From: coonstot@quads.uchicago.edu (charles orville onstott)
Subject: Re: The Bible In The Context of Its Time
Reply-To: coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:15:55 GMT

In article <BvsyE7.2vE@nic.umass.edu> s1006420@titan.ucc.umass.edu (If you want peace work for justice) writes:
>In article <-1367383082snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au> gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Oct6.133109.15664@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU writes:
>>
>>What we mean by the term "anthropological" is material not published
>>within the discourse of Anthropology as a study of society & culture.
>
>If a lot of so-called 'Women's' Studies is exactly about studying
>and analysing society and culture as a whole  - and therefore it is 
>exactly anthropological -
>is the difference drawn because traditional anthropology either is
>directly sexist in its analysis or indirectly by its lack of
>critique? 

  Here the demarcation would need to be drawn between old anthropology
and new anthropology.  The fact is that "old" anthropology was, 
in many instances, ethno-centric and sexist.  The "new" anthropology
is more concerned with this issue and works to prevent, as best
it can, issues of ethno-centricity.  As a professor of mine, Wendy
Doniger O'Flaherty, put it: the new anthropology is "inter-subjective"
or "inter-objective."  
   Women's Studies draws from anthroplogy for its evidence.  Its
main focus, however, is not "society and culture as a whole," but
rather "women in society and culture as a whole."  As such, 
anthropological women's studies would exist as a branch of
anthroplogy.  However, Women's Studies also works with literary analysis,
sociology, and psychology.
   The primary difference between sociology, psychology, 
anthropology, archaeology, and etc, is purely a matter of point
of focus.  In anthropology, for example, one is primarily concerned
with culture, spatiality, and behavior 
within that culture--not to mention historical construction of that
culture, etc, etc.  In sociology one would be more concerned with the
institutions of that culture, the concrete manifestations in terms
of physical constructions and particular gatherings, and the way
in which an institution functions within the culture.  Anthropology,
however, would be more concerned with how the human being functions within
that culture or within any of the institutions of that culture.  Psychology
would be concerned with how a specific human being functions within
a current culture.  If psychology is speaking of ancient cultures and
making interpretations there, it becomes a form of anthroplogy.  Archaeology
would be primarily concerned with the classification and extraction
of concrete artifacts and might, using anthroplogy, attempt to
reconstruct a society.  The boarders between the disciplines
aren't so thin, what makes the distinction difficult is the fact
that most of the branches frequently draw from others without demarcating
their use.  

Focci of fields(Abbreviated):

  Anthro - Human Being, Individual
  Socio  - Institution
  Psycho - Individual in a current context with the purpose of "optimum
  human functioning," or, for philosophic questions.
  Women  - Human Being, Woman, Individual +  Institutions of Women, etc.

The distinctions between these fields aren't so interesting.  The
real question is "What is a culture?"

>Vera B.

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                    (coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu)
Graduate Student in Religion and Human Sciences
The University of Chicago Divinity School

"The most abstract system of philosophy is, in its method and purpose,
nothing more than an extremely ingenious combination of natural sounds."
                                                 -- Carl G. Jung             
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology