Graduate School

Roxas City

Mr. Jonathan Adjijil                                                               Mrs. Mary Joan Dabandan

Associate Professor                                                                 MAT Social Science Student

HUMAN BEHAVIOR

Some Basic Definitions

In general, human behavior may be defined as any activity of an individual or group, whether such activity can be observed by another person or detected by scientific instruments. Thus it includes not only man’s directly observable behavior but also the less directly observable feelings, thoughts, motives, attitudes, values, etc. that influence such behavior.

A more specific definition of human behavior is this: it is the response of an individual to stimulus situation. It refers to both the types of responses and manner in which it was made. Hence, it refers not only to what the person does but also how he does it. A stimulus situation refers to a factor, condition, situation or a combination of factors (whether internal or external) which provide the occasion for a response.

Human Behavior is the collection of behaviors exhibited by human beings and influenced by culture, attitudes, emotions, values, ethics, authority, rapport, hypnosis, persuasion, coercion and/or genetics.

The behavior of people (and other organisms or even mechanisms) falls within a range with some behavior being common, some unusual, some acceptable, and some outside acceptable limits. In sociology, behavior is considered as having no meaning, being not directed at other people and thus is the most basic human action. Behavior should not be mistaken with social behavior, which is more advanced action, as social behavior is behavior specifically directed at other people. The acceptability of behavior is evaluated relative to social norms and regulated by various means of social control.

The behavior of people is studied by the academic disciplines of psychology, sociology, economics, and anthropology.

In 1970, a book was published called “The Social Contract: A Personal Inquiry into the Evolutionary Sources of Order and Disorder” written by the anthropologist Robert Ardrey. The book and study investigated animal behavior (Ethology) and then compared human behavior as a similar phenomenon.

Human behavior is an important factor in human society. Acording to Humanism, each human have a different behavior.

Examples of Human Behavior and Activities

• Skills
• Responses
  • Ignorance
  • Rejection
  • Acceptance
  • Resistance
  • Answer
• Life
• Dreaming, Sleeping, Awake
• Human Communication
• Human Timescales
• Desire: appetite, hunger, thirst

Factors affecting Human Behavior

• Attitude – It is the degree to which the person has a favourable or unfavourable evaluation of the behaviour in question.

• Social Norms – This is the influence of social pressure that is perceived by the individual (normative beliefs) to perform or not perform certain behaviour.

• Perceived Behavioural Control – This is the individual’s belief concerning how easy or difficult performing the behaviour will be.

Source: www.wikipedia.org

Assignment: Anthropology

Filamer Christian College

Graduate School

Roxas City

Mr. Jonathan Adjijil                                                                                        Mrs. Mary Joan Dabandan

Associate Professor                                                                                        MAT Social Science Student

ANTHROPOLOGY

Anthropology (/ˌænθɹəˈpɒlədʒi/, from the Greek ἄνθρωπος, anthrōpos, “human”, and -λογία, -logia, “discourse”, first use in English: 1593) is the study of human beings, everywhere and throughout time. Modern human beings are defined as members of the species Homo sapiens, which arose in Africa around 200,000BP (Before Present) (see Omo remains). Anthropology has its intellectual origins in both the natural sciences, and the humanities. Its basic questions concern, “What defines Homo sapiens?” “Who are the ancestors of modern Homo sapiens?” “What are our physical traits?” “How do we behave?” “Why are there variations and differences among different groups of humans?” “How has the evolutionary past of Homo sapiens influenced its social organization and culture?” and so forth. While specific modern anthropologists have a tendency to specialize in technical subfields, their data and ideas are routinely synthesized into larger works about the scope and progress of our species.

A Brief Overview of the Discipline

One traditional approach to simplifying such a vast enterprise has been to divide anthropology into four fields, each with its own further branches: Biological anthropology, Cultural anthropology, Archaeology and Anthropological linguistics. Note how these fields are not strictly divided from each other in scope.

Briefly put, biological anthropology includes the study of human evolution, human evolutionary biology, Population Genetics, our nearest biological relatives, classification of ancient hominids, paleontology of humans, distribution human alleles, blood types and the human genome project. Primatology studies our nearest non-human relatives (human beings are primates), and some primatologists use field observation methods, written up in a manner quite similar to ethnography. Biological anthropology is used by other fields to shed light on how a particular folk got to where they are, how frequently they’ve encountered and married outsiders, whether a particular group is protein-deprived, and to understand the brain processes involved in the production of language. Other related fields or subfields include paleoanthropology, anthropometrics, nutritional anthropology, and forensic anthropology.

Cultural anthropology is often based on ethnography, a kind of writing used throughout anthropology to present data on a particular people or folk (from the Greek, ethnos/Έθνος), often based on participant observation research. Ethnology involves the systematic comparison of different cultures. Cultural anthropology is also called socio-cultural anthropology or social anthropology (especially in Great Britain). In some European countries, cultural anthropology is known as ethnology (a term coined and defined by Adam F. Kollár in 1783). The study of kinship and social organization is a central focus of cultural anthropology, as kinship is a human universal. Cultural anthropology also covers: economic and political organization, law and conflict resolution, patterns of consumption and exchange, material culture, technology, infrastructure, gender relations, ethnicity, childrearing and socialization, religion, myth, symbols, worldview, sports, music, nutrition, recreation, games, food, festivals, and language, which is also the object of study in linguistics. Note the way in which some of these topics overlap with topics in the other subfields.

Archaeology is the study of human material culture, including both artifacts (older pieces of human culture) carefully gathered in situ, museum pieces and modern garbage. Archaeologists work closely with biological anthropologists, art historians, physics laboratories (for dating), and museums. They are charged with preserving the results of their excavations and are often found in museums. Typically, archaeologists are associated with “digs,” or excavation of layers of ancient sites. Archaeologists subdivide time into cultural periods based on long-lasting artifacts: for example the Paleolithic, the Neolithic, the Bronze Age, which are further subdivided according to artifact traditions and culture region, such as the Oldowan or the Gravettian. In this way, archaeologists provide a vast reference of the places human beings have traveled over the past 200,000 years, their ways of making a living, and their demographics. Archaeologists also investigate nutrition, symbolization, art, systems of writing, and other physical remnants of human cultural activity.

Linguistics is the study of language. Linguistic anthropology (also called anthropological linguistics) seeks to understand the processes of human communications, verbal and non-verbal, variation in language across time and space, the social uses of language, and the relationship between language and culture. It is the branch of anthropology that brings linguistic methods to bear on anthropological problems, linking the analysis of linguistic forms and processes to the interpretation of sociocultural processes. Linguistic anthropologists often draw on related fields including anthropological linguistics, sociolinguistics, pragmatics, cognitive linguistics, semiotics, discourse analysis, and narrative analysis. This field is divided into its own subfields: descriptive linguistics the construction of grammars and lexicons for unstudied languages; historical linguistics, including the reconstruction of past languages, from which our current languages have descended; ethnolinguistics, the stuy of the relationship between language and culture, and sociolinguistics, the study of the social functions of language. Anthropological linguistics is also concerned with the evolution of the parts of the brain that deal with language.

Because anthropology developed from so many different enterprises (see History of Anthropology), including but not limited to fossil-hunting, exploring, documentary film-making, paleontology, primatology, antiquity dealings and curatorship, philology, etymology, genetics, regional analysis, ethnology, history,philosophy and religious studies, it is difficult to characterize the entire field in a brief article, although attempts to write histories of the entire field have been made.

Anthropology has also been central in the development of several new (late 20th century) interdisciplinary fields such as cognitive neuroscience, global studies, and various ethnic studies.

Basic Trends in Anthropology

The goal of anthropology is to provide a holistic account of humans and human nature. Since anthropology arose as a science in Western societies that were complex and industrial, a major trend within anthropology has been a methodological drive to study peoples in societies with more simple social organization, sometimes called “primitive” in anthropological literature, but without any connotation of “inferior.” Today, most anthropologists use terms such as “less complex” societies or refer to specific modes of subsistence or production, such as “hunter-gatherer” or “forager” or “simple farmer” to refer to humans living in non-industrial, non-Western cultures, such people or folk (ethnos) remaining of great interest within anthropology. The quest for holism leads most anthropologists to study a particular folk or people in detail, using biogenetic, archaeological, and linguistic data alongside direct observation of contemporary customs. In the 1990s and 2000s, calls for clarification of what constitutes a culture, of how an observer knows where his or her own culture ends and another begins, and other crucial topics in writing anthropology were heard. It is possible to view all human cultures as part of one large, evolving global culture. These dynamic relationships, between what can be observed on the ground, as opposed to what can be observed by compiling many local observations remain fundamental in any kind of anthropology, whether cultural, biological, linguistic or archaeological.

Anthropologists are interested in both human variation and in the possibility of human universals (behaviors, ideas or concepts shared by virtually human cultures). They use many different methods of study, but modern population genetics, participant observation and other techniques often take anthropologists “into the field” which means traveling to a community in its own setting, to do something called “fieldwork.” On the biological or physical side, human measurements, genetic samples, nutritional data may be gathered and published as articles or monographs. Due to the interest in variation, anthropologists are drawn to the study of human extremes, aberrations and other unusual circumstances, such as headhunting, whirling dervishes, whether there were real Hobbit people, snake handling, and glossolalia (speaking in tongues), just to list a few.

At the same time, anthropologists urge, as part of their quest for scientific objectivity, cultural relativism, which has an influence on all the subfields of anthropology. This is the notion that particular cultures should not be judged by one culture’s values or viewpoints, but that all cultures should be viewed as relative to each other. There should be no notions, in good anthropology, of one culture being better or worse than another culture. Ethical commitments in anthropology include noticing and documenting genocide, infanticide, racism, mutilation including especially circumcision and subincision, and torture. Topics like racism, slavery or human sacrifice, therefore, attract anthropological attention and theories ranging from nutritional deficiencies to genes to acculturation have been proposed, not to mention theories of acculturation, colonialism and many others as root causes of man’s inhumanity to man. To illustrate the depth of an anthropological approach, one can take just one of these topics, such as “racism” and find thousands of anthropological references, stretching across all the subfields (and subfields of subfields).

In addition to dividing up their project by theoretical emphasis, anthropologists typically divide the world up into relevant time periods and geographic regions. Human time on Earth is divided up into relevant cultural traditions based on material, such as the [Paleolithic] and the [Neolithic], of particular use in archaeology. Further cultural subdivisions according to tool types, such as Olduwan or Mousterian or Levallois help archaeologists and other anthropologists in understanding major trends in the human past. Anthropologists and geographers share approaches to Culture regions as well, since mapping cultures is central to both sciences. By making comparisons across cultural traditions (time-based) and cultural regions (space-based), anthropologists have developed various kinds of comparative method, a central part of their science.

Contemporary anthropology is an established science with academic departments at most universities and colleges. The single largest organization of Anthropologists is the American Anthropological Association, which was founded in 1902. Membership is made up of Anthropologists from around the globe. Hundreds of other organizations exist in the various subfields of anthropology, sometimes divided up by nation or region, and many anthropologists work with collaborators in other disciplines, such as geology, physics, zoology, paleontology, anatomy, music theory, art history, sociology and so on, belonging to professional societies in those disciplines as well.

History of anthropology

The first use of the term “anthropology” in English to refer to a natural science of humankind was apparently in 1593, the first of the “logies” to be coined. It took Immanuel Kant 25 years to write one of the first major treatises on anthropology, his Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View. Kant is not generally considered to be a modern anthropologist, however, as he never left his region of Germany nor did he study any cultures besides his own. He did, however, begin teaching an annual course in anthropology in 1772. Anthropology is thus primarily an Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment endeavor.

Historians of anthropology, like Marvin Harris indicates two major frameworks within which empirical anthropology has arisen: interest in comparisons of people over space and interest in longterm human processes or humans as viewed through time. Harris dates both to Classical Greece and Classical Rome, specifically Herodotus, often called the “father of history” and the Roman historian Tacitus, who wrote many of our only surviving contemporary accounts of several ancient Celtic and Germanic peoples. Herodotus first formulated some of the persisting problems of anthropology.

Medieval scholars may be considered forerunners of modern anthropology as well, insofar as they conducted or wrote detailed studies of the customs of peoples considered “different” from themselves in terms of geography. John of Plano Carpini reported of his stay among the Mongols. His report was unusual in its detailed depiction of a non-European culture.  Marco Polo‘s systematic observations of nature, anthropology, and geography are another example of studying human variation across space. Polo’s travels took him across such a diverse human landscape and his accounts of the peoples he encountered as he he journeyed were so detailed that they earned for Polo the name “the father of modern anthropology.” Another candidate for one of the first scholars to carry out comparative ethnographic-type studies in person was the medieval Persian scholar Abū Rayhān Bīrūnī in the 11th century, who wrote about the peoples, customs, and religions of the Indian subcontinent. Like modern anthropologists, he engaged in extensive participant observation with a given group of people, learnt their language and studied their primary texts, and presented his findings with objectivity and neutrality using cross-cultural comparisons. He wrote detailed comparative studies on the religions and cultures in the Middle East, Mediterranean and especially South Asia. Biruni’s tradition of comparative cross-cultural study continued in the Muslim world through to Ibn Khaldun‘s work in the 14th century.

