EXAM

QUESTIONS:

- The Big theories of Britain, France and the US (the names that go with them and what
made them unique) The main Anthropologists and their concepts.
- The different types of ethnographic fieldwork (binary, reflexive, single-sited etc)

Anthropology has made since then advances through three methodological inspections:
- Ethnographic fieldwork what is the position of EFW today, compared to what it was in
the 1970s? The three modes of EFW: single sided, multi-sided, experimental (advantages
and disadvantages of that.) Also Three main modes of establishing the social context of
ones fieldwork: upwards, sideward and downwards (the advantages and disadvantages
of that.)
- Historical methods
- Comparative methods Comparison- as a method- why is it important.



4 Main National Traditions of Anthropology
Gingrich Notes

At the end of the 1970's, the situation was very different from today: Colonialism had just
come to an end, the cold war was approaching and national traditions still played a
very important role. Then, there existed four main national traditions:
The British Social Anthropology
focus on comparative aspects of cultures similarities between cultures practical
matters
exponents of this tradition argued that there exist some societies which are more similar
to each other than others, which makes comparison possible it is more important to
watch what people actually do (participant observation), rather than simply asking
what they do/think/say (interviewing)

French speaking tradition of Anthropology
Associated with the term structuralism: focus on structures, regular patterns and
regulations
Important exponent: Claude-Levi Strauss: He was especially interested in modes of
thought and the way humans think and speak, and was convinced of the existence of
certain patterns and regulations in human modes of thought
Exponents of this tradition argued that (in comparison to brit. A) it is more important to
listen to what people say, rather than watch what they do

German speaking tradition of Anthropology
Associated with the term diffusionism = there exist certain cultural centers, where
important cultural elements develop and later diffuse from into other regions/areas =
process of diffusion

US/North-American Cultural Anthropology
(german and American traditions are similar- both focus on diffusionism). Important
exponent: Franz Boas. His basic idea was that each culture is equal and at the same time
unique and particular and therefore can only be understood from the inside. Moreover
he held that cultures, due to their uniqueness, are not comparable to each other and
that the primary key to the understanding of other cultures is language.

4-field-approach: there was a general strong emphasis on four basic fields (archeological
A, linguistic A, physical/biological A and social A), which were combined in an
interdisciplinary way.
Problematic aspects of this approach: the danger to evolve into an absolutist approach
and overemphasize the differences between different cultures. Until 1945 the
predominating empirical method was ethnographic fieldwork.

British Anthropology

Functionalism Functionalists or Structural Functionalists
Bronislaw Malinowski (1884 - 1942) Question asked: like Durkheim, concern for
how things function and not temporally ordered or their origins, but turned question
around - how does society support the individual? And specifically, what reduces an
individual's anxiety of the uncertain? Key points:
A.R. Radcliffe-Brown (1881 - 1955) functionalist
Edward Evans Pritchard (1902 1973) The Nuer admired and emulated
connection between environmental factors and politics

Functionalism
Heuristic theories guide anthropological thought by offering a way of looking at the
world, a way of understanding research findings, a way of carrying out research, - so
basically it is a vision of social and cultural reality and directs attention to what is
deemed important.
Functionalism was the dominant heuristic theory in the first half of the twentieth
century. In the functionalist perspective, society was understood as having a number
of distinct parts, such as institutions of politics, religion and economics. These were
interconnected and known to exert influence on each other- mutually influential. In
the functionalist perspective, society also contained certain customs, rules, activity
or practice and they could be understood as having a certain function for the other
parts of society, or society as a whole.
Example: When investigating the norms for relationship between kin are
relationships strict and authoritative, or are they warm and supportive? The research
findings would reflect group organization, with relations between seniors and juniors
in the same descent group. Radcliffe Brown , Structure and Function in the Primitive
Society 1952.
Anthropologists under the influence of functionalism guided their ethnographic field
research by searching for functional interconnections between customs, practices
and institutions.
Functionalist anthropologists explain customs, rules and activities by their functions,
by the effects of specific practices, beliefs and norms on other institutions and
practices, and how they all interconnect and effect each other for their continuity and
existence and society as a whole.

