染雾英语写作：Anthropology 篇一
The Importance of Anthropology in Understanding Human Culture
Introduction:
Anthropology is the study of human societies and cultures. It seeks to understand the diversity and complexity of human behavior, beliefs, and practices across different societies and throughout history. This article aims to highlight the importance of anthropology in gaining a deeper understanding of human culture.
Body:
1. Preservation of Cultural Heritage:
Anthropology plays a crucial role in preserving cultural heritage. By studying and documenting various cultures, anthropologists contribute to the preservation of languages, traditions, rituals, and artifacts that may otherwise be lost over time. This knowledge is vital in maintaining cultural diversity and ensuring the continuity of cultural practices for future generations.
2. Understanding Human Behavior:
Anthropology provides valuable insights into human behavior. Through participant observation, interviews, and ethnographic research, anthropologists gain a comprehensive understanding of how individuals and groups interact within their cultural contexts. This knowledge helps explain why people behave the way they do and sheds light on the underlying motivations, values, and norms that shape human actions.
3. Promoting Cultural Sensitivity:
Anthropology promotes cultural sensitivity and understanding. By studying different cultures, anthropologists challenge ethnocentrism and encourage empathy and respect for cultural differences. This knowledge is essential in fostering global citizenship and promoting peaceful coexistence among diverse communities.
4. Informing Policy and Development:
Anthropology is instrumental in informing policy and development initiatives. By studying social structures, economic systems, and political institutions, anthropologists provide valuable insights into the impacts of policies and interventions on local communities. This knowledge helps policymakers design more effective and culturally-sensitive programs that address the needs and aspirations of different groups.
5. Addressing Global Challenges:
Anthropology contributes to addressing global challenges such as poverty, inequality, and climate change. By examining the social, cultural, and historical factors that contribute to these issues, anthropologists provide critical perspectives and propose solutions that take into account the complexities of human societies. This interdisciplinary approach is crucial in developing sustainable and equitable strategies for a better future.
Conclusion:
Anthropology is a vital field of study that deepens our understanding of human culture. From preserving cultural heritage to informing policy and addressing global challenges, anthropology plays a crucial role in promoting cultural sensitivity, fostering empathy, and shaping a more inclusive and equitable world. By recognizing the importance of anthropology, we can better appreciate the richness and diversity of human cultures and work towards a more harmonious global society.
英语写作：Anthropology 篇二
The Evolution of Anthropology: From Ethnography to Cultural Relativism
Introduction:
Anthropology has evolved over time, adapting to new theories and methodologies. This article traces the development of anthropology, focusing on the shift from early ethnography to the emergence of cultural relativism as a fundamental concept in the field.
Body:
1. Early Ethnography:
Early anthropology was primarily concerned with documenting and describing different cultures through ethnographic studies. Anthropologists, such as Franz Boas and Bronislaw Malinowski, conducted fieldwork and participant observation to understand the customs, beliefs, and practices of various societies. Their work laid the foundation for the systematic study of culture and set the stage for future developments in the field.
2. Cultural Relativism:
The concept of cultural relativism revolutionized anthropology in the early 20th century. Anthropologists, including Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead, argued that cultures should be understood and evaluated within their own contexts, rather than being judged against the standards of one's own culture. This perspective challenged ethnocentrism and highlighted the importance of cultural diversity and understanding.
3. Postmodernism and Beyond:
In the latter part of the 20th century, anthropology embraced postmodernism, which questioned the objectivity and universality of knowledge. Postmodern anthropologists, such as Clifford Geertz and Michel Foucault, emphasized the subjective nature of cultural interpretations and the power dynamics inherent in the production of knowledge. This shift led to a greater focus on discourse analysis, identity politics, and the study of power relations within societies.
4. Applied Anthropology:
In recent decades, anthropology has expanded beyond academia and into applied fields. Applied anthropology involves the application of anthropological knowledge and methods to address practical problems in areas such as development, healthcare, and education. This approach recognizes the role of anthropology in promoting social justice and contributing to positive change in communities.
Conclusion:
The evolution of anthropology reflects the changing perspectives and methodologies within the field. From early ethnography to the emergence of cultural relativism and postmodernism, anthropology has continuously adapted to new theories and approaches. Today, applied anthropology plays a crucial role in addressing real-world challenges. As anthropology continues to evolve, it remains a dynamic and interdisciplinary field that contributes to our understanding of human culture and society.
英语写作：Anthropology 篇三
英语写作：Anthropology
Tagged With:evolution,politics,ambushing anthropology,anthropology branding,Nicholas Wade,academia,blogging,Eric R. Wolf
At the American Anthropological Association panel Science in Anthropology: An Open Discussion, H. Russell Bernard advocated a return of “big-tent” anthropology:“We should be the humanistic science and the scientific humanism that Eric Wolf described nearly 50 years ago.”
From my perspective, as Greg Downey tweeted in from Australia, there did seem to be a bit of victim ology, with both those who claim scientific approaches and those who claim more interpretive approaches feeling marginalized. However, at least from audience comments, it would seem those claiming scientific approaches point to marginalization, but then say their marginalization is greater–that while no one would shut down humanistic approaches in anthropology, people more actively shut down quantitative approaches.
As people were saying such things, my mind raced back to that truly terrible 10 December 2010 piece from Nicholas Wade, and this quote:“‘I really don’t see how or why anthropology should entail humanities,’ said Frank Marlowe, president-elect of the Evolutionary Anthropology Society.” Many of us were about to lose our minds that morning, when Daniel Lende came to the rescue with a dose of humor:“Take that, you fluff heads! I’m still getting in my swings while I’ve got the media’s eye. If I swing hard enough, I might even knock you out of the AAA!”
But however much I disliked that quote and that moment, we do have to remember it came from Nicholas Wade. In the panel, Daniel Segal called Nicholas Wade for what he is: a pseudo-science journalist, who will call anything “science” as long as it validates his race-as-genetic interpretations, and will condemn as “interpretivist” anything
Daniel Segal had perhaps the most provocative comments, but I’m going to go out on a provocative limb and argue that anthropology can actually rally around an agenda contained in his commentary:
First, anthropology must stop cavorting with the “false friends” of science. I’m not sure what I would do if I were in the same room as Nicholas Wade, but it may be time to ask for a voluntary ban on further communication with Wade. He is anti-anthropology and anti-science, as his reporting must always fit his genetics-driven agenda.
Second, anthropology must embrace and defend a wider berth for science. Segal noted that the response to stickers saying “evolution is a theory” should not be to repeatedly bash people over the head with expert evolutionary fact (an arrogant approach that does not seem to budge any of the percentages of people accepting evolutionary ideas), but to embrace our work as generating and investigating theories, such as the “theory of gravity.” We do not condone the stickers because they unfairly single out evolution-as-theory. This approach is really not so different than what Benjamin Z. Freed does in the article Re-reading Root-Bernstein and McEachron in Cobb County, Georgia.
In short, anthropology should be a humanistic science and scientific humanism, embracing science across approaches labeled “interpretivist” or “social constructionist.” Segal’s most radical idea was to disband the Society for Anthropological Sciences, because it simply duplicates the American Anthropological Association, which is the Society for Anthropological Sciences. Bernard countered that no one had asked for the dissolution of the Society for Humanistic Anthropology (although see above!).
Later in the session, when asked about the need for a Society for Anthropological Sciences, people commented that it served as a home for quantitative methods, comparative work, and cultural evolution as change over time. Someone then added falsifiability. But really now–counting, comparison, change over time: these are things every anthropologist does. As for falsifiability, even the most “interpretivist” accounts are certainly not arguing that any story can be told, that any account is equally valuable. The standards are the same: the stories we tell must be supported by the evidence, and submitted to debate.
So, here’s the radical recommendation: let’s dissolve both the Society for Anthropological Sciences and the Society for Humanistic Anthropology. Almost every other society and section in the AAA has more information about their subject or members than either of these titles. The members can of course reformulate their Societies once they come up with names that tell us about what they are actually doing.
In the meantime, let’s get to building “the humanistic science and the scientific humanism that Eric Wolf described nearly 50 years ago.”
