environmental problems
Perhaps we will successfully adapt to new conditions—or perhaps we will not. Anthropology, by
highlighting the vast diversity of human ideas and behaviors, teaches us that we are not locked
in by our "nature" to respond in potentially maladaptive (or even annihilating) ways. We are
creative, flexible cultural beings; we have choice.
The Relationships among Culture, Society, and the Individual
It is a paradox that whereas individuals actively create culture as they are exposed to, learn, and
share new information, individuals are also the products of culture because culture shapes what
they think and do. For example, even when individuals "rebel," they rebel in culturally patterned
ways. Any society is a group of such individuals, and each society must balance individual needs
and the needs of the group. Groups reward individuals who conform to cultural norms (and these
norms vary in different cultures), but the norms must not be so onerous that individuals' needs
are not met. For example, sexuality strengthens cooperative bonds by cementing relationships
between families through marriage. It ensures that society will continue. However, sexual
competition can threaten cooperation, and unrestricted sexual activity can result in unsustainable
population growth. Therefore, to promote the beneficial consequences of sexual activity and
control the potentially destructive consequences, all societies make rules about who may have
sex with whom.
Too much restriction, however, can lead to individual pent-up frustrations and societal stresses.
To generalize from this example, when individuals must subordinate all their needs to the needs
of the group, tension grows. When group needs are ignored, problems arise and the group may
dissolve. Different groups of people strike different balances, and those balances shift with time,
but all cultures address this tension between individual and group needs.
Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativism and Their Place in Anthropology
Ethnocentrism is the tendency to see one's own ways as the best or the only ways. By making
differences visible, anthropology constantly strives to make ethnocentrism visible as well.
Anthropologists frequently point out that other disciplines ask questions and draw conclusions
based on ethnocentric biases and assumptions, and they critique anthropology itself on the same
basis. For example, feminist and minority anthropologists have accused many of their colleagues,
both male and female, majority and minority, pioneers and newcomers, of sexism, ageism,
heterosexism, racism, and other forms of communalism, however unintentional they may be. To
ignore the perspectives of groups who may view and experience things differently is to leave out
significant parts of the human story.
Think about it:
Bronislaw Malinowski pioneered ethnographic fieldwork in his studies of the
Trobriand Islanders early in the twentieth century. Much later, however, Annette
Weiner also studied the Trobrianders and found that Malinowski had ignored women
in his studies and, in so doing, missed their important economic role. Can you think
of any examples of biases affecting scientific research?
The principle of cultural relativism, another hallmark of anthropology, insists that one must
suspend judgment of others so that one can understand other cultures on their own terms. Once
anthropologists have achieved this understanding, however, they may conclude that certain
practices are maladaptive or even morally repugnant. Cultural relativism does not mean
"anything goes." Anthropologists may ask this question of any group: How well does your culture
meet the physical and psychological needs of its members, and how well does your culture help
its members respond to their obligations as moral world citizens?
How Is Culture Created and How Does It Change?
Theories of How Humans Create Culture
Though people create culture, they do not just sit down and do it. Anthropologists have struggled
with how some ideas take hold and become "common sense" and the "way we do it." Many have
stressed the adaptive nature of culture; cultures "grow" as people try creatively to solve the
problems of living. Others maintain that culture exists outside of specific individuals or ideas and
that it generates itself. Still others emphasize that although humans collectively create and
change culture, these humans are themselves immersed in culture because a culture-free
individual does not exist. The innovations any individual creates emerge in a context and will be
adopted if the context and timing are "right" and discarded if they are not.
Theories of Cultural Change
This sense of "rightness" leads us to theories of cultural change. As we have noted, cultures are
dynamic, and they respond with varying degrees of flexibility to movements and shifts within and
around them. New ideas or behaviors appear, and cultures either accommodate them or reject
them. (Today, this happens much more rapidly than previously.) Culture change can be positive
or negative. Flexibility allows beneficial adaptations to occur, but too much rapid change can be
destabilizing.
Early in the history of the discipline, theorists thought that cultures "progressed" from primitive
forms to what they considered the highest form of civilization, European societies. (This way of
thinking is often known as social evolution or social Darwinism.) Anthropologists discarded this
ethnocentric approach by the 1920s, replacing it with theories of diffusionism. According to this
theory, cultural traits spread from one society to others through proximity.
Cultural ecologists rejected this "accidental" approach to change and maintained that cultures
change predictably in response to environmental conditions. More "culturally" oriented
anthropologists challenged this approach and held that material conditions did not inevitably
produce certain changes but that people's ideas, values, attitudes, and beliefs shape the way
cultures change. In other words, these scholars say that people with different culturally
constructed perceptions of the world will respond to it in different ways.
Another view that has emerged is world system theory (see How Is Anthropology Organized
above). World system theorists argue that cultural change in the world today is caused by the
effects of Western capitalism and its attempts to impose ideological hegemony on the rest of the
world. Not all anthropologists accept world system theory as the major or only explanation of the
forces driving change in the world today. Many believe that numerous factors contribute to social
change. Nonetheless, all anthropologists must now consider the increasing economic, political,
social, and cultural integration of the world today and various peoples' responses to this
integration.
3. The Beginnings of Human Culture
Where Do We Place Homo sapiens among the Animals?
The Classification of H. sapiens within the Animal Kingdom
A species is a group of organisms that can reproduce fertile offspring. For example, horses and
donkeys can mate and produce offspring (mules), but mules are sterile, indicating that horses
and donkeys are members of different species. Any living human can mate with any other
human and produce fertile offspring (given that all is working well); therefore we are all
members of the same species.
Biologists have developed a system to classify all living organisms into categories. The system is
a hierarchical arrangement based on the characteristics of organisms, and each species belongs
to progressively more inclusive groups. Each species is given a name that includes the name of
the species and subspecies (if any) and the name of the genus to which it belongs. The biological
name for modern humans is Homo sapiens sapiens.
Hierarchical Table of Categories
Category
Examples
You
Kingdom
Animalia
Animalia
Phylum
Chordata
Chordata
Class
Mammalia
Mammalia
Order
Carnivora
Primata
Family
Canidae
Hominidae
Genus
Canis (coyote, dog, wolf)
Felidae (lion, tiger, cougar)
Homo
familiaris
sapiens
Species
Some scientific names Canis familiaris (domestic dog) H. sapiens
Felidae familiaris (house cat)
Source: Abelard.Org. 2003. Human Classification Systems,
Using the Example of Classification of "Living Organisms" (Taxonomy). Electronic document,
http://www.abelard.org/briefings/taxonomy.htm, accessed July 26, 2006.
How the Study of Primates Can Help Us Understand Our Species
We are biologically very closely related to other primates, particularly chimpanzees and bonobos,
and studying their anatomy and behavior can give us clues about our early ancestors, how they
evolved, and how they lived. Furthermore, our closest primate relatives live as we do in social
groups, communicating with one another, cooperating with one another, fighting and resolving
conflicts with one another, and using tools to accomplish tasks. Studies have shown that young
primates learn the "rules" of their group and that some of these rules vary from group to group,
indicating these cousins also have rudimentary culture.
By studying primates, we can learn which of our behaviors may be in our "nature" and which we
"create" through culture. Many culturally constructed behaviors are adaptive, but some are not.
If a maladaptive behavior is culturally determined rather than part of our biological nature, we
then can choose to replace it with behaviors that enhance our species' well-being.
Think about it:
Robert Sapolsky reviewed studies in primatology that challenge, among others,
assumptions that primate species are "hard-wired" to be either peaceful or violent.
In one example, aggressive adolescent male baboons newly moving into one
particular troop whose aggressive males had died of tuberculosis years before soon
learned and adopted the peaceful, affiliative behavior of the nonaggressive males
already there. In other words, circumstances had created a new peaceful way of life
in this troop, which was then passed on to newcomers. The male baboons' so-called
aggressive "nature" had changed and wasn't so natural after all.
How might this study be relevant to our understanding of "human nature"? To what
extent does it suggest alternatives to some current human behaviors?
When and How Did Humans Evolve?
