Applied Anthropology is difficult to fully implement into a being’s existence. When using applied anthropology, many factors must be taken into account such as the Darwin approach, theological approach, or any other specialized field of anthropology. All can have an effect on human culture and relationships, but all have their benefits and harms that can behoove or dismay a human individual in their field of study. The study of humanity is unfortunately as fallible as humanity itself, and to gage what applied anthropology actually is—we must understand the harms and benefits of the many different approaches.
To me, applied anthropology is just the analysis of the way humans function as a whole and consists of a historical time frame from a human’s birth to their identity point. It notes the details that helped shape that individual along the way; however, I am not an anthropologist, and more qualified scholars would define applied anthropology as an active in-depth research component applied to the study of human communities (Kedia, Satish, and Van 16, 150). This type of differences of opinions is what helps shape anthropology into a convoluted study as many differences of opinion are applied and can often skew the study—and by understanding the many different definitions and approaches, we can slowly begin to see how applied anthropology can harm and benefit many individual’s different fields of study.
In regards to my field of study, anthropology is important because many Speech Language Pathologists have to take culture and individual language backgrounds into account when establishing treatment for children and adults. This helps with the patient’s case history and gives you some idea as to how to ap...
... middle of paper ...
...ks, its effects on humanity, and the way applied anthropology is analyzed—we may yet come to a better conclusion as to how to approach every issue of every category that humanity will have to face in the near future. The understanding of these many approaches helps create a more tolerable and better future for us all.
Works Cited
Certeau, Michel de. (1984:xi-xxiv). General Introduction to The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California Press franz Boas (Lewis[1909?] 2001:387)
Kedia, Satish, and Willigen J. Van (2005). Applied Anthropology: Domains of Application. Westport, Conn: Praeger. pp. 16, 150.
Borofsky, R. (2002), The Four Subfields: Anthropologists as Mythmakers. American Anthropologist, 104: 463–480.
Malinowski, B. (1961 [1922]). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. New York: E.P. Dutton.
Hall, E. (1959) The Silent Language
Cultural Anthropology: The Human Challenge, 14th Edition William A. Havilland; Harald E. L. Prins; Bunny McBride; Dana Walrath Published by Wadsworth, Cengage Learning (2014)
William Haviland, Harald Prins, Dana Walrath, Bunny McBride, Anthropology: The Human Challenge (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2011), 58.
Robbins, R. H. (2014). Cultural anthropology: a problem-based approach (Second Canadian ed.). Itasca: F.E. Peacock.
This can bring about both benefits and problems to the anthropologist, and this is what will be examined in this essay. When conducting fieldwork in a different environment, there are many
Robbins Burling, David F. Armstrong, Ben G. Blount, Catherine A. Callaghan, Mary Lecron Foster, Barbara J. King, Sue Taylor Parker, Osamu Sakura, William C. Stokoe, Ron Wallace, Joel Wallman, A. Whiten, Sherman Wilcox and Thomas Wynn. Current Anthropology, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Feb., 1993), pp. 25-53
Participant observation is a method of collecting information and data about a culture and is carried out by the researcher immersing themselves in the culture they observing. The researcher becomes known in the community, getting to know and understand the culture in a more intimate and detailed way than would be possible from any other approach. This is done by observing and participating in the community’s daily activities. The method is so effective because the researcher is able to directly approach the people in the community in a natural context as opposed to taking the participant out of their environment. The aim of participant observation is to gain an understanding the subject’s life from their perspective, with the purpose of collecting more detailed information about a community’s habits, opinions, relationships and issues.
Nanda, S and Warms, R.L. (2011). Cultural Anthropology, Tenth Edition. Belmont, California: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. ISBN – 13:978-0-495-81083-4.
Ember, Carol R., Melvin Ember, and Peter N. Peregrine. Anthropology. Thirteenth ed. Boston, MA: Prentice Hall, 2011. Print.