Most scholars consider modern anthropology as an outgrowth of the Age of Enlightenment, a period when Europeans attempted systematically to study human behavior, the known varieties of which had been increasing since the 15th century as a result of the first European colonization wave. The traditions of jurisprudence, history, philology, and sociology then evolved into something more closely resembling the modern views of these disciplines and informed the development of the social sciences, of which anthropology was a part. Developments in the systematic study of ancient civilizations through the disciplines of Classics and Egyptology informed both archaeology and eventually social anthropology, as did the study of East and South Asian languages and cultures. At the same time, the Romantic reaction to the Enlightenment produced thinkers, such as Johann Gottfried Herder and later Wilhelm Dilthey, whose work formed the basis for the “culture concept,” which is central to the discipline.

Institutionally, anthropology emerged from the development of natural history (expounded by authors such as Buffon) that occurred during the European colonization of the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Programs of ethnographic study originated in this era as the study of the “human primitives” overseen by colonial administrations. There was a tendency in late 18th century Enlightenment thought to understand human society as natural phenomena that behaved in accordance with certain principles and that could be observed empirically. In some ways, studying the language, culture, physiology, and artifacts of European colonies was not unlike studying the flora and fauna of those places.

Early anthropology was divided between proponents of unilinealism, who argued that all societies passed through a single evolutionary process, from the most primitive to the most advanced, and various forms of non-lineal theorists, who tended to subscribe to ideas such as diffusionism.  Most 19th-century social theorists, including anthropologists, viewed non-European societies as windows onto the pre-industrial human past. As academic disciplines began to differentiate over the course of the 19th century, anthropology grew increasingly distinct from the biological approach of natural history, on the one hand, and from purely historical or literary fields such as Classics, on the other. A common criticism has been that many social science scholars (such as economists, sociologists, and psychologists) in Western countries focus disproportionately on Western subjects, while anthropology focuses disproportionately on the “Other”; this has changed over the last part of the 20th century as anthropologists increasingly also study Western subjects, particularly variation across class, region, or ethnicity within Western societies, and other social scientists increasingly take a global view of their fields.

In the twentieth century, academic disciplines have often been institutionally divided into three broad domains. The natural and biological sciences seek to derive general laws through reproducible and verifiable experiments. The humanities generally study local traditions, through their history, literature, music, and arts, with an emphasis on understanding particular individuals, events, or eras. The social sciences have generally attempted to develop scientific methods to understand social phenomena in a generalizable way, though usually with methods distinct from those of the natural sciences. In particular, social sciences often develop statistical descriptions rather than the general laws derived in physics or chemistry, or they may explain individual cases through more general principles, as in many fields of psychology. Anthropology (like some fields of history) does not easily fit into one of these categories, and different branches of anthropology draw on one or more of these domains.

Anthropology as it emerged among the colonial powers (mentioned above) has generally taken a different path than that in the countries of southern and central Europe (Italy, Greece, and the successors to the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires). In the former, the encounter with multiple, distinct cultures, often very different in organization and language from those of Europe, has led to a continuing emphasis on cross-cultural comparison and a receptiveness to certain kinds of cultural relativism. In the successor states of continental Europe, on the other hand, anthropologists often joined with folklorists and linguists in the nationalist/nation-building enterprise. Ethnologists in these countries tended to focus on differentiating among local ethnolinguistic groups, documenting local folk culture, and representing the prehistory of the nation through museums and other forms of public education. In this scheme, Russia occupied a middle position. On the one hand, it had a large Asian region of highly distinct, pre-industrial, often non-literate peoples, similar to the situation in the Americas; on the other hand, Russia also participated to some degree in the nationalist discourses of Central and Eastern Europe. After the Revolution of 1917, anthropology in the USSR and later the Soviet Bloc countries were highly shaped by the need to conform to Marxist theories of social evolution.

Academic Branches

Anthropology consists of two major divisions: physical anthropology, which deals with the human physical form from the past to the present, and cultural anthropology, which studies human culture in all its aspects. Additionally, the areas of archaeology, which studies the remains of historical societies, and linguistic anthropology, which studies variation in language across time and space and its relationship to culture, are considered sub-disciplines in North America.

Physical Anthropology

Physical anthropology is the field that considers the biology and physiology of humanity, from primate ancestors to modern-day humans. Physical anthropology’s origins actually lie in the geology revolution, when the Earth was revealed to be much older than the previously accepted biblical scale, and fossilized human remains and tools spurred the debate of “man’s antiquity.” Coupled with Charles Darwin‘s explosive theory of evolution, physical anthropology became the leading authority on the evidence of human evolution.

By the mid-twentieth century, a general geneological tree of human ancestors had been established, based upon fossils discovered by Donald C. Johanson, Paul Abell, and Mary, Louis, and Richard Leakey among others. While fossils found in Africa, Asia, and even South America challenged both the timeline and circumstances surrounding humanity’s evolution, the basic paradigm is still accepted: millions of years ago, evolutionary adaptations in small mammals, such as stereoscopic vision, led to the development of the early primate line of descendants. Humans, gorillas, and chimpanzees were the last species to develop their own branches, from which the human line branched off into many different dead-end lines and closely related species, but the most direct line lead from the Australopithecine species, then evolving into the Homo lines. Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, Homo erectus, and Homo neanderthalensis were the first direct ancestors, with increased cranial capacity. It should be noted that the exact place of human ancestors in the evolutionary scheme is challenged nearly every year, and that new categories are emerging so that a conclusive paradigm has yet to be produced.

Since the primary focus of physical anthropology is with human evolution, primatology is a closely linked sub-field of the discipline. Understanding human’s closest relatives, the primates, helps understand the evolutionary process from ape to man. Primatologists, such as Jane Goodall and Dian Fossey, have pioneered research observing primates in the wild, noting behavior that would have been common to human ancestors.

Not all physical anthropologists deal with the far past and hominid variants of the Homo sapiens line. Forensic anthropologists are used around the world to identify the remains of murder and disaster victims. One of the most famous forensic anthropologists, Clyde Snow, made his career identifying the remains of mass murders and genocides in war-torn countries.

Another emerging sub-discipline is population genetics, which tracks and studies contemporary groups of people and the physical/genetic differences between modern-day people, which similar studies had in the early and mid-twentieth century proved that notions of race were scientifically unsubstantial. One of the major discoveries in the field was how to track lineage through mitochondria DNA and Y chromosomes, in effect, to tracking the origins of the modern humankind to human’s African genetic ancestors.

Other sub-fields of the discipline include:

• Paleobotany
• Paleopathology
• Paleozoology
• Medical anthropology
• Paleoanthropology (also known as human paleontology)

Cultural Anthropology

The primary focus of cultural anthropology, also referred to as social anthropology and ethnology, is the study of human culture. In regards to humanity, culture can deal with a host of subjects, such as religion, mythology, art, music, government systems, social structures and hierarchies, family dynamics, traditions, and customs as well as cuisine, economy, and relationship to the environment. Any and all of these factors make up important aspects of culture and behavior, and are some of the pieces of human history that cultural anthropology tries to put to together into a larger, more comprehensive picture of the human experience.

With the rise of history and humanities studies, along with the natural sciences, during the nineteenth century, such scholars as Edward Burnett Taylor and James Frazer began to plant the seeds of cultural anthropology, wondering why people living in different parts of the world sometimes had similar beliefs and practices. This question became the underlying concern of cultural anthropology. Grafton Elliot Smith argued that different groups must somehow have learned from one another, as if cultural traits were being spread from one place to another, or “diffused.” Others argued that different groups had the capability of inventing similar beliefs and practices independently. Some of those who advocated “independent invention,” like Lewis Henry Morgan, additionally supposed that similarities meant that different groups had passed through the same stages of cultural evolution.

Ethnography, the backbone of cultural anthropology methodology, was developed by Bronislaw Malinowski in his work in the Trobriand Islands of Melanesia between 1915 and 1918. Although nineteenth-century ethnologists saw “diffusion” and “independent invention” as mutually exclusive and competing theories, most ethnographers quickly reached a consensus that both processes occur, and that both can plausibly account for cross-cultural similarities.

In the 1950s and mid-1960s, anthropology tended increasingly to model itself after the natural sciences. Some anthropologists, such as Lloyd Fallers and Clifford Geertz, focused on processes of modernization by which newly independent states could develop. Others, such as Julian Steward and Leslie White, focused on how societies evolve and fit their ecological niche—an approach popularized by Marvin Harris. Economic anthropology through the influence of Karl Polanyi focused on how traditional economics ignored cultural and social factors. In England, British social anthropology’s paradigm began to fragment as Max Gluckman and Peter Worsley experimented with Marxism and others incorporated Lévi-Strauss‘s structuralism into their work.

Structuralism also influenced a number of developments in the 1960s and 1970s, including cognitive anthropology and componential analysis. Authors such as David Schneider, Clifford Geertz, and Marshall Sahlins developed a more fleshed-out concept of culture as a web of meaning or signification, which proved very popular within and beyond the discipline. In keeping with the times, much of anthropology became politicized through the Algerian War of Independence and opposition to the Vietnam War. By the 1970s, the authors of volumes such as Reinventing Anthropology worried about anthropology’s relevance.

In the 1980s’ issues of power, such as those examined in Eric Wolf‘s Europe and the People without History, were central to the discipline. Books like Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter pondered anthropology’s ties to colonial inequality, while the immense popularity of theorists such as Michel Foucault moved issues of power and hegemony into the spotlight. Gender and sexuality became popular topics, as did the relationship between history and anthropology, and the relationship between social structure and individual agency.

In the late 1980s and 1990s, authors such as George Marcus and James Clifford pondered ethnographic authority, particularly how and why anthropological knowledge was possible and authoritative. Ethnographies became more reflexive, explicitly addressing the author’s methodology and cultural positioning, and their influence on his or her ethnographic analysis. This was part of a more general trend of postmodernism that was popular contemporaneously. Currently, anthropologists have begun to pay attention to globalization, medicine and biotechnology, indigenous rights, and the anthropology of industrialized societies.

Sub-fields include:

• Anthropology of art
• Anthropology of religion
• Applied anthropology
• Cross-cultural studies
• Cyber anthropology
• Economic anthropology
• Ecological anthropology
• Ethnobotany
• Ethnography
• Ethnomusicology
• Ethnozoology
• Psychological anthropology (also known as culture-and-personality studies)
• Political anthropology
• Urban anthropology
• Visual anthropology

Archaeology

Archaeology studies human cultures through the recovery, documentation, and analysis of material remains and environmental data, including architecture, artifacts, biofacts, human remains, and landscapes. While there are numerous goals pertaining to its various sub-disciplines, the main goal of archaeology is to create the most thorough understanding of how and why both historical and prehistoric people lived, to understand the evolution of human society and civilizations, and to use knowledge of human ancestors’ history to discover insights into modern-day societies. Through such efforts, it is hoped that archaeology will support increased understanding among the various peoples of the world, and thus aid in the growth of peace and harmony among all humankind.

Archaeology as a serious academic discipline did not emerge until the end of the nineteenth century, the byproduct of a number of scientific discoveries and new theories. The discovery that the Earth was older than previously understood, and therefore that humankind had been around longer than the established timeframe of the Bible, spurred scientific curiosity in exploring human origins. Similarly, Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of the Species (1859) introduced the theory of evolution, inciting a furor of academic debate and research. Even more important for archaeology was C. J. Thomsen’s establishment of the “Three Age System,” in which man’s history was categorized into three eras based on technological advancement: the Stone Age, Bronze Age, and Iron Age. The chronological history of humankind became an exciting academic field. Soon, teams of archaeologists were working around the world, discovering long-lost ruins and cities.

Archaeology took form in the 1960s, when a number of academics, most notably Lewis Binford, proposed a “new archaeology,” which would be more “scientific” and “anthropological.” It began using hypothesis testing and scientific methods, such as the newly established dating tests, as well as focusing upon the social aspects of the findings. Archaeology became less focused on categorizing, and more on understanding how the evolution of civilization came about, later being dubbed “processual archaeology.”

In the 1980s, a new movement arose, led by the British archaeologists Michael Shanks, Christopher Tilley, Daniel Miller, and Ian Hodder, questioning processualism’s appeals to science and impartiality, and emphasizing the importance of relativism, becoming known as post-processual archaeology.

Sub-fields of archaeology include:

• Ariel Archaeology
• Archaeoastronomy
• Archaeological Science
• Archaeobotany
• Archaeozoology
• Computational Archaeology
• Ethnoarchaeology
• Experimental Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Maritime Archaeology
• Museum Studies
• Paleopathology
• Taphonomy

Linguistic Anthropology

Linguistic anthropology is rooted largely in general linguistic studies which deal with the components of language, mainly phonetics, morphology, and even the kinesics of language. Linguistic anthropology grew out of cultural anthropology, when anthropologists realized what information the study of language can bring.

The first main branch of the discipline is historical linguistics, which studies the evolution of language. All languages have a genealogical tree structure that shows their evolution. For instance, modern English comes from a combination of French, Latin, and Germanic sources, which can all traces their roots back to a common origin, the Indo-European language from the steps of Russia. The ability of anthropological linguists to trace a language’s origins based on the morphological and phonetic changes also can be used to track migration patterns. Lexicostatistical dating is the technique used for migration tracing, and one of the most famous examples is the pattern of Native American settlement thousands of years ago on such a linguistic approach.

The second major linguistic study in anthropology is called ethnolinguistics. There are two historically different approaches in the discipline, the first being the “Sapir-Whorf hypothesis,” proposed in the mid-twentieth century by Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf. They argued “that language, by providing habitual grooves of expression, predisposes people to see the world in a certain way and this guides their thinking and behavior.” The other approach generally accepts that culture and language predispose people to particular perspectives, but regards language as continually evolving phenomena that is constantly consuming different influences and changing the society’s perspective. Both perspectives agree that language, as one of humankind’s most distinguishing features, is a valuable source of information about culture and psychology, capable of revealing the abstract and cognitive aspects of our minds.

Controversies about the History of Anthropology

Anthropologists, like other researchers (esp. historians and scientists engaged in field research), have over time assisted state policies and projects, especially colonialism.

Some commentators have contended:

• That the discipline grew out of colonialism, perhaps was in league with it, and derived some of its key notions from it, consciously or not. (See, for example, Gough, Pels and Salemink, but cf. Lewis 2004).
• That anthropologists typically have more power than the people they study and hence their knowledge-making is a form of theft in which the anthropologist gains something for him or herself at the expense of informants.
• That ethnographic work was often ahistorical, writing about people as if they were “out of time” in an “ethnographic present” (Johannes Fabian, Time and Its Other).

Anthropology and the military

Anthropologists’ involvement with the U.S. government, in particular, has caused bitter controversy within the discipline. Franz Boas publicly objected to US participation in World War I, and after the war he published a brief expose and condemnation of the participation of several American archeologists in espionage in Mexico under their cover as scientists. But by the 1940s, many of Boas’ anthropologist contemporaries were active in the allied war effort against the “Axis” (Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan). Many served in the armed forces but others worked in intelligence (for example, Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and the Office of War Information). At the same time, David H. Price‘s work on American anthropology during the Cold War provides detailed accounts of the pursuit and dismissal of several anthropologists from their jobs for communist sympathies.

Attempts to accuse anthropologists of complicity with the CIA and government intelligence activities during the Vietnam War years have turned up surprisingly little (although anthropologist Hugo Nutini was active in the stillborn Project Camelot). Many anthropologists (students and teachers) were active in the antiwar movement and a great many resolutions condemning the war in all its aspects were passed overwhelmingly at the annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association (AAA). In the decades since the Vietnam war the tone of cultural and social anthropology, at least, has been increasingly politicized, with the dominant liberal tone of earlier generations replaced with one more radical, a mix of, and varying degrees of, Marxist, feminist, anarchist, post-colonial, post-modern, Saidian, Foucauldian, identity-based, and more.

Professional anthropological bodies often object to the use of anthropology for the benefit of the state. Their codes of ethics or statements may proscribe anthropologists from giving secret briefings. The Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK and Commonwealth (ASA) has called certain scholarships ethically dangerous. The AAA’s current ‘Statement of Professional Responsibility’ clearly states that “in relation with their own government and with host governments … no secret research, no secret reports or debriefings of any kind should be agreed to or given.”

