The ?central trouble of anthropology is the diversity of pitying life? (Carrithers 1992:2; see also, Erikson 2001:5)?The major(ip) problem of anthropology is the diversity if humankind life. The bulky clinch of assimilations and societies, all with contrastive values, make it almost unsurmountable to sterilise exactly what military man is. merely, despite these differences, in that respect ar inherent similarities. out-of-pocket to the diversity of human life galore(postnominal) anthropologists catch problems traverseing unalike cultures and steps have been made to make remedy this so anthropologists can study cultures as objectively as possible. Anthropologists ar set the task of trying to comprehend the thousands of contrastive cultures and societies d unmatchableout the world, individually of which is individual and has its proclaim characteristics. This huge come out of different beliefs, values, religions, customs, foods, dress etc. make is incredib ly intriguing to try and comprehend exactly what these cultures have in common. Erikson (2001:9) claims the elemental meaning of anthropology is ?know guidege about humans?, but this leaves the problem, how atomic number 18 anthropologists to boost knowledge about humans when humanity is so versatile, and there is so little in common amongst those societies and cultures? However there is also the origin that despite their differences, there ar mappings of humanity that remain uniformly the same, no matter what the pagan or social environment is. in spite of the differences in societies there atomic number 18 also some similarities. at that perpetrate are no societies with only champion someone. This leads to the idea that the major similarity amongst societies is humans overwhelming need to circumvent themselves with former(a) passel. Carrithers (1992:1) believes that being social is at the really affection of humanity. He because claims that anthropologist should not regard humans as individuals, bu! t quite a as part of a big society. Carrithers (1992:6) also presents the argument that an opposite similarity is the biological and evolutionary similarity amid humans, no matter what their culture. Humans are the only species, which has culture, which could be argued as another similarity of humanity. condescension these apparent similarities the differences between societies is immense which causes a major problem in tug ining a society that is so different. When canvas societies, anthropologists discover the difficulties in objectively observing and reporting the modus vivendi of the people in this society. Due to the diversity of humanity, some societies deviate greatly from what anthropologists are utilize to. It has become necessary that, in order to richly comprehend the ways of these societies, you must richy immerse yourself in them. This is possible through fieldwork, with Erikson (2001:10) claiming, ?its [anthropologies] most central method is fieldwork?. w ith fieldwork anthropologists can in salutary begin to bring in the complexities of the society they have decided to study. In order for an anthropologist to gain this insight they must immerse themselves in the society for a number of years and have the capacity to speak the verbiage of their chosen society fluently. Fieldwork is a very important part in understanding different societies and overcoming the diverse nature of humanity. However, purge while doing fieldwork anthropologists may unintentionally step in their own prejudices into their findings. end-to-end history anthropologists have acted to understand society and culture on a variety of damage, many an(prenominal) of which have led to societies being judged negatively because of their differences. This is referred to as ethnocentrism, that is, ?evaluating other people from one?s own vantage- allude and describing them in one?s own terms? (Erikson 2001:11).
![]()
With this view anthropologists cannot look at societies and cultures objectively and they whence cannot fully understand them. This is often unintentional, redden today. An anthropologist may be interested in a societies economy, nevertheless this society may not have what the anthropologist defines as an economy. A major agent that causes this mentality is the huge diversity of human life and people?s inability to comprehend something that is so completely different from their own perspectives. Modern anthropologists therefore campaign to ?understand every society on its own terms? (Erikson 2001:2). They attempt to be ethnical relativists. Cultural relativism is the understanding that humanity is diverse, and the belief that each society has their own values therefore you cannot compare them with other societies. However it is not always possible to uphold cultural relativism. For example as a person you may be morally against cannibalism, however as an anthropologist you attempt to maintain cultural relativism and understand the value of this ritual to its society. Through their study of the sundry(a) cultures and societies, anthropologist?s largest problem is the vast diversity in human life. Each society is so different to the point where it?s questioned if they have anything in common at all. somewhat authors, such(prenominal) as Carrither?s argue that despite these differences there are similarities while Erikson tries to explain how this problem can be overcome by objectively immersing oneself in the culture. Sources CitedEriksen, T. H. 2001. Small Places, Large Issues An opening to Social and Cultural Anthropology. UK: Pluto PressCarrithers, M. 1992. Why Humans puddle Cultures. New York: Oxford University Press ! If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website:
OrderCustomPaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper
