Bio-Cultural Approach: the Essence of Anthropological Study in the 21St Century
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CHAPTER 5 Bio-cultural Approach: The Essence of Anthropological Study in the 21st Century R. Khongsdier INTRODUCTION needs to formulate and deal more with research questions relating to problems or issues that are It appears as though anthropology in the 20th socially relevant. With respect to the second century confused itself by creating a vast array question, an attempt will be made to provide an of sub-disciplines which are difficult to ascribe overview of some models/paradigms which are to the same umbrella. Such a trend has both based on a series of assumptions and relation- positive and negative scopes for the strength and ships. Such models can be modified or formulated development of the discipline. Various practi- with new research questions to understand human tioners and researchers of various sub-fields biological variability. Finally, the operational represent a variety of perspectives, “particularly aspects and challenging tasks for bio-cultural those that are comparative, developmental, studies are briefly mentioned keeping in view the ecological, and/or evolutionary” (Dufour, 2006). scope and prospect of the subject. Indeed, one may argue that there is nothing wrong with such perspectives as far as we do not WHAT IS BIO-CULTURAL APPROACH? deviate from the core of our discipline. However, it is difficult to comprehend whether anthropology Bio-cultural approach is one which views in the 21st century should have a core or not? humans as biological, social and cultural beings This question is highly debatable. The answer in relation to the environment (McElroy, 1990). It may be either affirmative or negative depending also views human biological variability as a upon our understanding and vision of anthro- function of responsiveness and adaptation to the pology. But we ought to acknowledge that environment with a special focus on the role of anthropology is a science which is concerned socio-cultural environments. Its significance with both biological and socio-cultural aspects consists in conceptual framework and models for of humankind in time and space. It is neither dead understanding the dynamic interactions among nor will it be dead, but suffers a setback at times. human biological/phenotypic, psychological and This chapter is concerned with a bio-cultural/ socio-cultural traits in response to the environ- bio-social approach to the study of human ment. Bio-cultural approach has been part of the variation and evolution – the subject matter of long history of human biology and biological anthropology as a scientific discipline. The basic anthropology (McElroy, 1990; Hruschka et al., premise is that the bio-cultural approach is 2005; Dufour, 2006), but it has gained more essential for anthropological study of the survival momentum since the 1960s with the initiative of and well-being of human populations in the 21st the Human Adaptability Project of the Inter- century. The chapter is delimited to two basic national Biological Programme. Initially, it was questions: What and why is bio-cultural mainly concerned with the influence of physical approach? How is to go about it? As for the first environment on human biological variation, but question, an attempt will be made to suggest that it has given rise to the incorporation of biotic and bio-cultural approaches should be taken as socio-cultural environments into research essential not only for bringing the gap between designs for understanding human biological social/cultural and physical/biological anthro- variation. pology but also for popularizing anthropology In most cases, central to bio-cultural studies with integrative thinking especially in India. is the use of demographic, genetic and phenotypic “Integrative thinking means rethinking basic traits such as fertility, mortality, anthropometric assumptions, asking new questions, challenging measurements and indices, blood pressure, existing theories, and forging new methods” hemoglobin, genetics markers, and so forth as (McElroy, 1990). An attempt will also be made to indicators of the survival and well being of human discuss that anthropology in the 21st century populations in different environments. These indi- 40 R. KHONGSDIER cators are used to assess the interrelationship genetics, “life is genes and genes are life” (Weiss, between biology and environment in terms of 2000), giving rise to modern synthesis theory of ecological, historical, social, economic, psycholo- evolution. Evolution is defined as a change in gical, behavioural and other cultural factors. The gene frequencies from generation to generation work of Livingstone (1958) on the evolution of through the operation of mutation, natural sickle-cell trait in West Africa is one of such good selection, genetic drift and migration – the major examples. It is often cited as one of the best bio- evolutionary forces. The “modern synthesis cultural models of disease (malaria) as an agent provided legitimacy for the Darwinian approach, of natural selection resulting in genetic adaptation which was largely comparative and anatomical” of human populations. It gives an explanation of (Weiss, 2000). “The New Physical Anthropology” the interaction between sickle-cell anemia and conceptualized by Washburn in the 1950s, was culture, which is linked with population growth, primarily an “area of interest, the desire to agricultural expansion, prevalence of Plasmodium understand the process of primate evolution and falciparum malaria and the evolution of sickle human variation”, and population genetics has cell gene in West Africa (it will also be discussed become the core of the science. However, in the Section on integrated bio-cultural model). Washburn also cautioned that evolution should not be conceptualized in terms of non-adaptive WHY BIO-CULTURAL APPROACH? traits or genes only because it is impossible if evolution is largely due to natural selection. “If The need for greater integration of cultural the form of human face can be thoroughly and biological anthropology has recently become analyzed, this will open the way to the under- the express concern of many anthropologists all standing of its development and the interpretation over the world. In her comments on a series of of abnormalities and malocclusion . may lead to views on physical anthropology at the millennium, advances in genetics, anatomy, and medicine” Szathmáry (2000) writes, “What impressed me the (Washburn, 1951). most . was the concern expressed by several Considering the recent findings on population contributors about the need for greater integration genetics at the molecular level in particular, the of the cultural and biological side of anthropology role of genes in understanding evolution is once itself. The culture-biology interface, the inter- again thought-provoking. Recent DNA studies action of these poles, and indeed, the need to of contemporary populations, especially reintegrate these poles were themes touched on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), have revealed that by several contributors.” Bio-cultural approach humans are relatively homogeneous with little provides a basic framework to bridge the gap genetic variation (Rosenberg et al., 2002; Jorde between cultural and biological anthropology, and Wooding, 2004), thereby leaving little scope thereby depicting the true nature of anthropology for understanding genetic variation between as a scientific discipline. In other words, bio- human populations. What actually is the role of cultural approach of anthropological studies is gene in evolution? According to Weiss (2000), one of those attempts to reintegrate sub-disci- “we have tended to forget that natural selection plines, especially cultural and biological anthro- screens phenotypes not genotypes: it is organi- pology, in the present century. It strengthens the sms that survive and reproduce. Darwin’s pan- holistic approach to understanding the biological genesis was a form of genetic determinism in and cultural aspects of human populations not which circulating heritable units (gemmules) were only from sub-disciplinary but also from multi- directly controlled by phenotypes. But genetic disciplinary perspective, thereby making anthro- variation is not directly controlled by phenotypes pology more trans-disciplinary in nature. (so far as we know), and DNA is not the only It may be acknowledged that Darwin’s theory thing in an egg, bud, or spore. Though genes of natural selection has a considerable influence remain the only known quasi-permanent heritable on the development of anthropology especially material, what determines success is the biological anthropology. The 20th century is known phenotype of the organism. Selection does not as a Darwinian century for biology. Natural identify the perfect genotype, and preserve it. selection has been recognized as the most Selection identifies phenotypes that are too important evolutionary force that patterns life and imperfect and removes them. As we identify the screens biological variation. With the advent of genes involved in complex traits (most current BIO-CULTURAL APPROACH 41 data concern disease), we find that genetic a good evidence for the strength and positive reductionism does not work as well as we development of anthropology in India (Basu, expected.” 2003). These areas of interest can be ascribed to Evolution as a change in gene frequencies the same umbrella of the “survival and well-being” cannot be fully comprehended without consider- paradigm or “bio-cultural” approach to studying ing the role of environment.