The Mechanisms of Evolution
Evolution is the scientific theory that explains the enormous number of different species that now
live and have lived on Earth. The theory holds that all species arose from other species through a
long process of change. Darwin defined evolution as "descent with modification." The first life
forms on Earth were single-celled organisms, and all other forms descended—with
modifications—from them. Several processes—mutations, natural selection, random genetic drift,
and gene flow—made this happen. We describe these processes below.
Mutations, or changes, occur by chance in DNA molecules and produce an organism with
a trait or traits that differ from those of its parents. For example, a chance mutation in
DNA may increase a cell's sensitivity to movement.
In the process of natural selection, nature, through direct inheritance or mutations,
selects traits that increase an organism's ability to reproduce in specific environments
from traits that are already present in the population. Sensitivity to movement may
enable the organism with this capability to move in the direction of other movement and
thus find more food. This organism would then be more likely than others of its kind to
reproduce successfully and pass this sensitivity to more offspring. Over vast amounts of
time, the population as a whole will have this trait.
In random genetic drift, the frequencies of genes change by chance, which is most
likely to happen in small populations. For example, a single organism may have a
mutation that makes it green whereas others of its kind are blue. Being green confers no
reproductive advantage on its own—green beings are no more likely to reproduce more
offspring than blue beings—but if for some reason the green organism is the only one
that reproduces (e.g., perhaps all others have been wiped out by a disease), all the
members of the population will eventually be green.
Finally, gene flow occurs when genetic material is exchanged either directly or indirectly
between different populations. For example, when a member of Group A mates with a
member of Group B and one of their offspring mates with a member of Group C, genetic
material from Group A can combine with genetic material from Group C, influencing the
evolutionary fate of that population. In other words, natural selection chooses traits that
increase reproductive success and pushes evolution in the direction of greater adaptation
to environments, but traits that evolved through random genetic drift and gene flow were
not specifically selected for and just come along for the ride.
The Major Trends in Human Evolution
Contrary to what many people think, evolutionary theory does not maintain that humans evolved
from today's apes. Instead, humans and today's apes both evolved from early primates. We are
closely related because we share a common ape-like ancestor who probably lived five–seven
million years ago. The mechanisms of evolution, primarily natural selection, operated so that
descendants of this ancestor evolved many species that were adapted to various environments.
The apes of today represent one branch, and different species of apes evolved according to their
own paths (smaller branches). Modern humans represent another branch that includes many
different species. Many of these species became extinct because of a variety of factors, and
today there is only one enormously successful hominid—us.
Over millions of years, hominids lost many ape-like features such as long, sharp canines, small
skulls, and large differences between sexes. The most important trend in the evolution of
modern humans was upright walking on two legs (bipedalism), which allowed individuals to see
and escape from predators and freed hands so they could carry offspring, food, and eventually,
weapons and other tools. These abilities probably stimulated increased brain development,
which, in turn, endowed modern humans and their more recent ancestors with the intelligence to
develop cultural solutions including language to the challenges of survival so these solutions
could be transmitted to others. It is culture that has allowed modern humans to survive
worldwide.
The Hominid Genera in the Fossil Record and the General Characteristics of the Species
within Each
Paleoanthropologists disagree about how to classify the hominid fossils that have been found,
and they disagree on which fossils are hominids. They make these determinations from finely
tuned analyses of skeletal remains such as teeth and bones, and many times they must draw
conclusions from mere fragments. Given these limitations, however, many currently divide
hominids into four genera (the plural of genus): Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Paranthropus,
and Homo. Just which fossils belong to Ardipithecus and the number of separate species they
belong to are extremely controversial issues in paleoanthropology.
Hominids belonging to Ardipithecus are extremely ape-like because they lived around six–to
eight million years ago, which is very close to the time it is thought that human and chimpanzee
lineages diverged from a common ancestor. Early Australopithecines had many ape-like
characteristics and primarily ate vegetation, though they also hunted small animals and
scavenged the kills of other animals. Later Australopithecines developed powerful chewing
equipment to take advantage of harder, very fibrous plants. Species in the Paranthropus genus
were especially "robust" (heavy and thick), with very large teeth and chewing muscles and bones
to which they were attached, large-featured faces, and large bodies. Paleoanthropologists think
that it is most likely that some Australopithecine species evolved into the first species in our
modern genus, Homo (perhaps Homo habilis), and that Paranthropus species became extinct.
Compare the Evidence for the "Out of Africa" and "Multiregional" Hypotheses
Regarding the Evolution of Modern Humans
Scientists agree that humans originated in Africa. They agree that an advanced hominid species,
Homo erectus, spread from Africa into Europe and Asia. They agree that modern humans
evolved from archaic humans, but they disagree about whether one, several, or all populations
of archaic humans, such as the famous Neanderthals, played a role in the evolution of modern
humans.
Proponents of the "Out of Africa" hypothesis argue that modern humans descend directly from
one population of archaic H. sapiens in Africa and that these modern humans eventually spread
again throughout the world, replacing H. erectus because of their superior capacity for culture.
They base their case on genetic and fossil evidence and on cultural remains such as art. For
example, in a famous study of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA, which is inherited only from one's
mother), researchers determined that all modern humans today share mtDNA with a woman who
lived in sub-Saharan Africa about 200,000 years ago. (This does not mean she was our only
ancestor; she is, however, the only woman whose descendants included a woman in every
generation for these many, many years. Recent fossil discoveries in Africa of anatomically
modern humans dating from 160,000 years ago also support the "Out of Africa" hypothesis (e.g.,
H. sapiens idaltu).
Supporters of the "multiregional" hypothesis argue that fossil evidence from China and Asia
indicate that H. erectus transitioned to H. sapiens simultaneously in certain areas of the world
where they coexisted. They argue that this was possible because all populations were genetically
connected by gene flow, so any evolutionary advance would spread throughout breeding
populations. This hypothesis is also supported by recent genetic evidence indicating that Africa
was not the only source of modern humans' DNA. Finally, some scientists argue that certain
geographical variations in traits that date from around 750,000 years ago still exist (for example,
the relatively "flat" faces of many Asian peoples).
Think About It:
The National Geographic Genographic Project is collecting DNA specimens from
people all over the world to determine the routes our ancestors took when they
moved out of Africa beginning about 60,000 years ago. Are you curious about your
earliest ancestors? New technologies can tell you where your ancestors may have
lived.
What Do We Know about the Beginnings of Culture?
The Fossil Evidence for Tool Making
Other primates modify natural objects to accomplish tasks, and there is some evidence that one
Australopithecine species, A. garhi, made tools from stones about 2.5 million years ago, though
many experts disagree about this. Prior to this evidence, experts attributed the first stone tools
to the earliest known species of the genus, Homo, Homo habilis, "handy man." Many tools have
been found at sites associated with "handy man." Their brain cases were much larger than those
of Australopithecines, and the shape of their skulls was more human-like. Additionally, the skulls
show evidence that an area of the brain associated with language, Broca's area, was developed,
so H. habilis could have used rudimentary "language" to teach his or her techniques and skills to
others and pass traditions orally as well as by demonstration to succeeding generations.
Think about it:
Antelope fossils found at the same site as A. garhi show cut marks made by a stone
tool, and the hominid fossils and antelope fossils date from the same time period.
The earliest stone tools, dated to 2.6 million years ago, were found nearby. Some
experts think that A. garhi made sharp-edged tools by chipping off small pieces from
volcanic rocks. Is this evidence strong enough to convince you that A. garhi made
stone tools?
The Role of Language in Creating Culture
In the previous section, we asserted that some primitive language capacity may have allowed
ancestors of modern humans to teach their tool-making techniques and skills to others. Imagine
the advantages of the capacities to convey the nuances of tool manufacture and to verbally
correct and guide an apprentice rather than trying to teach only by demonstration. Because we
have language, we can assess a situation for danger and specifically warn others of the direction
and timing of the danger even in the dark. With others, we can evaluate past successes and
failures and plan future endeavors to maximize success. We can remember who is our friend, to
whom we owe favors and who owes us, and who is our enemy. In short, it is impossible to
imagine thought as we know it without language, and without thought, we cannot share or teach
in the way humans do. Without language, we have no culture, and without culture, our species
would not have survived. The importance of language to culture and thus human success cannot
be overemphasized. Without language, we are not human.
