• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Preface
 Table of Contents
 Introduction: Anthropology...
 The fields of anthropology:...
 What is knowledge in anthropol...
 Theory in anthropology
 Deductive and inductive anthro...
 Models in anthropology
 Concepts in anthropology
 Validation in anthropology
 Methods in anthropology
 Contemporary trends and applications...
 Conclusions
 Annotated bibliography














Title: nature of anthropology
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00087474/00001
 Material Information
Title: nature of anthropology
Physical Description: Archival
Creator: Spring, Anita
Publisher: Spring, Anita
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00087474
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Preface
        Preface
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Introduction: Anthropology today
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    The fields of anthropology: Definitions
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
    What is knowledge in anthropology?
        Page 14
        Page 15
    Theory in anthropology
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
    Deductive and inductive anthropology
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
    Models in anthropology
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
    Concepts in anthropology
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
    Validation in anthropology
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
    Methods in anthropology
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
    Contemporary trends and applications in anthropology
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
    Conclusions
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
    Annotated bibliography
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
Full Text
THE NATURE 0? AETKROPOIOG-Y
Anita' Spring
Social Science 200 Dr. Ashby December 8,'M 964
JJL
.66


Ireface
In a paper of this nature, the writer must severly limit his concerns. The multitude of literature within the discipline of'anthropology attests to the vastness of the subject matter. And each field alone has a large "body of material. '
The kinds of limitations I have made:are as follows: ?irst antecedent fields and the development of each field will not be treated except as a side issue in the brief descriptions of the fields. Second, although a aorkins specification of physical anthropology will be divert, the main emphasis will be toward cultural anthropology, tThird, emphasis will be placed, on fairly contemporary' issues and philosophical controversy within the discipline. Fourth, anthropological concerns and relations to... the ether social sciences, and v^ssa-versa, will be treated briefly.
A.3.


Table of Contents
I Introduction
Anthropology and the Social Sciences The Fields, 'of Anthropology; p'"
II hhat is 2Cnowledge in Anthropology? Theory in Anthropology
Deductive and Inductive Theory Building Models of. Culture Concepts in Anthropology -
Validation of Knowledge
Summary: Is Anthropological Knowledge Scientific?
III Methods in Anthropology The Scientific Approach The Behavioral Approach.
The Comparative- Method :
Pield Work and Hole Positions
Other.' Methods .
IV Trends and Applications in Anthropology
ExpandIng Knowledge ....
Culture Theory Culture and Personality Social and Cultural Change Applied Anthropology
Conclusion
V Bibliography


I. INTRO DUCT I OS"ANTHROPOLOGY TODAY
Kroeber said even "if the profession is small the subject matter of anthropology' is- enormous., as well as unusually varied. Anthropology today consists of a myriad, of fields and areas; some have tried to limit its score, others to broaden it. The study of man and his manifestations certainly draws upon many disciplines. '11 thin the area itself, discrepancies arise as to its-own constituent parts. The Araeri- can School has a holistic approach; all fields of anthropol- ogyphysical, cultural, social, applied, archaeology, linguintics are Included. The British school divides social anthropology from the others. I do not wi~h to pursue the arguments of .the lumpers" and. "splitters" because I conceive of anthropology from-a holistic view. '. I.roeber, in summing up the achievements of anthropology in- the first fifty years of this, century, said thst anthropology is a contribution to an attitude or state of mind. Half'a century has transformed a "loose collocation of separate physical, social, cultural and linguistic Interests, ancient and modern, '-rim-' itiv.e and civilized, into an integrated attach on the biological, the sociocul'tural, and the linguistic phenomena presented by manan attach held together by a common at-
1. Alfred L. Zroeber, "The'Subject latter of Anthropology" ,-in Pried (ed) Readings in Anthropology, 1959, p.3'. '


2. Alfred L. Kroeber "Anthropology" Scientific A rr, eric an, Vol. 1950, p.94. '
titude."2
Within each branch of anthropology, the individual methods and concerns are foremost. Different schools of thought have' re-defined old methods and proposed new ones as additional data Increases our hno'-rledge and corrects previous mistakes. But lust as a branch of anthropology grows and progresses, the fields outside from which it draws upon do .also; no branch is completely a self-contained unit because of the nature of the subject matter. The more advances made in supporting fields, the more anthropology can advance. Consider the discovery of carbon-14 and its application te archaeological dating. Certainly a main concern; of archaeology-has always been to date sites and artifacts; there was never any debate over the necessity of dating. But in order for this technique to be developed and used, as an archaeological tool, we must consider the backlog of developments within chemistry and physics which made it possible. Or consider how much of the "how" process of evolutionary theory today is explained by genetic mechanism. Genetics was so vaguely connected with evolution, at the onset of its establishment as a study in itself,.as to he almost completely abandoned in this connection. And it was not until genetic theory was researched and set up as a.mechanism before "a could be utilized in anthropology-and, in fact, today is a leading lino


>
of concern to physical anthropologists. sPae' point ic, al-thongh anthropology certainly advances within Its own' sphere, because of its very nature It. is dependent iipon other disciplines; hence, as other fields advance, anthropology does, too.
Progress in one branch of anthropology directly affects advances in another branch. Consider the theory of the con- cent of culture developed In cultural anthropology. This concept both unifies the branches of anthropology and is applicable within each branch. Archaeologists-must always keep In mind. ..the totality of culture even though they will only find fragments of It. Physical anthropologists stress how evolutionary damages were contingent upon the development of culture. Linguists realise that the culture develops and changes language, but the language sets limits on thoughts and patterns within,the culture. '
hiuchhehs" holds that three things unify anthropology: (1 ) a focus on man in all Ills' variation and sir.iila.rity; (2) a coneintently comparative point of view; and (3) a stubborn conviction '"'that history, phys.iquo, environment, ::ay of life and language, are all-related in discoverable patterns g ,
Anthropology views humanity holistically. All aspects of a culture are -considered and interrelated. As such many
3. Clyde hluchhohn, ."Anthropology" in James hewman (ed.) hhat is Science, 1933. '


of the other social sciences have "been included; for example, anthropologists study the economic and political aspects of a society. Anthropology is eclectic in methodology combining standard tools and heuristic devices fro re the other social sciences .especially psychology and sociology,.and from the natural sciences^especially biology, paleontology and geology. The separation of anthropology fro:;: the sister "disciplines has been historical and traditional. Sociology, psychology, political science, economies, history, geography each differentiate themselves by the hind of knowledge'they seek, the methods of collection, and analysis. However, the overlap between disciplines makes for many arguments as to the way they are "curt up." Anthropology was often considered a science of leftovers. It- considers parts of each of the other disciplines in Its subject matter. '
However, awn kinds ..of foci liluckhohn has stated dis-tingwishes anthropology from the other social sciences,' Sociology, its closest "sister," does net have these foci. Sociology focuses on group and institutIonaI variation and similarity within western society, and it does, not use the comparative' point of view between societies; nor does it consid or history, physique, languageor nan In his totality. Psychology focuses or individual variation and similarities but not on the other-*. Political science often us.es the comparative viewpoint but only concentrates on the political systems of society.


Eedfield says that the "complete Identification of anthropology with 'the behavioral sciences' is also checked by the necessity that the anthropologist, in understanding a culture or a personality, is guided by projection of his own human qualities into the situation to be understood. The anthropologics joi-rn human nature is an instrument of work,"^ Although bchavioralists and students of the scientific approach in anthropology would argue against using this hind of projection, much anthropological work has been done this nay. Anthropology could be compared to the position of the social sciences: between the humanities and natural sciences. Physical anthropology is close to biological, sciences, anthropological experimentation.'approaches laboratory procedures, but at the sane tine primitive art and folklore approaches artistic and literary concerns and subjective insights methods are close to humanities.
But anthropology has always had a diversity in its subject matter and methods; it is as diverse todey as when it was first founded. It draws from all branches of knowledge. And there is a constant tension between humanistic and scientific pulls. lax says that "anthropologists generally share a partiei\lar set of intellectual preferences and habits which have historic roots, which distinguish then from most 'social scientists' and which are a basis of self selection of the
4. Robert Redfield, "Relations of Anthropology to the Social Sciences and (,]:o the Humanities" in Sol Tan (ed) Anthro-polo my Today / ."i o2\


5. Sol Tan, "Integration of Anthropology" in William Thomas (ed) Current Anthropolo ay, ,1956,?.520.
group.The openness of boundaries, a variety of subjects and tools, and a liberal view of other cultures and people are some of the preferences. It is useful no*.,* to examine some of the divisions and subfields that have been grouped together on divided out as "Anthropology."


The Fields of Anthropology: Definitions
"Anthropology is the scientific study of man and his culture: the study of human physical form, social behavior, beliefs, languages, and nays,of doing and making things. Anthropology is usually divided into two main areas: physical end cultural anthropology. The main branches are often stated as physical anthropology, cultural and social anthropology, archaeology, and linguistics. I shall briefly define the fields; however, my concern for limiting the size of this paper prevents a full description of the development, major works, and trends of each of the fields. Throughout the paper some of these aspects will be covered and in SectionlV culture ana personality, social and cultural change (Acculturation) ,' and' applied anthropology will be discussed in some detail. Culture theory is discussed further in Sections II andtV. Ky treatments of physical, anthropology, linguistics, and archaeology are brief since I shall concentrate on cultural anthropology.
A, Physical anthropology consists of two categories: human
paleontology "which studies human fossils and their meaning
7
in terms of long-range human evolution," and human population biology and human genetics "which study the adaptation to differing environments and the hereditary characteristics
6. VhilliamO. Sturfsvant, "The Fields of Anthropology" in
k. Pried (ed) Readings in Anthropology, 1959.
7. Ibid., p.7.


ii 0
of living populations," The physical anthropologist is concerned with human variation and thegeographical distribution of this variation.
Physical anthropology began with classification and measurement of body, shull, and shin types (anthropometry or somatology). Today, workers are more concerned with processes, theory, and. verifying hypotheses. Physical anthropologists have built an evolutionary scheme from the fossil- record. The modern synthetic and mechanistic theory of evolution has replaced, Darwin's orthogenesis theory. Culture theory is explaining evolutionary mechanism, hew methods include re-flection colorimeters, radiographs, spectophotometers for classification, blood types and genetic factors- in racial classificationjand-Carbon-14 and.Potassium/irgon for dating of fossils.
S. Cultural anthropology encompasses the fields which deal with arm's culture, his behavior and beliefs, and artifacts. Traditionally, non-literate and less complex societies have
been considered.
1. Archaeology deals with the past cultural history of
prehistoric peoples, alt aims--to "reconstruct the lives and interests of these peoples as well as studying change, and migration''patterns .. Classical'archaeology studies the re-. mains of litorate: peoples of thcl'major civilizations of the hoar and Kiddle 3ast, Europe, and the Par East.


