Relationship between anthropology and politics

Political anthropology - Wikipedia

relationship between anthropology and politics

Her interests include the study of politics, multispecies (or multientity) In all these areas her central concern is the relationship between. In others, divination is employed to discover the sources of conflict and aggression between people. Political anthropology examines and compares these diverse systems of an interest group of the American Anthropological Association. What is the relationship between psychology and other social science with sociology, anthropology, political science, economic and mass communication?.

Morgan and Sir Henry Maine tried to trace the evolution of human society from 'primitive' or 'savage' societies to more 'advanced' ones. These early approaches were ethnocentric, speculative, and often racist. Nevertheless, they laid the basis for political anthropology by undertaking a modern study inspired by modern science, and in particular Darwin.

In a move that would be influential for future anthropology, they focused on kinship as the key to understanding political organization, and emphasized the role of the 'gens' or lineage as an object of study. They rejected the speculative historical reconstruction of earlier authors and argued that "a scientific study of political institutions must be inductive and comparative and aim solely at establishing and explaining the uniformities found among them and their interdependencies with other features of social organization".

The contributors of this book were influenced by Radcliffe-Brown and structural functionalism. As a result, they assumed that all societies were well-defined entities which sought to maintain their equilibrium and social order. Although the authors recognized that "Most of these societies have been conquered or have submitted to European rule from fear of invasion.

relationship between anthropology and politics

They would not acquiesce in it if the threat of force were withdrawn; and this fact determines the part now played in their political life by European administration" [3] the authors in the volume tended in practice to examine African political systems in terms of their own internal structures, and ignored the broader historical and political context of colonialism. Several authors reacted to this early work.

relationship between anthropology and politics

In his work Political Systems of Highland Burma Edmund Leach argued that it was necessary to understand how societies changed through time rather than remaining static and in equilibrium. Gluckman focused on social process and an analysis of structures and systems based on their relative stability. In his view, conflict maintained the stability of political systems through the establishment and re-establishment of crosscutting ties among social actors.

Gluckman even suggested that a certain degree of conflict was necessary to uphold society, and that conflict was constitutive of social and political order. By the s this transition work developed into a full-fledged subdiscipline which was canonized in volumes such as Political Anthropology edited by Victor Turner and Marc Swartz.

By the late s, political anthropology was a flourishing subfield: There, authors such as Morton FriedElman Serviceand Eleanor Leacock took a Marxist approach and sought to understand the origins and development of inequality in human society.

Marx and Engels had drawn on the ethnographic work of Morgan, and these authors now extended that tradition.

BERGHAHN BOOKS : Anthropology And Political Science: A Convergent Approach

In particular, they were interested in the evolution of social systems over time. It was a meaningful development as anthropologists started to work in situations where the colonial system was dismantling. The focus on conflict and social reproduction was carried over into Marxist approaches that came to dominate French political anthropology from the s. Interest in anthropology grew in the s. A session on anthropology was organized at the Ninth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences inthe proceedings of which were eventually published in as Political Anthropology: The State of the Art.

A newsletter was created shortly thereafter, which developed over time into the journal PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review. Anthropology as a discipline concerned with states and their institutions[ edit ] While for a whole century to roughly political anthropology developed as a discipline concerned primarily with politics in stateless societies, a new development started from the s, and is still unfolding: The s also witnessed the emergence of Europe as a category of anthropological investigation.

The turn toward the study of complex society made anthropology inherently more political. In his current research project, he uses legends of a subterranean being to explore the concealed ways people engage with the local landscape on the Danish island of Bornholm. He is author of Not Quite Shamans: An Anthropological Exposition with Martin Holbraad, He is also coeditor of Comparative Relativism and Times of Security: Ethnographies of Fear, Protest, and the Futureas well as the book series Ethnography, Theory, Experimentwhich is published by Berghahn Books.

Her key research area is political and environmental activism, in both Northern Europe and the Amazon Basin. When not sitting in or thinking like a tree, she is theoretically concerned with human-tree relationships, climate change, and the forms of politics emerging from human engagements with their environment.

  • More-than-Human Politics
  • Email Newsletters

She holds a PhD from the University of Copenhagen, and while producing this podcast she was employed there as a postdoc. Her research focuses on human—environment relations, with a special focus on the intersections of knowledge, expertise, and politics. Her doctoral research was on water and urban ecology in Arequipa, Peru, and her postdoctoral research examined human societies and living resources in northwest Greenland.

Photo by Astrid O. Interview with Guest Producers AnthroPod: What inspired you to produce this AnthroPod episode on more-than-human politics? How does it connect to your research?

Political anthropology

The inspiration for the podcast came from a workshop that I organized with my colleague Astrid O. In recent years I have conducted fieldwork in the Ecuadorian Amazon and on environmental activism in Germany, with a distinct attention to the forms of politics that emerge from human interaction with trees. What has struck me is how trees are mobilized in across very different political projects in our current era and in ways that are unlike previous symbolic mobilizations of trees, in German nationalism for example.

By bringing together an amazing group of people, including students doing their first fieldwork on the topic, we wanted to engage in dialogue across partially connected worlds on the various redefinitions of politics that an attention to nonhuman beings might offer. In the workshop we wanted to address these themes, while centering the discussion on ethnographic work and analyses in their becoming, rather than dealing with finished papers and polished arguments.

We thought that it would be valuable for a wider audience of students and others to get insight into the way anthropological knowledge production is done in practice, through such workshops. That is why we decided to produce an AnthroPod episode based on the workshop.

In my work on water politics in Peru and on human—animal—environment relations in northwest Greenland, different beings and configurations articulate forms that are hard to grasp, categorize, or qualify as either political, social, technical, or religious.

Where do you hope that your research takes you? Where do you think research on more-than-human politics might go in the future?