Home » Sociology » Anthropological Methodology

Anthropological Methodology

by A. Fool in Sociology, April 25, 2008

How one uses the “Prime Directive” in the Field.

Anthropology is the study of Culture.

The word “study” does not mean social engineering,

societal organisation, political activism. It is

the study of a Culture.

As the Prime Directive was canon on Star Trek, so

to in the field of Anthropology.

It is difficult to sit quietly and watch a group

participate in what is clearly detrimental activities,

but imagine being in a hard drinking bar in your home

town and trying to stop the patrons from consumption.

When you are a “guest” in a culture, be very

careful not to “touch” anything.

I often give the analogy of being a guest in a home,

and finding only one ash tray and using it, only to

be attacked for using Great Grandfather’s heirloom

and ejected.
You had no way of knowing that Ash Tray was precious

to the hosts. You might have missed signs that the

hosts didn’t approve of smoking.

Yes, one can lamely advocate that they ought have

told you, but with a louder voice it is clear that

as a guest you should not have touched anything or

done anything without express permission.

When one is in the field as an anthropologist, the

very same rule applies. You touch nothing. Not an

item, not a practice, not even an attitude.

You study, and when you have reached a point in which

you need to organise your notes, you withdraw.

Making one visit of two weeks will not gain more than

a skim of the culture. You must return after a break

when you have gotten some rudimentary comprehension.

Sometimes your return is met with annoyance, sometimes

with welcome. If it is the first, find out what you

did that upset the group. It may be something minor

or a cultural norm you were totally unaware of.

You might have been expected to leave things behind,

or receive a blessing before departure, or need to

bring a gift when you return.

These kinds of mistakes often happen when a researcher

does not gain a modicum of trust and is only being told

or shown a thin veneer of the culture.

Another feature is to keep an open mind.

Many local “cures” actually do work. Yes, they may

be shrouded in rites and compounded with unnecessary

ingredients, but do have scientific basis.

Many local practices work in the cultural setting.

The understanding of incest, for example, will often

lead to complicated rituals in the selections of brides.

Surviving cultures “make sense” in their context.

By avoiding interfering in a culture one will be able

to see it in an objective and honest fashion.

2
Liked it

User Comments

  1. Caitlin Jean

    On October 23, 2008 at 9:06 pm


    I agree with most of this article. It is very interesting. But as a student of anthropology, let me ask you this: With the ways of anthropological studies changing, do you agree or disagree that a person (while still being careful) who is studying a culture should actively engage themselves in the culture they are studying? How can a person truly understand another group of people unless they have experienced the culture themselves? It’s sympathy versus empathy: you can comfort a person who has lost a loved one, or you can really understand what a person is going through and help them through experience. I personally believe that you can only understand a culture by incorporating yourself in the culture itself. By observation only, you still have a much stronger bias against the people you are studying.

  2. a fool

    On October 23, 2008 at 9:50 pm


    That’s always been the conundrum. If you are studying a people,
    you do need to share the experience; i.e. what they eat, how they
    get it, how they prepare it, etc. So in one sense you become
    a participant, but you have to pull out and get back to your grundnorm to effectively see what is going on.

    You can’t be ‘part of it’ and study it; for it would be like
    you going to your school and studying it…you’d miss everything
    because it is ‘normal’ for you. But were you to go to a University in Ghana you would instantly see the differences.

    It is not a bias as if you are evaluating and/or judging ‘better’
    it is ‘different’.

    If you get too ‘deep’ into a culture you can no longer view it objectively.

  3. Caitlin Jean

    On October 31, 2008 at 4:55 pm


    Very good points! If you haven’t, read Renato Rosaldo’s essay “The Politics of Headhunting,” and “Grief and a Headhunter’s Rage.” These are good essay that somehow deal with these questions.

  4. a fool

    On October 31, 2008 at 8:21 pm


    It is very important that the Anthropologist keeps his/her
    feelings in check, and tries not to interfere in the culture.

    Many cultures have unpleasant aspects, if not headhunting then
    child rearing, or what they eat. One must simply accept.

Post Comment

Powered by Powered by Triond