Among Anthropologists There Is Agreement That The Concept Of Culture

During the development of anthropology in North America (Canada, USA and Mexico), the important contribution made by the American School of Anthropology in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries was the concept of cultural relativism, which is the idea that cultures cannot be understood objectively, because all men see the world through the lens of their own culture. Cultural relativism is different from ethnocentrism because it emphasizes understanding culture from the perspective of an insider. The emphasis on culture, as well as the idea of cultural relativism, distinguished cultural anthropology in the United States from social anthropology in Europe. The prominent British symbolic anthropologists are Victor Turner and Mary Douglas. There are also “cultural universalities” that characterize most or all human beings in a given society. For example, in the United States, all people are expected to wear clothes in public and respect the private property of others. A man in a city takes neither the car closest to him nor the best; Out of hundreds in the parking lot, he takes the one that is his personal property. Cultural relativism is a principle established by Franz Boas as axiomatic in anthropological research and then popularized by his students. Boas first articulated the idea in 1887: “.

Civilization is not something absolute, it is. is relative and. Our ideas and ideas are true only to the extent that our civilization is going. [10] Although Boas did not mark the term, anthropologists, after Boas` death in 1942, used to express their synthesis of a series of ideas developed by Boas. Boas believed that the momentum of cultures, associated with each subspecies, was so great and so pervasive that there can be no relationship between culture and race. [11] Cultural relativism implies specific epistemological and methodological requirements. Whether or not these statements require a certain ethical attitude is controversial. This principle should not be confused with moral relativism. We are the only ones who can tell ourselves how to live. There is nothing stopping us from deciding that the goal of life should be to be as unsural as possible.

“Human nature” is just another glass. ♦ Like the Japanese, we might have started to think that the floor is clean, and in that case, we would leave our shoes at the door and sleep on small pads on the floors. There was also the question of how deep cultural differences are, a question that was spread in the `90s in a dispute between two anthropologists, Marshall Sahlins and Gananath Obeyesekere, over how Captain Cook`s death in the Hawaiian Islands is to be interpreted in 1779. The islanders who killed Cook in their own perceptual fish shell, who operated with a completely different understanding of how the world works, were cook and his crew? Or, among the cultural references of Hawaiian life, did the islanders behave rationally and pragmatically, like any other people? Sociocultural anthropologists have increasingly focused their investigative gaze on “Western” culture. This is how Philippe Bourgois won the 1997 Margaret Mead Prize for In Search of Respect, a study on entrepreneurs in a harlem crack-den. . . .

error: Selection of text is disabled on this page.