Is the Biological Concept of Race Useful?
Why "Race" Is a Cultural Construct
Clearly, there are differences among groups of people in skin color, hair color and texture,
amount of body hair, body shape and size, and blood type, among many others. Studies of the
human genome indicate that after the dispersal of our ancestral population from Africa, human
populations continued to evolve on different continents, which led to the differences we observe.
Studies have shown, however, that there is more variation within groups than between groups.
For example, Euro-Americans and African Americans have wider variations in skin color within
each group than one would find if the groups were compared to each other. Also, variations in
characteristics occur as gradations rather than as sharp breaks. For example, it is impossible to
draw a line demarcating where one "race" ends and another begins according to skin color, hair
texture, or facial features.
Certainly, though many uninformed people assert that members of certain races behave in
certain ways, there is no scientific evidence for behavioral differences based on "racial" biology.
People from all populations are capable of the complete range of human behaviors. Additionally,
human populations are genetically "open," which means that genes flow back and forth among
them. Given the biologically constant sexual availability of men and women, whenever different
groups come in contact with one another, they interbreed and have done so since our
beginnings. This interbreeding has produced a continuum of genetic differences rather than
sharp distinctions among us.
Skin Color as an Adaptation to Different Environments
Many people consider skin color an indicator of "race." Skin color is complicated and depends on
several factors including skin thickness or transparency, a pigment called carotene, reflected
color from blood vessels, and most importantly, the amount of another pigment, melanin, in the
skin's outer layer. Everyone, except albinos, has melanin, which protects against the damaging
effects of ultraviolet rays from the sun.
The distribution of skin color in the world indicates that natural selection favored very darkcolored skin in areas that received the most ultraviolet radiation. In areas with less sunlight,
light-colored skin allows enough sunlight to penetrate the skin to help manufacture Vitamin D.
Vitamin D is necessary to maintain adequate levels of calcium in the body and thus, is essential
for healthy bones. It is likely that light skin color is a relatively recent adaptation to
environments with relatively little sunlight. The critical lesson is that one skin color is no better
than another. Skin colors represent successful adaptations to different environments.
Different "Racial" Classification Systems in Use Today
Though the biological nature of "race" is very controversial, there is no argument that race is
very meaningful culturally. One's racial classification often determines one's chances in life in the
United States, for example in the health care one receives. However, the systems people use to
assign themselves and others to races vary cross-culturally. For example, the Japanese system is
simple: people are either Japanese or not Japanese. Americans (U.S.) usually follow the rule of
hypodescent: children of mixed-race parents are assigned to the lower-status race. For example,
a child with a Euro-American parent and an African-American parent is often classified as African
American, which, sadly, still is often considered by many as the lower-status racial category in
the United States today. Additionally, race is usually assumed to be unchangeable in both the
United States and Japan. In Brazil, however, the racial classification system is much more fluid
and is based on many apparent physical characteristics. For example, when people become
suntanned their "race" may change.
REFERENCES
Conroy, Glenn C. 2005. Reconstructing Human Origins. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton.
Diamond, Jared. 2005. Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Penguin.
Fernea, Elizabeth W. 1965. Guests of the Sheik: An Ethnography of an Iraqi Village. New York:
Doubleday.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Haviland, William A., Harald E. L. Prins, Dana Walrath, and Bunny McBride. 2005. Cultural
Anthropology: The Human Challenge. Instructor's Edition. 11th edition. Belmont, CA: Thomson
Wadsworth.
Kottak, Conrad P. 2006. Physical Anthropology and Archaeology. 2nd edition. New York: McGrawHill.
———. 2004. Cultural Anthropology. 11th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kroeber, Alfred L., and Clyde Kluckhohn. 1966. Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and
Definitions. New York: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1952 as vol. 47, no. 1, of the
Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.)
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Murdock, George P. 1945. The Common Denominator of Cultures. In The Science of Man in the
World Crisis. Ralph Linton, ed. P. 124. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sapolsky, Robert M. 2006. A Natural History of Peace. Foreign Affairs 85(1):104–120.
Schumann, D. A., C. Rwabukwali, D. Hom, J. McGrath, J. Pearson-Marks, G. Svilar, C. CarrollPankhurst, T. Ikwap, and W. Kiriya. 1992. The Sociocultural Context of AIDS Prevention in
Uganda: Midterm Project Findings. Submitted to Family Health International, subagreement
#4021-9 under the NIAID research program, "Behavioral Research in AIDS Prevention."
Singer, M. 1993. Knowledge for Use: Anthropology and Community-Centered Substance Abuse
Research. Social Science and Medicine 37(1):15–25.
Smedley, Brian D., Adrienne Y. Stith, and Alan R. Nelson, eds. 2003. Unequal Treatment:
Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington, DC: National Academies
Press.
Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt. 2005. Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Tylor, Edward B. 1871. Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology,
Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art and Customs. New York: Gordon Press.
Wallerstein, I. 1997. The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the
European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century. San Diego: Academic Press.
Weiner, Annette. 1988. The Trobrianders of Papua New Guinea. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Return to top of
Module 2: Culture and Survival—Subsistence, Communication, and
Child Rearing
Commentary
Topics
1.
2.
3.
4.
Language and Communication
Social Identity and Enculturation
Patterns of Subsistence: Making a Living
Economic Systems
1. Language and Communication
The ability to use language is one of the most distinctive aspects of being human. People use
symbols, whether by sound or gesture, to communicate. All language has rules that are followed
so that meaning can be shared. Even though we are born with the physiological capacity to
communicate in any language, we must actively learn each language.
We humans, of course, are not the only animals that communicate. Birds communicate through
calls, as do mammals of all sorts. Dogs "talk" to you, as do cats. Their ways of communicating
are called call systems. Such systems use a few sounds or gestures in response to specific
events. These calls are considered a closed system of communication because each call is unique
in its message. Chimpanzees, considered among the closest relatives to humans, have a number
of distinctive gestures, hoots, moans, and screams that communicate. For instance, a particular
hoot alerts others to food, and a bark indicates "danger." Each call has only one meaning.
Characteristics of Human Speech
In contrast to the "closed" systems of animal communication, human speech is an open system
because we can combine sounds in all manner of ways to communicate in all manner of
situations. A chimp would be hard pressed to put together two calls to indicate "food" and
"danger," for example, "Someone is putting bananas in my bin, and that someone is dangerous!"
Humans, however, can put together a whole range of meaningful sounds (words) to express a
complex array of past, present, and future experiences and emotions.
Human speech is characterized by conventionality, meaning that specific sounds (words) refer to
specific things. In English, we have specific sounds that mean chair. In Spanish, a different set of
sounds means chair (una silla); similarly in French (une chaise), and so on. The sounds are
arbitrary, but they are set for a given language. Conventionality enables us to communicate in a
given language.
Human speech is also characterized by productivity. That is, you can constantly create new
phrases and sentences from the words you use. You can create new sentences each day for the
next 100 years and never run out of ways to combine words that make sense.
Finally, human speech is characterized by displacement. That is, we can talk about things that
are not immediately in front of us. We can talk about things in the past. We can talk about things
happening next door. We can talk about things we can only imagine. We can talk about things so
complex we can hardly understand them, which is a remarkable quality of language. As a result,
we can communicate abstract concepts that we can remember, think about, and apply later on.
Teaching our Nearest Primate Relatives to Communicate
What about chimpanzees and other primates who are taught to communicate by humans?
Because chimps do not have the physical capacity to speak like humans, researchers have
taught a number of animals to communicate using American Sign Language. A famous one
is the chimpanzee, Washoe, who after being taught 10 signs, spontaneously combined
them in new ways (Gardner and Gardner 1967:671) and even taught signs to her son.
Altogether, Washoe could use about 85 signs (Nanda and Warms 2007:118). Kanzi, a
bonobo (pygmy chimpanzee), learned 150 signs and used them in strings (SavageRumbaugh, Shanker, and Taylor 1998, cited in Nanda and Warms 2007:118).
Washoe and Kanzi show us that chimpanzees have a greater linguistic ability than we
previously thought. However, even with careful instruction over many years, the highest
level of language that chimpanzees can acquire is that of a very young human child.
