Cultural anthropology: concepts and methods

Cultural Anthropology

Native anthropology" is a set of theories based on non-Western precepts and assumptions in the same sense that modern anthropology is based on and is supported by Western beliefs and values (Jones, 31)

"native anthropologist" differs from an anthropologist who is not native to the society being studied in the following ways. Essentially Anthropologists can be described as either insiders or outsiders.

An "insider" is a person who conducts research on the cultural, racial or ethnic group of which he or she is a member, and an "outsider" conducts research of a native culture from an objective point-of-view. "Insiders" and "outsiders" face different problems.

Anthropology students are generally taught that a person working with his/her own people cannot maintain objectivity and research experiences must be gained from another culture. However, the basic aim of anthropological field research is to describe the total culture of a group of people and it is also felt that this description should be made from the point-of-view of the people - the insider view. For the anthropologist to obtain such a description, he/she must become totally involved in the life of the people, spending much time with them. The logical conclusion from this, as Jones puts forward, is that such a trained "native anthropologist" would produce good, reliable data since he/she is so familiar with the people. (Jones, 32) The insider has easy access to information, is trusted by the people, and is at an obvious advantage. But what Jones also points out is that the outside has advantages of his/her own. The outsider will derive his research questions from the literature on the concept of culture and from "the tendency of anthropologists to speak of a total population in terms of a study of one segment of that population." (Jones, 33) As an outsider you work with people who, because of cultural, language or racial differences, are always aware that you are an outsider, a researcher, and not one of them. (Jones, 36) The insider approach would be quite different. It involves intuition, experience and self-esteem. Current literature, for example, is filled with discussions concerning black self-image, and the conclusion is that blacks have a more negative self-image than whites. There would be automatic defense and resentment at having ones own group described in this manner. (Jones, 33)

"native anthropologist" would also seem far less hostile and he would be viewed as less of a stranger. As an insider, people do not look at you as a researcher, but as a friend. (Jones, 36) Alternatively, a "native anthropologist" could also raise eyebrows, with the culture concerned reacting rather suspiciously with obvious questions such as - is the anthropologist connected with an agency? Does he have a hidden agenda? All these factors come into play when taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of a native anthropologist, as do facial expressions, hand movements, body movements, and tone of voice when conducting research. (Jones, 34) A native researcher would need to explain what he was doing. Most people in urban black communities know what research is and are familiar with it, and many feel (according to Jones) that research among black people by a black social scientist was a very good thing because reports written by whites cannot reflect an understanding of black people. (Jones, 35).

A common problem facing anthropologists is whether or not to withhold data and many have withheld information gathered in Third World countries in the fear that this would displease the host country and risk their chances of returning.

In the final analysis, neither an outsider nor an insider has any distinct advantages, and problems arise with both. "One vantage point cannot be said to be better than the other." (Jones, 37) Each methodology and approach however can be said to be different and both have particular distortions, inaccuracies, half truths and social preconceptions. The outsider may enter the social situation armed with assumptions that he does not question and which guide him to certain types of conclusions; whereas the insider may depend too much on his own background and his personal sentiments. Many anthropologists feel that the native's view of his own culture reflects the most accurate view, since the aim of the anthropologist is to see things from the point-of-view of the native.

The problem is that there are "native anthropologists" but no "native anthropology." In other words, there is little theory that has been formulated from the point-of-view of tribal, peasant, or minority peoples. (Jones, 37) Old myths are still in the process of being exploded, and new ones being developed.

Resaldo, in his story of grief and a headhunter's rage explains that previously, he could not fathom the mentality behind man wanting to decapitate man, and sever the head and toss it away to "throw away the anger of his bereavement" (Rosaldo, 1). His life experiences had not yet provided him the means to relate or understand such behavior. It was only his perception of the personal experience of death that allowed him to fully comprehend the quality and intensity of rage and grief. This is merely an example he gives to make the point that the ethnographer, as a positioned subject, grasps certain human phenomenon better that others. "He or she occupies a position of structural location and observes with a particular angle of vision. He argues that the truth of objectivism has lost its "monopoly status" and that it now competes, on more nearly equal terms, with the "truths of case studies that are embedded in local contexts, shaped by local interests and coloured by local perceptions." (Rosaldo, 21). "The agenda for social analysis has shifted to include not only eternal verities and lawlike generalizations, but also political processes, social changes and human differences. (Rosaldo, 21) He argues that it is just as important to be subjective, and insider, and to relate to the cultural group that you are studying as it is to be objective, an outsider, and unfamiliar with the theoretical study of the culture of study.