3 answers
Harpreet
Student
Richmond, California
2
Questions
Asked
524 views
How is being an anthropologist like?
I've always been interested in anthropology and history as a child. I am curious to hear personal experiences. Has this career provided opportunities to travel? Do you work with an organization or museum? #career #anthropology #travel
Login to comment
3 answers
Shawn McGinnis
2
Answers
San Antonio, Texas
Updated
Shawn’s Answer
Anthropology in general is a very broad topic to study. It can honestly take you from the other side of the Earth to just down the street from your home. It will help you once you’ve taken a few classes on each of the “pillars” of anthropology to decide which route you would be most interested in taking. I personally found the most intrigue in Cultural Anthropology. But, the biggest advice I can give is make connections. Start with your professors to see if either they or a colleague has opportunities available. Look into any internships in your area that cover the field you are interested in and even there, continue building those connections. The Anthropology community can be small depending on where you are so any connection you make can go a long way. Also, especially in times like this where opportunities may be small, keep pushing forward. It may be easy to become discouraged, but don’t let that stop from achieving your goals.
Jason Rechtman, MA, MBA, LPC
Manager of Clinical Quality
120
Answers
Freehold Township, New Jersey
Updated
Jason’s Answer
I am not an anthropologist but I saw this had not yet been answered. I would look up graduate schools that offer anthropology as a major/degree program. Find the faculty and shoot them an email with the same question. You would be amazed at how many professionals enjoy being able to pass on what they know.
Best of luck
Best of luck
Nathaniel Wander
anthropology/psychotherapy/writing
35
Answers
Portland, Oregon
Updated
Nathaniel’s Answer
I started in anthropology as a 13-year old in 1961. My first 'serious' work as a grad student in 1972 was on aspects of eye-hand coordination paralleling changes in primate locomotion from leaping to arm-swinging to walking/running. My next to last professional publication in 2010 was on how the global tobacco industry tried to influence the politics of import/export commerce in Latin America. In between I wrote a dissertation on how Hindu fire-water symbolism was still used to organize social relationships in rural West Bengal and published papers on the politics of marriage and the treatment of women in Semitic societies, how medical schools' refusal to divest of tobacco stocks benefited the tobacco industry, and the relationships between Hindu caste and Australian totemism in follow-up to the work of the French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss. I've worked in universities, county health departments, and politics-related organizations, to name just a few.
Anthropology changed immensely in the fifty years of my career and continues to change in the decade since my formal retirement. The four most striking changes I can point to are (1) in power dynamics between Western anthropologists and the countries/peoples with whom the traditionally worked; (2) changes in the financing of traditional anthropological fieldwork; (3) changes in the roles played by women anthropologists; (4) decoupling of biological and social/cultural anthropology. I take them in reverse.
(4) Decoupling of biological & social/cultural anthropology: I came up in a U.S. anthropological system that 'worshiped' the 4-field approach: human biology (= evolution + primatology); social/cultural anthropology (how different peoples make their livings and organize their societies); anthropological archaeology (a social/cultural anthropology of past societies); anthropological linguistics (focusing particularly on how peoples use language). Human biology has become so rich and complex that it has largely decoupled from anthropology and allied with the other biological sciences. The separation is not so complete as that, however. There are still biologically-oriented sub-disciplines within social/cultural anthropology. I practiced in two of these: human ecology, the relationships between societies and their environments; and medical anthropology, any and all of the social aspects of health and the treatment of ill-health.
The role of women in anthropology has grown so much over the course of the past half-century plus that they once again dominate the field. Figures like Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead—even though a small minority among male anthropologists—so impressed themselves on the profession from 1930-1960 or so. The 2nd World War and the post-War GI educational benefits, however, brought many young men into the field and it was their generation that became my teachers. It wouldn't be until the late '70s or '80s that women began to form a significant cadre among my fellow students and my own students as I moved into the teaching role. These women have been influenced by and influenced the wave of feminist consciousness that developed in the US in that period. They are the most prominent anthropological practitioners today and feminist anthropology—that is, looking at the place of women in society, and looking from a woman's point of view—is one of the most vital sub-disciplines in the profession.
The subject of funding changes is too complex to discuss in detail and something I am least up-to-date about. The one issue I would raise is that the older part of my boomer generation expected to and was expected to do fieldwork abroad as a major part of our initiation the profession. The money for that began to dry up during the world-wide economic changes of the 1970's and one major consequence is that Western anthropologists began studying their own societies.
Power dynamic changes between the so-called First and Third Worlds in the ‘60s & ‘70s also reshaped anthropology. Political independence in countries formerly under European colonial rule meant that Western anthropologists couldn't come and go freely as they had been used to and anthropologists lost their roles in the old colonial administrations. The benefits of autonomy to local peoples are obvious although the autonomy was far from complete as capitalist 'control' replaced frank colonialism in many parts of the world. In addition, local ruling classes with their education (and bank accounts) firmly rooted in the West were often as harsh on indigenous peoples as colonialists had ever been. In my experience the most important and long-lasting effect of these changes has been the rise of local non-Western and indigenous anthropologists, whose practice (sometimes called sub-altern anthropology) has both been influenced by Western anthropology and profoundly reshaped it.
If they are open in Covid times, go root through the anthropology sections of your local libraries or book stores. Look at anthropology books both from ancient times (the 20th century) and more recently. I 'm not sure how you can have a similar experience on line unless you can afford to buy a sampler of publications.
Anthropology changed immensely in the fifty years of my career and continues to change in the decade since my formal retirement. The four most striking changes I can point to are (1) in power dynamics between Western anthropologists and the countries/peoples with whom the traditionally worked; (2) changes in the financing of traditional anthropological fieldwork; (3) changes in the roles played by women anthropologists; (4) decoupling of biological and social/cultural anthropology. I take them in reverse.
(4) Decoupling of biological & social/cultural anthropology: I came up in a U.S. anthropological system that 'worshiped' the 4-field approach: human biology (= evolution + primatology); social/cultural anthropology (how different peoples make their livings and organize their societies); anthropological archaeology (a social/cultural anthropology of past societies); anthropological linguistics (focusing particularly on how peoples use language). Human biology has become so rich and complex that it has largely decoupled from anthropology and allied with the other biological sciences. The separation is not so complete as that, however. There are still biologically-oriented sub-disciplines within social/cultural anthropology. I practiced in two of these: human ecology, the relationships between societies and their environments; and medical anthropology, any and all of the social aspects of health and the treatment of ill-health.
The role of women in anthropology has grown so much over the course of the past half-century plus that they once again dominate the field. Figures like Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead—even though a small minority among male anthropologists—so impressed themselves on the profession from 1930-1960 or so. The 2nd World War and the post-War GI educational benefits, however, brought many young men into the field and it was their generation that became my teachers. It wouldn't be until the late '70s or '80s that women began to form a significant cadre among my fellow students and my own students as I moved into the teaching role. These women have been influenced by and influenced the wave of feminist consciousness that developed in the US in that period. They are the most prominent anthropological practitioners today and feminist anthropology—that is, looking at the place of women in society, and looking from a woman's point of view—is one of the most vital sub-disciplines in the profession.
The subject of funding changes is too complex to discuss in detail and something I am least up-to-date about. The one issue I would raise is that the older part of my boomer generation expected to and was expected to do fieldwork abroad as a major part of our initiation the profession. The money for that began to dry up during the world-wide economic changes of the 1970's and one major consequence is that Western anthropologists began studying their own societies.
Power dynamic changes between the so-called First and Third Worlds in the ‘60s & ‘70s also reshaped anthropology. Political independence in countries formerly under European colonial rule meant that Western anthropologists couldn't come and go freely as they had been used to and anthropologists lost their roles in the old colonial administrations. The benefits of autonomy to local peoples are obvious although the autonomy was far from complete as capitalist 'control' replaced frank colonialism in many parts of the world. In addition, local ruling classes with their education (and bank accounts) firmly rooted in the West were often as harsh on indigenous peoples as colonialists had ever been. In my experience the most important and long-lasting effect of these changes has been the rise of local non-Western and indigenous anthropologists, whose practice (sometimes called sub-altern anthropology) has both been influenced by Western anthropology and profoundly reshaped it.
Nathaniel recommends the following next steps: