anthropological perspective of the self essay

Essay on Anthropological Perspective Of Self

Students are often asked to write an essay on Anthropological Perspective Of Self in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Anthropological Perspective Of Self

Understanding anthropology.

Anthropology is the study of humans, their behavior, and societies. It helps us understand the diversity of human cultures across the world. The ‘self’ in anthropology refers to how individuals see and define themselves.

The Self in Different Cultures

Anthropologists have found that the concept of ‘self’ varies greatly among different cultures. In some societies, people see themselves as independent individuals. In others, people view themselves as part of a larger group or community.

Self-Identity

Self-identity is how we see ourselves. It can be influenced by many factors like our experiences, social interactions, and cultural norms. Anthropologists study these influences to understand how self-identity is formed.

Role of Language

Language plays a crucial role in shaping our ‘self’. It’s not just a tool for communication, but also a way to express our identity. Anthropologists study language to explore how it influences our sense of self.

Anthropology and Self-Understanding

In conclusion, anthropology provides a unique lens to understand the ‘self’. It helps us see how culture, society, and language shape our identities. This understanding can help us appreciate the diversity of human experiences.

250 Words Essay on Anthropological Perspective Of Self

Understanding the self.

The ‘Self’ is a term we use to describe who we are. It includes our thoughts, feelings, and actions. But, how we understand the ‘Self’ can change based on different cultures and societies. This is where anthropology comes in. Anthropology is the study of humans and human behavior. So, an anthropological perspective of ‘Self’ means looking at how different cultures understand and define the ‘Self’.

The Social Self

In many cultures, the ‘Self’ is not just about the individual. It is also about the social group or community. This is often called the ‘social self’. The ‘social self’ means that our identity is shaped by our relationships with others. For example, in many African cultures, a person’s identity is tied to their community. This shows that the ‘Self’ is not always about the individual, but can also be about the group.

The Independent Self

In contrast, some cultures focus on the individual. This is called the ‘independent self’. The ‘independent self’ means that our identity is based on our personal thoughts, feelings, and actions. For example, in many Western cultures, people are encouraged to be independent and unique. This shows that the ‘Self’ can also be about personal identity.

In conclusion, the ‘Self’ is a complex concept. It can be understood in different ways based on different cultures. Anthropology helps us see these differences. It shows us that the ‘Self’ can be both social and individual. It can be about the group and the individual. This gives us a richer understanding of what it means to be human.

500 Words Essay on Anthropological Perspective Of Self

Introduction.

The ‘self’ is a concept we all understand, but it can be tricky to define. It’s the idea of who we are as individuals, our thoughts, feelings, and actions. In anthropology, the study of humans and cultures, the ‘self’ is seen in a unique way. This essay will explain the anthropological perspective of self in simple terms.

Anthropological View of Self

In anthropology, the ‘self’ is not just about what’s inside us. It is also about how we connect with the world around us. Anthropologists believe that our ‘self’ is shaped by the culture we live in. This means our beliefs, values, and behaviors are influenced by the society we grow up in.

For example, if you grow up in a culture that values hard work, you might see yourself as a hard worker. This is because your culture has shaped your view of yourself. So, the ‘self’ is not just about who we think we are, but also about how our culture sees us.

Individual and Society

Anthropologists also look at the relationship between the individual and society. They believe that our ‘self’ is not just a personal thing. It is also a social thing. This means that our ‘self’ is not just about us as individuals, but also about how we fit into our society.

For example, if you are a student, your ‘self’ might include being a part of a school community. This is because your role as a student is a part of your ‘self’. So, the ‘self’ is not just about who we are, but also about how we belong to a larger group.

Changes in the Self

Another important point in the anthropological perspective of self is that our ‘self’ can change over time. This is because as we grow and experience new things, our views of ourselves can change.

For example, if you move to a new country, you might start to see yourself in a different way. This is because your new experiences can shape your ‘self’. So, the ‘self’ is not a fixed thing, but something that can change and grow.

In conclusion, the anthropological perspective of self is a unique way of looking at who we are. It sees the ‘self’ as something that is shaped by our culture, our society, and our experiences. It reminds us that our ‘self’ is not just about us as individuals, but also about how we connect with the world around us.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Anthem For Doomed Youth
• Essay on Anti Bullying
• Essay on Anxiety Experience

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Advanced search

Deposit your research

• Open Access
• About UCL Discovery
• UCL Discovery Plus
• REF and open access
• UCL e-theses guidelines
• Notices and policies

UCL Discovery download statistics are currently being regenerated.

We estimate that this process will complete on or before Mon 06-Jul-2020. Until then, reported statistics will be incomplete.

The Origins of Self: An Anthropological Perspective

The Origins of Self explores the role that selfhood plays in defining human society, and each human individual in that society. It considers the genetic and cultural origins of self, the role that self plays in socialisation and language, and the types of self we generate in our individual journeys to and through adulthood. Edwardes argues that other awareness is a relatively early evolutionary development, present throughout the primate clade and perhaps beyond, but self-awareness is a product of the sharing of social models, something only humans appear to do. The self of which we are aware is not something innate within us, it is a model of our self produced as a response to the models of us offered to us by other people. Edwardes proposes that human construction of selfhood involves seven different types of self. All but one of them are internally generated models, and the only non-model, the actual self, is completely hidden from conscious awareness. We rely on others to tell us about our self, and even to let us know we are a self. Developed in relation to a range of subject areas – linguistics, anthropology, genomics and cognition, as well as socio-cultural theory – The Origins of Self is of particular interest to students and researchers studying the origins of language, human origins in general, and the cognitive differences between human and other animal psychologies.

Archive Staff Only

• Freedom of Information
• Accessibility
• Advanced Search

Person, Self, and Identity: Some Anthropological Retrospects, Circumspects, and Prospects

Cite this chapter.

• Raymond D. Fogelson 8  

Part of the book series: Path in Psychology ((PATH))

225 Accesses

11 Citations

Anthropology has important contributions to make in extending the study of the self. An integrated and cumulative body of anthropological theory relevant to the self has yet to be realized. Nevertheless, it is possible to connect several lines of theory to suggest converging general orientations and research strategies bearing on the study of the self and related ideas. In addition, the ever-expanding comparative ethnographic record constitutes a valuable resource that can be exploited to examine the broader applicability or inapplicability of Western conceptions of the self—as well as to investigate, in their own right, self concepts that have developed independent of Western influence.

• Real Identity
• American Anthropologist
• Social Person
• Primitive Society
• Personality Descriptor

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

All clowns are masked and all personae Flow from choices; sad and gay, wise, Moody and humorous are chosen faces, And yet not so! For all circumstances, Given, like a tendency To colds or like blond hair and wealth Or war and peace or gifts from the ground, Stick to us in time, surround us: Socrates is mortal. “All Clowns are Masked” Delmore Schwartz, 1938

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Aberle, D.: 1957. “The Influence of Linguistics on Early Culture and Personality Theory”. In Essays in the Science of Culture (ed. by G. Dole, R. Caneiro, New York: T.Y. Crowell ), pp. 1–29.

Google Scholar  

Allport, G.W.: 1937. Personality: A Psychological Interpretation . New York: Henry Holt.

Allport, G.W.: 1943. “The Ego in Contemporary Psychology”, Psychological Review , L: 451–478.

Article   Google Scholar  

Avruch, K:. 1981. American Immigrants in Israel: Social Identities and Change . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bateson, G.: 1965. Naven: A Survey of the Problems Suggested by a Composite Picture of a New Guinea Tribe Prawn from Three Points of View . 2nd ed. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Bell, D. 1968.: “National Character Revisited: A Proposal for Renegotiating the Concept”. In The Study of Personality: An Interdisciplinary Appraisal (ed. by E. Norbeck, D. Price Williams, E. McCord,. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston ), pp. 103–120.

Bidney, D.: 1953. Theoretical Anthropology . 1967, augmented ed., New York: Schocken.

Black, M.B.: 1967. “ An Ethnoscience Investigation of Ojibwa Ontology and World View ”. Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University.

Black, M.B.: 1969a. “Eliciting Folk Taxonomy in Ojibwa”. In Cognitive Anthropology (ed. by S.A. Tyler, New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston ), pp. 165–189.

Black, M.B.: 1969b. “A Note on Gender in Eliciting Ojibwa Semantic Structures”. Anthropological Linguistics , XI: 177–186.

Black, M.B.: 1976. “Semantic Variability in a Northern Ojibwa Community”. Papers in Linguistics , (special issue: Language Use in Canada, ed. by R. Darnell, Edmonton: Linguistic Research, Inc ), I X: 129–157.

Black, M.B.: 1977a. “Ojibwa Taxonomy and Percept Ambiguity”. Ethos , V: 190–118.

Black, M.B.: 1977b. “Ojibwa Power Belief System”. In The Anthropology of Power (ed. by R.D. Fogelson, R.N. Adams, New York: Academic Press ), pp. 141–151.

Boas, F.: 1911. The Mind of Primitive Man . 1938 rev. ed., New York: Macmilïan.

Boas, F.: 1938. “Methods of Research”. In General Anthropology , (ed by F. Boas, Boston: D.C. Heath ), pp. 666–686.

Boas, G.: 1969. Vox Populi: Essays in the History of an Idea» Baltimore : Johns Hopkins Press.

Boehm, C.: 1980. “Exposing the Moral Self in Montenegro: The Use of Natural Definitions to Keep Ethnography Descriptive”. American Ethnologist , VII: 1–26.

Burridge, K.: 1979. Someone, No One: An Essay on Individuality . Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Burton, M., L. Kirk. 1979. “Sex Differences in Masai Cognition of Personality and Social Identity”. American Anthropologist , LXXXI: 841–873.

Caughey, J.L.: 1980. “Personal Identity and Social Organization”. Ethos , VIII: 173–203.

Cohen, A.: 1977. “Symbolic Action and the Structure of the Self”. In Symbols and Sentiments (ed. by I. Lewis, New York: Academic Press ), pp. 117–128.

Crapanzano, V.: 1979. Preface to Do Kamo (see Leenhardt 1947 ).

Crawley, A.E.: 1909. The Idea of the Soul . London: Methuen.

Crocker, J.C.: 1977. “The Mirrored Self: Identity and Ritual Inversion Among Eastern Bororo”. Ethnology , XVI: 129–145.

Crocker, J.C.: 1979. “Selves and Alters Among the Eastern Bororo”. In Dialectical Societies (ed. by D. Maybury-Lewis, Cambridge: Harvard University Press ), pp. 249–300.

DeVos, G., Romanucci-Ross, L.: 1975. Ethnic Identity: Cultural Continuities and Change . Palo Alto: Mayfield Publishing Co.

Dieterlen, G.: 1941. Les Ames des Dogon. Paris: Institut d’Ethnologie (Travaux et mémoires, 40).

Dieterlen, G.: (éd.). 1973. Colloque international sur la notion de personne en Afrique . Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.

Druke, M.A.: 1980. “The Concept of Personhood in Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Iroquois Ethnopersonality”. In Studies on Iroquoian Culture (ed. by N. Bonvillain, Occasional Papers in Northeastern Anthropology, No. 6 ), pp. 59–70.

Dumont, L.: 1965a. “The ‘Individual’ in Two Types of Society”. Contributions to Indian Sociology , 8: 8–61.

Dumont, L.: 1965b. “The Functional Equivalents of the Individual in Caste Society”. Contributions to Indian Sociology , 8: 85–99.

Dumont, L.: 1967. “The Individual as an Impediment to Soci-ological Comparison and Indian History”. In Social and Economic Change (ed. by V.B. Singh, B. Singh, Bombay: Allied Publishers ), pp. 226–248.

Dumont, L.: 1977. From Mandeville to Marx . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dürkheim, E.: (1893). The Division of Labor in Society . 1933 ed. trans, by G.E. Simpson, New York: Macmillan.

Dürkheim, E.: (1912). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life . 1915 ed., trans, by J.W. Swain, 1960 repr., New York: the Free Press.

Dürkheim, E.: (1914). “The Duality of Human Existence”. 1964 repr. in Essays in Sociology and Philosophy , ed. by K. Wolff, trans, by C. Blend, New York: Harper and Row, pp. 325–340.

Erikson, E.H.: 1950. Childhood and Society . New York: Norton.

Erikson, E.H.: 1958. Young Man Luther . New York: Norton.

Erikson, E.H.: 1959. “Identity and the Life Cycle: Selected Papers”. Psychological Issues, New York International Universities Press, I, 1.

Erikson, E.H.: 1968. “Identity, Psychosocial”. In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (New York: Macmillan and Free Press), VII: 61–65.

Evans-Pritchard, E.E.: 1965. Theories of Primitive Religion. London: Oxford University Press.

Evens, T.M.S.: 1977. “The Predication of the Individual in Anthropological Interactionism”. American Anthropologist , LXXIX:579–597.

Fenton, W.N.: 1940. “Masked Medicine Societies of the Iroquois”. Smithsonian Annual Report, Publication 3624: 397–430.

Fogelson, R.D.: 1975. “An Analysis of Cherokee Sorcery and Witchcraft Beliefs and Practices”. In Four Centuries of Southern Indians (ed. by C. Hudson, Athens, Ga.: University of Georgia Press ), pp. 113–131.

Fogelson, R.D., Walker, A.B.: 1980. “Self and Other in Cherokee Booger Masks”. Journal of Cherokee Studies , V: 88–102.

Fogelson, R.D., Walker, A.B.: In press. “The Cherokee Booger Mask Tradition”. In Masks and Masquerades in the Americas (ed. by N.R. Crumrine, Vancouver, B.C: University of British Columbia Press).

Fortes, M.: 1973. “On the Concept of the Person among the Tallensi”. In Colloque international sur le notion de personne en Afrique (see Dieterlen 1973 ), pp. 283–319.

Frank, G.: 1979. “Finding the Common Denominator: A Phe- nomological Critique of Life History Method”. Ethos , VII: 68–94.

Frazer, J.: 1911. Taboo and the Perils of the Soul. London: Macmillan.

Geertz, C.: 1966. “Person, Time and Conduct in Bali: An Essay in Cultural Analysis”. 1973 repr. in The Interpretation of Culture (see above), pp. 360–411.

Geertz, C.: 1973. “Thick Description”. In The Interpretation of Cultures ( New York: Basic Books ), pp. 3–30.

Goffman, E.: 1959. The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

Goldenweiser, A.: 1917. “The Autonomy of the Social”, American Anthropologist , XIX: 447–449.

Goldenweiser, A.: 1933. History, Psychology and Culture. New York: Knopf.

Griaule, M.: 1940. “La Personnalité chez les Dogons (Soudan Francais)”. Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique , XXXVII: 468–475.

Griaule, M.: 1947. “Nouvelles recherches sur la notion de Personne chez les Dogon (Soudan Francais)”. Journal Psychologie de Normale et Pathologique , XL:425–431.

Griaule, M.: (1948). Conversations with Ogotemmeli . 1965 ed., trans, by R. Butler, A. I. Richards, B. Hooke; London: Oxford University Press.

Griaule, M.: 1965. Le Renard pâle. Paris: Institut d’Ethnologie (Travaux et mémoires, 72 ).

Griaule, M., G. Dieterlen. 1954. “The Dogon of the French Sudan”. In African Worlds (ed. by D. Forde, London: Oxford University Press ), pp. 83–110.

Hallowell, A.I.: 1954a. “The Self and Its Behavioral Environment.” 1955 repr. in Culture and Experience ( Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press ), pp. 75–110.

Hallowell, A.I.: 1954b. “Psychology and Anthropology”. 1976 repr. in Contributions to Anthropology ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press ), pp. 163–209.

Hallowell, A.I.: 1955. “The Ojibwa Self and Its Behavioral Environment”. In Culture and Experience (see above)» pp. 172–182.

Hallowell, A.I.: 1960. “Ojibwa Ontology, Behavior, and World View”. 1976 repr. in Contributions to Anthropology (see above), pp. 357–390.

Hallowell, A.I.: 1963a. “Personality, Culture, and Society in Behavioral Evolution”. 1976 repr. in Contributions to Anthropology (see above), pp. 230–310.

Hallowell, A.I.: 1963b. “The Ojibwa World View and Disease”. 1976 repr. in Contributions to Anthropology (see above), pp. 381–448.

Hay, T.: 1966. “The Role of Dreams in Ojibwa Culture”. 1976 repr. in Contributions to Anthropology (see above), pp. 449–474.

Hay, T.: 1968. “ Ojibwa Restraint and the Socialization Process ”. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University.

Hay, T.: 1973. “A Technique of Formalizing and Testing Models of Behavior: Two Models of Ojibwa Restraint”. American Anthropologist , LXXV:708–730.

Hay, T.: 1977. “The Development of Some Aspects of the Ojibwa Self and Its Behavioral Environment”. Ethos , V: 71–89.

Hultkrantz, A.: 1953. Conceptions of the Soul Among North American Indians: A Study in Religious Ethnology. Stockholm: The Ethnographical Museum of Sweden , Monograph Series, 1.

James, W.: 1890. Principles of Psychology . 2 vols. New York: Henry Holt.

Kapferer, B.: 1979. “Mind, Self, and Other in Demonic Illness: The Negation and Reconstruction of Self”. American Ethnologist , VI: 110–133.

Karpf, F.B.: 1932. American Social Psychology: Its Origins, Development and European Background . New York: McGraw-Hill.

Book   Google Scholar  

Kendall, P.M.: 1975. “Biographical Literature”. In Macropaidia, II , (The New Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th ed., Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. )

Kirk, L., Burton, M.L.: 1977. “Meaning and Context: A Study of Contextual Shifts in the Meaning of Masai Personality Descriptors”. American Ethnologist , IV: 734–761.

Krader, L.: 1966. “Person, Ego, Human Spirit in Marcel Mauss: Comments”. Psychoanalytic Review , LIII: 481–490.

Krader, L.: 1967. “Persona et Culture”. Les Etudes philosophiques, November.

Kroeber, A.L.: 1917. “The Superorganic”. American Anthropologist , XIX: 163–213.

Lee, D.: 1945. “Notes on the Conception of Self Among the Wintu Indians”. 1959 repr. in Freedom and Culture ( Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall ), pp. 131–140.

Leenhardt, M.: (1947). Do Kamo: Person and Myth in the Melanesian World . 1979 ed., trans, by B.M. Gulati, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Levi-Straus, C.: 1963. Totemism. Trans , by R. Needham, Boston: Beacon Press.

Levy-Bruhl, L.: (1910). How Natives Think . 1962 ed., trans, by L.A. Clare, London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd.

Levy-Bruhl, L., (1922). Primitive Mentality . 1923 ed., trans, by L.A. Clare, London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd.

Levy-Bruhl, L.: (1927). The “Soul” of the Primitive . 1928 ed., trans, by L.A. Clare, London: George Allen and Unwin, Ltd.

Levy-Bruhl, L.: (1949). The Notebooks on Primitive Mentality . 1975 ed., trans, by P. Riviere, New York: Harper and Row.

Lowie, R.H.: 1917. Culture and Ethnology . New York: Douglas C. McMurtrie.

Lukes, S.: 1973. Individualism . New York: Harper and Row.

Lukes, S.: 1929. Individualism . New York: Harper and Row.

Lukes, S.: 1929. “L1ame, le nom, la personne”. 1968 repr. in Oeuvres, ( Paris: Les Editions de Minuit ), I I: 131–135.

Mauss, M.: 1938. “Une Categorie de 1’esprit humain: la notion de personne celle de fmoif”. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, LVIII: 263–281.

Mauss, M.: 1979 Eng. trans, by B. Brewster, in Sociology and Psychology ( London: Routledge & Kegan Paul ), pp. 57–94.

Mead, G.H.: 1913. “The Social Self”. Journal of Philosophy , X: 374–380.

Mead, G.H.: 1934. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Miller, D.R.: 1963. “The Study of Social Relationships: Situation, Identity, and Social Interaction”. In Psychology: A Study of a Science (ed. by S. Koch, New York: McGraw-Hill ), V: 639–738.

Myers, F.R.: 1979. “Emotions and the Self: A Theory of Personhood and Political Order Among Pintupi Aborigines”. Ethos , VII: 343–370.

Radcliffe-Brown, A.R.: 1922. The Andamen Islanders. 1948 ed., Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press.

Radcliffe-Brown, A.R.: 1940. “On Social Structure”. 1952 repr. in Structure and Function in Primitive Society ( New York: The Free Press ), pp. 108–204.

Radin, P.: 1913. “Personal Reminiscences of a Winnebago Indian”. Journal of American Folklore , XXVI: 293–318.

Radin, P. 1920. “The Autobiography of a Winnebago Indian”. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology , XVI: 381–473.

Radin, P.: 1927. Primitive Man as Philosopher . New York: Appleton and Co.

Read, K.E.: 1954/55. “Morality and the Concept of the Person Among the Gabuku Gama, Eastern Highland, New Guinea”. Oceania , XXV: 233–282.

Ridington, R.T.: 1970. “The Inner Eye of Shamanism and Totemism”. History of Religions , X: 49–61.

Robbins, R.H.: 1973a. “Identity, Culture and Behavior”. In Handbook of Social and Cultural Anthropology (ed. by J.J. Honigmann, Chicago: Rand McNally ), pp. 1199–1222.

Robbins, R.H.: 1973b. “Alcohol and the Identity Struggle: Some Effects of Economic Change on Interpersonal Relations”. American Anthropologist , LXXV:99–122.

Rosaldo, M.Z.: 1980. Knowledge and Passion: Ilongot Notions of Self and Social Life . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sapir, E.: 1917. “Do We Need a Superorganic?”. American Anthropologist , XIX: 441–447.

Sapir, E.: 1938. “Why Cultural Anthropology Needs the Psychiatrist”. 1949 repr. in Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture and Personality (ed. by D.G. Mandelbaum, Berkeley: University of California Press ), pp. 569–577.

Sherif, M.: 1968. “Self Concept”. In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (New York: Macmillan and Free Press), XIV: 150–159.

Singer, M.: 1977. “On the Symbolic and Historic Structure of an American Identity”. Ethos , V: 431–454.

Singer, M. 1980. “Signs of the Self: An Exploration in Semantic Anthropology”. American Anthropologist , LXXXII: 485–507.

Smith, M.W.: 1952. “Different Cultural Concepts of Past, Present and Future: A Study of Ego Extension”. Psychiatry , XV: 395–400.

Soddy, K.: (ed.). 1961. Identity: Mental Health and Value Systems . London: World Health Organization.

Speck, F.G.: 1942. The Tutelo Spirit Adoption Ceremony, Reclothing the Living in the Name of the Dead . Harrisburg: Publication of the Pennsylvania Historical Commission.

Speck, F.G.: 1950. “ Concerning Iconology and the Masking Complex in Eastern North America ”. Philadelphia: University [of Pennsylvania] Museum Bulletin, X V: 6–57.

Straus, A.S.: 1976. “ Being Human in the Cheyenne Way .” Ph.D. dissertation. University of Chicago.

Straus, A.S.: 1977. “Northern Cheyenne Ethnopsyetiology”. Ethos , V: 326–357.

Tylor, E.B.: 1871. Primitive Culture (2 vols.). London: John Murray.

Valentine, C.: 1963. “Man of Anger and Man of Shame: Lakalai Ethnopsychology and Its Implications for Sociopsychological Theory”. Ethnology , 11: 441–77.

Wagner, R.: 1975. The Invention of Culture . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Wallace, A.F.C.: 1961. Culture and Personality . 1970 rev. ed., New York: Random House.

Wallace, A.F.C.: 1967. “Identity Processes in Personality and in Culture”. In Cognition, Personality and Clinical Psychology (ed. by R. Jessor, S. Feshbach,, San Francisco: Jossey Bass ), pp. 62–89.

Wallace, A.F.C., Fogelson, R.D., 1965. “The Identity Struggle”. In Intensive Family Therapy (ed. by I. Boszormeny-Nagy, J.L. Framo, New York: Harper and Row ), pp. 365–406.

Watson, L.C.: 1970. “Self and Ideal in a Guajiro Life History”. Acta Ethnologica et Linguistics , Series Americana 5, Vienna.

Watson, L.C.: 1978. “The Study of Personality and the Study of Individuals: Two Approaches, Two Types of Explanation”. Ethos , VI: 3–21.

White, G.M.: 1978. “Ambiguity and Ambivalence in A1ara Personality Descriptors”. American Ethnologist , V: 334–360.

White, G.M.: 1980. “Social Images and Social Change in a Melanasian Society”. American Ethnologist , VII: 352–370.

Witthoft, J.: 1967. The American Indian as Hunter . Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Chicago, USA

Raymond D. Fogelson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Center for Psychosocial Studies, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Benjamin Lee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1982 Plenum Press, New York

About this chapter

Fogelson, R.D. (1982). Person, Self, and Identity: Some Anthropological Retrospects, Circumspects, and Prospects. In: Lee, B. (eds) Psychosocial Theories of the Self. Path in Psychology . Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-4337-0_5

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-4337-0_5

Publisher Name : Springer, Boston, MA

Print ISBN : 978-1-4684-4339-4

Online ISBN : 978-1-4684-4337-0

eBook Packages : Springer Book Archive

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Researchers
•   OAPEN Home

The Origins of Self

An Anthropological Perspective

Publisher website

Publication date and place, classification.

• Imported or submitted locally

Export search results

The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Differen formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

A logged-in user can export up to 15000 items. If you're not logged in, you can export no more than 500 items.

To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.

Distributed for UCL Press

The Origins of Self

An anthropological perspective.

Martin P. J. Edwardes

248 pages | 5 halftones | 6.14 x 9.21 | © 2019

Free digital open access editions are available to download from UCL Press.

Language and Linguistics: General Language and Linguistics

View all books from UCL Press

• Table of contents
• Author Events
• Related Titles

Table of Contents

Be the first to know.

Get the latest updates on new releases, special offers, and media highlights when you subscribe to our email lists!

Sign up here for updates about the Press

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Sociological and Anthropological Perspective of Self

Related Papers

Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd edition

meeta virmani

The study of self has taken an important position in the recent context. The difference between the 'Non-Western' and the 'Western' self has played its role and we have ended up by putting nomenclatures of individualistic societies to some nations, and collectivistic to others. But is the discussion of self only limited to the notion of individualism and collectivism, and if not, then what are the other implications on the study of self? This paper talks about how self has been talked about in theory, how temporally a shift has happened in the notion of self and the factors that have an impact on the construction of self.

Oxford Handbooks Online

kenneth gergen

The study of self has taken an important position in the recent context. The difference between the ‘Non-Western’ and the ‘Western’ self has played its role and we have ended up by putting nomenclatures of individualistic societies to some nations, and collectivistic to others. But is the discussion of self only limited to the notion of individualism and collectivism, and if not, then what are the other implications on the study of self? This paper talks about how self has been talked about in theory, how temporally a shift has happened in the notion of self and the factors that have an impact on the construction of self.

Vlad Glaveanu

Interrogations about the self are as ancient as humankind and the "who am I?" question seems to have travelled across historical times only to be posed more acutely than ever in our postmodern age. This essay will start by reviewing definitions of the self as well as the main problems psychologists are confronted with when theorizing the self. I will argue, in supporting the vision of the self as being a social structure, that both tendencies to "individualize" and "discursify" fail to acknowledge the intersubjective nature of the self and its genesis within me - other relations. This particular approach will be further developed by connecting the self to the social context of representations, attributions and culture. In the end, the notion of "synergetic self" will be introduced and developed with an emphasis on its dynamic, transformative, emergent and creative dimensions. I will explain how this new standpoint manages to overcome old dichotomies in the psychology of selfhood and to offer a truly social and contextual account of the self. Keywords: self, individualistic approach, discursive approach, intersubjectivity, culture, representations, attributions, synergy.

… face aux menaces du soi et …

Claire Hart

Philosophical Psychology

Tobias Schlicht

Jeffrey B. Holl

This work is an assemblage of the social and the conceptual, the singular and the total into a broad reaching exposition of how beings may be symbolized and signified ontologically to subject-objects. At book length it negotiates an argument for the transcendental without taking leave of the horizons of production and how the represented world appears thereto.

Aishath Nasheeda

Self as Self The word " self " means complete individuality. It can also refer to one's character, one's nature or one's interest. The term concept is an abstract idea which gives meaning to what it represents. Therefore, self-concept is how we define our self, based on the characteristic we know and the values we hold to ourselves. These values and characteristics are linked to various aspects of our self-concept such as self,

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

온라인카지노벌금〃〃ETE333。COM〃〃정통카지노

Mattias Mano

Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing

Clifford Mugnier

IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

Mohammad Basyuni , 宏典 屋

Damian Cipolla

Le demi-siècle de Pierre Restany

Richard Leeman

mauricio naranjo

Sarhad Journal of …

Abdul Hafeez

Ukrainian Journal of Physical Optics

Yevgen Syetov

G.Aishwaryalakshmi PSG PTC

Nida Maura Husnatu Shaliha

Elanor Kamans

Frezy Paputungan

Journal of Documentation

Louise Cooke

Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi

Aulia Rahmawati

Emulations - Revue de sciences sociales

Christophe Premat

Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice

Abbas Shamsalinia

Vision Research

K. Knoblauch

The Annals of "Dunărea de Jos" University of Galaţi

Mihaela Marita

Ravilla Barbosa

FEBS Letters

JOSE GEA NAVARRO

Katja Bächli

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering

Isabel Natario

See More Documents Like This

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

What are the key components of the anthropological perspective?

Anthropology is the study of human commonalities and diversity. It seeks answers to questions about the different ways of being human, the commonalities and differences between societies in different parts of the world, the impact of different lifestyles and how these developed over time. The anthropological perspective includes several key components. These include a holistic approach to understanding human behaviour, an emphasis on cultural relativism, and a commitment to participant observation as a method of data collection.

Table of Contents

Additionally, anthropologists often focus on the ways in which power structures and social inequalities shape human experience, and they may also examine the intersections between biology and culture.

Overall, the anthropological perspective seeks to understand the diversity of human experiences across time and space while also recognizing the interconnectedness of all aspects of human life.

There are three key components of the anthropological perspective – they are comparative or cross-cultural studies, holism and cultural relativism.

Components of the Anthropological Perspective (1) – Comparative or cross-cultural studies

It is not possible to understand human diversity without studying diverse cultures.

An anthropologist approaches the study of different societies with fresh eyes and an open mind. They seek to understand what holds a society together, what makes it function the way it does, and how it has adapted to its environment –

• What holds a society together.
• What makes it function the way it does.
• How the society has adapted to the environment.
• The main modes of communication within the society.
• How the people’s past has shaped their culture.

Only then will an anthropologist be able to trace the impact of different forces on the formation of human culture.

It is also interesting to note that when one views a situation as an “outsider” one is likely to notice things about the society that the society itself is not consciously aware of and which occur simply because that is the way it has “always” been. Anthropologists who are not enculturated can view a society dispassionately. They are able to ask questions that locals never ask. This makes it possible to identify why it is that people do what they do.

Cross-cultural studies are not only important to identify differences. They also enable anthropologists to identify similarities, enabling them to identify universals in being human.

Components of the Anthropological Perspective (2) – Holism

Anthropologists view culture as a complex web of interdependent and interconnected values, beliefs, traditions, and practices that shape the way people live and interact with one another. Each aspect of a society’s culture influences and interacts with other aspects of the same culture. Therefore, it is impossible to understand a culture in isolation or by examining individual elements in a piecemeal manner. This is why an anthropologist must consider all the components of the anthropological perspective.

When an anthropologist attempts to understand a culture, they must take into consideration the whole culture – its history, customs, language, religion, art, politics and economics – as well as the equilibrium between these different parts. This means that all aspects of the culture must be studied together to get a comprehensive understanding of how they work together to create a functioning society.

For example, an anthropologist studying a traditional agricultural community must examine not only the farming techniques used but also the social organization around agriculture including labour division and gender roles. In this way, one can see how farming practices are intertwined with cultural values such as family structure and social hierarchy, in a manner that makes sense in the environmental (for example fertile lands or arid desert) and historical context of the society.

When embarking on an ethnography the anthropologist must take account of each part of the equation or they risk misunderstanding the whole.

Economic Structure

When an anthropologist seeks to understand a culture, they must consider various aspects that influence the way people live and interact with each other. One important aspect is the economics of the culture. This includes examining the mode of production and the relations of production.

The mode of production refers to the way in which goods and services are produced within a society. For example, some societies may rely on subsistence agriculture while others may have industrialized economies with high levels of automation. The mode of production can have profound effects on social organization, power dynamics, and cultural values.

The relations of production refer to the social relationships that exist between people in regards to economic activities such as work and exchange. This includes examining issues such as labour division, property ownership, and access to resources. In some societies, these relationships may be based on kinship ties or communal ownership while in others they may be more individualistic or based on market relationships.

By understanding the economics of a culture, anthropologists gain an understanding of how people make a living, what resources are valued by society, and how wealth is distributed among different groups. They can also better understand how economic activities intersect with other aspects of culture such as religion, politics, and gender roles.

Kinship System

Another important aspect for consideration is the kinship system, which includes the system of descent , marriage practices, and living arrangements after marriage .

The system of descent refers to how people trace their ancestry and inheritance through their family tree. There are several different forms of descent systems such as patrilineal, matrilineal, and bilateral . These systems can have significant impacts on issues such as inheritance rights, social status, and gender roles .

Marriage practices also vary widely across cultures. Some societies practice arranged marriages while others allow individuals to choose their own partners. The rules around who can marry whom depend on factors such as age, social status, religion or ethnicity. Marriage practices may also have an impact on issues such as property ownership and inheritance.

Living arrangements after marriage can also vary widely across cultures . In some societies, newlyweds move in with one spouse’s family while in others they may establish their own household. The living arrangements of married couples can have an impact on issues such as gender roles within the family unit and the relationships between different generations.

By understanding the kinship system of a culture, anthropologists can gain insight into how families are organized and how social relationships are established within a society. They can also better understand how these relationships intersect with other aspects of culture such as religion, politics, and economics.

Religion, Beliefs and Rituals

Religion can be an important part of a culture’s identity and can shape many aspects of daily life. Different cultures may have different religious beliefs or practices, ranging from monotheistic religions such as Christianity or Islam to polytheistic religions such as Hinduism or Shintoism. Religion can also have an impact on issues such as gender roles, social hierarchy, and political power.

Beliefs are another important aspect of culture that anthropologists must consider. These beliefs may include ideas about the nature of reality, morality, and the afterlife. Beliefs shape how people view themselves and their place in society. They can also influence how people make decisions about issues such as health care or education.

Rituals are formalized behaviors that are typically associated with religious or cultural practices. Rituals may include things like prayer, meditation, or sacrifice. They often serve to reinforce social norms and values within a society while also providing individuals with a sense of community and belonging.

By understanding the religion, beliefs, and rituals of a culture, anthropologists can gain insight into how people understand their place in the world and how they relate to others within their society. They can also better understand how these beliefs intersect with other aspects of culture such as politics, economics, and gender roles.

Politics and Power

Politics refers to how a society is organized and who has power within that society. Different societies have different forms of government such as democracy , monarchy, or dictatorship. The balance of power between different groups within a society can also vary widely. Some societies may be hierarchically organized with clear social classes while others may be more egalitarian.

Understanding the political system of a culture can provide insights into issues such as social inequality, conflict resolution, and decision-making processes.

Anthropologists must also consider how political power is obtained and maintained within a society. This can include factors such as wealth, education, or military force.

Gender roles are another important aspect of culture that anthropologists must consider. These roles refer to the behaviours and expectations associated with being male or female in a given society. Gender roles can vary widely across cultures and may influence many aspects of daily life including work, family life, and social interactions. Understanding gender relations within a culture can provide insights into issues such as reproductive rights, violence against women, and access to education or employment opportunities.

Components of the Anthropological Perspective (3) – Cultural Relativism

This concept refers to the idea that when studying a different culture, an anthropologist must suspend their own cultural biases and avoid making value judgments about the beliefs and practices of the people they are studying.

Anthropologists recognize that every culture has its own unique set of values, beliefs, and practices that are shaped by historical, social, and environmental factors. These cultural differences can be difficult for outsiders to understand or accept, but it is important for anthropologists to approach other cultures with an open mind and without imposing their own cultural values on what they observe.

For example, an anthropologist studying a traditional society where arranged marriages are common may initially find this practice strange or even objectionable, based on their own cultural upbringing. However, in order to gain a deeper understanding of why arranged marriages are practiced in this society, the anthropologist must set aside their personal biases and seek to understand how this practice fits into the larger cultural context.

Cultural relativism does not mean that all cultural practices are equally valid or morally acceptable. Rather, it acknowledges that different cultures have different ways of understanding and interacting with the world around them. By approaching other cultures with an open mind and without preconceived notions or judgments, anthropologists can gain a deeper understanding of these differences while also recognizing universal human experiences such as love, loss, joy and pain.

In summary, cultural relativism is an essential component of the anthropological perspective. It requires anthropologists to approach other cultures with humility and respect while recognizing that every culture has its own unique set of values and beliefs shaped by historical, social and environmental factors. By embracing this perspective, anthropologists can gain deeper insights into what makes each culture unique while also recognizing shared human experiences across cultures.

Conclusion – The Importance of Considering all the Components of the Anthropological Perspective

The components of the anthropological perspective are crucial for understanding a culture in its entirety. Without taking these factors into consideration, an anthropologist’s understanding of a culture would be incomplete and may lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations.

Firstly, studying the politics and power dynamics within a society is important because it provides insights into how decisions are made and who holds influence over different aspects of daily life. This knowledge can help anthropologists understand issues such as social inequality, conflict resolution, and decision-making processes. By understanding the political system of a culture, an anthropologist can gain a deeper understanding of its structure and function.

Secondly, examining gender roles is important because it helps to shed light on how men and women interact with each other in different societies. Understanding gender relations within a culture provides insights into issues such as reproductive rights, violence against women, and access to education or employment opportunities. This knowledge can help anthropologists better understand how gender identity shapes individuals’ lives in different ways.

Finally, cultural relativism is essential for gaining an accurate understanding of another culture. It requires anthropologists to approach other cultures with humility and respect while recognizing that every culture has its own unique set of values and beliefs shaped by historical, social, and environmental factors. By embracing this perspective, anthropologists can avoid imposing their own cultural biases on their observations and instead seek to understand the beliefs and practices of the people they are studying on their own terms.

Overall, these three components of the anthropological perspective work together to provide a holistic view of a given culture. By keeping these components in mind when studying a culture, an anthropologist can gain a more complete picture of that society’s history, traditions, beliefs, practices and way of life over time.

For Further Reading

“Cultural values are a web of linked concepts, fixed in time and space.”

Evans-Pritchard and the Religion of the Nuer Tribe

How do economic and residence practices impact women’s status and power?

What are the different marriage wealth-exchange practices?

Claude Lévi-Strauss’s Structuralism and its Influence on Anthropological Thought

Clifford Geertz and the Thick Description of the Balinese Cockfight

Bronislaw Malinowski, the Trobriand people and the Kula

Why did Marxist ideas only start being applied in Anthropology in the last half century, and what are some of the key ideas that influence Materialistic Anthropology?

Dance as Ritual – an anthropological perspective

How Residence Customs After Marriage Vary Around the World

Compare the operations and implications of Bridewealth and Dowry

The impact of Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ARTs) on Anthropology

“The two-gender system is neither innate nor universal” (Towle and Morgan 2006)

Tradition and Modernity

The 4 Main Branches of Anthropology – Unlocking the Secrets of Human Diversity

Anthropology vs Sociology – Which Lens to Use When Studying Humanity?

Disclosure:  Please note that some of the links in this post are affiliate links. When you use one of  my affiliate links , the company compensates me. At no additional cost to you, I’ll earn a commission, which helps me run this blog and keep my in-depth content free of charge for all my readers.

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

(Stanford users can avoid this Captcha by logging in.)

• Send to text email RefWorks EndNote printer

Anthropology of the self : the individual in cultural perspective

Available online, at the library.

Green Library

More options.

• Find it at other libraries via WorldCat
• Contributors

Description

Creators/contributors, contents/summary.

• 1. Introduction
• 2. Greek Philosophy and Concepts of the Psyche
• 3. Buddhism and the Doctrine of the No-Soul (Anatta)
• 4. The Hindu Conception of the Self
• 5. Taoism, Confucianism and the Chinese Self
• 6. African Philosophy and Conceptions of the Self
• 7. People as Social Beings: Conceptions of the Self in Oceania
• 8. Feminist Philosophy and the Theory of the Self.
• (source: Nielsen Book Data)

Bibliographic information

Browse related items.

• Stanford Home
• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Emergency Info
• Terms of Use
• Non-Discrimination
• Accessibility

© Stanford University , Stanford , California 94305 .

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature

Anthropology

• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History
• Atlantic History
• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Personhood

Introduction, introductory works.

• Personhood and Society
• Dividuality
• Individuality and Western Personhood
• Rethinking the Dividuality/Individuality Rift
• Regulation and Agency
• Place and Migration
• Personhood and the Body
• Ethnopsychology and Emotions
• Nature and Animals
• Work, Technology, and Materials
• Anthropological Archaeology

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Multispecies Ethnography

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Anthropology of Corruption
• University Museums
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Psychological and Medical Anthropology: Person & Self

• Home & Introduction
• Beginning Your Research in Psychological and Medical Anthropology
• Search Strategies
• Access to eBooks
• Encyclopedias+
• Reviews of Current Research
• Dissertations and Theses For Content and Templates
• Book Reviews
• Blogs & News
• Introduction
• Overview of the Field
• Person-Centered Ethnography
• Religion & Subjectivity
• Political & Ethical Subjectivity
• Emotion in Self, Society & Culture
• Human Development & Enculturation
• Identity, Agency, Subjectivity in Cultural Worlds
• Psychoanalytic Anthropology
• Theory: The Mind, Self, and Subjectivity in Culture

Person & Self

• Psychiatric Anthropology
• Existential Anthropology & Suffering
• Cognition, Culture & Meaning
• Recommended Supplements
• Ethos (Journal of the Society for Psychological Anthropology) : Notable Issues
• Tools for Writing
• Annotated Bibliographies and Lit Reviews
• Annotated Bibliographies and Literature Reviews
• Pandemics Including COVID 19
• Mental Health
• Images & Films

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, these books are available in the Geisel Library.  A few of the sources are available online--for those which indicate "UCSD only" please follow these instructions when accessing from off-campus.

For a semiotic view of the self, see also V. Colapietro  Peirce’s Approach to the Self: A Semiotic Perspective on Human Subjectivity .  Two contemporaries of Peirce, William James and H.G. Mead, also had views on the self (see Norbert Wiley,  1995 The Semiotic Self ).  

Anthropology’s shifting relationship to the idea of self and person can be framed in terms of the contrast of two classic theorists, A.I Hallowell (“The self and its behavioral environment,” in  his 1955 Culture and experience ) and Marcel Mauss’ 1938 sly essay “The category of the person: the notion of person, the notion of self” reprinted in The Category of the Person: Anthropology, Philosophy, History , M. Carrithers et all, eds.

Bellah, R. (1987), “The quest for the self: individualism, morality, politics,” in Interpretive social science: a second look , P. Rabinow and W. Sullivan, eds., pp. 365-384

Brison, Karn J. (2001), “Crafting sociocentric selves in religious discourse in rural Fiji,” Ethos 29: 453-474.  Online access, UCSD only.

Conklin, B. and L. Morgan (1996), “Babies, bodies, and the production of personhood in North America and a Native Amazonian Society,” Ethos 24(4): 657-694.  Online access, UCSD only.

Csordas, Thomas J. (1994), “Self and person,” in Handbook of psychological anthropology , P. K. Bock (ed.), pp. 331-350

Derné, S. (1992), “Beyond institutional and impulsive conceptions of self: family structure and the socially anchored real self,” Ethos 20: 259-288.  Online access, UCSD only.

Ewing, K. (1990), “The illusion of wholeness: culture, self, and experience of inconsistency,” Ethos 18: 251-278.  Online access, UCSD only.

Ewing, K. (1991), “Can psychoanalytic theories explain the Pakistani woman? Intrapsychic autonomy and interpersonal engagement in the extended family,” Ethos 19: 131-160.  Online access, UCSD only.

Farley, B.P. (1998), “Anxious conformity: anxiety and the sociocentrically-oriented self in a Tlaxcalan community,” Ethos 26: 271-294.  Online access, UCSD only.

Fogelson, R. (1979), “Person, self, and identity: some anthropological retrospects, circumspects, and prospects,” in Psychosocial theories of the self , B. Lee, ed., pp. 67-109

Geertz, Clifford ([1966] 1973), “Person, time, and conduct in Bali,” in The interpretation of cultures .  Online access, UCSD only.  Print copy available in Geisel Library.

Hollan, Douglas (1992), “Cross-cultural differences in the self,” Journal of Anthropological Research 48:283-300.   Online access, UCSD only.  Print copy available in Geisel Library

Holland, Douglas and A. Kipnis (1994), “Metaphors for embarrassment and stories of exposure: the not-so-egocentric self in American Culture,” Ethos 22(3): 316-342.  Online access, UCSD only.

Horton, R. (1961), “Destiny and the Unconscious in West Africa,” Africa 31(2): 110-116.  Online access, UCSD only.

Kray, C.A. (2001), “The Pentecostal re-formation of self: opting for orthodoxy in Yucatán,” Ethos 29: 395-429.  Online access, UCSD only.

Kusserow, A.S. (1999), “De-homogenizing American Individualism: socializing hard and soft individualism in Manhattan and Queens,” Ethos 27: 210-234  9 [see book as well].  Online access, UCSD only.

Lindholm, Charles. (1982), Generosity and Jealousy: the Swat Pukhtun of northern Pakistan .

Lindholm, Charles. (1997), “Does the sociocentric self exist? Reflections on Markus and Kitayama’s ‘Culture and the Self’,” Journal of Anthropological Research 53:405-422.  Online access, UCSD only.

Lynch, O. ed. (1990), Divine passions: the social construction of emotion in India . Online access, open.  Also available in print in Geisel Library.

Mageo, Jeannette (1993), Theorizing self in Samoa: emotions, genders, and sexualities .

McHugh, Ernestine (1989), “Concepts of the person among the Gurungs of Nepal,” American Ethnologist 16: 75-86.  Online access, UCSD only.

Mines, M. (1988), “Conceptualizing the person: hierarchical society and individual autonomy in India,” American Anthropologist 90: 568-579.  Online access, UCSD only.

Murray, D. (1993), “What is the Western concept of the self? On forgetting David Hume,” Ethos 21: 3-23.  Online access, UCSD only.

Neisser, U.(1988), “Five kinds of self-knowledge,” Philosophical Psychology 1: 35-59. 

Parish, Steven M. (1991), “The sacred mind: Newar cultural representations of mental life and the production of moral consciousness,” Ethos 19: 313-351.  Online access, UCSD only.

Paul, R. (1976), “The Sherpa Temple as a model of the psyche,” American Ethnologist 3(1): 131-146.  Online access, UCSD only.

Rosaldo, Michelle Z.. (1980), Knowledge and Passion: Ilongot notions of self and social life .

Rosaldo, Michelle Z.. (1984), “Toward an anthropology of self and feeling” in Culture theory: essays on mind, self, and emotion , R. Shweder and R. LeVine (eds.), pp. 137-157

Shweder, Richard and E. Bourne (1984), “Does the concept of the person vary cross-culturally?” in Culture theory: essays on mind, self, and emotion , R. Shweder and R. LeVine (eds.), pp. 158-199

Shweder, Richard, M. Mahapatra, and J. Miller (1990), “Culture and moral development” in Cultural Psychology: essays on comparative human development , J. Stigler, R. Shweder, and G. Herdt, eds., pp. 130-204

Spiro, Melford E. (1993), “Is the Western conception of self ‘peculiar’ within the context of world cultures?” Ethos 21(2): 107-153. Online access, UCSD only.  

Wallace, A. (1958), “Dreams and the wishes of the soul: a type of psychoanalytic theory among the 17 th -century Iroquois,” American Anthropologist 60(2): 234-248.  Online access, UCSD only.

White, Geoffrey M. and John Kirkpatrick, eds. (1985), Person, self, and experience: exploring Pacific ethnopsychologies .

Wikan, Unni. (1990), Managing turbulent hearts: a Balinese formula for living .

• << Previous: Theory: The Mind, Self, and Subjectivity in Culture
• Next: Psychiatric Anthropology >>
• Last Updated: Mar 15, 2024 9:33 AM
• URL: https://ucsd.libguides.com/anthropology_psychological

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1.2: Anthropological Perspectives

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 56347

Anthropologists across the subfields use unique perspectives to conduct their research. These perspectives make anthropology distinct from related disciplines — like history, sociology, and psychology — that ask similar questions about the past, societies, and human nature. The key anthropological perspectives are holism, relativism, comparison, and fieldwork. There are also both scientific and humanistic tendencies within the discipline that, at times, conflict with one another.

Anthropologists are interested in the whole of humanity, in how various aspects of life interact. One cannot fully appreciate what it means to be human by studying a single aspect of our complex histories, languages, bodies, or societies. By using a holistic approach, anthropologists ask how different aspects of human life influence one another. For example, a cultural anthropologist studying the meaning of marriage in a small village in India might consider local gender norms, existing family networks, laws regarding marriage, religious rules, and economic factors. A biological anthropologist studying monkeys in South America might consider the species’ physical adaptations, foraging patterns, ecological conditions, and interactions with humans in order to answer questions about their social behaviors. By understanding how nonhuman primates behave, we discover more about ourselves (after all, humans are primates)! By using a holistic approach, anthropologists reveal the complexity of biological, social, or cultural phenomena.

Anthropology itself is a holistic discipline, comprised in the United States (and in some other nations) of four major subfields: cultural anthropology, biological anthropology, linguistic anthropology, and archaeology. While anthropologists often specialize in one subfield, their specific research contributes to a broader understanding of the human condition, which is made up of culture, language, biological and social adaptations, as well as human origins and evolution.

Definition: Holism

The study of the whole of the human condition: past, present, and future; biology, society, language, and culture (Kottak, 2012, p. 2).

CULTURAL RELATIVISM

The guiding philosophy of modern anthropology is cultural relativism—the idea that we should seek to understand another person’s beliefs and behaviors from the perspective of their culture rather than our own. Anthropologists do not judge other cultures based on their values nor do they view other ways of doing things as inferior. Instead, anthropologists seek to understand people’s beliefs within the system they have for explaining things.

The opposite of cultural relativism is ethnocentrism, the tendency to view one’s own culture as the most important and correct and as a measuring stick by which to evaluate all other cultures that are largely seen as inferior and morally suspect. As it turns out, many people are ethnocentric to some degree; ethnocentrism is a common human experience. Why do we respond the way we do? Why do we behave the way we do? Why do we believe what we believe? Most people find these kinds of questions difficult to answer. Often the answer is simply “because that is how it is done.” People typically believe that their ways of thinking and acting are “normal”; but, at a more extreme level, some believe their ways are better than others.

Ethnocentrism is not a useful perspective in contexts in which people from different cultural backgrounds come into close contact with one another, as is the case in many cities and communities throughout the world. People increasingly find that they must adopt culturally relativistic perspectives in governing communities and as a guide for their interactions with members of the community. For anthropologists, cultural relativism is especially important. We must set aside our innate ethnocentric views in order to allow cultural relativism to guide our inquiries and interactions such that we can learn from others.

Anthropologists of all the subfields use comparison to learn what humans have in common, how we differ, and how we change. Anthropologists ask questions like: How do chimpanzees differ from humans? How do different languages adapt to new technologies? How do countries respond differently to immigration? In cultural anthropology, we compare ideas, morals, practices, and systems within or between cultures. We might compare the roles of men and women in different societies, or contrast how different religious groups conflict within a given society. Like other disciplines that use comparative approaches, such as sociology or psychology, anthropologists make comparisons between people in a given society. Unlike these other disciplines, anthropologists also compare across societies, and between humans and other primates. In essence, anthropological comparisons span societies, cultures, time, place, and species. It is through comparison that we learn more about the range of possible responses to varying contexts and problems.

Anthropologists conduct their research in the field with the species, civilization, or groups of people they are studying. In cultural anthropology, our fieldwork is referred to as ethnography , which is both the process and result of cultural anthropological research. The Greek term “ethno” refers to people, and “graphy” refers to writing. The ethnographic process involves the research method of participant-observation fieldwork: you participate in people’s lives, while observing them and taking field notes that, along with interviews and surveys, constitute the research data. This research is inductive: based on day-to-day observations, the anthropologist asks increasingly specific questions about the group or about the human condition more broadly. Often times, informants actively participate in the research process, helping the anthropologist ask better questions and understand different perspectives.

The word ethnography also refers to the end result of our fieldwork. Cultural anthropologists do not write “novels,” rather they write ethnographies, descriptive accounts of culture that weave detailed observations with theory. After all, anthropologists are social scientists. While we study a particular culture to learn more about it and to answer specific research questions, we are also exploring fundamental questions about human society, behavior, or experiences.

In the course of conducting fieldwork with human subjects, anthropologists invariably encounter ethical dilemmas: Who might be harmed by conducting or publishing this research? What are the costs and benefits of identifying individuals involved in this study? How should one resolve the competing interests of the funding agency and the community? To address these questions, anthropologists are obligated to follow a professional code of ethics that guides us through ethical considerations in our research. [6]

SCIENTIFIC AND HUMANISTIC APPROACHES

As you may have noticed from the above discussion of the anthropological sub-disciplines, anthropologists are not unified in what they study or how they conduct research. Some sub-disciplines, like biological anthropology and archaeology, use a deductive, scientific approach. Through hypothesis testing, they collect and analyze material data (e.g. bones, tools, seeds, etc.) to answer questions about human origins and evolution. Other subdisciplines, like cultural anthropology and linguistic anthropology, use humanistic and/or inductive approaches to their collection and analysis of nonmaterial data, like observations of everyday life or language in use.

At times, tension has arisen between the scientific subfields and the humanistic ones. For example, in 2010 some cultural anthropologists critiqued the American Anthropological Association’s mission statement, which stated that the discipline’s goal was “to advance anthropology as the science that studies humankind in all its aspects.” [7] These scholars wanted to replace the word “science” with “public understanding.” They argued that some anthropologists do not use the scientific method of inquiry; instead, they rely more on narratives and interpretations of meaning. After much debate, the word “science” remains in the mission statement and, throughout the United States, anthropology is predominantly categorized as a social science.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kottak, Conrad P. Mirror for Humanity: A Concise Introduction to Cultural Anthropology . New York: McGraw-Hill, 2012.

• See the American Anthropological Association’s Code of Ethics: http://ethics.americananthro.org/category/statement/ ↵
• See the American Anthropological Association Statement of Purpose: https://www.americananthro.org/ConnectWithAAA/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=1650 ↵

Adapted From

"Introduction to Anthropology" by Lara Braff, Grossmont College and Katie Nelson, Inver Hills Community College. In Perspectives: An Open Invitation to Cultural Anthropology , 2nd Edition, Society for Anthropology in Community Colleges, 2020, under CC BY-NC 4.0 .

Mental Health is Political! 40% off books until April 14th

On the Blog

Anthropology of the Self

The individual in cultural perspective.

by Brian Morris

Series: Anthropology, Culture and Society

• Author Biography
• Endorsements

Brian Morris is the author of several books on anthropology and natural history including Anthropological Studies of Religion (Cambridge University Press, 1987) and Western Conceptions of the Individual (Berg 1991). He teaches anthropology at Goldsmiths College, University of London.

Read on any device

Privacy Policy & Cookies

We have recently updated our  Privacy Policy . This outlines how and why we collect, store and use your personal data when you use our website.

Like most websites, we use cookies to improve our service and make your user experience better. See our updated Privacy Policy to find out more about cookies and how we use your data.