DOCSLIB.ORG

The Anthropological Perspective: What Makes It Unique

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Anthropological Perspective: What Makes It Unique The Anthropological Perspective: What Makes it Unique Roy C Dudgeon The concept of culture is anthropology’s key concept. Besides the culture concept, however, anthropology also has various other distinctive ways of thinking about the world or about human cultures and societies. Of course this is true of any academic discipline, each of which is guided by certain models or premises concerning the world and how it approaches the phenomena it studies. I would like to discuss four main perspectives, each of which are not only central to the discipline of anthropology, but also make it unique among the social sciences. These include its: cross-cultural or comparative emphasis, its evolutionary/historical emphasis, its ecological emphasis and its holistic emphasis. 1. A cross-cultural or comparative approach is central to anthropological understanding. This emphasis also makes anthropology unique among the social sciences. Unlike sociologists, psychologists, economists and political scientists, anthropologists look beyond the confines of our own society and compare it to the beliefs and practices of other societies, past and present. Where a sociologist, for example, may attempt to explain social organization with reference only to their own society, an anthropologist would almost invariably go on to compare and contrast our own patterns of social organization with other societies. This comparative emphasis is important. It helps anthropologists to avoid equating “human nature,” for example, with the peculiarities of our own contemporary society. Quite simply, just because we all take some belief or style of behavior for granted in the present, does not mean human beings everywhere, or throughout human history, would have agreed. As John Bodley (1999) puts it, an examination of the wide diversity of other societies encourages anthropologists “to view their own culture through an outsider’s eyes.” In other words, studying other cultures with very different understandings of the world, very different customs and styles of life, leads to what anthropologists refer to as “defamiliarization.” Defamiliarization refers to the process through which you develop an ability to look at our own culture as though it were a foreign culture through the study of other societies. That is, extensive cross-cultural study allows one to think more critically about one’s own culture, and to understand that many aspects of one’s own beliefs or ways of doing things, which we all take for granted on a daily basis, are actually not only completely arbitrary, but also far from universal throughout human history, or even in the present day in many cases. Many others of our practices or beliefs are actually very recent phenomena. This is something which is reemphasized by anthropology’s second emphasis. 2. The second major emphasis which is distinctive of anthropology as a social science is its evolutionary/historical approach. This approach, coming from archeology and physical anthropology, focuses upon both the biological and cultural evolution of human beings and of human societies. It is also one of the reasons why a four subfields approach is so important to the discipline as a whole. An evolutionary/historical approach is “diachronic.” In other words, it is focused upon the understanding of and description of patterns of change over time. This approach provides time depth to an anthropological perspective which, along with its cross-cultural emphasis, helps to put contemporary society and contemporary patterns of social development into an historical context. The third and fourth major emphases which are distinctive of anthropology as a social science- which are very closely related to one another-are its focus upon: 3. an ecological approach, which views human societies or cultures within the context of larger natural systems and, 4. an holistic approach, which is very closely related to an ecological approach philosophically. In fact, anthropology was the first social science to begin to incorporate ecological insights into its studies of human behavior and society. Ecology has been part of the discipline at least since the 1960s. Anthropology also remains the only social science which continues to incorporate ecology in a significant and integral way (even though all anthropologists wouldn’t agree that we should be ecological). So if you are interested in learning about how socio-cultural systems interact with natural or ecological systems, anthropology has the longest history of studying this problem. The reason so many anthropologists are also ecologists is not difficult to understand. The simple reason is that, as sciences, both ecology and anthropology are “holistic.” As a philosophical principle, “holism” simply refers to the assumption that no complex entity can be considered to be no more than the sum of its parts. Holism in anthropology, then, is the assumption that any given aspect of human life is to be studied with an eye to the way it is related to other aspects of human life. In other words, holism is a synonym for a relational emphasis; an emphasis upon studying the /relationships/ among all aspects of culture-rather than “whole” cultures. Anthropology’s holistic emphasis is also the main reason that it was the social science that most readily adopted an ecological approach. After all, ecology defines itself as the study of the /relationships/ among living organisms, and between living organisms and the inorganic environment. A holistic and anthropological approach simply takes the same premise, and applies it to the study of humanity and human societies. Of course, anthropology doesn’t focus only upon the relationships between human societies and their organic and inorganic environments, but also upon the social relations among the members of societies, the relationships between societies, and the relationships between various aspects of culture. For example, the relationships between particular patterns of subsistence, particular technologies, particular economic and political systems, and particular ideologies, or patterns of belief. From an anthropological perspective, these various systems are not only related to one another, they are also seen as integrated with one another. In other words, all of the various cultural institutions or systems more-or-less fit with one another, or mutually support one another (with a reasonable degree of conflict admittedly inherent in many social systems). Thus, following a relational understanding of holism and ecology, what we are studying is the relationships between things, rather than dividing them up into bits for separate study. And this is a premise which both ecology and anthropology share, which may explain why anthropology is the social science which has made the most use of an ecological approach. Because of the discipline’s holistic or relational emphasis, anthropologists were, in a sense, “pre-adapted” to an ecological approach at a theoretical level, even before ecological issues began to become important. There has, however, been a general trend towards /specialization/ within other disciplines, ever since the advent of modern science. The trend has been towards narrowly focused disciplines in which experts end up knowing “more and more about less and less,” as the saying goes. Anthropology bucks this trend. As does ecology. This is because both anthropologists and ecologists are /generalists/ rather than specialists. Indeed, even when anthropologists study any particular aspect of culture-such as political systems for example-we are always looking at the way they are /related/ to other aspects of culture. In fact, the holistic and ecological emphasis of much contemporary anthropology can only make the discipline’s insights more and more relevant as ecological issues continue to become more important in contemporary society. References, additional readings: John H. Bodley (1999) “Victims of Progress,” Mayfield Publishing Company. Richard H. Robbins (2005) “Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism,” Pearson. Article printed from Sciences 360: http://www.sciences360.com URL to article: http://www.sciences360.com/index.php/the-anthropological-perspective-what-makes-it-unique- 22152/ .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Married Too Young? the Behavioral Ecology of 'Child Marriage'
    social sciences $€ £ ¥ Review Married Too Young? The Behavioral Ecology of ‘Child Marriage’ Susan B. Schaffnit 1,* and David W. Lawson 2 1 Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16801, USA 2 Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: For girls and women, marriage under 18 years is commonplace in many low-income nations today and was culturally widespread historically. Global health campaigns refer to marriage below this threshold as ‘child marriage’ and increasingly aim for its universal eradication, citing its apparent negative wellbeing consequences. Here, we outline and evaluate four alternative hypotheses for the persistence of early marriage, despite its associations with poor wellbeing, arising from the theoretical framework of human behavioral ecology. First, early marriage may be adaptive (e.g., it maximizes reproductive success), even if detrimental to wellbeing, when life expectancy is short. Second, parent– offspring conflict may explain early marriage, with parents profiting economically at the expense of their daughter’s best interests. Third, early marriage may be explained by intergenerational conflict, whereby girls marry young to emancipate themselves from continued labor within natal households. Finally, both daughters and parents from relatively disadvantaged backgrounds favor early marriage as a ‘best of a bad job strategy’ when it represents the best option given a lack of feasible alternatives. The explanatory power of each hypothesis is context-dependent, highlighting the complex drivers of life history transitions and reinforcing the need for context-specific policies Citation: Schaffnit, Susan B., and addressing the vulnerabilities of adolescence worldwide.
    [Show full text]
  • The Uniqueness of Humans and an Anthropological Perspective
    Conferences and Lectures 2009 Maternal and Child Health Seminar The Uniqueness of Humans and an Anthropological Perspective JMAJ 54(4): 229–233, 2011 Mariko HASEGAWA*1 Key words Human evolution, Childhood, Communal breeding, Triadic representation, Language Introduction until 6 million years ago, chimpanzees remain in an ecological position similar to that of many Although I majored in physical anthropology other mammalian species, while humans have during my undergraduate and graduate studies, accomplished an “unnatural” success that may the focus of my academic interest was not human even endanger the global environment. Actually, beings. I studied the behavior of wild chimpan- no other animal species have caused such drastic zees in Africa during my years at the anthro- alteration to the planet’s surface in such short pology department because I wanted to explore time, driven many other species to extinction, virgin territories and observe wildlife in its natu- developed science, and deliberated about their ral state. Later, I studied deer, sheep, peacocks, condition. What have been the keys to the etc., and only after that did my interest eventually achievement of this ability? turn to human beings. This was because the study Anthropology is the study of the evolutionary of various animal species instilled in me a renewed history of humanity. It is often regarded as the understanding of the peculiarity of humans as a study of the past records of human evolution, strange species, and also because I felt a sense of such as fossils. Although this in itself is interest- responsibility as an anthropologist to study the ing, anthropology has been accumulating a large evolution of the human species.
    [Show full text]
  • The Fateful Hoaxing of Margaret Mead: a Cautionary Tale
    The “Fateful Hoaxing” of Margaret Mead: A Cautionary Tale Author(s): Paul Shankman Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 54, No. 1 (February 2013), pp. 51-70 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/669033 . Accessed: 03/04/2013 14:08 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.138.170.182 on Wed, 3 Apr 2013 14:08:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Current Anthropology Volume 54, Number 1, February 2013 51 The “Fateful Hoaxing” of Margaret Mead A Cautionary Tale by Paul Shankman CAϩ Online-Only Material: Supplements A and B In the Mead-Freeman controversy, Derek Freeman’s historical reconstruction of the alleged hoaxing of Margaret Mead in 1926 relied on three interviews with Fa’apua’a Fa’amu¯, Mead’s “principal informant,” who stated that she and another Samoan woman had innocently joked with Mead about their private lives.
    [Show full text]
  • Seeing Like an Anthropologist: Anthropology in Practice
    PERSPECTIVES: AN OPEN INTRODUCTION TO CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY SECOND EDITION Nina Brown, Thomas McIlwraith, Laura Tubelle de González 2020 American Anthropological Association 2300 Clarendon Blvd, Suite 1301 Arlington, VA 22201 ISBN Print: 978-1-931303-67-5 ISBN Digital: 978-1-931303-66-8 http://perspectives.americananthro.org/ This book is a project of the Society for Anthropology in Community Colleges (SACC) http://sacc.americananthro.org/ and our parent organization, the American Anthropological Association (AAA). Please refer to the website for a complete table of contents and more information about the book. Perspectives: An Open Introduction to Cultural Anthropology by Nina Brown, Thomas McIlwraith, Laura Tubelle de González is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. Under this CC BY-NC 4.0 copyright license you are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes. 1818 SEEING LIKE AN ANTHROPOLOGIST: ANTHROPOLOGY IN PRACTICE Logan Cochrane, Banting Fellow, Carleton University [email protected] http://www.logancochrane.com Learning Objectives • Identify ways in which “seeing like an anthropologist” differs from the approach to local cultures used by international development agencies. • Explain why “harmful traditional practices” are prioritized for change by development agencies and describe how negative attitudes toward these practices can be examples of “bad for them, okay for us.” • Assess the reasons why anthropological perspectives and techniques tend to have a limited impact on the design or goals of international development projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Margaret Mead and the Culture of Forgetting in Anthropology: a Response to Paul Roscoe
    MICAELA Dl LEONARDO Margaret Mead and the Culture of Forgetting in Anthropology: A Response to Paul Roscoe Only connect. research, and write and speak. And this is what is curious about Paul Roscoe's piece: its anachronism, its radical lack —E. M. Forster of a sense of the historical shifts in anthropology and in the world, since Margaret Mead and Reo Fortune wrote EARLY A QUARTER CENTURY AGO, the late Eric about the Mountain Arapesh in the 1930s. Thus, while I NWolf published a ringing editorial in the New York appreciate Roscoe's long familiarity with Papua New Times titled "They Divide and Subdivide, and Call It An- Guinea (PNG) populations and his archival work, this lack thropology" (1980). Wolf's concern was the proliferation of "history and history of theory" connection means that of mutually uncommunicative subfields in our discipline both his framing of the question at hand and his empirical to the detriment of any overarching set of understandings claims leave much to be desired. Let me elaborate. of the human condition. He laid out his larger history-of- First, I certainly agree with Roscoe on the importance thought vision in Europe and the People without History of revisiting Margaret Mead's oeuvre. Mead is still, as I (1982), in which he argued for our discipline's release wrote in Exotics at Home, "the most well-known anthro- from the "bounds of its own definitions" in an historical pologist across this century in the United States, and prob- political-economic vision uniting the social sciences and ably the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Doing Fieldwork: Methods in Cultural Anthropology
    PERSPECTIVES: AN OPEN INTRODUCTION TO CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY SECOND EDITION Nina Brown, Thomas McIlwraith, Laura Tubelle de González 2020 American Anthropological Association 2300 Clarendon Blvd, Suite 1301 Arlington, VA 22201 ISBN Print: 978-1-931303-67-5 ISBN Digital: 978-1-931303-66-8 http://perspectives.americananthro.org/ This book is a project of the Society for Anthropology in Community Colleges (SACC) http://sacc.americananthro.org/ and our parent organization, the American Anthropological Association (AAA). Please refer to the website for a complete table of contents and more information about the book. Perspectives: An Open Introduction to Cultural Anthropology by Nina Brown, Thomas McIlwraith, Laura Tubelle de González is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. Under this CC BY-NC 4.0 copyright license you are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes. 33 DOING FIELDWORK: METHODS IN CULTURALCULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY Katie Nelson, Inver Hills Community College [email protected] http://kanelson.com/ Learning Objectives • Discuss what is unique about ethnographic fieldwork and how it emerged as a key strategy in anthropology. • Explain how traditional approaches to ethnographic fieldwork contrast with contemporary approaches. • Identify some of the contemporary ethnographic fieldwork techniques and perspectives.
    [Show full text]
  • Introducing the Anthropologist As Writer Across and Within Genres
    Introducing the Anthropologist as Writer Across and Within Genres Helena Wulff ላሌ There you are: facing the computer screen. Your “fi eld,” whatever that was, is some distance away, at least for now. You have worked through the materi- als you collected there, and think you have them in a promising order. Time for the next step: to write. You may not get away from the screen any time soon—not really get away. Then at some later point, you are there again in front of the screen, checking your emails. Has that publisher or editor you had in mind been in touch yet, responding to your proposal, or even to that entire manuscript you sent? If so, expect—at best—a period in front of the screen again, review- ing, rewriting, perhaps reorganizing. Anthropologists have mostly celebrated the fi eld experience in all its va- riety. Yet in fact, they are likely to spend as much time sitting in front of the computer screen. Once it has begun, writing is in one way a very solitary ac- tivity, but in another way, it is not: you may be in interaction with an imagined audience of colleagues, students, as well as people in your fi eld, perhaps gen- eral readers, and, increasingly, the representatives of academic audit culture. For some time now, anthropologists have understood that they are also writers, and have engaged in scrutinizing the implications of this fact. Clif- ford Geertz, in his infl uential book The Interpretation of Cul tures (1973: 19), famously asked (in the idiom of the time): “What does the ethnographer do?—He writes.” Taking existing conversations on writing in anthropology as a point of departure, the mission of this volume is twofold: fi rst, to iden- tify different writing genres anthropologists actually engage with; and sec- ond, to argue for the usefulness and necessity for anthropologists of taking 1 2 Helena Wulff writing as a craft seriously and of writing across and within genres in new ways.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cactus and the Anthropologist: the Evolution of Cultural Expertise on the Entheogenic Use of Peyote in the United States Aurélien Bouayad
    The Cactus and the Anthropologist: The Evolution of Cultural Expertise on the Entheogenic Use of Peyote in the United States Aurélien Bouayad To cite this version: Aurélien Bouayad. The Cactus and the Anthropologist: The Evolution of Cultural Expertise on the Entheogenic Use of Peyote in the United States. Laws, MDPI, 2019, 8 (2), pp.12. 10.3390/laws8020012. hal-03260278 HAL Id: hal-03260278 https://hal-sciencespo.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03260278 Submitted on 14 Jun 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. laws Article The Cactus and the Anthropologist: The Evolution of Cultural Expertise on the Entheogenic Use of Peyote in the United States Aurelien Bouayad Law School, Sciences Po Paris, 27 rue Saint Guillaume, 75007 Paris, France; [email protected] Received: 16 April 2019; Accepted: 10 June 2019; Published: 17 June 2019 Abstract: This paper explores the complex evolution of the role anthropologists have played as cultural experts in the regulation of the entheogenic use of the peyote cactus throughout the 20th century. As experts of the “peyote cult”, anthropologists provided testimonies and cultural expertise in the regulatory debates in American legislative and judiciary arenas in order to counterbalance the demonization and prohibition of the medicinal and sacramental use of peyote by Native Americans through state and federal legislations.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Is the Study of Anthropology Important to Today's World?
    Pearson is proud to announce the winners of the 2011 MEL EMBER STUDENT SCHOLARSHIP CONTEST: Why is the study of anthropology important to today’s world? Nate Stanley Texas State University FIRST PLACE Melissa Wrapp University of Notre Dame SECOND PLACE Tiffany Davis University of Houston THIRD PLACE First Place Nate Stanley Texas State University Nate Stanley was born in South Dakota, and grew up most of his life in Iowa. Currently, he works at the Center for Archaeological Studies at Texas State University as an Archaeologist and Curator. He will be receiving his Bachelor of Science in Anthropology, and certificate in Geographic Information Science (GIS), in May 2012 from Texas State University–San Marcos. He has been accepted to Texas State University’s MA Anthropology program, as well as SUNY Binghamton’s MS Biomedical Anthropology program, and is still in the process of deciding which to attend. His areas of interest are primate/rainforest conservation and human skeletal anatomy. Hopefully, this summer he will be accompanying a Ph.D. candidate from the University of Texas–San Antonio to Naha, Mexico, to gain some very valuable field research experience. “Nate’s course work and research studies reveal his love of learning, interest in anthropology, and commitment to hard work. He is one of the finest students that I have ever worked with and is truly a credit to our university.” Elizabeth M. Erhart, Ph.D., Chair of the Department of Anthropology and Associate Professor of Anthropology, Texas State University Anthropology: An Explanatory Method to Understand Our World By Nate Stanley Mongolia, Thailand, Mexico, China.
    [Show full text]
  • Ruth Benedict's Obituary for Japanese Culture
    Volume 5 | Issue 7 | Article ID 2474 | Jul 12, 2007 The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Ruth Benedict's Obituary for Japanese Culture C. Douglas Lummis Ruth Benedict's Obituary for Japanese journal Shiso no Kagaku (Science of Thought) Culture in 1980, and then appeared as part two of my book Uchi Naru Gaikoku (The Abroad Within) C. Douglas Lummis (Jiji Tsushinsha, 1981). In English it was published in the form of an annotated textbook for Japanese college students, under the title Preface Rethinking the Chrysanthemum and the Sword (Ikeda Masayuki, ed. Shohakusha, 1982). I first found Ruth Benedict’s The Chrysanthemum and the Sword in the Charles Looking back on it now, I think this essay can Tuttle Bookstore in Okinawa in 1960. I had just be considered as a fairly early study of what is decided to spend some time living in Japan now called the critique of orientalism, though (little suspecting that “some time” would turn at the time I wrote it I did not know the term, out to be a big part of the rest of my life) and I and was blithely ignorant of Edward Said’s was delighted to discover that Benedict, whose then-recently-published book of that title. At Patterns of Culture I greatly admired, had the same time, it can also be seen as an, again written this book too. I read it avidly, and for fairly early, example of post-colonial studies some years was corrupted by the myth of (as (early because the term had not yet been Malinowski called it) the “ethnographer’s coined).
    [Show full text]
  • Benedict, Ruth (1887-1948) by Linda Rapp
    Benedict, Ruth (1887-1948) by Linda Rapp Encyclopedia Copyright © 2015, glbtq, Inc. Ruth Benedict in 1937. Entry Copyright © 2004, glbtq, inc. Reprinted from http://www.glbtq.com Ruth Fulton Benedict was among the first American women to study anthropology. She rose to the top of her profession, earning international respect for her insight and scholarship. She is best known for her theory of "patterns of culture" that brought together anthropological, psychological, sociological, and philosophical considerations to explain that human behavior and concepts of deviance are cultural products. Benedict's family had deep roots in America: their heritage traced back to the Mayflower. Subsequent generations had gone into farming, but both of Benedict's parents were college graduates. Her father, Frederick Samuel Fulton, was a surgeon practicing in New York City when Benedict was born on June 5, 1887. Soon thereafter Dr. Fulton fell ill, and the family moved to the farm of the parents of his wife, Bertrice Shattuck Fulton, near Binghamton, New York, where a second daughter, Margery, was born. Only months later Dr. Fulton died. Benedict was not yet two years old. To support her children and herself Bertrice Fulton found work as a teacher, first in the neighboring town of Norwich and then in Missouri and Minnesota. Eventually the family returned to their native state when Fulton got a job as a librarian in Buffalo. Both Fulton sisters were excellent students and received scholarships to a private high school and then to Vassar College, where Ruth Fulton majored in English. Among the works that she read in her classes were those of Walter Pater, whose Studies in the History of the Renaissance in particular spoke to her.
    [Show full text]
  • Margaret Mead Lesson Plan
    MARGARET MEAD Bisexual U.S. Anthropologist (1901-1978) Margaret Mead became world famous for her studies of South Sea peoples, especially Coming of Age in Samoa (1928), which rejected biological determinism to emphasize the inexorable influence of cultural forces on adolescent development. She later expanded her study, which led her to admonish American parents for what she saw as comparatively inept child-rearing practices in the United States. She wrote more than 1,000 articles and 30 books in addition to working as a curator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Though she was married three times, in the mid-1920s Mead began a life-long relationship with fellow anthropologist Ruth Benedict which influenced how the two women interpreted what was deemed “normal” in a culture. As a result, Mead came to describe the “deviant” as a person who “demanded a different or improved environment but who rejected the traditional choices” to set up alternate standards. She became one of the earliest proponents of bisexuality, questioning the socio-cultural forces that demand people choose between a lifetime of exclusive homosexuality or heterosexuality. Lesson Plan n Level 1: Contributions Approach Level 3: Transformational Approach 1. Activate Prior Experience: What do you know about 1. View Margaret Mead? https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.15 2. Read the biography above and explore additional resources at 25/aa.1980.82.2.02a00010. In what ways did Mead’s early https://legacyprojectchicago.org/person/margaret-mead. development and professional pursuits transform her into a 3. Mead has been called a “prophet” and “Mother of the “rebel” among anthropologists? World”.
    [Show full text]