Anthropologists Comparing Anthropologists Like All

Anthropologists

Comparing Anthropologists

Like all sciences, and especially the "soft" or human sciences that rely on some level of subjective measurement and interpretation as objective measurements are impossible, anthropology contains many different approaches, theories, and constructs. This does not mean that the science is inexact or in conflict, but simply that there are different perspectives, different ways of examining the world, and different potential explanations for phenomena that are often more likely to be complimentary than in opposition. The separate approaches and theories of colleagues Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead, two women at the forefront of anthropology's development in the early twentieth century, illustrate quite clearly how different constructs don't have to yield conflicting results.

The configurational approach Benedict outlines in her book Patterns of Culture views culture as a large and cohesive phenomenon analogous to individual personality, and that only a few select traits from the wide variety of available traits are somehow selected and placed at the forefront of cultural expressions and endeavors. This approach to anthropology is holistic and comprehensive, viewing everything that could be studied in the culture as related to everything else, inseparable for all intents and purposes. Rituals, beliefs, customs, and values within a culture all center around the trait or traits that are emphasized in that culture. In this way, culture is configured as a cohesive whole, with all rituals working to reinforce and perpetuate not simply the values and beliefs that a particular culture holds, but also the culturally emphasized traits that underlie these values and beliefs.

Margaret Mead's much more defined and singular approach to anthropology is markedly different from Ruth Benedict's, however it is far from opposed to the more holistic construct of her colleague. Mead would typically define and address specific research questions regarding a particular culture, such as adolescence or sexuality, focusing only on the rituals and beliefs that these particular cultural areas touched upon. While there is definitely a limitation in Mead's work in that it is confined to specific research questions, Mead does not fail to connect the rituals and beliefs of the cultural phenomenon or elements she examines to larger cultural values and trends. That is, though Mead examines elements of culture in a setting and context that definitely separates them and defines boundaries more than in Benedict's overall construct and approach, this does not mean she actually considers all cultural elements to be truly separate and non-influential. It is not that these two anthropologists have incompatible views as to how culture works to influence individuals and vice versa, but rather that they study such issues from different angles.