Introduction of Cultural Anthropology:
‘The scope of cultural anthropology is universal. It has widened as The subject has developed. It is a comprehensive, holistic, comparative study of cultures in space and time.
History of Cultural Anthropology :
Cultural anthropology had come into being in the last quarter of the 19th century. Cultural anthropologists trace their intellectual descent from Edward Burnett Tylor and the traveller’s tale ethnologists of earlier centuries (Leach: 1982). They regard Edward Burnett Tylor as the pioneer in the study of culture. The uniqueness of humans in terms of culture had inspired Edward Burnett Tylor to consider it as the theme of study. He reiterated that since culture is a fact par excellence, a fact nulli secundus, pre-eminently found only in human society, it should be the legitimate Held of study. Franz Boas(1888) and his students in USA cultivated and popularized cultural anthropology (Garbarino, M.S:1977;Srivasiava:1990).
According to them, Tylor’s definition of culture given in his magnum opus “Primitive Culture: Researches into-the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art and Customs” (1871) is the starting point of cultural anthropology.
Limited Scope:
Cultural anthropology began as a science of primitive cultures. Tylor (1871) said that cultural anthropology studies “primitive cultures and culture history”. At the same time he emphasized that cultural anthropology, while dealing with cultural phenomena naturally social phenomena because culture and society are ineluctable realities. In fact, the second part of his definition of culture shows that culture is the totality of ‘‘capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society”.
It is in the light of this fact, Franz Boas and his students in America nurtured cultural anthropology as a branch of anthropology. Franz Boas studied Eskimos and North-West Coast Red Indians. His students Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, Hoebel, Kroeber, Herskovits, and several others studied the tribal cultures and societies in America, Polynesia, Melanesia, Micronesia, Africa and Australia. Thus the scope of cultural anthropology before World War II was limited to the study of primitive cultures and societies.
Widened Scope
The scope of cultural anthropology widened in the second quarter of the 20th century. The reviews of Murdock (1951) and Firth (1951) on the researches hitherto cunducted by cultural anthropology gained wider scope between 1930 and 1950. Seventeen years later, Joseph Greenberg (1961) traced out the actual stages through which cultural anthropology evolved: first, it was concerned with the study of primitive cultures and societies; secondly, it dealt with the peasant cultures and communities and with the peasants in relation to towns and cities; and thirdly, it broadened it interests by studying the urban communities, the accuhurated groups among the primitives and the larger units such as the nation- states besides applying its research results to practical situations like industry, agricultural development, health, education and hospital organizations. As Srivastava (15190) rightly pointed out, “even to this day the interest of cultural anthropology in primitive cultures and societies continues, but to say that cultural anthropology even in contemporary times is only concerned with primitive cultures and societies and amounts to drawing an outdated caricature of the discipline”. Today, the scope of cultural anthropology spans across primitive, peasant and urban cultures and societies in different parts of the world.
According to Walter Goldschmidt (1968), Foster (1972), Garbamio (1977) and others, the scope of ethnic anthropology today concentrates on several themes: (a) the study of modem adaptations of primitive cultures and societies, especially the problems of their integration with the wider world:(b) the study of peasant cultures and societies throughout the world especially ihe problems of their integration with the wider world; (c) the study of modem society or the study of one’s own society; (d) the study of specific institutions of modem society; (e) the study of freedom, peace, war, human rights, gender relations, ethnic relations, development of communities, regions and nations, and international relations. Thus, through the expansion of its scope and the multiplication and proliferation of themes of its study, cultural anthropology within half a century after its emergence acquired its identity in terms of universal appeal and applicability of its results.
Moseha Titiev (1959) stressed the universal scope of cultural anthropology when he defined it as “the study of socio-cultural aspects of societies in all places at all times. Marvin Harris (1967) while highlighting the universal scope of cultural anthropology said that it “deals with the description and analysis of the forms and styles of social life of past and present ages”. Mandelbaum (196S) also said that, “the central task of cultural anthropology is to study the similarities and differences in the behavior among human groups, depict the character of the various cultures and the processes of stability, change and development that are characteristic to them”. Likewise, Hoebel and Weaver (1979) spoke of the scope of cultural anthropology as universal and its coverage includes “human behavior and its social
and cultural products in all times and all places”. Hicks and Gwynne (1994) expressed similar views when they talked of cultural anthropology as “the study of contemporary and historic people”. Marvin Harris (1999) emphasizes that cultural anthropology brings under its scope the study of primitive, peasant and modem cultures and societies.
Further, even though cultural anthropology tried to maintain its distinctive identity by focusing on the study of culture, it never ignored social life. In the words of Titev (1959), “since no human society exists without a patterned way of life or culture, and since no pattern of culture can exist without a society of man and woman”, a study of culture automatically involves a study of society also. Marvin Harris (1975) has gone lo the extent of equating cultural anthropology with social anthropology. Even recent reviews on researches confirm that cultural anthropology, like social anthropology studies culture as well as society (Srivasiava: 1990). In tune with this, cultural anthropology includes several branches and sub-branches dealing with both culture and society (Harris: 1999).
Branches:
Cultural anthropology has apportioned its subject-matter between two major branches, namely ethnography and ethnology. Ethnography is a description of a particular culture or society. It is in the form of a monograph. It is thus descriptive, synchronic, and ideographic. On the contrary, ethnology is a comparative ethnography. Li is analytical, comparative, synchronic or diachronic, and nomothetic or theorizing. It cultivates every aspect of culture and society as a branch of study. All such branches come under topical specializations. Similarly it also cultivates several area-specializations in terms of ethnographic zones of the world. Each area-specialization focuses its attention on the holistic understanding of cultures and societies within an ethnographic zone. Both the topical and area- specializations of ethnology revolve round theory building about culture and society of humans.
Research Strategy:
For dealing with such a broad coverage of primitive, peasant and urban cultures and societies, cultural anthropology has adopted a research strategy in terms of six approaches: (a)lhe filled- work approach ( the process of collection of information by “participation observation” and by “ going native temporarily”); (b) the holistic approach (understanding the total social-cultural realm in lerms of ILS component parts and the parts in relation to the total social realm); (c) The comparative approach (cross-cultural coverage to know the full range of human behavior and the regularities governing the human behavior); (d) the systems and processes approach (breaking down the social and cultural systems into sub-systems and studying each sub-system in isolation and all the sub-systems in their inter-relation in order to have an integrated totality of knowledge of the social and cultural systems); (e) the emic and die approach (focus on folk view and scientist*s view in order to have a complete understanding of the social and cultural phenomena studied); and (f) the case study approach an in-depth study of individuals, groups and events in die communities chosen for field work)
On the basis of its research results, cultural anthropology derives certain principles, regularities or laws underlying the social and cultural aspects of humankind. This becomes the theory of cultural anthropology. As ethnic anthropology applies its research results to practical situations to solve the problems of different societies. It requires applied character.
Thus cultural anthropology stands as a pure as well as an applied science of humankind