Editing Cultural anthropology (section)

==Methods==
Modern cultural anthropology has its origins in, and developed in reaction to, 19th century [[ethnology]], which involves the organized comparison of human societies. Scholars like [[Edward Burnett Tylor|E.B. Tylor]] and [[James Frazer|J.G. Frazer]] in [[England]] worked mostly with materials collected by others—usually missionaries, traders, explorers, or colonial officials—earning them the moniker of "arm-chair anthropologists".

===Participant observation===
{{main|Participant observation}}
Participant observation is one of the principal research methods of cultural anthropology. It relies on the assumption that the best way to understand a group of people is to interact with them closely over a long period of time.<ref name=":4">{{Cite book|title=Social and Cultural Anthropology: A Very Short Introduction|last1=Monaghan|first1=John|last2=Just|first2=Peter|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=2000|isbn=978-0-19-285346-2|location=New York}}</ref> The method originated in the [[field work|field research]] of social anthropologists, especially Bronislaw Malinowski in Britain, the students of [[Franz Boas]] in the United States, and in the later urban research of the [[Chicago school (sociology)|Chicago School of Sociology]]. Historically, the group of people being studied was a small, non-Western society. However, today it may be a specific corporation, a church group, a sports team, or a small town.<ref name=":4" /> There are no restrictions as to what the subject of participant observation can be, as long as the group of people is studied intimately by the observing anthropologist over a long period of time. This allows the anthropologist to develop trusting relationships with the subjects of study and receive an inside perspective on the culture, which helps him or her to give a richer description when writing about the culture later. Observable details (like daily time allotment) and more hidden details (like [[taboo]] behavior) are more easily observed and interpreted over a longer period of time, and researchers can discover discrepancies between what participants say—and often believe—should happen (the [[formal system]]) and what actually does happen, or between different aspects of the formal system; in contrast, a one-time survey of people's answers to a set of questions might be quite consistent, but is less likely to show conflicts between different aspects of the social system or between conscious representations and behavior.<ref name="DeWalt">DeWalt, K. M., DeWalt, B. R., & Wayland, C. B. (1998). "Participant observation." In H. R. Bernard (Ed.), ''Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology.'' pp. 259–99. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.</ref>

Interactions between an [[Ethnography|ethnographer]] and a cultural informant must go both ways.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Doing Cultural Anthropology: Projects for Ethnographic Data Collection|last=Tierney|first=Gerry|publisher=Waveland Press|year=2007|editor-last=Angrosino|editor-first=Michael|location=Prospect Heights, IL|chapter=Becoming a Participant Observer}}</ref> Just as an ethnographer may be naive or curious about a culture, the members of that culture may be curious about the ethnographer. To establish connections that will eventually lead to a better understanding of the cultural context of a situation, an anthropologist must be open to becoming part of the group, and willing to develop meaningful relationships with its members.<ref name=":4" /> One way to do this is to find a small area of common experience between an anthropologist and their subjects, and then to expand from this common ground into the larger area of difference.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Self in Social Inquiry|last=Swick Perry|first=Helen|publisher=Sage Publications|others=Kenwyn Smith|year=1988|editor-last=Berg|editor-first=David|location=Newbury Park, CA|chapter=Using Participant Observation to Construct a Life History}}</ref> Once a single connection has been established, it becomes easier to integrate into the community, and it is more likely that accurate and complete information is being shared with the anthropologist.

Before participant observation can begin, an anthropologist must choose both a location and a focus of study.<ref name=":4" /> This focus may change once the anthropologist is actively observing the chosen group of people, but having an idea of what one wants to study before beginning fieldwork allows an anthropologist to spend time researching background information on their topic. It can also be helpful to know what previous research has been conducted in one's chosen location or on similar topics, and if the participant observation takes place in a location where the spoken language is not one the anthropologist is familiar with, they will usually also learn that language. This allows the anthropologist to become better established in the community. The lack of need for a translator makes communication more direct, and allows the anthropologist to give a richer, more contextualized representation of what they witness. In addition, participant observation often requires permits from governments and research institutions in the area of study, and always needs some form of funding.<ref name=":4" />

