Relationship between Anthropology and Sociology

Anthropology and sociology rely on social life and cultural research to fully comprehend the causes and effects of human behavior. The study of sociology and anthropology focuses on the traditional cultures of both Western and non-Western civilisations, as well as the modern, industrial society. They investigate the effect of social institutions, including religion, family, and education, on people’s attitudes, actions, and chances of living happy lives. They also focus on the effect of culture on social structures, including families, organizations, and communities.

Approaches of Sociology and anthropology

Sociology and anthropology employ both scientific and humanistic approaches to examine society. Researchers in the fields of sociology and anthropology study a broad variety of topics and draw on many theoretical stances, including those related to culture, socialization, deviance, inequality, health and sickness, family structures, social change, and connections between races and ethnic groups.

Segmental thinking still exists in academic circles when curricula are being made. Many people fail to recognize the fact that the universe in which we live is a unified whole and the various disciplines are merely different approaches to this totality. There is even doubt concerning the close relationship between cultural anthropology and sociology. A recent article brings out the fact that the relationship is not entirely understood by some of the specialists in these two fields.’ The purpose of this discussion is to compare the phenomena throughout these two fields of study. An analysis of the phenomena in these two disciplines reveals unity throughout-biologically, culturally, and from the standpoint of human nature. The phenomena are identical in a broad connotative sense. They vary only as differentiations in the same category. In each of the three realms of the existence of all people-the biological, the cultural, and the human nature-the phenomena had a common origin and were produced in the same way. In each area there is a universal common denominator of interactive factors as the analysis will show. Furthermore, the same scientific laws are equally valid and the research methods in each of these three aspects of life can be universally the same. Any law or unifying principle established either by a sociologist or by an anthropologist would have universal application 

Biological Unity  in Anthropology and sociology 

People studied by the anthropologist belong to the same genus and species as those studied by the sociologist. They were produced in the biological process in the same way, through the interaction of the two parent cells, the sperm cell of the male and the ovum of the female. The individuals of all groups can freely interbreed and produce fertile children. Fertile children have been produced through the mating of the most extreme types of whites and Negroes. Had they not belonged to the same species, sterility in the offspring would have resulted. Modern science has revealed the fact that all human blood is the same whether it comes from the “purest Aryan” or from the African pygmy.

There are four blood types found among all human divisions. Blood plasma, no matter what may be its origin, can be used to save the life of any person. The differences between groups in the world are found in nonessentials-pigmentation, hair texture, and other external characteristics. Throughout this species, there is an organic heritage that is truly common. Undefined, dynamic, organic processes possess the same human potentialities. These are random vocalization; undefined intellectual and emotional processes; undefined hunger, sex and thirst processes; and the undefined processes connected with the senses.

The random vocalizations of any newborn can become any language; the intellectual and emotional processes lend themselves to development in any culture; the sex and thirst processes do not require a particular culture. They can be accommodated by any food-habit system, and they can be accommodated by any culture. Undefined processes connected with the senses of sight, hearing, taste, touch and smell have no quality that demands any specific social heritage in anthropology and sociology.

 The newborn anywhere in the world is an unbiased candidate for human nature that can be developed in any culture. In other words, he is equipped to achieve a life organization in any social milieu. These undefined, organic potentialities for human nature provide a universal common denominator of interactive factors. Laws concerning these potentialities, before they are defined or after they are defined and integrated into a life an organization that would benefit everyone. If the neonates in groups were swapped with the babies in groups that anthropologists saw,

The study of human nature and society by sociologists would not bring about change. Though it would be a cultural problem rather than a biological one, how society perceives color differences would have an effect. Culture has a minor impact on biological potential. They may fit with any culture. Because of its variegated population, which includes African Americans, Native Americans, Chinese, Japanese, Mexicans, and immigrants from every continent in Europe, the United States is a great case study for this topic.

Oneness of Creation Anthropology and sociology 

The four interrelated processes of astronomy, geology, biology, and society generated the universe in which we live. One of these techniques was applied to manufacture everything in the universe. The social process is how all civilizations came to be, even as people altered these four processes and their impacts one of these techniques was applied to manufacture everything in the universe. The social process is how all civilizations came to be, even as people altered these four processes and their impacts. The implications are always the same: society’s structure and human nature. In one example, the changes may be mystical and non-scientific, while in another, they may be more or less scientific.

By studying each culture or aspect of each civilization, one can learn about human nature and society structure. Thus, the basic ingredient that unites all civilizations is composed of these two intertwined components. These two components are always present simultaneously and are similar in all cases from a functional standpoint.

Human nature, which contains attitudes, ideas, interests, needs, ideologies, and more, is the subjective aspect of civilization that works as an all-inclusive common denominator. Social organization covers both aspects inherited from nature and items developed for the development and expression of human nature.Every culture on earth is basically a unique manner in which people interact and how society is developed; it is an individual result of how society runs. All cultures have a similar root in social interaction for their development, preservation, and alteration.

The social process is how humans engage with one another on a cultural level. All human groups, even the most “primitive” individuals, the majority in cultural life, and the source populations for anthropologists and sociologists, are subject to the same scientific principles.

Man’s Universal Nature in Anthropology and sociology 

Every infant in society has the ability to develop into a person. He lacks human nature and is uncontaminated by civilization. Gaining human nature and a world in which to live are difficult for him. This is brought on by a normal process.

By virtue of their experiences, concepts, and points of view, infants learn about the world. The picked item permeates his world, and the attitude gets a life of its own.

In many regards, the phenomenon is akin to human nature once it has been acquired. It integrates cultures, beliefs, hobbies, and other things everywhere. It is done by using the same innate human potentialities as were stated in the paragraph on this page on “biological oneness.” These include actions tied to the senses, mental and emotional processes, behaviors related to hunger, thirst, and sex, as well as meaningless vocalizations. The interaction between these potentialities and other potentialities in social life culminates in human nature. Human nature can only grow in this manner in  anthropology and sociology.

Human nature becomes vital in any coming adjustment when the potential in these two heritages has interacted and been accomplished. As a consequence, each work is imbued with the person’s biological, social, and human essence. He is taking everything in in a way that only he can because no one else will ever have the same experience.

Each person’s social and biological inheritance, human character, and unique experiences are the universal common denominator seen in their connections with others in every culture. They are constantly engaged as he matures through each stage of his human nature and acquires a world to live in. Every person from every culture had at that time evolved into a social, organic, and mental oneness. Only in the context of the four dimensions of his existence that were previously outlined can he be comprehended. As a consequence, there is a unifying framework for assessing everyone while taking into consideration their particular experiences, social and biological histories, and human nature in anthropology and sociology.

These four characteristics are experiences as well as interactive features. Every person has an influence on the structural component of his social legacy. Similarly, his training in organic chemistry. Its interruptions, in particular, are an attitude-based experience. In addition, the individual is continually responding to human nature and his own views.

Ideas, hobbies, and initiatives that try to develop human nature Similar to this, the individual constantly revisits his separate experiences in his imagination, strengthening the attitudes, wants, etc. that he first felt as a result of them. Everyone has the same potential in their nature, regardless of where they reside. Ideas from mental or social psychology that are true in one scenario are also true in another.

Limitation of sociology

Bringing up societal issues while finding significance Sociologist Berger thinks that skepticism is a vital part of social study. This is a critical beginning step if sociology is to be effective.  According to Berger, the objective of sociology is to offer innovative interpretations of conventional facts, question conventional wisdom, and contribute to the corpus of knowledge beyond what can be gathered through empirical inquiry.

So how do we receive the knowledge that sociology aims to provide? How can we transcend beyond the accumulated knowledge of many people’s experiences to extend our grasp of social life? How can we move beyond what is previously known? Sociologist Asplund elaborates on the tiny but important difference between reporting a social occurrence and problematizing the same thing in order to comprehend the art of researching social phenomena. According to me, this assertion is a cornerstone of sociology. One sort of study entails in-depth analyses of particular events in anthropology and sociology. A synopsis of its occurrence and any relevant connections may also be included in descriptions. Asplund makes the argument that such a descriptive analysis is worthless or what we may refer to as a-theoretical without saying that such an analytical framework is erroneous or senseless. Even the most extensive explanation will fall short of conveying the occurrences properly. Even though it will bring us comfort knowing we comprehend the present conditions sufficiently, it won’t have made it clear what it signifies.

In order to regard a phenomenon as anything, an analysis that strives to comprehend its meaning would try out alternative interpretations. A descriptive investigation merely wants one piece of data, while a focus on meaning seeks to grasp the events at a deeper level. The approach for accomplishing this purpose is to build a flexible style of seeing rather than gathering a rising and copious amount of correct and detailed knowledge. To effectively appreciate a social phenomenon, one must be able to embrace a multiplicity of views and explanatory models.

Aspect blindness of Anthropology and Sociology 

“Aspectblindness” is how Asplund refers to the lack of certain talents. Theories are vital because they educate us about a variety of facets of reality, even though we should be cautious that they may not completely match reality. Reality may be perceived via comparison with abstractions. This is the right way to put ideas to use, and this is what “seeing something as something” genuinely entails. Since they are typically not formed on empirical generalizations, interpretations that seek the significance or meaning of a phenomenon do not lend themselves to verifications. Similar to Weber’s ideal-types, these interpretations are exaggerated, although they are nevertheless important as they aid to make a message.

But resolving all the questions about a phenomenon is merely one part in the research process. What Asplund refers to as “greediness” reinforces the argument for prioritizing meaning over presentation. Analyses that depend on descriptions generated from statistical or ethnographic data aren’t always inappropriate in  anthropology and sociology. However, if the technique is concluded with a well-organized presentation of the data’s conclusions, the sociological investigation still falls short. Even though such narratives offer vital information regarding the existence and history of a certain phenomenon, Asplund argues that the sociologist must continue the investigation by asking, “What does this mean? ” The capacity to problematize data—ask questions about the application of the collected data—and the capability to gather data must be balanced (using qualitative or quantitative methods)

Is research on development “pointless” In Anthropology and Sociology ?

What link does this issue have to an examination of the limits of sociology with respect to development studies? Asplund’s warning regarding data gluttony. A lack of social curiosity that lifts the study beyond a straightforward description is especially crucial in the context of development studies research.

It may not be all that weird to suppose that research undertaken in connection with development initiatives is driven by a preconceived purpose. After all, the purpose of these studies is to analyze sustainability, follow current operations, and measure the efficiency of particular activities. But queries that masquerade as “academic research” frequently have aspects in common with project-related inquiries. Studies on development encompass research that is directly relevant to development in praxis as well as expectations that have arisen to underline moral obligations in connection to the issue being researched. These commitments typically prioritize policy and practice recommendations over sociological concerns about the significance of social events.According to Ferguson, the majority of development literature reflects this, with an emphasis on what goes wrong with development initiatives, why it goes wrong, and how it may be remedied.

In his research of the literature on development, he noticed that writers considered development as a large joint effort to create change, and works from this perspective are designed to offer readers a better working environment. Similar phrases like “manageability” and “social engineering” are used by the authors van Ufford, Giri, and Mosse  to characterize the nature of development research and practices. Once again, the impulse to “fix things” takes priority over an interest in grasping the complexity and illogic of social events.

Donations have a big influence in the case of Bangladesh while looking in comparison with  Anthropology and Sociology.

The major purpose of research initiatives is to acquire knowledge for development and policy activities. Research is commonly performed in Bangladeshi literature with the purpose of directly impacting decision-making processes Long-term or scholarly viewpoints are infrequently employed when conducting research, and donor interests dictate the agenda, which is primarily to blame. According to van Schendel and Westergaard, funders are “interested in outcomes that may rapidly be fed into the management of development operations”

The foundation for analysis and empirical study is thus already constructed, and the data collected during investigations is simply added to this already-existing framework. Though terms like gender, livelihoods, the hard core poor, and sustainability are simple to grasp, their utility in research is typically limited to  anthropology and sociology. They don’t allow for a complete and inquisitive assessment; rather, they are appended to an already-existing operating order. According to Sarah White, writings on gender problems that are commonly backed by foreign assistance present facts rather than views. She contends that positivism, rather than a hermeneutic approach designed to comprehend social processes and social change, characterizes development research in general, not simply that associated with gender.

Publication foci in Anthropology and Sociology.

The majority of publications on empowerment and engagement in development concentrate on propagating these ideals. The analysis is based on the ideas that management- and problem-solving approaches are what give analyzes their unique flavor, and that participation can and should be made to work.Although the literature includes sharp and critical evaluations of participation, the criticism is typically emphasized in order to strengthen methods and definitions. These arguments, which strive to define how participation should be employed, have led to books that go into greater depth on the ideas and procedures associated with participatory tactics. In other words, the studies lack a critical viewpoint that will challenge the established wisdom, in this example, that involvement in development would lead to the democratic empowerment of the impoverished, which Berger considers vital to sociology. The studies also demonstrate a predisposition for prolonged explanations and fail to answer Asplund’s critical question, “What does this mean?” with regard to the obtained data.

Although these judgements are illogical and non-theoretical, they still have some utility. However, by disputing what is usually assumed, namely that participation leads to the empowerment of the impoverished and universal democracy, they may become socially relevant. Behind the rhetoric of involvement in development, standard social theories regarding how people should engage in democracy incorporate opposing concepts

These theories investigate, among other things, the issue of encouraging people’s freedom of speech while simultaneously forcing them to accept decisions that may limit their own freedom and opinions held by a majority that are in contrast to their own. Sociologically speaking, it may also be helpful in this situation to understand the social psychology components of group decision-making, which show that fear of exclusion may lead us to accept recommendations that do not align with our own opinions about what is the best solution to a problem.

We may be able to better comprehend the primary issues driving people’s engagement in development by employing alternative theoretical insights gained in other study fields.

They show an underlying complexity that is difficult to address from a managerial perspective. Instead of only concentrating on how they can be handled technically, a focus on their complexity as social phenomena offers a more thorough understanding. much room for analysis. Social skepticism may be applied in this fashion to investigate both common knowledge and our personal beliefs. By studying the facts we already consider to be true, we may better appreciate the core problems surrounding participation and start to view it as more of a social phenomenon than merely a development plan restricted by negative social dynamics or physical limits. Discussions on empowerment and involvement in development NGOs tend to emphasize a variety of attributes

Anthropology and Sociology

Literature often delivers significant perspectives that involve historical information and background details about NGOs. Critical appraisals of the regional, national, and international political and economic conditions in which NGOs operate are equally crucial. These descriptions, regrettably, are confined in that they only boost our ability to perceive obstacles; they do not, nevertheless, improve our capacity to understand them more thoroughly, to use Asplund’s very harsh word once again. The arguments are further complicated by the fact that discussions of development NGOs are based on a certain purpose, one that encourages the involvement of NGOs as partners and implies the fulfillment of the ideal, i.e., NGOs motivated by altruism and committed to solidarity. One example is the emphasis on expanding organizational management, people issues, and financial considerations in order to develop the necessary attitudes, as seen in both the literature and the sheer number of management courses provided to NGOs. 

This is also represented in efforts to identify and differentiate the bad actors from the true and legitimate NGOs, as well as the dependency on external reasons or a lack of introspective analysis as components undermining the actual ideals of NGOs in NGO literature. This provides a venue for conversations that are mostly concerned with generating practical answers to challenges that hinder NGOs from accomplishing their declared purposes and objectives in anthropology and sociology. According to David Lewis, the literature is as follows: Despite being sometimes critical of the existing focus on NGOs, its tone usually recognises and supports NGOs’ capacity to positively impact the development process

Comparing objectives of Anthropology and Sociology.

A sociological research project that is driven by goals or ideological views of how things should be may suffer substantial implications because it runs the danger of neglecting a comprehensive examination of the assumptions that underlie these ideals. The philosophy given is related to the principles and aspects of development NGOs.

 Examining these presumptions entails analyzing compassion’s ethical difficulties. Is altruism real or not? What occurs when conduct is related to moral principles? These studies lead us down a different route than others that are more anchored in reality and concerned with how we may restore the original NGO ethos in a flourishing but unethically troubled sector. social engineer, revolutionary leader, or undercover investigator?

A review of sociology’s contributions would be unsatisfactory without taking into account the fact that there are plainly diverse perspectives on the role that a sociologist should undertake. Since sociology’s origins as a subject of academic study, the question has been under dispute. A sociologist should function as a social architect, an advocate for the weak, and an academic who should be as removed from politics or any other direct endeavor to make social change in society as is practical, according to Durkheim, Marx, and Weber. Berger’s embrace of skepticism as an essential component of sociology reflects his understanding of the function of the sociologist. According to Berger, a sociologist’s major purpose should be to comprehend society. This makes it unlawful to carry out physical chores, including writing 633 words.

Engage in the genuine process of addressing problems. Even though a social worker’s research topic and, for example, a sociologist’s may initially seem to be similar, their respective goals differ because the social worker is attempting to address a societal issue (such as the effects or repercussions of high blood pressure) (for example, the repercussions of high blood pressure or the impacts of high blood pressure) , whereas a sociologist examines social issues (such as the institution of marriage) (such as the institution of marriage). They, therefore, execute diverse duties as a result.

 According to Berger, any objective of retaining true social commitments should be set on hold in favor of making an attempt to conceptualize and explain sociological issues or social realities. Berger agrees with Max Weber’s stance, which is similar, that sociology should not impose its own moral standards on society. Although Weber used the word “value-free,” it doesn’t appear that he is sustaining the concept that the researcher should be unbiased and objective. Instead, I regard Berger’s advice that the researcher adopts a skepticism toward the material and arguments offered to her, take into account her personal preconceptions, and abstains from functioning as a social engineer as being comparable to his demand for a value-free social science. Sociologists are not compelled to suggest solutions to societal difficulties. However, practitioners may very well exploit the material offered by sociology to enhance their understanding of these difficulties before seeking to tackle social concerns.

Methodological Approaches of Anthropology and Sociology.

As a consequence, and quite properly, sociologists have come under attack for their lack of empathy and compassion. As was previously noted, in response to this criticism, new methodological approaches such as action research, ethnomethodology, and emotionalism have been established. This presents the difficulty of how to display empathy and attention to reality and the body of research. Simply asserting that skepticism is a vital component of sociology does not insulate one from a lack of empathy for the subjects of one’s study or a lack of responsibility for the discipline’s purpose of gaining a thorough understanding of social processes. In the realm of social science, “a skeptical attitude” may be interpreted in a variety of different ways. Kuhn anticipated obedience to the game’s rules, such as those directing research design, analysis, and presentation, as well as adherence to certain concepts and theories of the prevailing paradigm

On the other hand, Feyerabend maintained that the rogue scientist was vital to the advancement of science. He finds that “insistence on the norms would not have improved situations; it would have prevented practise” after reviewing historical instances of how new information has been acquired by scientific effort Feyerabend feels that research should be defined by skepticism and questioning of hypotheses and conceptions rather than having a duty to affirm what is already known. According to Asplund, while inventiveness and breaking convention are typically commended in the present academic milieu, it might be tougher to win over the academic community.

Robert Chambers, a well-known social scientist who has contributed to development studies, appears to have a different perspective on this, claiming that social science is fundamentally all about uncovering defects and delivering critical assessments. But it doesn’t seem like the uncertainty Chambers is talking to is the creative and enlivening variety, which is a sign of liberating oneself from constraining norms and duties. Chambers thinks that pessimism has emerged from the acceptance of rural development and development solutions. However, when skepticism is the norm, it may also be misleading as it may serve special objectives related to the researcher’s comfort and advancement at the price of the purposes of science.

Even though the study topics of a sociologist and, for instance, a social worker may initially appear to be similar, their respective aims are different, as the social worker intends to solve a societal issue (for example, the repercussions of high blood pressure or the impacts of high blood pressure).

Issues in Anthropology and Sociology.

Sociologists analyze societal issues, such as the institution of marriage and the prevalence of marriage. As a result, they carry out distinct tasks. According to Berger, the ambition of conceptualizing and analyzing sociological subjects or social realities should begin before any desire to carry out meaningful societal acts. Berger has the same position as Max Weber, that sociology should not impose its own moral principles on society. Weber used the phrase “value-free,” but this does not, in my opinion, indicate that Weber is in favor of the premise that the researcher should be unbiased and neutral. Instead, I relate his plea for a social science devoid of values to Berger’s exhortation to the researcher to adopt a skepticism toward the facts and arguments provided to her, account for her own preconceptions, and stop working as a social engineer. Sociologists are not expected to give solutions to societal concerns. However, practitioners may very well leverage the sociology-produced material to expand their awareness of these constraints before attempting to tackle social issues.

The rationale behind such a position, along with the assertions made by sociology that the knowledge it offers is something more than an understanding and interpretation held by the average citizen, may give the impression that the sociologist is a “self-appointed superior man” with the authority to challenge people’s interpretations of their own lives as well as a “cold manipulator of men” who is disengaged from reality

Therefore, sociologists have justifiably faced significant criticism for their lack of empathy and compassion. As was indicated previously, in response to this criticism, new methodological processes such as action research, ethnomethodology, and emotionalism have been devised. This underscores the subject of how to demonstrate empathy and attentiveness in light of reality and the research thereon.

Simply saying that skepticism is a key component of sociology does not absolve one of responsibility for the discipline’s objective of gaining a thorough understanding of social phenomena or from a lack of empathy for the subjects of one’s study. In the realm of social science, “a skeptical attitude” may be understood in a number of different ways. Kuhn anticipated obedience to specific notions and theories of the prevailing paradigm as well as compliance with the game’s rules, such as those guiding study design, analysis, and presentation

Academic innovation in Anthropology and Sociology.

On the other hand, Feyerabend claimed that the independent researcher is vital to the advancement of knowledge. He reaches the conclusion that “insistence on the standards would not have benefited situations; it would have blocked practise” after analyzing the historical methods by which new information has been obtained via scientific effort

Although innovation and breaking tradition are usually hailed in the contemporary academic atmosphere, Asplund points out that, in reality, it could be harder to attract support from the academic community. Robert Chambers, a famous social scientist who has made contributions to development studies, seems to have a different take on this, claiming that the foundation of social science is issue identification and critical assessment

 But it doesn’t seem that the cynicism Chambers is referring to is the inventive and vivifying kind, which is a sign of emancipation from limits like norms and duties. According to Chambers, skepticism is needed to effectively appreciate rural development and development solutions. But if cynicism becomes the norm, it might also be deceitful since it can favor the convenience and growth of the researcher at the expense of the purposes of science.

Bringing up the literature on participation and empowerment in development once again, as well as these studies offer analysis based on important data, although they are deceptive as they eliminate perspectives that disagree with the mainstream narrative. Skepticism, which is described as flexibility and open-mindedness or as having a skepticism toward expectations and preconceived conceptions, is so lacking.

Advantages of anthropology over sociology

Eric Wolf says that anthropology is a scientific and humanistic area of the humanities. In addition to physical anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, and physical anthropology studies, the majority of university curricula now incorporate cultural or social anthropology courses. Cultural anthropology looks at people’s historical, political, and psychological features to understand how numerous events are connected as well as human nature and how it came to be the way it is.

Some people claim that anthropology is a study of colonialism, that early anthropologists frequently had more authority than the subjects they were investigating, and that the knowledge collected is regarded as a type of theft where the anthropologist gains power at the expense of informants. No matter where it originated, anthropology has grown into a science that is interested in all parts of culture, from the exceptional to the banal, from the study of ancient civilizations to that of current economic systems.

Sometimes, anthropologists are shown as professionals chatting with inhabitants on far-off, exotic islands or as true Indiana Joneses entranced with their mummies. Actually, it is no longer the case. Currently, anthropologists have a range of professions outside of academia, including those in social services, government, and charitable groups. Journalism, finance, commerce, advertising, administration, market research, sales management, and organizational studies are a few of these areas. It has been established that the study of anthropology is no longer relegated to the study of little, isolated civilizations and that anthropological ideas, methodologies, and theories may be applied to comprehend the humanity of modern cultures and global communities. As a result, various other subfields of anthropology—including linguistic, urban, visual, corporate, medical, and forensic anthropology—have emerged over time.

Why do anthropologists have such broad interests? What role does anthropology play in our endeavor to grasp how people interact with one another, their environment, and a certain culture?

In my honest judgment, anthropology has had some success in a variety of sectors owing to its basically scientific approach. The humanities and social sciences offer a strong framework for anthropology, a branch of study that predominantly focuses on qualitative research. Anthropology involves qualitative study and analysis to seek to comprehend culture, whereas the main objective of quantitative research is to quantify.

To identify the value and relevance of objects to the tribes and civilizations for whom they were made, anthropologists study them. They employ a more emic than etic strategy, elevating the researchers’ viewpoints above those of the study participants. To limit any prejudice emanating from their own cultural perspective, anthropologists must ensure neutrality.

Anthropologists also use participant observation and ethnography as alternatives. Instead of merely watching their subjects, anthropologists may obtain a better grasp of how people go about their everyday lives by engaging in their activities. Participant observation has various benefits, one of which is that it supports anthropologists in understanding a community’s activities, people’s thinking, and how and why a civilization runs on a deeper level.

Anthropologists adopt Ethnography

Anthropologists adopt ethnography, which is based on fieldwork, as a way to research and comprehend cultural diversity.

A separate culture, civilization, or tribe is described in ethnography. Spending a year or more connecting with residents in a foreign place, learning about their culture, and participating in their activities is a regular fieldwork requirement. Observers take part in ethnography. They take part in the activities they watch since it helps them better grasp the area’s customs and practices.

In spite of the current global economic crisis, many countries are making efforts to defend their economies. President Bush signed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 in October of the previous year. This Act, commonly referred to as the “Bailout Plan,” allows the US Secretary of the Treasury the ability to spend up to US$700 billion to support the struggling economy. The CEOs of General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler requested $34 billion from Congress on Capitol Hill in December. They stated that the money was important for restoring the auto sector. One of the CEOs claimed that they had learned from previous failures and were striving to make the firm more client-oriented while still keeping an eye on the consumer and market in one of their suggestions to Congress that explained how they would employ loans to return to profitability.

Since anthropological research and methodologies may help academics better understand customers, their consumption habits, and how people utilize goods and services, business is becoming more interested in them. Major consumer goods corporations such as Procter & Gamble, Whirlpool, Volvo, and Electrolux have segmented a range of socioeconomic, ethnic, and racial groupings and offered things mainly to these target categories in an effort to better understand customer behavior. Firm anthropology is a terrific marketing tool, but it can also be used to grasp the corporate culture of a business. With increased knowledge of employee behavior, cognition, and perception in a workplace or factory, enhancing individual performance and creative output may someday be attainable. Examining various peer groups or social groupings may assist with this. Globalization has expanded as a consequence of improvements in technology, communication, and transportation. People in other parts of the world are quickly affected by events in the United States. Conventional boundaries are virtually useless because it is so easy to cross between various zones.

In the current global civilization, we no longer live in rural areas. In actuality, individuals from various countries, ethnic groups, and dialects occasionally congregate in the same spot. Each person has their own traditions, language, cuisine, philosophy, and way of life; a human cannot thrive without culture. The concept of a multicultural and diversified society is confirmed by the fact that this tendency affects almost all groups and even institutions. Culture penetrates a broad array of subjects in today’s global, complicated society and international commerce. Never take culture for granted, as it may tell you a lot about individuals and what motivates them.

Let’s Evaluate between Anthropology and Sociology.

Social scientists and anthropologists observe the same events from distinct perspectives. The two academic fields create functional labor divisions. Anthropology and sociology are both valid labels for the two subjects. The ideas would have the same connotative and denotative meanings if the experts in the two disciplines were concerned with a frame of reference and the universal common denominator in the occurrences under consideration. If one is, then both academic fields must be in the sciences.

A village study taken out among “primitive” people would be equivalent to one carried out in the US. Any other unit could be described in the same way. There will always be research on social structure and human nature.

The Sociology Session with Anthropology

Some sociologists tend to disagree with the inclusion of anthropological information in the foundational sociology course. Actually, it doesn’t matter whose culture the artist is influenced by. The goal of the introductory sociology course is to educate the student with knowledge that will let them comprehend any culture. The universal principles that apply to all social circumstances should be evident.

It should establish a context within which every cultural element may be looked at, comprehended, and promoted. If well done, the introductory sociology course may serve as the foundational course for either sociology or anthropology. For schools that compare diverse civilizations, a considerable amount of anthropological material must be kept.

Further Reading

• Asplund, Johan (1970). Om undran inför samhället. Stockholm: Argos Förlag AB Arvidson, Malin (2003).
•  Demanding Values. Participation, Empowerment and NGOs in Bangladesh. Lund Dissertation in Sociology no 51 (www.soc.lu.se) Bauman, Z. (1990). 
• Thinking Sociologically. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Berger, Peter L. (1966). Invitation to Sociology.
•  A Humanistic Perspective. Middlesex: Penguin Books Chambers, Robert (1983). 
• Whose reality counts? Putting the last first. Essex: Longman, Scientific & Technical
• Chowdhury, A. N. (1990). Let the Grassroots Speak: people’s participation, self-help groups and NGOs in Bangladesh. Dhaka: Dhaka University Press Ltd Cook, B. and U. Kothari (eds.) (2001). 
• Participation – the New Tyranny? London: Zed Books Ferguson, J. (1990). The Anti-Politics Machine. ‘Development’ Depoliticization and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method. London: New Left Books Gubrium , J.F. & J. A. Holstein (1997). 
• The New Language of Qualitative Method. New York: Oxford University Press Kalam, A. (ed.) (1996). Bangladesh: Internal Dynamics and External Linkages. Dhaka: University Press Ltd Kuhn T. (1970). 
• The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press Kramsjö & Wood (1992).
•  Breaking the Chains. Collective action for social justice among the rural poor of Bangladesh. Dhaka: University Press Ltd Lewis, David (ed.) (1999). 
• International Perspectives in Voluntary Action. Reshaping the Third Sector. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd Lewis, David (2002). 
• To Bite the Hands that Feed? Strengthening the future of anthropology and development research in Bangladesh, in Contemporary Anthropology. Theory and Practice, by S. M. Nurul Alam (ed.). Dhaka: University Press Ltd Long, Norman (2001). 
• Development Sociology: Actor Perspectives. London: Routledge Lovell, C. H. (1992). Breaking the Cycle of Poverty.
• The BRAC Strategy. Dhaka: University Press Ltd 
• Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Suggested Articles

• Relationship between Anthropology and Humanities
• Relationship between Anthropology and Sociology
• Relationship between Anthropology and Behavioural Sciences
• Relationship between Anthropology and Earth Sciences
• Relationship between Anthropology and Medical Sciences
• Relationship between Anthropology and Life Sciences
• Relationship between Anthropology and Social Sciences