Functionalist analyses examine the social significance of phenomena, that is, the
function they serve a particular society in maintaining the whole (Jarvie 1973).
Bronislaw Malinowski and A.R. Radcliffe-Brown had the greatest influence on the
development of functionalism from their posts in Great Britain. Functionalism was a
reaction to the excesses of the evolutionary and diffusionist theories of the nineteenth
century and the historicism of the early twentieth (Goldschmidt 1996:510). Two
versions of functionalism developed between 1910 and 1930: Malinowskis

biocultural (or psychological) functionalism; and structural-functionalism, the

approach advanced by Radcliffe-Brown.
Malinowski suggested that individuals have physiological needs (reproduction,
food, shelter) and that social institutions exist to meet these needs. There are also
culturally derived needs and four basic "instrumental needs" (economics, social
control, education, and political organization), that require institutional devices.
Radcliffe-Brown focused on social structure rather than biological needs.
institutions are orderly sets of relationships whose function is to maintain
the society as a system.
Radcliffe-Brown argued that explanations of social phenomena had to be
constructed within the social level.
Structural functionalists such as A. R. Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1995) were
interested in how social systems maintained their status quo over time. A
society was characterized as something like a car or a boat, and the key was to
understand why a society would run smoothly over time like a boat and would
not sink.
Anthropologists use our key research tools, including participant observation, to
understand the history, pattern, and process of change. By constructing ethnographic
models of change, we are able to understand how a society or culture comes to appear
as it does. We include historical data to understand why certain attributes look the way
they do.

Malinowski made his greatest contribution as an ethnographer. He emphasized the
importance of studying social behavior and social relations in their concrete cultural contexts
through participant-observation. He considered it crucial to consider the observable
differences between norms and action; between what people say they do and what they
actually do. His detailed descriptions of Trobriand social life and thought are among the most
comprehensive in world ethnography and his Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922) is
one of the most widely read works of anthropology. Malinowski's enduring conceptual
contributions lay in the areas of: kinship and marriage (e.g., the concept of "sociological
paternity"); in magic, ritual language and myth (e.g., the idea of "myth as social charter"); and
in economic anthropology (notably the concept of "reciprocity") (Young 1991:445).

A.R. Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955) was a founding father of functionalism associated with
the branch known as structural-functionalism. He attended Cambridge where he studied
moral science, which incorporated philosophy, economics and psychology. It was during this
time that he earned the nick-name "Anarchy Brown" because of his political interests and
affiliations. After completing his degree in 1904, he conducted fieldwork in the Andaman
Islands and Western Australia. Radcliffe-Brown's emphasis on examining the contribution of
phenomena to the maintenance of the social structure reflects the influence of French
sociologist Emile Durkheim (Winthrop 1991:129). He particularly focused on the institutions
of kinship and descent and suggested that, at least in tribal societies, they determined
the character of family organization, politics, economy, and inter-group relations
(Winthrop 1991:130).


French Tradition

Emile Durkheim (1858 - 1917) functionalist: what keeps society together? What
maintains social solidarity? How does the individual support society? He refocused the
discussion from the psychology and "superego"- the interior - to the exterior - social
solidarity. Key points:
Claude Levi-Strauss (1908 to 2009)

Maurice Godelier (1934 still alive)

