Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The difference between sociology and anthropology (in the common case when both refer to culture) is not a hard distinction that could be reduced to a single formulation. The differences mainly depend on the researchers ' self-determination.
They choose their professional identity primarily based on the name of the department or department they are assigned to, as well as their own understanding of the methods and tasks of one or another discipline. This understanding is acquired in the process of learning, which is also institutionally conditioned. Nevertheless, despite the conventionality of the boundaries between anthropology and sociology, one can try to determine the difference between them post factum, based on historically developed methodological subtleties associated with a particular research identity.
Anthropology was formed as a colonial discipline, originally intended for the management of others, which were understood as so-called “traditional” or “primitive” societies. Sociology immediately focused on the management of its own society, that is, it was mainly an urban capitalist project. Accordingly, it was more common for anthropology to use the comparative method and focus on qualitative interpretive research — in-depth interviews and included observation (the latter is even sometimes called the “hallmark of anthropology”). Sociology, being initially a positivist project, developed quantitative methods used for large data sets. Finally, another aspect of sociology was close to philosophy, since it was derived from it in the version of Auguste Comte. To this day, however, anthropologists eschew complex generalizations and generally large-scale theories.
Nevertheless, it is worth returning to the conventionality of such distinctions noted at the beginning. In each individual case, professional identity may come into conflict with once-established stereotypes about discipline. For example, sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, even in his generalizing theoretical constructions, did not shy away not only from anthropological terminology (the concept of “habitus”), but also actively advocated qualitative methods against quantitative ones. The Chicago School of Sociology made extensive use of included observation. On the other hand, modern anthropology is often concerned with the study of the modern city and Internet-related practices. And he is not afraid to choose major philosophers as the source of his methodology (for example, the anthropologist Daniel Miller uses Hegel's theory). Sociologists like Bruno Latour may question the very concept of “society” as a hasty theoretical generalization.
The modern logic of differences between the two disciplines allows for wide deviations from historically established norms. Ultimately, being called a sociologist or an anthropologist is a matter of identity for each individual researcher.