Anthology of Ideas

The four fields in American anthropology are usually classified as physical, cultural (or ethnology), linguistics and archeology.

Cultural Anthropology deals with the aspects of human lives that are learned. It examines the way different groups keep societal control, delegate responsibilities and other such learned behaviors.

Physical Anthropology studies the way humans have evolved over time and how different environmental and cultural influences affected human evolution.

Archeology is the study of things humans have created in the past.

Linguistics is the study of how languages are formed, evolve and how culture and language interact with each other.

The divisions are made this way for three main reasons. The first is obvious in that it is impossible for a single anthropologist to be well versed in all four at the same time.

The movie Baraka shows us that humans are not extremely different, but rather that all humans are and must be thought of as interrelated. The movie explores the many ways that human societies adapt to their surroundings, and in doing so, it also shows us that all human societies adapt in similar ways. Although humans themselves are diverse, their diversity pales in comparison to the diversity of the earth itself. The Earth itself has achieved far more diversity than anything a human can imagine ” even aliens in science fiction are based on animals, insects and fish. The human cultural legacy is minute and our existence is naught but a blink in time. That being said, as we are a creation of the earth we do not owe it anything; because, as its creation, we cannot harm it. Of course humans are capable of destroying all life on the planet, but it would recover eventually, and in doing so continue to create new life.

Sapir and Whorf postulated that grammar and language are part of the mental process, thus they help to shape the way an individual interprets and views the world around them. However, the theory has always been controversial because people tend to see language as a tool created by humans instead of a mold that shapes people. By accepting this theory one must accept that humans do not have complete control over language, allowing a language to die out is as much a loss as any other extinction, and forcing people to adopt a new language forces them to change the way their mind works. If this view is accepted as fact, factors such as the environment would be seen as less important to culture than language. Creating a situation where languages are not just a superficial divide between groups but a concrete difference as much as skin color has been in the past.

Before one can evaluate the theory itself one must first define economics. Therefore, economics — in its most basic sense — can be defined as the procurement of resources. The statement “It All Comes Down to Economics” reflects this basic sense of the term, but in doing so it raises economics from a means-to-an-end to the driving force. It also declares that all human conflicts and connections are based on the procurement and dissemination of resources. However, the human drive for resources, as with all creatures, is based on the need to successfully reproduce. This drive is what economics is based on, therefore while it does all come down to economics a better phrase may be “it all comes down to sex”. Technicalities aside all cultures and communities depend on economics to survive, if you take economics to be the gathering or reduction of resources. However if you consider economics to be trade, then only large societies have a need for economics on any large scale.

I. Introduction and Definitions

Is the human propensity for violence caused by culture or our very instincts? More specifically, does “modern” cultural constructs such as video games cause aggression? The second question is easy to answer, but the first is much harder because the argument of “nature versus nurture” has existed before Darwin and is no closer to being resolved today. Their are three major sides to the debate: the first (represented here by Robert W. Sussman) claims that culture is to blame, the second (Wrangham and Peterson) argues that instinct is solely responsible, and the third (Morrell) claims that humans are subject to their genetic makeup AKA the killer ape ancestor theory; however, all sides assume much. For example, arguing that cultures the basis of human aggression assumes that human instincts and genetic predispositions are not able to influence culture, and blaming instinct for aggression assumes that modern culture has no effect on human behavior, and the genetics argument assumes that there is a gene for aggression — which as of yet none has been found.