Structuralism
Claude Levi-Strauss (1908 to 2009) is widely regarded as the father of structural
anthropology. In the 1940s, he proposed that the proper focus of anthropological
investigations was on the underlying patterns of human thought that produce the
cultural categories that organize worldviews hitherto studied (McGee and Warms, 2004:
345). He believed these processes were not deterministic of culture, but instead, operated
within culture. His work was heavily influenced by Emile Durkheim . From the latter, he
derived the concept of binary contrasts, later referred to in his work as binary oppositions,
which became fundamental in his theory.
In 1972, his book Structuralism and Ecology was published detailing the tenets of what would
become structural anthropology. In it, he proposed that culture, like language, is composed
of hidden rules that govern the behavior of its practitioners. What made cultures unique
and different from one another are the hidden rules participants understood but are unable to
articulate; thus, the goal of structural anthropology is to identify these rules. Levi-Strauss
proposed a methodological means of discovering these rulesthrough the identification of
binary oppositions.
The structuralist paradigm in anthropology suggests that the structure of human thought
processes is the same in all cultures, and that these mental processes exist in the form of
binary oppositions (Winthrop 1991). Some of these oppositions include hot-cold, male-
female, culture-nature, and raw-cooked. Structuralists argue that binary oppositions are
reflected in various cultural institutions (Lett 1987:80). Anthropologists may discover
underlying thought processes by examining such things as kinship, myth, and language.
It is proposed, then, that a hidden reality exists beneath all cultural expressions.
Structuralists aim to understand the underlying meaning involved in human thought as
expressed in cultural acts.
As an analytical model, structuralism assumes the universality of human thought processes in
an effort to explain the deep structure or underlying meaning existing in cultural
phenomena.
Methodologies:
Folk stories, religious stories, and fairy tales were the principle subject matter for
structuralists because they believed these made manifest the underlying universal human
structures, the binary oppositions. For example, in the story of Cinderella, some of the binary
oppositions include good versus evil, pretty versus ugly (Cinderella versus her two
stepsisters), clean versus dirty, etc. Because of this focus, the principle methodology
employed was hermeneutics. Hermeneutics originated as a study of the Gospels, and has
since come to refer to the interpretation of the meaning or written works.
Criticisms:
- Static, ahistorical nature of theory (Seymour-Smith 1986)
- Theory does not account for human individuality
- Theory does not account for independent human acts
- Theory does not address dynamic aspects of culture

American Tradition

Frans Boas (1858 1942)
Franz Boas. His basic idea was that each culture is equal and at the same time unique
and particular and therefore can only be understood from the inside. Moreover he held
that cultures, due to their uniqueness, are not comparable to each other and that the
primary key to the understanding of other cultures is language.
4-field-approach: there was a general strong emphasis on four basic fields (archeological
A, linguistic A, physical/biological A and social A),

Boas emphasized that culture traits should not be viewed casually, but in terms of a relatively
unique historical process that proceeds from the first introduction of a trait until its origin
becomes obscure. He sought to understand culture traits in terms of two historical processes,
diffusion and modification. Boas used these key concepts to explain culture and interpret the
meaning of culture. He believed that the cultural inventory of a people was basically the
cumulative result of diffusion. He viewed culture as consisting of countless loose threads,
most of foreign origin, but which were woven together to fit into their new cultural context.
Discrete elements become interrelated as time passes (Hatch 1973:57-58).

Historical Particularism and Diffusionism
American anthropologists reacted to social evolutionists in the early twentieth century and
quickly pointed out how inappropriate ranked models of human social development were.
One approach favored by North Americans was to follow how particular traits and practices
diffused through a region, this approach is usually described as historical particularism and
is associated with anthropologists such as Franz Boas (1858-1942), Alfred Kreober (1876-
1960) and to a lesser extent Margaret Mead (1901-1978). These anthropologists used
collections of material culture from an area to document how traits and practices developed.
They would ask: Where was a practice established? How was it adopted by other cultures
and populations? How did a trait change in its adoption? They were interested in knowing
how patterns of use and tradition diffused from one region to another. Historical
particularists focused on for example why gamelan is found in Indonesia and not in Western
Europe.
German Tradition
Diffusionism Wilhelm Schmidt (1868 - 1954)
In the German tradition there has existed a very specific prevailing approach concerning
history, which is called Diffusionism. This diffusionist concept operates with a mental model
of concentric circles. The main aim of Diffusionism was to understand and explain the
nature of culture and it therefore tried to find the origin of cultural items by tracing
their spread from one society to another. The main idea of Diffusionism was based on the
conviction that all cultures originated from one cultural center. This idea implied a method
which was able to follow up the processes of diffusion that caused the transfer of discrete
cultural items from one society to another, through migration, trade, war, or other contact .
However, today diffusionist ideas can be seen as outdated and disproved, albeit in special
cases it still makes sense to use Diffusionism as a method for example when trying to follow
up the spread of certain aspects of material culture over specific regions and more peripheral
areas (such as Japanese chain armors diffusing to and all over Oceania). The main idea of the
diffusionist method is that an item in the place of origin must be older than in the diffusion
area. It was thus used in order to establish chronological orders of the spread of specific
material items. Nowadays, in view of globalization Diffusionism has somehow reentered
the stage and especially as a method is gaining importance and relevance within
Anthropology again. However, one great lack the diffusionist method exhibits is the fact that it
can only give information about relative chronological orders, but can t establish absolute
ones.

