1.

Introduction:

Anthropology is the study of the human species, from DNA to language. It’s such a
massive field that the first thing to do is sketch out just what anthropology does and
doesn’t study. You also discover some important facts about how anthropology developed
as a scientific discipline.

Rules of Anthropology

Like everything in life, anthropology has a set of rules that every anthropologist
needs to follow. The rules try to make sure that no one gets hurt or mad (Angry)
when studying other people. Here are some of the rules

1. To make sure no one gets hurt when studying anthropology

2. To respect and be nice to humans and animals
3. To make sure any items used to study people are well taken care of
4. To work as a team

a. Definition, concept and branches: physical, social, archaeology, linguistics

Definition:

Anthropology is the study of what makes us human. Anthropologists take a broad

approach to understanding the many different aspects of the human experience, which
we call holism ( ‫ايک جامع نقطہ نظر کا مطلب ہے کہ تمام پہلوؤں ميں مکمل طور پر کسی چيز کا خيال رکهنا۔ ايک بڑی چيز‬
‫)کے بارے ميں سوچنا‬. They consider the past, through archaeology, to see how human groups
lived hundreds or thousands of years ago and what was important to them.

The definition of anthropology is the study of various elements of humans, including

biology and culture, in order to understand human origin and the evolution of various
beliefs and social customs.

Anthropology is the study of human beings: their culture, their behavior, their beliefs,
their ways of surviving.

Concepts of Anthropology .Anthropology comes from Greek, Anthropology consists of 2

syllables namely “Anthropos” and Logos. “Anthropos” means human and Logos means
science, so etymologically ( ‫ علم زبان کی وه شاخ جس ميں الفاظ کی ساخت اور ان کے معنی سے‬، ‫ لسانيات‬، ‫علم اللسان‬
‫ )بحث ہوتی ہے‬Anthropology means the study of human beings.

As a newer discipline that has grown approximately over the last two hundred years, In
the academic arena, anthropology is considered as a relatively new discipline as its major
development mainly happened in the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries. Though, in
France and Germany, this discipline got a momentum in the seventeenth and the
eighteenth centuries in different names (like ethnology, Volkskunde, Volkerkunde etc.),
in English, the word ‘anthropology’ first appeared in the year of 1805 (McGee and Warms,
2012; 6). The word anthropology has a Greek origin. The Greek ‘anthropos’ means human
and ‘logos’ means science and thus, anthropology represents science of human (Barnard,
2000;
 According to Haviland, Prins, Walrath and McBride (2011; 2), anthropology is ‘the study
of humankind in all times and places’. Ahmed (1986;13) commented that ‘the major task
of anthropology – the study of man - is to enable us to understand ourselves through
understanding other cultures’. Langness (1974; 1) defined anthropology as ‘.. the
scientific study of human beings- that is, of the human creature viewed in the abstract:
male, female, all colors and shapes, prehistoric, ancient, and modern. Anthropology,
then, most fundamentally viewed, is simply the attempt of human beings to study and
hence to understand themselves at all times and all places’.According to Barrett (1996;
Anthropology usually has been defined as the study of other cultures, employing the
technique of participant observation, and collecting qualitative (not quantitative) data”.

Over the last two hundred years scholars have established anthropology as a major
discipline in the university level. Though this is a relatively new discipline in the academic
arena, at this moment it is well-established with its own uniqueness. Over the years,
several branches and subfields of anthropology were introduced. The main four fields of
anthropology are: cultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology, physical anthropology
and archaeology.

Physical Anthropology

The systematic study of humans as biological organisms”. (p. 5)

Cultural Anthropology

The study of customary patterns in human behavior, thought and feelings. It focuses on humans
as culture-producing and culture-reproducing creatures.” (p. 9)

Linguistic Anthropology

The study of human languages- looking at their structure, history, and relation to social
and cultural contexts”. (p. 11)

Archaeology

Studies human culture through the recovery and analysis of material remains and Environmental
data”

Physical anthropology
Physical (or biological) anthropology focuses on humanity as a biological phenomenon
just another member of the 200+ primate species on Earth today. This part explores
humanity’s oldest natural relatives the primates and the human species itself. Also in
this part, I discuss evolution (the foundation of all modern biology), showing how it’s
essential to understanding humanity biologically. I also introduce you to archaeology (the
study of ancient cultures) and show you how it works and what it has learned about the
pre-history of our species, from cave art to the great civilizations of the ancient world.

Physical anthropology is concerned with the origin, evolution, and diversity of people.
Physical anthropologists work broadly on three major sets of problems: human and
nonhuman primate evolution, human variation and its significance, and the biological
bases of human behavior. The course that human evolution has taken and the processes
that have brought it about are of equal concern. In order to explain the diversity within
and between human populations, physical anthropologists must study past populations
of fossil hominines ( ‫ )انسان جيسی مخلوق‬as well as the nonhuman primates. Much light has
been thrown upon the relation to other primates and upon the nature of the
transformation to human anatomy and behavior in the course of evolution from early
hominines to modern people—a span of at least four million years.

In order to explain the diversity within and between human populations, physical
anthropologists study past populations of fossil hominines as well as the nonhuman
primates. Much light has been thrown upon the relation to other primates and upon the
nature of the transformation to human anatomy and behavior in the course of evolution
from early hominines to modern people—a span of at least four million years.

Emphasizing the biological process and endowment that distinguishes Homo

sapiens (‫ )انسان‬from other species.

Social anthropology

Emphasizing the cultural systems that distinguish human societies from one
another and the patterns of social organization associated with these systems.

The conventional story of social anthropology begins with James George

Frazer’s appointment to a chair with that title in Liverpool (UK) in 1908, but the
appointment was a short-lived disaster, and Frazer himself later preferred the
description mental anthropology to cover his vast comparative project. But distinctive
teaching in social anthropology was established in both Oxford and Cambridge in the
years immediately before World War I.

What is Social Anthropology? We will study Historical prospects and concepts.

For example—focused on classic social anthropological themes such as kinship, property,

the utility of notions of society and culture, and the possibilities and limitations of
comparison.

Psychological anthropology, emphasizing the relationships among culture, social

structure, and the human being as a person.

Cultural anthropology studies all facets of modern living cultures, from their religions to
their ways of adapting to change, resolving conflict. We come to know that how hotbed
(focus) issues like race, gender, religion, and politics relate anthropologically.

Linguistic anthropology

The approximately 6,000 languages spoken throughout the world.

Emphasizing the unique human capacity to communicate

through articulate speech and the diverse languages of humankind. Linguistic
anthropologists argue that human production of talk and text, made possible by the
unique human capacity for language, is a fundamental mechanism through which people
create culture and social life.

Linguistic anthropologists explore the question of how linguistic diversity is

related to other kinds of human difference. Franz Boas insisted that “race,”
“language,” and “culture” are quite independent of one another.
Linguistic anthropology is the study of language, humanity’s distinctive way of
communication. Why it differs worldwide, and how different human language is from
other animal communication (and why that’s a key characteristic of our species).

Archaeology
Archaeology is fundamentally a historical science, one that encompasses the
general objectives of reconstructing, interpreting, and understanding past human
societies.

Based on the physical remnants (‫ )باقی بچی کهچی چيز‬of past cultures and former conditions
of contemporary cultures, usually found buried in the earth.

Archaeologists deploy the analytic techniques of many scientific disciplines

botany,chemistry,computerscience,ecology,evolutionary biology, genetics,geologyand sta
tistics, among others—to recover and interpret the material remains of past human
activities. But, like historians, archaeologists attempt to reconstruct the events and
processes that shaped and transformed past societies, and, wherever possible, to
understand how those events and processes were perceived and affected by humans.

Archaeology differs from the study of history principally in the source of the information
used to reconstruct and interpret the past. Historians concentrate specifically on the
evidence of written texts, while archaeologists directly examine all aspects of a society’s
material culture—its architecture, art, and artifacts, including texts—the material objects
made, used, and discarded by human beings. As a result, archaeology, unlike history,
takes as its subject all past human societies, whether these were preliterate (prehistoric),
non-literate, or literate.

Conclusion:

Anthropology, “the science of humanity,” which studies

human beings in aspects ranging from the biology and
evolutionary history of Homo sapiens to the features of
society and culture that decisively distinguish humans from
other animal species.
The study of anthropology as an academic subject had expanded steadily through
those 50 years, and the number of professional anthropologists had increased
with it. The range and specificity of anthropological research and the involvement
of anthropologists in work outside of academic life have also grown, leading to the
existence of many specialized fields within the discipline.
Globalization and Transformation:
Beginning in the 1930s, and especially in the post-World War II period,
anthropology was established in a number of countries outside western Europe and North
America. Very influential work in anthropology originated in Japan, India, China, Mexico,
Brazil, Peru, South Africa, Nigeria, and several other Asian, Latin American, and African
countries. The world scope of anthropology, together with the dramatic expansion of
social and cultural phenomena that transcend national and cultural boundaries, has led
to a shift in anthropological work in North America and Europe. Research by Western
anthropologists is increasingly focused on their own societies, and there have been some
studies of Western societies by non-Western anthropologists. By the end of the 20th
century, anthropology was beginning to be transformed from a Western—and, some have
said, “colonial”—scholarly enterprise into one in which Western perspectives are regularly
challenged by non-Western ones.

History of Anthropology
The modern discourse of anthropology crystallized in the 1860s, fired by advances
in biology, philology, and prehistoric archaeology. In The Origin of Species (1859), Charles
Darwin affirmed that all forms of life share a common ancestry. Fossils began to be reliably
associated with particular geologic strata, and fossils of recent human ancestors were discovered,
most famously the first Neanderthal specimen, unearthed in 1856. In 1871 Darwin
published The Descent of Man, which argued that human beings shared a recent common
ancestor with the great African apes. He identified the defining characteristic of the human
species as their relatively large brain size and deduced that the evolutionary advantage of the
human species was intelligence, which yielded language and technology.

The pioneering anthropologist Edward Burnett Tylor concluded that as intelligence increased, so
civilization advanced. All past and present societies could be arranged in an evolutionary
sequence. Archaeological findings were organized in a single universal series (Stone Age, Iron
Age, Bronze Age, etc.) thought to correspond to stages of economic organization from hunting
and gathering to pastoralism, agriculture, and industry. Some contemporary peoples that
remained hunter-gatherers or pastoralists were regarded as laggards in evolutionary terms,
representing stages of evolution through which all other societies had passed. They bore witness
to early stages of human development, while the industrial societies of northern Europe and the
United States represented the pinnacle of human achievement.

Darwin’s arguments were drawn upon to underwrite the universal history of the Enlightenment,
according to which the progress of human institutions was inevitable, guaranteed by the
development of rationality. It was assumed that technological progress was constant and that it
was matched by developments in the understanding of the world and in social forms. Tylor
advanced the view that all religions had a common origin, in the belief in spirits. The original
religious rite was sacrifice, which was a way of feeding these spirits. Modern religions retained
some of these early features, but as human beings became more intelligent, and so more rational,
superstitions were gradually refined and would eventually be abandoned. James George
Frazer posited a progressive and universal progress from faith in magic through to belief in
religion and, finally, to the understanding of science.

John Ferguson McLennan, Lewis Henry Morgan, and other writers argued that there was a
parallel development of social institutions. The first humans were promiscuous (like, it was
thought, the African apes), but at some stage blood ties were recognized between mother and
children and incest between mother and son was forbidden. In time more restrictive forms of
mating were introduced and paternity was recognized. Blood ties began to be distinguished from
territorial relationships, and distinctive political structures developed beyond the family circle.
At last monogamous marriage evolved. Paralleling these developments, technological advances
produced increasing wealth, and arrangements guaranteeing property ownership and regulating
inheritance became more significant. Eventually the modern institutions of private property and
territorially based political systems developed, together with the nuclear family.

An alternative to this Anglo-American “evolutionist” anthropology established itself in the

German-speaking countries. Its scientific roots were in geography and philology, and it was
concerned with the study of cultural traditions and with adaptations to local ecological
constraints rather than with universal human histories. This more particularistic and historical
approach was spread to the United States at the end of the 19th century by the German-trained
scholar Franz Boas. Skeptical of evolutionist generalizations, Boas advocated instead a
“diffusionist” approach. Rather than graduating through a fixed series of intellectual, moral, and
technological stages, societies or cultures changed unpredictably, as a consequence of migration
and borrowing.

Father of American Anthropology:

Franz Boas (July 9, 1858 – December 21, 1942) was a German born American anthropologist.
He is considered by many to have been the 'Father of American Anthropology

Contributions to Anthropology
Franz Boas is often credited with the development of historical particularism, as
well as cultural relativism. Boas was a founding member of the American
Anthropology Association (AAA) and served as one of the organization's first vice
presidents.
Early life:
Boas was born in Germany to Jewish parents. His parents were rich, well
educated, and sought to expose him to the values of the enlightenment. This
resulted in Boas did not identifying as Jewish, and left him with a dislike of
religion. Because of parents, he received a very strong early education. Boas
studied natural history in primary school, and in secondary school he researched
the natural range of plants.
Early Academic Career
Franz Boas attended Heidelberg University for one semester, before
transferring to Bonn University where he studied mathematics, physics,
and geography
He received a doctorate in physics in 1881 from the University of Kiel. By
today's standards Boas' doctorate would be closer to a degree in geography than
physics
Immigration to America
Boas first traveled to Baffin Island in 1883 to study the native Inuit to see
what role the environment plays in their migrations.He published his findings in
1888.Boas returned to Germany for a time, but due to rising antisemitism he
decided to migrate to the United States.[1] He worked as an editor for Science and
as a docent of anthropology at Clark University. He left the university in 1892. He
went north to collect ethnographic material for the 1893 World's Colombian
Exposition. After the exposition the material was given to the Field museum in
Chicago, here Boas became the curator for anthropology. During this time Boas
became involved in the Fin de Siècle debates.It was here he argued for
 separating natural sciences from the humanities. He also began the ground work
that would eventually grow into historical particularism: the idea that every aspect
of a culture has a unique history.
University of Colombia
Boas eventually settled at the University of Colombia in 1896, creating the very
first PhD program for anthropology in the United States. It was here where he
taught his most famous students, which included: Alfred Kroeber, Ruth
Benedict, Margaret Mead, Edward Sapir, and Zora Neale Hurston.

Contributions to Anthropology
Franz Boas is often credited with the development of 'historical particularism, as
well as 'cultural relativism.'Boas was a founding member of the American
Anthropology Association (AAA) and served as one of the organization's first vice
presidents.

Franz Weidenreich, (born June 7, 1873, Edenkoben, Ger.—died July 11, 1948, New York,
N.Y., U.S.)
German anatomist and physical anthropologist whose reconstruction of
prehistoric human remains and work on Peking man (then called Sinanthropus
pekinensis) and other hominids brought him to preeminence in the study
of human evolution.

Weidenreich received his M.D. from the University of Strasbourg in 1899 and was
appointed professor of anatomy there in 1904. His writings reflected a growing
interest in skeletal anatomy that eventually found expression in studies of
locomotion, posture, and bone structure as related to problems in
primate evolution. Professor of anatomy at the University of Heidelberg from 1919,
he became professor of anthropology at the University of Frankfurt (1928–33).
Because of his Jewish ancestry he left Germany in 1934 for the University of
Chicago and from there went to China to the Peking Union Medical College.
Weidenreich then began a series of studies dealing with the jawbones, dentition,
skull, and other parts of Peking man. In 1941 he joined the American Museum of
Natural History, New York City, and until his death concerned himself with
human evolution. He studied Java man (then called Pithecanthropus erectus) and
suggested that interconnected changes from early hominids to modern man
included bipedalism, increased brain size, and decreased facial size. His views are
summarized in a collection of scholarly but popular lectures, Apes, Giants and
Man (1946). His fossil descriptions are without equal, and his chronological
ordering of them is still considered fundamentally correct. His Shorter
Anthropological Papers appeared in 1949.3

Some Anthropologists and there contribution

Claude Levi Strauss (1908-2009

Levi Strauss studied “how humans think and act the same everywhere around
the world”.

Émile Durkheim (1858-1917)

 Durkheim studied “how people in societies make new ideas and groups.”

Bronisław Malinowski (1884-1942

Malinowski studied “how people in different places act and how they are different
from people in other places”.

Margaret Mead (1901-1978)

Mead studied “how there are different ways people raise babies and how those
babies grow up”.

Marcel Mauss (1872-1950)

Mauss studied “how different people use magic and how people give presents”.

Alfred Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955)

Radcliffe-Brown studied “how people put their lives in order in different places all
over the world”.

b. Relationship of anthropology with other social sciences

What is the Relationship of Anthropology with other Social Sciences?

Whether anthropology should be included among physical sciences or among social sciences is
the subject on which anthropologists differ. Under the influence of evolutionism, anthropology
had no such problem in the beginning and it was considered a natural science.

According to this opinion, man is a part of nature and social laws are similar to natural laws.
But, on the other hand, German idealistic thinkers regarded human life and nature as two
separate things and refused to accept human life as part of natural life.

It has not been clear about so many modern anthropologists whether they regard anthropology
as a natural science or a social science. For example, Malinowski, anthropologists, on the one
hand, refers to new psychological reactions being at the root of the man’s cultural attempt and
on the other hand regards anthropology as a branch of natural sciences. His whole working
principle was an attempt to make use of the naturalist philosophy of John Dewey and others in
the field of social sciences.

According to him, culture is a means to satisfy bio-psychological needs of man. In this way,
according to Malinowski, anthropology stands in between natural and social sciences. But other
anthropologists do not present such a viewpoint. Radcliffe Brown, Nadel and other
anthropologists regard anthropology as a natural science which studies through the modes of
natural sciences.

According to these anthropologists, the work of anthropology is not to give a detailed description
about some special culture, but to give a comparative analysis of different cultures and to frame
social laws about the origin and change of human society through that analysis. According to
these anthropologists there are some such patterns in the social life of many which do not
undergo any change with a change in place and time, and the work of the anthropologist Is to
discover laws about them.
On the other hand, according to Kroeber, Bidni and Evans Pritchard, culture and nature are
different things and have no real unity in them. According to this theory, anthropology is a
branch of History. As a matter of fact, both these viewpoints about the relation of anthropology
and other sciences are still accepted in different branches of anthropology.

While, on the one hand, the methods of science are owned in physical anthropology, on the other
hand, along with these methods, the methods of history and aesthetics are also owned and their
examples are found in the writings of Evans Pritchard and R. Benedict.

Redfield says that holistic tendencies are on the increase in anthropology, man is being studied
on different levels of culture and interest in the study of values and personality is increasing. All
these tendencies show that in future anthropology will come closer to social science in
comparison to natural sciences.

The place of anthropology in social sciences is clear from the above discussion. Different social
sciences study the different aspects of man and society in different ways. Anthropology is the
science of man. It is a study of human nature. It studies human behavior in every time and place
and in different cultures.

It studies man everywhere on earth. It studies man in both the periods historic and pre-historic.
It studies man on all levels, civilized and uncivilized. In the words of Herskovits, anthropology is
a science of man and his actions. It studies the origin and evolution of man from material,
cultural and social points of view. In this way, different fields of anthropology such as physical
anthropology, ethnology and applied anthropology study man in different aspects. It is clear that
the anthropologist gets important help from sociology, psychology, history, linguistics, logic,
economics and many other social sciences.

Robert Redfied writes that viewing the whole United States, one say that the relations between
sociology and anthropology are closer than those between anthropology and political science,
that is partly due to greater similarity in ways of work.

Anthropology is a general science like sociology.’The word ‘anthropology’ is derived from two
Greek words, ‘anthropos’ and ‘logos’ meaning the study of man.

More precisely, it is defined by Kroeber as the science of man and his works and behaviour.
Anthropology is concerned not with particular man but with man in groups with races and
peoples and their happenings and doings.

There is a great deal of similarities between anthropology and sociology. A number of subjects
include society, culture, family religion, social stratification, etc. For this reason an eminent
anthropologist like A.L. Kroeber regards “Sociology and Anthropology as twin sisters”
Etymologically, anthropology means the study of the science of man.

It traces the development of human race, and studies, in particular, the primitive preliterate
people and their culture. Anthropologists are sure that anthropology is deeply concerned with
the physical and cultural development of human beings from the time of their origin to this day.

There cannot be two opinions about the fact that the field of its investigation is very vast. Its
major divisions are as follows.
Physical Anthropology

Physical anthropology is concerned with the characteristics of human anatomy. Their physical
characteristics provide adequate knowledge about human race and the origin of human beings.

(ii) Archaeological or Historical Anthropology

It aims at the reconstruction of the social life of pre-historic man. In other words, pre-history
deals with the cultures of the prehistoric period so that they can understand the present social
structure better.

(iii) Cultural Anthropology

Cultural Anthropology, in the main is concerned with the material and non-material culture of
the pre-literate human beings. In other words, it concentrates on the study of the primitive man’s
culture the primitive man of the past and of the present times.

(iv) Social Anthropology

Social Anthropology studies man as a social being. It has been rightly said that ‘social
anthropology deals with the behaviour of man in social situations.’ According to some scholars,
‘Social anthropology and sociology are in their broad sense, one and the same’. There are others
who regard it as a branch of sociology.

Apart from these major divisions there are quite a few branches of Anthropology as well. These
branches can be described as human evolution or the study of fossil man and linguistics.

Anthropology not only study the fossil man but also investigates the characteristics of the
different culture groups and their changes through the study of language which the human
beings of the pre-literate and historical periods used.

All this goes to show that anthropology is a very vast subject and it is deeply concerned with the
man and his culture as it developed in the remote past. Dr. S.C. Dube does not find any difference
between sociology and anthropology. He thinks that the two disciplines are identical, but in fact,
there are some differences between the two disciplines.

It is sociology which concerns itself with the same phenomena as they exist at present.
Anthropology concentrates on man as he is. On the other hand sociology analyses man as social
animal. It is an indispensable fact that sociologists in their attempt to understand the social
phenomena of present times, draw upon the knowledge of the past.

Nor can it be denied that they, in their desire to study man and society, make the best use of the
invaluable data furnished by anthropological researches.

In the same way the data obtained by sociologists have immediately benefitted anthropologists.
Thus there is no use of stressing on the fact that Sociology and Anthropology are closely related
to each other and are inter-dependent.
 c. Techniques of anthropological research

What makes research anthropological?

Anthropological research deals largely with qualitative aspects and focuses on the creation
and transmission of meaning. Meaning is mediated through language and action and the best
way of understanding this is through observation and engagement that is difficult through more
'traditional' research methods.

The distinctive aspect of research in anthropology is the exploration of the complexity and
nuances of human interactivity, as well as its culture. As a research discipline, anthropology
combines humanistic and social science strategies. During their research, anthropologists make
observations and pursue perspectives from various angles and in various ways. They observe
and speak with people from different social categories. They have different relationships with the
phenomena under study and conceptualize and respond to those phenomena.

The Ethnographic Method of Research in Anthropology

In this regard, the method that differentiates anthropology from other disciplines is ethnography,
defined as the qualitative process of exploring in depth the why and how of culture, behavior and
human expression. Using the ethnographic method, anthropologists can discover unexpected
ideas that are best obtained by studying the subject over time and from various perspectives. In
this way, the ethnographic method uses multiple data collection techniques.

These include participant observation, interviews, focus groups and textual analysis to build a
holistic and contextual vision of the phenomena under study. Anthropologists immerse
themselves in the rich largely qualitative dataset that results from their research and iterative
analysis to identify emerging issues and gain insight into the meaning of the data. The goal of
the anthropological approach is the credible interpretation of the data, to provide valuable and
replicable information.

Data Collection Methods in Anthropology

Generally, an anthropological approach uses multiple qualitative methods as well as

complementary quantitative data in a mixed methods study. The qualitative anthropological data
collection methods are:

Participant observation,
In-depth observation,
Interviews,
Focus groups
Textual analysis.

Participant observation

Participant observation is the method of fieldwork par excellence in anthropology.

Anthropologists use various degrees of participant observation, from full participation in ongoing
activities to passive observation in places of interest. Participant observation is useful in multiple
stages of an evaluation:
1. Initially, to identify problems that need to be explored with other data collection methods;
2. In the course of evaluating the process
3. To follow other types of data, to triangulate previous findings and directly observe specific
phenomena.

Participant observation allows the researcher to assess real behavior in real time. Information
collected in this way can strengthen the interpretation of information collected through
interviews. Large projects that employ multiple observers can use an observation template. This
allows observers to be guided in taking notes on central phenomena and allowing them to add
notes on other phenomena. It is important to ensure that observations from any location are
made at different times of the day and week to identify patterns and differences.

In-depth observation

According to the book Research Methodology of Hernández, Fernández & Baptista, observation
is a "method of data collection" consistent " in the systematic, valid and reliable record of
observable behaviors and situations, through a set of categories and subcategories”.
Observation allows us, for example, to observe the acceptance of a group of students towards a
new teacher. For this reason, observation is valid as a method of measuring behaviors. Similarly,
when using observation, instruments are needed to systematically record the observed
behaviors. These instruments have categories and subcategories that allow to record the
observed behaviors properly. In addition, the categories must respond to the research variables.
The aforementioned is known as validity and is one of the requirements that a data collection
instrument must have.

Interviews

In-depth interviews using open-ended questions aim to capture the informant's mental and
experiential world. Individual interviews allow participants to tell their stories in a detailed and
consistent way. Also, without worrying about what their classmates may think. A semi-
structured interview uses an interview guide with a central list of open-ended questions as well
as advance follow-up questions. This allows researchers to ensure that all participants are asked
a minimum set of identical questions.
In this way, they can collect reliable and comparable qualitative data. Additionally, this interview
technique allows researchers to ask spontaneous questions to investigate clarification of
participant responses. Therefore, they can follow new and relevant topics raised by the
participants. Semi-structured interviews should be conducted by someone trained in qualitative
interviews and who is comfortable using open-ended questions. In this way they can encourage
participants to expose their thoughts. The duration of the interviews can vary and the evaluators
can record audio and transcribe them.

Focus Group

Focus group is a useful group interview method for obtaining information on relatively new
topics. Researchers choose focus groups rather than one-on-one interviews when data
acquisition will benefit from the dynamics that are created through the discussion group. The
discussion often generates information and ideas that might not come from an individual
interview, including the colloquial ways in which participants speak. The following factors are
critical to the success of the focus groups:

1. Thoughtful creation of a list of open-ended questions designed to attract participants to

discussion on desired topics.
2. Careful attention to recruiting participants who have the desired characteristics and experiences.
Also taking into account that they are comfortable with non-hierarchical group discussion.
3. The presence of an observer who keeps notes on the process, operates the recording equipment
and assists the moderator as needed.

Focus groups generally include 6 to 12 participants and last 1 to 2 hours. Moderators should
strive to facilitate openness and dynamic dialogue between participants to allow opportunities
for creative idea generation.

Textual analysis

The practices produce a wide range of documents that provide valuable windows to their
operations, values and mechanisms. Anthropological methods can be used to examine
underlying themes and patterns in documents. These may be mission statements, information
brochures, and procedure manuals. Thus, to understand the context, researchers can carry out
a systematic review of the textual materials produced by practice. In this way, evaluators can
obtain valuable information about beliefs, motivations and beliefs not articulated. If individuals
and groups build their own narrative practice, record their practice stories, as part of the
transformation process, this technique can be really helpful.

Digital Anthropology

Digital anthropology is the anthropological study of the relationship between humans and
technology in the digital age. The field is new and therefore has a variety of names with a variety
of emphasis. These include Techno Anthropology, Digital Ethnography, Cyber Anthropology,
Anthropology of Cyberspace, and Virtual Anthropology. Most anthropologists who use the phrase
"digital anthropology" refer specifically to online technology and the Internet.
The study of the relationship of humans with a broader range of technology may fall into other
subfields of anthropological study. An example of this is cyborg anthropology, a discipline that
studies the interaction between humanity and technology, specifically Artificial Intelligence and
Post-Humanism. One of the pioneering associations in this field is the Digital Anthropology
Group (DANG) is an interest group inserted in the American Anthropological Association. DANG's
mission includes promoting the use of digital technology as an anthropological research tool. It
also encourages anthropologists to share research using digital platforms and describe ways for
anthropologists to study digital communities.

The Field of Digital Anthropology

Cyberspace itself can serve as a field research site for anthropologists. It allows the observation,
analysis and interpretation of the sociocultural phenomena that arise and take place in any
interactive space. National and transnational communities, enabled by digital technology,
establish a set of social norms, practices, traditions, history and associated collective memory.
Likewise, they are related to periods of migration, internal and external conflicts and potentially
subconscious language characteristics. In the same way, they work with memetic dialects
comparable to those of traditional, geographically confined communities. This includes the
various communities created around free and open source software. Likewise, it refers to online
platforms like 4chan and Reddit and their respective subsites, and politically motivated groups
like Anonymous, WikiLeaks or the Occupy movement.
Digital Anthropology and Virtual Environments

Various academic anthropologists have conducted traditional virtual world ethnographies, such
as Bonnie Nardi's World of Warcraft study or Tom Boellstorff's Second Life study. Academician
Gabriella Coleman has done ethnographic work in the Debian software community and on the
anonymous hacktivist network. Many digital anthropologists who study online communities use
traditional methods of anthropological research. They participate in these online communities to
learn about their customs and worldviews. In the same way, they support their observations with
private interviews, historical research, and quantitative data.
The method (and therefore the product) is ethnography, a qualitative description of your
experience. In terms of method, there is disagreement on whether it is possible to conduct an
investigation exclusively online or if the investigation will only be completed when the subjects
are studied comprehensively, both online and offline. Tom Boellstorff, who conducted a three-
year investigation as an avatar in the Second Life virtual world, defends the first approach,
stating that it is not only possible, but necessary to engage with subjects "on their own terms."
Others, like Daniel Miller, have argued that ethnographic research should not exclude learning
about the subject's life off the Internet.

The inevitability of digital technology as an anthropology tool

Anthropological research can help designers adapt and improve technology. Australian
anthropologist Genevieve Bell conducted extensive user experience research at Intel that
informed the company's approach to its technology, users, and market. The American
Anthropological Association offers an online guide for students who use digital technology to
store and share data. They can be loaded into digital databases to be stored, shared and
interpreted. Numerical and text analysis software can help produce metadata, while a codebook
helps organize the data. Other anthropologists and social scientists have done research that
emphasizes data collected by websites and servers. However, academics often have trouble
accessing user data on the same scale as social media corporations like Facebook and data
mining companies like Acxiom (Today called Live Ramp).

Conclusions

Anthropology is known as a holistic science, incorporating knowledge and skills from fields as
diverse as language arts, biology, chemistry, history, economics, visual and performing arts,
statistics, psychology, epidemiology, and more. As the most scientific of the humanities and the
most humanistic of the sciences, anthropology offers an eclectic box of qualitative and
quantitative research method tools. Anthropologists are trained to combine insightful powers of
observation, compelling forms of expression, and scientific verification of their theories to
illuminate the complex relationships between culture and nature.

d. Development of anthropological theories

What does theory do? , they provide us with a framework through which we can explain and
interpret data, and they should do so parsimoniously

Theories are treated as the lifeblood of the disciplines like sociology and anthropology. As a newer
discipline that has grown approximately over the last two hundred years, anthropology has
proposed different important theories on man and culture.
This can be considered as a general summarized reading of the important anthropological
theories like
Evolutionism (‫)ارتقاء‬,
The main protagonists of the theory evolution are Herbert Spencer and Charles Darwin. In
general, the term evolution represents the process of gradual development. This is the process
through which simple things, over the time, become complex. The English naturalist Charles
Darwin, in his extraordinary classic titled ‘On the Origin of Species’ depicted the evolution of the
biological organisms existing in the world. This work was published in 1859. This landmark work
immensely influenced the then scientific community of that time. Another scholar Herbert
Spencer (also known as an evolutionist and his works had huge influence in the American and
the British Sociology) applied this theory to his explanation of the development of the society.

The protagonist, Darwin is mainly considered as a naturalist. Herbert Spencer is more renowned
as a sociologist. The two evolutionists who were regarded as anthropologists are the British
anthropologist E. B. Tylor and the American anthropologist L. H. Morgan. They are considered
as the founders of the nineteenth century evolutionism. E. B. Tylor’s famous contribution titled
‘Primitive Culture’ was published in 1871. He got influenced by the revolutionary philosophical
development of the nineteenth century.

Tylor (1903; 1) gave an innovative all-embracing definition of culture: “Culture, or civilization,

taken in its wide ethnographic sense, is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief,
art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of
the society”.

Diffusionism (‫)ﻣﻨﺘﺸﺮ ﮨﻮﻧا‬,

In the late nineteenth, Haviland, Prins, Walrath and McBride (2011; 579) defined diffusion as
‘the spread of certain ideas, customs, or practices from one culture to another’.
The British diffusionists like G. E. Smith and W. J. Perry were experts in Egyptology and they
proposed that every aspect of the civilization (from technology to religion) actually originated from
Egypt and later it got spread in the other parts of the world.
According to Ember, Ember and Peregrine (2011; 20): “People, they believed, are inherently
uninventive and invariably prefer to borrow the inventions of another culture rather than develop
ideas for themselves”.
German diffusionists did not believe that there is only one origin of culture (like Egypt). They
believed that there used to be several cultural centers and cultural diffusion occurred from these
different cultural circles. This German view of diffusionism is also known as Kulturkreise which
means cultural circles.
Another diffusionist school was the American one led by Clark Wissler and Alfred Kroeber.
Kroeber believed that diffusion always creates some change in the receiving culture.

Historical particularism (‫)خاصيت‬,

Franz Boas who is also regarded as the father of American anthropology. He highlighted the
importance of fieldwork and over his lifetime he made several fieldtrips. He conducted research
on the Eskimos living in the Northern Canada and the Kwakiutl Indians in the North-west Coast.

According to Boas, the societies cannot be categorized as ‘savage’ or ‘civilized’. This approach
follows a kind of belittling. Rather than following a ‘nomothetic’ (considering several cases at a
time) approach, he encouraged the anthropologists to follow an ‘idiographic’ (dealing with
particular/ specific cases) approach (Langness, 1974; 57). This is the basis for his thought of
‘historical particularism’. According to him, each culture of each society has its own uniqueness
and the society has its own distinctive historical development. That is why he introduced the
concept of ‘cultural relativism’ and invited the anthropologists to disregard the prevailing
ethnocentric views
“The more I see their customs, the more I realize that we have no right to look down on them.
Where amongst our people would you find such true hospitality? ….. We “highly educated people”
are much worse, relatively speaking”. [This is a quote from Boas’ Baffin land diaries].

Functionalism
(Theory based on the premise that all aspects of a society—institutions, roles, norms, etc. —serve
a purpose and that all are indispensable for the long-term survival of the society),

Malinowski, ‘all cultural traits serve the needs of individuals in a society. Malinowski concluded
that ‘individual has needs, both physiological and psychological, and cultural institutions,
customs and traditions exist to satisfy them’.

Radcliffe Brown focused on the issue of how the society works. According to him, a society has
several institutions like economic, social, political and religious. These institutions ensure
solidarity and work for integrating the society as a whole

Culture and Personality, (‫)يہ ﻧظﺮيہ کہ ساخت کﻮ عمل سے زياده اﮨميت ﮨے‬,
In Benedict’s analysis, the culture of a particular society can be studied by studying the
personality of its bearers.The patterning and configuration of a particular culture is simply
reflected in an individual’s personality”.

Margaret Mead worked on Samoan and New Guinea people. Her famous work titled ‘Coming of
Age in Samoa’ published in 1928 was a revolutionary work that concluded that the development
of an individual depends on the cultural expectations rather than the biological traits. In her
another famous contribution titled ‘Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies’, she
examined three tribes: the Arapesh, the Mundugumor and the Tchambuli. By analyzing the
behaviors of different genders in these three tribes, Mead found that gender traits are not
biologically but culturally determined. She found that the Arapesh were the mountain dwellers
and in their society both men and women possessed the so-called feminine traits like
cooperation, sensitivity and passivity. Again, in Mundugumor (the cannibal and head hunter
tribe) also both men and women possessed similar characteristics but in this case, both were
having the so called masculine characteristics like aggressiveness, insensitiveness, assertiveness
and jealousy. Finally, in the Tchambuli, men used to possess female traits like submissiveness,
emotion etc. whereas women possess male characteristics like dominance, assertiveness and
managerial qualities.

Structuralism
Another influential school in anthropology is the structuralist school. According to Klages (2006;
31), structuralism is ‘a way of thinking that works to find the fundamental basic units or
elements of which anything is made’. Barry (1995; 39) mentions that: “…its essence is the belief
that things cannot be understood in isolation – they have to be seen in the larger context of the
larger structures they are part of (hence the term ‘structuralism’)”. In anthropology, the main
scholar of structuralism is the famous French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss. He studied
on kinship. He suggested that if anyone tries to understand kinship, it cannot be understood by
studying a single-unit family consisting of father, mother and their children. Rather, this single-
unit family is a unit of a larger kinship system which is generally considered as secondary. Other
than the kins like father, mother, son and daughter, there are other kins like grandfather,
grandmother, uncles, aunts, cousins, nephew, niece and others. Kinship is to be analyzed in the
context of this greater structure. Kinship can only be understood when it will be treated as a
part of the larger whole.

Neo-evolutionism
(Beginning in the 1940s, Leslie White (1943, 1959a) developed a version of social evolutionism
similar to Childe's. White insisted that evolutionary theories did not try to explain specific
sequences of historical change, but rather focused on the overall movement of human culture as
a whole),

Cultural ecology
(Cultural Ecology focuses on how cultural beliefs and practices helps human populations adapt
to their environments and live within the means of their ecosystem),

After the Second World War, the highly criticized issue of evolutionism again got a momentum
by some new anthropologists. This school of thought is termed as neo-evolutionism. The main
theorist in neo-evolutionism was Leslie White. He tried to highlight the factors like energy use
and technology as the main causes of culturalevolution and change.According to him, the
cultural change depends on the per capita use of energy in a year. If this per capita energy use
increases, change happens. For example, in the hunter and gatherers society, people only used
human energy and could not use any other energy. In the agricultural society, people could use
their own energy plus the energy of animals and plants. As a result, cultural change happened.
In the modern industrialized societies, people are using diverse sources of energy. As a result,
there was a huge transformation in culture. The more complex the use of technology, the more
complex becomes the cultural development.

Cultural materialism
Cultural materialism is an anthropological research orientation first introduced by Marvin
Harris in his 1968 book The Rise of Anthropological Theory), Cultural materialism is one of the
major anthropological perspectives for analyzing human societies. It incorporates ideas from
Marxism, cultural evolution, and cultural ecology. Materialism contends that the physical world
impacts and sets constraints on human behavior. The materialists believe that human behavior
is part of nature and therefore, it can be understood by using the methods of natural science.
Materialists do not necessarily assume that material reality is more important than mental
reality. However, they give priority to the material world over the world of the mind when they
explain human societies. This doctrine of materialism started and developed from the work
of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx and Engels presented an evolutionary model of societies
based on the materialist perspective. They argued that societies go through the several stages,
from tribalism to feudalism to capitalism to communism. Their work drew little attention from
anthropology in the early twentieth-century. However, since the late 1920s, anthropologists have
increasingly come to depend on materialist explanations for analyzing societal development and
some inherent problems of capitalist societies. Anthropologists who heavily rely on the insights
of Marx and Engels include neo-evolutionists, neo-materialists, feminists, and postmodernists.

Cultural materialists identify three levels of social systems that constitute a universal pattern:

1) Infrastructure,

2) Structure, and

3) Superstructure.
Infrastructure is the basis for all other levels and includes how basic needs are met and how it
interacts with the local environment. Structure refers to a society’s economic, social, and political
organization, while superstructure is related to ideology and symbolism. Cultural materialists
like Marvin Harris contend that the infrastructure is the most critical aspect as it is here where
the interaction between culture and environment occurs. All three of the levels are interrelated
so that changes in the infrastructure results in changes in the structure and superstructure,
although the changes might not be immediate. While this appears to be environmental
determinism, cultural materialists do not disclaim that change in the structure and
superstructure cannot occur without first change in the infrastructure. They do however claim
that if change in those structures is not compatible with the existing infrastructure the change
is not likely to become set within the culture.

Postmodernist and feminist explanations.

Feminism is a range of social movements, political movements, and ideologies that aim to define
and establish the political, economic, personal, and social equality of the sexes.

Numerous feminist movements and ideologies have developed over the years and represent
different viewpoints and aims. The goal of feminism is to challenge the systemic inequalities
women face on a daily basis.

Postmodern feminism is a mix of post-structuralism, postmodernism, and French feminism. The

goal of postmodern feminism is to destabilize the patriarchal (Male-control) norms entrenched
(Deep rooted) in society that have led to gender inequality. ... Postmodern feminists seek to
analyze any notions that have led to gender inequality in society.

The first wave feminism span from the period 1830 to 1960.
This period mainly concentrated on the issues of women’s suffrage and the extension of civil
rights to women. This course is to be said was having a big and immediate impact on America
(Vincent 2010: 170). This is because America was still exercising undemocratic practices on
1918, which is by not granting women in political participations, and in this case – the right to
vote. Meanwhile, the Germany had already granted women’s suffrage, leaving American behind
despite they were, or, are the proponents and advocators to the freedom and democracy for all
(Krolokke 2006: 2). Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), Volume 4,
Issue 1, (page 1 - 14), 2019 6 www.msocialsciences.com The first wave feminism is also caused
by certain movement of the human right based organizations and their discourse on the
constitutional background of the American Declaration of Independence. This debate was said
to be first raised in American Seneca Falls Convention in 1848 which had been organized by
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott. This then led to an episode of demanding equality in
education, profession, and property between men and women in society (Vincent 2010: 170). It
is also during this period where women in America are struggling to achieve better educational,
employment and social equity rights for them. This is because their situation at that period was
oppressing them in many ways. For example, they had no civil status under the law and only
pronounced as legally minors if they are not married or civilly dead upon marriage. They were
also not allowed to sign a will or contract and had no control on their wages. Having claimed by
the society at that time to be having frail physical and limited intelligence, they were also
becoming less educated as they are not allowed to attend college alone (Kahle 2005: 4)

The second wave began in began in the 1960s…

On the other hand, some scholars differs on when did the second wave of feminism did emerge,
but most of them agree to a certain point that it began in the 1960s under the hand of the Betty
Friedan with her 1963’s published work Feminine Mystique (Farmer 2015: 27). After a period of
relative stagnation from 1920-1960, women of that period seem to struggle with another concept
of equality. In the earlier period, they struggle to end inequality of opportunities between gender
in terms of their rights of voting, having profession, property, and education. As of the second
wave period, their struggle seems to be a bit different to the predecessors as their current
demographic at that time started to differ. For example, they already constituted as a labor force,
some of them postponed marriage, while some of them who married had fewer children, worked
outside the home, having a higher divorce rate and seek higher education. This led them to seek
another cause of equality. The main starting point for them is equality in the politics of
reproduction (Kohli&Burbules 2012: 27, Yuil&Todd 2014: 67). Issues on this reproductive role
then caused other pertinent issues in a more private sphere such as sexual freedom, sexuality,
abortions and gender issues (Kohli&Burbules 2012: 27). To put things short, in the late 1960s
and early 1970s, it displayed two dichotomies of thinking between feminists. The first one offers
feminism in a relational way, that is by acknowledging the differences between men and women
lies deep in nature and tend to celebrate it, although at the same time they sought advancements
of their rights in public sphere through the law. The other one however argued the differences
between men and women is actually did not exist and that both genders are the same. The second
wave feminism is rooted deep in the latter; demanding a more radical, rebellious and
deconstructive equality (Nicholson 1997: 3)

The third wave of feminism began in the early nineties, came to the fore in 1980 to the present
It argues the second wave feminism authorities in representing them and all women in the world.
This is because the advocators for this wave are emerging from the non-stereotypical women that
were not covered in the second wave (the white middle-class women in Europe and America).
They are usually coming from the marginalized strata of women, especially from the third world
nations whose experiencing the different notion of inequality compared to these middle-class
white women, and they usually come from the indigenous, non-white, or non-Christian women.

This wave of feminism is also constituted by the class of women that rebelling to a certain
prevailing cultural structure of that time. In other words, it was born from the subcultural strata
of women.

The third wave feminism is also a wave that focuses on expanding women’s opportunities and
re-emphasizing back the oppressions to them in a new way. To put it in a clear way, this wave
of feminism tries to create a new face of feminism by taking a further look at the lives of real
women nowadays that struggling with jobs, kids, money, and personal freedom, surpassing their
predecessors’ feminist movement worldviews.

In conclusion, it is safe to say that the relation of modernism and feminism manifests in three
structures. First, modernism worldview can be seen on the celebration of differences between
both genders that is seen to be more uplifting rather than condemning the role of women in
society. Second, having celebrated the differences of men and women, modernism influenced-
feminists does not lay out their struggles on the basis of equality in everything like what
Cartesian thinkers illustrated but rather grounded in relational traits of general rights such as
in the equal opportunities in public sphere in terms of politics, education, and educations. Third,
the struggles for relational rights of women and at the same time conforming to the established
law of differences and complementary elements between men and women is primarily prevalent
among the first wave feminists.