Anthropology?

[Retoxification]

Anyone here an anthropology major/graduate as one? I've just been wondering how the career oppurtunities look like after im done with school. My schools anthro department is basically a few people and there isn't much they do(minus like 3-4 who do field work.)

 

[Dr Pepper]

What school is that?

 

[n3ophy7e]

Hey Retoxification, I'm going to move this to the Education & Careers forum

 

[Jamshyd]

I have a friend who is doing some cutting-edge work on Genetics. That said, she is a bioanthropologist (with heavy supplementation of science courses). She has taken sociocultural anthro and says the only worthy aspects of the latter are Archaeology or linguistics (which has now branched out to be its own discipline, leaving cult. anthro. obsolete). I also noticed that a lot of the so-called "antropological" theory is in fact sociological. Really, when you think about it, the age of ethnographic research is largely over.

No offense to resident cultural-antropologists...

 

[ebola?]

I also noticed that a lot of the so-called "antropological" theory is in fact sociological.

I've never quite been able to put my finger on what the difference between the two disciplines is (besides capriciously different theoretical canons (and they're often not that different)). Given that the two split pretty recently, and now they're taking on each others' usual empirical objects, I think that they should re-merge.
...
I believe a bachelor's in anthro to be more useful than a sociology degree, at least, as you can assist fieldwork (archaeological at least. . .). Why not ask your adviser? It's his or her job to know the answer...

 

[Jamshyd]

^ You have an excellent point about fieldwork, and the friend I mention above also makes that same point.

IMO, the difference between anthro. and soc. theory can be best summarized as: Soc. is the study of our society, while anthro is the study of their society.

Seeing that the objectification of the other for curious study has been steadily falling out of favour post-nazis (except with soldiers in afghanistan ), I honestly cannot help but find cult. anthro. to be very annoying .

 

[ebola?]

From my limited interactions, mostly restricted to grad students at the same school, I likely gleaned a skewed picture of anthro'. They appear to bring a great deal of post-structuralist and post-colonial theory to the table...and a good deal of auto-critique along with it. I also see sociology to more and more take on the prototypical 'exotic' 'others'. To a lesser extent, anthro is also beginning to take on social study in the Global North.

I hope for more fruitful cross-pollination in the future.

ebola

 

[satricion]

To me the difference between anthropology and sociology is as follows:

Firstly, anthropology was the science which studied 'the other,' whereas sociology was the science that studied 'modernity,' ie, 'us.'

Secondly, anthropology for a long time had a much stronger focus on 'culture' than sociology, whereas sociology has generally been concerned with social structures, with 'culture' only becoming fashionable later on.

This has led to different theoretical cannons which have started to merge as the two disciplines confronted their various problems. Post colonialism and post structuralism made the disciplines look at themselves and start to take stock of the power relations that produced the knowledge they were creating. Post colonial theory made 'writing the other' a lot more problematic. Poststructuralism created epistemological doubts and gave language an important place in sociology.

Now they are moving closer and closer together and there are some theorists that both disciplines claim (Foucault, Bourdieu, certain post colonial theorists). Anthropologists are looking at modern societies and some sociologists are putting 'cultural' in front of their title. It's all good baby.

 

[HighonLife]

^ You have an excellent point about fieldwork, and the friend I mention above also makes that same point.

IMO, the difference between anthro. and soc. theory can be best summarized as: Soc. is the study of our society, while anthro is the study of their society.
Seeing that the objectification of the other for curious study has been steadily falling out of favour post-nazis (except with soldiers in afghanistan ), I honestly cannot help but find cult. anthro. to be very annoying .

actually one of the newer trends in anthropology is turn the lenses onto ones own self and culture

 

[Jamshyd]

^ And how is that not psychology and sociology (respectively)?

I mean I can classify people into a table according to their qualities, call their interactions "reactions" and create a scale with which said qualities and reactions can be measured, formulate rules upon said measurements, and proclaim to have opened up new dimensions to the old and veritable science of Chemistry. Does that really work?

Honestly, if two disciplines merge as a result of deeper integration, I'd rather see them both obliterated and reconstructed as something new rather than call one by the name of the other.

 

[satricion]

In the social sciences, disciplinary boundaries become arbitrary at a certain level of abstraction. Both disciplines (sociology and anthropology), as well as others such as political science, have been rocked by similar big theoretical ideas in the last few decades. It's inevitable, and a good thing, that disciplinary boundaries become hazy. However, each discipline also represents a particular canon, history, and set of problems which if abandoned would be lost. I would like to see them talking to each other with an acknowledgment of the (in a way) arbitrary origins of the boundaries between them, but without abandoning the projects that animate the particular disciplines.

 

[matt2012]

My wife has a degree in anthro...she couldn't find a job in her field anywhere. About the only thing you can do with bachelors in anthor is use it to wipe your ass. With a masters you may be able to get some work time to time if the cops find a pile of bones laying around. the bulk of people that get higher degerrs in anthro teach it in some capasity or another.

So unless you want to be an anthropology professor its pretty much useless IMO.

 

[Jerry Atrick]

My wife has a degree in anthro...she couldn't find a job in her field anywhere. About the only thing you can do with bachelors in anthor is use it to wipe your ass. With a masters you may be able to get some work time to time if the cops find a pile of bones laying around. the bulk of people that get higher degerrs in anthro teach it in some capasity or another.

So unless you want to be an anthropology professor its pretty much useless IMO.

The same can be said for a lot of liberal arts degrees.

 

[Jerry Atrick]

Comparing anthro to sociology is similar to comparing economics to accounting. They're both looking to describe culture but in different ways. It's a common misconception that anthro studies only them and sociology studies us. Anthro studies ALL and sociology tends to just study modern, Western society which would be SOME.

I'm in grad school for cultural anthro and I'm doing my thesis research on the economics and subsistence methods of homeless people in the United States. There's a perfect example of studying us.

One of you mentioned ethnography as if you knew the definition of the word but didn't know anything about it. Method is another huge difference between the two disciplines. Whereas sociology depends almost solely on written surveys, anthropology relies on ethnography and participant observation to gather data (as well as some surveys). One downfall of sociology is you can't quantify culture. Sure you can make pretty little tables and graphs quantifying aspects of culture, but culture is something that changes and evolves...how do you put an unbiased number on that.

They do share a bit of history, but all disciplines had to start somewhere. I don't see why they can't be friends, but they're definitely not the same.

To the OP, I'd be glad to help you but you haven't told us what branch of anthro you're in. I'm sure you know by now that there's physical, cultural, archaeology, and at some schools, linguistics.

 

[satricion]

One of you mentioned ethnography as if you knew the definition of the word but didn't know anything about it. Method is another huge difference between the two disciplines. Whereas sociology depends almost solely on written surveys, anthropology relies on ethnography and participant observation to gather data (as well as some surveys). One downfall of sociology is you can't quantify culture. Sure you can make pretty little tables and graphs quantifying aspects of culture, but culture is something that changes and evolves...how do you put an unbiased number on that.

This is not true at all. Or rather, it was true forty years ago. But nowadays it is totally untrue. Qualitative methods are huge in sociology right now, ethnography included. Sociology has gone through a long period of questioning the usefulness of positivistic, quantitative methods, and has come out the other side.

It also depends on your department. Many American departments are still very quantitative heavy. But here in Australia qualitative research in sociology is huge.

 

[Jamshyd]

Comparing anthro to sociology is similar to comparing economics to accounting. They're both looking to describe culture but in different ways. It's a common misconception that anthro studies only them and sociology studies us. Anthro studies ALL and sociology tends to just study modern, Western society which would be SOME.

Well we're simply going to have to agree to disagree.

I'm in grad school for cultural anthro and I'm doing my thesis research on the economics and subsistence methods of homeless people in the United States. There's a perfect example of studying us.

And how is that not sociological?

One of you mentioned ethnography as if you knew the definition of the word but didn't know anything about it.

Actually I do know enough about it to clarify what I meant: by "Age of Ethnographic Research" I meant people who go to Tibet and measure Tibetans heads and teeth and live amongst Tibetans for a couple of years to draw "objective" conclusions about Tibetan Society. People don't do that anymore, as it is clearly a vestige of imperialism*. I realize that Ethnography as a method is still utilized - by both disciplines.

Method is another huge difference between the two disciplines. Whereas sociology depends almost solely on written surveys, anthropology relies on ethnography and participant observation to gather data (as well as some surveys). One downfall of sociology is you can't quantify culture. Sure you can make pretty little tables and graphs quantifying aspects of culture, but culture is something that changes and evolves...how do you put an unbiased number on that.

Absolutely not.

In Canada, with the exception of Demographic research, almost all Sociology grads I know are doing qualitative or a mix of the two.

They do share a bit of history, but all disciplines had to start somewhere. I don't see why they can't be friends, but they're definitely not the same..

I don't think anyone suggested that they are the same.

* Incidentally, that particular example I gave off the top of my head is pretty much what certain people did to determine the ethnic superiority of the Aryan Race. We all know what came of that.

 

[Jerry Atrick]

Okay, so we have an Australian and a Canadian arguing about American universities here. Obviously there is some kind of disconnect going on. I don't know anything about colleges in your respective countries so I'm not going to draw conclusions about them.

And how is that not sociological?

Because at the end of the day when the sociologist goes home, cooks a hot meal, and sleeps in his own bed, I'll be eating and sleeping amongst the homeless as a participant observer.

Actually I do know enough about it to clarify what I meant: by "Age of Ethnographic Research" I meant people who go to Tibet and measure Tibetans heads and teeth and live amongst Tibetans for a couple of years to draw "objective" conclusions about Tibetan Society. People don't do that anymore, as it is clearly a vestige of imperialism*. I realize that Ethnography as a method is still utilized - by both disciplines.

You're getting cultural and pysical anthro confused. I don't know shit about measuring heads and teeth. Yes, I'll be required to take a class in physical anthro next semester, but not because that's what I'll be doing. You're talking about what (mostly) European anthropologists were doing over a hundred years ago to try to prove the superiority of Western civilization. Wherever you're getting this info is a little outdated, man.

Absolutely not.

In Canada, with the exception of Demographic research, almost all Sociology grads I know are doing qualitative or a mix of the two.

They borrow a lot from one another. Whereas cultural anthropologists rely mostly on qualitative research, they still do quantitative studies as a supplement. You cannot deny that most of sociology is quantitative, though they use qualitative to supplement.

I'm taking a sociology class right now as an elective. Almost all of the data we are looking at comes from surveys.

Like I said at the beginning of this post, I don't know much about universities outside of my own country. I do know that European anthropology is much different than American anthropology. AFAIK they still treat archaeology and anthropology as two completely different fields of study whereas in the US, archaeology falls under the anthropology umbrella.

 

[Jamshyd]

Okay, so we have an Australian and a Canadian arguing about American universities here. Obviously there is some kind of disconnect going on. I don't know anything about colleges in your respective countries so I'm not going to draw conclusions about them.

I was unaware that this tangent was specifically about American universities.

Because at the end of the day when the sociologist goes home, cooks a hot meal, and sleeps in his own bed, I'll be eating and sleeping amongst the homeless as a participant observer.

Huh?

I'll let him elaborate, but I'm pretty sure at one point Ebola - an American Sociologist - was doing participant observation for a (Sociological, in America) Thesis.

You're getting cultural and pysical anthro confused.

No I am not. I mentioned above that I think physical (or bio, as we call it here) anthro is a perfectly valid today.

I don't know shit about measuring heads and teeth. Yes, I'll be required to take a class in physical anthro next semester, but not because that's what I'll be doing. You're talking about what (mostly) European anthropologists were doing over a hundred years ago to try to prove the superiority of Western civilization. Wherever you're getting this info is a little outdated, man.

Not sure who's more outdated, as I was actually referring to Nazis in the 30's. I can look up some refs for you if you'd like but for now I'll just link wikipedia. Now if you still want to claim that this is outdated, then all the better, because that was my point precisely - see my first post in this thread. Anthropology has throughout its short life lent itself very well to use as a weapon. It still is used as such.

They borrow a lot from one another. Whereas cultural anthropologists rely mostly on qualitative research, they still do quantitative studies as a supplement. You cannot deny that most of sociology is quantitative, though they use qualitative to supplement.

I don't know about that... the bulk of Sociological theory has very, very little to do with numbers. But of course I am very sure that anthropologists would pounce on all non-quantitative theorists and claim them as theirs.

I'm taking a sociology class right now as an elective. Almost all of the data we are looking at comes from surveys.

Well then I don't know what to tell you... your prof sucks? In my four years of Sociology I only had to do one half-credit about statistical methods.

Like I said at the beginning of this post, I don't know much about universities outside of my own country. I do know that European anthropology is much different than American anthropology. AFAIK they still treat archaeology and anthropology as two completely different fields of study whereas in the US, archaeology falls under the anthropology umbrella.

Archaeology is definitely part of Anthropology in Canada, and as I argued above, seems to be the only actual material left of Cultural Anthropology that is uniquely so.

For the record, I have the same dim view of Human Geography... really, Geographers should stick to maps.

 

[satricion]

Because at the end of the day when the sociologist goes home, cooks a hot meal, and sleeps in his own bed, I'll be eating and sleeping amongst the homeless as a participant observer.

Sociologists do participant observation all the time.

They borrow a lot from one another. Whereas cultural anthropologists rely mostly on qualitative research, they still do quantitative studies as a supplement. You cannot deny that most of sociology is quantitative, though they use qualitative to supplement.

Rubbish. This varies across departments, countries, and subsections of the discipline.

 

[ebola?]

Because at the end of the day when the sociologist goes home, cooks a hot meal, and sleeps in his own bed, I'll be eating and sleeping amongst the homeless as a participant observer.

Good memory. I almost chimed in, as I thought that I would've been the one to mention "ethnography", and I hope that I knew what method I was employing during the thesis research. I don't have much time to chime in now, but my view falls mostly in line with satiricon's explanations. I think that people are beginning to talk past one another thereafter, as we seem to be confusing differing historical periods, as the 'conjoined twin' disciplines have evolved.

I have severe qualms defining either discipline around its methodologies, at least in the contemporary period. About one third of the grad students in my department employ participant observation as their primary method, and an even higher proportion consider themselves somehow interested in ethnographic methods. I will concede, however, that an even greater proportion of anthropologists use participant observation, and anthropologists are more often willing to put in the time necessary for a deep 'excavation' of their object of study.

ebola