Ihrehistorians or anthropological archaeologists study the remains of nre-litcrate periods of the above groups as well as the remains of non-literate groups..
p^processual understanding and a chronology and distribution of form, space, and. time, of 'the natural and cultural content Archaeology deals with patterned, behavior in its cultural aspect. Theorists have stressed the functional interpretation of findings to go beyond mere des-
Q
cription of artifacts. Phillips" differentiates three levels on the observation level both archaeology and cultural anthropology do field work; on the description level archaeology is concerned with historical integration in time and space as is ethnography; on the explanation, level archaeology --is concerned with functional interpretation of regularities' as is ethnology.
2. ethnology "is the study of the cultures of living
peoples and also of cultures no lor. ger in existence but
"1 0
for which eye witness written records survive.
a. Ethnology in. a narrow sense is concerned with comparison between cultures to ascertain cross-cultural general laws and to classify individual cultures by historical connections or cultural types.
9. Philip Phillips, "American Archaeology and General Anthro-
pological Theory" in I-!.'Pried- (ed) Readings in Anthropology, 1959, PP. 251-255. 5
10. Sturtevant, op. cit., p. 10,
The major object!
f modern archaeology in America


1 0
The ma34 '.-fork in ethnology was done by the 19th Century
Evolution in ts. Maine, Tylor, and McLennen in-.England,
Bachpfen in Switzerland,, Powell and Korgan in. the United
States, Bastiao, Klenn, Ratzel, and Graebner in Germany, .
and D^rkheim in France postulated a priori developmental
schemes of the family,. religion, and' cultural growth from
a "primitive"' state .to civilization. They were influenced
by Social Dars-rinism and the concept of progress of civil-
ization. Ethnology wis out of' vogue durlna'most of the .
-"A '
20th Century. ; Today, there has been a revival of ethnology "by Steward, Chi Id e, and White." This evolutionism is multilinearno t stressing stages of. cultural'achievement, through which all societies must pass, but rather.similar social forms having like.functions developed through similar-' but Independent adaptation of sequences and. processes
b. Ethnc4t&f}l^jconsists of'description of the customs, and beliefs of a society and how they fit together into the -integrated whole society. 'Ethnograpbf.es occupy a foremost concern of anthropological-research. Early -workers tried to describe cultures before the latter died out. They con centrated on descriptions of all aspects of culture. Contemporary field workers do^research with certain questions in mind. The' aim is to gather valid data on particular aspects of culture to use in generalization building. Ponographs are the result of this work...'-The main areas of ethnographic 'work "have been North 'American .Indians,


African tribes, and Oceania groups'. Asia. South America, and Zurope have been studied to lesser degrees.
c. Social anthropology stresses analysis of social organization of societies often less erotic and more complex than the ethnographers. Social anthropologists are interested in defining the tyres of social organization and in searching for general laws of human social behavior. They tend to be uninterested in historical aspects of culture not related, to social organization.
Social anthropology stems from Pnrhheim's approach to society. British anthropology today, is mainly social anthropology. Ida lino wski and hadcliffe~Brown have, been the main codifiors of social anthropologics! theoryfunction-all srn. halinoirshi has used function as the means bp which institutions provide for individual and societal needs. Padcliffo-Brown has developed the structural-functional theory of society and initiated social structural relations studies., British social anthropology end especially functionalist! has he.d great influence in American anthropology,' yhile it has not been talc en over as it stands, the functional approach has'been Incorporated with the historical and iutogrationist approaches in American anthropologists' theories.
d, Culture and personality combines theories and techniques from psychology and psychiatry in an attempt to specify how culture shapes the individual's' Personality


and visa-versa.
e. Social and cultural change is concerned with the alteration of societies through'- tine an** contact. "-Cultural change' workers-concentrate on changes;'through tire; they attempt to delineate processes. Social change workers 'are concerned with the' integration of society, and what changes in some aspects of society have on other aspects .
- 3. Linguistics As the scientific study of languages. Descriptive linguistics "is. concerned.with the analysis of language at one point in. time: ; their- sound systems, grammar, and vocabulary."^ Historical linguistics deals with the historical relationship between languages. The main cone ems in. linguistics in addition to classification and structural analysis is in ethnolinguistics,. the study of how language relates to the rest of culture especially the relationship of language to personality, and in glotto-chronology, a new technique for dating language separations.
Linguistics has set standards in delinewfrni basic units and. structure. Language studies have provided a model for culture studles:in thisrespect. Some scholars believe that language, is culture in its purest form; language is extremely patterned and organized; it Is a rigid form of- human behavior. The khorf-Sapir hypothesis has-dominated the philosophy of linguistics in this century. d'l'Jhile some
11. Stirrtevant, on. clt., p. 12.


Air
> .i y .mi3 4^- I f -,3
consider this an extreme view .le, that .the nature of the real world and human experience is structured by linguistic categories, the influence in research considerations is vast. The hypothesis is difficult to test; workers like Hoi.ler on kavaho and Hockett on Chinese have made generalisations based on the hypothesis.
4. Cultural theory has contributed to the knowledge of archaeology, ^fmology, and linguistics. "Among the interests shared by different subdivisions of cultural anthropology are the nature of. culture change and cultural evolutionj the processes of cultural borrowing; the results of contact between different cultures (acculturation); the characteristics and causes of similar types of culture or cultural patterns which occur independently in various places and. times; and the relationship between cultures and the natural environments in which they occur." u 5. Applied anthropology consists of applying anthropological techniques, theory, and knowledge to solve practical problems. Physical anthropology has applied its knowledge to human measurement problems, linguistics to language teaching and literacy programs, ethnology to the administration of peoples,.international relations and services, and directing' change'' programs.
12. Sturtevant, or. clt. ,-- p. 1 3.


13. Ralph Linton, The /Science of "Kan 'in tho';'horld --Crisis, '"r945;
II VHIAT 13 XXOtfLEDSE IK AKIHROrOLQGY? 13
Linton 'said the aim of anthropology Is to understand how societies and cultures operate and why and how cultures change Anthropologists attempt to come up with general!- zations hut these generalizations must be based -on a -broad frame of reference. And this is why societies other than the anthropologist's own are studied: to extract: the common denominators of human:existence. The aim of anthropology-as a science today, Linton says, is to get at order, processes and generalizations.
Anthropology, as most sciences, started out with and has done most in orderIns ana classifying, be it physical, cul-tural, or artifactual types. The aim of getting at processes has been debated. The American Historical School under Boas was first to emphasize gathering data to get at process. Functionalists and Social Anthropologists tend to minimize diachronlc processual analysis. Delineation of process,is of foremost concern to the students of culture change. The need for ^ I would like to,discuss how the current alms -of anthro-pology are being fulfilled, first I shall consider theory


in anthropology: the pertinent theories 'of the 20th Century and the deductive and inductive methods of theory building and fact finding. Second I shall consider the prominent models of culture in anthropological research. Third I shall consider the concept of culture in depth and other organizing concepts in the discipline. And. finally I shall inquire into the scientific nature end validation of the knowledge of anthropology.


f
have kept the discipline together as well as orientating research. Eackenberg sums up anthropological theory in this century as being composed of three, main theoretical positions: 1) Boas and Regional CultureHistory, 2) Benedict and Cultural
16
Integration, 3) Ilalinowski, Radcliffe-Brown and Functionalism."
The concept of culture as a single system was used by Boas. He combined the concept with total trait inventories of a specific geographical area. "By comparison of these trait
14. Carlo L. lastruccl, The Scientific Approach, 1963, P.55.
.15. Robert K. I'erton, racial Theory and Social Structure, 194-9.
16. Robert A. Hackenberg, "Proc ess'Formation in Applied. Anthropology" Human Organization, Vol. 21, Ho. 4, p.236.
Theory in Anthropology
This writer, agrees with lastruccl In considering theory
as the superstructure- of the discipline.:". Theory and vits usage
are defined within the framework: of the scientific method.
"A theory is a generalized 'synthetic explanatory statement of
the 'cause' of a phenomena .. It functions to serve as the
-unifying explanation for.an.unlimited.series of possible define I ble hypotheses." ,
Theory in anthropology, as in the other social sciences,
15
has different levels of abstraction. I'erton' s distinctions of grandiose theories, "theories of the middle range," and day-to-day hypothesis can be found, in all fields of anthropology. But in anthropology, with its eclectic methodology and subfields, the p/r evading broad gauge or grandiose-theories


inventories, he-hoped to demonstrate the importance'of diffusion, rather than evolution, is the agent of cultural 17
growth." However,' by-using trait, lists he tended to point
out the uniqueness of a culture; similarities were seen as
historical accidents. Although his diffusionist theory
would hot' explain laws of .culture or the process of culture
it did consider culture as a whole.
Benedict concentrated on descriptive integration with'the
theory of psychological'type and culturalconfiguration. "Pis
carding beliefs in the chance assemblage of cultural 'traits,
she artistically evokes underlying similarities among the
traits comprising the inventory of a particular culture. Thes
similarities she abstracts has a configuration, a basic cul-
ii 1 8
tural premise usually stated -as a value. Personality and
culture are seen as mutually dependent and .'Integrated, Sira-
- b
i-lar concepts we're -later'used -bp Linton, Opler .and ICluc!cho2.n who described cultural integration in terms of orientation, theme, and value, respectively.
The function'-?lists theory developed by Ilalinowski ana Badcliffe-Brown views culture as an integrated whole composed of institutions which provide for the needs of its members. Kalinowski stressed the satisfaction of "basic" biological needs and "derived" cultural needs. Radcllffe-Brown stressed societal cohesion .and group survival. The functional theory
17. Ibid., p.236. -


tend's to be synchronic and therefore is .SS concerned with rroceosual analysis, hliereas the theories are usually as-
. IT"
sociatec with the British .school of anthropology, the impact ^ on American anthropologists has been great; although people like Tax, Pedfield and Spicer tend to combine it with dia-chronia approach.
Hackenberg comments that anthropological theory today; is a synthesis of Integrationist and functionalist components. He discusses three contemporary positions of theory. He says anthropological theory today is mainly insoclocultural change. He .considers Innovation theory', Acculturation theory and Evolutionary theory.
Innovation theory Is concerned with propositions about-drives, needs, and learning. This theory is best formulated by Barnett in Innovation: The Basis of Cultural Change 1953. The theory has had little'-application, since It is primarily suitable in.studying micro-change and anthropology has been more concerned in brood guage societal change.-
Second is Acculturation theory which the American School
has been;' concerned with since the 1930's. The emphasis has
been on collection of case studies and' usually only a-few''
variables are selected out for investigation. The two main
deductive attempts to codify.acculturation theory-were the
two memoran^doVw^ on acculturation. The 1935 memorandum was
'concerned with the 'problem: of definitions.
"Acculturation comprehends those phenomena which result when grouns of individuals bavins different cultures come-


into continuous, first-hand contact with subsequent changes in the original'culture Patterns of either or both groups."
The new memorandum in 1954 put. out by Be TnCt^ Broom, Siegal,
20
Vo gb, are Tats on consiaered the theoretical properties of culture systems which, effected the hinds and degree of'change due to contact. They considered three- variables of cultural systems: 1} the boundary maintaining mechanism, 2) relative flexibility or rigidity :of the internal structu.ro of society and 3) the self-correcting mechanisms. This is a class if ica-torp systema guide for analysing and predicting.
The third type of theory.in anthropology today is Evol-tionary theory which is interested in lonp term and. complete shifts in settlement patterns. It is multilinear and multidimensional unlike the. unilinear evolutionary- theories of the 19th Century. The foremost theorists are Childe, Leslie white and. Steward. They use analytical models :and high levels of abstraction. Childe delineates .criteria and characteristics of different levels of civilization based on Morgan's' development of Savagery, Barbarism, and Civilization.- White's theory is based on energy changes in civilisations: The changes in the technological, sociological, and ideological systems of culture is dependent upon the amount of energy available to man and how efficiently it is utilized. Stewards
19. R. Redficld, R. Linton, and K. Herskovits, ."Memorandum on
the Studv of Acculturation" American Anthropologist, Vol. 3S,.\1936,. pp. 149-1 52.:.
20. Social Science'Research Council Seminar on Acculturation,
"Acculturation: An Lrnoloratory formulation," American inthronologist, Vol. 51, 1954, pp.973-1002.


multilinear theory of evolution of stages is concerned with the classification'of types of societies which is dependent upon carefully selected variables.


21. Tared 0. Bouche, "She Limits of the. Social Sciences I & II,
'Angerscan Journal of 'Sociology., Vol. 28, Ho, 3, November 1922, "up.300-31 8 and.Vol.28, -170.4, January 1923, pp.443-460.
Deductive and Inductive Anthropology
The beginnings of anthropology were dominated by deductive theories. All theevolutionary'and;dlffunionist theories are deductive. The method of deduction consists of first, constructing a theory, second, deducing premises and 'propositions from the theory, and third, testing the theory, 'Many grandiose, especially evolutionary theories, were rarely tested 'or tes^ table. .Bouche'-'' has raised the criticism that .the social sciences can only be deductive and reflective, ..whereas the natural sciences are both deductive and inductive. Most theory building in anthropology has been deductive* however, I would like -to examine the uses of the inductive method in anthropology.
The American Historical School under Franz Boas initiated the inductive method in the s'tudgy of culture and culture. change. This school was reacting against the unilineal Evolutionist's and the Extreme Diffusionists (British Heliolithic School and German Kulturhrels lehre). Boas' approach was to show the actual distribution of traits Instead of setting up culture complexes deductively."- By using the inductive method you cannot set up preconceived ideas first and then impose data on them. You must start from the particular and develop to the-general. Starting from the particular means that the ethnographer aims to aive detailed empirical data from a par-


ticular culture and then to "build- up generalizations about that culture-end ultimately about cultures in general.
In 1896 In limitations o'Z'thjr Comparative' Method In Anthropology Boas attached the Evolutionists on their comparative method. The Evolutionists assumed 'that the same end results showed the same causes but Boas said We should be concerned with processes not only results.. His two major points in the article was the necessity of empirical research, (to show processes in diffusion, one had to consider a halted small area)and the necessity of using the'inductive method (to study the particular, ie,, culture in its uniqueness.)
Boas emphasis on raw data-collection and the uniqueness' of culture was probably his weakness '.also. He was concerned with rigorous method but he saw complexity of culture and-this coupled with his cultural relativity made him come to the- conclusion that any kind of. broad theoretical generalizations were beyond the scope of anthropology.
Students of Boas did not feel, however, that cultures were too unique to generalize about them. Hissler.and Sapir, for example, went on to build up and define the concepts of culture area and. age area. And while these concepts have been pretty much 'discarded they.were based on an inductive, method.
'"The use of the .Inductive method, in anthropology- today is to build up a theory from observable facts. Kaque't, a French anthropologist, discusses.how the inductive process operates, and some of Its-. obstacles. 1


22. Jacque : J.' Maquet, "Objectivity in Anthropology", Current
Anthropology,- -Vol., 5, February 1964, p.51'.
23. Ibid;', p.52.' S""
24. Ibid., p.52. ...
the former have one or several meanings as Integral parts." Hence, observed behavior may have several different meanings.
Second, the anthropologist puts "the factual generalizations which synthesize in a general statement 'the numerous.
cases observed, without, In principle adding anything to
23 '''
them." This is' the stage Maquet feels where an individual
component can be magnified as it.becomes generalized. 3y
this magnification it can become removed from reality. An
excellent example is the anthropologists' concern with witch-
,n some ^cre-Bes'.The more cjevSera-h^-borts made abcn4- un+chev craf t,.^the more dominant it seems in the society.
Third, the anthropologist; tries "to-draw logical- inferences from the descriptive generalizations. The logical inferences then combine into 'one .'or more constructs. The construct asserts more than the observation and generalisations and is not directly verifiable: it Is the theory-which
explains the observed facts by relating them to more general' ..24
principles.
First the.anthropologist looks for the facts. Maquet cautions that "social phenomena, even when reduced to their simplest components,,differ from physical phenomena In that


Models In Anthropology
Realield says the most.prominent models of viewing culture in anthropology' have he en the Causal and the Functional models taken from the natural sciences. The causal model which Is a main model-of the sciences has found much application in cultural anthropology. "In this model classes of phenomena are arranged in the form of general causal laws which would make it possible for an ideal observer to predict all future states of a ;system from conditions at a given time." Redfield says that KaraIner's concept of basic; personality structure is one example "in which general causal relations are said to connect the.'primary' Institutions of a culture
with the personalities of its carriers and the 'secondary' 26
institutions. The causal model.may be built up by building a universal system from a few observations or if may be developed more inductively as Murdock docs in'Social Structure (1949) and in'the Human Relations Area Files from statistical in tere orrela ti on s of traits.
The other main model, the functional model, is also widely used in the-natural sciences. "In this culture or a society is seen as an organisation of means designed-to achieve certain ends These ends may be found in needs or impulses more or less biologically rooted or ., as
25. Robert Redfield, "Relation of Anthropology to the Social Sciences and j.he. Humanities" in. Sol Tax (ed) Anthro-


acquired ends to some' extent defined: by culture." Malin-owski in Scientific Theory of Culture (1944) delineated the basic and derived needs-in'society; he said the" institution was the basic isolate of society,' ie.,' for meeting these need The functiona 1 model .is* str ohgly associated'; with conceptions of structure. Levi-Strauss considers social structure as a model but there-are many variations of,this hind of model within the functional framework,. eg., conscious and unconscious levels of analysis, mechanistic and statistical models Redfield discusses models -from the humanities which have been used in anthropology. Evans-Pritchard in 1950 advocated development of models drama from, history. "The concepts of natural system and natural law modelled on the constructs of the natural sciences have dominated anthropology from its beginning. And as we look back over the course of growth, I think we can see that they have been responsible for a false scholasticism which has led to one rigid and ambitious for-mulation after another." host anthropologists-today do not agree with this view and are trying to stay away from historical 'models.
Some other models that can be noted are ifhorf's hypo the t logical construct of the relationship of linguistic categoric to thought where premises about culture may be deduced logically from his hypotheses. Mead and. Benedict used an
27. Hid., p.460. ;
28. E.S.. Evans-Pritchard "Social'Anthropology: Past and Prese
Man, Vol. 50, 1950, p.123.


aesthetic model of culturein the 30's and 40!s. "According
to- this' model, a culture might he conceived in terms also
appropriate to works of art: theme,.plot, phrasing, style,
classic, or romantic Another model, perhaps furthest from
the natural sciences and most identifyahle with the arts is
the symbolic model. In such a model "a culture is conceived
as represent ed.. in its-characteristic properties as a whole by
certain symbolic representationsespecially, dance form, 30
allegory, etc.- darner used the concept of the symbol system in his discussionof social structure of Murngnin Society; oT After ennunerating these models, Redfield says that although anthropology takes models from natural sciences, anthropology does not have the same success in carrying out studies based on these models-. He says that the formulation of anthropological knowledge does not. serve as the basis' for prediction which is comparable with those of the natural sciences. "Iho literature does not show competent general propositions applicable to all cases within precisely defined classes and. allowing .'.the enact predictive 'application, though exceptions may be recognized (as in the prediction of linguistic change according to phonemic' pattern), "he success of anthropology in prediction takes place chiefly as a consequence of unaer-
.29. Redfield, op_. clt,, p.460. .
r AV>|A. l '' 30,- Redfleid., or. clt. t\ p.461.


standing-' gained -.in particular casks .' '."< ';.
Hhereas it' would bo foolish to arguo. that anthropology-has prediction -or probability success similar, to the natural p sciences, this writer believes that anthropology has gone past understanding alone. Levi-Strauss, an eminent French anthropologist, makes some astute comments in this respect. After he sets up the model discussed- above he considers the a kinds of'work done in the area of social structure. He remarks that, while anthropology is finally getting closer to its long-awaited goal of becoming a true science '"'the ground seems to fail where. It was expected to be firmest, the facts
themselves are lacking, either not numerous enough or not
gp
collected under conditions insuring their comparability. "" He says our theoretical framework is far more advanced, than
our observation techniques (which is opposite to the kinds of
e+ :' -
-wtxrk- in the other sciences.) Therefore, modern anthropology-;
has a challenge put to it: to utilize the theories and models
more rigorously and scientifically. In the 'following' sections'
I shall examine some, of the progress in concepts. and. theory
building before examining methods and data. ', --
-.Concepts in Anthropology
The concept of culture is the most Important concept' in" anthropological thought. It is an over riding concept used
31. Redfield, or. clt., p.461.
32. Claude Levi-Strauss,." AnthropoIogy Today,'
tare" In Sol Tax (ed)


all fields of anthropology. Culture is distinctively human. Culture communicated. And anthroroloav's aim is to studv hum: patterns' of 'pcommunication. The first problem is to differentiate culture and society. Two statements, one by a cultural-anthropologist and one by a social anthropologict.,"seem clear and adeouate.
"A culture is the way ox life [op s, people, while a society is an organised interacting-aggregate'' of individuals who follow a <5'iven way of life. In still simpler terras a society is compose^ of people. The; way. they""behave is '.their -culture."'' '" ~"
"Society'. means the- totality of social facts' projected on to the dimension of relationship and groupings; culture,, the same totality in the dimension of action."-5 f
Some of the basic characteristics' of culture, which have been delineated are:
1. Culture is limited to man.
2. Culture depends on the ability ,to symbolize.
3. Culture is shared and socially transmitted.
4. Culture grows, it.is cumulative, its content is expanding. ''.'.' -'
5. Culture 'is. changing .-constantly. .. : a
6. Culture is patterned.
7. Culture has effort on behavior and personality.
The concept-of culture was' first'defined by Tylor In Primitive Culture in 1871 as "culture 'or civilization is that complex whc-le. which' includes knowledge, belief, art, law, 'morals, customs, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man 'as -a -member-.-of 'society.11 This definition directs attention to culture traits and material culture. The particular stress, of a -definition -orients what kind of
33. Melville J. HersXotfits, Cultural Anthropology, 1960, p.31


data are collected. Kroeber and Kluckhohn In Quitare: A Review of Concepts sort'out 257 definitions from the literature into descriptive, historical, normative, psychological,
structural, and genetic categories. However, they can fall
35
into basically four categories.
1. Behavioral: Culture is shared, learned behavior socially transmitted plus the material products of that behavior. This;definition concentrates on custom and .habitual behavior.
'2. Functional: Culture is man's way of 'providing for himself, making a living, and insuring the survival of the species. This definition focuses on need satisfaction. ^The definition is characteristic of social anthropologists^
3. Symbolic or systemic: Culture, is a system whose existence depends on man's ability to symbolize. This definition encompasses the conception that culture is a composite of behavioral and material parte, but the existence of the system itself depends on the ability to symbolize. This .'definition is. characteristic of many modern .American anthropologists and especially linguists. .
4. Kroeber and Kluckhohn propose a definition which combines elements of the above definitions. Culture consists of patterns, explicit and implicit -of and for behavior acquired and transmitted, by symbols the essential core of culture consists of ::traditional Ideas and especially their attached
35. Fromale'cture delivered by Br'.Roark, San Francisco State College, September 2P, 1-964.


values. This definition focuses on values rather than customs.
Theorists today argue that culture is not directly observed. It is an abstraction. Anthropologists put discrete thingsactions, words, artifacts together and. build and abstract patterns. An anthropologist combines, organises and. abstracts a culture from the patterns, Bennet says that the concept of culturehe tends to use it in the Kroeber and Kluckhohn' senseis too.simple since it does not deal with finely discriminated problems.
"it is .not enough to say that 'culture1 is at work; one must specify how and in what locus The 'culture' becomes transformed, into concepts such as 'Value orientation,1 'norms,''expectations,' 'means,' and 'ends' 1 group atmosphere ThUs 'culture' can 'explain' human phenomena only.when it is -seen as part of the system of relationships between people. It is. their response to and use of the 'patterns' that is of '.-moment."-5
Bennet says that an interdisciplinary approach breaks down the concept of culture which is more a "felt need" by anthropologists; it is too simple and too vast. He says we need to: break, down the concept of culture into analytic working units. There is a tendency for the emergence of an analytical scheme that won W go- beyond the con^rpt of culture. This is one of the trends in culture theory at present.
The concept of culture has been a central organizing concept, next, I.have selected a few pertinent concepts which
36. John Bennet "Interdisciplinary Research and the Concept of Culture" Am eric an An thr o p o 1 o g i's*t, Vol.56, April 1954, p.174.


have been nsecl Tridely in anthropology in the search for pro-corses and Generalisations. Bedfield's Foil:-Urban continuum and Kardinor's basic personality structure are frequently used concepts. LoT-ris and 2-lurdoclf' s comparisons of culture? and ICluCiChohn' s universal categories -of culture arc' examples of the broadest hinds of generalisations. Kushner's propositions, of culture chanpe are couched in terms of testable hypothesis.
Sedfield postulated the fctk-urban continuum based on Tonnies "pesellschaft""pemienschaft." The significance for anthropological research has been in introducing and enpandina the studjr of "ore complex societies, especially peasant societies. It has also been used in cnanre studies uhich consider the over-all typo of society. I", spite of the folk-urban conceptual limitationsespecially since it is a broad frar.e-.rork of ideal typesEedfield's typology has generated further conceptualisations, holf's expanded version is the closed and open community type "as uses "vacant" and "nuclear" touns.
(8S>
Kardiner's concept of basic personality structure^ is based on the stud:" of culture. The concept of BPS "represents the constellation of personality characteristics -,-rh.ich -.rould appear to be conycnival aith the total ranre of institutions comprised within a given culture."37 IOirdinGr ip'trying to delineate the common denominators of personality based on-actual studies of individuals. He established;a dialectic
37. Abram Kardincr, The Individual and Hie. Society, 1939, P.vi.


between BPS and institutions which operate. through the individual. Kardiner and Linton have used this concept in cross-cultural determinations,' It has been expanded in the work -of PuBois People of the Beaglehple and Ritchie, Basic Personality in a Hew Zealand Community and Kaplan (ed) Studying Personality Cross-0ultura1ly to-mention only, a few.
Generalisations: -
There are two. main trends in approaches to cultural generalisations.. First, Oscar Lewis and George P. Murdoch" have;emphasised the comparative method. Lewis has been in- tercsted in studying broad variation in particular modes of action and relationships within a given society and also in studying the same society over a period of years. He tries -to extract generalities from different hinds of analysis.
Murdoch has been concerned- with studying numerous and widely different societies and organizing the material by categories'.i He'is searching for the "least common denominators of culture." By categorising and doing frequency counts of similarities and. differences, he hopes to "create a science of human behavior by developing.a systematic body of knowledge about the principles governing .the interaction of men in
society, the formation of groups end of:social norms .of: be-
' i .38
havior and the transmission,and differentiation of cultures."
The Hunan-.Relations Area Piles, : which, has. been supervised /by
30. Georhe P.'Murdoch "Anthropology as a Comparative Science" Behavioral'Science,' Vol. .2, 1957, p.249.


Murdoch is a-compilation of ethnographic data from which statistical and etlnnographic comparisons are being made.
Second, Kluckhohn has been involved in the search for universal categories of culture; what they are, how.numerous the similarities and. differences, are, .and whether similarities are cultural tr'"the conditions for culture." Kluckhohn is earful not to equate. universale with absolutes, lie states that "valid cross-cultural comparisons could .hest: proceed from the invariant points of reference supplied by the biological, psychological and sociosituational "givens" of human ..life, These and their interrelations determine the likeness in the.broad categories and general assumptions-that pervade all cultures because:the "givens" provide foci' around
which and:-'within 'which the patterns of every culture crystal-n39
ise. Some kinds of generalisations Kluckhohn gives as ,
examples arc about 'ethical universalethe universality of moral standards in general concerning murder, incest, sexual..-., codes', restitution and rcciprosify, and'mutual obligation.
Kushner et al have been concerned with delineating.processes and. .compiling universal propositions- of socio-cultural change. '
"iJhat be sought- were verifiable hypotheses concerning socio-cultural change, culled' from works both ethnographic and theoretical hhat wc chose were hy-- pothsne.n whoso relevance'was cross-cultural: Statements not tied down descriptively to specific, non-. generalizable conditions,* but testable and wide-reaching.
39. Clyde Kluckhohn "Universal GatO| Sol "Tan (ed) Anthrdno'logy '(?oday;j
ulture
In
A


These -:e tried to group In still mere inclusive prop- k ositlons. -'orking mainly Inductively, re grouped similar propositions together and arranged thorn accordira' to the process or variable oP change vrith ash i oh they dealt. The result ::ae thirteen mayor categories, each made up of a series of propositions illustrated by hypothesis and eacli dealing aslth a single aspect of a compler change situation.. Our aimaas not to form-, ulate a general theory explaining socio-cultural caange, but rather'..to discover ediat social scientists- beve already said ebout it; to.present a sort of annotated tabular sunmation of their (different hypotheses to serve as an inventory of get -~o'ak and a suaae stive, guide to v/ork still undone."40 '
hie authors give a general statement of each category, hen o j^'tl ^ o or,til cases n > 1* uV"c.
"o r ul "> i co c -1 A,f ) c ix l r c 5- i tr r 'n"co ih^a
or aiaferent rates.
1. CC C/1 0 0 1 > : ;ClC U" ^ (">o~ l"i
1 e e A eb_ A, 1 Cv1 ln 1 c -1 i ^ fddm ... or ""'o
r- r-r^ w /] o'.^r.-'-,-,-", -r'ir. "1,'ivq"' )-> pi-.\a-;--T"i 1
" i~ I OX 0 C ^ 1 k^
P 1 r- T^p o : <-< g-" r.iQ'; rS Q4 Tr-r'- / .:^r-TV:irs n ". T'O X ,o -;"".-.-")+ <"-> _
i ""^ roc a^" u ^ 'X u o 1 r^ ^ r^ to change. "41
' n or o urdoc* IIlucl:vohn 1 ru~h" ~ ~o c- lal
and pi i i-c^ ri-. .' f kh1 r r ^ 11 b*"''1 o0 *r*uhr v ~x '
amour 1 ^Oj. 'n v ^e^1 ipl lo t ^ mo W""
Human helations Area File. Kluckhohn makes use of ethnographic
and theoretical acrks. ICushner has a neatly tabulated set
of propositions.,' .Kroeber and IQuckhohn. have all 'the definitions
40, (kllbert Ikarhr.er eta al, 'fliat Accounts for Socio-cultural'
Change?-; -'k Prpppsigjnlonal Inventory, 1962, p.1,
41. Ibid., p.24.


Page
35 Missing
From Original


of culture in their book. In 1952 .under the chairmanship of A.I. Kroeber an International Symposium on Anthropology uas called, -filch resulted in the volume Anthropology Today. Scholars presented an Inventory,, an appraisal una a handbook of world resources of modern anthropology. 'Thomas in 1956 further up-dated anthropological knowledge in Ourrent Anthro-uology. By taking .these kind.:; of work:'' and. looking at them together ire can see that anthropological knowledge is becoming codified and encyclopedic.


42. Hilliam J, KeEwsn'"Forms'and Problems of Validation in
Social Anthropology"' Ourrent Anthropology Vol 4, Ho.2, 1 963, P.1,56..
Validation: in Anthropology ...''
KcEwen is .concerned with' validation which he defines as
showing the empirical correctness of theoretical ideas. Two
conditions must he met:
"The first is' presentation of data that shows the ; relation specified by the proposition to be real and not an artifact of unreliable observation',' fortuitous circumstances, or. similar misleading or unstable occurrences. The second is presentation of data that establish the relation as determinate. .-. The first condition is met by demonstrating that variation of- one part of the relation. Is reflected systematically by variation on the other. The second condition is met by excluding all other possible sources of influence, j^e., by control of conditions that are^px'traneous to the specific relation' being studied," *
He lists three types of validation 1) illustration or case analysis, 2) comparison or type analysia, and g) testing
or statistical analysis. Host data in anthropology is of the first tyre; illustration. The simple assertions, middle range hypothesis,'deviant case analysis, and funtional analysis HcEwen says, act as heuristic devises since they do not meet the two validating conditions. Much of'the work considered by. Kushner in building up his'prepositional data is based on abstractions from illustrative analysis.
The work of Redfield discussed above 1" comparison-typological analysis. workers -.who have tried to check the -concept have selected a community of one of the two types as a means of empirically checking the typology. IlcEwer considers


this kind of validation .as:half-way between illustration which is \ieuretic value and' testing which Is an objective analysis. The most important problem from the standpoint of validation is the lack of control: distinctive properties are isolated and tend to get rev-^ied or rejected, k '
HcEwen considers testing and statistical analysis as. the best validation method. In anthropology, the.ma dor ap ; Plication of this approach Is In evaluating, hypothesis by the' comparative method. The foremost example is Murdock.who uses a "secondary" analysis (_Ie., he Is not working with data collected first hand for the specific problem^l^ to classify each culture of his world sample according to certain characteristics. The problems in this type of: analysis is in the data and units of analysis which often do not meet the' validity criteria above'. Murdoch's work is amenable to tests of significance eg., 'Chi-squarss and association and correlation proccaures. .McBwen suggests improvement of validation' pos- p. sibllities. There is a need to focus' on the kinds of. data nea^'jiiot ju'-. t or the amount o" d^ia that cr be collect-"1 or on only tho *- sue i/leiis that cm bo cosily 'nis-'crew". "The 'reality' dimanwa'.on tlwt ~ th; veil strength o field strk*' *. _/""'C ": ly t'a. 'ca' est elcsent la ido" to~y re-- r^rch, whll dp- nwec-'sion an, retire: a-1 qfforded oy laboratory work Is rarely possible In field "-tulles." '


Nevertheless the anthropologist should focus on acquiring systematic and controlled data.


and the fact ..that data (^draainly collected by observation, not experimentation. The arguments on the pnature of the Phenomena either stress -that social. phenomenahjU-'y too varied or that It_ 2-- dependent aiaon free will, or stress that social phenomena part of the. natural scene and. .therefore, ordered ana-know-
able. This writer agrees with the latter view: the points
made-lie this section support -this view.
The aim of anthropological"observation is, objectivity
44
with the object.'' As Kaqg-et argues, '; the object exists
44. Maquet, on. clt.,'p. 5a.
: .g ..
Summary: Is"Knowledge in Anthropology Valid? Ry.way of a summary of this section let us consider to what extent anthropological knowledge -.is scientific, he have discussed sore aims, the theories, models, "and concept''.' Redfield has argued that anthropological knowledge -has' United- predictability. He says the discipline is basically humanistic and cannot extract laws and generalizations. Tfvans-Prltchard said that the scientizing of anthropology has:lad to over formulation and. false scholasticism.*"On. the other hand Levi-Strauss' says that the reason the knowledge Is not scientific is not because it cannot be but rather because, much of: it was collected, incorrectly, a However, now .that our'theoretical orientations have been organized, we can collect' data which will be scientifically valid.
Two -main arguments against anthropological knowledge as
beina reliable knowledge has been the nature of the Phenomena
art


ogy-tries to. suppress personal factory?) in observation. And Uorthrop concludes that anthropology follows the pattern of any Pes tern, knowledge: "careful observation of data, sw-planation of data by an induced theory, then indirect verification of the theory by examining if the facts are in
45
accord with the deductive consequences of the theory."
45, Maquet, or.' cit., p.53
independent of the observer, ie., it' is real. 'A'he. observer nap.es statements of the object and the result is the meeting of the subject and the object. Maquet save, anthropology,Is not,as impersonal as physical science^ although anthropol-


III Methods In Anthropology
"Students arc attracted to anthropology for many reasons, among them a distaste for 'laboratory pro- cedures, an aversion to quantification, and Interest; in the exotic and bizarre,,a thirst for adventure, and a desire to-express one's own individuality.- As a result of such factors most ethnographic field reports are better representations of the uniqueness of the cultures they describe and of the personalities of the authors' of the thousand's of field reports written in this century no two of -them, package their data in the same manner; no two.of them use the same table of contents or present their material in the same sequence. ..
Scientific Method in Anthropology
This comment by Driver sums'up a basic theoretical-methodological orientation -dilemiia in anthropology which Is especially, pertinent today. The scientist must be interested in at he typical and recurring to.: get at order. ^Tho exotic and bizarre will net help in formulating genergizations. Individualistic presentation of research, runs counter to a main tenent of 'the scientific approach: that of comrmnicabl!ity of knowledge. 1 would like to consider two questions: lliat does the scientific approach mean and how is the- scientific method: used -in anthropology?
The scientific'approachis a man-made way of conceiving phenomena,' Any science is -essentially over-persohallzed and capable of being communicated with little distortion. Scientific method is- a method of verification and proof which can
46. Harold 2. Driver "Introduction .to Statistics for Comparative Research" in Prank-Moore (ed) 'Readings in Cross-Cultural Methodology, 1961, p.505.


bo applied to objectively stated problems which are subject to empirical verification. The use of the scientific method does not imply a particular content; It is an approach.
The main processes involved are hypothesizing,' 'observing-, verifying, and theorizing. The more formal order briefly follows: First, an empirically testable..hypothesis is,formulated. Second, an examination of existing knowledge concerning the hypothesis is made. Third, the research design. Is constructed. 'Fourth, the scope of inquiry, including sample and variables are delineated. Fifth, the data are collected, by observation, vSixth, the data:are interpretted in terms of the hypothesis. seventh, the interpretation is verified, and
the hypothesis is either confirmed or rejected. Eighth, the
47
findings are presented- in a report.
Physical- anthropologists have had little problem using scientific methods of- the biological sciences, so I shall restrict my comments to cultural anthropology. '..Tien cultural anthropology emerged under the rubric of science in the-beginning of the century, the scientific approach meant two things: -counting and objectivity. Boas used-the inductive method (discussed above) as a counting devise for traits, myths, languages, etc. The objectivity of. investigation means that conditions -of observation, esg., amount of time and activities, were listed as were the prmndl factors of an
47. Lastrucci, pp cit., p.54.


Individual observer. However the humanistic insights and
empathy of the sensitive observer were stressed.
During the decades of the 20th century, the scientific
approach has been used in three ways. Pirst, bits-;and pieces
were used in almost all research. 'Some sort of theorizing,
observing, and testing was dore, sometimes systematically,
and sometimes not.. Second, the comparative method,indigneous
to anthroroloay has been pointed to as the anthropological j *
modification of:the scientific method. This writer believes b the comparative method is too limited and fallible:' it is an excuse to use loss-,than rigorous procedures. Third, contemporary works uses scientific- methods In formulating research designs. I,1or one thing there are very' few general ethnographic being done. Post researchers limit their work to specific hypotheses and set up &^ws*S' schemes to control variables and parameters. An excellent example is 'Florence Kluckhohn's Variation in Value Orientation, 1961 She sets up the theory assumptions- and hypothesis and methods for testing value orientations in five communities.' 'Then she correlates theresults obtained- with the Predicted hypothesis.


...w. s-r#r ^ crtc^
The Comparative Method : >\\^ aaA'1 (/ ^
Cora DuBois views the comparative method as one of the
unifying aspects throughout anthropological thought and. in
contemporary thought as well, "This is the assumption that
all data must he seen in the perspective of other date*' which'
48 '
belong, to the same universe of discourse. There have been
two main uses of the comparative method. In the 19th Century
the method "consisted essentially in surveying a wide' rs.nge
of ethnographic sources and- .extracting",masses 'of cases in
support of some hypotheses, evolutionary or otherwise, which
ho
had been formulated beforehand on. other grounds. The prob-
lem here was that ethnography "is so varied; it was easy to support almost any hypotheses and cases were taken out' of context,, or aspects of ethnography;were.considered without the cultural context in,mind. flm the "last .generation the use of the comparative method has been for control, "One of 'the' great advantages of the" comparative method, will be that in a field whore the controlled experiment as impossible, it provides at least some kind '-of. control."^0 George Murdock' (discussed above) has be'en: the "main advocate of the method In
48. Cora DuBois "Anthropology; Its Present Interests"'in
Bernard Berelsen (od) The Behay1ora1 Sciences Today, 196p, p.30.
49. George P. Murdoch "Anthropology as a Comparative Science"
Behavioral Science, Vol.. 2, 1957, p.252,
50. Erwin K. Ackernecht "On. the Comparative Method in. Anthro-
pology" In Robert' Spencer (ad) Methods and Perspectives in An th ro no logy, 1.954. pW^,


contemporary work., The main criticism of the method is.that often cross-cultural items are not comparable, ..although they are placed In categories so that;.they can be.
The Behavioral Approach in Anthropology
The behavioral approach consists of breaking down know-ledge of behavior into bits of Information concerning transfer of information between human beings. It has been said this approach is a mood as well as a method in that it both cuts across the social sciences as a unifying approach and that it is an aspect of the"codified scientific approach.
The behavioralist thinks of, theory as a conceptual framework as he searches for a verified body of knowledge. He wants to be scientific and his pursuit is to^empirleaIdly^ob-serve the individual in action. He searches for patterns, recurrent and collective, He is a rigorous "methodraatican;" he uses the scientific'- method as strictly as the natural scientist. 'He is careful and systematic in his research design. The behavioralist limits his concerns sever-ly. He controlsthe units of analysis ana parameters'of inquiry. He is concerned with what exists and not with what shouldexist.
The above' is the ideal pattern of the behavioralist approach. Anthropological concerns with benevioralism have been limited. Pirst, there may be units other than the individual that are considered, ejj., the group, institution, or culture. Second, the behavioral sciences does not include two or three of the subfields of anthropology (physical


anthropology, archaeology, parts of linguistics). Therefore, a discussion of the behavioral approach: in anthropology --is limited to'the behavioral aspects of culture'while the behavioral approach per' s;e, has been little codified, its use is directly traceable to the culture and personality branch of anthropology^a\-*vou.<\\\ -VWere lias bffn .~|ca-o ..- e-tphpe
Although Malinowski in Argonauts of the hestern Pacific (1922) was first to stress the importance of the individual as a unit, he postulated the institution asthe basic isolate of society. The turning point of considering the individual '" as a unit vas when anthropology borrowed psychological tests. It is difficult to administer a projective test to a whole group of people; rather it must be given to one person at a time. And data collected from these tests must be combined and built up into a whole.
t/hereas' the individual may be termed the "unit" of investigation, .what anthropologists-are'really interested' in are patterns. Culture and personalitystudentsstress the patterns of an Individual and then combine patterns to come out with a-composite pattern culture. Pattern is a description ""Pattern is a term that emphasises structure; this structure is perceived as a whole whose parts areto some extent, re-lated."" The concept of pattern and patterning have not been reserved for culture and personality, studies, alone. Social
51. Elizabeth 3. Hoyt. "Integration. of Culture: A Review of Concerts" Current Anthropology Vol 2, December 1961, P. 407, -


