Title: A History of Anthropology
Authors: Thomas Hylland Eriksen and Finn Sivert Nielsen
TLDR: This book charts the development of anthropology from its early roots in Greek philosophy and European exploration to its contemporary focus on globalization, identity, and the interplay between biology and culture. It explores the key figures, theories, and debates that have shaped the discipline, highlighting its diversity, its complex relationship with colonialism, and its enduring commitment to understanding human cultural variation.
Chapter 1: Beginnings
This chapter traces the roots of anthropological thinking, arguing that while a fascination with “the other” and attempts to understand human nature are as old as humanity itself, anthropology as a scientific discipline is a product of modernity and the specific conditions of the West.
The chapter begins with a brief look at ancient Greek thinkers, highlighting Herodotus, whose detailed travel narratives reveal a tension between ethnocentrism and cultural relativism that continues to inform anthropological inquiry. This tension is also evident in Plato’s dialogues, which explore the philosophical paradox of universalism versus relativism – the search for commonalities across societies versus the emphasis on their unique characteristics. Aristotle, too, contributed to this early “proto-anthropology” with his focus on the social nature of humans and their capacity for reason and morality.
Moving beyond antiquity, the chapter acknowledges the importance of the Arab historian and social philosopher Ibn Khaldun, who emphasized the role of kinship and religion in social solidarity, anticipating later anthropological and sociological theories.
European exploration and colonialism played a crucial role in shaping anthropological thinking. Marco Polo’s account of his journey to China and the European conquest of the Americas introduced the idea of cultural difference on a grand scale, challenging existing notions of human nature and stimulating the secularization of European intellectual life. Michel de Montaigne’s essays, inspired by these encounters, championed cultural relativism, famously suggesting that had he been raised in a cannibal tribe, he would likely be a cannibal himself.
The chapter then delves into the Enlightenment, highlighting the importance of figures like Giambattista Vico, who proposed a universal model of social progress, and Montesquieu, whose comparative work on legal systems hinted at a functionalist understanding of social institutions. The Encyclopedists, with their drive to systematically catalog all human knowledge, and Rousseau, who celebrated the “noble savage” and critiqued social inequality, further contributed to the emerging anthropological discourse.
The chapter concludes with a discussion of Romanticism and its focus on the group, emotion, and the unique cultural heritage of each “Volk”. Herder’s critique of universalism, Kant’s notion of the socially constructed nature of knowledge, and Hegel’s theory of the “Weltgeist” are presented as key intellectual currents that laid the foundation for modern social theory, including the emergence of anthropology as an academic discipline in the 19th century.
Chapter 2: Victorians, Germans and a Frenchman
This chapter explores the development of anthropology as a distinct academic discipline in the 19th century, highlighting the crucial role played by the Industrial Revolution, colonialism, and the emergence of modern sociology in shaping its theoretical and methodological trajectory.
The chapter begins by outlining the socio-economic transformations that swept across Europe in the 19th century, including industrialization, urbanization, population growth, mass migration, and the expansion of colonial empires. The authors argue that these changes created fertile ground for the rise of both sociology and anthropology, with the former focused on the internal dynamics of industrial society and the latter on the study of “others” encountered through colonialism.
Two towering figures – American anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan and German sociologist Karl Marx – are then presented as representative of the two emerging disciplines. Morgan’s work on kinship, particularly his distinction between classificatory and descriptive kinship systems, is highlighted as a major contribution to anthropological theory. Equally important is his attempt, in his book Ancient Society, to create a grand evolutionary scheme of human history, dividing it into three stages: savagery, barbarism, and civilization.
Marx, in contrast, focused on the internal dynamics of capitalist society, developing a theory of infrastructure (material conditions) and superstructure (ideology) that would prove hugely influential, albeit controversial, within anthropology. His analysis of class struggle, alienation, and the commodification of value under capitalism is presented as a major contribution to social theory, albeit one that primarily addresses the modern, industrial West.
The chapter then moves on to examine the work of other prominent Victorian anthropologists, including Adolf Bastian, who critiqued simplistic evolutionary schemes and emphasized the psychic unity of mankind, Henry Maine, who distinguished between status-based and contract-based societies, and Johann Jakob Bachofen, whose theory of original matriarchy, while ultimately discredited, inspired a generation of anthropologists.
E.B. Tylor’s contribution is given particular attention. His definition 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” remains influential to this day.
The chapter concludes by discussing the work of James George Frazer, whose The Golden Bough, a monumental study of myth and religion, epitomized the grand ambitions of Victorian evolutionism. The Torres Straits Expedition, with its emphasis on systematic data collection and interdisciplinary collaboration, is presented as a significant step towards modern fieldwork practices. Finally, the chapter examines the diffusionist movement in German anthropology, which challenged unilineal evolutionism by emphasizing the role of migration and cultural borrowing in shaping cultural diversity. The work of W.H.R. Rivers, who incorporated diffusionist ideas into his own research, is highlighted as a bridge between the two schools.
Chapter 3: Four Founding Fathers
This chapter explores the development of modern anthropology in the early 20th century, focusing on the contributions of four key figures: Franz Boas, Bronislaw Malinowski, A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, and Marcel Mauss. Each of these anthropologists, the authors argue, played a crucial role in shaping the discipline’s theoretical and methodological trajectory, rejecting simplistic evolutionism and advocating for a more nuanced and rigorous approach to the study of culture and society.
The chapter begins by outlining the socio-cultural shifts that occurred in the early 20th century, including the rise of modernism, the disillusionment following the First World War, and the emergence of new scientific and artistic paradigms that challenged Victorian certainties. It argues that anthropology, amidst these turbulent times, transformed itself into a modern social science.
Franz Boas, the “father” of American anthropology, is presented as a champion of cultural relativism and historical particularism. His emphasis on the importance of fieldwork, his critique of racism, and his commitment to studying cultures as unique, integrated wholes with their own histories and internal logic, are highlighted as foundational principles of American anthropology.
Bronislaw Malinowski’s revolutionary contribution to anthropological fieldwork is then discussed. His method of participant observation, which emphasized long-term immersion in the field, fluency in the local language, and meticulous attention to everyday life, set a new standard for ethnographic research, paving the way for generations of anthropologists to come. His functionalist theory, however, which focused on the biological needs of individuals as the driving force behind social institutions, was less influential.
A.R. Radcliffe-Brown, in contrast, emphasized the importance of social structure as the key to understanding social systems. Drawing heavily on Durkheim, he argued that societies are integrated wholes, with institutions functioning to maintain social solidarity. He advocated for a “natural science of society,” seeking to uncover the universal laws that govern social life. Radcliffe-Brown’s structural-functionalism, combined with Malinowski’s participant observation, became the dominant paradigm in British anthropology for decades.
The chapter concludes with a discussion of Marcel Mauss, a key figure in the French sociological tradition. Building on the work of his uncle, Émile Durkheim, Mauss explored the symbolic and social dimensions of exchange, highlighting the role of gift-giving in creating and maintaining social relationships. His seminal work, The Gift, remains a cornerstone of economic anthropology and continues to inspire contemporary theoretical debates.
The chapter ends by emphasizing the significant differences that existed between these four “founding fathers,” both in terms of their theoretical orientations and methodological approaches. These differences, the authors argue, shaped the diverging trajectories of British, French, and American anthropology, leading to ongoing debates and contestations within the discipline.
Chapter 4: Expansion and Institutionalisation
This chapter examines the expansion and institutionalization of anthropology in the mid-20th century, highlighting the growth of academic departments, the emergence of new subfields, and the increasing professionalization of the discipline. It also explores the marginal position that anthropology often occupied within academia and its complex relationship with colonialism.
The chapter begins by acknowledging that despite the theoretical advances made by the “founding fathers,” anthropology remained a relatively small and marginal discipline in the 1930s and 1940s. The founders’ students, however, played a crucial role in consolidating and disseminating their ideas, building new departments, editing journals, and training the next generation of anthropologists.
The chapter then outlines the institutional development of anthropology in Britain, France, and the USA. In Britain, the London School of Economics (LSE), under Malinowski’s leadership, emerged as a key center, while Oxford became a stronghold of Radcliffe-Brownian structural-functionalism. In the USA, Boas’s Columbia University continued to dominate, but new departments at Berkeley, Chicago, and Yale contributed to the diversification of the discipline. In France, the Année Sociologique circle, led by Mauss, remained influential, with anthropologists closely linked to sociologists, philosophers, and other intellectuals.
The chapter then explores the complex relationship between anthropology and colonialism. While acknowledging that anthropologists rarely received direct funding from colonial administrations, the authors highlight the ways in which anthropological research, particularly in Africa, often focused on topics that indirectly served the interests of colonial governments. The chapter also discusses the political radicalism of many anthropologists and their role in critiquing colonialism and advocating for the rights of indigenous peoples.
The chapter then moves on to examine the development of key subfields within anthropology, including “kinshipology,” which focused on kinship systems as the foundation of social structure; the culture and personality school, which explored the relationship between cultural patterns and individual psychology; ethnolinguistics, which examined the interplay between language and culture; and the Chicago School’s research on peasant societies, urban anthropology, and microsociology.
The chapter concludes by highlighting the contributions of some “British outsiders,” anthropologists who did not align themselves with either the structural-functionalist or the functionalist camp. A.M. Hocart’s work on ritual and social hierarchies in the Pacific, Siegfried Nadel’s psychological anthropology, and Daryll Forde’s ecological anthropology are presented as examples of alternative research programs that enriched the discipline. Finally, the chapter discusses the work of Gregory Bateson, a maverick figure who sought to bridge the gap between British and American anthropology, incorporating ideas from cybernetics and communication theory into his analysis of ritual and social interaction.
Chapter 5: Forms of Change
This chapter explores the theoretical and methodological shifts that occurred in anthropology in the 1950s and 1960s, highlighting the growing dissatisfaction with static models of society and the emergence of new approaches that emphasized social change, process, and individual agency.
The chapter begins by outlining the global transformations that took place in the postwar era, including the decline of colonialism, the rise of the Cold War, and the increasing interconnectedness of the world through new technologies and communication networks. These changes, the authors argue, challenged anthropologists to develop new theoretical frameworks that could account for the rapid and often unpredictable social transformations they were witnessing.
The chapter then discusses the emergence of neo-evolutionism in American anthropology, led by Leslie White and Julian Steward. White’s technological determinism and Steward’s theory of multilinear evolution, while ultimately criticized for their oversimplification, nevertheless reintroduced the idea of cultural evolution into anthropological discourse, albeit in a more nuanced form than the unilineal evolutionism of the 19th century.
The chapter then examines the debate between formalism and substantivism in economic anthropology. Formalists, led by Raymond Firth, argued that classical economic theory, which focused on individual maximization, could be applied cross-culturally. Substantivists, led by Karl Polanyi, countered that the economy is not a universal phenomenon, but an “instituted process” that varies across cultures and historical periods. This debate, the authors argue, reflected the broader tension between methodological individualism and collectivism within anthropology.
The chapter then moves on to examine the contributions of the Manchester School, a group of anthropologists based at the Rhodes-Livingstone Institute in Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia (now Harare, Zimbabwe). Led by Max Gluckman, these anthropologists focused on social change in southern Africa, particularly the impact of urbanization, labor migration, and racial segregation on traditional societies. They developed innovative methods, such as network analysis and the extended case method, to study these complex social processes.
The chapter then discusses the rise of methodological individualism at Cambridge, led by Edmund Leach and Fredrik Barth. Leach’s seminal work, Political Systems of Highland Burma, challenged the notion of stable social structures, arguing that societies are inherently unstable and oscillate between different organizational forms. Barth, influenced by game theory, argued that social structures are generated by the strategic choices of individuals seeking to maximize their own advantage.
The chapter concludes by exploring the development of role analysis and systems theory in anthropology. Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical perspective, which saw social interaction as a form of performance, is highlighted as a major contribution to microsociology. The chapter also discusses the impact of cybernetics, the theory of complex, self-regulating systems, on anthropology, particularly through the work of Gregory Bateson. Cybernetics, the authors argue, offered a new language for understanding social systems as networks of interconnected feedback loops.
Chapter 6: The Power of Symbols
This chapter explores the emergence of symbolic anthropology in the 1950s and 1960s, highlighting the shift in focus from social structure and function to the analysis of meaning, interpretation, and the role of symbols in social life.
The chapter begins by acknowledging the long-standing interest in symbolism within anthropology, but argues that it was not until the postwar era that the study of meaning became a central concern for many anthropologists. This shift, the authors argue, was driven in part by the limitations of structural-functionalism, which struggled to account for the dynamic and contested nature of cultural symbols, and in part by the influence of philosophers like Peter Winch, who argued that understanding cultures requires interpreting their unique “language games.”
The chapter then examines the contributions of British anthropologists who sought to bridge the gap between structural-functionalism and symbolic analysis. E.E. Evans-Pritchard’s later work on Nuer religion, which emphasized the importance of understanding Nuer beliefs and rituals in their own terms, is presented as a key turning point. Victor Turner’s work on ritual communication and liminality is highlighted for its focus on the dynamic and transformative potential of symbols, while Mary Douglas’s Purity and Danger is praised for its sophisticated analysis of symbolic boundaries and classification.
The chapter then turns to American anthropology, where the influence of Talcott Parsons’s sociology led to a renewed focus on cognitive culture and a “truce” between sociologists, who focused on social organization, and anthropologists, who studied symbolic systems. The chapter discusses the work of Clifford Geertz and David M. Schneider, two prominent American symbolic anthropologists. Geertz’s interpretive anthropology, influenced by hermeneutics and the work of Paul Ricoeur, emphasized the importance of understanding cultures as texts, to be “read” and interpreted by both anthropologists and members of the culture themselves. Schneider’s groundbreaking study of American kinship, American Kinship: A Cultural Account, challenged the traditional view of kinship as a biologically based system, arguing that it is a culturally constructed system of meanings that varies across societies.
The chapter concludes with a detailed discussion of Claude Lévi-Strauss and his structuralist theory. Drawing on linguistics and cybernetics, Lévi-Strauss argued that cultural systems, such as kinship and myth, are best understood as systems of relationships and contrasts. His seminal work, The Elementary Structures of Kinship, revolutionized kinship studies, shifting the focus from descent to alliance and emphasizing the role of exchange in creating social bonds. The chapter also examines Lévi-Strauss’s later work on myth, particularly The Savage Mind, which argued that “primitive” thought is as rational and complex as modern scientific thought, but operates with a different logic.
The chapter ends by acknowledging the diversity of approaches within symbolic anthropology and the ongoing debates between structuralist, interpretive, and other perspectives.
Chapter 7: Questioning Authority
This chapter explores the radicalization of anthropology in the 1970s, focusing on the influence of Marxism and feminism, the emergence of ethnicity studies, and the growing awareness of the ethical and methodological challenges of fieldwork.
The chapter begins by outlining the political and social upheavals of the 1960s and their impact on academia. The rise of Marxist and feminist movements, the Vietnam War, and the growing awareness of global inequalities and injustices, the authors argue, led to a profound questioning of authority within anthropology and beyond.
The chapter then examines the various strands of Marxist anthropology that emerged in the 1970s, including structural Marxism in France, led by Maurice Godelier, and political economy in the USA, championed by Eric Wolf. These anthropologists, influenced by both Marx and Lenin, sought to understand the dynamics of global capitalism, the persistence of underdevelopment in the Third World, and the ways in which local communities were integrated into the capitalist world system.
The chapter then discusses the impact of feminism on anthropology. The publication of Peggy Golde’s edited volume, Women in the Field, marked a turning point, with female anthropologists reflecting on their own experiences in the field and highlighting the ways in which their gender shaped their research. Edwin Ardener’s influential essay, “Belief and the problem of women,” further fueled the debate, arguing that women are often “muted” within anthropological accounts, their voices silenced by male-dominated public spheres and the limitations of traditional fieldwork methods. The publication of Woman, Culture, and Society, edited by Michelle Z. Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere, offered a powerful response, highlighting the universality of gender inequality and the need for a more nuanced and gender-sensitive approach to anthropological research.
The chapter then examines the emergence of ethnicity studies as a key subfield within anthropology. Influenced by the work of the Chicago and Manchester Schools, anthropologists like Abner Cohen and Fredrik Barth argued that ethnicity is not simply a matter of shared culture, but a fluid and dynamic process of boundary maintenance and identity formation, often driven by political and economic interests.
The chapter concludes by discussing the growing awareness of the ethical and methodological challenges of fieldwork. The publication of Malinowski’s diaries, which revealed his personal struggles and biases, and the increasing critique of anthropology’s relationship with colonialism, led to a “reflexive turn” within the discipline, with anthropologists increasingly questioning their own authority and the ways in which they represented the people they studied.
Chapter 8: The End of Modernism?
This chapter examines the impact of postmodernism on anthropology in the 1980s, exploring the critique of essentialism, the questioning of ethnographic authority, and the emergence of postcolonial perspectives that challenged the West’s dominance in the production of knowledge.
The chapter begins by outlining the socio-cultural context of the 1980s, characterized by economic and political conservatism, the rise of AIDS and other new challenges, and a growing sense of disillusionment among those who had hoped for radical social change. This context, the authors argue, contributed to a crisis of representation within anthropology, with many questioning the discipline’s ability to provide objective and authoritative accounts of other cultures.
The chapter then discusses the philosophical roots of postmodernism, particularly the work of Jean-François Lyotard and Michel Foucault. Lyotard’s concept of the “postmodern condition,” characterized by the decline of grand narratives and the fragmentation of knowledge, is presented as a key influence. Foucault’s notion of “discourse” and its role in shaping power relations and regimes of knowledge is highlighted for its impact on anthropological thinking.
The chapter then examines the postcolonial movement and its critique of “Orientalism,” the West’s tendency to exoticize and essentialize the East. Edward Said’s influential book, Orientalism, is discussed for its impact on anthropological self-critique, challenging anthropologists to confront their own role in perpetuating colonial power relations and to recognize the “positioned” nature of their knowledge.
The chapter then turns to the “reflexive turn” within American anthropology, focusing on the work of James Clifford, George Marcus, and others associated with the journal Cultural Anthropology. These anthropologists, influenced by postmodernism and postcolonialism, critiqued the traditional concept of culture as a bounded and integrated whole, questioning the authority of ethnographic representation and advocating for more experimental and collaborative approaches to fieldwork.
The chapter concludes by examining the work of anthropologists who, while sympathetic to some aspects of postmodernism, sought to develop more nuanced and constructive approaches. Victor Turner’s theory of performance, which focused on the embodied and dynamic aspects of ritual, is highlighted as an example of a “postmodern” approach that retained a commitment to ethnographic research. Marilyn Strathern’s work on exchange and gender in Melanesia is praised for its deconstructive approach to classical anthropological concepts and its engagement with feminist perspectives. Roy Wagner’s work on symbolic creativity in Melanesia is discussed for its focus on the fluid and processual nature of cultural systems.
The chapter ends by acknowledging the ongoing debates within anthropology regarding the merits and limitations of postmodernism and its impact on the discipline’s future.
Chapter 9: Reconstructions
This chapter explores the diverse trends in anthropology in the 1990s, highlighting the growing awareness of globalization, the revitalization of the relationship between anthropology and the natural sciences, and the emergence of new research areas that challenged traditional disciplinary boundaries.
The chapter begins by acknowledging the ongoing fragmentation and theoretical eclecticism within anthropology, but also emphasizes the discipline’s continued growth and popularity, particularly as an undergraduate subject. The fall of the Iron Curtain and the collapse of the Soviet Union are presented as major events that opened up new ethnographic regions and stimulated new theoretical and methodological approaches.
The chapter then discusses the emergence of globalization studies as a key area of research in anthropology. Globalisation, defined as any process that renders geographical distance irrelevant, is presented as a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, with both homogenizing and diversifying effects on local cultures. Anthropologists like Ulf Hannerz and Arjun Appadurai are highlighted for their contributions to globalisation theory, emphasizing the interplay between global flows and the “production of locality.”
The chapter then examines the renewed interest in the relationship between biology and culture, focusing on the interdisciplinary field of cognitive science and the revival of evolutionary approaches to human behavior. Cognitive science, which draws on research in psychology, linguistics, neurology, and other fields, is presented as a promising area for understanding the biological underpinnings of human cognition and the ways in which culture shapes our understanding of the world. Evolutionary anthropology and evolutionary psychology are discussed for their attempts to explain human sociality and cultural diversity in terms of evolutionary processes.
The chapter then explores the development of medical anthropology, a rapidly expanding subfield that focuses on the social and cultural dimensions of health, illness, and healing. Audrey Richards’ pioneering work in the 1930s is acknowledged, and contemporary figures like Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Arthur Kleinman are highlighted for their contributions to medical anthropology theory and practice.
The chapter concludes with a discussion of nationalism studies, another burgeoning field that emerged in the 1980s and gained momentum in the 1990s. The work of Ernest Gellner, Benedict Anderson, and Eric Hobsbawm is highlighted for its influence on anthropological research on nationalism. Bruce Kapferer’s Legends of People, Myths of State is presented as an example of a powerful anthropological study of nationalism, which combined classical anthropological concerns with an analysis of contemporary identity politics and the symbolic construction of national identities.
The chapter ends by acknowledging the ongoing tensions and debates within anthropology regarding the relative merits of different theoretical and methodological approaches, but also emphasizes the discipline’s enduring commitment to understanding the diversity of human experience in a rapidly changing world.