Anthropological Approach: Isolating Variables In Research

Hey guys! Ever wondered how anthropologists try to keep their research super controlled? Well, in the 1920s and 1960s, they used a particular approach that focused on isolating variables by limiting the consideration of the larger historical and social context. Let's dive deep into this fascinating method and understand why it was so popular and what it's called. This method is crucial in understanding the nuances of anthropological research and how it has evolved over time. So, buckle up as we explore the ins and outs of this approach!

Understanding the Anthropological Approach to Isolating Variables

To really get what's going on, let's break down the main idea behind this approach. The core of this method lies in the desire to conduct experiments and studies with as much control as possible. Think of it like a science lab, but instead of chemicals, we're dealing with human societies and cultures. The goal here is to pinpoint specific factors that influence behavior and social structures without the noise of external influences. To do this effectively, anthropologists intentionally limit their focus on the broader historical and social context. This means they might temporarily set aside questions about how a society evolved over centuries or how it interacts with other societies. Instead, they zoom in on a specific slice of time and a particular set of social dynamics. The idea is that by narrowing the scope, researchers can more clearly see the connections between different variables. For example, they might study how a specific ritual affects group cohesion or how a particular economic practice influences family structures. By minimizing the intrusion of other factors, they hope to establish more direct cause-and-effect relationships. This approach was particularly influential during the early to mid-20th century when anthropology was striving to establish itself as a rigorous scientific discipline. Researchers were keen to demonstrate that they could apply the same principles of observation, data collection, and analysis as the natural sciences. This drive for scientific legitimacy led to the adoption of methods that emphasized empirical evidence and controlled comparisons.

Historical Context: Why the 1920s and 1960s?

You might be wondering, why were the 1920s and 1960s such a sweet spot for this approach? Well, the 1920s marked a period of significant methodological development in anthropology. Influenced by the scientific positivism of the time, anthropologists were eager to move away from more speculative and descriptive approaches. They aimed to create a more systematic and objective way to study human cultures. Figures like Bronisław Malinowski, with his emphasis on participant observation, were pivotal in shaping this new direction. Malinowski advocated for detailed, in-depth studies of particular societies, but he also stressed the importance of understanding these societies as self-contained systems. This perspective naturally led to methods that sought to isolate variables and control for external influences.

Fast forward to the 1960s, and we see a resurgence of this approach, partly driven by the rise of structuralism and systems theory in the social sciences. Structuralism, championed by thinkers like Claude Lévi-Strauss, sought to uncover the underlying structures that organize human thought and behavior. This often involved looking at cultural phenomena as sets of interrelated elements, where the meaning of each element is derived from its relationships to others. Similarly, systems theory encouraged anthropologists to view societies as complex systems with interacting parts. Both these perspectives favored methods that could isolate and analyze specific components of a system, making the approach of limiting historical and social context particularly appealing. Moreover, the 1960s was a time of increasing emphasis on quantitative methods and statistical analysis in the social sciences. Researchers were keen to develop models and theories that could be tested using empirical data. This again pushed for methods that allowed for the clear identification and measurement of variables, reinforcing the appeal of controlled research designs.

The Name of the Game: What's This Approach Called?

Okay, so we've talked a lot about what this approach does, but what's its official title? Drumroll, please… It's often referred to as the synchronic approach. Synchronic, in this context, means focusing on a particular point in time. Think of it like taking a snapshot of a culture or society. The opposite of synchronic is diachronic, which looks at how things change over time. So, the synchronic approach deliberately minimizes the diachronic perspective to get a clearer picture of the present. By focusing on the here and now, anthropologists can analyze the internal workings of a society without getting bogged down in historical complexities. This allows them to see how different parts of the society fit together, how individuals interact, and how cultural norms are maintained. It’s like examining a machine while it's running, rather than trying to figure out how it was built or how it might evolve in the future. The synchronic approach is all about understanding the present state of affairs.

Why Limit the Larger Context?

Now, you might be thinking,