Evolution and University-level Anthropology Textbooks: The “Missing Link”?

Although studies analyzing the content of evolution curriculum usually focus on courses within the context of a biological sciences department or program, research must also address students and courses outside of the biological sciences. For example, using data solely from biological courses will not fully represent the scope of coverage of evolution in university education, as other fields, like anthropology, also utilize evolutionary principles. We analyzed the content of 31 university-level anthropology textbooks for the following: (1) presence of a definition of evolution in various sections of the textbooks, (2) accuracy and consistency of the definitions provided in the textbook sections, and (3) differences between textbooks for cultural and physical anthropology. Results of this study suggest that anthropology textbooks do not necessarily (1) provide a single definition of evolution or (2) provide an accurate, “baseline” definition of evolution when present. Additionally, substantive differences were observed between definitions provided in different sections within a single textbook, as well as between textbooks written for cultural anthropology and physical anthropology/archaeology courses. Given the inclusion of anthropology courses in general education curriculum at the university-level, we conclude that this situation may further exacerbate the misunderstanding of the basic tenets of evolution that university students have been repeatedly shown to demonstrate. We stress the role of the instructor in choosing textbooks that provide accurate information for students, as well as the responsibility they hold in providing a concise, accurate definition of evolution in social sciences courses.     

‘It was maendeleo that removed them’: disturbing burials and reciprocal knowledge production in a context of collaborative archaeology

Recent decades have witnessed a growth in approaches to research and writing across anthropology's four fields that emphasize the need to respect alternative narratives and constructions of history, and to engage with anthropology's ‘publics’. These developments have generated more ethically responsible research and more inclusive writing practices. Nevertheless, the actual doing of cross‐cultural collaboration and knowledge production remains a challenge. In this three‐field (cultural, biological, and archaeological anthropology) study, we aim to capture, in writing, a process of collaborative fieldwork with Samburu pastoralists in northern Kenya that experimentally integrated ethnographic self‐scrutiny with a bio‐archaeological excavation involving human remains. In the process, we highlight the reciprocal knowledge production that this cross‐subdisciplinary, transcultural fieldwork produced.     

The Four Subfields: Anthropologists as Mythmakers

A survey of articles published in the American Anthropologist over a 100-year period indicates that substantive collaboration across anthropological subfields is largely a myth—amounting toonly 311 of 3,264 articles surveyed (or 9.5 percent of the total). Working with the anthropological insights of Bronislaw Malinowski, Edward Tylor, and Claude Levi-Strauss, this article considers why a myth of subf ield collaboration nonetheless exists within anthropology. This article concludes by calling for new forms of holism. [Keywords: American Anthropologist, subf ield collaboration, holism, public anthropology]     

The emergence of biomedical anthropology and its implications for the future

Primarily during the past 15 years a distinct new area within physical anthropology has emerged, biomedical anthropology. Physical anthropologists have become heavily involved in studying problems of relevance to the health and illness patterns of living humans. There has been a proportionate increase in biomedically focused papers published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology, in biomedically focused papers presented at annual meetings of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, and in physical anthropology doctoral dissertations oriented toward modern biomedical phenomena. Proportionately more physical anthropologists are now employed in medical schools and there has been recent growth in the proportion of physical anthropologists in anthropology departments who claim some aspect of biomedical anthropology as a research interest. Increasingly, physical anthropologists are focusing their research on cardiovascular disease, the leading cause of death in America. These distinct trends are partially a result of the nature of physical anthropology and its unique biocultural perspective. However the growth of applied anthropology, the present academic marketplace, and the availability of research funds are probably also contributing factors. The emergency of biomedical anthropology holds promise for the future of physical anthropology and for its current employment crisis. Careers with academic and nonacademic organizations engaged in biomedical research appear to be a viable alternative to careers in departments of anthropology, for biomedical anthropologists. This will entail some reorientation of graduate training for physical anthropologists. More emphasis will have to be placed on substantive biomedical subjects, research methods, and data management and analysis.     

The interface between medical anthropology and medical ethnobiology

Medical anthropology is concerned with both the causes and consequences of human sickness, and its various theoretical orientations can be grouped into four major approaches: medical ecology, critical medical anthropology, interpretative medical anthropology, and ethnomedicine. While medical anthropologists of all theoretical persuasions have examined why people get sick, the analysis and understanding of patterns of treatment has been largely confined to ethnomedicine. Historically, more emphasis has been placed on the personalistic or supernatural aspects of ethnomedical systems than on naturalistic or empirical components. While this focus has produced valuable insights into the role of ritual and belief in healing, it has led to the impression that traditional medicine is primarily symbolic. Moreover, it ignores the theoretical bases of traditional healing strategies and the practical means by which most of the world heals itself, namely plants. Recently there has been more interest in the empirical character of ethnomedical systems, and in this paper we consider the role that medical ethnobiology has played in this shift of focus. We begin with a brief history of medical anthropology to illuminate why naturalistic medicine was neglected for so long. We then review exemplary research in two areas of medical ethnobiology – ethnophysiology and medical ethnobotany – that address the study of naturalistic aspects of medical systems. We conclude with suggestions for future research at the interface between medical ethnobiology and medical anthropology that will contribute to both fields.     

Introduction à l’anthropologie clinique

This paper discusses the concept of clinical anthropology. It recounts how an anthropological school of thought emerged in psychiatry and clinical psychology. Nowadays, that school spans the fields of philosophical anthropology, medical anthropology, cultural psychiatry, anthropological psychology, and clinical anthropology. After providing a conceptual and historical definition, we briefly introduce the ideas of the psychiatrist and philosopher, Ludwig Binswanger. In 1930, he became the first to introduce anthropological research into psychiatry, emphasising the a priori difference between homo natura and existence. Finally, we outline the development of phenomenological anthropology in Europe, with reference to the major philosophers and psychiatrists of the second half of the twentieth century.     

分子人类学与现代人的起源*

1953年Watson & Crick 对于DNA双螺旋结构模型的提出及对其遗传机理的解释,标志着现代分子生物学的诞生。其后短短50年的时间里,分子生物学在各个学科之间广泛渗透,相互促进,不断深入和发展。在以研究人类的起源和进化为首要任务的人类学领域,由于现代分子生物学理论和方法的应用,诞生了分子人类学这一全新的结合型分支学科,为人类学的发展提供了科学可信的研究方法和具发展前景的研究方向。系统地介绍了分子人类学的发展历史、研究方法及原理;另外,结合分子人类学在古人类学研究中的应用,讨论了关于现代人起源的“非洲起源说”和“多地区连续演化说”。Abstract: Since Watson & Crick put forward the double-helix model of DNA structure and hereditary mechanism in 1953, it is generally accepted that this event marks the birth of modern molecular biology. This new field of biology has experienced a flourishing development in the past 50 years. On one hand, the development of molecular biology has been deeply influencing many relative fields; on the other hand, its own proceeding pace has been accelerated by the reaction from the other fields. Anthropology is one of the fields most deeply impacted by the theory and method of molecular biology. Most importantly, molecular anthropology was born as a result of combination of molecular biology, anthropology as well as paleoanthropology. This new branch provides reliable method and vital direction for paleoanthropology. This paper systematically reviews the history, principle and method of molecular anthropology. Two hypotheses on the origin of modern human, which include “out-of-African theory” and “theory of multiregional evolution” are also discussed for the purpose of showing how molecular anthropology is applied in paleoanthropology.     

Anthropology and the Dialectic of Enlightenment: A Discourse on the Definition and Ideals of a Threatened Discipline

The knowledge practices of social and cultural anthropology can be conceived as undergoing constant methodological reconsideration or reformulation as a consequence of internal critique and of institutional change effected in the larger educational and political environment. Neo‐liberal shifts affecting the institutional context may have influenced a deepening of the crisis in anthropology where the nature of its project has become less certain or has threatened a reconfiguration of such proportion that anthropology may be losing sight of its direction. This essay explores some of the Enlightenment roots of social and cultural anthropology. It is presented as very much an idea that embodies and reflects what Adorno and Horkheimer discussed as the dialectic of Enlightenment. The argument presented is less pessimistic claiming that the distinction of anthropology is in its pursuit of Enlightenment ideals that it has maintained and rehoned as a consequence of its own routine internal critique. The vital implication of the discussion is that anthropology is in a situation of serious threat in largely a post‐Enlightenment world. In such a context, the methodological ideals that emerged as integral to the spirit of anthropology are well worth maintaining rather than abandoning. The ideals that are addressed are conceived to be integral to the importance of anthropology as critique and as a knowledge practice capable of sustaining a profound contribution to the understanding of the potential that is human being.     

The fitness of human sociobiology: the future utility of four concepts in four subdisciplines.

Reported here are the results of a survey inquiring into the rate of acceptance of four sociobiological concepts in regard to their usefulness for future research. Included in the survey were members of four subdisciplines: animal behavior (biology), biological anthropology, cultural anthropology, and developmental psychology. Three types of institutions were included: universities, four- and five-year colleges, and community colleges. A total of 1,631 responses are reported with the degree of acceptance varying from highest to lowest as follows: biology, biological anthropology, developmental psychology, and cultural anthropology. These variations are related to the central concepts of each subdiscipline.     

Anthropologists only need apply: challenges of applied anthropology

The application of anthropology is attracting increasing attention, where once it was thought at best a dubious enterprise. The resurgence of applied anthropology reflects the discipline's broad spread, with persons seeking applications in an array of areas. In this article I reflect on some contentious issues that I have encountered in trying to take up the challenge of applying anthropology, notably in the context of 'indigenous knowledge' in development inquiries, issues that demand attention to take this work forwards. A brief historical review suggests that a failure to deal with these arguably hindered previous attempts to establish an applied anthropology. They include definition of the subject we seek to apply, the implications of interdisciplinarity for the social sciences, and the matter of expert status. Other considerations concern giving ethnographic methods an applicable edge, engaging, for example, with the challenging demands of participatory research. I outline five ways to envisage applying anthropology: facilitating others' exploitation of exogenous know-how; using knowledge of local understanding to further development; transferring people's learning and practices cross-culturally; seeking ways to assist market use of knowledge; and finally radical ethno-criticism of development. They all present us with challenges. And signal interesting times for anthropology.     

Evolutionary approaches to cultural and linguistic diversity

Evolutionary approaches to cultural change are increasingly influential, and many scientists believe that a 'grand synthesis' is now in sight. The papers in this Theme Issue, which derives from a symposium held by the AHRC Centre for the Evolution of Cultural Diversity (University College London) in December 2008, focus on how the phylogenetic tree-building and network-based techniques used to estimate descent relationships in biology can be adapted to reconstruct cultural histories, where some degree of inter-societal diffusion will almost inevitably be superimposed on any deeper signal of a historical branching process. The disciplines represented include the three most purely 'cultural' fields from the four-field model of anthropology (cultural anthropology, archaeology and linguistic anthropology). In this short introduction, some context is provided from the history of anthropology, and key issues raised by the papers are highlighted.     

Missing Links: A Commentary on Ward H. Goodenough's Moving Article "Anthropology in the 20th Century and Beyond"

Ward H. Goodenough's optimistic summary of anthropological knowledge during the 20th century leaves missing links around the inevitable political and processual nature of the discipline. Conflict within the discipline and response to public events also are part of the story. Effects of the Cold War highlight the relations of knowledge and power in anthropological practice. Common humanity remains the focal point of anthropology. [Keywords: U.S. anthropology, 20th century, complexity, world events, reflexivity]     

Biological anthropology's critical engagement with genomics,evolution, race/racism,and ourselves: Opportunities and challenges to making a difference in the academy and the world

Biological anthropology can, and should, matter in the Anthropocene. Biological anthropologists are interested in human biology and the human experience in a broader ecological, evolutionary, and phylogenetic context. We are interested in the material of the body, the history of the body, and interactions of diverse bodies, communities, ecologies, and evolutionary processes. However, the cultural realities of bodies, histories, communities, livelihoods, perceptions, and experiences are as central to the endeavor and inquiry of biological anthropology as are their material aspects. Biological anthropology is a constant dialectic between the cultural and the biological. In this essay, I argue that Biological Anthropology has much to offer, a history to contend with, and a future that matters. To illustrate this, I highlight theoretical and methodological issues in genomics, evolutionary theory and connect them to the study of Race and Racism to emphasize specific arenas where Biological Anthropology has a great capacity, and a strong obligation, to play a central role. However, Biological Anthropology also has substantive internal issues that hinder our ability to do the best possible science. If we are to live up to our potential and make a difference in the 21st century we need to ameliorate our structural shortcomings and expand our voice, and impact, in academic and public discourse. The goal of this perspective is to offer suggestions for moving us toward this goal.     

Psychiatric investigations among American Indians and Alaska natives: A critical review

This review of psychiatric investigations among Native Americans opens with a discussion of the dominant theoretical perspectives in psychiatric anthropology in order to provide an analytic framework with which to assess the substantive findings of researchers in the field. Studies of culture-specific disorders, service utilization and patient population studies, psychiatric epidemiological studies, and studies designed to test the validity of certain diagnostic instruments are scrutinized for evidence of the nature of the role of indigenous cultures in the manifestations of psychiatric disorders among these populations. The review reveals that a universalist theoretical perspective, which tends to obscure the role of local interpretations in the phenomenology of psychiatric illness, dominates this field of inquiry. Nonetheless, evidence has accumulated which indicates the importance of native understandings for a more reliable and valid explanation of the nature of mental disorder among these peoples. The inadequacies of our current knowledge are examined and suggestions for directions in future work are presented in the concluding section. Recommendations include the direct investigation of the local meanings of the signs, symptoms, and syndromes of Western psychiatry; the concentrated search for potentially unique and powerful local signs of distress; and the study of the culturally-constituted social processes of illness.     

