******************************************************
* http://www.anthropologymatters.com *
* A postgraduate project comprising online journal, *
* online discussions, teaching and research resources *
* and international contacts directory. *
******************************************************
Hi everyone,
Susanne ([log in to unmask]) has forwarded the responses she received regarding the difference between Social Anthropology and Cultural Sociology. In short it seems that there is no fixed difference (social anthropologists can convert to teaching cultural sociology if required, see below! - yet another field of job opportunities), but that if a difference has to be found, it would lie in questions of method, and perhaps in questions of what 'culture' actually is. Marie-Louise's quick categorisation can stand as a summary, for all the responses, see below. Ingie
*************************
SUMMARY --
Social anthropologists + qualitative methods: i.e. fieldwork (languages) + micro-analysis + the emic perspective as a primary aim + constructivist perspectives + a broader understanding of what is meant by 'culture' to include politics, economics, diachrony etc.
Sociologists (even 'cultural sociologists') + quantitative methods (though this is, as you know, changing fast): i.e. the survey/questionnaire + a priori categories + positivist/objectivist perspectives + etic approach (spoken fluency in at least one other language than one's own not required) + quantitative/macro data analysis methods + sometimes a peculiarly narrow definition of 'culture' as material objects & practices in non-political/economic spheres.
*************************
RESPONSES --
1.
Honestly, I found the announcement of cultural sociology very amusing. Here in Germany we have a strong debate around who is who and who makes what and what is the difference, let's say between (in German terms): Ethnologie, Völkerkunde, Volkskunde, Sozialanthropologie, Kulturanthropologie, Kulturwissenschaft, Soziologie.
It becomes harder and harder to define the lines between the disciplines and a journal such als cultural sociology contributes to the confusion. Nontheless I do not want to blame these blurrings of disciplines's borders, probably that's just the way it is.
From my point of view, being an anthropologist, it's alright that sociologist start thinking about 'culture' and discuss anthropological methods and theories. Welcome.
In terms of literature, I recommend the book: one discipline, four ways (Fredrik Barth et al.), here the difference between social and cultural anthropology is mainly reflected in regards to the different working condiitions in Germany, France, England and the USA .
Maybe you would find this stimulating.
best
Heike, from Germany
******************************
2.
I tend to go with the rather glib 'sociology is about us; anthropology is about them', and use the term 'ethnography' to avoid that distinction.
There's also a Cultural Studies dimension where, to put it unkindly, folk sit around talking about what the sociologists/anthropologists do. (Don't tell anyone I said that :) )
*******************************
3.
The calls for papers for the 'cultural sociology' journal raised similar questions for me, particularly when I noticed the absence of any reference to anthropology. Certainly there seems to be a lot of overlap in the questions framed by both sociology and anthropology. Methodological and theoretical approaches can also be shared. In my area of health/medical anthropology, whenever I have discussed with a sociologist the work of anthropology the response seems to be 'oh that's what we do'. I think the difference - and there is a difference - is formed by the practice and time participant observation demands. But as to the difference between Cultural Sociology and Social Anthropology, I am still wondering.
Regards
Rosemary Mann
********************************
4.
I had to laugh about this, because although I have my PhD in social anthropology, I actually teach 'cultural sociology' and my students sometimes ask me the same thing, and I waffle. Anthropology became a strand of sociology at Helsinki U. a couple of years ago, moving from an anomolous position spanning the humanities & social science faculties - not that it made any difference to approach or subjects taught.
I feel that the distinction, if there is one, is connected to the fact that Finnish anthropologists speak much better English than their sociology colleagues - hence my employment as a native English speaker, to teach so-called 'sociology of culture' subjects - though these have included sociology of foodways & European models of civil society. In other words, the distinction appears to be connected to methods of research & analysis, & theoretical approach (not to mention professional jealousy & the preference by some academics for maintaining disciplinary boundaries when none actually exist).
However:
Social anthropologists + qualitative methods: i.e. fieldwork (languages) + micro-analysis + the emic perspective as a primary aim + constructivist perspectives + a broader understanding of what is meant by 'culture' to include politics, economics, diachrony etc.
Sociologists (even 'cultural sociologists') + quantitative methods (though this is, as you know, changing fast): i.e. the survey/questionnaire + a priori categories + positivist/objectivist perspectives + etic approach (spoken fluency in at least one other language than one's own not required) + quantitative/macro data analysis methods + sometimes a peculiarly narrow definition of 'culture' as material objects & practices in non-political/economic spheres.
I'd love to hear what you come up with - as I am sure would many others.
Regards, Marie-Louise Karttunen.
**********************************
5.
i do not know the answer to this question but it seems to me that there is a blurring of disciplinary boundaries running throughout the social sciences/humanities - think culture studies - surely the same applies here?? for myself i intend to submit a paper i have been writing up with a friend of mine, in which we 'debunk' the 'dog'... i suppose issues of method might be something social anthropologists feel is distinctive about the discipline, but the discourse of 'the field' is itself up for analysis... so i don't know.
chantal butchinsky
*************************************************************
* Anthropology-Matters Mailing List *
* To join this list or to look at the archived previous *
* messages visit: *
* http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/Anthropology-Matters.HTML *
* If you have ALREADY subscribed: to send a message to all *
* those currently subscribed to the list,just send mail to: *
* [log in to unmask] *
* *
* Enjoyed the mailing list? Why not join the new *
* CONTACTS SECTION @ www.anthropologymatters.com *
* an international directory of anthropology researchers *
***************************************************************
|