and cultural anthropologic;to studying 'everything Iron material culture to' non-verbal behavior have emphasised, pattern.
In attempting to discern patterns of behavior two propositions must be taken as given. First, people nut events together in organised patterns; there ,are fewer patterns than events. Therefore, dissimilar events may be organised into similar patterns. Second, behavior has become patterned in a series of sequences before the present, and, hence, will continue Info the future. Therefore, learned sequences of interaction may be generalised to other future and dissimilar situations. Patterns are seen as fairly static descriptions of overt behavior.' A collection of .patterns can produce a tie sequence.
The level of pattern has to be specifically stated by the anthropologist. Por one thing, people may or may not be aware of their patterns. The anthropologist can discern, individual, group, and societal patterns. The reader will Immediately think of Benedict's Patterns-of Culture, 1934. Here pattern is better understood as conflagration of a whole not as a systematic matrix built up from observed behavior. The whole cultural pattern here, taken from gestilt psychology, Is viewed as greater than the sum of its parts.
Methods for. Acquiring Fata: Field 'fork
Field work is.- the most distinctive. anthropological approach in acquiring data. The field study usually consists of prolonged, intensive and direct observation of a single


community or group. The worker usually lives in the area, and learns the language.
'The results of a study which are obtained are. only as good as the methods used; they can only be evaluated by knowing exactly how and .what was done, host anthropologists therefore, list specifically, the informants used (who, number, status, group membership)^ -their own bias with the society being studied (associations and factions), and their own cultural background and biases.
The ethics of- the field work'situation is a problem all-anthropologists must decide before or while they are in the field. Do you let people know what you are doing? 'hill it prejudice your results? Are you acting under false pretences if you sag/ you believe in ghosts to observe a ceremony? You, may be told information confidentially; should you use it? Irving Goffman in The, Presentation of Self (1959) says that a field worker must deliberately seek out a role that Is ac- g ceptable to the people and play hur role. The people do not react to the project, but rather to the kind of nerson the field worker is. p .
x The less, an anthropologist .participates, the rroyo- things- r?rw in The more "he participates the more he can know
about activities. %t the duffe'rent rolas of scientist and human being breaks down.. The scientist should be able to understand, the internal workings an1 problems of the group but Gin o 1; ional Involvement may -hinder.; objectivity.-, a;


The 'kinds of roles a field worker can play (and these are ideal types) are as followsi ^.onplete participant, participant as observer, observer as 'participant* an-" complete observer.""- The complete participant does not reveal what he is doing or why. He interacts as naturally as possible. He learns informal workings. However, the kind of role involves pretending,- "going native". Additionally he may be asked to make decisions which could alter group behavior. The complete observer can only observe, not participate, ho one is aware that they are being observed or used as informants.
The observer as participant is In leas danger of "going native" 'but his contact 'with 'the informant..is. brief and; he may obtain'superficial Information. This role is more similar to the sociologists' who makes interviews, eg., interviewing and observing at tee same time.
The teckaicgue that is most acclaimed and unique in anthropology ever since the example Kalinowski set in Araonauts of d;sstern Pacific (1?22) is that of participant as observer. Here, the field worker, and his informants are aware of the field relationship. They know who the field worker is, and why he is there. The role pretense is minimized. The anthropologist can make the situation as Informal- as he wants it, but people.-have some Idea of what he Is doing.
52. Buford H.- Junker, Field 'P'ork: An Introcuctior to the Social Sciences*; m*JoO.


Other Methods
However, although the sensitive observer has been stressed, other methods besides participant-observa: have been used separately, ana in conjunction with It. The kinds of interviewing that the anthropologist Irs used include the recording of "life' histories and autobiographies of ..informants^ as Radin. did- In-Crash-in'" Thunder'and the use'of protective, techniques of interviewing Including Thematic Apperception Tests, Praw~a-Man,-and .. Q-Sort, etc. The-more standard interview and questionnaire', techniques used in sociology have been widely used in- anthropology. ',
Another method reluctantly used in anthropology especially
in the study of more con-lex societies is the Parry eg or census
form which is a combination of observation and questioning.
Although it is versatile and adaptable to larger communities,
its precision is questionable. "Usually we have sufficient
information about the universe, from 'which the sample is to be
drawn to allow us to apply sample techniques which'would meet
ii 53
the standards set up for statistical analysis. Colson work In Africa where the anthropologist Is dealing with,large tribal populations which are difficult to delineate both in" population and geography and hence, sampling becomes a problem in itself and for the validity of the data.
53. Hliaabeth Colson "The Intensive.Study of Small Sample' Communities" in Robert Spencer (ed.) Methods and Perspectives in'An th ropo1o gy, 1954,.-pp.43-59.


IV Contemporary trends and Applications In Anthropology
Kroeber comments (page 1) that in the first half of this century the various and diverse branches of anthropology have'been Integrated into a common attach.and attitude..' However, the second part of the. century has and will go beyond an attach. Anthropological workers are concerned with codifying and validating knowledge Additionally, anthropology is expanding its knowledge within each branch. With expansion comes specialization.; host people' in the discipline agree that it is almost impossible to embrace and make contributions to the entire discipline. The typical comment is that Boas was the first and Kroeber the last general-.anthropologist to .-do so, and the difference in time between then was about'thirty years; a very short time for this type of fission to occur.
"within physical anthropology, archaeology,'linguistics, and cultural anthropology new horizons of knowledge have ap-; reared. Physical anthropology has been Increasingly concerned with genetics especially .racial genetics. 'Primate studies have' been added to their concerns. And culture theory has become,-increasingly important in new evolutionary mechanisms. In archaeology new techniques lite Carbon-14 and Potassium-Argon have aided in dating. Additionally,- 'multilinear evolutionary theory and theories'about language origins are being used to infer the nontangible' aspects, of culture reconstruction. In linguistics dating techniques like glottochronology and lex-icostatisties are. being applied to more language groups.


Workers have been concerned with meta- and para-linguistics, the study of language and personality, and the study of the expressive function of language respectively. The Sapir-lfhorf hypothesis, which has captured the imagination of many anthropologists, is being' investigated with decreasing success.
Cultural anthropology has bloomed out; the work most notable being in culture theory, culture and personality, social and cultural change, and"applied and action anthropology (these will be discussed individually below). Ethnographies are being done on more complex societies. However only certain variables and hypothesis are being considered. The typical all-inclusive ethnographic monograph is becoming scarce. Workers are studying economics and law of primitive,' peasant, and more complex, societies from an anthropological viewpoint.. And ethnographies are considering non-verbal respects of behavior: kineslcs, the' study of how gestures convey emotional states, and proxemics, the study of man's organization of micro- and macro-space.
All fields have been concerned with expanding knowledge. But with all the expnsion and fission, each field has taken stock of its knowledge and is'trying to systematize and classify findings into.coherent systems. ...Data collection are coming aligned with specific criteria. Theorists are building a hierarchy of abstractions and generalizations. And the methods and techniques are, being refined and objectified. In' fact, the more diversified in scope that anthropology has


become, it is through the scientific approach that methods have been integrated.
the Piffusionlst, Evolutionist, and Historical Schools have
been disgarded or minimised. In(Anepsican anthropology there
has been a synthesis of integrationist and functionalist views about culture. "Culture.elements or factors.are considered, in the main, to be independent of each other, but it is freely acknowledged that for the participants in any culture, the cultural elements have meaning and internal consistency.""' Kelly-says that the new conceptions of cultures fit into the framework of social relations which are studied.by sociology and social psychology.
Culture and_Personality; Anthropologists in the 20's and 30's
began to study the relationship between cultures and the personalities of the individual participants in them. The development of this area of" inquiry was based on the developments in psychology and psychiatry stemming directly from
: 55
Freud. Aocording to Arietl there have been three main approaches to culture and --personality studies. First, the Freudian approach which. Malinowski :used in Sen and Repress ion .
54.- Gail Kelly, "Anthropology" in Bert F.Hoselitz (ed) A
Headers' Guide to the Fecial Sciences, 1959, p.205.
55. S. Arietl, "Problems in Anthropology and Modern Psychiatry" American Anthropologist Vol. 58, 1956, pp. 26-35.
Culture Theory; The extreme points of view about culture of


) in Save.~c Society 1927 in which he was testing cross-culturally
the Oedipus Complex. Second, a modified Freudian approach which sees the personality and culture as a result of the instinctual needs.of man. 'daslow, Sullivan, Fromm, and Srikson are coming up with surprising number of validations of Freudian interpretation. Third, the social-psychological approach seesdevelopment of personality, as the "social-characteristic" resulting from individual exposure to a cortain tyre of structure of society. Kardincr's basic personality structure (discussed above) is an example of works in this approach. Culture and personality writers have been concerned with describing and characterising psychological cultural configurations, and delineating the .personality types associated with them.: Benedict in Patterns of Culture 1934, was concerned with cultural configuration and modal personality, national character studies'which were done mainly in the 40's and 50's was an extension of thisapproach to politically differentiated nations which were of ten" studied'at a'' distance.
Another, major concern was in explaining given personality tyres as products of cultural influences especially influences in early childhood. Gorer, Iloheia, Karliner, La Barre, and Srikson stressed the early years as forming the basic personality structure. whereas Thompson, Kluckhohn, GoIdfrank and head stressed later experience in the shaping of modal -or basic personality.
The main emphasfes-of the 60's are in values and in culture and cognition. "The trend seems to be' toward distin-


guishing values as conscious choice patterns from the'more
,.5.6'
unconscious and dynamic aspects of personality. Florence
Mluchhohn's Farias ions In. Va lue Orientations 1961 is one of the moot extensive presentations oh values.. She considers the dominant and variant -value orientations in the "Stmroch" community of Fen Mexico composed of Spanish-American, Zunl, Havaho, Mormons, and Texans to obtain patterns of value or- ientations. Other workers have considered attitudes and value clus'ters particularly in .societies undergoing economic and social change.
Culture and cognition is another main trend. Wallace, in Culture and Personality 1961 for example, presents a conceptualisation of culture-personality relations on cognitive terms. "his major conclusion is .that -uniformity of motives -
and other psychological structures is not necessary for '
,,57
societal functioning. His theoretical discussions show
how important semantics and other aspects of ethnolinguistics are in the study of cross-cultural cognition.
Culture and personality has used 2.-any concepts and method (.eg., Ilorshach and Thematic Apperception tests) of psychology and psychiatry. Hsu suggests we -use the' term "psychological anthropology".. "As the field- diversifies, psychological anthr pology nay well prove the.only term of sufficient generality
56. Hobert A. LeVine-'"Culture and Personality" in Bernard Siegal (ed) Biennial Iheview of Anthrorolony, 1963, pp. 107-145. ~~~ "' "


