(socioanthro) The Beginning Of Anthropology And Sociology 5o3v4k

THE BEGINNING OF ANTHROPOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY

The beginnings of anthropology go back to the period of discovery and exploration, from the nineteenth centuries. Sources of facts are the s of early Western explorers, missionaries, soldiers, and colonial official regarding the strange behavior and beliefs as well as exotic appearance of people they had come in with. Discoveries of flint tools and other artefacts in Europe in the early nineteenth century gave evidence of the existence of human beings a million years ago. These discoveries happened at a time when advances in physics and chemistry were made, arousing an interest in scientific inquiry. In the nineteenth century anthropology began to take shape as a separate field of study that had its root in the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Edward Tylor was the first professor of anthropology in Oxford, England. In United States, it was Franz Boas of Clark University, Massachusetts. From 1980, ethnographers approached the study of local culture as embedded within regional and tribal forces. Another change in the approach of ethnographers is their focus on only one topic of interest avoiding the holistic approach. Still another trend is the expanded interest in history. Sociology is a separate field of study has its roots in Europe, particularly in at the time of the Industrial Revolution. Social problems attended these social upheavals. The pioneers were Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) and Auguste Comte (17981857). Comte, a French philosopher, believed that the methods and techniques of the natural science could be fruitfully applied to the study of society. He coined the term “sociology.” Other early sociologists were Herbert Spencer, Ferdinand Toennies, and Karl Marx. Marx contributes ideas about class conflict and social change. After World War II, there were changes in the balance of political power; this led to comparative and international themes.

Sociology had to adapt to these changes and to those of the globalizing world. The American sociologists working in Europe and North America were excited about the fresh possibilities of societies other than their own getting interested in sociology. Among them were Barrington Moore, Clark Kerr, Talcott Parsons, Andre Gunder Frank, a German scholar, and Peter Worsley, an English sociologist.

FILIPINO PIONEERS 1. Fr. Valentin Marin – introduced sociology in the Philippines in 1896 as a course on criminology at the University of Santo Tomas. 2. Serafin Macaraig – first Filipino to receive a doctorate degree in sociology in 1939. 3. Juan Ruiz – offered courses in social work in the University of the Philippines. 4. Prof. Marcelo Tangco – succeeded Dr. Macaraig. 5. Flora Diaz Catapusan – invited to teach sociology at the Centro Escolar University in 1946 6. Dr. Benicio Catapusan – invited to serve as a professional lecturer in sociology at the University of the Philippines in 1948

DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY IN THE PHILIPPINES Anthropology in the Philippines •

It started as a practical activity of colonizers in the service of Christianity and the Spanish Government.

•

Ethnographic data were provided by the early chroniclers like Pigafetta, Loarca, Placencia, Fr. Chirino.

•

They write the early cultures and society in the rediscovered archipelago which was named Filipinas in honor of King Philip II of Spain.

•

Frenchman Alfred Marche – led archeological explorations in the 19 th century.

•

It was followed by the American government which became interested in the various ethnic groups in the country.

•

Ethnological Survey of the Philippines – replaced the Bureau of NonChristian tribes.

•

Otley Beyer (1914) – elevated anthropology as an academic discipline at the University of the Philippines.

•

It was offered as one of the courses in the department of history, and later on, merged with sociology.

•

Anthropology prospered as a distinct course in Philippine schools.

•

Schools who has doctorate degree in the early years were: - University of San Carlos (Cebu) - Ateneo de Manila University - Xavier University (Cagayan de Oro City)

Sociology in the Philippines •

Fr. Valentin Marin – introduced sociology in the Philippines in 1896 as a course on criminology at the University of Santo Tomas.

•

In 1919, Sociology was introduced at Siliman University and the Theological Seminary.

•

Serafin Macaraig – first Filipino to receive a doctorate degree in sociology in 1939.

•

Introduction to Sociology – became the first text in the University of the Philippines written by Serafin Macaraig.

SOCIOLOGISTS after Macaraig were: •

Juan Ruiz – offered courses in social work in the University of the Philippines.

•

Prof. Marcelo Tangco – succeeded Dr. Macaraig.

•

Flora Diaz Catapusan – invited to teach sociology at the Centro Escolar University in 1946

•

Dr. Benicio Catapusan – invited to serve as a professional lecturer in sociology at the University of the Philippines in 1948

•

Philippine Sociological Society – was organized by a group of Filipino educators and visiting professors in the different regions.

Its objectives are: •

To increase knowledge about social behavior

•

To gather data on social problems for their possible solutions

•

To train teachers and researches in the field of sociology

•

To develop cooperation and unity among social scientists in the Philippines.

•

1960 – the Research Foundation of Philippine Anthropology and Archeology was established

•

Philippine Social Science Council – in 1968 it was formed to consolidate the Philippine social science resources whose objectives are:

•

To promote the quality and relevance of social science researches

•

To improve teaching skills in social science

•

To finance researches along the social sciences

•

To encourage social science publications

Factors and Stages in the development of sociology in the Philippines in the words of Catapusan and Catapusan: •

Considerable efforts have been made to define and to determine the fields of sociology

•

There are considerable specializations in subject matter and in approach

•

Sociological principles are being employed in the analysis of an increasing number of social situations

•

The study of various problems led to discovering, refining, and perfecting new methods of sociological investigations.

Sociology-Anthropology in the Philippines •

1960’s and 1970’s – researches were undertaken along different aspects of social and cultural life

Source: Palispis, Epitacio S., Introduction to Sociology and Anthropology. Manila: Rex Printing Company, Inc., 1996

SOCIOLOGICAL IMAGINATION C. Wright Mills C. Wright Mills coined the famous phrase “Sociological Imagination," which is used throughout sociology today. The Sociological Imagination is the concept of being able to "think ourselves away" from the familiar routines of our daily lives in order to look at them anew. Mills defined Sociological Imagination as "the vivid awareness of the relationship between experience and the wider society." It is the ability to see things socially and

how they interact and influence each other. To have a Sociological Imagination, a person must be able to pull away from the situation and think from an alternative point of view. The Sociological Imagination The Sociological Imagination is stimulated by a willingness to view the social world from the perspective of others. It involves moving away from thinking in of the individual and their problems, focusing rather on the social circumstances that produce social problems. Private Issues & Public Issues There is a strong tendency in liberal democracies towards seeing human behaviour in of individual characteristics, abilities, choices and preferences. We tend to experience whatever happens in our own lives as unique and private, and also to interpret what happens to other people as unique and private to them. These are seen as ‘private troubles’. Sociologists, on the other hand, are more interested in the relationship between what happens to individuals in their lives and the larges processes of social, economic and political change that might be said to lie underneath or behind those happenings. The discipline of Sociology encourages you to look for the social processes and structures that give a generalised pattern to those private troubles and thus turn them into ‘public issues’. Example – Unemployment •

Private Trouble – When 1 person is unemployed, that is a ‘Private Trouble’.

•

Public Issue – When 3 million people are unemployed, that is a ‘Public Issue’.

Example – Fertility •

Private Trouble – When 1 couple never has a baby, that is a ‘private trouble’.

•

Public Issue – When increasing numbers of couples never have a baby, that is a ‘public issue’ referred to as the ‘declining fertility rate’.

The Thinking of the Sociological Imagination ‘Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both, yet men do not usually define the troubles they endure in of historical change.

Seldom aware of the intricate connection between the patterns of their own lives and the course of world history, ordinary men do not usually know what this connection means for the kind of men they are becoming and for the kinds of history making in which they might take part. What they need, is a quality of mind that will help them to see what is going on in the world and what may be happening within themselves. It is this quality that may be called The Sociological Imagination’. C. Wright MiIls

APPROACHES, PERSPECTIVE, AND METHODS OF SOCIOLOGY What is a theoretical perspective? Theoretical perspectives are the basic assumptions about how society functions, the role of sociology, and the application of specific set theories in studying social life. Three Major Perspectives   

Structural Functionalism-society is an organic being of interrelated parts that work together in harmony Conflict –society is the competition of a few groups of people for scarce resources Symbolic Interactionism-Society is essentially a set of daily interactions that are guided by symbols

Structural Functionalism     

Popularized by American sociologist Talcott Parsons in the 1940’s Society is a stable arrangement of parts that fit together Social is glued together by shared values Talcott Parsons, 1902-1979 Each part contributes to the overall function Macro-level focus

The Conflict Perspective    

Originated with the German economist/historian Karl Marx, the ‘father of communism’ Social groups (i.e. workers and capitalists, men and women) struggle for scarce resources and power Conflict is normal; stability and order is not Karl Marx, 1818-1883 Macro-level focus

Symbolic Interactionism    

Micro-level analysis of society Society is ‘played out’ through daily interactions between people People interact through shared symbols (physical ones and intangible ones like body language) which give meaning in social interactions All reality is based on shared Herbert Blumer, 1900-1987subjective agreement

Methods of Sociology Sociology as a social science has been trying to develop its own method of study. Sociology has to face greater problems in evolving a satisfactory method in the comparison with other social sciences. Man' s social life is complex and multifaceted. It is highly a challenging task for sociologists to collect, analyse, synthesis and finally generalise social data which are too numerous, complex and illusive. Some of the methods are given below: 1. The Comparative Method: “The methods of comparing different societies or groups within the same society to show whether and why they are similar or different in certain respects". To tackle the problems of society effectively and to make fruitful discoveries, sociology has to employ precise and well tested methods of investigation. 2. Historical Method: “A study of events, processes and institutions of past civilisations, for the purpose of finding the origins of antecedents of contemporary social life and thus understanding its nature and working". Historical sociology is a particular kind of comparative study of social groups; their compositions, their interrelationships and the social conditions which or undermine them. 3. The Statistical Method: The term 'Statistics' may be used in two ways:  

To refer to the application of statistical methods to social or non-social problems, and To refer to the actual numerical data collected in relation to these problems. The term 'social statistics' or 'statistical method' refers to the method that is used to measure social phenomena mathematically. As Bogardus has pointed out " Social statistics is mathematics applied to human facts"

4. The Case Study Method: The 'Case Study' is a practice derived from legal studies. In legal studies a 'case' refers to an event or set of events involving legal acts. In sociology case study method is a holistic treatment of a subject. The case study may make use of various techniques such as interview, questionnaires, schedules, life histories, relevant documents of all kinds and also 'participant observation' for

collecting information about the case under study. Thomas and Znaniecki's “Polish Peasant in Europe and America” - (1922) is a classic work in the field of case study. 5. The Functional Method (Functionalism): In functional method or functionalism has been given greater emphasis during recent times in sociological studies. Functionalism refers “to the study of social phenomena from the point of view of the functions that particular institutions or social structures, such as class, serve in a society". Durkheim is the man who first gave a rigorous concept of social function in his “The Division of Labour in Society “and in “The Rules of Sociological Method".

6. The Scientific Method: The basis of study of any science or discipline is its methods. Sciences in general and natural science in particular follow the scientific method. The scientific method is added much to their credibility and objectivity. The scientific method consists of certain steps or procedures which are to be followed precisely and they are as given below: Formulation of the Problem, # Formulation of Hypothesis, # Observation of Collection of Data, # Analysis and Synthesis, # Generalisation, # Formulation of Theory and Law. Scientific method has a few limitations in sociology. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Limitations of the Scientific Methods in Sociology The Scientific Viewpoint Method Sociology As A Science The Sociological Point of View

RULES OF SOCIOLOGICAL METHOD

Rules of Sociological Method I. Introduction: Durkheim: Brief bio:   

Lived from 1858 - 1917. Considered one of the founding fathers of sociology. He wrote The Division of Labor in 1893 as his dissertation, Suicide in 1897, and the Elementary forms of Religious Life in 1912.

The Rules were written in 1895, and represent Durkheim’s hope to develop a systematic sociology. Substantively, Durkheim was interested in that which held society together, and was writing in response to two types of arguments he disagreed with. In his conceptualization of a social fact, he is arguing against social contract theorists, such as Hobbes and Rousseau, who saw all of life in contractual . On their view, individuals were constrained by society, but deliberately so: people designed the constraints to guide society through the repression of individual will with a strong state. Social contract theorists posit an initial agreement among people that binds society together. Thus social life springs from individual choices. In his work on social facts, Durkheim is also arguing against thinkers like Spencer who see society in functional (more on just what that is below): such that the social end was the cause of an event. II. What is a social Fact Examples:   

Duties, Oaths, Habits, customs, norms, rules for relations. Can be identified with means or rates In general they are 'ways of acting, thinking, and feeling existing outside the individual.' The key elements are that they constrain (or can constrain) individuals who go against them. The type of sanction is usually social: stigmatization, etc. but can be material (prison, fines, etc.) depending on the formality of the rule in question.

Definitions: "[social facts] consist of manners of acting, thinking and feeling external to the individual, which are invested with a coercive power by virtue of which they exercise control over him." “A social fact is identifiable through the power of external coercion which it exerts or is capable of exerting upon individuals.” "A social fact is every way of acting, whether fixed or not, capable of exercising on the individual an external constraint; or again, every way of acting which is general throughout a given society, while at the same time existing in its own right independent of its individual manifestations” Durkheim defined two types of social facts:  

Constraints coming from social organization:(Legal, and moral constraints) o (A sub-type of social constraints might be demographic: group heterogeneity, inequality, etc. That constrain who people can meet thus how they behave. "Social Currents": Moments of enthusiasm crowd behavior, etc. These consist of riots, thug activity at sporting events (see Buford, (1991) for a good example), mass hysteria (was the Y2K event a “social fact”?), the feeling of spirit in a call-andanswer preaching church, etc.

Why are the characteristics of 'social facts'?

  

They are external to the individual They constrain the individual. They are general throughout the social unit.

In what way are social facts 'external to the individual?   

They are immutable to changes by any one (or often a few) individuals. We don't choose the types of 'social facts' we get to live under They differ from physical fact in that while slow to change, they DO change. They are not necessary across all of time and space.

In what way do they constrain and individual?    

Normative pressure if broken (everyone knows you don’t pick your nose in public, or talk to strangers in an elevator). Legal: Societies develop formal rules that correspond to them Linguistic and cultural: Habits, turns of phrase, aphorisms, expressions of the common culture Physical: Opportunity for interaction.

How are they ‘general’? 



This is a little less clear. They need not be uniform ‘not everyone conforms to a rule after all, but they must be fairly wide-spread, and the persistence can’t depend on a few people acting in concert. We as a class can’t decide to change the set of social facts on the campus. Most importantly, they cannot be defined only through universality. If everybody does something, but each for individual reasons, then it is not social. The classic example is people putting up umbrellas in the rain. Everyone does it, but it entirely explainable at the individual level.

Because social facts exist external to and above individuals, they are very slow to change. Socialization and education are key to the transmission of social facts (we will see this again in Bourdieu’s conception of Habitus), as the young of a society learn the set of acceptable behaviors Does this mean that people are puppets of the social system? What are some of the questions this conception of social life raises?  

Questions about liberty and democracy? Questions about human agency?

What types of things are not social facts?  

Individual Actions that have no social consequence General behavior that is explainable at the individual level

III. Rules for the Explanation of Social Facts. This section of the reading is a little frustrating because he is writing against other authors (Spencer, Compte, Hobbes, Rousseau, etc.). This means that he will walk through another person’s argument, then show why it is wrong (or at least argue that it is wrong), leading to a series of negative examples. 1) The causes of a social fact cannot be found in the functions of a social fact. 

Functionalist arguments (of the type E.D. was arguing against) say that something exists because it is needed for the greater whole to survive. Common loose talk in



biology is often this way: We have a heart in order to get oxygen to the cells. This teleology places the END RESULT as the CAUSE of the prior event, and therefore violates the notion of a one-directional causal sequence. Thus he says:

"Therefore when one undertakes to explain a social phenomenon the efficient cause which produces it and the function it fulfils must be investigated separately. Thus we seek the cause of something in that which precedes it, not in the things that it does. BUT --“to explain a fact which is vital, it is not enough to show the cause on which it depends.” We must also at least in most cases ‘discover the part that it plays in the establishment of that general harmony.’ E.D. says that function is important for explaining why a certain social fact survives, but does not explain how it comes into being. To do that, we must make reference to an earlier social fact. "It is therefore in the nature of society itself that we must seek the explanation of social life." 2) Social facts are not the result of psychological or individual facts. ‘Since their essential characteristics is the power they possess to exert outside pressure on individual consciousness’s, this shows that they do not derive from these consciousness’s and that consequently sociology is not a corollary of psychology. 

 

Social facts are larger than individuals: they exist above and beyond a given person o If they depended on people, then we would expect greater consistency of society by race. That many different types of societies exist within races, and similar societies across race, then it is unlikely that an individual biological/psychosocial function creates society. If there is something inside of people that drives social facts, it is entirely unclear what that something could be. (He also makes an argument against complete historical determinism, in that past social facts do not necessarily determine future social facts the world changes in complex ways through interaction with current social activity.)

Two principles for explaining a social fact: 1) The determining cause of a social fact must be sought among antecedent social facts and not among the stats of the individual consciousness. 2) The function of a social fact ought always to be sought in its relation to some social end. Where do we look for social facts that could cause other social facts? �The first origins of all social processes of any importance should be sought in the internal constitution of the social group. This is what E.D. calls the ‘Social Milieu’ �The social milieu consists of THINGS and PERSONS � ‘Things’ includes material objects, but also laws, customs etc.

However, things contain no volition, no motor; they can’t put something into action (but see Marx on the springs of a given social system). Thus we have to look toward people’s interaction to find the motor of social facts. � ‘The principle task of the sociologist ought to be, therefore, to discover the different aspects of this milieu which can exert some influence on the course of social phenomena.’ There are two types: o The number of social units, the ‘size of society o the degree of social interaction, what he calls the ‘dynamic density’. ‘Dynamic density may be defined ‘as the function of the number of individuals who are actually having not only commercial but also social relations, i.e. who not only exchange services or compete with one another but also live a common life.’ �

Example: Patterns of relations in high school we discussed in class. The cultural forms of a school will vary depending on the structure of friendships in that school.

SOCIOLOGY AND ANTHROPOLOGY: RESEARCH METHODS Sociology and cultural anthropology are interrelated and overlapping yet separate and distinct academic disciplines. Previously, both disciplines would often be combined into a single academic department in universities. However, the two fields have become increasingly divergent from one another in more recent times. Similarly, both sociology and cultural anthropology often utilize research methods that are quite similar to each other. Yet the philosophical premises from which these methodologies proceed are somewhat different. It is therefore interesting to compare and contrast the philosophical foundations of the fields of sociology and cultural anthropology, and to examine how these theoretical differences impact the practical task of applying research methods.

Sociology as Study of Human Behavior It is first necessary to formulate a proper definition of both sociology and cultural anthropology. Sociology is normally regarded as the study of human behavior as it occurs in a social context. By extension, sociologists are concerned with the origin and development of human behavior within the framework of group dynamics, interpersonal interaction, and institutional relationships. Sociology is regarded as a science, rooted in positivist philosophical principles, where empirical methodology can be applied in a way that produces a better understanding of human social behavior, and the functions of human groups, organizations, and institutions (Ashley

& Orenstein, 2005). Sociologists are concerned with such matters as systems of social organizations and social hierarchies, the origins and purposes of behavioral norms, and the role of society in shaping the behavior and personality of the individual.

Cultural anthropology is a field of study that is derivative of the wider field of general anthropology, and is to be contrasted with social anthropology. The principal area of concern to cultural anthropologists is the diversity to be found among human cultures. Greater weight is assigned to this variable among cultural anthropologists than among anthropologists generally. Cultural anthropology emerged as a discipline in part as a reaction against older ideas in Western thought which tended to contrast human beings as they were thought to exist in a “state of nature,” versus “civilized” people who had developed culture as a process of their civilization. During the era of classical European colonialism, many European scholars were able to engage in the direct observation of cultures previously regarded as “primitive,” and discovered that all human societies develop and maintain culture in some particular form. For instance, all cultures develop language, systems of social organization, and religion in the sense of differentiating between the sacred and profane or norms and taboos.

The fields of sociology and cultural anthropology both utilize similar research methods. As branches of social science, both fields are concerned with applying conventional principles of scientific investigation for the purpose of analyzing and investigating human social behavior in a vast array of contexts. However, sociology generally includes a greater role for such efforts as the accumulation of statistical data, and the pursuit of quantitative as well as qualitative research. By contrast, cultural anthropology normally emphasizes research of an experiential or participatory nature. However, neither approach is exclusive to either of the two disciplines. Researchers in both fields will engage in both the gathering of quantitative data and in such practices as participant observation.

The two primary types of research in the field of sociology are quantitative and qualitative research. Quantitative research is data-driven, and emphasizes such practices as the collection of statistical information and the conduction of experiments according to preconceived formulaic designs (Martin & Turner, 1986). However, qualitative research involves research practices that more closely overlap with those of cultural anthropology. Among these are such methods as direct participant observation, examination of texts and artifacts, or interpersonal communication with individuals representing the social groups which are being studied.

Sociologists differ among themselves concerning the question as to which form of conducting methodological research should be given the highest priority, and which approach is most relevant to the field. The majority of sociologists have normally assigned greater importance to quantitative rather than qualitative research. The published writings of sociologists in academic journals, and the content of the curriculum of sociology programs in universities reflect a general emphasis on quantitative research. Indeed, advanced training in the field of statistics is normally a significant part of the graduate level education of sociologists (Hunter & Leahey, 2008). The choices sociologists make concerning which type of research methods to use normally vary according to the specific nature of the research.

A sociologist who wishes to develop a broad understanding of the general characteristics of a population will normally pursue quantitative research. For instance, a sociologist who wished to examine the attitudes of middle aged people concerning such public controversies as same-sex marriage would likely conduct a survey among a large and varied sample of persons between the ages of thirty-five and sixty. An approach to research of this kind would be very helpful towards the task of gathering reliable data concerning the generalized beliefs and values of a particular age demographic, but the information that would be accumulated concerning the impact of such beliefs on the lives of individuals would be very limited.

However, a sociologist who wished to examine the impact of same-sex marriage on the lives of homosexual couples might well engage in research of a more qualitative nature. For example, a set of same-sex couples who are legally married might be chosen as the subjects of study, and the course of their lives and normal day-to-day interaction might be observed over a lengthy period of time. A group of ten married same-sex couples might be observed over a period of fifteen years, and information would be gathered concerning which couples remained married, sought to adopt children or raised children from prior relationships, or the difficulties each couple faced pertaining to widely held negative attitudes towards their relationship in the wider culture.

The field of cultural anthropology normally assigns less importance to the role of statistical research and the accumulation of quantitative data than sociology. Indeed, this lack of emphasis on quantitative research originated in part as a movement in the field of anthropology against the research practices of nineteenth and early twentieth century anthropologists. As mentioned, cultural anthropology began to

grow as a field during the height of European colonialism. It was a time when Europeans were coming into ever closer proximity with the native or traditional cultures of many parts of the world. The diversity of these cultures, frequent intricacy of their forms of cultural organization, and the sophistication of their cultural institutions challenged the conventional cultural chauvinism of the Europeans (DeWalt, DeWalt, & Wayland, 1998). Further, many anthropologists of the era were criticized as elite, aloof intellectuals who were too far removed from the subjects of their study, and who relied too heavily on second hand and often unreliable sources for their information. Consequently, cultural anthropologists began to develop new, more extensive, and more reliable methods of studying diverse sets of cultural arrangements.

Cultural anthropology developed as newer generations of anthropologists began to apply such methods as direct participant observation in ways that were largely experiential in nature. Anthropologists would often spend time among the actual communities they were studying. They would become personally acquainted with individuals from these communities, examine their personal documents and artifacts, and engage in community life. Out of such efforts emerged the practice of “ethnography.” This involves the study of particular groups of people in a specific environment, and during a particular period of time (Clifford & Marcus, 1986). This contrasts heavily with the practice of sociologists of gathering generalized information regarding large population samples utilizing quantitative methods. Out of the practice of ethnography developed the field of cross-cultural studies, which involves the comparison of ethnographic information gathered from different communities. Because of its reliance on the methods used by ethnographers, the cross-cultural studies pursued by cultural anthropologists continue to contrast with the general emphasis on the accumulation of quantitative data found among sociologists.