# Ask an anthropologist!



## koalaroo

I assume this thread won't get as much traffic as other threads, but I figured I'd drop this out there for those who are actually curious! I mostly focus on medical anthropology (sort of a combination of cultural and biological anthropology).

Anthropology, I think, is a misunderstood discipline and that is why I am doing this.


----------



## DarwinsBastard

is there work as an Anthropologist?

I'm trying to study Bio-Anth, I'm scared for my future though,


----------



## koalaroo

I'll drop some cartoons in here for what anthropology is not, for humor's sake.


*Cultural Anthropology*










*Linguistic Anthropology
*









*Physical Anthropology* (Sometimes called Bio-Anth)









*Archaeology
*


----------



## koalaroo

DarwinsBastard said:


> is there work as an Anthropologist?
> 
> I'm trying to study Bio-Anth, I'm scared for my future though,


It depends. I'm in Medical Anthropology (combination of cultural and biol-anth). I ended up going the M.S. plus M.P.H. route because I'm interested in public health, plus one of my influential professors from my undergraduate has been trying to couple anthropology's qualitative methods with public health's quantitative methods.

Depending on your interest within Physical/Biological anthropology, you probably have more options than people graduating in cultural or linguistics subfields. Archaeology probably has better job prognosis than most of the sub fields.

Also, people in Applied Anthropology can find pretty good jobs with a M.A./M.S., particularly in the corporate sphere. Oh, and working as an anthropologist almost always requires at least a master's degree. A graduate from an undergraduate program can find work as a research assistant if he or she looks in the right places. You'll probably be making around $30,000 if you can get a starting research assistant position, more if you negotiate based on your merits as an undergraduate and based on the cost-of-living where you would be a research assistant.

Salaries are based in U.S. dollars.


----------



## Ntuitive

(these are my personal thoughts)

I'm not an Anthropologist but I minored in anthropology. So if anyone is curious. There is cultural and physical anthropology. People sometimes get confused between archeology and anthropology. Physical anthropology is identifying and naming ancient human species through examining fossils. So you can be an archeologist or an anthropologist and discover a bunch of bones but the anthropologist is the one who's going to study those bones, usually pertaining to human evolution.

Then cultural anthropology tends to be more holistic and symbolic. It's looking at a culture and first identifying what they do, and then finding out why they do what they do and what it means to them. There is also something called social discourse which basically means that when you are within one culture, you don't realize that your accepted norms can mean something completely different to another culture.

For instance people from different parts of the world might not understand how to use a toilet or a shower, while we just accept it as something obvious and don't think about it.

Cultural anthropology mixes a lot of sociology, psychology, and philosophy, and ethics, history, politics etc. and sees how all of that creates the formation and identity of a group of people. It's extremely broad which is why there are so many interesting aspects about it. Understanding cultural anthropology really gives you a better perspective on how to view different cultures and becoming more open minded to understand why groups of people do what they do.


----------



## koalaroo

Some notes:



In North America, anthropology typically is seen as having four subfields (cultural, linguistics, physical/biological, archaeology.)
In Europe, archaeology is more often aligned with history than with anthropology.
In anthropology in general, many people suggest a fifth subfield called "applied anthropology" that often gets poo-pooed by traditionalists within ivory tower anthropology.
Anthropologists typically receive a solid foundation in both the "hard" and social sciences.
Anthropologists use both qualitative and quantitative methods to extract and examine data.


----------



## koalaroo

Also, this is related to my weird humor, but I tend to joke about anthropology being the first "interdisciplinary science." Each subfield is really a science of its own, some relying more on "hard" science and others relying more on social scientific theory.


----------



## Adrift

I saw a show on National Geographic Channel about traditional chinese medicine about a year ago. Two westerners, one with back pain and one with no sense of smell, traveled to Hong Kong and sought treatment from various traditional chinese medical practicioners. 

Some of the methods they tried included acupuncture, herbal medicine, and chi manipulation. The acupuncture did seem to partially restore the guy's sense of smell, but the other methods didn't seem to work.

I know there've been western studies on acupuncture, but what about studies on chi manipulation? In the tv program, the medical practioners said that the same ailment may require different treatment methods in different people and that was why some studies showed no effect. Any opinions on traditional chinese medicine in general?


----------



## Ntuitive

DarwinsBastard said:


> is there work as an Anthropologist?
> 
> I'm trying to study Bio-Anth, I'm scared for my future though,


Be scared. Hopefully that will motivate you to go to graduate school because that's where it begins to be more applicable. With a bachelors it may be hard to find something related to anthropology. At least in my situation.. I'm studying business now after having not been able to find a legitimate job for a year after graduating. I kind of need money lol.


----------



## koalaroo

Adrift said:


> I know there've been western studies on acupuncture, but what about studies on chi manipulation? In the tv program, the medical practioners said that the same ailment may require different treatment methods in different people and that was why some studies showed no effect. Any opinions on traditional chinese medicine in general?


Traditional Chinese medicine fits under what Western medicine would consider "complimentary and alternative medicines" (CAM), so this is certainly relevant to medical anthropology. When I put on my *critical medical anthropology* glasses, CAM is to be viewed with both skepticism and interest. I find some claims of traditional Chinese medicine to be valid and others to be dubious. Chi is one of those interesting things about Eastern philosophy that I find both interesting and dubious, but I need to do a bit of digging to make sure what I say is accurate.

I'll get back to you on it if I can find an anthropological article I'd recommend on the benefits and pitfalls of both CAM and traditional Chinese medicine. If I don't get back to you within a day or two, feel free to post on my visitor's wall on my profile, toss me a PM or simply @ me in this thread to get my attention back to your topic.


----------



## koalaroo

To get back to the basics of anthropology, in North America the following are the four subfields of anthropology, plus the fifth that has been suggested but not necessarily taken well.

*Cultural Anthropology
*Cultural anthropology is basically "the study of man's culture(s)." The basic research method in cultural anthropology is participant observation, where an anthropologist immerses him- or herself into a culture and writes down his or her findings. 

*Linguistic Anthropology*
Linguistic anthropology is basically the study of various methods of communication. While general languages are studied, so are nonverbal cues. Nonverbal cues are often sorted between what seems universal as well as what is cultural.

*Physical/Biological Anthropology*
Physical anthropology is the study of the human (and primate) condition from a biological perspective. This includes but is not limited to primatology, paleoanthropology, hominid evolution and forensic anthropology.

*Archaeology*
Archaeology at the very least is the study of ancient cultures through their remaining architecture and artifacts, but contemporary archaeology exists. Sometimes the purpose is merely to catalog a culture's artifacts or refuse, other times the purpose is to reconstruct a culture. 

*Applied Anthropology
*Applied anthropology means exactly what it sounds like -- taking anthropological principles and modes of research, and then applying them to real-world problems. Corporate anthropologists are an example of applied anthropologists.


----------



## DlusionAl

I love anthropology. It would have been my second choice for a degree if I didnt do what I did now. I sadly can only look into it as a hobby now.


----------



## koalaroo

DlusionAl said:


> I love anthropology. It would have been my second choice for a degree if I didnt do what I did now. I sadly can only look into it as a hobby now.


That's sort of the way I'll end up using my masters in anthropology unless I end up going the route of using medical anthropology in my public health work (and I think I'll try to do so.)


----------



## Laney

This might be a totally random question, but hey! Can you tell someone's race by their skeleton?


----------



## koalaroo

Laney said:


> This might be a totally random question, but hey! Can you tell someone's race by their skeleton?


It isn't a totally random question at all, and it's related to forensic anthropology. You can tell a variety of things about a person based on their skeleton, and racial determination is potentially one of them (although this becomes more and more difficult as different groups of people intermarry and breed.) Certain groups from certain geographic locations sometimes do have markers in the skull, facial bones and in the teeth. So racial determination is possible, but it isn't necessarily something easy or clearly delineated. 

For an interesting study into why it can be difficult to tell race based on the skeleton, look into the controversy of the Kennewick man's NAGPRA repatriation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_man). Basically, some skull markers were originally inconclusive with regard to determining the skeleton's probable origin -- and this also challenged some of the prevailing theories on the peopling of the Americas.

Hope that answers some of your questions, @Laney!


----------



## ThatName

What would like to see yourself doing in the field of anthropology 10-15 years from now? e.g, lecturing?


----------



## koalaroo

ThatName said:


> What would like to see yourself doing in the field of anthropology 10-15 years from now? e.g, lecturing?


If I had the option of receiving my Ph.D., yes I would look forward to being a dual lecturer in anthropology and public health programs. Without the Ph.D., I at least look forward to getting an epidemiology job with my M.P.H. and trying along with other anthropologists and public health graduates to couple the qualitative properties of anthropology research with the quantitative properties of public health or epidemiology research.

As a note, if I really do well with my public health and epidemiology work, I would probably be making between $135,000 to $150,000 (US dollars) a year in 10-15 years. So, in a way there is some avarice attached to me choosing public health over a career as University lecturer, but it's also more practical to get a job in epidemiology rather than in academia.

Both jobs allow me to do research related to health and culture, and that it is primarily what I want out of life. Also, tenure track academia is kind of a pain to manage to get through. The academia jobs where I would probably be living, I'd be making anywhere between $50,000 to $100,000 a year depending on seniority and the importance of my research.


----------



## ThatName

koalaroo said:


> If I had the option of receiving my Ph.D., yes I would look forward to being a dual lecturer in anthropology and public health programs. Without the Ph.D., I at least look forward to getting an epidemiology job with my M.P.H. and trying along with other anthropologists and public health graduates to couple the qualitative properties of anthropology research with the quantitative properties of public health or epidemiology research.
> 
> As a note, if I really do well with my public health and epidemiology work, I would probably be making between $135,000 to $150,000 (US dollars) a year in 10-15 years. So, in a way there is some avarice attached to me choosing public health over a career as University lecturer, but it's also more practical to get a job in epidemiology rather than in academia.


Would getting a docterate in medicine, e.g. as a pathologist, be relevant in the field of anthropology...i don't know, archeology?


----------



## DlusionAl

koalaroo said:


> It isn't a totally random question at all, and it's related to forensic anthropology. You can tell a variety of things about a person based on their skeleton, and racial determination is potentially one of them (although this becomes more and more difficult as different groups of people intermarry and breed.) Certain groups from certain geographic locations sometimes do have markers in the skull, facial bones and in the teeth. So racial determination is possible, but it isn't necessarily something easy or clearly delineated.
> 
> For an interesting study into why it can be difficult to tell race based on the skeleton, look into the controversy of the Kennewick man's NAGPRA repatriation (Kennewick Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Basically, some skull markers were originally inconclusive with regard to determining the skeleton's probable origin -- and this also challenged some of the prevailing theories on the peopling of the Americas.
> 
> Hope that answers some of your questions, @_Laney_!



One of my older professors was an anthropologist and he would tell us where our ancestors were from by looking at our face. He was right pretty much all the time too


----------



## koalaroo

ThatName said:


> Would getting a docterate in medicine, e.g. as a pathologist, be relevant in the field of anthropology...i don't know, archeology?


A medical doctorate as a pathologist would probably not be overly relevant to the archaeological field of anthropology (although I wouldn't rule it out if they had a _strong academic background in archaeology_), but it might be relevant to forensic anthropology.


----------



## koalaroo

The two terms often used to describe medicinal approaches in medical anthropology are "Western Biomedicine" (referred to as Western Medicine) and "*C*omplementary and *A*lternative *M*edicine" (referred to as CAM.) This post is designed to answer some of @_Adrift_'s and @_soya_'s questions related to traditional medicine, which typically falls under the CAM umbrella. Both Western Medicine and CAM can be relevant to health and both should work in the direction of achieving health. A fair bit of work in critical medical anthropology is done to credit or discredit either Western Medicine or CAM, which has occasionally brought up the criticism of critical medical anthropology not really seeking a holistic view of medicine. To give a visual example of how they might work together or against one another, I'm using a few arrow diagrams!










In this arrow diagram, we have Western Biomedicine and CAM approaching the same point. In this case, the point they would be approaching would be general "health" of individuals. However, when there is a conflict between biomedicine and CAM, the diagram might look something more like this:










In the above diagram, CAM and biomedicine are at disequilibrium. This happens within this approach to medicine when either CAM or biomedicine practitioners come into conflict, or when a patient and a practitioner of either CAM or biomedicine come into conflict over a patient's wishes to use the other form of medicine. As we are aware of what Western Biomedicine (Western Medicine or simply biomedicine as I'll call it from here on out) is and how it tends to function, I will discuss more of what CAM is. I have mentioned before that CAM is an umbrella term and anything "medical" or "medicinal" appearing that falls outside of the strictly drawn lines of biomedicine typically will be referred to as CAM.

We have the following under the CAM umbrella:


Traditional medicines (Chinese, African, Ayurveda)
Chiropractors
Mind-body interventions (prayer, mind-over-matter thinking)
Homeopathy
Acupuncture
Nutritional supplementation
Energy field manipulation
 
Those are just a sample, and I pulled some from the Wikipedia article that I didn't know about, such as the energy field manipulation. As you can see, some of it will sound or seem a little hokey to people who are much more familiar with Western Biomedicine. I'm trained as a medical anthropologist, and I still find some of what fits under CAM to be rather hokey. Also, as a note, there are some forms of biomedicine that might be placed under CAM by biomedical practitioners, such as midwifery (pronounced "mid-wiff-er-ee" for those who do not know) even when practiced by a licensed nurse or nurse practitioner certified as a nurse midwife. This is something of a tragedy, but since it isn’t relevant to the current discussion I can wax on it later if people would like for me to do so.

Onto @_Adrift_'s and then @_soya_'s questions very, very soon.


