Cultural Anthropology Term Paper

Cultural Anthropology

Native anthropology" is a set of theories based on non-Western precepts and assumptions in the same sense that modern anthropology is based on and is supported by Western beliefs and values (Jones, 31)

"native anthropologist" differs from an anthropologist who is not native to the society being studied in the following ways. Essentially Anthropologists can be described as either insiders or outsiders.

An "insider" is a person who conducts research on the cultural, racial or ethnic group of which he or she is a member, and an "outsider" conducts research of a native culture from an objective point-of-view. "Insiders" and "outsiders" face different problems.

Anthropology students are generally taught that a person working with his/her own people cannot maintain objectivity and research experiences must be gained from another culture. However, the basic aim of anthropological field research is to describe the total culture of a group of people and it is also felt that this description should be made from the point-of-view of the people - the insider view. For the anthropologist to obtain such a description, he/she must become totally involved in the life of the people, spending much time with them. The logical conclusion from this, as Jones puts forward, is that such a trained "native anthropologist" would produce good, reliable data since he/she is so familiar with the people. (Jones, 32) The insider has easy access to information, is trusted by the people, and is at an obvious advantage. But what Jones also points out is that the outside has advantages of his/her own. The outsider will derive his research questions from the literature on the concept of culture and from "the tendency of anthropologists to speak of a total population in terms of a study of one segment of that population." (Jones, 33) As an outsider you work with people who, because of cultural, language or racial differences, are always aware that you are an outsider, a researcher, and not one of them. (Jones, 36) The insider approach would be quite different. It involves intuition, experience and self-esteem. Current literature, for example, is filled with discussions concerning black self-image, and the conclusion is that blacks have a more negative self-image than whites. There would be automatic defense and resentment at having ones own group described in this manner. (Jones, 33)

"native anthropologist" would also seem far less hostile and he would be viewed as less of a stranger. As an insider, people do not look at you as a researcher, but as a friend. (Jones, 36) Alternatively, a "native anthropologist" could also raise eyebrows, with the culture concerned reacting rather suspiciously with obvious questions such as - is the anthropologist connected with an agency? Does he have a hidden agenda? All these factors come into play when taking into account the advantages and disadvantages of a native anthropologist, as do facial expressions, hand movements, body movements, and tone of voice when conducting research. (Jones, 34) A native researcher would need to explain what he was doing. Most people in urban black communities know what research is and are familiar with it, and many feel (according to Jones) that research among black people by a black social scientist was a very good thing because reports written by whites cannot reflect an understanding of black people. (Jones, 35).

A common problem facing anthropologists is whether or not to withhold data and many have withheld information gathered in Third World countries in the fear that this would displease the host country and risk their chances of returning.

In the final analysis, neither an outsider nor an insider has any distinct advantages, and problems arise with both. "One vantage point cannot be said to be better than the other." (Jones, 37) Each methodology and approach however can be said to be different and both have…