12 Apr 10
Originally posted by sonhouseIt's a sociology piece. I have no gripe with sociology. đ
What gripe would you have to this piece by sociologists with the discovery of a correlation between obesity and length of hospital stays?:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2009/0108-more_weight_equals_longer_hospital_stays.htm
12 Apr 10
Originally posted by DdVI'm referring to all of them.
You could equally argue that a lot of disciplines oriented themselves towards subjects that were tradionally covered by anthropology. The question is whether those disciplines provide the same insights as anthropology does. I don't think they do.
But anthropology is too broad a term. What are you referring to when you use it? Social and/or cultural anthropol ...[text shortened]... theories that originated from it? One or several of the many, many subdisciplines? ...
David
What insights does anthropology provide that other disciplines do not?
13 Apr 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungJust out of curiosity, just how do you go about studying uncontacted civilizations? If you want to study them, don't you sort of have to contact them? What, you sneak up on them with hovering praying mantis sized camera's and microphones? Sniper them from afar with trank darts?
Bump
13 Apr 10
Originally posted by PalynkaIs that really the case? I wouldn't know, but I suspect it is not. Any sociological study of a newly contacted culture ought to be conducted from the perspective of the new culture, or you'd be translating the new culture into a Western frame of reference. Which rather sounds like what you accuse anthropology of doing.
Sociology, obviously.
Idly browsing, I've come across numerous claims that anthropology studies 'cultural difference and non Western societies' while sociology focuses on industrialised societies. The two subjects are commonly studied together. No doubt they could be merged (together with economics) under 'social psychology' or something. The terminological quibbling would doubtlessly fascinate all and sundry.
Do you maintain that anthropology is negated by a hopelessly Western bias while sociology somehow escapes this charge -- has universal application?
13 Apr 10
Originally posted by PalynkaIs that really what anthropologists do? Don't they also study modern cultures that are different from their own, eg. Japanese culture?
Sociology, obviously. What the researcher does is study the new society, not "mankind".
The idea that anthropologists should go in to study the "savages" and learn about "man" is dead and buried. And rightly so.
13 Apr 10
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaEqually, isn't sociology unnecessary because anthropology can do that.
Sociology, obviously. What the researcher does is study the new society, not "mankind".
The idea that anthropologists should go in to study the "savages" and learn about "man" is dead and buried. And rightly so.
I think your trouble is you are equating all anthropological study with more outdated concepts of anthropology - of which very little still goes on. Modern anthropological studies are far more varied, and tackle a wide range of issues, from biological anthropology to linguistics.
One of the key facets of anthropology is its ability to intertwine with other subjects - some you have mentioned: archaeology, sociology, biology and some you haven't: philosophy, law, languages. In an increasingly mutlidisciplinary academic world anthropology is reinventing itself as a bridge between disciplines, bringing cultural studies to the sciences, and science to the humanities.
It is by no means an easy process, but anthropology has reinvented itself as a bridging discipline (at least in the UK - anthropology in Europe and North America are two quite different subjects).
13 Apr 10
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI can understand sociological studies of other societies, but what else is there? As Claude Levi-Strauss noted, culture is best seen as a result not as a primitive. To understand culture, you need to understand the society.
Is that really what anthropologists do? Don't they also study modern cultures that are different from their own, eg. Japanese culture?
13 Apr 10
3 edits
Originally posted by mmanuelI'm saying that as the main concept of anthropology became outdated the only choice the researchers had was to dwelve into other fields. And there they went, but still refuse to admit they are in other branches.
Equally, isn't sociology unnecessary because anthropology can do that.
I think your trouble is you are equating all anthropological study with more outdated concepts of anthropology - of which very little still goes on. Modern anthropological studies are far more varied, and tackle a wide range of issues, from biological anthropology to linguistics.
O least in the UK - anthropology in Europe and North America are two quite different subjects).
Biological anthropology is another precious one. How is the biological study of man not a branch of biology/genetics but is actually considered a branch of anthropology?
Attacking anthropology is like chasing ghosts. I can't hit anything because there's nothing there of substance. Yes, it has "reinvented itself" and continues to do so because there's an institutional need to "reinvent itself" or die.
Edit - To claim that sociology is not needed to study a society because anthropology can do it only shows how far people go to justify the unjustifiable.
13 Apr 10
Originally posted by PalynkaJust out of social curiosity, what is your own profession?
I'm saying that as the main concept of anthropology became outdated the only choice the researchers had was to dwelve into other fields. And there they went, but still refuse to admit they are in other branches.
Biological anthropology is another precious one. How is the biological study of man not a branch of biology/genetics but is actually considered a ...[text shortened]... ecause anthropology can do it only shows how far people go to justify the unjustifiable.