----------



## koalaroo

@_Adrift_ writes the following:



Adrift said:


> I saw a show on National Geographic Channel about traditional chinese medicine about a year ago. Two westerners, one with back pain and one with no sense of smell, traveled to Hong Kong and sought treatment from various traditional chinese medical practicioners.
> 
> Some of the methods they tried included acupuncture, herbal medicine, and chi manipulation. The acupuncture did seem to partially restore the guy's sense of smell, but the other methods didn't seem to work.
> 
> I know there've been western studies on acupuncture, but what about studies on chi manipulation? In the tv program, the medical practioners said that the same ailment may require different treatment methods in different people and that was why some studies showed no effect. Any opinions on traditional chinese medicine in general?


As a note, I approve of shows on Nat Geo. Probably one of my favorite channels on TV, and unfortunately, it comes in and out of the cable lineup here. Somewhat frustrating, but not relevant to your questions. What you ask generally is my opinions on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). My view on TCM in general is to treat it with interest and a healthy dose of skepticism, and I think I covered that briefly but never got around to actually answering your questions fully.

According to my Wikipedia skills and a little bit of supplemental reading, one premise of TCM is the belief of Yin and Yang. So, basically, health is balanced on the principles of complimentary push and pull. I find this philosophy to be relatively compatible with biomedicine, where the body needs a healthy homeostasis or equilibrium.

My result of looking at the Wikipedia article also brought up the concept of "Five Phases" or "Five Elements". So, traditionally you have Earth, Air, Fire, Water and Metal. The diagram for it when used in explanation is a pentagram. You brought up the concept of chi and there are apparently five concepts of chi in health, and I assume these five concepts correspond with the five phases/elements. I think this may be why the chi practitioners said that different people would need different treatment methods, depending perhaps on what element they correspond with as well as what element seems out of alignment. Don't take my word for that, but that is what I suspect about traditional Chinese medicine in the case of chi manipulation. 

I could not find any good articles studying chi/qi manipulation, so I apologize @_Adrift_. In the end, my opinion is that while I agree that yinyangism is probably compatible with Western Biomedicine at least on the point of bodily homeostasis, I don't find the "five phases" or "five elements" to be compatible with biomedicine. I couldn't find any good information on chi manipulation working or being studied, at least not in articles I could access for free or in articles I could link to you. Part of the problem is that using both "qi manipulation" and "chi manipulation" brings up random studies that use chi-squared tests in their statistical analyses, totally unrelated to traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). @_LeaT_ might be better equipped to find a good article on chi/qi manipulation.

I hope that answers some of your questions, @_Adrift_!

Soon, onto @_soya_'s questions!


----------



## Paradox1987

koalaroo said:


> @_LeaT_ - what do you think of this for a Venn diagram (best I could do in Word 2007) for the subject of male circumcision? Also, @_Paradox1987_, let me know what you think when you see this!
> 
> View attachment 44927
> 
> 
> I admit it needs some work, but it gives a basic overview, I think? Or should I combine health & body control? This is the option below:
> 
> View attachment 44928


On a macro level, I think that health and body control probably combine to a certain extent. I think in the way that "health" gets constructed within the legal framework in civil and criminal law work to create the idea of taking active measures to be healthy, which often becomes interchangeable within the way public policy filters down and shapes cultures. With FGM in particular, the policy framework is set up in a way which shows FGM to be Millean harmful as well, so the power to conflate health and bodily control is granted to the sovereign.

However, on a micro level, health and body control must become more nuanced, because of the conflict between the right to freedom of thought conscience and religion which Europe in particular has introduced to the legal-cultural framework. When FGM is an offence, communities either flout the law as covertly as possible, or simply travel to where it is.

*EDIT*
This is heavily Western European focused, so I can't comment on cross-compatibility.


----------



## Entropic

@koalaroo I am afraid Eastern philosophy is not my forte at all. I've read some studies on Eastern culture but not chi/qi unfortunately. Ask me about gender and masculinity or migration and I can dig up a lot though!


----------



## koalaroo

LeaT said:


> @_koalaroo_ I am afraid Eastern philosophy is not my forte at all. I've read some studies on Eastern culture but not chi/qi unfortunately. Ask me about gender and masculinity or migration and I can dig up a lot though!


I tried all sorts of searches and it kept bringing up studies with chi square statistical analysis in them. Was a bit of a bummer, to be honest. I was hoping I could find something good.


----------



## Entropic

koalaroo said:


> I tried all sorts of searches and it kept bringing up studies with chi square statistical analysis in them. Was a bit of a bummer, to be honest. I was hoping I could find something good.


I think the closest thing I can think of is probably James R. Lewis' works on New Age and new religions. I don't have any particular article or work in mind though.


----------



## koalaroo

@_soya_ - I'll post your section tomorrow! Sorry I couldn't get to it tonight (I have most of it written but I need about eight hours of sleep to finish it), but it'll be rushed to the presses by noon US Eastern.


----------



## koalaroo

Now, onto @_soya_’s questions!



soya said:


> I'm a cultural anthro student and my understanding of biological or biomedical perspectives is limited. Thanks for making this thread!
> 
> I'm wondering what your thoughts are on spiritual beliefs/healing practices such as those commonly found in Africa. For instance, the belief that spirits can possess people and make them ill, or that one person can hex another person resulting in their physical illness.
> 
> It is my understanding that spiritual beliefs (or perhaps what we might call 'superstitions') are strongly tied to the physical realm in such cultures, and as a result, traditional western medicine is sometimes met with suspicion or outright rejected in favor of traditional healing practices (even in cases where a person has a serious illness such as HIV). Because western medicine is concerned chiefly with the physical, it appears difficult to synthesize these two approaches. And yet, without creating an effective dialogue between the two, it is hard to see effective, culturally relevant treatment to become more prevalent in Africa today.
> 
> I wonder if it is possible for belief to affect a person's physical reality? In other words, if someone truly believes they have been cursed and then they become ill, was it their belief that has caused a psychosomatic illness? Or is it possible that when a person begins to feel malaise, they immediately assume they've been cursed? I have heard that some beieve that spirirts only exist for those who believe in them.
> 
> I am curious also about your thoughts on Ayurvedic medicine, and the concept of the doshas, herbal/mineral remedies, holistic care... It is my understanding that Ayurvedic healers believe that each person has an individual 'makeup' of these elements (which like the Hippocratic humors influence both physiological and temperamental differences) and needs to be treated in such a way to keep them in balance - the assumption there is that each patient is unique, and treatment thus is more personalised than in western medicine. Anther difference I see is preventive care rather than treating an ailment after it arises; looking for signs of potential problems and treating them before they "have a chance" to occur. Is Ayurvedic medicine generally seen as folk healing rather than valid medical treatment? Another topic that comes to mind is the chakra system, but I think I've already addressed so many things that I should stop here.


 @_soya_, I’m just going to say that you’re welcome. I considered putting this thread in the education forums, but I decided to put it into the S&T forums instead just to push that anthropology contains science and can be considered a science. 

And yes, belief does seem to affect our physical realities. In the case of Latin America, there is a cultural illness called _susto_ that appears at times of stress. Anorexia is sometimes considered to be a Western cultural illness. Japanese mental health practitioners deal with an illness that stressed students come down with, and it appears to be culturally limited. 

I would assume that Ayurvedic medicine is similar in some ways to traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in that there are parts that appear to coexist easily with biomedicine and there are parts that do not. I’ve taken traditional yoga classes and have been introduced to Ayurvedic philosophy in this sense. I actually don’t think that traditional medicines are really more personalized than biomedicine, because this is a claim that many CAM practitioners make. 

Like I mentioned with the TCM, the ideas of some sort of equilibrium are important in biomedicine and Ayurvedic philosophy. Having taken traditional yoga classes and been a bit weirded out by the philosophy, I think that it’s an interesting way of looking at the body but not necessarily valid for everyone. Hope that helps!

(Sorry it took so long to post this -- my hands are killing me today.)


----------



## soya

It is my thinking as well that perception and belief affect our realities, physical and otherwise. It's always nice to hear that I'm not alone there, some people are rather unwilling to even consider it.

I wonder where medicine will go in the future as cultures continue to make more contact and more intermingling occurs. 

What exactly weirded you out about what you encountered in the yoga class, if I may ask?


----------



## koalaroo

@soya - We were learning about chakras and breathing, and the instructor kept getting annoyed that we were like "we don't feel what you're saying we should feel."


----------



## soya

haha! Not everyone has the patience necessary to be a great teacher. 

Assuming many of you were new to yoga and the whole chakra thing, it's not so hard to understand that it might take time for people to get out of their thoughts and into a head space that might open them up to something new. 

I used to be the biggest skeptic of everything, even of something like relaxation, because it was so hard for me to quiet my mind, and such things never "worked" -- when I did finally get it to work, and had a waking dream of sorts, it changed/opened my mind. Prior to that, though, nothing convinced me.


----------



## babblingbrook

Interesting. Some questions for you.

What are the views of an anthropologist on the nature versus nurture debate?

From a post modern view I would say that there are no origins and reality is a construct, made up out of effects. I believe Michel Foucault would say something like this, right?

Another question. Why doesn't the anthropologist have a major role in political decision making? I mean they actually did some research.


----------



## koalaroo

babblingbrook said:


> Interesting. Some questions for you.
> 
> What are the views of an anthropologist on the nature versus nurture debate?
> 
> From a post modern view I would say that there are no origins and reality is a construct, made up out of effects. I believe Michel Foucault would say something like this, right?


What I was taught in my cultural anth and physical anth classes is that life is a combination of nature and nurture. I don't necessarily go into the metaphysical or philosophical aspects of life, because it isn't really common in my subset of anthropology (this is often a problem with being more of an applied rather than critical medical anthropologist -- sometimes what seems feasible on an critical level is not at the applied level.) What you mentioned does sound something like what Foucault might say, but I think @_LeaT_ might better prepared to answer about Foucault. 



> Another question. Why doesn't the anthropologist have a major role in political decision making? I mean they actually did some research.


It depends on the subset of anthropology that the anthropologist follows for whether or not they would have a major role in political decision making. That said, I think a lot of anthropologists (aside from applied anthropologists in America), are more prone to sit and watch from the sidelines while slowly influencing policy in other ways (for instance, trying to get countries to quit FGM.) Anthropologists sitting by the sidelines seems to be a tenant of cultural relativism, which is a major influence in American anthropology.

That said, I might be completely missing what you're saying.


----------



## babblingbrook

koalaroo said:


> What I was taught in my cultural anth and physical anth classes is that life is a combination of nature and nurture. I don't necessarily go into the metaphysical or philosophical aspects of life, because it isn't really common in my subset of anthropology (this is often a problem with being more of an applied rather than critical medical anthropologist -- sometimes what seems feasible on an critical level is not at the applied level.) What you mentioned does sound something like what Foucault might say, but I think @_LeaT_ might better prepared to answer about Foucault.
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the subset of anthropology that the anthropologist follows for whether or not they would have a major role in political decision making. That said, I think a lot of anthropologists (aside from applied anthropologists in America), are more prone to sit and watch from the sidelines while slowly influencing policy in other ways (for instance, trying to get countries to quit FGM.) Anthropologists sitting by the sidelines seems to be a tenant of cultural relativism, which is a major influence in American anthropology.
> 
> That said, I might be completely missing what you're saying.


Thanks, I see. You understood just fine.

But trying countries to quit FGM sounds a bit like a universalist approach..? 

Is there some literature you would recommend? Is Claude Levi Strauss a good way to start getting into Anthropology?


----------



## Entropic

@babblingbrook I am not much into Foucault but I am a post-structuralist so I try to answer from a structuralist point of view with the speck of Foucault that I am familiar with. 

A structuralist would argue that the very nature of nature is constructed. When we talk about nature we often do so in a highly romanticized manner. We inject values and thus it becomes a social construct which then develops into a discourse. A problem structuralism often deals with is how nature is considered to be apart of culture, as if they are two opposing dichotomies. Nature is natural and culture is unnatural. However, from a structuralist point of view, nature is as much a part of culture because we construct a discourse about what nature is and is not. Nature is in culture and culture is in nature. We for instance think of nature as wild, chaotic, ferocious and uncontrolled. This view of nature is then injected into other social discourses such as the discussion about global warming. When describing future possibilities of what might happen if we do not stop global warming, which I should add, is also framed into either being human-induced and thus controllable or natural as a part of the environment, nature is depicted as chaotic. There will be more natural disasters and living conditions will be harsher and this is nothing we can seemingly do something about. 

Post-structuralism and hermeneutics both therefore approach culture as Kant did. It is not that there is no objective reality but because of our subjective understandings of reality in addition to our limitations to perception it will be very hard for us to ever experience the objective world as is. Kant called this the-thing-in-itself. The objective reality affects us in various ways. This is undeniable. Would there be no objective reality I would not exist to begin with as I the subject called I would merely be a collection of various perceptions of others and this does not seem to be true. I definitely experience myself as an individual. Structuralism is an attempt to frame these perceptions in relation to the objective reality, by proposing the model that these perceptions create many different social structures that as lenses in which to view the world through.

Michel Foucault was specifically interested in looking at the distributions of power. He proposed that people in power would create discourses in order to promote their own self-sustenance. Feminism for instance looks at how patriarchy as a discourse reinforces certain norms and ideals that guarantees that men will remain in power by proposing reasons why women should be subordinate because men and women are in direct opposition of each other. 

The post-structural anthropologist would therefore answer with that while it is a certainty that reality affects us in certain ways we cannot know how much of this is nature versus nurture since our very perception of nature is jaded. The underlying reasons why our perception is jaded depends on many things such as social discourses and our inability to perceive reality as is.


----------



## babblingbrook

LeaT said:


> @_babblingbrook_ I am not much into Foucault but I am a post-structuralist so I try to answer from a structuralist point of view with the speck of Foucault that I am familiar with.
> 
> A structuralist would argue that the very nature of nature is constructed. When we talk about nature we often do so in a highly romanticized manner. We inject values and thus it becomes a social construct which then develops into a discourse. A problem structuralism often deals with is how nature is considered to be apart of culture, as if they are two opposing dichotomies. Nature is natural and culture is unnatural. However, from a structuralist point of view, nature is as much a part of culture because we construct a discourse about what nature is and is not. Nature is in culture and culture is in nature. We for instance think of nature as wild, chaotic, ferocious and uncontrolled. This view of nature is then injected into other social discourses such as the discussion about global warming. When describing future possibilities of what might happen if we do not stop global warming, which I should add, is also framed into either being human-induced and thus controllable or natural as a part of the environment, nature is depicted as chaotic. There will be more natural disasters and living conditions will be harsher and this is nothing we can seemingly do something about.
> 
> Post-structuralism and hermeneutics both therefore approach culture as Kant did. It is not that there is no objective reality but because of our subjective understandings of reality in addition to our limitations to perception it will be very hard for us to ever experience the objective world as is. Kant called this the-thing-in-itself. The objective reality affects us in various ways. This is undeniable. Would there be no objective reality I would not exist to begin with as I the subject called I would merely be a collection of various perceptions of others and this does not seem to be true. I definitely experience myself as an individual. Structuralism is an attempt to frame these perceptions in relation to the objective reality, by proposing the model that these perceptions create many different social structures that as lenses in which to view the world through.
> 
> Michel Foucault was specifically interested in looking at the distributions of power. He proposed that people in power would create discourses in order to promote their own self-sustenance. Feminism for instance looks at how patriarchy as a discourse reinforces certain norms and ideals that guarantees that men will remain in power by proposing reasons why women should be subordinate because men and women are in direct opposition of each other.
> 
> The post-structural anthropologist would therefore answer with that while it is a certainty that reality affects us in certain ways we cannot know how much of this is nature versus nurture since our very perception of nature is jaded. The underlying reasons why our perception is jaded depends on many things such as social discourses and our inability to perceive reality as is.


Whoa thanks for your clear and elaborate answer. I see this is bordering on philosophy, so let me keep this short. I see there is no way to know the ding an sich, therfore you cannot know nature, only our construction of nature, so nature enters the realm of culture or has always been there. But what do you mean with: "objective reality exists, because I experience myself as an individual?" I don't really understand your argument.


----------



## Entropic

babblingbrook said:


> Whoa thanks for your clear and elaborate answer. I see this is bordering on philosophy, so let me keep this short. I see there is no way to know the ding an sich, therfore you cannot know nature, only our construction of nature, so nature enters the realm of culture or has always been there. But what do you mean with: "objective reality exists, because I experience myself as an individual?" I don't really understand your argument.


Descartes. If there was no objective reality there would be no framework which could spawn me, and there would be no framework in which I could compare my existence to, since I would merely be the perception of others. Something akin to the holographic principle. I don't think that's true. Personally. Then we fall into dangerous solipsist thinking, at least.


----------



## koalaroo

babblingbrook said:


> Thanks, I see. You understood just fine.
> 
> But trying countries to quit FGM sounds a bit like a universalist approach..?
> 
> Is there some literature you would recommend? Is Claude Levi Strauss a good way to start getting into Anthropology?


Personally, when I really get into a really good "anthropology introduction" for people, I tend to recommend Franz Boas who is considered the "father of modern anthropology" or the "father of American anthropology." @_LeaT_ might or might not agree with Franz Boas as a strong introduction, but he was basically one of the people who really pushed to put the scientific method into anthropology. There's an old Franz Boas reader that some of my classes had to read out of during both undergrad and grad (we ended up with scanned copies of selected readings distributed to the class.)

Franz Boas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The above might be some good sources, and I think the list contains the name of the reader we received selected readings from by Boas.

Levi-Strauss is also a good introduction, at least in terms of structuralist thought. I also had selected readings from him in both undergrad and grad. I think maybe I should confer with @_LeaT_ and see about us putting up a list of collected "good reading" for various subjects within anthropology.


----------



## babblingbrook

LeaT said:


> Descartes. If there was no objective reality there would be no framework which could spawn me, and there would be no framework in which I could compare my existence to, since I would merely be the perception of others. Something akin to the holographic principle. I don't think that's true. Personally. Then we fall into dangerous solipsist thinking, at least.


Why can't the perception of others be the framework to which you could compare your existence?


----------



## Entropic

babblingbrook said:


> Why can't the perception of others be the framework to which you could compare your existence?


Not the place to go into this discussion I think  

I think I already inferred my position in my previous post though. It's because the subject and object are fundamentally opposed to me. 

@koalaroo Yes, not a bad idea. I'm very fond of Clifford Geertz and Mary Douglas.