Humans have evolved language that is unique in its complexities and possibilities. Humans
need human language to pass on their culture and for survival. Chimps do not (Nanda and
Warms 2007:118–119).
The Structure of Language (Descriptive Linguistics)
Linguists (those who study languages) identify four subsystems of a language itself. At the base
are the sounds. Sounds identified by humans are called by their Latin name, phones. The
smallest unit of meaningful sound is a phoneme. The study of phones is phonology. One way of
writing these sounds so that others will be able to pronounce them is through the International
Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). Each symbol in the IPA represents one distinct sound.
How would you write your name so that anyone would know how to pronounce it?
Linguistic Activity
Try writing your name and your mother's or father's name using the International Phonetic
Alphabet tables.
Note the two sets of symbols: one for consonants and one for vowels.
Choose one symbol for each sound in your names.
Here are examples for Jason and Tiffany. To spell their names phonetically, refer to the
International Phonetic Alphabet charts at the link above.
Consonants for Jason's name are: /j/ s/ n/. The vowels are: /ei / a/.
For Tiffany's name, the consonants are: /t/ f/ n/. The vowels are: / I/ e/ i:
/j ei /san/ / tI/fe/ni:/
Please note: even though in English you may spell a word with a double letter (Tiffany), in
IPA, only one symbol is given per sound.
The set of sounds used in a given language are phonemes. A phoneme is the smallest sound that
makes a difference in meaning in a language. For example in English, we distinguish between the
sound r (red) and the l (led). So these sounds are phonemes in English. Someone whose first
language is Japanese may have a difficult time distinguishing these sounds, so she or he may
refer to "led beans and lice" (instead of "red beans and rice"). English requires that we
distinguish these phones. Japanese does not.
For example:
Each human language uses only a subset of the possible human sounds. Some languages
include sounds that other languages would not even consider or would use them in
different ways.
Some African languages regularly use click sounds. The first language of Nelson Mandela,
the former president of South Africa was Xhosa, one such language. The symbol "!" is used
to indicate a certain click sound. In these modules, you will see references to "!Kung." The
!Kung are an ethnic group in southern Africa. The "!" tells you how to pronounce their
name.
Many languages, including Chinese, rely on tones. A sound said in a high pitch may have a
different meaning when it is said in a low pitch. Cantonese dialect has six tones. Mandarin
has four. Depending on your tone, for the sound "ma," you could be talking about your
mother or a horse (Haviland et al. 2005).
In English, we use ng at the end of words, as in sing, but have difficulty placing it at the
beginning of the word as is done in some Polynesian and Asian languages.
When sounds are put together in a meaningful way, they form morphemes. Morphemes can be
words or parts of words. For example, in English we have suffixes and prefixes that go at the end
and the beginning of words, but that are not words themselves. For example, pre (as in prefix)
means "before," and the suffix ly makes an adverb from an adjective, as in quickly. The study of
words and the meaningful parts of words is called morphology.
The way in which words are combined into sentences and phrases is called syntax. Words must
be structured and arranged to make sense in a language. Each language has its own syntactic
rules. In English, the order of words in the sentence makes a difference. In English, "The letter
carrier bit the dog" has a different meaning than "The dog bit the letter carrier." Even though all
the words are the same, the order conveys meaning. In German, the parts of speech are
indicated by case markers. Thus, Der Hund biss den Briefträger ("The dog bit the letter carrier")
and Den Briefträger biss der Hund mean the same thing regardless of the order. To say "The
letter carrier bit the dog," you would change the case markers to read Der Briefträger biss den
Hund.
The order of words and the regular ways words are changed form the grammar of a language.
The rules and patterns of grammar enable us to coherently put sounds together and help us
recognize meaning in each new utterance. Both morphology and syntax are part of the grammar
of a language.
All of the words of a given language form its lexicon (vocabulary). The relationship of language
to culture can clearly be seen in its words. We have hundreds of words for cars and car parts in
our lexicon. Members of hunting and gathering groups have 500 to 1,000 words for different
plants (Nanda and Warms 2007:125). Clearly, the lexicon of a language reflects what is
important to the group and helps people distinguish categories that make a difference.
Think about it:
Each subgroup in a society has its special words, or lexicon.
Think about your workplace or a special hobby, sport, or interest of yours. In introducing
total newcomers to your area, what words would you teach them so they would
understand everything they needed to know?
Historical Linguistics
Languages change. Even from one generation to the next we can see changes in vocabulary and
word usage.
Think about it:
Language can change even within a short period of time. Compare words you use with
those your parents or grandparents may have used. Listen to recordings of old radio
shows, review old movies, or chat with your older relatives.
What differences do you note in their vocabulary, compared to the vocabulary you and
your friends use?
Historical linguists look at how languages change and evolve. Besides documenting changes in
living languages, historical linguists chart divergences in ancient languages. For example,
historical linguists study the relationship of Latin to the many Romance (having to do with Rome,
the home of Latin culture and civilization) languages of Europe, e.g., Italian, Spanish,
Portuguese, French, and Romanian.
English is one of 140 languages within the Indo-European language family. Over a period of
6,000 years, protolanguage, or original language, developed into many different groups and
subgroups. English is one of the languages within the Germanic subgroup as illustrated in the
following chart,
Source: Short, Daniel M. 2005. Indo-European Language Tree. Electronic document, http://www.danshort.com/ie/iecentum_c.shtml, accessed August 4, 2006.
Historical linguists use their knowledge of how languages change over time to trace the
migrations and movements of people. For instance, linguists studying the many Polynesian
languages of the central Pacific have helped determine when the island groups were originally
settled. Linguists work with archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, and physical anthropologists
to help piece together the puzzle of ancient peoples' migrations and settlements.
Language and Culture
Language and culture are intricately intertwined. Sociolinguists study this relationship, looking at
when and how people use language and what it means. They look at a person's status and how
speech reflects that. They look at age and sex and the different language patterns associated
with them. They also look at when informal talk and formal talk are used and how people know
when to use which type.
Many people are raised with two or more languages or two or more dialects. A child may use one
language in school and another language at home. We may use Standard English at work but
other speech when interacting with friends in a process called code switching. Learned cultural
rules help us understand when it's appropriate to use one way of speaking or another.
Think about it:
Even monolinguists (those speaking one language) adapt their speech to different
situations. Consider how you might speak to people at a religious service compared to how
you might talk to others Friday night at the club. How would it be to use "religious service
language" when playing pool? What changes from one setting to the next?
Language and Thought
We learn important points about our culture through the study of communication. Our culture
influences our language. However, anthropologists also wonder how language affects our culture.
Specifically, to what extent does language shape our thoughts? Linguistic relativity, sometimes
called the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, is the idea that language molds thought and action. Edward
Sapir and his student Benjamin Whorf maintained that language provides certain filters that
affect the way we see the world. We see it differently depending on the language we speak. The
structure of the language, as well as its lexicon, guides speakers along certain paths. Thus, we
think and act the way we do partially because of the nature of the language we speak.
For example:
Speakers of Swedish and Finnish (neighboring peoples speaking radically different
languages) working at similar jobs in similar regions under similar laws and regulations
show significantly different rates of on-the-job accidents. The rates are substantially lower
among the Swedish speakers. The Swedish language emphasizes movement in threedimensional space. The Finnish language emphasizes more static relations among
temporary entities. As a consequence, Finns organize the workplace in a way that ignores
the time factor in the production process. This in turn leads to frequent production
disruptions, haste, and (ultimately) accidents (Haviland et al. 2005:107).
Gender Differences
Our sex makes a difference in how we speak. Distinct ways of speaking for males and females
are found in many languages. In American society, sociolinguist Deborah Tannen (2001:132)
notes that men and women are socialized into to two different cultures that result in two
different ways of speaking. Tannen observes that women seek relationships, and their type of
speaking is "rapport-talk." Men, on the other hand, seek independence in a hierarchical world.
Their language is "report-talk." When men and women interact, their different styles interfere
with communication. A woman may be indirect in expressing her wish and expects the other
person to interpret. The man, on the other hand, expects directness and may totally
misunderstand the woman's intent.
For example:
In Lakota society, in South Dakota, men and women have distinct ways of speaking. For
example, a woman and her brother would each pose the same question differently. When
the movie Dances with Wolves was released, Lakota were eager to see the movie that was
filmed on their reservation. In the theater, as the plot unfolded, the audience started to
laugh because the hero (Kevin Costner) spoke Lakota like a woman. Because the actors
had found Lakota difficult to learn, the dialect coach had decided to teach everyone just
one way to speak (Haviland et al. 2005:109).
Nonverbal Communication
To fully understand and communicate in another culture, we must know not only the language in
its fullness, but also how people communicate without words, i.e., nonverbally. Nonverbal
messages may carry up to 70 percent of communication (Nanda and Warms 2007:135).
Nonverbal communication cues must be learned to be understood. Time, space, gestures, all
have meaning, depending on the culture.
Time talks: If your sweetheart is arriving later and later for your dates, what does this tell you?
If a candidate arrives a half-hour before the interview time, what does this communicate? Time
has meaning, and we learn what that meaning is through our culture.
Think about it:
In New Zealand, Maori (the indigenous peoples) and Pakeha (those of European origin)
people are still learning each others' ways. Recent discussions on a land issue encountered
difficulties because Maori and Pakeha leaders had different expectations regarding time.
The Maori expected talks to continue until a consensus was reached. The lawyers for the
Crown (the government), expected talks to finish by a certain time because they had
deadlines to attend to.
As a cultural anthropologist, how could you facilitate communication between the two
groups?
Space talks: What does it tell you when you see two people with their faces very close
together? What do a large office and a large desk communicate to others? Proxemics is the study
of the social use of space. Edward Hall (1969), in his classic study, observed that people in
different cultures maintain different amounts of space between themselves and others depending
on their relationships with the others and what kinds of interactions they are conducting with
them. He identified three kinds of intimate space. The closest space is the "bubble" surrounding
a person. Only our very closest friends and intimates are permitted here. The space extending a
little further from our bodies' space is for social and consultative interactions. This is the distance
we maintain when doing routine business. The third-closest space is public space. In this area,
interactions are impersonal. Because the distance for each of these spaces is determined by our
culture, people in different societies have different comfort zones. Arab, Latin-American, French,
Italian, and Turkish people, among others, have a smaller "bubble" than Americans, Germans,
English, or Japanese and thus feel more comfortable with closer distances in their personal
space.
Think about it:
How do you feel in a crowded elevator? What happens to your bubble? Consider how
people react when their comfort zone is intruded upon. What changes are made? Consider
gaze of eyes and movement of body.
Things talk: What does a diamond tiara tell you about the person wearing it? What does a
Ferrari tell you about the driver? What does a body piercing tell you about the person involved?
We give meaning to the things we see, and we learn this meaning from our culture.
Think about it:
In Polynesia tattooing is an important part of the indigenous culture. Tattoos indicate high
rank and status. They communicate bravery and the ability to endure pain. They are an
indication of wealth. When Captain Cook's sailors came ashore in the eighteenth century,
they were intrigued with the custom, and many got tattoos as well. Back home in England,
tattoos were a novelty and became associated with the sailors and lower ranks of society.
Who gets tattoos in our society? What does tattooing communicate?
Gestures talk: Consider the ways people use gestures. We wave good-bye, blow kisses, give
thumbs up, show A-ok. These gestures may mean something very different in another culture.
The A-ok sign is considered an obscene gesture in parts of South America. The signal to "stop"
with the palm out and the fingers up can mean a challenge to fight in some Asian cultures.
2. Social Identity and Enculturation
How do people get to be members of society? How does an Inuit child learn the ways of his Inuit
people? How do Korean children learn to be good Koreans? Anthropologists refer to the process
of passing one's culture from one generation to the next as enculturation. Enculturation starts
soon after birth as we become oriented to both our physical and our social environment. How we
become oriented depends on the culture in which we live. As we learn our culture and the ways
of our people, we develop self-awareness and the ability to determine the accepted ways to think
and act.
Human babies are not equipped to take care of themselves. They are helpless and dependent on
others for survival. Our biological instincts help us only so far. We need our social environment,
those around us, to ensure that we live and thrive. Our mother is the most important person
when we are first born, and we start to learn from her.
Soon, other members of the household are involved in teaching us. Who these people are and
what we are taught depends on the culture in which we are born. Some households may be
composed of a mother and father and their children. In some societies, fathers never live in the
same house as the mothers of their children. In other societies, grandparents, aunts, and uncles
all live together and are involved in the enculturation process of each child, a subject covered in
module 3.
Anthropologists see that not only what children learn is important as they become members of
society, but how they learn is also significant. Childhood experiences influence adult
personalities. How we are raised makes a difference in who we are as adults. We can identify two
different patterns of child rearing that help us explain some personality differences. These
patterns are dependence training and independence training.
1. Dependence training encourages children to think of themselves as part of a larger
group. This training creates community members who see the group as more important
than the individual. This pattern is found in societies with extended families, particularly
in households that depend on subsistence horticulture, pastoralism, or foraging (see topic
3 below) for survival. Often a large group is needed as a source of labor to till the soil,
manage the herds, or help find food in the wilderness. Individuals cannot survive alone.
In these groups, the possibilities of conflict are great because decisions must be group
ones. In-marrying spouses must conform to the group. Various aspects of dependency
training help prevent conflicts. One aspect of the training is indulgence towards children.
Babies in such societies are often nursed for several years. Infants are held, passed
around, and constantly tended. They are often with others. Young children are given
duties and activities that help the group and support the child's sense of importance in
contributing to the group.
A second aspect of the training is corrective. Children are punished for disobedience or
for being selfish or aggressive. After punishment, a child may immediately be shown love
again. The group and its relationships with others are primary.
2. Independence training stresses self-reliance and personal achievement (Haviland et al.
2005:129). Such training is generally found where nuclear families (parents and children)
are on their own. Independence is important for survival. As with dependence training,
both discouragement and encouragement are used. For instance, among many families in
North America, infants are fed on a schedule, and breast feeding is stopped after a few
months. Children are encouraged to feed themselves. Soon after birth, babies are given
their own private space, with a crib away from the parents. Children are generally not
given responsibilities as contributions to the group's welfare but as tasks that will benefit
the child herself.
Assertiveness and even aggression may be encouraged. Competition and winning are
emphasized. In societies that believe survival requires individuals to look out for their
own interests, independence training is important.
Anthropologists see that dependence and independence training form a continuum, and one
pattern is not considered better than the other. If a society requires compliant people, then
independence training would undermine the society. In a society where adults are asked to
question authority and invent new ways of doing things, dependency training would not work.
Sometimes a society will have both aspects at work with resulting contradictions. For example, in
the United States, although individual independence is professed, a strong trend of compliance
also exists. This trend has become more evident in the security requirements for air travelers
where anything out of the ordinary is seen as a threat. Whistle-blowers in government and
corporations may not only be ignored or seen as disloyal, they may even be punished or fired
rather than heralded for their independent actions.
Gender Roles and Enculturation
Anthropologist Margaret Mead, in her cross-cultural studies, found that differences between men
and women varied from one culture to the next. Biology is not destiny in the ways we behave.
For example:
In the 1930s, Mead determined from her studies in Papua New Guinea that in different
ethnic groups, men and women had different characteristic temperaments. Among the
Arapesh, men and women were cooperative and nurturing. Among the Mundugamor, both
sexes were aggressive, whereas among the Tchambuli, women were dominant over men.
Modern researchers question some of Mead's findings, but her research showed that
different cultures may have different expectations for male and female personality and
behavior (Mead 1963).
Group Personality
Child rearing, personality, and culture are all intertwined. To what extent is it possible to
generalize about the personality of people in a given group? To a certain extent, it may be
possible. Each individual develops certain characteristics that are like those of others in their
society, because of common experiences. At the same time, all people also have distinctive
personalities based on their unique circumstances and genetic background.
Thus, any generalization about the modal personality of a group must be qualified by the
realization that individuals within any group are unique. Furthermore, group boundaries may be
porous. However, modal personality is defined as those characteristics that occur most
frequently in a culturally bounded group (Haviland 2005:132). Modal personalities are
determined through statistical measures and can reveal variation and diversity within groups.