to cover cross-csiltural studies >,-,:\ notiva ''.or.', corn:".';'.:'.a,
biological bases of behavior, normal and deviant personality
structure end the relation between personality and social ,,58
structure.
Social ane^CulJural.'Change; '' Anthropologists became,interested In change when they perceived the Impact of Western cultures on formerly isolated cultures. Internal and external change
as a phenomena/Itself became of interest in the 30's. Cul-
and depth are important.Students of culture change(mainly the American'Schools) have, been concerned with the theoretical abstractions and considerations of actual behavior.to extract concepts and: processes. Social change students are more interested in the relationship between elements and their integration In a society. .They are concerned with the- phenom-enaloglcal explanation of living societies: the .changes in peoples and societies in their soeio-cultural milieu.
The American anthropologist" hare concentrated mainly on Acculturation. The two memorandums have been discussed above.
I 'will' discuss some specific approaches to the study of-change today. Barrett has concentrated on why. particular innovations' ore accepted or resected. He stresses technological innovations and the satisfactions ana rewards to be -sained from acceptance of a new 'trait. Heafield concentrated
tural change is concerned with" the dynamics of change. Time


on irhy a particular over-all type of society change^in/ certain wayu. The 'emphasis is.on peasant societies and changes in their land, policies. fecial change anghropologists like h'alinowski, Pirth, and Mxdel concentrate on why specific aspects of culture are keys to change. They select social organization, kin relations, prestige patterns, etc., specif!- cally.
ITon-cultural variables such as natural resources, demographic features, national political and economic systems have been studied, ratal,. Keesing, and Ilonlgnanftarc concerned with how the cultural situation and geographical environment activate or limit change. Seaglehole has been concerned, with the role of 'the. individual in a change 'situation; Eager in On the Theory of Culture. Change 1962, believes that for real change within society there must be changes .in the Individual personality structure. The* concern with value systems to explain why "changes -are/accepted,'-modified, and reinterpreted has been one focus, ,And the way economic change induces value changes has been 'studied.' ..
Some of the main current work has been involved with.differentiating the different types of change and discovering how one can be accounted for .'rather than another. The differential rat's .of change are seer as dependent upon the level of internal anxiety, ;the "clearness of model.s, the degree of re-interpretation necessary, the intensity of pressure to change and the political status of the-country. The hind of'


rates makes for particular results. Workers at University of California at-Berkeley and University of Worth Carolina have been concerned with delineating operative, processes, eg., acceptance, assimilation, syncretism, aceomadation,urbani-zation, monetlzation, disorganization. Kushner _et al has compiled a propositional inventory of change generalizations and processes discussed above.
"""" Anthropologists are asking what is change from the viewpoint of the applied anthropologist and sociologist, the administrator, ana the deliberate innovator. They study planned change and compatability.with the rest of culture (this is discussed further in the following section).
.Applied Anthrp.Po.li2.gai: is concerned with understanding the nature
of transitory, changing societies end applying anthropological.-
theory to -explaining,-, predicting culture change- and applying
the insights-and predictions to facilitate the change through
59 '
directed change programs. Laura Thompson calls it "opera- tional anthropology" and although it is not fully systematized "ac, it is both "pure" (theoretical) and applied. It has its roots in the special knowledge; anthropology believes it.has about, diverse culturesknowledge as a basis for social action and in the prediction ability 'anthropologists believe they have.
59. Laura Thompson, "Operational Anthronoloay as an Emergent Discipline" 5TQ-., Vol. 8, pp. 11 7-1 28.


There are two main value emphasis in applied anthropology. The relativity of values as discussedd above and the recognition of universal needs,eg., they assume that increased production, loner death rate 'etc. are desirable, 'fiereas the applied anthropologist ask what is good for man in.general. The sol-, utions are contingent on the specific needs, norms, and values of a particular society..
Some Kinds .of Emphases- a
1. Applied anthropology to underdeveloped cultures. Anthropologists become agents of cultural and-social change. Most of the induced changes have been in agriculture and native technology improvement. The anthropologist is concerned with the problem of inducement, In getting cooperation of local leaders and 'finding plan's favorable to local opinions and. existing indigenous ways and values. The economic feasibility of plans is dependent on the needs felt by the people. "The needs felt by.the people, as ^distinguished from those felt by the innovators constitute one of the mos t In port.ant factors pertaining to the acceptability of an innovation In any particular case .-"k^ 2d ward' Spicer in Human Problems 111 gec^nolo-gicak Cdiangeje considers how the. social structure, ideological and valine systems are affected by Inducing technological changes." "' "'; -..'.'.."'.
2. Applied Anthropology In medicine has been concerned with three aspects. Hirst,' the nature of primitive.;Tnedicino.: -i'he
60. Charles Erasmus "An Anthropologist Looks at Technical Assis tance" in Id.Pried (ed) Reading in,Anthropola.zjt Yol II, 1959, pp.306-404.


kinds of cultural and psychosomatic illnesses. ?he multiple stress factors in desease and the kinds and nature of mental-illness cross-culturally have been considered. Second, 'the interrelations- of social structure of. hospitals, prof es- sional roles, ward interaction and recovery to the people of a society and'to the society as a whole. Third, the social aspects of health and. illness in primitive and more complex societies. The community attitudes toward medical practices have been studied. The anthropologist can then recommend and direct the kind and nature of medical services to be set up in a society.,
3. Applied Anthropology in industry.: The work done falls into two categories, a) the problems and patterns of individuals
in certain positions in. .the. structure of the organisation and k how his cultural characteristics channel behavior and b) the chanaes in.conroanv and how it effects individuals and crowns.
A ... -
Applied anthropology indicates the dependence and Importance human relation factors-and Interaction patterns, on technological and environmental patterns. Anthropologists realize that industrial groups are.ideal in that'they are controlled, .situations. Elliot Chanple has been croneerned 'with "human en- -gineering"suggests plans and changes on the basis of behavior patterns of the company and-the individual participants.
4, Applied Anthropology in Government." Anthropologists have been involved to some extent in administrative and advisory capacities. American Anthropologists have been concerned with


applying anthropological knowledge to formulate and execute government policy concerning the Indians and other, minority '-groups. The British anthropologists were used extensively in designing administrative policies in British Africa.' They set up African, research institutions and-colleges' and were involved in short and. long term investigations of urban populations, migrant labor, land policies, etc. Anthropologist's are serving as technical assistance guides for United .Rations agencies (UHESCO, WHO) where' they aim to bring up living standards without imposing standards of a particular nation.


Conclusion
lie .hove discussed the divisions of the. discipline into Physical and Cultural Anthropology. The concepts and models of culture hae prevaded the entire discipline In the building of theory and in carrying out research. 1-4113 is justifiable since anthropology deals with -culture."
Two main problems,however, are, can culture and aspects of it be explained scientifically and can the anthropologist use his knowledge.in the modern world? '
The state ofanthropology can best be described as .in tensionbetween the' qualitative and quantitative types of fields themselves, the methods used and the knowledge obtained. The arguments-.presented above for considering anthropology as scientific or,humanistic are on-going. He have discussed hoar the scientific and behavioral approaches have been, applied to the aspects of the discipline which are amenable to this-approach. The" point is that not all aspects are capable of being studied scientifically. The discipline 'has allowed for this discrepancy although the tendency and. trends are for more scientific rigor. -:
As for the uses of anthropology,one view which Feattie calls the "conservative vies;" is "that anthropology is and must be an .-Intellectual discipline in its own right, needing no justification in practical utility, and is indeed in danger of degressing from its own proper aims or of ceasing to be science at all if it Is too responsive to the demands of men of affairs


for help in solving practical problems.
1!
Although this
position may be overstated, the "ivory tower" attitude of
cultural relativism and knowledge for knowledge's sake has
been rampant in the discipline. Many anthropologists have
divorced knowledge and social action.
A second view is that "it is proper and-indeed laudable
for the anthropologist to let values and practical concerns
set his problems and define his subject matter, but he must
then, in the interest of proper scientific abjectivity keep
rP*>
his values strictly out of his -ork.""^ Many applied anthropologists take,this view in technical assistance projects, bhbere anthropologists have engaged in interdisciplinary projects they have stressed this viewpoint to other social scientists involved. Pennet comments (discussed above) that the, concept of culture" ofter.' is- not adequate in these kinds of projects. ,
A third view.is where value judgements are inseparable from investigation. -This view includes scientific and normative aspects: Pirst, in selecting any research concerns and formulating a design'the selection of what to observe and how, and what variables and methods to use. Second, the neTw concerns in culture change and applied anthropology in which the anthropologist suggests what ought .to be done. Most applied anthropologists operate by asking what is good for man and
61 Lisa R. Peattie "Tnterventionism and Applied Science in
62. Ibid


then reaJLyzing It nay be. satisfied in some culture better than
others, his oven for example, he sets out to apply his decisions.
Some interdisciplinary work, where "action" anthropology is actually being carried out, rely on normative statements of the anthropologist.S ,: .,
In addition to the dilemma over its humanistic and scientific approaches, and the dilemma over its applications, both the diversity of the subject matter and the overlap and Integration into the other social sciences, have tendencies to disintegrate the discipline.. External as -.veil as internal forces try to split it.' Hedfield conceives of anthropology as "freedom in tension". He suggests that its very nature of diversity and ambiguity.have created approaches which are constantly vying for prominence. Anthropology is enraptured with itself as a liberal mood and attitude which allows for variation and diversity. AsdRedf ield sums it up rather emotlon-
vl-One might speak of anthropology as 'enjoying and also as suffering from the consequences of the polarities and ambiguities of its subject matter and its methods. The coherence of the discipline is threatened by the variety of attachments which anthropologists make to problems and fields of inquiry that though linked to anthropology are far apart from one another. Put the A/rv[ tensions within anthropology, the disposition-'to become concerned with questions marginal to any section of the immense and variegated study of man, make anthropology^ the freest and most explorative of the sciences .(d/^
63. Redfield, on. clt., p.462.
/
ally:
'Hi


ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ackernecat, Erwen H. "On the Comparative Auethod in Anthropology, yin Robert Spencer (ed.) Method, and Perspective; in Antrfppology, Minneapolis:''The-University of Minnesota Press, 1954, pp.' 117-25.
A general review of the .comparative me thiol and its impact on antaropology.
Arieti, S. "Problems in Anthropology and Modern Psychiatry,M American Anthropologist, Vol. 58, 195-6, pp. 26-35.
An explanation of Freud's psychodynamic historical methods and their applications and modifications in anthropology.
Benedict, Ruth. "Anthropology and the Humanities," American Anthropologist,. Vol. 50, 1948, pp .585-93.
Benedict advocates the use of humanistic as well as scientific approaches to anthropology.
Bennett, John V/. "Interdisciplinary Research and the Concept of Culture," American Anthropology, Vol. 56, April 1954, pp. 169-79.
An argument that the concept of culture is a hindrance to interdisciplinary research. Anthropology will have to strive for more analytical schemes which are more explanatory than descriptive.
Bouche, Fred 0. "The limits of Social Sciences, I and II," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 28, Ho. 3, (Nov 1922) and Vol. 28, Ho. 4 (Jan 1923), pp. 300-318; 443-460.
Two discussions of the\aims, analysis, units, causality, and methods in the natural and social sciences. The author argues, in the somewhat dated discussion, that the social sciences are less reliable than the natural sciences.
Colson, Elizabeth. "The Intensive Study of Small Sample Communities, in Robert Spencery'/i.ethods and Perspective in Anthropology, 1954, pp. 43-59.


A criticism of the comparative method in anthropology. The author discusses the uses and limitations of the census form in community studies.
Driver, Harold E. "Introduction to Statistics for Comparative Research," in Prank Moore (ed.).Readings in Cross-Cultural Methodology, New Haven, Hraf Press, 1961, pp. 303-331.
The author gives specific examples for analyzing cross-cultural data by statistical procedures.
DuBois, Cora, "Anthropology: Its Present Interests" in Bernard Berelson (ed.) The Behavioral Sciences Today, New York, Basic Books Inc., 1963, pp. 26-37.
A discussion of what the author considers the three unifying assumptions in anthropology today: comparative approach, holism/^synchronic" and diacnronic approaches.
Eggan, Fred.."Social Anthropology and the Method of Controlled Comparison," American Anthropology, Vol. 56, 1954, PP. 743-63.
A discussion of the differences of the American and British schools of anthropology. The author advocates a combination of historical and comparitive approaches.
Erasmus, Charles^rr^'Ari Anthropologist Looks at Technical Assistance," in M./-Prfed/ (ed.) Readings in Anthropology, Vol.11, New York; Thomas Yh-erowell Co., 1959, PP. 386-404.
A discussion of the kinds of work in anthropology and tne reactions of the anthropologist to aid to underdeveloped nations.
Evans-rPritchard, E.E. "Social Anthropology: Past and Present," Majn, Vol. 50. 1950, pp. 118-24.
A consideration of the aims and levels of abstractions.-found in British social:anthropology.
Hae^enberg, Robert A. "Process Formation in Applied Anthropology," Human Organization, Vol 21, Ho.4, 1962-3, pp. 235-39.


An informative and succinct division of anthropological theory of this century and of the contemporary positions in culture change. The author advocates the use of the comparative method to obtain laws and theory for particular use in applied anthropology.
dandy, Holo and Paul Kurtz. A Current Appraisal of the Behavioral Sciences, Great Barriugton, Mass., Behavioral Research Council for Scientific Inquiry into the Problems, of Men and Society, 1964.;
An excellent source book on the scope, methods, and controversies of Sixteen Behavioral Sciences.
Herskovits, Melville,J. Cultural Anthropology, New York, Alfred A. Knopf, I960.:
A general source book in cultural anthropology.
Herskovits, Melville.J. "Some Further Comments on Cultural Relativism," American Anthropologist, Vol.. 60,1958, pp. 266-73.
A consideration of the philosophical and practical implications of cultural relativism. Herskovits stresses the non-ethical dimensions of relativism.
Hoyt, Elizabeth,E.' "Integration of Culture: A Review of Concepts," Current Anthropology, Vol. 2, Dec. I96I, pp. 407-26.
A discussion of patterns used by the gestalt psychologists and as used today by the interactionists.
Jacobs, Belville. Pattern in Cultural Anthropology, Homewood, Illinois, The Dorsey Press, 1964.
An excellent text of current knowledge in anthropology.
JunkerBuford ,H.. Field Work: An Introduction to the Social Sciences, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, I960.
An excellent manual of field work techniques and problems.


Kardinefj, Abram. The Individual and His Society, New York: Columbia University Press, 1939.
Kardinerformulates the concept of Basic Personality Structure and applies it to a limited number of ethnological studies. A continuation of this concept is found in his book,Psychological Frontiers of Society, 1945.
Kelly,: Gail. "Anthropology, Bert F. Hoselitz (ed.) A Reader';s Guide to the Social Sciences, The Free Press of Glencoe, 1959, pp. 188-209.
A fair survey of the discipline.
Kluckhohn, Clyde. "Anthropology,'" in James Newman (ed.) What is Science?, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955, pp. 319-61*
An excellent review of what anthropology consists of. The author discusses the unifying concepts and uses of knowledge obtained in the discipline.
Kluckhohn, Clyde. "Ethical Relativity," Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 52, 1955, pp. 603-77.
A brief consideration of the main streams of thought on ethical relativity and absolutism in psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and anthropology.
Kroeber, Alfred L. "Anthropology," Scientific American, Vol 68, 1950, pp. 87-94.
A review of anthropology at midcentury.
Kroeber, Alfred L. "The Subject matter of Anthropology,", in M. Fried (ed.) Readings in Anthropology,'Vol I, New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1959, .pp. 3-5. .
A brief resume" of the scope of anthropology.
Kroeber, Alfred and Clyde Klukhohn. Culture^yA Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions, Peabody Mus&tjjl Papers, Vol. 47, No. 1. \
A handbook of the definitions of culture from the literature.


Kushner, Gilbert et. al. What Accounts for Socio-Cultural Change?: A Propositional Inventory, Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina, 1962.
A systematic arrangement of change propositions taken from the literature.
Lcu-feucci, Carlo I. The Scientific Approach, Cambridge: Schenkaian Publishing Co., 1963.
An excellent reference book of scientific definitions,-methods, techniques, and analyses.
leVine, Robert A. "Culture and Personality," in Bernard Siegul (ed.) Biennial Review of Anthropology 1963, 1963,
An excellent review of the literature from i960 to July
Levt -Strauss, Claude. "Social Structure," in Sol Tax (ed.) Anthropology Today; Selections, Phoenix Books, the University of Chicago Press, 1962, pp. 321-50.
An excellent presentation of social structure models. The author also presents a critique of the knowledge' in this area.
Lewis, Oscar. "Comparisons in Cultural Anthropology," in Prank Moore, Readings in Cross Cultural Methodology.,. 1961,'
A review of the kinds of comparative studies in anthropolo
Lindesmith, A.R. and Anselm Strauss. "A Critique of Culture-Personality '.Vritings American Sociological Review, Vol 15,
pp. 107-45.
1962.
pp. 259-92.
1950, pp. 587-60.
A concentration of negative criticism of the methods, descriptions, and conclusions of culture and personality writers. ''""'.


Linton, Ralph. The Science of Man in the World Crisis New York: Columbia Universit/y Press, 1945.
Selections on the purposes and uses of anthropology to aid the world as a result of the World ,7ar II crisis.
Maliiiowski, Bronislaw. A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other assays', Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1944.
A summary and reformulation of Malinowski's functional theory of culture.
Mandelbaum, David G. "The Study of Complex,Civilizations," in W. Thomas (ed.) Current Anthropology, Chicago: The. University of Chicago Press, 1956, pp. 203-??5.
A review of anthropological studies of civilized societies.
The author critically discusses large views of civilization,
studies at a distance**, American community studies, 11.
A
Maquet, Jacque J. "Objectivity in Anthropology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 5, Feb. 1964, pp. 47-55.
An excellent discussion of inductive and deductive methods in anthropology. The author gives examples from African ethnography .
McEwexi, /Villiam J. "Forms and Problems of Validation in Social Anthropology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 4, No.2, 1963, PP. 155-69.
An excellent discussion of the confirmation and validation of theory in social ai thropology. He discusses three types of validation: Illustration, comparison, and testing.
Murdoch, George P. "Anthropology as a Comparative Science," Behavioral Science,' Vol 2, 1957, pp. 249-54.
A good statement of the aims of anthropology within the behavioral sciences. The author considers some' kinds of comparisons available and used by anthropologists.


Peattie, Lisa R. "Interventionism and Applied Science In Anthropology," Human Organization, Vol 17, Ho. 1, 1958, pp. 1-8.
A brief consideration of thie interests of applied anthropology and the values of the anthropologist involved! in directing change.
Phillips, Philip. "American Archaeology and General Anthropological Theory," in M. Pried (ed.) Readings in Antaropology, Vol. I, 1959, pp.251-255.
A presentation of how operations of archaeology and cultural anthropology can be conceived as converging toward a synthesis,from one level to the next.
Redfield, Rolaert., "Relations of Anthropology to Social Sciences and to the Humanities,".in Sol Tax (ed.) Anthropology Today: Selections, 1962, pp. 454-64-
An excellent discussion of the models used in anthropology. Redfield places anthropology closer to. the humanities than to the natural sciences.
Redfield, R. R. Linton, and M. Her\sViVs. "Memorandum on the Study of Acculturation," American Anthropologist, Vol. 38, 1938, pp. 149-152.
An incorporation of three distinct views on acculturation into one formalyzed framework.
Schmidt, Paul. "Some Criticisms of Cultural Relativism," Journal of Philosophy, Vol 52, 1955, pp. 780-91.
An excellent critique of cultural relativism, its meaning, implications, and uses, both practically and philosophically.
Siegel, Bernard J. Biennial Review of Anthropology, 1963, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1963.
An excellent source book of the trends and literature of the 60's.


Social Science Research Council Seminar on Acculturation, "Acculturation; An Exploratory Formation," American Anthro pologist, Vol. 51, 1954, pp. 973-1002.
A re-evaluation and refinement of the previous framework into operational procedures for studying acculturation.
Stavrianos, Bertha.' "Research Methods in Cultural Anthropology in Relation to Scientific Criteria," Psychological Review, Vol. 57, 1950, pp. 334-44.
A criticism of anthropology in relation to scientific fYN^h^ as seen from the experimental psychologist's point of view. The author often mistakes codification and use of statistics as the main tenents of scientific research.
Sturtevant, William C. "The Fields of Anthropology," in M. Fried (ed.) Readings in Anthropology, Vol.'I, 1959, pp.6-14.
A precise rationale behind the organization and fields of .specialization which comprise anthropology.
Tax, Sol, "Integration of Anthropology," in William Thomas (ed.) Current Anthropology 1956, pp. 313-28.
The author presents propositions which explain how the different fields and scholars are integrated.
Tax, Sol. Hor-izons of Anthropology, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1964. ."."'''
A collection of panoramic essays' from physical and cultural anthropology by younger prominent anthropologists.
Thompson, Laura. "Operational Anthropology.as Emergent. Discipline," ETC., Vol.8, pp. 117-28.
An argument that applied anthropology can be a scientific and a "pure" kind of research.


University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs