Psychological anthropology - Wikipedia
Cultural anthropology is that major division of anthropology that explains culture . and that the freedom to create cultures independent of biology was one of the great His psychological emphasis was influential in the culture-and-personality Pattern and configuration became key concepts for explaining the relation of. Psychological anthropologists study the interactions between cultural and mental influences to determine the basic cognitive and emotional In addition, it delves into the relationship between culture and society and the effects they have . To practice, psychological anthropologists typically need at least a master's degree. What is the difference between studies in Cultural psychology and cultural . In the form of anthropology you need to study human life according to the basic and .
In addition, it delves into the relationship between culture and society and the effects they have on the individual.
What Is Psychological Anthropology? To draw meaningful conclusions as to the influences that culture has on mental health, motivation, cognition, emotions and perception, psychological anthropologists study the patterns of human development.
The discipline draws from many others, including: Today, almost all psychologists recognize that what are perceived as variations in thinking and learning are due entirely to the cultural schema to which people are acculturated at a very young age. Some experts claim that psychological anthropology is the same as cross-cultural anthropology, which is the comparison of various cultures in an attempt to find similarities and test hypotheses about widespread human behavior.
Others, however, contest this assertion, claiming that psychological anthropology looks at specific cultures to determine how the society uniquely influences behavior rather than drawing broader conclusions from a study of a variety of cultures. What Does a Psychological Anthropologist Do? Psychological anthropologists and psychologists attempt to answer many of the same questions. Psychological anthropologists want to understand how the human mind works, what motivates people and causes their behaviors, and how emotions, thoughts, and behaviors manifest and influence human behavior through the course of life from birth to death.
In short, the psychological anthropologist is interested in the question of what it means to be human. Firstly, psychological anthropologists believe that mental composition is not only a result of cognition and experience; it is also a product of the wider cultural and social environment.
Moreover, psychological anthropologists take for granted that humans do not necessarily experience everything the same way.
Or, to them, is what we perceive as anger a different experience? These are, of course, difficult questions. In an attempt to find the answers, the psychological anthropologist pursues one of the many available avenues of research. Like other psychologistspsychological anthropologists may simply have discussions with subjects to learn how they think and feel. They administer tests, such as the classic Rorschach test, and develop indicative case studies of individuals, families, or communities.
Many examine mental illnesses to draw conclusions as to how specific cultures experience a specific mental disorder and the prevalence of it in their society.
To make these kinds of conclusions, the psychological anthropologist must have a variety of skills and types of knowledge, including: Deep understanding of basic psychological and anthropological tenets Cultural fluency, especially in the specific treatment areas Profound understanding of human development Proficiency in psychological and psychoanalytic discussion therapy Excellent organizational skills Understanding of the role that religion and spirituality play in development and mental health The ability to instruct and lead First-rate communication and writing skills Psychological Anthropologist: During the same period, however, the term was increasingly used in Continental Europe: But distinctive teaching in social anthropology was established in both Oxford and Cambridge in the years immediately before World War I.
After the war, two figures emerged as the dominant intellectual forces in the new discipline. At the same time, Radcliffe-Brown took up a series of chairs—in Cape Town; Sydney, Australia; and Chicago—before returning to a chair at Oxford in The personalities and intellectual styles of the two men are often contrasted: Malinowski was charismatic and romantic and is still remembered for his vast fieldwork-based publications on the Trobriand Islanders of Papua New Guinea; Radcliffe-Brown was drier and more austere and left as an intellectual legacy a series of short, systematizing essays on comparison, function, and, above all, kinship.
In the early s the publication of an edited collection on kinship in Africa occasioned a celebrated critique in the pages of the journal American Anthropologist.
Psychological Anthropology Careers | zolyblog.info
A leading American anthropologist, George P. Murdockfaintly praised the emerging school of British social anthropology for its command of deep ethnographic knowledge and its strong sense of inner theoretical coherencebut he criticized it for its narrow ambitions: At the same time, the younger anthropologists who had been appointed to the emerging departments of social anthropology in Britain quickly turned on the ancestors.
His first major publication was on kinship theory, but he moved on to work on myth and the interpretation of ritual and symbols, themes that were of growing importance in American cultural anthropology in the s. While one strand of British social anthropology was moving closer to the concerns of American anthropology, a similar shift was occurring in the United States. As a mark of this rapprochement, by the early s some anthropologists in the United States were using the neologism sociocultural anthropology to describe their intellectual stance, while in Britain the Oxford Institute of Social Anthropology renamed itself the Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology in Yet important differences remain.
Marcus, can be read as an attempt to make a final intellectual break from the hegemony of Malinowskian ethnographic authority.
The Similarities and Differences Between Psychology and Sociology
The colonial legacy of British social anthropology, although far more politically and morally complex than some critics have claimed, was especially troubling for younger radicals in the United States. Linguistic anthropology Linguistic anthropologists argue that human production of talk and text, made possible by the unique human capacity for language, is a fundamental mechanism through which people create culture and social life.
Local cultures of language may prefer certain forms of expression and avoid others. For instance, while the vocabulary of English includes an elaborate set of so-called absolute directionals words such as north and southwestmost speakers seldom use these terms for orientation, preferring vocabulary that is relative to a local context such as downhill or left.
Thus Native American Puebloans, speaking languages of four unrelated families, avoid using different languages in the same utterance—even when speakers are multilingual—and do not allow everyday speech to intrude into religious contexts.
By contrast, their Spanish-speaking neighbours often switch between Spanish and English and value colloquial forms in worship, as is evident in their folk masses composed in everyday language. Linguistic anthropologists explore the question of how linguistic diversity is related to other kinds of human difference.
For instance, communities of Pygmy hunters in East Africa are biologically and culturally distinct from neighboring cultivators, but both groups share the same Bantu languages.
Yet, as mentioned above, the Puebloan peoples of the U. Southwest share a common cultural repertoirebut they speak languages that belong to four different and unrelated families. The approximately 6, languages spoken in the world today are divided by historical linguists into genealogical families languages descended from a common ancestor.
Some subgroups—such as the African Bantu languages within the Niger-Congo language familywhich include hundreds of languages and cover an enormous geographic area—are very large. Others, such as Keresan in the U. Southwest, with two closely related varieties, are very small. Accounting for this difference is a significant topic of research.
Geographically extensive and numerically large families may result from major technological innovationssuch as the adoption of cultivation, which permit the community of innovators, and its language, to expand at the expense of neighbouring groups. An alternative possibility is that certain types of physical environmentsuch as the Eurasian steppes, favour language spread and differentiation, whereas other types, such as the mountainous zones, favour the proliferation of small linguistic communities, regardless of technology.
Anthropology - The major branches of anthropology | zolyblog.info
Applications of linguistic anthropology seek remedies for language extinction and language-based discriminationwhich are often driven by popular ideologies about the relative prestige and utility of different languages. Psychological anthropology Psychological anthropology focuses on the mind, body, and subjectivity of the individual in whose life and experience culture and society are actualized.
Within this broad scope there is no unified theoretical or methodological consensusbut rather there are lively debates about the relative importance of culture versus individual psychology in shaping human action and about the universality versus the inherent variability of human existence.
The field unites a number of disparate research traditions with different intellectual programs, but it also provides an arena for principled argumentation about the existence of a common human nature. Because of its focus on the individual who lives and embodies culture, psychological anthropological writing is often the study of one or a few actual people. Many employ a cross-cultural comparative methodologyseeking significant correlation between a childhood experience and adult institutions; for example, they look for a correlation between father absence and the harsh male initiation rites thought necessary to counteract strong maternal identification.
Such systems as shamanism or spirit possession and the altered states of consciousness that accompany them are understood by some in terms of dissociation or schizoid states.
Practitioners of archaeology find themselves allied often simultaneously with practitioners of the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities in the project of writing history. In the United States archaeology developed within the discipline of anthropology as a social sciencecontributing an explicitly historical dimension to anthropological inquiry.
In Europe archaeology is more closely allied with humanistic pursuits such as classics, philologyand art history. In the last few decades of the 20th century, this marked distinction in archaeological training and scholarship began to blur as the practice of archaeology became increasingly global and continual communication among archaeologists across national and regional borders accelerated. Archaeologists deploy the analytic techniques of many scientific disciplines—botany, chemistrycomputer scienceecology, evolutionary biology, genetics, geologyand statisticsamong others—to recover and interpret the material remains of past human activities.
But, like historians, archaeologists attempt to reconstruct the events and processes that shaped and transformed past societies, and, wherever possible, to understand how those events and processes were perceived and affected by humans. Achieving this understanding requires ideas about how individuals and societies are formed and how they interact, ideas that archaeologists have frequently drawn from humanistic and social science disciplines such as philosophypsychology, sociology, and cultural anthropology.
In this sense, archaeology is a uniquely hybrid intellectual endeavour that requires knowledge of an eclecticwide-ranging set of analytic methods and social theories to write the history of past societies.short notes on relationship between Anthropology and sociology by KRISHNA KUMAR
Archaeology differs from the study of history principally in the source of the information used to reconstruct and interpret the past. As a result, archaeology, unlike history, takes as its subject all past human societies, whether these were preliterate prehistoricnonliterate, or literate. Knowledge of prehistoric societies is exclusively the domain of archaeology and the allied natural sciences that, in the absence of written records, can generate information about the environmental and cultural contexts of ancient societies.
In order to systematically document and interpret the material remains of past societies, archaeologists have developed a common set of methods and procedures. These include archaeological survey reconnaissanceexcavation, and detailed analysis of recovered artifacts. Survey, or the discovery and recording of archaeological sites or other human-created features, such as roads and irrigation systems, is usually the first phase of archaeological research.
Archaeological survey often employs aerial photographs and satellite images to locate human settlements and related features visible on the surface. Subsequent ground reconnaissance is designed to map and describe archaeological sites. It frequently involves the systematic collection of surface artifacts such as pottery, stone tools, human and animal bones, metal, and other durable objects that can reveal the chronological placement datingspatial relationships, and, often, the social functions of archaeological sites.
The documentary record of an excavation includes detailed maps and architectural plans of excavated structures and other features, along with large quantities of recovered artifacts, the stratigraphic locations that is, the precise horizontal and vertical position within the buried layers of a site and depositional context of which have been meticulously recorded in standardized data forms.
The final procedure of documenting the material remains of past societies entails careful, and often technically specialized, quantitative and qualitative analysis of recovered artifacts. This systematic description and classification of objects by their chronological placement, material, form, process of production, use-life, and pattern of deposition depends upon a host of sophisticated analytic techniques developed to decode the history of these discarded objects, which once held social significance to the human communities in which they were made, used, and valued.
Principal among these analytic techniques are various kinds of physical and chemical dating methods, including, most prominently, radiocarbon datingwhich was developed in the s by Nobel laureate Willard Libby at the University of Chicago. Once the empirical evidence of past societies has been generated, archaeologists must make meaningful historical and cultural interpretations of that evidence.
Archaeological evidence is most often a reflection of long-term history interpretable mostly in decadal, generational, or even longer timescales. This means that, absent contemporaneous historical and textual evidence, archaeological interpretations are often restricted to the exploration of deeply embedded, perduring sociocultural structures and long-term sociohistorical change rather than to specific events and individual actions.
As a result, archaeological interpretations rarely reach to an explanation of what events and processes meant in social or psychological terms to human actors. Nevertheless, archaeology, as a form of historical anthropology, offers keen insight into the human condition. Physical anthropology Physical anthropology is concerned with the origin, evolution, and diversity of people. Physical anthropologists work broadly on three major sets of problems: The course that human evolution has taken and the processes that have brought it about are of equal concern.
In order to explain the diversity within and between human populations, physical anthropologists must study past populations of fossil hominins as well as the nonhuman primates. Much light has been thrown upon the relation to other primates and upon the nature of the transformation to human anatomy and behaviour in the course of evolution from early hominins to modern people—a span of at least four million years.
The processes responsible for the differentiation of people into geographic populations and for the overall unity of Homo sapiens include natural selectionmutation, genetic driftmigration, and genetic recombination. Objective methods of isolating various kinds of traits and dealing mathematically with their frequencies, as well as their functional or phylogenetic significance, make it possible to understand the composition of human populations and to formulate hypotheses concerning their future.
The genetic and anthropometric information that physical anthropologists collect provides facts about not only the groups who inhabit the globe but also the individuals who compose those groups. Estimates of the probabilities that children will inherit certain genes can help to counsel families about some medical conditions.
Paleoanthropology The study of human evolution is multidisciplinary, requiring not only physical anthropologists but also earth scientists, archaeologists, molecular biologists, primatologists, and cultural anthropologists.
The essential problems are not only to describe fossil forms but also to evaluate the significance of their traits. Concepts such as orthogenesis have been replaced by adaptive radiation radiant evolution and parallel evolution. Fossil hominins of considerable antiquity have been found in Africa, Asia, Australia, and Europe, and few areas lack interesting human skeletal remains. Two problems requiring additional research are 1 the place, time, and nature of the emergence of hominins from preceding hominoids and 2 the precise relationship of fully anatomically modern Homo sapiens to other species of Homo of the Pleistocene Epoch i.
See also human evolution. Primatology Nonhuman primates provide a broad comparative framework within which physical anthropologists can study aspects of the human career and condition. Comparative morphological studies, particularly those that are complemented by biomechanical analyses, provide major clues to the functional significance and evolution of the skeletal and muscular complexes that underpin our bipedalism, dextrous hands, bulbous heads, outstanding noses, and puny jaws.
The wide variety of adaptations that primates have made to life in trees and on the ground are reflected in their limb proportions and relative development of muscles. Free-ranging primates exhibit a trove of physical and behavioral adaptations to fundamentally different ways of life, some of which may resemble those of our late Miocene —early Pleistocene predecessors i.
Laboratory and field observations, particularly of great apes, indicate that earlier researchers grossly underestimated the intelligence, cognitive abilities, and sensibilities of nonhuman primates and perhaps also those of Pliocene —early Pleistocene hominins i. Genetics The study of inherited traits in individuals and the actions of the genes responsible for them in populations is vital to understanding human variability. Although blood groups initially constituted the bulk of data, many other molecular traits, particularly DNA sequences, have been analyzed.
At the turn of the 21st century, geographic populations were described in terms of gene frequencies, which were in turn used to model the history of population movements. This information, combined with linguistic and archaeological evidence, helps to resolve puzzles on the peopling of continents and archipelagoes.
Traits that were used for racial classifications do not group neatly in patterns that would allow boundaries to be drawn among geographic populations, and none endows any population with more humanity than others. The concept of biological races subspecies of Homo sapiens is invalid; biologically meaningful racial types are nonexistent; and all humans are mongrels.