Data on personalities can be gathered through such psychological tests as Rorschach ("ink blot")
tests in which people are asked to explain what they see in the random blot.
For example:
Anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, developed the idea that culture was "personality writ
large," that is, that culture reflected the collective personality of those within it. In her
classic work Patterns of Culture (1959), she compared three cultures: (1) the Kwakiutl of
the Pacific Northwest of North America, (2) the Zuni of the American Southwest, and (3)
the people of the island of Dobu near Papua New Guinea. Each group had a pattern of
culture: the Kwakiutl were individualistic and exuberant, the Zunis aimed for the golden
mean, and the Dobuans were fearful and worried about magic.
During World War II, Benedict worked with the U.S. occupation forces in Japan. She
argued that Japanese culture, characterized by a strong sense of "shame" and "honor,"
was more amenable to change than U.S. culture, which was characterized by a sense of
"guilt" and a belief in absolute good and evil. She convinced U.S. authorities not to
eliminate the institution of the emperor, but to maintain it. She argued that given the
traditional flexibility of the emperor, the emperor would reject militarism (as shameful)
and accept democracy (as honorable).
Her work, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (1946), has sold more than two million
copies in Japan. Her understanding of Japanese personality made a difference for the
occupation of Japan and its economic and political recovery since the war (Ferraro
2006:64-65).
Alternative Gender Models
Anthropologists agree that gender roles vary from culture to culture and that these roles affect
personality. However, genders themselves may be ambiguous, a fact that also affects individuals'
roles and personalities. Chromosomes that determine a person's sex may vary, making someone
who falls outside distinct biological and culturally defined categories of male or female.
Some cultures allow for a third sex, usually males who take the role of females. For example, the
Plains Indians of North America had an intermediate category of male/female. By being neither
fully male nor female, these individuals held great prestige in the community. They were viewed
as having special healing powers. Sometimes called by the French term Berdache, such people
today prefer to be known as Two Spirits, showing both the male and female together in one
person.
For example:
In Samoa in the South Pacific, fa'afafine are men who take on the role and dress of
women. Fa'afafine means "in the way of a woman." Sometimes a family will select a boy
and groom him to be a fa'afafine. Other times, a boy or man will choose to become a
fa'afafine. Fa'afafine are beloved. They are useful around the house because of their
strength. Their gentleness helps make for smooth relationships. In modern Samoa,
fa'afafine work in many fields including secretarial and administrative fields. They are on
athletic teams and teach Sunday school.
3. Patterns of Subsistence: Making a Living
How do humans survive? How is it that we can survive in almost every climate on the globe?
Naked, we have little to protect us compared to other animals. What we have to our advantage
is culture and the ability to adapt.
As humans have adapted to the different environments of the world, what basic subsistence
strategies have they developed to help them survive? Anthropologists identify four basic
strategies: foraging (also called hunting and gathering, pastoralism, horticulture, and agriculture.
We discuss these strategies in the next sections.
Foraging
Foraging is the subsistence strategy that humans have used for most of their time as a species
on Earth. It is the oldest and most universal of our strategies for making a living. Foraging relies
on plants and animals that are wild. Foragers do not produce food. They do not cultivate plants
and do not raise animals for food. Their food sources are those naturally occurring plants and
animals that reproduce on their own.
Foragers generally have a low population density. They live in small mobile, family-based groups.
Hunting and gathering groups tend to be egalitarian (everyone is equal), with leadership coming
from those with knowledge and experience. These groups can move from their camp when
convenient. They thus leave behind refuse that might cause diseases and conflicts that might
cause hardship or dissolution of the group. Their material possessions are few. Most of what they
have is shared.
Anthropologist Marshall Sahlins (1972) has noted that foragers were the original affluent society.
Even in the harsh lands of the Kalahari Desert, the !Kung are traditionally able to do all of their
subsistence work of hunting and gathering in less than 20 hours per week. The remaining time is
spent in storytelling, resting, and chatting, even though they're living in marginal areas (Lee
2003).
It is sometimes hard for foragers to continue their lifestyle in the modern world because of
pressure on the land. The main groups of foragers today are in marginal land, not desired by
more powerful neighbors. However, as demand for oil and mineral resources grows, even those
on marginal lands are being forced to settle off their traditional territory. Modern governments
prefer that their citizens settle in one place so that they can be counted and taxed and so are
often unsympathetic to the situation of nomadic foragers.
Modern groups that still maintain some foraging include the Inuit of the Arctic Circle, some
Australian aboriginal groups, the Agta of the Philippines, the !Kung of the Kalahari Desert of
southern Africa, and some Orang Asli of Malaysia, among others.
Pastoralism
Pastoralism is a food-gathering strategy that depends on herd animals such as cows, goats, or
sheep. The animals eat the grass or other natural vegetation, and the humans eat the animals.
People may also use the animals for milk, cheese, or their blood.
Pastoralists can be either nomadic or transhumant. Nomadic pastoralists follow the herd from
one grazing spot to another. The whole family will move with the animals. Sometimes a greater
pattern of movement will be finely regulated among a large group, with a chief directing when
and where a given family may herd its animals (Barth 1986).
Transhumant pastoralism is a strategy whereby most of the family stays in one place while some
members move the herd animals to grazing areas. Transhumance is found in East Africa, where
the men and boys herd the animals to different pastures. In Heidi, the classic children's story by
Johanna Spyri, set in Switzerland, the herding society was transhumant. Heidi's friend, the
goatherd, looked after the goats during the summer months in the mountains while the family
stayed back in the village.
Pastoralism involves a complex relationship of animals, land, and people. Because the animals
are domesticated, they depend on their keepers for food, water, and protection from predators
and weather. Pastoralists must know the capacities and characteristics of the land and the needs
of their animals. The animals are essential for the livelihood and survival of the people, but they
are more than just commodities. Animals are frequently named. They are admired and caressed.
Individual animals even inspire stories and songs.
For example:
Among the Nuer of East Africa, cattle are central to life. Each man takes his name from
one of his cows whose qualities particularly please him. Nuer people chant poems and sing
songs about their cows. Here is an example of one of these songs
....As my black-rumped white ox,
When I went to court the winsome lassies,
I am not a man whom girls refuse.
We court girls by stealth in night…
We brought the ox across the river….
Friend, great ox of the spreading horns,
Which ever bellows amid the herd,
Ox of the son of Bul Maloa.
In this song, transcribed by anthropologist E. E. Evans-Pritchard, the poet, son of Bul
Maloa, refers to his ox as his friend and as one who helps him impress the ladies (EvansPritchard 1940:47).
Pastoralists today are found in East Africa (cattle), North Africa (camels), southwestern Asia,
including Turkey and Iran (sheep and goats), central Asia (yak), and the subarctic (caribou and
reindeer) (Nanda and Warms 2007:156). As is the case with foragers, central governments do
not much care for pastoralists, particularly those who are nomadic. Governments find it hard to
count, tax, and control such folk. Furthermore, traditional herding lands of pastoralists may lie in
more than one country so the families and their herds as they cross borders may get caught in
international conflicts and warfare.
Horticulture
Horticulture is the production of plants using simple tools. Unlike foragers who gather wild plants
for their subsistence, horticulturalists grow their own domesticated varieties of plants.
Horticulturalists are found throughout the tropics and temperate parts of the world where the
growing season and climate permit planting and harvesting. The primary crops vary from region
to region. The indigenous peoples of North and South America cultivate maize (corn), beans, and
squash. In the Oceania region, the major crops include sweet potato, taro, and manioc. Rice and
millet are among the crops grown by horticulturists in Asia and Southeast Asia.
Horticulturalists' technology is generally simple. They do not use draft animals or plows but
instead use digging sticks or hoes. They do not have irrigation systems. Their yields are
generally low but enough to feed their families. Horticulturalists generally do not aim to cultivate
great surpluses. Population densities among them are generally low, usually no more than 150
people per square mile (Nanda and Warms 2007:18) although villages may range from 100
people to 1,000 people.
In the tropics, horticulturalists frequently practice swidden, or slash-and-burn cultivation, in
which fields are cleared by cutting down the vegetation and then burning it. The resulting ash
fertilizes the fields and supports productivity for a few years. As productivity declines, the fields
are abandoned and left to revert back to native vegetation and forest growth.
