د "انسان پيژندنه" د بڼو تر مېنځ توپير

The anthropologist [[Eric Wolf]] once described anthropology as "the most scientific of the humanities, and the most humanistic of the sciences." Contemporary anthropologists claim a number of earlier thinkers as their forebears, and the discipline has several sources; [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]], for example, claimed [[Montaigne]] and [[Rousseau]] as important influences. Anthropology can best be understood as an outgrowth of the [[Age of Enlightenment]], a period when Europeans attempted systematically to study human behavior. The traditions of [[jurisprudence]], [[history]], [[philology]], and [[sociology]] then evolved into something more closely resembling the modern views of these disciplines and informed the development of the [[social sciences]], of which anthropology was a part. At the same time, the [[Romanticism|Romantic]] reaction to the Enlightenment produced thinkers, such as [[Johann Gottfried Herder]] and later [[Wilhelm Dilthey]], whose work formed the basis for the "culture concept," which is central to the discipline.

 

 

Early anthropology was divided between proponents of [[unilineal evolution|unilinealism]], who argued that all societies passed through a single evolutionary process, from the most primitive to the most advanced, and various forms of non-lineal theorists, who tended to subscribe to ideas such as diffusionism. Most 19th-century social theorists, including anthropologists, viewed non-European societies as windows onto the pre-industrial human past. As academic disciplines began to differentiate over the course of the 19th century, anthropology grew increasingly distinct from natural history, on the one hand, and from purely historical or literary fields such as Classics, on the other.

 

== وګړپوهنه په برطانيه کې ==

[[Edward Burnett Tylor|E. B. Tylor]] (1832 October 2–1917 January 2) and [[James Frazer|James George Frazer]] (1854 January 1 – 1941 May 7) are generally considered the antecedants to modern sociocultural anthropology in Britain. Though Tylor undertook a field trip to [[Mexico]], both he and Frazer derived most of the material for their comparative studies through extensive readings of Classical materials (literature and history of Greece and Rome), the work of the early European folklorists, and reports from missionaries, travelers, and contemporaneous ethnologists. Tylor advocated strongly for unilinealism and a form of "uniformity of mankind" <ref>[http://www.aaanet.org/gad/history/044stocking.pdf Stocking, George Jr. (1963) "Matthew Arnold, E. B. Tylor, and the Uses of Invention," ''American Anthropologist'', 65:783-799, 1963]</ref>. Tylor in particular laid the groundwork for theories of cultural diffusionism, stating that there are three ways that different groups can have similar cultural forms or technologies: "independent invention, inheritance from ancestors in a distant region, transmission from one race [sic] to another."<ref>Tylor, E. B. (1865) ''Researches into the early history of mankind

the development of civilization.'' London: John Murray.</ref> Tylor formulated one of the early and influential anthropological conceptions of '''culture''' as "that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society."<ref>Tylor, E. B. (1871) ''Primitive culture: researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion,art, and custom''. 2 vols. London, John Murray.</ref> However, as Stocking notes, Tylor mainly concerned himself with describing and mapping the distribution of particular elements of culture, rather than with the larger function, and generally seemed to assume a Victorian idea of progress rather than the idea of non-directional, multilineal cultural development proposed by later anthropologists. Tylor also theorized about the origins of religious feelings in human beings, proposing a theory of animism as the earliest stage, and noting that "religion" has many components, of which he believed the most important to be belief in supernatural beings (as opposed to moral systems, cosmology, etc.). James George Frazer, a Scottish scholar with a broad knowledge of Classics, also concerned himself with religion, myth, and magic. His comparative studies, most influentially in the numerous editions of [[The Golden Bough]], analyzed similarities in religious belief and symbolism worldwide.

 

=== Boasian anthropology ===

[[Cultural anthropology]] in the United States was influenced greatly by the ready availability of Native American societies as ethnographic subjects. The field was pioneered by staff of the [[Bureau of Indian Affairs]] and the Smithsonian Institution's [[Bureau of American Ethnology]], men such as [[John Wesley Powell]] and [[Frank Hamilton Cushing]]. [[Lewis Henry Morgan]] (1818-1881), a lawyer from [[Rochester, New York]], became an advocate for and ethnological scholar of the [[Iroquois]]. His comparative analyses of religion, government, material culture, and especially kinship patterns proved to be influential contributions to the field of anthropology. Like other scholars of his day (such as [[Edward Tylor]]), Morgan argued that human societies could be classified into categories of cultural evolution on a scale of progression that ranged from ''savagery'', to ''barbarism'', to ''civilization''. Generally, Morgan used technology (such as bowmaking or pottery) as an indicator of position on this scale.<ref>This would be influential on the ideas of [[Karl Marx]], who dedicated [[Das Kapital]] to Morgan.</ref>

 

Influenced by the German tradition, Boas argued that the world was full of distinct ''cultures,'' rather than societies whose evolution could be measured by how much or how little "civilization" they had. He believed that each culture has to be studied in its particularity, and argued that cross-cultural generalizations, like those made in the [[natural science]]s, were not possible. In doing so, he fought discrimination against immigrants, African Americans, and Native North Americans.<ref>Stocking, George W. (1968) ''Race, Culture, and Evolution: Essays in the history of anthropology''. London: The Free Press.</ref> Many American anthropologists adopted his agenda for social reform, and theories of race continue to be popular targets for anthropologists today. The so-called "Four Field Approach" has its origins in Boasian Anthropology, dividing the discipline in the four crucial and interrelated fields of sociocultural, biological, linguistic, and prehistoric anthropology.

 

Boas used his positions at [[Columbia University]] and the [[American Museum of Natural History]] to train and develop multiple generations of students. His first generation of students included [[Alfred Kroeber]], [[Robert Lowie]], [[Edward Sapir]] and [[Ruth Benedict]], all of whom produced richly detailed studies of indigenous North American cultures. They provided a wealth of details used to attack the theory of a single evolutionary process. Kroeber and Sapir's focus on Native American languages helped establish [[linguistics]] as a truly general science and free it from its historical focus on [[Indo-European languages]].

 

 

== وګړپوهنه په فرانسه کې ==

Anthropology in France has a less clear genealogy than the British and American traditions, in part because many French writers influential in anthropology have been trained or held faculty positions in sociology, philosophy, or other fields rather than in anthropology. Most commentators consider [[Marcel Mauss]] (1872-1950), nephew of the influential sociologist [[Émile Durkheim]] to be the founder of the French anthropological tradition. Mauss belonged to Durkheim's [[Année Sociologique]] group; and while Durkheim and others examined the state of modern societies, Mauss and his collaborators (such as [[Henri Hubert]] and [[Robert Hertz]]) drew on ethnography and philology to analyze societies which were not as 'differentiated' as European nation states. Two works by Mauss in particular proved to have enduring relevance: ''[[The Gift (book)|Essay on the Gift]]'' a seminal analysis of [[trade|exchange]] and [[reciprocity (cultural anthropology)|reciprocity]], and his Huxley lecture on the notion of the person, the first comparative study of notions of person and selfhood cross-culturally.<ref>Mauss, Marcel (1938) "A category of the human mind: the notion of person; the notion of self.," in M. Carrithers, S. Collins, and S. Lukes, eds. ''The Category of the Person: anthropology, philosophy, history''. Pp. 1-25. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press. Originally given as “Une categorie de l’Esprit Humain: La Notion de Personne, Celle de ‘Moi’,” for the Huxley Memorial Lecture and appeared in the ''Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute'', 68.</ref>

 

Structuralism also influenced a number of developments in 1960s and 1970s, including [[Psychological anthropology#Cognitive Anthropology|cognitive anthropology]] and componential analysis. Authors such as [[David Schneider (anthropologist)|David Schneider]], [[Clifford Geertz]], and [[Marshall Sahlins]] developed a more fleshed-out concept of culture as a web of meaning or signification, which proved very popular within and beyond the discipline. In keeping with the times, much of anthropology became politicized through the [[Algerian War of Independence]] and opposition to the [[Vietnam War]];{{fact}} [[Marxism]] became a more and more popular theoretical approach in the discipline.<ref>Nugent, Stephen ''[http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?title=anthropology&title_type=tka&year_from=1998&year_to=2007&database=1&pageSize=20&index=4 Some reflections on anthropological structural Marxism]'' The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Volume 13, Number 2, June 2007, pp. 419-431(13)</ref> By the 1970s the authors of volumes such as ''Reinventing Anthropology'' worried about anthropology's relevance.

 

 

In the late 1980s and 1990s authors such as [[George Marcus]] and [[James Clifford]] pondered ethnographic authority, particularly how and why anthropological knowledge was possible and authoritative. They were reflecting trends in research and discourse initiated by Feminists in the academy, although they excused themselves from commenting specifically on those pioneering critics.<ref>Clifford, James and George E. Marcus (1986) ''Writing culture: the poetics and politics of ethnography''. Berkeley: University of California Press.</ref> Nevertheless, key aspects of feminist theorsing and methods became de rigeur as part of the 'post-modern moment' in anthropology: Ethnographies became more reflexive, explicitly addressing the author's methodology, cultural, gender and racial positioning, and their influence on his or her ethnographic analysis. This was part of a more general trend of [[postmodernism]] that was popular contemporaneously.<ref>Gellner, Ernest (1992) Postmodernism, Reason, and Religion. London/New York: Routledge. Pp: 26-50</ref> Currently anthropologists have begun to pay attention to [[globalization]], [[medicine]] and [[biotechnology]], [[indigenous rights]], and the anthropology of industrialized societies.

[[ru:Антропология]]

[[sa:मानवविज्ञानं]]

[[scn:Antropoluggìa]]

[[sco:Antropologie]]