Talk:Anthropology/Archive 1

message: What is the difference between Anthro and sociology?
I have read a simplistic view that anthro is for people different from the researcher and socio for people like the resarcher.
The term "sociology" was invented by Comte as applied positivism, and sociology as a discipline has remained strongly positivistic in a strict sense.  Anthropology comes out of an entirely different set of traditions, mainly comparative law (sociology is anti-law), anthropo-geography, and Vokerpsychology. The first chair in anthropology was 1869, in Berlin. The people who made up the anthropology at Cambridge when Malinowski went there were mainly appointed in psychology, and in the tradition of Volkerpsychologie. Sociology departments were founded separately, beginning in the 1880s, and by that time the major theoretical icon was Herbert Spencer. Where positivism was consistently aligned with political authoritatianism, anthropology (under these heads and as it coalesced) was consentently aligned with democratic and republican political sentiments.  Sociological were first introduced in anthropology in Britain by E. B. Tylor in 1885, and then by Radcliffe-Brown in the 1930s.  The institutional section in this article is way off the point. It should be replace by something that fits the title. M Leaf. 
:I was wondering the exact same thing. I'm looking at this and thinking that it's not worth studying because, if I'm right, genetics have something to do with culture, which of course is a duh statement if you look different. However, I see that sociology is the greater of the social sciences because it includes human behavior. I don't really see too much talk about human behavior here. It seems like a bunch of rubbish and looking at really old societies. "Digging through the past". So how can this be one of the greater social sciences? I think I read somewhere that it takes bits and pieces of the other sciences, but I really don't see it mixing them all together for a big picture, which sociology does. --Cyberman 00:45, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
:: Soc is the study of human social interactions, while anthro is the study of humans, including our evolution and development, our language, our culture and our past civilizations. The current article on anthro is terrible, IMO and does not do anthropology justice. They both are behavorial sciences; anthro focuses on the four sub disciplines of physical, cultural, linguistic and archaeology. Sociology focuses on the origins, institutions, organizations and development of society. --JPotter 20:50, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
::: Physical surroundings? Physical....? --Cyberman 02:20, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
:The way I like to think about the differences begins with the 19th century origins of the two disciplines. Sociology traces its roots to the most enduring social policy question to emerge out of the industrial revolution: "With all these positive and progressive changes occuring in society, why are the poor still around?" An early economist name Frederic LePlay in London was the first to articulate the problem and begin systematic investigations of the possible causes. Thus, for me, sociology has its roots in the analysis of class differences. As it has evolved, it has incorporated other problems and research programs, such as gender and race. Yet, class continues to be an enduring framework for understanding the primary mission of the discipline. Anthropology has its 19th century roots in a different problem altogether: "Does it matter in some ethical, moral, or aesthetic sense that people around the world look different from each other?" The earliest anthropologists were physical scientists who try to measure the differences in the way people looked and then tried to relate these differences to behavior. Anthropology has its roots in racial science. A major revolution in the discipline took place in England and the U.S. just before the First World War. Rather than seeing race as the explanation of behavior, anthropologists, especially Boas at Columbia University, but also to some extent Malinowski at University Colle
ge, 
London, began to see racial thinking as the behavior to be explained. Anthropology has evolved to include issues of class and gender in its analyses, but the deconstruction of the explanatory power of the race concept continues to be the primary motivation for focusing on local communities and global processes. 140.192.149.26 16:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a major difference is that sociology sees humans as discreet beings seperatable from their activities (culture) and, though influenced by, the creators of culture.  Modern anthropology sees humans and culture as a cohesive structure with influence going both ways.  Also, most anthropologists believe in a much more fluid and self-determining relationship between culture, society, and individuals than it seems sociologists do.  Additionally, some anthropologists view this relationship as evolutionary...    So, as a tool for interpreting and manipulating a society within the same society, sociology isthe better tool.  As a tool for understanding a group of people, their culture, their physiological adaptations, their history, and their relatedness to others, anthropology is the best formal tool. Deathbunny 01:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthropology VS. Sociology 

message: Could someone explain the similarities and differences between Human Geography and Socio-Cultural Anthropology?  I've noticed that many Universities have Anthropology or Geograhpy Departments but they rarely have both. What is the history around this pattern?  
-Curious
:First of all, human genetics holds absolutely no factors on your culture. Now, I am an anthropology student, and for the most part, Anthropology deals with the cultural realities that pervade our society; where as Geography looks more at humans within a context of a location, i.e people in Russia's Komi region, or Urban studies. Anthropologists look at the culture of people. They study the phenomenology and look at how biological/medical factors, cultural, regional and physical factors could influence culture. This is also different from sociology. Traditionally, Anthropology dealt with foreign cultures, but not so today; however, Anthropology is closer now to sociology than before. Anthropology (again) is more concerned with the facts surrounding a cultural phenomenon, where as sociology focuses more on the statistics, it's placement within a context and the ability to form a rubric to better understand and fix the social inequalities. You may also wonder: "What importance does anthropology have in our modern context." Well, I'll tell you. Anthropology, since it allows us to understand society, helps us in the Legal, Medical, Business and educational fields. We seem to be blind to the fact that people of various cultures ignore medicine, because their own cosmology may not allow for much room for expirience with it. We also have truency among many aboriginal groups world wide, which alot of times can be explained culturally. Alot of business people employ anthropologists to give them a field research of the business possibilities in a new investment area.
:::"...human genetics holds absolutely no factors on your culture."  That's an odd and somewhat incorrect statement.  Human genetics is a major factor in human culture.  Human genetics is a major factor in human behavior.  Human behavior influences culture.  Culture influences human behavior.  Human behavior influences genetics.  Three short examples:  1.  Lactose tolerance after childhood is a genetic adaptation that is a result, over time, of living in a pastoral society.  This adaptation alters cultural practices by changing diets, social structures involving herd animals (including dairy vs. raisng for meat), and the results of a fat-rich diet.  2.  Mate selection is based on health and geneticically heritable traits.  These traits tend to be reinforced, sometimes to extremes.  The side effects of these extremes influence behavior and the cultural activities based on it.  3.  Several recent studies have attributed male homosexuality to genetic or epigenetic sources.  I won't even start on the cultural influences of male homosexuality or the responses to it and/or it's "prevention".Deathbunny 01:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthropology Vs. Geography 

message: I deleted this sentence, which at the least needs work:
:Over the past sixty years anthropology's increasingly leftist disposition has made intelligence work 'politically incorrect,' although changes to the American Anthropological Association's code of ethics have actually loosened restrictions on such work.
First, I think it is poor style to rely on "political correctness" as an explanation.  The shift refered to can be ascribed to two forces in my opinion: the relationship between eht anti-Vietnalm war movement and anthropology in the US signalled in part by Hymes edited volumne on reinventing anthropology, and second, the fact that in the post-colonial period native peoples around the world have much more autonomy and can decide whether or not anthropologists can work among them, thus discouraging anthropologists from activities (such as spying) that could get them in trouble with their hosts.  The first cause predates political correctness (as popularly understood) the second may be pragmatic or rooted in a pragmatic notion of ethics.  Second, the statement about the AAA code of ethics needs some work.  My recollection is the code still explicitly states that the reseaercher's first obligation is to the host community.  Am I wrong?  In any event, I think clarifying details are needed here, Slrubenstein
First, yes, it is poor style to refer to 'political correctness' and I will try to rewrite it :) But in general rather than just cut stuff out, wouldn't it be better to have added to the wikipedia by including  say, the content of your post to the entry itself rather than the talk page?
Second, the sentence uses "anthropology's increasingly leftist disposition" as an explanation of why "Intelligence work is 'politically incorrect'" rather than the other way around. So in fact there is no appeal to 'political correctness' as an explanatory concept. 
Vietnam was relevant for anthropology but in fact anthropologists did intelligence work there as well (see the kerfuffle in the New York Review of Books). Dell's book is part of a regular feature of anthropology in the United states where every twenty years a young generation demand an anthropology that is more 'relevant' than that of their professors. Hence it is part of an ongoing dynamic of 'increasingly leftist disposition' (although, to be sure, often a politically quiescent kind) rather than a 'before and after' shift. 
As for the idea that formal political independence gives local peoples more power over who works with them, the Yanomami controversy pretty much lays that idea to rest. The biggest step forward in ensuring informed consent from informants has come from changes to human subjects testing requirements in powerful countries. Fourth world peoples are often not well served by independent governments headed by national majority ethnic groups, and the postcolonial state, often lacking in capacity and resources, is hardly a guarentor of grassroots empowerment.
Finally, the discussion of the AAA code essentially correct:
: "Over the past several decades the explicit condemnations of secretive research have been removed from the AAA's code of ethics--the principles of professional responsibility (PPR). In 1971 the PPR specifically declared that "no secret research, no secret reports or debriefings of any kind should be agreed to or given" by members of the AAA. By 1990 the attenuation of anthropological ethics had reached a point where anthropologists were merely "under no professional obligation to provide reports or debriefing of any kind to government officials or employees, unless they have individually and explicitly agreed to do so in the terms of employment." These changes were largely accomplished in the 1984 revision of the PPR that Gerald Berreman characterized as reflecting the new "Reaganethics" of the association: In the prevailing climate of deregulation the responsibility for ethical review was shifted from the association to individual judgments. As anthropologist Laura Nader noted, these Reagan-era changes were primarily "moves to protect academic careers...downplaying anthropologists' paramount responsibility to those they study." The current PPR may be interpreted to mean that anthropologists don't have to be spies unless they want to or have agreed to do so in a contract. A 1995 Commission to Review the AAA Statements on Ethics declared that the committee on ethics had neither the authority nor the resources to investigate or arbitrate complaints of ethical violations and would "no longer adjudicate claims of unethical behavior and focus its efforts and resources on an ethics education program."" -David Price, Anthropologists as Spies
uh.... ok I'm done now :) Rex 18:11, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I just deleted a paragraph that I did not write, but which was ascribed to me.  However, I do appreciate your reply.  I had no idea about the jew-spy allegation and am glad you picked up on it and dealt with it.  I am glad you think the article is improving.  I look forward to reading your further contributions and hope that in those cases where we may differ we can work towards an accommodation, Slrubenstein
Unfortunately, Kevin MacDonald's scientific criticism of politics of anthropology as a part of a mainly Jewish leftist strategy has been cancelled by Slrubenstein.It's easy to cancel any uncomfortable criticism calling it "anti-Semitic".Cal State Prof. MacDonald's argumentation is well-founded, unemotional and accepted  by many of his  American colleagues and worlwide. He answered his critics in a well-founded unemotional way, too, weakening the counterarguments essentially. Is Wikipedia also a part of this media manipulation described by MacDonald?
Wikipedia is not part of the media manipulation described by MacDonald because 1) Wikipedia is not part of a manipulative conspiracy and 2) MacDonald may not describe a manipulative conspiracy. Please feel free write whatever you like. If you are the same person who inserted the earlier comments about John Barker and Price, you will see that your contributions have led to discussion which has improved the page - thanks for that. However you'll also note that in each of these cases neither Barker nor Price ended up being particularly good sources for claims of a 'mainly Jewish left wing conspiracy'. Barker very rarely mentions Boas in his book 'Race', which is outdated in any case because it entirely predates modern genetics. The reference to Price resulted in a conversation that concluded that against the original claims posted here that anthropologists and Jews have historically been widely employed in the intelligence community. I'll take a look at MacDonald's work in more detail shortly, but judging from what's on his website it seems like a close examination of his argument might reveal a position more nuanced (although still possibly objectionable) than your representation of him. I thank you for your contributions but in the future you may want to examine your sources more closely to ensure they actually support your points. Thanks. Rex 20:16, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are two links on MacDonald 
*Slate:"Evolutionary Psychology's Anti-Semite"
*Scholarship as an Exercise in Rhetorical Strategy: A Case Study of Kevin MacDonald's Research Techniques.   AndyL 22:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text:  "Prof. MacDonald's argumentation is well-founded, unemotional and accepted by many of his American colleagues and worlwide. "
Name them. AndyL 22:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  politics of anthropology 