Fields are left fallow for up to 20 years before being cut and burned again. This cycle enables the
soils to be replenished before being used again for cultivation. Horticulturalists require about six
times as much land in fallow as they do in production. When land becomes scarce, whether
through a rise in population or appropriation by others, and the fallow period is shortened, the
soils can quickly deteriorate if they do not have the required time for regeneration.
Most swidden farmers plant a multitude of crops on their small plots. Some horticulturalists shift
residences as they shift fields. In other societies, the families stay in one place but rotate fields
for cultivation. Horticulturalists also hunt and fish to supplement their diets.
Agriculture (Intensive Cultivation)
Most of us are familiar with agriculture. In this subsistence strategy, land is used over and over
again. Some plots are allowed to lie fallow, but generally for shorter amounts of time than with
swidden practices. Fertilizing is required to keep the land fertile. The farmer uses draft animals
and plows or complex machinery to till the fields. Agriculture frequently relies on irrigation.
Agriculture also requires intensive inputs of labor. For example, swidden farmers must put in 241
worker days/year for their rice crop. In contrast, wet-rice agriculture, with its flooded plots,
requires 292 worker days/year (Nanda and Warms 2007:161–162). Modern agriculturalists
require great capital investments for machinery. Although they have more control over
production, modern agriculturalists are in some ways more vulnerable than horticulturalists.
Monocropping—that is, planting just one kind of plant—means that a single disease can destroy
the entire crop. Weather problems can also create economic disaster for the farmer.
Agriculturalists generally are sedentary—that is, they live in one location and do not move with
the rotation of their crops. Modern agriculture in the United States, however, frequently relies on
migrant laborers who follow the harvest.
If we look at the prehistory and history of the world, though some people began to settle before
they grew crops, agriculture is associated with the rise of cities that began 5,000 years ago.
Agriculture also supports social stratification and complex forms of social organization. Food
production is used to support specialists in society such as priests or ruling elites. Often
production is by rural cultivators, or peasants, whose labor supports complex state societies (see
the discussion of states in module 4). Because agriculture supports large groups of people, often
in densely populated areas, disease and environmental degradation are often consequences.
Nonindustrial Cities: The Aztecs' Tenochtitlan and
Tlatelolco
When the Spanish conquistadores arrived in Mexico in the early 1500s, they found the
Aztec Empire and its capital, Tenochtitlan, now Mexico City, in full flower. Tenochtitlan,
along with its sister city, Tlatelolco, was a thriving metropolis of about 200,000 people.
Intensive agriculture supported the cities. Crops included corn, beans, squash, gourds,
peppers, tomatoes, cotton, and tobacco.
Because of successful food production, skilled artisans, including those who worked in
silver, stone, clay, fabric, feathers, and paint, were free to create their art. The society
also supported warriors, priests, and government bureaucrats. The marketplace of
Tlatelolco was so grand that the Spanish compared it to the markets of Rome and
Constantinople (Haviland 2005:171–172).
Industrial Economy
The use of machinery and chemicals in agriculture has enabled vast amounts of food to be
produced by very few people. Our industrial economy has led to a population boom, a great
increase in energy consumption, and growth in specialized occupations. In industrial economies,
people work for wages. Unlike economies based on subsistence strategies, which limit acquisition
and consumption and put less strain on the environment, industrial economies are based on the
growth of consumption and the acquisition of material possessions.
4. Economic Systems
Economics is the study of the ways in which we produce the items needed to support or enhance
our lives and the ways these items are distributed and consumed. For many peoples of the
world, the economic system is simple: they grow or gather what they need and distribute their
produce to family members who consume it. But in our own industrial society, this pattern is
complex. Few of us live solely on what we grow or raise ourselves. We are part of a complex
network of goods and services that takes in the whole world.
Generally, economists have focused on production, distribution, and consumption in
industrialized countries and have assumed certain values and behavioral patterns for those
countries. For instance, formal economic theory assumes that people have unlimited wants but
are limited in what they can afford. Therefore, economists assume that people will make choices
that will provide the greatest material benefit to themselves.
Economic anthropologists take a larger view of human motivation. Material benefit or profit may
be one factor. But consider your own life. You may wish to take a day off from work to be with a
friend who has come to town. Or you may take time off to be with your family to celebrate a
special tradition. If you are selling something, you may take a loss in order to offer a good deal
to a relative. You may pay big bucks for your daughter's wedding. You will make choices that
benefit you, but these may not be the ones that bring the most material profit to you.
Anthropologists see that economic decisions are made within the context of human relationships.
Economies and economic decisions are intertwined with culture and only make sense within the
context of a given culture.
In most nonindustrial societies, division of labor is by age and sex, with some specialization for
crafts. Groups of kinfolk and not individuals control land and other valuable resources. No one
gets significantly more than anyone else. All members of the group are provided for.
Anthropologists study economics cross-culturally by looking at production and systems of
exchange and distribution.
Production
Production starts with resources and their allocation. What resources are available to people?
Land and water are basic to all. Tools, including the knowledge and materials to make them, are
resources.
Resource Allocation
Who has access to resources needed for survival? In general, as societies become more
industrial, access to resources becomes more regulated and limited. In small-scale societies,
most people have access to most of the resources because such economies have limited
resources (Nanda and Warms 2007:178). In large-scale societies, access is often limited based
on numerous factors. For example, in North American society, not everyone has equal access to
a good education and hence to the resources available to well-educated people. One's income
can also limit access to needed resources such as good-quality health care. Family background,
too, may make a difference in access to wealth and social position.
As we discussed in topic 3, foragers generally have simple tools and flexible boundaries.
Freedom of movement enables people to avoid conflict and to fully use resources.
For pastoralists, the most important resources are their livestock and the land for grazing. Kin
groups generally control access to grasslands and water. Individuals or their close family
members generally own the animals themselves.
Horticulturalists farm and live on land controlled by extended kin groups. Nuclear families may
be given permission to work particular plots. The family does not own the plot; members just
have rights to use that land (usufruct rights). When they are not using the land, it reverts back
to the extended kin group. The same plot may be designated for another nuclear family's use at
a later time.
Intensive agriculture exists in North America and other parts of the industrialized world where
resources such as land and machinery are generally privately held.
Units of Production
Households control production in most nonindustrial societies. A household is a group of people
who live together and share production and distribution among themselves (Nanda and Warms
2007, 182). Household members may be related by kinship but not necessarily. A household is a
basic economic unit.
In industrial societies, the business firm is the basic unit of production, and its main focus is to
make a financial profit. The firm may comprise kin or non-kin, but members are usually tied to
the firm because of their labor. The aim of the firm is not to make products for its members but
to sell goods for a profit.
Division of Labor
All societies have some division of labor by sex and by age. As societies get more complex,
division of labor becomes more complex as well, resulting in specialized occupations.
Division of Labor by Sex
All societies divide labor on the basis of sex. Each society considers certain work appropriate for
women and other work appropriate for men. However, not all societies divide this work the same
way. Anthropologists tend to explain the division of labor among men and women in terms of
historical and cultural factors, rather than biology. They have found a continuum of practices
from societies where work is interchangeable between men and women to those where activities
are determined totally by sex.
Generally hunters and gatherers and horticultural groups have more flexible sex roles. This
pattern is known as the "flexible/integrated pattern." Boys and girls are enculturated in much the
same way and see adult men and women interacting on an equal basis. In such societies, up to
35 percent of the work may appropriately be performed by either sex (Haviland et al. 2005:180).
Among pastoralist and intensive agricultural and industrial societies, sex roles are likely to be
more rigid. In these societies, men and women rarely work together, and neither sex would
consider doing the work of the other. Both boys and girls are raised by their mothers, but at
some point, a boy must transfer to the men's world and prove his masculinity. Although work is
strictly segregated by sex in these societies, men are considered superior to women and have
authority over them.
A third pattern of division of labor by sex is called "dual-sex configuration." In this pattern, men
and women carry out their tasks separately, but the division is balanced and equal rather than
unequal as in societies where the sexes are segregated. Neither sex is considered the superior of
the other. Such patterns can be found among North American Indian groups whose subsistence
is based on horticulture and in West African kingdoms.
Division of Labor by Age
All societies divide labor by age. People are often given tasks that match their strength and
ability to do things. Adults gain specialized knowledge that enables them to do the work required
to keep society functioning. Some older folks, with declining strength and physical abilities, may
no longer contribute in ways they did in their prime but may still participate in significant ways.
Think about it:
In traditional Maori society in New Zealand, the older men had important tasks to do. One
of those tasks was to make sennit, ropes made from the rolling, twisting, and plaiting of
natural fibers. Such rope was vital for constructing houses and canoes. Sennit could be
made in the household while seated, the thigh bone being an excellent place to roll the
fibers. A grandfather could watch his grandkids at the same time.
In Samoa, older women continue to weave mats used for sleeping and for ceremonial
exchange. While weaving, usually with other women, they can keep their eyes on the
village.
In your family, what special tasks that contribute to the good of the group can older
people perform?
Craft Specialization
In some societies, technologies are simple, and everyone knows more or less how to use
everything. Among foragers, tool making for hunting and gathering does not require specialized
equipment and can be done by most adults. Digging sticks for excavating roots and spears for
hunting may take some time to make, but the knowledge of how to make them is shared among
the group. It is similar with horticulturalists. Simple tools are used in planting and harvesting of
their varied plants.
As societies become more complex, with intensive agriculture and industry, tools and the
accompanying division of labor become more specialized as well. In these societies, because
surpluses enable people to consume food without producing it, specialized roles are supported.
In traditional India, the caste system exemplifies occupational specialization. Thousands of
different activities, e.g., washing clothes, making music at festivals, creating pottery, and
conducting religious ceremonies, are the prerogative of specific kin groups. In traditional India,
as well as in other societies, one's occupation may be determined by the family one is born into
or assigned according to one's ethnic background.
In industrial societies such as our own, specialization is essential. A quick scan of the Yellow
Pages of the telephone book reveals long lists of specializations. No individual or family could
make or do everything that is available in our society. As we go through the day, earn our living,
and provide for our homes and families, we rely on others to make our lives possible.
Distribution: Systems of Exchange
All peoples exchange goods and services. Anthropologists find that exchange forms the basis of
society. In fact, French anthropologist Marcel Mauss maintained that gifts hold groups together.
Because gifts must be reciprocated it is through giving and receiving that we are joined to one
another (Mauss 1990).
Anthropologists identify three types of exchange: reciprocity, redistribution, and market, all of
which we describe below.
Reciprocity is the exchange between two parties of items having approximately the same value.
Three types of reciprocity are recognized: generalized, balanced, and negative.
1. Generalized reciprocity is an exchange usually between close kin or friends with no stated
expectation of a return. Parents give to their children out of love. Those involved do not
view such transactions as economic. The giving may be quite altruistic, or the giver may
expect gratitude and love in return.
Generalized reciprocity is important for foraging groups, for example, with the
distribution of meat. When a kill is made, each person in the group is given a share. The
hunter gives so that all can live and gains respect and status in the process.
2. Balanced reciprocity involves an obligation to give in return. It is generally found among
people who are slightly more distanced. We see this reciprocity in buying a round of
drinks or selecting a birthday present for a friend. We expect that others will pick up the
tab next time. As we present our gift, we expect (underneath) that the receiver will buy a
comparable gift for us on our birthday. Balanced reciprocity is seen in trading
relationships among nonindustrial peoples.
3. Negative reciprocity is an unsociable exchange where one person tries to get the better
end of a deal. It is usually found among strangers. It may involve hard bargaining or
even what some would call cheating and deception.
Redistribution
With redistribution, goods are collected in one place and then sorted and given back to those
who gave them. We see this form of exchange in our tax system. We all give to the government,
which takes our money and uses it to provide services for citizens. We don't get the same money
back, but we do get something back in the form of schools, parks, roads, police and fire
protection, and so forth.
Redistribution is important in horticultural societies where chiefs collect goods from those
beneath them. This show of goods is important for the chief and the supporting families in that it
reflects their wealth and status. When goods are exchanged in ceremonies, the goods received
are then distributed back to those who gave.
For example:
The potlatch of the Pacific Northwest is an example of redistribution. The potlatch was a
feast in which the hosting chief would give away goods and food to the villagers, other
chiefs, and invited guests. The more that was given away, the higher the prestige of the
host. Sometimes, valuable items would be destroyed or thrown away with a flourish.
The potlatch can be seen as an adaptive strategy in an environment of both scarcity and
abundance. When a chief and his people are rich, the potlatch shares their abundance with
neighbors who are struggling. When the times are rough for the first group, they will
benefit from the grandiose generosity of another's potlatch.
Reciprocity and redistribution are leveling mechanisms that keep wealth and resources
circulating in society and prevent them from being accumulated beyond a certain point. The
philosophy is that greater wealth brings a greater obligation to give. Sometimes, great prestige
is awarded those who give goods away, as in the potlatch. Leveling mechanisms help reduce
economic differences. Social obligations of people as part of a community keep them from
acquiring more than others, help strengthen the community, and ensure that everyone has what
they need to survive.
Market Exchange
Market exchange is the primary means of economic distribution in industrial societies. It involves
buying and selling goods and services at prices that obey the rules of supply and demand.
Whereas reciprocity and redistribution are nested in social and personal relationships, financial
goals are generally more important than social ones in a market economy.
Traditionally, market exchange takes place in a marketplace, a specific location. In many
nonindustrial countries and in ancient cities of Asia and Europe, the marketplace draws people
from the surrounding area, bringing their produce, animals, or crafts to sell and buying needed
items from others. Prices are set by face-to-face bargaining with another person. Money or
barter, the direct exchange of goods, may also be used.
In industrial societies, market exchanges are increasingly impersonal. We may or may not know
the people who help us with our purchases, but chances are we know little about them. With
electronic buying and selling, it is possible to buy and sell without ever having contact with a
human being, let alone with someone you know personally. In today's economy, the geographic
location of the actual marketplace where things are bought and sold may not even be known to
those involved. Call centers and warehouses can be located anywhere around the world.
Geographic boundaries for businesses are becoming less and less important. This process of
going across borders, known as globalization, will be discussed further in module 5.
Capitalism, which began in Europe 300 years ago, has transformed economies around the world.
Ownership of capital goods such as factories, farms, and so on is generally in the hands of a
small group of people (the elite). Under capitalism, production is undertaken primarily to make a
profit for the owner, not to enhance the community or social relations. The primary resource that
the majority of people have is their labor.
Socialism takes many forms in the modern world and uses market exchange in varying degrees.
However, it also relies on central governmental control for distribution of many goods and
services.
References
Barth, Frederik. 1986. Nomads of South Persia. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Benedict, Ruth. 1946. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
———. 1959. Patterns of Culture. New York: Mentor Books.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. 1940. The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political
Institutions of a Nilotic People. London: Oxford University Press.
Ferraro, Gary. 2006. Cultural Anthropology: An Applied Perspective. 6th ed. Belmont, CA:
Thomson-Wadsworth.
Gardner, R. Allen, and Beatrice T. Gardner. 1967. Teaching Sign Language to a Chimpanzee.
Science 165:664–672.
Hall, Edward T. 1969. The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Haviland, William A., Harald E. L. Prins, Dana Walrath, and Bunny McBride. 2005. Cultural
Anthropology: The Human Challenge. Belmont, CA: Thomson-Wadsworth.
Lee, Richard. 2003. The Dobe Ju/'hoansi. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth-Thomson Learning.
Mauss, Marcel. 1990 [1924]. The Gift: Form and Reason of Exchange in Archaic Societies. New
York: W. W. Norton.
Mead, Margaret. 1963. Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies. NY: William Morrow.
Nanda, Serena, and Richard L. Warms. 2007. Cultural Anthropology. 9th ed. Belmont, CA:
Thomson-Wadsworth.
Sahlins, Marshall. 1972. Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine.
Savage-Rumbaugh, Sue, Stuart G. Shanker, and Talbot J. Taylor. 1998. Apes, Language and the
Human Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tannen, Deborah. 2001. You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New
York: HarperTrade.
Return to top of page
Report broken links or any other problems on this page.
Copyright © by University of Maryland University College .