Personal experience and reflexivity should be used within anthropology as a tool to reflect on the culture that is being studied and not a refocusing of attention on the self. Works such as Dorinne Kondo’s “Dissolution and Reconstitution of Self,” use the idea of reflexivity as a mirror in which to view the culture being studied in a different manner. This use of reflexivity allows for the focus to stay on the culture being studied. A move away from this is the new branch of humanistic anthropology represented in this essay by Renato Rosaldo’s “Grief and a Headhunter’s Rage” and Ruth Behar’s “Anthropology that Breaks Your Heart” allows anthropologists to use reflexivity as a way to explore universal human feelings. For me, this is not the study of anthropology as much as self-reflexive psychology. The focus shifts from culture to self. The anthropologists completely understands the feelings of the people he/she is studying. I think that it is rather ambitious to state that emotion is univeral, and I do not think that it is the job of anthropologists to do so. The reflexive voice is a necessary aspect of ethnographic writing, but the anthropologist must be careful not to shift focus from concentrating on culture to concentrating on herself.
Cultural construction is one of the key values in the study of Anthropology for several reasons. According to Peoples and Bailey in our Humanity book, Anthropology not only helps us understand the biological, technological, and cultural development of humanity but it’s also intended to teach us the importance of understanding and appreciating cultural diversity. By definition, “Cultural constructions are arbitrary in that they are created and maintained by each culture, cultural constructions are not fixed forever rather they are dynamic and change over time. (McGraw-Hill) In other words it would be impossible to gain an understanding for Anthropology without cultural construction since it’s purpose is to illustrate the birth, change, and differences of ideas and values within individual cultures.
Embarking on a journey of anthropological fieldwork will undoubtedly include a plethora of setbacks. At its foundation, fieldwork requires developing rapport with the native people in order to gain access of genuine knowledge pertaining to the specific culture being studied. Subsequently, social communication between the researcher and the native people is a key component to the entire process; yet simultaneously it is a root of the many problems a researcher can encounter while in the field. It is no secret that the cultural background of the researcher can often highly contrast the culture he or she enters during fieldwork. This initial cultural adaptation one must undergo while doing anthropological fieldwork is what many in the realm describe as culture shock.
Park, M.A. (2008). Introducing anthropology: An integrated approach, with PowerWeb, 4th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978–0-07-340525-4
In some countries, this “new physical anthropology” were still practiced in anthropology departments, while in other countries, it moved into biology departments and museums. Lindee and Santos’ suggestion is that a deeper understanding of the development of biological anthropology across a larger range can be educational and productive. Recent discussions within anthropological circles in the United States often fail to consider that in other countries, biological anthropology has been practiced for many decades separate from other areas of anthropology. G´ısli Pa´lsson proposed that anthropology is currently organized around two radically separated domains: biological and social. Humans are both social and biological, not either or, and studying human beings should be both as well. Biological anthropology, with its emphasis on understanding human biology in social terms, seems to fill the privileged epistemic position in relation to social anthropology.
Boas, F. (1930). Anthropology. In, Seligman, E. R. A. ed., Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences. Macmillan: New York.
It analyzes similarities and differences in various cultures and societies. Culture is learned and affects our perception of the world throughout our life. Overtime, a sense of cultural superiority is formed amongst individuals who are constantly exposed to their own culture. Anthropology can help eliminate culturally based biases, also known as ethnocentrism. It is a common practice we all in engage in when evaluating other cultures, however, by practicing anthropology this allows us to learn about other cultures by placing themselves into the cultural environment allows us to learn the traditions and customs by experience. Marjorie Shostak`s study of the !Kung people revealed that they organized themselves differently than Western cultures, which included solving conflicts with discussion, communal behavior, and basic living traditions. Moreover, by interviewing and living in this cultural environment, Shostak was able to empathize with the !Kung people and she also considered that all humans share an emotional life, which is important when studying the history of our human