Ethnographic Field Work Approaches

Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942) is today said to be the founder of the method of
Ethnographic Fieldwork in its single sited form; this invention is sometimes called the
malinowskian revolution. He was an Anthropologist of the British tradition and was
born and raised in Krakow. His ideas and especially the theoretical concept of the
method of EFW were significantly influenced by his experience of growing up in the
Austrian- Hungarian empire and his experience of multilingualism. Other
anthropologists of this time such as A.Musil and E.Glaser were also highly affected by
the experience of growing up in a diverse society.

Malinowskis methodological concept:

- core aspect: participant observation (presence in the field + participation within the
field + observation of the field)
- additional parts: asking questions (interviews), redrawing daily experiences (field
notes), conversations with locals about the happenings of the day (informal
interviews)
- language was another very important aspect of Malinowskis method: many early
researchers (such as M.Mead) claimed to have learned the local language within
several months of time, which today is known to be impossible since learning a
completely foreign language is a very hard task and takes a lot of time and effort (
Fieldwork = hard work)

EFW = ethnographic Interviews:
- watch what people do VS ask what people say
- researcher is a witness, listens most of the time and lets things happen the way they
do without interfering too much VS researcher asks questions, is active in the field,
leads and controls the situation/conversation

Before Malinowski there were a few important precursors who were and are still very

important within our discipline:

Franz Boas (also one of Malinowskis most vehement critics): Franz Boas worked for the
Museum of Berlin where he learned that it is impossible to understand objects/items without
knowing about their background, history and meaning. He soon realized the need to go to the
field and find out what these objects actually mean to the people in everyday life, how they are
used and thought of. Boas conducted his fieldwork among the Eskimos in North America and
later even moved to the US where he became the founder of the famous 4- field-approach.
This form of EFW differs from the Malinowskian method: Fieldwork in the Boasian tradition
was much shorter, focused on learning the local language as fast as possible and had a special
focus on material culture rather than on religious, cultural or social phenomena. However
since the 1960/70s it started to develop towards the general EFW-style.
Participants of the Torres Straits Expedition, which was carried out by the British Museum
in cooperation with some other institutions back in the 1880s. It took place in the
maritime region between Australia and New Guinea. What distinguished these
expeditions from former discovering voyages is that the participating researchers
were interested in any and every kind of empirical material. They came to realize that
it needs a certain amount of time in the field in order to make valuable findings and
they also found out about the limits of their research-possibilities.
Long before European researchers started doing fieldwork many non-European
intellectuals already did something close to what was later called EFW. One example is
the Arabic geographer Ibu Battuta who already carried out long duration field stays
back in the 13th/ 14th century (he lived in the Maldives for over 10 years).
18th century: the French missionary Joseph-Franois Lafiteau did fieldwork among the
Iroquois in Sault St.Louis (at the border between Canada and the US) and is best
known for his use of the comparative method. He wrote about the customs (and
rights) of the American Indians and stayed in the field for more than 6 years. such
early intellectuals even though they were not Anthropologists in the narrow sense
must also be considered when talking about the development of the ethnographic
method!
Alois Musil (1868-1938): He was a catholic priest and a mild Czech-nationalist. He was
strongly loyal to the Habsburg family and therefore a very close person to the ruling
house of Habsburg. Musil became an expert of the Middle East and didn't hesitate to
use this expertise in favor of the house of Habsburg (Musil has been frequently accused
of spying on behalf of the ruling house). However, Musil was against the idea of Austria
being at war with the Middle East and rather suggested to establish collaboration
between the two regions. His famous monography on the Rwala Beduines is of timeless
importance within Anthropology. The time Musil did the fieldwork and wrote down his
findings (1907), nobody was interested in his book and therefore it took 20 more years
before his monography became recognized within Anthropology and was finally
translated and published in 1927.
During the whole period between the Torres Straits Expedition and the Malinowskian time
in Anthropology there existed a strong affinity to the natural sciences which also
effected the development of EFW considering the fact that the method of EFW actually
developed out of the idea of the field experiment in natural sciences.


Comparative Methods in Socio-Cultural Anthropology Gingrich

Anthropological comparison always examines and analyses the similarities and

differences among humans interactions with each other and the world they inhabit.
There is a continuing need for critical analysis and awareness about the world and the
societies we inhabit

IMPORTANCE OF COMPARATIVE Approaches:
to bring out the wider relevance of an ethnographic case, one should engage in
comparison (as with the PhD student who wrote a thesis on organized crime in a small
remote post-communist Russian town he should relate the ethnography from that
small town to other documented cases of organized crime in the wider region and
beyond- in order to convince his readers that this study represents a wider class of
phenomena in this case Boris is applying regional and distant comparison)
it provides a wider contribution to human knowledge in this specific field of
research
some of most successful research projects: investigate along comparative lines the
diverse forms of impact of current global crises or processes of globalization
Kirsten Hastrup: how people in different parts of Asia, Africa and in the circumpolar
regions cope with the consequences of climate change for water. distant and shifting
time-space comparison
Also, comparative methods are needed in order to respond to market mechanisms-
they sell better (when compared)
Anthropology as a cultural critique and highlighting the wider relevance of
particular ethnographies two main reasons why comparative methods are becomes
more important than ever
as well as transnational and globalizing forces that have swept our world - more
and more people around the world are facing similar challenges and
transformations even though with different degrees, different speeds and in
different forms. so very important to compare the diverse and similar ways in which
they locally interact with those transnational and global challenges and
transformations.
Globalization also has a time/space compression : the growing interconnectedness of
the current world- we are no longer so drastically separated by temporal and
spatial distances, so its becoming even more relevant to engage in comparative
ethnographic studies against this backdrop of globalization.
GINGRICH EXAMPLE Ex-Yugo- applying anthropological concepts or ethnographic
evidence to different historical contexts can explain certain periods in new and
profound ways
He argues; historical comparison without fieldwork may be justified and worthwhile
endeavor for anthropologists.
His analysis: examining civil war in ex-Yugoslavia- are there certain criteria which
promote civil war and ethnic violence? He compared the situation with the late
Ottoman empire, in particular, the situation in the late Hungarian-Austrian empire.
leading to the identification of certain secondary parallels.
NEGATIVE ABOUT COMPARISON: those anthropologists who followed the grand
theories especially those following postmodern philosophy with cultural relativism
in North America and elsewhere- became relatively skeptical about comparison and
confined themselves to ethnographic analyses. and this was positive as they were
able to reassess ethnographic methods, and also disentanglement of grand theory from

comparative methods that is, pursuing comparative methods without having in mind
any universal (eg. Structural, evolutionary or other) grand theory
A priori- engaging in theoretical study in order to arrive to some form of knowledge or
reasoning, as opposed to observation or experiences (requires intensive preparation
and fine-tuning- but does carry out more fertile and satisfactory results for the final
comparative analysis they are more time-consuming and budget-intensive and more
suitable for bigger group projects)
A posteriori engages in observation or experiences to the deduction of potential
causes for something.. (might not yield positive results if you cannot find appropriate
comparable examples after conducting ethnographic fieldwork with regards to
literature..)
QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE:
Most anthropological comparison of today is quantitative in kind.
Quantitative once played a very important role Human Relations Area Files (HRAF)
G.P Murdock founding father sponsored by US government during second world war
effort however decline due to disappointing results and methodological reservations
about the empirical basis and procedures with codification
Anthropological comparison today: is mainly fieldwork based methodological strategy
with a qualitative orientation
Because of quantitative limitations, anthropological comparison offers merely some
modest utility and value with regard to far-reaching theories and claims of relevance.
5 KEY DESIGN FACTORS that have to be developed and considered with the respective context
of fieldwork
Choice of compared units: for eg: comparing aspects of popular culture in Hong Kong,
Singapore and Taiwan if the units to be compared exert obvious influence on each
other then grea.t However, do not compare apples and oranges-> although this
depends. Your comparing or apples and oranges can be important if you compare for
example the annual cycles of fruit reproduction.. so it always depends on the question
of your research.
Controlled Comparison- its directed against statistical random procedures of choosing
examples for comparison. Instead, it is argued for selective, qualitative procedures..
chosen cases that relate, as mentioned above.
Criteria of Comparison for eg; assessing social interactions with senior people in
West Africa and North America she employed comparative criterion markers, eg,
frequency of weekly conversations with family members, residence proximity with
family, advice-seeking mechanisms and then defined quantifiers and/or qualifiers,
such as high/medium/low frequency of weekly convos
Discreteness of compared Units -
Scale of comparison focused for eg on a small group of comparison.. the dimensions
of the comparison.. the largeness of it.

5 DIFFERENT SUB TYPES OF COMPARISON
Binary Comparison: Binary manner opposing their society and culture to ours
sometimes binary comparisons can support (corroborate) pre-conceived stereotypes
about others however if employed in a critical, simplistic, self-reflexive manner, it
can yield many interesting preliminary insights. FOR EG: menopausal experience in
Japan and her country Canada
Regional Comparison- most conventional and widely respected contemporary,
transnational usages, for eg- political power in Melanesia (godelier and Strathen 1991),
neo-nationalism in Western Europe (Gingrich and Banks 2006)
Historical/Temporal Comparison as mentioned above- analysing different historical
periods

Distant comparison includes different regional and temporal contexts eg: Ulf
Hannerzs Cultural Complexity (1992) examining cultural creativity in Calcutta 19th
century, Vienna late 19th and early 20th century and Los Angeles 50s and 60s.
Diffusionist/ Shifting Time-Space comparison this approach accompanies various
periods and sites. Eric wolfs analysis the spread of capitalism into indigenous worlds
(1982)

Historical Method

Historical anthropology is the second most important element within anthropological

research methods [right after ethnographic fieldwork (most important) and before
comparison (3rd most important)]. The way historical methods are applied and the
importance they are given to depends very much on the national tradition of the
researcher making use of it. However, nowadays there exists consensus over the importance
and the position of historical methods as standing right next to ethnographic fieldwork, which
can also be seen as a sign of globalization in the sense that Anthropology as a discipline
became globalized. As has already been mentioned until the 1970s there have existed a high
number of differences between the various national traditions of Anthropology, which also
applies to the way historical anthropology has been looked at within this traditions:
In the British tradition History and Anthropology were strictly separated from each other
(in accordance to Malinowskis views); both areas were seen as totally different from
each other and as having nothing to do with each other. British functionalism focused
on systems and how their integral parts function.
In the French tradition Anthropology was seen as a discipline which is mainly concerned
with relatively stable structures that don't change significantly over time and therefore
history was not seen as being necessary within anthropological research.
In contrast the German and US-American traditions have always appreciated history as an
important part of anthropological research historical methods were almost equally
important to ethnographic fieldwork. What were the reasons for the change of this
primarily negative attitude towards historical Anthropology within the British and
French traditions? The main influences came from outside of the anthropological
mainstream. Moreover the changing focus in both traditions had a very strong impact
on this development: with time they started to become more interested in societies
which displayed a more complex structure and moreover possessed very long
traditions and complicated histories. They therefore came to realize that in order to
really understand those societies it is necessary to also pay attention to historical
aspects. This development resulted in a general disillusion of the until then assumption
that history is of no importance for anthropological research.
Today historical methods exist in a new plurality within the anthropological fields they
differ significantly according to the time depth dealt with:

Studies about recent and contemporary timezones: such studies deal with oral
history (biographies, life-stories, information which can not be discovered in written
sources) and are usually very closely tied to fieldwork. Today the most common
historical methods within such studies are case-reconstructive-research-methods
which offer the researcher material consisting of a plurality of input and voices. The
dutch Anthropologist Jan Vansina coined oral history methods.
Studies which require a long dure and medium term perspective: such studies use

ethnohistory and world history, and are usually applied when looking at the history
of local societies. Such methods include sound chronological ordering with a focus on
overlapping events as well as source criticism. An example for such methods is the
ethnogenesis-method, developed in the Soviet Union. In such studies world history is
especially important, which is due to the fact that in all times different societies have
interacted with others out there. Thus exchanges and connections between local
processes and the wider environment have always existed. Therefore world history
needs to be looked at when studying local societies.
Studies which require an ancient or archeological time perspective: Such studies
work with conceptional hypothesis which are imposed on white spots combined with
the examination of written sources and ethno-archeological methods. Such studies
used to be especially strong in the Americas, there Anthropology and Archeology
have always been strongly connected to each other (e.g. G.Hazard did ethno-
archeological research). This method is very fieldwork based, since there exist only
very few written sources, which forces the researcher to collect his/her material by
interacting very intensively with different kind of people and in the last instance work
with testimonials. This method is not always necessary but can sometimes be very
helpful in order to gather additional information.

Thus today it is generally self-understood that whatever the topic is, the examination of a
phenomenon must always include historical aspects as well as aspects of its wider relevance
(comparative aspects). Nowadays there exists a plurality of historical methods according to
the specific time perspective, some of which lead the researcher from present to past and
enable him to move backwards in time; this special ability is what distinguishes
anthropological methods from those of historians, which usually move from past to present.

3 Important Figures which changed Anthropology

Focus of this lecture: Trends in the 1970/80s that brought about the change and persons who
were involved in the termination of national Anthropologies (most of them were members of
the critical left, a male intellectual movement in Europe and the US).
1. Maurice Godelier (1934): Godelier is the most influential french anthropologist outside
the french-speaking Anthropology, he is even more widely read then C.Levi-Strauss, who is
more important within the french-speaking anthropological society. He used to held lectures
in Vienna as well as all over the world and especially regarding studies of religion his work
can serve as a good guideline.
Godelier s most important publications:
konomische Anthropologie; Horizon, trajets marxistes en anthropologie (Originaltitel)
(1973): In this book Godelier explores the ways in which economy and religion are
interrelated
The Making of Great Men (1986)
The Engima of the Gift (1999)
In and out of the West (2009 = most recent book): This book is a collection of lectures he
has held at different universities. He emphasizes the fact, that Anthropology has
changed its sociological texture. What he is trying to say with this statement is that
the present anthropological society is becoming multi-ethnic and that it is actually
dominated by non-white Anthropologists (in contrast to former times this marks a
significant change, which Godelier appreciates a lot). He therefore also states that
Anthropology is getting globalized. Godelier s main ideas: Godelier emphasizes
the importance of economy. He is of the conviction that anthropological research

always needs to consider economic aspects as well. In the 1970s this was not
common at all, it was a very innovative thought.
He moreover held, that when looking at non-capitalist/pre-colonial societies it is necessary
to analyze these societies with the help of certain economic criteria. This criteria
however must NOT be derived from the market logic of the capitalist systems (of the
west) but should rather be derived from within the specific societies economic system.
Godelier was very positive about Marxism and the person of K.Marx himself. He always
saw Marxism as a way of posing - perhaps uncomfortable, but important - questions,
which is one of the main concerns of Anthropology in any event.
When analysing different economies, Godelier realized very early that national markets
were transgressing national boundaries and therefore concluded, that the times of
national boundaries are over, which was - in the 1970s - a very innovative thought.
He was very close to Eleanor Leacock and moreover one of the first pro-feminist
Anthropologists. To exemplify this: In his work he focused on religious, social and
political marginalization of women and the inner logic of male hierarchies in New
Guinea. This study focus resulted in more general questions about ethics and moral
concerns, as well as in a general controversial debate on universal values VS. cultural
values, limits of such values and human rights (one crucial factor, which led to this
debates was Goldeiers observation of a common initial ritual in New Guinea, which
includes sexual interaction between adult men and young boys and which Godelier
himself was very critical about).
2. Eric Wolf (1923-1999): Wolf was born and raised in Vienna but had to flee from Austria in
the 1930s. He first went to Czechoslovakia and was later, just before the war broke out, sent
to England by children transport. From there he later moved to the US, where he lived with
some of his far relatives, since most of his family was murdered during the war period. In the
US he became an American citizen, joined the US army and fought in the second world war.
Wolf developed his leftist approach back in the times when he was still living in the UK and
in combination with his childhood- and war-experiences he finally became an Anthropologist
(one of his obligations as an Anthropologist was to interview Austrian and German prisoners
in US-American prisons on behalf of the CIA).

When Wolf started doing Anthropology his main focus was on Meso-America, which is
reflected in one of his first publications Sons of the Shaking Earth (1962). As a young
Anthropologist Wolf was of the opinion that the strict - and in his eyes racist -
separation between folklore-studies (Volkskunde) and Anthropology
(Vlkerkunde) should be abandoned and rather be replaced by one single framework
within which all societies should be studied.
That was when Wolf also became interested in studying European societies, which is
reflected in The Hidden Frontier (1999). This book is about two alpine villages in
Sdtirol, the German-speaking community of St. Felix and Roman-speaking Tret. Wolf
showed in this book, that local differences between German-speaking and Roman-
speaking Sdtirolians can not be explained merely out of the local and present
conditions. He argues that such differences need to be analyzed in consideration of
historical and supra-national factors, which implicates the necessity to go back to
wider factors in time and in space in order to get to a proper understanding of
present conditions. Thus, Wolf held that scholars need to (a) focus on the relation
between the Local and the Global (wider factors) and (b) always ask Why.

His book Europe and the People without History (1982) is among his most famous
publications and is the third most sold book in Anthropology and the most recent long
seller. Therein he traces the rise of commercial economy in Europe and shows how
this would not have been possible without colonial expansion. The book served as
a proof of his thesis, that the rise of the European dominance goes hand in hand with
making other people dependent, which he for instance exemplifies by rum and sugar
cane production in the Caribbean.

3. Talal Assad (1933): Talal Assad is the son of the famous Muhammad Assad (Leopold
Weiss), who himself - actually born into a Ukraine Jewish family - converted to Islam at the
age of 24. He was an advocate of Marxist ideas.
T. Assad was first living in the UK and wrote his master thesis about the Kababish Arabs in
Sudan. Therein he showed that the Kababish society has been profoundly informed by
the colonial experience and that colonialism caused significant changes and
transformations within this society.
This findings led to a dramatic break within the British Social Anthropology as well as to a
new focus within Assads study-interests: From this time on he started thinking about
Anthropology as such.
Assad criticizes how Anthropology has been carried out in the past, especially by
Anthropologists such as Evans-Pritchard, who totally ignored colonialism as a
crucial factor and as a major influential aspect. He accuses them of producing reality-
distorting descriptions and therefore falsifying reality.
Postmodernism
The 3rd important movement of change within Anthropology was the so-called Postmodern
Turn. This turn started in the late 1970s, when Marxist ideologies have finally come to an
end and gave way to new ideas. That was the moment postmodernism and feminist
movements started to arise. One important representative of this turn was Jean-Francois
Lyotard, a french philosopher belonging to a leftist movement called Socialisme ou
barbarie. He was very critical of the western society and held that the industrial
societies have reached a limit. He moreover emphasized the need to distinguish more
strictly between scientific knowledge (natural+life sciences) and narrative knowledge
(humanities+social sciences).
Jean-Francois Lyotard: La condition postmoderne (1984)
George Marcus in Critical Anthropology and
James Clifford: Writing Culture 79-86 and
Michael Fischer: Anthropology as Cultural Critique 86-99