However, anthropologists, along with other social scientists, are once again being used in warfare as part of the US Army’s strategy in Afghanistan. The Christian Science Monitor reports that “Counterinsurgency efforts focus on better grasping and meeting local needs” in Afghanistan, under the rubric of Human Terrain Team (HTT).

Toolbox

• What links here
• Page history
• View source
• Printable version
• Permanent link
• Cite this page

Other Anthropology Controversies

The Eastern Church, in this period, indulged very little debate on the subject of man’s sinfulness and the province of divine grace in his recovery. While Eastern bishops in the synod at Ephesus in 431 pronounced against Pelagianism, their decision was more or less influenced by extraneous motives, and was not based upon any thorough investigation of the Pelagian system, or upon any profound aversion to the same. It was in the Latin Church alone that the great problems of anthropology received a profound and earnest canvassing.

The radical theories of Pelagius, a monk from Britain, were the primary cause of the controversy that arose. The more essential features of his doctrinal system were a denial of inherited corruption in the moral nature of man, a strong assertion of the freedom of the will, and a decided emphasis upon man’s ability to work out his own salvation as opposed to his radical dependence upon divine grace. Such a system naturally provoked the profound opposition of Augustine, whose ardent soul was ever burning with zeal for the honor of divine grace. All the powers of his great mind were brought to the task of refutation. The Pauline conception of sin and grace found in him a more appreciative interpreter than the Church had as yet produced. He criticized, to good effect, the superficial points of Pelagianism, but greatly impaired his service by inculcating an exaggerated idea of divine sovereignty. Augustine was the first of the Christian Fathers to advocate the creed of unconditional predestination.

The positive beginning of the Pelagian controversy may be located about the year 412, when Cœlestius, a prominent disciple of Pelagius, was excommunicated by a Carthaginian synod. In 416 two African synods condemned the Pelagian doctrines, and the Roman bishop Innocent expressed his agreement with their decision. His successor, Zosimus, after a temporary show of favor to the condemned party, gave the full weight of his authority to their proscription. Some adherents still defended the doctrines of Pelagius, among whom the learned and talented Julian of Eclanum especially distinguished himself. No new sect, however, was formed in the interest of Pelagaianism; and, as a theoretical system, it was pretty well overthrown in the Latin Church before the death of Augustine. Semi-Pelagianism, which thrived especially in Gaul, maintained itself for a longer space, and was not emphatically disowned in that region till the sixth century. Still, it was not strict Augustinianism which held the field. In point of theory, the Latin Church showed an inclination to modify the radical tenets of Augustine; while in its spirit and practice it increasingly paid tribute to the idea of salvation by works, and really nurtured a crude species of practical Pelagianism.

Online Sources:                http://wikipedia.org

http://edwardtbabinski.us

            He is difficult to care for at home. He is left arm and leg are partially paralyze, making mobility difficult. He becomes verbally abusive when ammobility, incontinence, noisy grandchildren, and other irritations frustrate him. He has adamantly refused to consider going to a nursing home or other care center. Jeans provide care for him although it takes a toll on her physical and psychological well-being. She would feel extremely guilty about having to send Ray to nursing home or any other facility. Her own mother cared for her father when he became elder and infirm.

               Ray had always been the family breadwinner; working at the same factory for 30 years and retiring at age 65. Jean had stayed home and had raised four children. Ray had abused alcohol and was alternately verbally abusive or morose when he had too much to drink. He had stopped drinking when he was 55 and attended Alcoholics Anonymous meeting regularly for several years.

              Ray and Jean’s youngest child, Merge, has stuggled with addiction to cocaine and other drugs. Currently, she is serving a jail term for possession of cocaine. Because her addiction has interfered with her parenting abilitie, Jean and Ray have been the primary caregivers for Marge’s son Jason, now a teenager, since he was a small child. Jason has been skepping school and he is uncommunicative. Recently, the police arrested him and two friends after they tried to steal some CD’s from a local music store.

                     Miranda, another daugther, is concerned that Jean can do longer meet the needs of her husband and grandson. Jean is not attending to her own physical and mental health. Miranda would like to spend more time helping her parents, but her work as an office manager for a small construction company keeps her busy, especially recently. Miranda’s employers are not always willing to give her the time off needed to pay attention to her parents. When she does does try to help her parents with household chores or transportation to medical appiontments, Miranda finds herself becoming angry and impatient with her furher, who was ofthen verbally abusesive to her and her sibling when she was growing up.