----------



## koalaroo

LeaT said:


> I'm very fond of Clifford Geertz and Mary Douglas.


Derp. Why am I not thinking of these things? These are essential along with Boas.

Also, Margaret Mead is an important although very controversial read at the moment, perhaps an important read because her "findings" were so controversial. (An instance of where anthropology can go wrong.)


----------



## Entropic

koalaroo said:


> Derp. Why am I not thinking of these things? These are essential along with Boas.
> 
> Also, Margaret Mead is an important although very controversial read at the moment, perhaps an important read because her "findings" were so controversial. (An instance of where anthropology can go wrong.)


Pretty much that, yes. I think the anthology Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History by Warms and McGee is good. 

Amazon.com: Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History (9780072840469): R. Jon McGee, Richard Warms: Books

It covers the essential development and got nice snippets from each name and branch. I think it's an essential book for those who are interested to get more into anthropology. 

Some of the choices included are perhaps a little odd but it covers a large portion of basic anthropological thought and development. Seems they added a new section in the new versions. I really like the inclusion of Philippe Burgois whose works on Puerto Rican crack dealers in New York is very good.


----------



## Paradox1987

koalaroo said:


> @soya - We were learning about chakras and breathing, and the instructor kept getting annoyed that we were like "we don't feel what you're saying we should feel."


My father was a big follower of Vedantic philosophy, and he got me interested in Spinoza (whose ethics are uncannily similar in places to Vedantic ideas). He tried teaching me about yogic meditations. He says that during meditation it is best to try and understand how to breathe etc so that your blood collects behind the bridge of your nose, it's apparently this physiological sensation that is associated with "anand praapt" or obtaining bliss. Though I blindly trusted his understanding of the biology behind this, with anatomy he's never steered me wrong.


----------



## koalaroo

I'm set to answer a few questions tonight.


----------



## BSUStudent1

*The Career and Your Thoughts*



koalaroo said:


> I assume this thread won't get as much traffic as other threads, but I figured I'd drop this out there for those who are actually curious! I mostly focus on medical anthropology (sort of a combination of cultural and biological anthropology).
> 
> Anthropology, I think, is a misunderstood discipline and that is why I am doing this.


Dear Koalaroo, My name is David and I am a double major at BSU. I study anthropology and biology. I was hoping I could ask some questions about the career itself. Questions along the line of "What is a day on this job really like?". I was to interview a professor here before he bailed on me and I need real answers I can trust for my paper. Can you help? I would be very much appreciative.


----------



## BSUStudent1

What is a day on this Job really like? its perfect your a bio-anthorpologist. It falls in line with my majors.


----------



## BSUStudent1

What is a day on this Job really like? BTW its perfect your a bio-anthorpologist. It falls in line with my majors.


----------



## Mustang

Cool thread, I'm a bio-anth major myself, graduating in May.  Though I really don't and won't do anything purely Anth, my jobs relate to people even if I don't deal with them directly too much. I'm concerned with how cultures view and treat our animal and wildlife companions, and the conservation and research efforts that go along with that. What I really like about being an Anthro major was that the Bio track give me the freedom to feel like a Bio major without feeling like a pre-med, since the two are so closely woven together at my university.


----------



## FiNe SiTe

What's the best book to read about Anthropology?


----------



## babblingbrook

At the moment I'm following these lectures on Cultural Anthropology. I'm now 17 lectures in. It's a very interesting and highly entertaining course.

Peoples and Cultures of the World


----------



## koalaroo

FiNe SiTe said:


> What's the best book to read about Anthropology?


Depends on what you're interested in!


----------



## Dark NiTe

Koalaroo, what's your one rule?

Also, if you could be so kind as to answer a second question, how do you feel about men who just want to see the world burn?


----------



## FiNe SiTe

koalaroo said:


> Depends on what you're interested in!


I'm not exactly sure. Anything Anthropology related I guess.
I was thinking more along the lines of cultures and societies/civilizations.
Something like Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond


----------



## Wulfyn

How has humour developed? Specifically is there a type of humour that was very common amongst all primitive cultures, with others types evolving from them, or does one primitive culture have a different set of humour to others?

Not sure I have expressed that very well.


----------



## TATRA

I'm curious if you recommend or know of anything written on the comparisons of DNA between Neanderthal and Cro Magnon? Sorry if I don't have all the terms correct.


----------



## Slagasauras

So, forensic anthropology is determining the age, race, sex, and gender of a skeleton yes?
Is it sometimes possible to determine cause of death even without an autopsy?
Also, is it possible to determine the epidemiological portions of psychopathology?
What about things like terminal illnesses?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda

koalaroo said:


> I'm set to answer a few questions tonight.


I know it has been three years but are you an anthropologist yourself or are you a representative of anthropologists?


----------