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

message: *sigh* Littlefield's article (I assume I have found the right one) points out that Boas had an enormous impact on the institutional context of academic anthropology and that this impact explains the coverage of the concept of 'race' in textbooks. This is a separate issue from the idea that Boas pursuing a strategy to destroy western civilization in order to assure the victory of 'The Jews'. The wikipedia article already mentions Boas's prominence and opposition to the notion of race. I cut the reference to Baker (and am editing it again) because it was tacked on to a discussion of monographs by British social anthropologists, where it clearly does not belong. The fact that you no longer claim that Baker's book is an attack on Boas indicates you agree with the original reason I deleted it -- it does not support the claim you make. Also please note that Baker's professional speciality was cytology, not anthropology as you have claimed in the past. I am once more removing allegations that the American Anthropological Association /directly/ worked with the CIA in the 1950s. The wikipedia now has a detailed discussion of espionage and anthropology (including a discussion of Operation Camelot). If there are details of /direct/ collaboration of the CIA and the AAA I'd like to see them. As much as I respect your right to continue editing this page, if this sort of continued, baseless re-insertion of claims over and over continues I am going to opt for mediation and, if that fails, arbitration. Thanks Rex 21:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not involved in this article, but even without knowing the details I can agree that red-flag goes up when an anonymous editor repeatedly makes significant changes without explaining them.  If I may make a suggestion: get yourself a username and explain your changes. Even without changing the content of your edits, that will make your behavior seem more honest and understandable. My two cents.  Cheers,  -Willmcw 05:55, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuing to accomodate the anti-Boasian troll 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: Anyone who has this page on their watchlist, can you go to Virago?  A who is putting forward notions of racial and identifying them with a notion of gender-difference, and I are in a conflict.  Fundamentally, I believe he is a racist' his claims about race contradict everything I have read by physical and cultural anthropologists and as far as I can tell, his claims about gender at best seriously distort the literature.
You can see the difference here 
On the talk page, start here , and then just read the whole debate.
Comments from others needed.  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  help 

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

message: Anthropology and Ethnology are two different fields. However, seeing the state of the ethnological entry, it seems that anthropology, in particular in the US, is used for ethnology. Ethnology became a science in the early 20th century, whilst anthropology was, for example, studied by Kant. I don't think they should be merged, but amazingly, there doesn't seems to be anything relating the ethnology article to anthropology, not a word nor less a sentence. Why ? Lapaz
In the United States, Ethnology is merely another word for cultural or social anthropology.  These are not seperate fields, and never really were.DHBoggs 05:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthropology vs Ethnology 

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

message: This didn't seem to fit in under Anthropology in the United States:
Critiquing the same science in the service of racism, Anténor Firmin wrote De l'égalité des races humaines (1885) as a direct rebuttal to Count Arthur de Gobineau’s polemical four-volume work Essai sur I'lnegalite des Races Humaines (1853–1855), which asserted the superiority of the Aryan race and the inferiority of blacks and other people of color. Firmin’s work argued the opposite, that "all men are endowed with the same qualities and the same faults, without distinction of color or anatomical form. The races are equal" (pp. 450). Firmin grew up in Haiti, and was admitted to the Societé d’ Anthropologie de Paris in 1884 while serving as a diplomat. His persuasive critique and rigorous analysis of many of that society’s leading scholars made him an early pioneer in the so-called vindicationist struggle in anthropology. Many scholars also associate his work with the very first ideas of Pan-Africanism.
Maybe it could be pasted back in somewhere else.--Birdmessenger 12:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why doesn't it belongs there? I haven't add it, however, I did reverse changes concerning "history of anthropology". Why would you want to remove this? You could rewrite it if you think it's not good enough, but suppressing the topic of scientific racism and the examples given (Hottentot venus, Madison Grant, etc.) isn't well founded, is it? Lapaz 16:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed text on Anténor Firmin 

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

message: It appears that evolutionary anthropology is just a redirect to the evolution page. Should this be redirected to anthropology, or does it deserve to have its own page developed? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should probably go to a disambiguation page, with links to human evolution and sociocultural evolution. There is a vast literature both on hominid evolution that is rightly anthropological, but also on cultural evolution, including of course the historical approaches, but also a substantial and growing body of work on the application of mathematical tools such as cladistics and genetic models to understanding processes of cultural (memetic) change. Rattus 15:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works, at least for now. Perhaps it will be expanded into a full page at some point? Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary anthropology 

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

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

message: The inclusion of the "Four Fields Approach" as an American aspect of anthropology is very America-centric.  I think it should have its own section not linked to country.
* Agreed.  It was a problem when it was listed at the top of the article as though four-field anthropology was the international consensus, but it was probably too limiting to list it under the US-specific section, given that for a variety of reasons Boasian four-field anthropology has been internationally influential in the structuring of the discipline.  Zenauberon 16:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I think it does that now, no?  (If not, I'm certainly not opposed to more edits to make the origins and actual diffusion clearer.  But I do think it drives home the point as written.)  Zenauberon 23:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four Fields Approach 

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

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

message: While I happen to agree that the list of links had grown too long, the recent scrubbing of all links and replacement with the dmoz template is the most extreme measure suggested under WP:EL, and is supposed to be an intermediate step:
"Long lists of links are not appropriate: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. If you find a long list of links in an article, you can tag the 'External links' section with the linkfarm template. Where editors have not reached consensus on an appropriate list of links, a link to a well chosen web directory category could be used until such consensus can be reached. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the dmoz template."
Any explicit attempt to reach consensus has never taken place, as far as I can see.  I haven't reverted the edit - like I mentioned I largely agree with the deletions, and am not particularly a fan of linkspam myself.  But I think some discussion is warranted.  For my part, I would like to see links restored to a couple of the major international anthropological associations.   Zenauberon 15:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree to restore them all. A discussion was needed before such removal.--SummerWithMorons 10:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link Scrubbing 

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

message: Now, US Army's strategy in Afghanistan: better anthropology reports that anthropology is once again being used in warfare as "Counterinsurgency efforts focus on better grasping and meeting local needs" in Afghanistan, under the rubric of Human Terrain Team (HHT). See also Anthropologists at war. 
Editors seriously interested in this article need to seriously address this issue. Pawyilee 04:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about a subsection of "The politics of Anthropology" titled "Anthropology during wartime" to cover both the history and use of the discipline in conflict (colonial, WWII, Vietnam, current...)? James Haughton 03:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "The politics of Anthropology" calls to my mind conflicts between anthropologists, NOT the use of anthropology to advance political objectives in wartime or peace. I'd suggest "'Practical' Uses of Anthropology", but would not object to changing my 'Practical' to your 'Political', especially if it gets written! What I've read of the WW-II use of anthropology was that it helped make peace possible between former combatants, and greatly aided non-combatants, as well. Peace-time use of anthropology can take on many dimensions. Analyzing garbage in a local dump using methods developed for kitchens middens can be used to tailor planning for land use in that community, and also tailor advertising campaigns to sell it commercial products or politicians. Anthropology can be used to make a community and its infrastructure safer and more livable, or more amenable to control, but I live in a remote area with erratic Internet access, can't find sources to support this on the 'net, and most are on library shelves an the other side of the world from me, anyhow. Pawyilee 09:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. Somebody added "politics of Anthropology", and I added my bit abut HTTs under "However". I also added to Operation_Enduring_Freedom#Criticism: For one U.S. Army response, see The Human Terrain System: A CORDS for the 21st Century. Pawyilee (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks good.  I removed the link to the blog though--in the edit summary I wrote "per WP:EL" (policy on external links) when I meant WP:SPS  (policy on verifiability and self published sources.  In either case, Wikipedia discourages the use of blogs as sources except in limited situations.  The rest of the addition looks good though. -Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. I hadn't noticed Anthropologists at War was a blog; nor did I know about SPS. In line with previous discussion, I tucked my edit into Politics of anthropology despite my own preference for Practical Uses of Anthropology. That yearns for an article in its own write, to cover all practical uses, not just in warfare; but is beyond my capabilities to start it. Meanwhile. I'm dissatisfied with the way reference to HTTs is tucked away where it can be easily overlooked. John Paul Vann and Civil_Affairs#Vietnam, cry for development into "Anthropology during wartime". See also Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development; Support--CORDS Pawyilee (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text:  Also see links above section heading, just added to discussion of Anthropology during World War II. Pawyilee (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Terrain Team (HTT) 

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

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

message: Could some editors comment on this bit in the intro:
The term was first used in print in 1593 to refer to a branch of history which studies the arts, kinship, and practices of man.
I changed man to humankind.  Anon (who has been vandalizing other articles all day) changed it back to man.  A third editor placed "man" in quotation marks.  My position is that there is little reason to use gender specific language that has fallen out of favor in anthropology at all unless we are directly quoting something (as is the case with Tylor later in the article). --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 02:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking more closely, the claim made in the sentence above appears to violate the policy on primary sources.  A second issue is that I have been unable to verify either through Google or JSTOR that the essay cited* has anything to do at all with anthropology. So I'm inclined to delete this sentence altogether.  Comments? --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: *Harvey, Richard (1593) "An astrological discourse upon the conjunction of Saturne and Jupiter 1583 Philadelphus, or a defence of Brutes and the Brutans history 1593 Plaine Percevall the peace-maker of England 1590 (1860)
I think the use of Man could be appropriate precisely because of its datedness, but the sentence in question seems doubtable, so why not remove it entirely, as you suggest? I back that. --Girl2k (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Cool--I'll nuke it then.  If this passage is important to anyone, they should try to find a secondary source that confirms the "first use" claim. --Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthropology as the "study of man" 

message: I am rather perplexed by the two sentences at the end of the current article - 
"It has been reported that there has been an "institutional and academic apartheid" between the two sorts of anthropology, the one focusing on the "Other" and the one focusing on the "Self" contemporary society; an apartheid ranging from a "no contact" status to even open conflict. The countries where this was greater were Germany and Norway, but it was also significant in the 1980s France."
There is a direct quotation without a reference, the grammar is not very good and I really have no idea what it means. Moreover, "apartheid" is a hugely loaded word. Could someone please clarify what is going on here so we can make this section comprehensible, or is there a tacit consensus that it is gobbledeegook? Calypygian (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apartheid? 

message: Seems like most of this article is taken up by the history of the subject and by its regional practices.  Couldn't something a lil' more general be better for the casual reader?  -- some drunk dude.
I agreee with 'drunk dude'. This article needs to say something about anthropology after 1970. You'd think from this article that it's about something that no longer exists.--Girl2k (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You were right. Fixed. It appears to be from: Wolf, Eric R. 1964 Anthropology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. I'll see if I can find a copy for the page number. --Woland (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure the word 'anthropology' is first used by Kant. This should be added if it can be confirmed. TheTyrant (talk) 03:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell you're about 200 years off. It was first coined in 1593 and Kant used it in the late 18th century. I can't seem to find a citation for this but every dictionary I've looked at gives the late 16th century as the time of coinage.--Woland (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which brings us to the point of why isn't Kant mentioned in the article?  He calls for the invention of a science of anthropology in the introduction to the Critique of Pure Reason (first edition).  It's the first time anyone used the term in its modern sense, that I'm aware of.  He shows where anthropology and philosophy touch each other and what each should take on, as disciplines.  I believe that writers like Tolstoy were certainly influenced by the need for detailed description of what would eventually be called "culture."  There's a lot missing from this article.Levalley (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Anthropology 

message: I would be grateful if contributors here could comment on the page Nordic race and associated Talk page. Paul B 23:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Race itself has yet to become a topic.  To make it a topic, a section on population genetics would need to be written.  Various views or race would have to be presented.  Given the article's present organization, the entire history of notions of race would have to be reference (although I agree that "race" should be one of the topics at least mentioned here - and key views in anthropology on that topic given, as related in standard textbooks in the field).  Even a short history of anthropological notions of race isn't present - so how could anyone meaningfully add "Nordic race" without...being ethnocentric?  We have to keep this article balanced.  It's not even balanced on its four (or more) subfields...can't get to Nordic race without that...Levalley (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nordic race 

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

message: This section seems to be redundant with other material and relies heavily on a single book about urban ethnography for statements about anthropology and ethnocentrism/orientalism in general. It might be better deleted entirely or else incorporated into Controversies in Anthropology above. Any thoughts? Mccajor (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've questioned the "classic" status of this one book (which to me is rather arcane).  I tried to rescue the section by making it relate to more general notions in anthropology (like etic and emic), but my talk page reveals the dissent over that.  So, instead of trying to edit it - I'm also in favor of just deleting it.  There is absolutely no reason to single out this one subfield (urban), call it "major discussion," and then not actually get into what is major, regarding it.  It's just a random subfield, especially from the point of view of any non-anthropologist reading the article.Levalley (talk) 05:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major discussions about anthropology 

message: This wikipedia article is a mess. It needs some major clean up and re classification.
It should be noted there there are Different types of anthropology. 
Cultural anthropology should not be confused Physical anthropology. They are in different worlds. One study human cultures while the other study human remains.
Maybe the article needs to be broken up into two totally seperate wikipedia articles?
--Bill
::It is simply not true that they are two different fields.  Many, many anthropologists do some of both - although it is true that most people who specialize (and not everyone does) specializes in one or the other.  There are lots and lots of texts that do both and physical/biological anthropology also studies contemporary humans.  Chagnon is a physical anthropologist - he went to collect blood from the Yanomamo.--Levalley (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Chagnon was not a physical anthropologist.  He was a cultural anthropologist. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're wrong.  He eventually became known as a cultural anthropologist.  Look at his funding for his Yanomamo work!  Look at what he was hired to do (Draw blood!)  He describes himself as a sociobiological anthropology (google it).  Read more biographies of Chagnon or call him on the phone.Levalley (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: was grossly misleading.  I removed this material:
:Ethnography is both one of its primary methods and the text that is written as a result of the practice of anthropology and its elements. 
:Since the work of Franz Boas and Bronisław Malinowski in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, anthropology has been distinguished from other social science disciplines by its emphasis on in-depth examination of context, cross-cultural comparisons (socio-cultural anthropology is by nature a comparative discipline), and the importance it places on long-term, experiential immersion in the area of research, often known as participant-observation. Cultural anthropology in particular has emphasized cultural relativity and the use of findings to frame cultural critiques. This has been particularly prominent in the United States, from Boas's arguments against 19th-century racial ideology, through Margaret Mead's advocacy for gender equality and sexual liberation, to current criticisms of post-colonial oppression, and promotion of multiculturalism.
Which I am guessing dates to the short-lived attempt to merge cultural and social anthropology.  This material is in and of itself accurate and well-written and I sure wish I knew where to put it into the article.  The problem is, it applies to social andthropology and cultural anthropology which, both cultural and social anthropologists would agree, are branches of anthropology and not anthropology itself.  We cannot have a lead that describes one part of anthropology and that does not introduce all of anthropology or all of the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The debate over social vs. cultural is sophomoric and something easily resolved in introductory courses in any field of anthropology within about five minutes (and in various ways, but it's still just lorry vs. truck in the end).  It's too bad this language didn't stay in the article - it's much better than what's there and is accurate and seems neutral  It discusses both American and British anthropologists (I'd put Malinowski's name first since without doubt he was the first person to hold a chair in anthropology and a department of anthropology was invented for him to have employment in).  I would add that anthropology (social and cultural) is influenced by observational practices common in the zoological sciences.  I wish you knew where to put it too - you're doing a fine job trying to clean up and improve this article, but it's very hard to fix an already-existing article that has its own trajectory, and I'm noticing, on Wikipedia that this petty kind of debate often results on longterm silences and very poor articles.  Levalley (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be your point of view that the debate over social versus cultural is sophmoric, but this is not how we make decisions at Wikipedia.  By the way, wasn't Tylor appointed professor of anthropology in 1896? And Boas in 1899?  These are both before Malinowski.  Why must it be a chair? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go with Sir Edward being the first professional anthropologist - that makes sense.  However, it negates the point about the British calling themselves "social anthropologists," as of course Tylor called himself a cultural anthropologist.  Tylor, in my view, never did traditional anthropological fieldwork, but he certainly did travel and he put forth many of the central theoretical concerns, so that's fine by me.  He was first hired, as you say, in 1896 - which still fits with "modern anthropology" being primarily a 20th century science.  I think the article should be about the modern contemporary academic discipline and not about every attempt at all times of humans to understand other humans.  In 1887, Boas was still calling himself a geographer, but by 1894 was referring to himself as an ethnologist and had obtained jobs in curatorship (so no, it doesn't have to be a chair in anthropology - and that would make Boas a little earlier than Tylor, if it matters.  If, however, Boas is to be considered an anthropologist in the mid-90's, then I think Morgan and Powell ought at least to have a mention.  Boas organized the first real fieldwork expedition (in my opinion) in 1897.  