The Importance of Anthropology - Essay Example

?The Importance of Anthropology Introduction It is not unexpected that numerous anthropologists have been cautious of efforts to expose anthropology to undue hype. They refuse to witness their painstaking efforts used wrongly in a manner which gives minor recognition to their selves, to their shared venture, or the populations or individuals they investigate. Thus, this paper explains the major uses or importance of anthropology in the past, present, and future. Anthropology is the full history of humanity as driven and imparted by the concept of evolution. Anthropology tries to make sense of humankind at all recognised periods. Anthropology investigates humankind as it arises in all recognised corners of the world (Llobera 2003). Its task is basically to explain or portray. However, without surpassing boundaries of its range, it can and should shift from the specific to the general. Why is Anthropology Important? Anthropology has a number of branches and each branch presents a particular component of the study of our roots and evolution as a life form (Wallman 1992). For example, linguistic anthropology studies language. It is a widely known fact that there are many languages all over the world. To understand further the connections between these various languages and the variations that exist in terminology and word use is one of the tasks that anthropologists perform (Moore & Sanders 2006). Anthropology is also vital from the perspective of inquiry into traditions and rituals and the human nature within various tribal groups and groups of people. Several traditions that are prohibited in some societies might be viewed as acceptable in others (Moore & Sanders 2006). It is this reconciliation of the disparity between people’s inherent perspective of their own culture and the cultures of others is the basis for the relevance of anthropology. Alongside the ‘moral sciences’ in general, anthropology is one of the notable accomplishments of cultures, perceived collectively, cross-culturally, and worldwide. British anthropologists are inclined to view their field as having surfaced with the efforts of Edward Taylor, and American to view its creation with Franz Boas, but anthropology has more profound and deeper roots, and hence a long development linked to human culture evolution throughout the centuries (Gow 2002). Despite of the unclear nature of the importance of anthropology to development, arguments were presented all over the 1990s speaking up for the moral relevance of anthropology (Moran 1996, 328): [I]t is morally necessary for anthropology to become centrally engaged in today’s critical issues- poverty, powerlessness, environmental degradation, and national, class, caste, gender, ethnic, religious, and racial oppressions—and that anthropology has important contributions yet to make about the kinds of formations that will characterise human social life in the twenty-first century. As stated by Bennett (1996), in his discussion of the emergence of applied anthropology, “anything that deprives people of their needs or desires should be changed or reformed” (as cited in Gow 2002, 299). He further explains his argument by mentioning the work of the ‘great articulator of applied ideology in the 1950-60s’, Laura Thompson (Gow 2002, 299): In essence it [applied anthropology] symbolises both the desire and desirability of human beings to fulfil themselves individually and collectively to the maximum of their physical-emotional-intellectual powers, and to do both as single personalities and in relation to other personalities. It is exactly this focus on the political and moral that has kept on troubling anthropologists in the mid-1990s. D’Andrade (1995) worried that anthropology is shifting from a field rooted in an objective perspective of the world to one founded on a moral perspective of the world, the main objective of such is “to identify what is good and what is bad and to allocate reward and punishment” (as cited in Moore & Sanders 2006, 513). Scheper-Hughes, reacting to D’Andrade, argued that there are two uniquely anthropological methods of taking part in the world: the witness, morally dedicated and dynamic, one who evaluates, judges, and takes sides; and the observer, impartial and dispassionate (Gow 2002, 299). Although the moral ground and rationale for present-day importance of anthropology can be located within the historical perspective of development and anthropology, a third vital foundation, although implied, has been human rights (Moran 1996). According to Friedmann (1992 as cited in Gow 2002), the proclamation of the United Nations (UN) instituted a set of moral standards for how people interact and relate with each other, in particular how the government should deal with its people. However, as well, it also instituted the fundamental values that can facilitate the formation of a society where individuals can thrive, specifically, those social conditions that can enable human survival. The relevance of anthropology to human rights has been usually indefinite and inconsistent. Human rights, for cultural relativism, are socially built and joined at the hip of Enlightenment’s way of thinking, and, thus, the outcome of a specific culture at a given period (Moran 1996): Europe after World War II. Consequently, the UN proclamation is worldwide merely on the surface, not in actual fact, another shrewd scheme in Western moral scholarship. Franck (2001 as cited in Gow 2002) has claimed that the code of human rights is filled with principles that are in fact the outcome of historical forces, such as industrialisation and emergence of ‘information’ societies, but which can be replicated anywhere, although they took place in the West. For practitioners and advocates of developmental and applied anthropology, the connection has been vaguer. Advocates of the cultural, political, and social principles of newly autonomous states usually preferred to disregard the increasing occurrence of human rights violations stemming from political oppression and violence (Llobera 2003). However, as the field of development expanded, does did the prevalence of violations of human rights concerning aboriginal people, those forcibly displaced, and, more currently, the political and civil war victims, all of which have been the issues of anthropology (Moore & Sanders 2006). Nonetheless, as the focus on human rights has grew so has the disapproval, aimed specifically at their so-called universalism (Llobera 2003). The canon of human rights receives numerous criticisms specifically because it defies the authority used by deep-rooted power for the defenceless. Even though never decisively explained, much less recognised, it is the Enlightenment’s vague influence, with its powerful hints of social control and social engineering, that has possibly influenced most the moral importance of anthropology today (Purcell 1998). Although the theories of fundamental human needs and human rights have contributed to the formation and validation of the basic duties of the state towards its people, it is the present-day children of the Enlightenment that most vividly expresses the importance of anthropology to development, a dedication distinguished by strongly established moral principles, a model which integrates concepts of ecological issues, local control, and community, concepts which usually arise from the West (Gow 2002). Suggestions about the future will differ with the medium of discourse of the present. Present-day differences of issues and perspective in anthropology can be characterised as ‘confusion’, a sort of disarray. However, they might be referred to as ‘diversity’, a multiplicity within a universal order (Goode 1993). It could be that anthropology is in chaos, which means that it is at a crossroad in its growth, an era of major transformation. This is definitely viewed to be so by numerous anthropologists. Anthropology without a doubt has a vital pedagogical importance. The discipline’s discoveries and knowledge have usually been disseminated in the scholarly arena to non-anthropologists, who have shown concern and appeared to have attained enlightenment since then. Movies, lectures, and literatures have also communicated the message of anthropology to the people of the world. With the development of television, radio and video presentation, the opportunities to vastly broaden communication from anthropology are evident, and the future may provide considerable outcomes since then (Moore & Sanders 2006). However, proper preparation in public presentation of the lectures and writings will be required if anthropology is to obtain an appropriate advantage. In broadening the importance of anthropology today, one risk may be somewhat dangerous. To make the findings of anthropological research more understandable to a broader audience is certainly a fine goal. However material should be discussed or explained through the mass media in a way that ordinary people will comprehend. Re-organising of ideas and removal of a great deal of detail will be required. However, the boundary between such reorganisation and an intentional alteration is a slim one (Wallman 1992). There are large numbers of first-rate ethnographic movies. Yet, an interest in the sensational in movies usually replaces a just and objective depiction of a people’s issues and way of life. The media and the entertainment industry are interested in ratings, not with precision. As people claim for facts and evidence presented by anthropologists heightens in the future, so do the demands for misrepresentation of the ethnographic knowledge for the sake of popular attraction and entertainment. It could even be that efforts may be initiated to control the information to advance the interests of certain interest groups (Wallman 1992). Anthropologists have to take a lot of caution at this point to protect their principles. Globally, it is perhaps a reasonable belief that liberty of intellectual communication is expanding. Anthropology is today a global academic field, not just like in the past a British peculiarity (Moore & Sanders 2006). Formed in 1988, the European Association of Social Anthropologists (EASA) explains this growing trend, just like the growing presence of Soviet anthropologists at a global level, prepared to talk about unreservedly even the most controversial topics (Wallman 1992, 222). But achievement has also caused diffusion. Britain’s ASA was formerly the hub of knowledge in anthropology, but at present there are regional organisations in different corners of the globe with little association between them. A case in point is the vast and active Association of Social Anthropologists of Oceania, based in the United States (Wallman 1992, 222). The relevance of anthropology today may struggle consequently, though it will continue to exist. New resources will perhaps emerge as an outcome of new issues, in part because there is presently a substantial organisation of anthropologists operating outside the confines of colleges and universities, in industrial and social sectors (Moran 1996). Backing for field studies of a comparative type in ‘interesting’ cultures may weaken in the future. More advocacy may be granted for ventures of an applied instead of intangible theoretical form. However, this could have the impact of concentrating studies on local field issues in a more consolidated manner. Australian anthropologists, for instance, have focused mainly on Aboriginal issues (Wallman 1992). British anthropologists should not limit themselves to issues of the population’s indigenous groups, and progress towards Britain’s anthropology in general could perfectly match a focus on the ethnography of other societies. Conclusions Obviously, anthropologists have their own intellectual dilemmas too. From the creation of the field individuals have been attracted to anthropology as much by influential political, philosophical, and sociological movements, such as Marxism, cultural studies, post-colonial theory, and feminism, as by the ethnography of certain populations or the theoretical perspectives introduced within the field. Nevertheless, many of us find out that the optimal importance of anthropology is focused on the ways of life and attitudes that we find unacceptable. Simultaneously, people who have been interested in the field out of an unshakable affinity or commitment to certain people confront the dilemma of a type of parochialism (Llobera 2003) where in issues of minor comparative relevance are prominent. It may appear that anthropologists themselves are trying to destroy anthropology, and recently the discipline has been troubled by a form of intellectual disarray, but a true ambiguity about what people know and how they know it should not be permitted to bury the actual importance of anthropology to the understanding of people of themselves. Anthropology gives the controlling mechanism for individuals who desire to preserve and protect their own biases as universal standards. It has amassed an account of human passion, adaptability, creativity, and, unfortunately, immorality, for upcoming generations to ponder on, and it has created distinctive and useful instruments for making sense of the human diversity. When all is said and done, that is not a simple achievement. References Goode, Stephen (1993) “The Decline and Fall of Anthropology” Insight on the News, 9(11), 12+ Gow, David (2002) “Anthropology and Development: Evil Twin or Moral Narrative?” Human Organisation, 61(4), 299+ Llobera, Josep (2003) An Invitation to Anthropology: The Structure, Evolution, and Cultural Identity of Human Societies. New York: Berghahn Books. Moore, Henrietta & Sanders, Todd (2006) Anthropology in Theory: Issues in Epistemology. UK: Blackwell Publishing. Moran, Emilio (1996) Transforming Societies, Transforming Anthropology. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. Purcell, Trevor (1998) “Indigenous Knowledge and Applied Anthropology: Questions of Definition and Direction” Human Organisation, 57(3), 258+ Wallman, Sandra (1992) Contemporary Futures: Perspectives from Social Anthropology. New York: Routledge. Read More