The majority of participant observation is based on conversation. This can take the form of casual, friendly dialogue, or can also be a series of more structured interviews. A combination of the two is often used, sometimes along with photography, mapping, artifact collection, and various other methods.<ref name=":4" /> In some cases, ethnographers also turn to structured observation, in which an anthropologist's observations are directed by a specific set of questions they are trying to answer.<ref name=":5">{{Cite book|title=Doing Cultural Anthropology: Projects for Ethnographic Data Collection|last=Price|first=Laurie J.|publisher=Waveland Press|year=2007|editor-last=Angrosino|editor-first=Michael|location=Prospect Heights, IL|chapter=Carrying Out a Structured Observation}}</ref> In the case of structured observation, an observer might be required to record the order of a series of events, or describe a certain part of the surrounding environment.<ref name=":5" /> While the anthropologist still makes an effort to become integrated into the group they are studying, and still participates in the events as they observe, structured observation is more directed and specific than participant observation in general. This helps to standardize the method of study when ethnographic data is being compared across several groups or is needed to fulfill a specific purpose, such as research for a governmental policy decision.

One common criticism of participant observation is its lack of objectivity.<ref name=":4" /> Because each anthropologist has their own background and set of experiences, each individual is likely to interpret the same culture in a different way. Who the ethnographer is has a lot to do with what they will eventually write about a culture, because each researcher is influenced by their own perspective.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Culture and Truth|last=Rosaldo|first=Renato|publisher=Beacon Press|year=1989|location=Boston, MA}}</ref> This is considered a problem especially when anthropologists write in the ethnographic present, a present tense which makes a culture seem stuck in time, and ignores the fact that it may have interacted with other cultures or gradually evolved since the anthropologist made observations.<ref name=":4" /> To avoid this, past ethnographers have advocated for strict training, or for anthropologists working in teams. However, these approaches have not generally been successful, and modern ethnographers often choose to include their personal experiences and possible biases in their writing instead.<ref name=":4" />

Participant observation has also raised ethical questions, since an anthropologist is in control of what they report about a culture. In terms of representation, an anthropologist has greater power than their subjects of study, and this has drawn criticism of participant observation in general.<ref name=":4" /> Additionally, anthropologists have struggled with the effect their presence has on a culture. Simply by being present, a researcher causes changes in a culture, and anthropologists continue to question whether or not it is appropriate to influence the cultures they study, or possible to avoid having influence.<ref name=":4" />

===Ethnography===
{{main|Ethnography}}
In the 20th century, most cultural and social anthropologists turned to the crafting of [[ethnography|ethnographies]]. An ethnography is a piece of writing about a people, at a particular place and time. Typically, the anthropologist lives among people in another society for a period of time, simultaneously [[participant observation|participating in and observing]] the social and cultural life of the group.

Numerous other ethnographic techniques have resulted in ethnographic writing or details being preserved, as cultural anthropologists also curate materials, spend long hours in libraries, churches and schools poring over records, investigate graveyards, and decipher ancient scripts. A typical ethnography will also include information about physical geography, climate and habitat. It is meant to be a holistic piece of writing about the people in question, and today often includes the longest possible timeline of past events that the ethnographer can obtain through primary and secondary research.

[[Bronisław Malinowski]] developed the ethnographic method, and [[Franz Boas]] taught it in the [[United States]]. Boas' students such as [[Alfred L. Kroeber]], [[Ruth Benedict]] and [[Margaret Mead]] drew on his conception of culture and [[cultural relativism]] to develop cultural anthropology in the United States. Simultaneously, Malinowski and [[Alfred Radcliffe-Brown|A.R. Radcliffe Brown]]'s students were developing [[social anthropology]] in the United Kingdom. Whereas cultural anthropology focused on symbols and values, social anthropology focused on social groups and institutions. Today socio-cultural anthropologists attend to all these elements.

In the early 20th century, socio-cultural anthropology developed in different forms in [[Europe]] and in the United States. European "social anthropologists" focused on observed social behaviors and on "social structure", that is, on [[interpersonal relationship|relationships]] among social [[role]]s (for example, husband and wife, or parent and child) and social [[institution]]s (for example, [[anthropology of religion|religion]], [[economic anthropology|economy]], and [[political anthropology|politics]]).

American "cultural anthropologists" focused on the ways people expressed their view of themselves and their world, especially in [[symbol]]ic forms, such as [[art]] and [[Mythology|myths]]. These two approaches frequently converged and generally complemented one another. For example, [[kinship]] and [[leadership]] function both as symbolic systems and as social institutions. Today almost all socio-cultural anthropologists refer to the work of both sets of predecessors and have an equal interest in what people do and in what people say.

===Cross-cultural comparison===
One means by which anthropologists combat ethnocentrism is to engage in the process of cross-cultural comparison. It is important to test so-called "human universals" against the ethnographic record. Monogamy, for example, is frequently touted as a universal human trait, yet comparative study shows that it is not. The [[Human Relations Area Files]], Inc. (HRAF) is a research agency based at [[Yale University]]. Since 1949, its mission has been to encourage and facilitate worldwide [[Cross-cultural studies|comparative studies]] of human culture, society, and behavior in the past and present. The name came from the Institute of Human Relations, an interdisciplinary program/building at Yale at the time. The Institute of Human Relations had sponsored HRAF's precursor, the ''Cross-Cultural Survey'' (see [[George Peter Murdock]]), as part of an effort to develop an integrated science of human behavior and culture. The two eHRAF databases on the Web are expanded and updated annually. ''eHRAF World Cultures'' includes materials on cultures, past and present, and covers nearly 400 cultures.  The second database, ''eHRAF Archaeology'', covers major archaeological traditions and many more sub-traditions and sites around the world.

Comparison across cultures includes the industrialized (or de-industrialized) West. Cultures in the more traditional [[standard cross-cultural sample]] of small-scale societies are:
{| class="wikitable"
! Africa
| {{flatlist}}
* [[Nama people|Nama (Hottentot)]]
* [[!Kung people|Kung (San)]]
* [[Shangaan people|Thonga]]
* [[Lozi people|Lozi]]
* [[Southern Mbundu people|Mbundu]]
* [[Suku people|Suku]]
* [[Bemba people|Bemba]]
* [[Nyakyusa people|Nyakyusa (Ngonde)]]
* [[Hadza people|Hadza]]
* [[Luguru people|Luguru]]
* [[Kikuyu people|Kikuyu]]
* [[Baganda|Ganda]]
* [[Mbuti|Mbuti (Pygmies)]]
* [[Mongo people|Nkundo (Mongo)]]
* Banen
* [[Tiv people|Tiv]]
* [[Igbo people|Igbo]]
* [[Fon people|Fon]]
* [[Ashanti people|Ashanti (Twi)]]
* [[Mende people|Mende]]
* [[Bambara people|Bambara]]
* [[Tallensi]]
* [[Massa language|Massa]]
* [[Azande]]
* [[Otoro Nuba]]
* [[Shilluk people|Shilluk]]
* [[Mao languages|Mao]]
* [[Maasai people|Maasai]]
{{endflatlist}}
|-
! {{nowrap|Circum-Mediterranean}}
| {{flatlist}}
* [[Wolof people|Wolof]]
* [[Songhai people|Songhai]]
* [[Wodaabe|Wodaabe Fulani]]
* [[Hausa people|Hausa]]
* [[Fur people|Fur]]
* [[Kingdom of Kaffa|Kaffa]]
* [[Konso people|Konso]]
* [[Somali people|Somali]]
* [[Amhara people|Amhara]]
* [[Bilen people|Bogo]]
* [[Nubians|Kenuzi Nubian]]
* [[Teda people|Teda]]
* [[Tuareg people|Tuareg]]
* [[Riffian people|Riffians]]
* [[Fellah|Egyptians (Fellah)]]
* [[Hebrews]]
* [[Babylonia]]ns
* [[Bedouin|Rwala Bedouin]]
* [[Turkish people|Turks]]
* [[Ghegs|Gheg (Albanians)]]
* [[Ancient Rome|Romans]]
* [[Basque people|Basques]]
* [[Irish people|Irish]]
* [[Sami people|Sami (Lapps)]]
* [[Russians]]
* [[Abkhaz people|Abkhaz]]
* [[Armenians]]
* [[Kurdish people|Kurd]]
{{endflatlist}}
|-
! East Eurasia
| {{flatlist}}
* [[Nenets people|Yurak (Samoyed)]]
* [[Basseri]]
* [[Punjabi people|West Punjabi]]
* [[Gondi people|Gond]]
* [[Toda people|Toda]]
* [[Santals|Santal]]
* [[Uttar Pradesh]]
* [[Burusho people|Burusho]]
* [[Kazakhs|Kazak]]
* [[Khalkha|Khalka Mongols]]
* [[Yi people|Lolo]]
* [[Lepcha people|Lepcha]]
* [[Garo (tribe)|Garo]]
* [[Hajong people|Hajong]]
* [[Mara people|Lakher]]
* [[Bamar|Burmese]]
* [[List of ethnic groups in Laos|Lamet]]
* [[Vietnamese people|Vietnamese]]
* [[List of ethnic groups in Vietnam|Rhade]]
* [[Khmer people|Khmer]]
* [[Thai people|Siamese]]
* [[Semang]]
* [[Nicobarese languages|Nicobarese]]
* [[Andamanese]]
* [[Vedda people|Vedda]]
* [[Malagasy people|Tanala]]
* [[Negeri Sembilan]]
* [[Atayal people|Atayal]]
* [[Han Chinese|Chinese]]
* [[Manchu]]
* [[Koreans]]
* [[Japanese people|Japanese]]
* [[Ainu people|Ainu]]
* [[Nivkhs|Gilyak]]
* [[Yukaghir]]
* [[Chukchi people|Chukchi]]
{{endflatlist}}
|-
! Insular Pacific
| {{flatlist}}
* [[Javanese people|Javanese (Miao)]]
* [[Balinese people|Balinese]]
* [[Iban people|Iban]]
* [[Badjau]]
* [[Toraja]]
* [[Tobelo language|Tobelorese]]
* [[Alor Archipelago|Alorese]]
* [[Tiwi people|Tiwi]]
* [[Arrernte people|Aranda]]
* [[Orokaiva people|Orokaiva]]
* Kimam
* [[Ekari language|Kapauku]]
* [[Kwoma people|Kwoma]]
* [[Manus Province|Manus]]
* [[New Ireland Province|New Ireland]]
* [[Trobriand Islands|Trobrianders]]
* [[Bougainville Island|Siuai]]
* [[Tikopia]]
* [[Pentecost Island|Pentecost]]
* [[Fijians|Mbau Fijians]]
* [[Ajië language|Ajie]]
* [[Māori people|Maori]]
* [[Culture of the Marquesas Islands|Marquesans]]
* [[Samoans|Western Samoans]]
* [[Kiribati people|Gilbertese]]
* [[Marshallese people|Marshallese]]
* [[Chuukese people|Chuukese]]
* [[Yapese people|Yapese]]
* [[Palauans]]
* [[Ifugao people|Ifugao]]
{{endflatlist}}
|-
! North America
| {{flatlist}}
* [[Deg Hit'an|Ingalik]]
* [[Aleut people|Aleut]]
* [[Inuit|Copper Eskimo]]
* [[Innu|Montagnais]]
* [[Mi'kmaq people|Mi'kmaq]]
* [[Saulteaux|Saulteaux (Ojibwa)]]
* [[Slavey people|Slave]]
* [[Kaska|Kaska (Nahane)]]
* [[Eyak language|Eyak]]
* [[Haida people|Haida]]
* [[Nuxalk Nation|Bellacoola]]
* [[Skokomish (tribe)|Twana]]
* [[Yurok (tribe)|Yurok]]
* [[Pomo people|Pomo]]
* [[Yokuts people|Yokuts]]
* [[Northern Paiute]]
* [[Klamath people|Klamath]]
* [[Ktunaxa|Kutenai]]
* [[Gros Ventres]]
* [[Hidatsa]]
* [[Pawnee people|Pawnee]]
* [[Omaha (tribe)|Omaha (Dhegiha)]]
* [[Wyandot people|Huron]]
* [[Muscogee (Creek)|Creek]]
* [[Natchez people|Natchez]]
* [[Comanche]]
* [[Chiricahua]]
* [[Zuni language|Zuni]]
* [[Havasupai]]
* [[Tohono O'odham people|Tohono O'odham]]
* [[Huichol people|Huichol]]
* [[Aztec]]
* [[Popoluca]]
{{endflatlist}}
|-
! South America
| {{flatlist}}
* [[K'iche' people|Quiché]]
* [[Miskito people|Miskito (Mosquito)]]
* [[Bribri people|Bribri]] (Talamanca)
* [[Guna people|Cuna]]
* [[Wayuu|Goajiro]]
* [[Culture of Haiti|Haitians]]
* [[Calinago]]
* [[Warao people|Warrau]] (Warao)
* [[Ya̧nomamö|Yanomamo]]
* [[Kalina people|Kalina]] (Caribs)
* [[Saramaka|Saramacca]]
* [[Munduruku]]
* [[Tucano language|Cubeo]] (Tucano)
* [[Cha'palaachi language|Cayapa]]
* [[Jivaroan peoples|Jivaro]]
* [[Amahuaca]]
* [[Inca society|Inca]]
* [[Aymara ethnic group|Aymara]]
* [[Sirionó language|Siriono]]
* [[Nambikwara]]
* [[Trumai people|Trumai]]
* [[Gê peoples|Timbira]]
* [[Tupi people|Tupinamba]]
* [[Botocudo]]
* [[Xavante people|Shavante]]
* [[Kaingang people|Aweikoma]]
* [[Guarani people|Cayua]] (Guarani)
* [[Lengua people|Lengua]]
* [[Abipón people|Abipon]]
* [[Mapuche]]
* [[Tehuelche people|Tehuelche]]
* [[Yaghan people|Yaghan]]
{{endflatlist}}
|}

===Multi-sited ethnography===
Ethnography dominates socio-cultural anthropology. Nevertheless, many contemporary socio-cultural anthropologists have rejected earlier models of ethnography as treating local cultures as bounded and isolated. These anthropologists continue to concern themselves with the distinct ways people in different locales experience and understand their [[Human condition|lives]], but they often argue that one cannot understand these particular ways of life solely from a local perspective; they instead combine a focus on the local with an effort to grasp larger political, economic, and cultural frameworks that impact local lived realities. Notable proponents of this approach include [[Arjun Appadurai]], [[James Clifford (historian)|James Clifford]], [[George E. Marcus|George Marcus]], [[Sidney Mintz]], [[Michael Taussig]], [[Eric Wolf]] and [[Ronald Daus]].

A growing trend in anthropological research and analysis is the use of multi-sited ethnography, discussed in George Marcus' article, "Ethnography In/Of the World System: the Emergence of Multi-Sited Ethnography". Looking at culture as embedded in macro-constructions of a global social order, multi-sited ethnography uses traditional methodology in various locations both spatially and temporally. Through this methodology, greater insight can be gained when examining the impact of world-systems on local and global communities.

Also emerging in multi-sited ethnography are greater interdisciplinary approaches to fieldwork, bringing in methods from cultural studies, media studies, science and technology studies, and others. In multi-sited ethnography, research tracks a subject across spatial and temporal boundaries. For example, a multi-sited ethnography may follow a "thing", such as a particular commodity, as it is transported through the networks of global capitalism.

Multi-sited ethnography may also follow ethnic groups in [[diaspora]], stories or rumours that appear in multiple locations and in multiple time periods, metaphors that appear in multiple ethnographic locations, or the biographies of individual people or groups as they move through space and time. It may also follow conflicts that transcend boundaries. An example of multi-sited ethnography is [[Nancy Scheper-Hughes]]' work on the international black market for the trade of human organs. In this research, she follows organs as they are transferred through various legal and illegal networks of capitalism, as well as the rumours and urban legends that circulate in impoverished communities about child kidnapping and organ theft.

Sociocultural anthropologists have increasingly turned their investigative eye on to [[western culture|"Western" culture]]. For example, [[Philippe Bourgois]] won the [[Margaret Mead Award]] in 1997 for ''In Search of Respect'', a study of the entrepreneurs in a Harlem crack-den. Also growing more popular are ethnographies of professional communities, such as laboratory researchers, [[Wall Street]] investors, law firms, or [[information technology]] (IT) computer employees.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/expand?pub=infobike://mcb/161/1995/00000008/00000003/art00003&unc=|title=Information systems and anthropology: and anthropological perspective on IT and organizational culture|first1=David E|last1=Avison|first2=Michael D|last2=Myers|date=March 1, 1995|journal=Information Technology & People|volume=8|issue=3|pages=43–56|doi=10.1108/09593849510098262|via=IngentaConnect|access-date=August 28, 2022|archive-date=August 28, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220828073422/https://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/expand?pub=infobike://mcb/161/1995/00000008/00000003/art00003&unc=|url-status=live}}</ref>