From: strange@acpub.duke.edu (Michael B. Scher)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Re: The Bible In The Context of Its Time
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:57:45 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

In article <1992Oct8.221555.18643@midway.uchicago.edu> coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>           .  .  . [stuff deleted]
>   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.
>
     Actually, Anthropology has always been, and remains, interested in the
institutions of a society, as well as the roles of individuals withing those
institutions.  If anything divides the three (four) fields, it is not so much
their focus as their methodologies.  There are definitely some questions
that characteristically belong to one of these fields.  As for making
women's studies a field unto itself, I would contend that it is a thematic
overlay on the other three methodological divisions, carrying with it some
methodology of its own, perhaps, but really supplying new focii to these
disciplines; see for example the book _Claiming Reality: Phenomenology and
Women's Studies_, in which a Shultz-like approach is suggested for the
exploration of women's issues.
     I would note that in anthropology, we study everything from the 
individual as a member of society, to the institutions of the society quite
apart from the individuals (e.g. studies of kinship and locality systems),
to the society-wide institutions that exist on a culturally-created level,
but are taken as hard realities (e.g. race, gender).  There is a sociology 
of abnormal psychology, and a social psychology; there is the anthropology
of educational institutions in the U.S.; in short, subject matter does not
define the fields, but the questions asked and methods applied most certainly
does (and even that blurs as I am applying a version of the Sociological
ethnomethodology in my Anthropology).

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

     I am not sure Psychology really cares "what is culture;" nor as I
have heard it from various horses' mouths does Sociology.  Indeed, for
sociologists, "culture" seems to be that 'stuff' left over when the 
measurable factors seem to peter out;  One thing to remember is that of
all contenporary anthropologists, Geertz has the widest readership in other
disciplines--and Geertz's symbolically-integrated, grok-able culture model
(what I sometimes call monolithic culture) not only has permeated other
disciplines, but did so precisely because it allows them to call "culture"
whatever behaviors/etc. they cannot name/assign a scale within their own
terms.



      -Mike


-- 
Mike Scher                      strange@hercules.acpub.duke.edu
Duke University -- Durham, NC:  Law and Cultural Anthropology 
This post expressly not for use as toilet tissue.
(K) 1991 Net Prophet Productions - All lefts deserved.