VALUE OF COMPARATIVE METHODS

One of the best and earliest examples of the application of the comparative method in anthropology is
Lewis Henry Morgan’s Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family (1870/1997), which
surveys 196 kinship categories in 39 languages in Table I (pp. 79–127) and 268 kinship categories in 80
languages in Table II (pp. 293–382). From this large body of data, Morgan was able to discern that all
kinship terminology systems were reducible to just a few types. This book laid the foundation for the
study of kinship systems in anthropology.

The idea of studying another culture in order to learn about our own is also an important aspect of the
comparative method that shows up regularly in the work of anthropologists. Margaret Mead studied
Samoan culture in the 1920s because she was interested in adolescence in her own culture. By looking at
the transition from childhood to adulthood in Samoa, she hoped to shed some light on that process in
Western culture. In a similar way, Bronislaw Malinowski (1922/1961) tried to make the practices and
beliefs of the Trobriand Islanders comprehensible by showing that the way we do things is very similar to
theirs. For example, he compares native sentiments toward the objects of the Kula trade as being just like
British sentiments toward the crown jewels:

Every really good Kula article has its individual name, round each there is a sort of history and romance
in the traditions of the natives. Crown jewels or heirlooms are insignia of rank and symbols of wealth
respectively, and in olden days with us, and in New Guinea up till a few years ago, both rank and wealth
went together. (Malinowski, 1922/1961, p. 89)

Indeed, plentiful examples of comparisons of our culture to other cultures are to be found throughout the
ethnographic literature.

George Peter Murdock (1897–1985) established the Cross-Cultural Survey in 1937, which was a project
to collect ethnographic information for the purposes of comparison. In 1949, the project, with funding
from the Social Science Research Council, became the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF). Today,
there are two databases in the HRAF collection: the eHRAF Collection of Ethnography and the eHRAF
Collection of Archaeology. These databases are maintained at Yale University and can be accessed by
members online.

The comparative method is a key element of the ongoing ethnographic and theoretical work in
anthropology. Cross-cultural comparisons give us insight into some common patterns of human behavior,
such as kinshipclassification systems. They give us insight into the relationships between different classes
of patterns, such as correspondences between residence patterns and economic systems. They give us
insight into the relationships between behavioral patterns and the environment, such as correlations
between certain religious beliefs and the ecology of where people live. The comparative method makes it
possible to see through the diversity of humanity to the things that collectively define us as human.
VALUE OF THEORETICAL MODELS
Clifford Geertz’s The Interpretation of Cultures (1973) seemed, at the time, to herald the end of theory in
ethnographic work. Every culture was to be rendered in “thick description” and that is all that could be
done. Every culture was viewed as a unique set of integrated symbols and behaviors that could not be
compared to those of other cultures. Coming to the end of the 20th century, at least in cultural
anthropology, theory seems to have disappeared in ethnography. The functionalism, structure and
function, and structuralism that permeated the ethnographic work of early to mid-20th-century cultural
anthropologists had been criticized and rejected. In other areas of anthropology, however, the
development of theory has persisted. Archaeology and biological anthropology, in particular, have
continued to work on theories related to the origin of the state, the origin of food production, social
stratification, the evolution and adaptation of human ancestors, and much more.

Cultural anthropology has, however, turned back to theoretical constructs in order to extend its work
beyond just description. The work of Bourdieu has been influential in this regard. Bourdieu’s Outline of a
Theory of Practice (1977), while criticizing traditional theory in anthropology, offers an alternative
theoretical approach that links objective structures to the practices of people.

The construction of theoretical models is an important part of the scientific method. Such models reason
across the data, linking it together in a logical fashion that results in some degree of explanatory
adequacy. Collection of data and exhaustive descriptions of that data can only be a prelude to the
proffering of an explanation.

Theoretical models also give us a basis and a framework for asking new questions, which can further
extend our knowledge. Theory also gives us a common intellectual space within which to converse with
each other. Theory is essential to practicing the science of anthropology.

VALUE OF RELEVANCE AND APPLICATION

There are some anthropologists who view the work of anthropology as valuable in its own right, and the
pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge. On the other hand, there are some who believe that the
work of anthropology should be relevant to human concerns and have an applied component.
Anthropologists who lean more toward the first view fear that the knowledge possessed by
anthropologists could be used by governments or by others to cause harm to people, while those who lean
toward the second view argue that the same knowledge could be applied to benefit people. Most
anthropologists probably believe in both views to one degree or another.

It is true that many anthropologists are privy to sensitive information about the people they study and that
anthropological knowledge could be used to manipulate people. Even so, it is also clear that similar
observations could be made about other academic disciplines as well.
Journalism, political science, and biology, to name a few, have the potential for causing human harm as
well as providing human benefit.

As a result of the tension caused by these two views in anthropology, applied anthropology has taken a
little longer to become prominent than otherwise would have been the case. Today, business
anthropology, as well as forensic anthropology and medical anthropology, have achieved some status in
the discipline and there are good graduate programs for their study.

The development of applied anthropology is a natural outcome of anthropology done as science, because,
in addition to gaining knowledge and understanding the world, science seeks to solve problems through
the application of that same knowledge and understanding.

Anthropological knowledge is both relevant and applicable to the world in many ways. Archaeologists,
practicing cultural resource management, act as the conservators of our cultural heritage. Cultural
anthropologists, who advocate for the human rights of the groups they study, use their knowledge to
achieve moral and political goals. Anthropological linguists, who apply their knowledge to the teaching
of social aspects of second-language acquisition, make important applications of anthropological
knowledge that meet educational needs. Biological anthropologists working in forensics apply
anthropological knowledge to serve human needs in law and justice.

Anthropology has a great deal to offer humanity. The formal recognition and practice of applied
anthropology has come about only relatively recently in the discipline— in about the last 30 years. Over
time, the effect of applied anthropology will undoubtedly increase. This will probably bring about
changes within the discipline itself, especially as to how anthropology is taught, and where
anthropologists will be employed.

VALUE OF ONGOING RESEARCH

What follows is a brief overview of some contributions that have been made in various areas of
anthropology: biological anthropology, archaeology, sociocultural anthropology, linguistic anthropology,
and applied anthropology. The list is certainly not exhaustive, but it does highlight some of the ways in
which the product of anthropological research and knowledge has social and scientific value.

BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
Forensic anthropology is enjoying a great popularity today as a result of books, movies, and television
shows in which the characters rely upon forensic science to resolve their plot conflicts. While most pop-
culture examples of forensic science and forensic anthropology are highly exaggerated, there are real
forensic anthropologists whose work has made valuable contributions to law enforcement. Clyde Snow is
a forensic anthropologist of note who has worked at mass graves in Central and South America and in the
former Yugoslavia to identify the remains of war crime victims. William Bass, who founded the Body
Farm at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, is probably one of the most well-known forensic
anthropologists. His book Death’s Acre (2004) tells the story of how the Body Farm—a laboratory for the
study of the decomposition of human remains—came into being. The book also relates some of Bass’s
most notable forensic cases.

One of the most astounding accomplishments in the last century, and, perhaps, one of the greatest
scientific accomplishes ever, is the completion of the Human Genome Project, which was completed in
April 2003 (National Human Genome Research Institute, 2009). The Human Genome Project produced a
complete map of the human genetic sequence. This genetic map has, in turn, stimulated a lot of further
research, especially in medicine, that could not otherwise have been done. Many biological
anthropologists participated in this effort.

ARCHAEOLOGY
In the United States and around the world, archaeologists continue to be agents of the discovery and
preservation of the past. Archaeologists and archaeology organizations are active in lobbying for changes
in the law for the purpose of protecting archaeological sites and artifacts, and some archaeologists are
even active in law enforcement, as, for example, archaeologists who work for the Parks Service or for the
U.S. Forest Service. Professional archaeologists play a key role in protecting our historical heritage and in
helping to understand and appreciate it.

Early in the 20th century, when the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) began building dams in the
southeastern United States, archaeologists undertook the enormous task of surveying and identifying
archaeological sites and excavating those that were considered most important. Their efforts recovered
enormous amounts of data and material that otherwise would have been lost forever. The same thing
happened in other parts of the United States, at about the same time, as dam building for flood control and
power generation spread across the country’s major watersheds.

Archaeologists are also involved in museums as curators of important cultural knowledge. In addition,
archaeologists teach at a large number of colleges and universities. Being positioned in museums, and in
higher education, means that archaeologists have both visibility and influence. The past can help us make
decisions for the future and archaeologists play a role in passing on important culture knowledge.

SOCIOCULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY
Anthropologists who study contemporary societies and their cultures have developed very sophisticated
theories about power and power relations, social stratification, ethnicity, religion, kinship systems,
economic systems, and subsistence patters, among other things. They have generated a huge body of
ethnographic material, much of it in databases such as the HRAF. This huge body of literature alone is an
incredible accomplishment that has yet to be fully mined for its total value.
One of the greatest accomplishments and contributions of sociocultural anthropology has been the
advocacy of anthropologists on behalf of the people they have studied. Perhaps it goes a bit beyond a
strictly scientific approach to practice any kind of moral advocacy for another group, but anthropology is
also one of the humanities in the sense that anthropologists, as human beings, are aware of a moral
responsibility to others. Many ethnographers have gone on to act as political advocates for the people they
have studied. Others have even helped with development projects in the communities in which they have
worked. A lot has been written about anthropologists and advocacy. A good starting place for examining
this literature is an article by Samuel R. Cook (2003) that takes a look at the positive aspects, as well as
the challengers, of advocacy by anthropologists working with Virginia Indians.

LINGUISTIC ANTHROPOLOGY
Many contributions by linguistic anthropologists are more abstract than concrete, but no less important.
Linguistic anthropologists have looked at important social issues and have examined the linguistic
phenomena associated with them. For example, language plays a role in racism, as well as in sexism.
They have also contributed a better understanding of language and identity issues, especially in the case
of dying languages, and in attempts to restore languages.

In the 1950s and 1960s, Linguist Joseph Greenberg (1915–2001) sorted out the relationships among the
languages of Africa, and classified them into four major groups. He also worked on classifying the Pacific
and Native American languages. Though his later work was somewhat controversial, his earlier work
with African languages has “become the basis for virtually all subsequent treatments of the continent and
its culture (pre)history” (Silverstein, 2002, p. 632).

APPLIED ANTHROPOLOGY
The category of applied anthropology usually refers to business, forensic, and medical anthropology, but
is not limited to these. Each of the subfields discussed in this section has applied areas; some were
discussed, such as forensic anthropology in biological anthropology, but there are others, such as contract
archaeology and applied linguistics. Business and medical anthropology are types of applied sociocultural
anthropology.

Business anthropology and medical anthropology have proven to be productive areas in applied
anthropology. The full impact of applied anthropology on business remains to be seen, but there are a
fairly large number of anthropologists who work as consultants in this area. There already exists an
immense literature in anthropological publications and in business publications about business
anthropology.

Medical anthropology has at least two peer-reviewed journals. The first is called the Medical
Anthropology Quarterly, published by the American Anthropological Association on behalf of the
Society for Medical Anthropology. The second is called Medical Anthropology: Cross-Cultural Studies in
Health and Illness, published by the University of Lethbridge.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
As technology allows us to handle more and more information in newer and more creative ways, the
holistic perspective of anthropology will, no doubt, develop a clearer view of humanity, and in ways that
are not yet possible. In turn, applied anthropologists will find more ways to use anthropology to serve
human needs and to solve human problems. Already there are steps in this direction. Just to mention two,
the growing eHRAF files, and the relatively new AnthroSource database, which has over 100 years of
anthropological publications, are changing the way in which anthropologists do anthropology. In the
future, anthropologists will be able to handle more information in even shorter amounts of time than is
possible now.

Despite the technological innovations that will speed up and expand some aspects of work in
anthropology, there will still be a need, maybe even greater than before, to keep the discipline centered on
science and its core concepts, ideas, and values, in order to maintain the discipline’s relevance and
significance beyond its own boundaries.

CONCLUSION
From its early years, anthropology has worked toward a scientific understanding of and comprehensive
appreciation for humanity. In its pursuit of that goal, it has embraced methods, practices, concepts, ideas,
and principles that have allowed it to make significant social and scientific contributions. Anthropology is
continuing to develop as a science, as evidenced by an increasing amount of applied work.
Anthropologists are also important advocates for the peoples and groups they study.

The future of anthropology looks bright, and technology is poised to open new horizons for the next
generation of scholars. Anthropology will continue to significantly contribute to the solution of human
problems and add to our deeper comprehension of humanity.

Bibliography:

American Anthropological Association. (1998). American Anthropological Association statement on

“race.” Available at https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?
ItemNumber=2583
Barth, F. (1998). Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of cultural difference. Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland Press. (Original work published 1969)
Bass, W., & Jefferson, J. (2004). Death’s acre: Inside the legendary forensic lab the body farm where the
dead to tell tales. New York: Berkley.
Borofsky, R. (2002). The four subfields: Anthropologists as mythmakers. American Anthropologist,
104(2), 463–480.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Cook, S. R. (2003). Anthropological advocacy in historical perspective: The case of anthropologists and
Virginia Indians. Society for Applied Anthropology, 62(2), 191–201.
Darwin, C. (2006). The origin of species by means of natural selection. New York: Dover Publications.
Durkheim, É. (1982). Rules of the sociological method and selected texts on sociology and its method
(W. D. Halls, Trans.). New York: The Free Press. (Original work published 1895)
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Hastrup, K. (1995). A passage to anthropology: Between experience and theory. New York: Routledge.
Jacknis, I. (2002). The first Boasian:Alfred Kroeber and Franz Boas, 1896–1905. American
Anthropologist, 104(2), 520–532.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1973). Tristes tropiques. New York: Penguin.
Lévy-Bruhl, L. (1978). Primitive mentality. NewYork: AMS Press.
Lyell, C. (1998). Principles of geology. New York: Penguin.
Malinowski, B. (1961). Argonauts of the western pacific. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. (Original
work published 1922)
Mauss, M. (1967). The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies (I. Cunnison, Trans.).
New York: W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1925)
McGee, R. J., & Warms, R. L. (Eds.). (2008). Anthropological theory (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Morgan, L. H. (1912). Ancient society. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr & Company.
Morgan, L. H. (1922). The league of the Ho-de-no-sau-nee or Iroquois. New York: Dodd, Mead.
(Original work published 1851)
Morgan, L. H. (1997). Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the human family. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press. (Original work published 1870)
National Human Genome Research Institute. (2009). All about the Human Genome Project. Retrieved
from https://www.genome.gov/human-genome-project
O’Meara, J. T. (1989). Anthropology as empirical science. American Anthropologist, 91(2), 354–369.
Silverstein, M. (2002). Joseph Harold Greenberg (1915–2001). American Anthropologist, 104(2), 630–
635.
Trencher, S. R. (2002). The American anthropological association and the values of science, 1935–70.
American Anthropologist, 104(2), 450–462.
Turnbull, C. M. (1983). The human cycle. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Tylor, E. B. (1871). Primitive culture. London: John Murray.
White, L. (Ed.). (1959). The Indian journals 1859–62. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.