| Revision as of 09:11, 25 February 2024 edit71.249.148.12 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:50, 10 March 2024 edit undoSnowman304 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,395 edits updated citationsNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|Anthropology as composed of four subfields}} | {{Short description|Anthropology as composed of four subfields}} | ||
| The '''four-field approach''' in ] sees the discipline as composed of the four sub fields of ], ], ], and ] (known jocularly to students as "stones", "tones", "bones", and "thrones"). The approach is conventionally understood as having been developed by ], who developed the discipline of anthropology in the United States.<ref>Anderson |
The '''four-field approach''' in ] sees the discipline as composed of the four sub fields of ], ], ], and ] (known jocularly to students as "stones", "tones", "bones", and "thrones"). The approach is conventionally understood as having been developed by ], who developed the discipline of anthropology in the United States.<ref>{{cite magazine |last=Anderson |first=E. N. |year=2003 |title=Four-Field Anthropology |magazine=Anthropology News |volume=44 |page=3}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |first=Alice Beck |last=Kehoe |year=1998 |title=Humans: An Introduction to Four-Field Anthropology |publisher=Psychology Press |year=1998}}</ref> A 2013 re-assessment of the evidence has indicated that the idea of four-field anthropology has a more complex 19th-century history in Europe and North America.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Hicks|first=Dan|title=Four Field Anthropology: Charter Myths and Time Warps from St. Louis to Oxford|journal=Current Anthropology|date=December 2013|volume=54|issue=6|pages=753–763|jstor=10.1086/673385|doi=10.1086/673385 |doi-access=free}}</ref> It is most likely that the approach was being used simultaneously in different parts of the world, but was not widely discussed until it was being taught at the collegiate level in the United States, Germany, England, and France by 1902.<ref>{{cite thesis |last=Pattison |first=Mary Burneice |title=An Analysis of the Four-Field Approach in Anthropology and its Longevity |publisher=Prescott College |year=2011 |id={{proquest|928949115}} |degree=MA}}</ref> For Boas, the four-field approach was motivated by his ] approach to the study of human behavior, which included | ||
| integrated analytical attention to culture history, material culture, ] and population history, customs and social organization, ], grammar and language use. For most of the 20th century, U.S. anthropology departments housed anthropologists specializing in all of the four branches, but with the increasing professionalization and specialization, elements such as ] and ] came to be regarded largely as separate disciplines. Today, physical anthropologists often collaborate more closely with biology and medicine than with cultural anthropology.<ref>Borofsky |
integrated analytical attention to culture history, material culture, ] and population history, customs and social organization, ], grammar and language use. For most of the 20th century, U.S. anthropology departments housed anthropologists specializing in all of the four branches, but with the increasing professionalization and specialization, elements such as ] and ] came to be regarded largely as separate disciplines. Today, physical anthropologists often collaborate more closely with biology and medicine than with cultural anthropology.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Borofsky |first=R. |year=2002 |title=The Four Subfields: Anthropologists as Mythmakers |journal=American Anthropologist |volume=104 |pages=463–480}}</ref> However, it is widely accepted that a complete four-field analysis is needed in order to accurately and fully explain an anthropological topic. | ||
| The four-field approach is dependent on collaboration. However, collaboration, in any field can get costly. To counter this, the four-field approach is often taught to students as they go through college courses.<ref name=":0">Kelso |
The four-field approach is dependent on collaboration. However, collaboration, in any field can get costly. To counter this, the four-field approach is often taught to students as they go through college courses.<ref name=":0">{{cite magazine |last=Kelso |first=Jack |title=Teaching Anthropology and The Four‐Field Approach |magazine=Anthropology News |volume=44 |issue=8 |year=2003 |pages=24–25}}</ref> By teaching all four disciplines, the anthropological field is able to produce scholars that are knowledgeable of all subfields. However, it is common, and often recommended for an anthropologist to have a specialization. The four-field approach also encourages scholars to look holistically at an artifact, ], data, etc. in almost an omnipotent way. Meaning, having knowledge from all perspectives helps to eliminate bias and/or incorrect assumptions of past and present cultures.<ref name=":0" /> | ||
| ==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 06:50, 10 March 2024
Anthropology as composed of four subfieldsThe four-field approach in anthropology sees the discipline as composed of the four sub fields of Archaeology, Linguistics, Physical Anthropology, and Cultural Anthropology (known jocularly to students as "stones", "tones", "bones", and "thrones"). The approach is conventionally understood as having been developed by Franz Boas, who developed the discipline of anthropology in the United States. A 2013 re-assessment of the evidence has indicated that the idea of four-field anthropology has a more complex 19th-century history in Europe and North America. It is most likely that the approach was being used simultaneously in different parts of the world, but was not widely discussed until it was being taught at the collegiate level in the United States, Germany, England, and France by 1902. For Boas, the four-field approach was motivated by his holistic approach to the study of human behavior, which included integrated analytical attention to culture history, material culture, anatomy and population history, customs and social organization, folklore, grammar and language use. For most of the 20th century, U.S. anthropology departments housed anthropologists specializing in all of the four branches, but with the increasing professionalization and specialization, elements such as linguistics and archaeology came to be regarded largely as separate disciplines. Today, physical anthropologists often collaborate more closely with biology and medicine than with cultural anthropology. However, it is widely accepted that a complete four-field analysis is needed in order to accurately and fully explain an anthropological topic.
The four-field approach is dependent on collaboration. However, collaboration, in any field can get costly. To counter this, the four-field approach is often taught to students as they go through college courses. By teaching all four disciplines, the anthropological field is able to produce scholars that are knowledgeable of all subfields. However, it is common, and often recommended for an anthropologist to have a specialization. The four-field approach also encourages scholars to look holistically at an artifact, ecofact, data, etc. in almost an omnipotent way. Meaning, having knowledge from all perspectives helps to eliminate bias and/or incorrect assumptions of past and present cultures.
References
- Anderson, E. N. (2003). "Four-Field Anthropology". Anthropology News. Vol. 44. p. 3.
- Kehoe, Alice Beck (1998). Humans: An Introduction to Four-Field Anthropology. Psychology Press.
- Hicks, Dan (December 2013). "Four Field Anthropology: Charter Myths and Time Warps from St. Louis to Oxford". Current Anthropology. 54 (6): 753–763. doi:10.1086/673385. JSTOR 10.1086/673385.
- Pattison, Mary Burneice (2011). An Analysis of the Four-Field Approach in Anthropology and its Longevity (MA thesis). Prescott College. ProQuest 928949115.
- Borofsky, R. (2002). "The Four Subfields: Anthropologists as Mythmakers". American Anthropologist. 104: 463–480.
- ^ Kelso, Jack (2003). "Teaching Anthropology and The Four‐Field Approach". Anthropology News. Vol. 44, no. 8. pp. 24–25.
 | This article relating to anthropology is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |