On the History of Anthropology

“Human agency is about the flow and flux of events…Humans make history-and indeed create themselves-but not under conditions of their own making” (Moore and Sanders 15).  Following the discipline of anthropology through history, it is possible to gain a more well-rounded insight into the big issues regarding mankind. It allows us to review our antecedents’ logical fallacies, thus putting us at the starting point where they left off, but this time with a new perspective. Analyzing anthropology historically, as a discipline can be seen as a similar process to analyzing all of humanity historically.  Its progression is very much the same, according to Herbert Spencer: “Societies agree with individual organisms in three conspicuous peculiarities”(Spencer 27). These three peculiarities being growth from small to large aggregations, simple to complex structures, and a low to high degree of mutual dependency (Spencer 27).

The big questions I believe anthropologists aim to answer and thus define what it means to be human are as follows: Why and how does Culture change (or does culture change at all)? Does culture progress the same for all groups? What influences culture more, is it a biological “human nature” to display culture, or influenced by the environment (or both)?  Does culture influence society or does society influence culture? Is culture specific to humans? How should we study culture? Should we practice through a research oriented “armchair anthropology,” or is participant observation the way to go? In participating and trying to see from an insiders’ perspective, will we ever be able to become and insider? As you can see, each basic question tends to reveal more questions, which have been answered many times over and yet are still complete in their theories. This is because, as stated by Henrietta Moore and Todd Sanders, “ humans make social systems, those systems are never stable, never immune from change…” (15) and this requires us to develop multiple theories surrounding culture. Therefore, culture changes, our ideas change, and seeing the new idea  leads to new questions. Any idea that was once thought to be revolutionary, even incorrect or ignored may one day be of great importance. While theories may have a few faults, portions may prove to have value. For example, in Ethnical Periods, Morgan separates cultural progressions in to three categories. This fails to acknowledge some transitional stages, but set the stage for later anthropologists to expand upon. When you can view the issues in multiple ways can formulate more educated answers within the discipline.

What is learned from history of anthropology? For me, was that culture is not static and is cannot be categorized. There is both a simple character and complexity to human existence, and in the quest to define our ideas of what humans were, are, and will become. 

(Source) Moore, Henrietta, and Todd Sanders, ed. Anthropology in Theory:Issues in Epistemology. Malden,Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006