A sensory approach for multispecies anthropology

This special issue suggests that the need to examine the entangled lives of species, selves and other beings through a multisensory perspective is crucial and timely. Developing on a sensory analysis, one that emerges through what Anna Tsing refers to as the ‘arts of noticing’ (2015), this introductory paper explores how both nonhuman and human lives are intertwined, and how their close examination can guide anthropologists in their ability to capture the subtleties of more‐than‐human engagement, connection and relatedness. Through articles within this issue from Australian anthropology and beyond, we ask how becoming‐with more‐than‐humans helps us to construct a post‐humanist analysis in the combination of sensory anthropology and multispecies anthropology. Through a combination of these two fields, the paper suggests, anthropology can take up the opportunity to think about animals as subjects, through our ability to communicate beyond language and to engage in a more meaningful way through interspecies knowledge‐making.     

The Funding of Research in Social-Cultural Anthropology at the National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation is the largest single source of finds for research targeted in cultural anthropology. The patterns of funding for "senior" research (post-Ph.D.) since 1956 are described and analyzed. Total dollars spent have increased, but the average grant size has decreased in recent years. The chances of getting funding are found not to be different if one is female or more senior, has resubmitted a previously declined proposal, or has a Ph.D. from an "elite" program. Smaller proposals and proposals from "elite" institutions have a slightly higher probability of getting funded. Differences in funding across research areas (geographical and substantive) are also discussed.     

Variability in the Efficacy of Psychopharmaceuticals: Contributions from Pharmacogenomics, Ethnopsychopharmacology, and Psychological and Psychiatric Anthropologies

Psychological and psychiatric anthropology have long questioned the universality of psychiatric diagnoses, bringing to light the fluidity of mental disorder, and recognizing that the experience and expression of psychopathology is influenced by complex and interacting genetic, environmental, and cultural factors. The majority of our discussions, however, have remained centered around the role of culture in shaping mental illness: drawing attention to subjective experiences of mental illness and culturally patterned modes of symptom presentation, and interrogating the cogency of universal diagnostic rubrics. Psychological and psychiatric anthropology have yet to robustly engage the broadly assumed universal validity of psychiatric medications and the ways in which they are prescribed and experienced. This article provides an introduction into the fields of pharmacogenomics and ethnopsychopharmacology, areas of inquiry seeking to understand the ways in which genetic variability occurring between, and within, large population groups influences individual ability to metabolize psychotropic medications. This piece further addresses the complex issue of psychopharmaceutical efficacy, stressing the ways in which, just as with psychopathology, medications and their outcomes are likewise influenced by the complex interactions of genes, environment, and culture. Lastly, ways in which anthropology can and should engage with the growing fields of pharmacogenomics and ethnopsychopharmacology are suggested.     

Imagining the Real: The Photographic Image and Imagination in Knowledge Production

The exploratory discussion in this article starts from the fact that it is the realism of photographic representations which enables them, in an indexical sense, to point back to a reality beyond themselves as images. In the same vein, it is as a metonymic space-time fragment that the photograph can indicate a continuation of reality beyond its own framing of the visible. Or, putting it differently, rather than constituting transparent representations, presence in photographs is evoked through absence of the real. What is not problematized in photographic theory and visual anthropology is that photographs thus depend on imagination for their interpretative connection to reality. My argument sees photographic practice as interference, which pushes the medium past the implicit positivist premise for visual knowledge production in anthropology. Furthermore, when understanding the ability to imagine as movements in reason, the separation between imagination and reason, presumed necessary for the scientific production of knowledge, is also challenged. Concerned with rethinking photography in visual anthropology, imagination’s role in knowledge production will be explored through my photographic art project, Houses/Homes.     

What anthropologists can learn from psychologists,and the other way around

The Mind and Spirit project uses methods from anthropology and psychology to explore the way understandings of what English-speakers call ‘the mind’ may shape the kinds of events people experience and deem ‘spiritual’. In this piece, we step back to reflect on this interdisciplinary approach. We observe that, in some ways, both fields are in parallel states of critical self-reflection around explanation and comparison: anthropology in the wake of the postmodern and postcolonial critique; and psychology in response to a pair of recent crises about the overreliance on Western samples and the reproducibility of psychological research. We suggest that combining our methods may go some way towards giving each field more confidence in its research. Joint fieldwork with specific point-by-point comparison is not common in either anthropology or psychology. We found it fruitful and commend it to others.