Oddly, his first appointment at Columbia were in physical, not cultural anthropology (it's always been blurry, in my view).  Somehow, the article should make mention of 19th century evolutionists (like Morgan) and then situate modern anthropology as rising in the 90's and becoming established in the first 20 years of the 20th century.  Of the articles on Wikipedia on anthropologists, I think the one on Boas is the best, so leading with him makes sense, wiki-wise.  But you're right - it doesn't have to have a chair.Levalley (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I did not say mid-1990s for Boas, I said 1999 because that is when he was appointed professor of anthropology.  Of course Tylor and other arm-chair anthropologists called themselves cultural anthropologists given 19th century ideologies, but most Brits today call themselves social anthropologists.  There certainly is a difference between social anthropology and cultural anthropology, even if individual practicioners read some of the same books and develop hybrid practices.  As to making changes, one way to start is not to call the work of others "silly" and to assume that it was made if good faith even if it can be improved upon. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say nineteen-90's, either - I figured by now the two of us knew we were talking about the 19th century for Boas!  Silly isn't perjorative to me, but I won't use it any more on wikipedia.  Do you have a citation for "most Brits call themselves" social anthropologists?  When I go to meetings and meet Brits, they seem to make the effort to convert their language into Americanisms rather readily - and when they come for employment interviews at our college, they rarely use "social anthropology" - so are you saying that when back home, in their native context, that's what they prefer?  I have a very good friend who is a British anthropologist (now teaching in Holland) but prefers cultural anthropologist (don't know why, will ask her).  Could this be changing?  At any rate, Tylor was a British anthropologist (even if mostly armchair - he did travel, remember) and did he call himself a social anthropologist?  When did the switch take place, in your view?  And, conversely, I had professors at Stanford (two in particular, neither of them British) who called themselves social anthropologists (and of course, several who said socio-cultural).  It's always seemed quite fluid to me, based on years and years of observing anthropologists from many nations.  One of my professors was born in Japan, trained there and in the United States and used both terms to refer to himself.  I wish someone could provide, other than a regional dialectical difference, an explanation of how (for example) the work of Evans-Pritchard is somehow different from the work of some comparable American anthropologist.  That would help elucidate this elusive difference.  Malinowski, R-B and E-P would be core British social anthropologists, am I right?  I'm forgetting now, what do French anthropologists call themselves, in terms of what Wikipedia already says?--Levalley (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry, it was a typo, I meant mid-1890s - I think that is what you wrote but Boas got the title in 1999. About brits: I think that Geertz, Schneider and Wagner had a big impact on them as an alternative to structuralism when social anthropology was reeling from the post-colonial critique (e.g. Asad 1973) so yes I think there are many British anthropologists drawn towards cultural anthropology although I hasten to add that the cultural anthropology of geertz, Schneider and Wagner is of a very particular type given the lineage (one pre-adapted for British tastes).  Tylor was a cultural anthropologist, I think the shift came under Malinowski who was adamant about "social anhthropology" and then Radcliffe-Brown.  As to today, well, I certainly do think the Geertz-Schneder brand of cultural anthropology, and structuralism, appeal to many.  But I am guessing that the people applying for jobs in the US are either drawn particularly to America and American anthropology, or prepare for the interview by brushing up.  My experience in the UK is that most anthropologists very much work in a British tradition and I am talking about lineages; they will cite a US or French anthropologist if he went to LSE and trained under Maurice Bloch ... but the point is will generally cite students of Bloch.  Or whoever was their advisor at Oxford or Cambridge (Needham?  Whomever).  I have heard many say that "sociality" remains their prime theoretical concept and problem, and when I read their work it is evident in much of their work that this is indeed the case. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one of the best and most practical explanations of the difference I've seen, but I still think it will be opaque to most Wikipedia readers.  That's okay, I guess.  I did go look at course outlines and reading lists at Oxford Courses (where they call the program Social and Cultural Anthropology, but also have separate degrees in Social Anthropology), and I have to say, they seem to be reading equally from American and British anthropology (indeed, although I can't say this today because I haven't enough data), first glance appears to show that British anthropology courses use a great deal of American anthropology in them.  For the M.Sc. in Social Anthropology, the requirements are virtually identical to what mine were, at an American university:  MSc in Social Anthropology
    * Length of programme: Twelve months
    * Core and option courses: Part One:
      I. Fundamental concepts in Social and Cultural Anthropology;
      II. The social and moral order;
      III. Perception and experience;
      IV. Option paper (topic or region).
      Part Two: thesis (approx. 10,000 words). 
Note the inclusion of both Social and Cultural anthropology (and the inclusion of perception as well - same thing we had to do here).  This is Oxford's requirements.  My cohort was also required to have what they termed "social organization" and another course in "kinship," and in those courses, we read a lot of British anthropology.  So, I guess that's why it's hard for me to see the difference.  Today, people I graduated with are teaching in London and New Guinea, as well as in the United States, and there are Brits teaching in anthropology all over the U.S. - but I've never heard anyone say they came over to "learn American anthropology" or "cultural anthropology."  The broad, evolving toolkit of British and American anthropology (as it says in the Oxford literature) seems quite similar.  Is there anything current written on this difference?  I thought the discussion had very much died away.--Levalley (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: The difference is very clear when one looks at their understanding of functionalism.  By the way, Talcott parsons (who trained Geertz and Schneider) had a model of social action that incorporated both - biological needs and the roles and expectations attached to social roles and institutions ... Thanks for the complement in the explanation.  I see American cultural anthropology as a clear set of theories developed by Boas, Benedict, and Sapir some of which still have currency today; I see the key to cultural anthropology as its being one of four fields.  If the four field approach goes 9as it may) "cultural anthropology" may go too.  I think the key factor though when it comes to your experience and those of others you know is that post WWII structural functionalism dominated both in the US and UK.  Cultural anthropology had a resurgence in the US with the publication of Reinventing Anthropology but it is my sense that US anthropologists read more "UK" "social anthropology" than Brits read cultural anthropology.  How many Brits have read any Radin or Sapir?  Eric Wolf?  How many know who Morton Fried or Elman Service were?  I think we have to start with an honest account ... and then work on a way to explain it to Wikipedian audiences.  I think the big problem is that in believing that the objects of science are real, people go on to reify science itself.  Thus, since the laws of physics are the same all over the universe, physics is the same all over the universe.  Okay, but there is no reason for this to hold for the human sciences.  Even a Malinowskian functionalist would agree that different cultures are different.  Is it such a surprise that American anthropologists have a different way of studying people (using the culture concept) and British anthropologists come up with another way (focusing on the social)?  After mall: if there is any value to Americans reading the books of Brits and Brits reading the books of Americans, it would be because those books are different.  What I mean is, just because Americans eat Chinese food does not make Chinese food American (though I grant it is often Americanized!!) Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, then, that the difference is more "American vs. British" than cultural vs. social (since both of those second terms are used in both regions).  However, if we agree to have American=cultural (somehow, as a way of simplifying) and British=social, etc., we could at least communicate.  I have no idea how you would figure out who, in Britain, had read Sapir or Wolf, but all the European anthropologists I happen to know (a couple dozen) have read them - but that could be because we are in similar subfields and it's unavoidable to run into those names.  We do, after all, attend each others' meetings and read each others' books and articles.  I disagree entirely with your dismissal of the use of the term (so far undefined) "laws" in either physics or the social sciences.  I have my own views on the use of these terms in the sciences (and I consider anthropology to be a science; as you know, not everyone shares this view).  I also consider some aspects of science to be aesthetic or observational, it's not all verifiable.  Your claim that Americans read British books because they are different, but that's not why I read them.  I read them when they are pertinent to what I'm studying.  I don't know who your anthropological friends and citations are, but that's true for virtually every anthropologist I read.  If you're studying kinship systems in New Guinea, for example (I have a particular person in mind who is, I believe, right now the world's expert on that topic), you will read American and British work on New Guinea kinship systems.  If you're studying Walbiri kinship systems, you'll do the same (and that's exactly what you'll see in monographs).  Where are you getting the idea that I'd read (or anyone would read) a British anthropologist merely because he or she was British and therefore "different"?  Who does this?  One might wish to have many different kinds of accounts, but it's been a long time since the two national approaches were so different that merely reading one or the other provided any kind of certainty that one had "different" points of view.  I was trained by people who were not at all heavily influenced by functionalism (indeed, quite critical).  I'm not that young, either.  I'd be very interested in hearing more from you on the two different views on functionalism (British and American) because I think you must be pointing to a time in anthropology in the mid-20th century that isn't well covered in the history of theory books I have on hand (I've got Marvin Harris's book right here, and two others - I'm going to reread them over Spring break and try to figure out what he says about the growth of the two national schools; he has lots of other sources, I'll check 'em out).  Indeed, having a wiki-article on the two different views of functionalism (and, I would presume, structural-functionalism) would be great and a much-needed addition to the anthropology project.  I am not doubting your perceptions, really, I just was not taught to look at it that way, and nearly everyone I read, in anthropology (and I can't possibly read more than a fraction of what is published) has international sources.  Chinese, Japanese and French anthropology have all been quite influential in the areas where I work, and I've seen some things written about the differences among those national traditionals - so perhaps a general article on "national traditions in anthropology" is in order.  We could then note historical preferences in terminology and how they changed over time.  However, this is certainly not a front burner topic for me, as I think the entire issue is, as I've said, waning.  The four subfield thing is similarly (to me) an odd topic.  I know it's used in introductory textbooks all the time - but seriously, where else is it used?  I'm curious.  Do you really think it operates in American academia?  Maybe it does.  Some departments have divided along three subfield lines (physical and archaeology off on their own, linguistics on their own, sociocultural on its own), some have divided on a two subfield basis (physical/archaeological vs. linguistic/sociocultural), a lot depends on budget - not academic will.  But, I use the rubric myself in teaching introductory anthropology - it's a way of introducing the field that works.Levalley (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

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