Essay, Research Paper: Biological Anthropology

In the middle of this century, bot biological and cultural
anthropology experiences a major change in theory. In biological
anthropology, biological anthropologists adopted an approach which
focused
on the gene. They saw the human evolution as the process of genetic
adaptation to the environment. In the mean time, there were also
cultural
analogies to evolution. Cultural evolution also followed a process of
adaptation.
In the field of anthropology, a very important theory is that of
the
sociobiologists. Sociobiologists focus on adaptation and reproductive
success rather than progress toward perfection. Edward O. Wilson was
one
of the most important of them. He adopted an approach that focused on
the
level of the gene. He saw social behavior as controlled, in principle,
by
particular genes, and he saw evolution as occurring at this level
because
reproductive success amounted to increasing the frequency of certain
genes
in future generations. However, the insistence of sociobiologists on
grounding at least some behavior in universal human genetic
predisposition
runs contrary to cultural anthropologists' emphasis on the primacy of
culture itself as the determinant of human social life.
Several distinct approaches can be identified in contemporary
sociobiology. The first one is evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary
psychology is concerned primarily with the analysis of the mind as a
device formed by natural selection. The second focus is human
behavioral
ecology. It emphasized populations rather than cultures, human
population
biology, as well as evolutionary ecology. The difference from
evolutionary
psychology is that it focuses on testing the hypotheses that culturally
patterned traits actually enhance fitness rather than mind. The third
approach involves the search for human universals. People advocating
this
kind of approach concentrate on discovering the characteristics found
in
all human societies. (McGee and Warms, 1996)
However, this universal evolution point of view is rejected by
other
anthropologists such as Julian Steward. Steward developed an ecological
approach that focused on the adaptation of individual cultures to
specific
environmental circumstances rather than trying to find out the
universal
law of human evolution and adaptation. He devoted most of his energy to
the study of the environmental adaptation of specific societies. He did
not believe that cultures followed a single universal sequence of
development. Instead, he proposed that cultures could evolve in any
number
of distinct patterns depending on their environmental circumstances. He
called his theory multilinear evolution. He also proposed that cultures
in
similar environments would tend to follow the same developmental
sequences
and formulate similar responses to their environmental challenges.
(McGee
and Warms, 1996)
However, the multilinear point of view was not proposed by other
anthropologists such as Leslie White. White concludes that unilineal
evolutionary theory was fundamentally sound. He argued that
evolutionary
development from simple to complex, with increasing specialization of
parts, was valid bot for cultures and for biology. He also proposed a
grand, universal law of cultural evolution by means of the control of
energy as the key factor in cultural evolution: culture advances as the
amount of energy harnessed per capita per ear increases, or as the
efficiency with which energy is utilized increases. (McGee and Warms,
1996)
Still, there were other anthropologists who proposed both a
multiliear and a universal law of evolution. For example, George Peter
Murdock was interested in the statistical testing of cross-cultural
hypotheses. His cross-cultural comparisons of cultural traits in many
ways
paralleled Steward's theory of multilinear evolution. In the meantime,
he
also believed that a universal set of principle governed the
relationship
between family structure, kinship, and marriage practices. In this
sense,
his attempts to statistically demonstrate universal principles of kin
relation s resembled White's effort to formulate a universal theory of
cultural evolution. (McGee and Warms, 1996)
Besides, William C. Boyd also suggests that there is no doubt that
some rectilinearity can often be observed in evolution. Nevertheless,
rectilinear evolution is far from universal. (Boyd, 1952)
Another key issue concerning human evolution is the issue of race.
The definition of race, according to many anthropologists, is based on
the
frequency of certain genes. William C. Boyd defines race as that "A
race
is not an individual, and it is not a single genotype, but it is a
group
of individuals more or less from the same geographical area (a
population), usually with a number of identical genes, but in which
many
different types may occur." His definition or race is a genetic one.
(Boyd, 1952)
Echoing Boyd, Dobzhansky also suggests that races arise chiefly as
a
result of the ordering of the genetic variability by natural selection
in
conformity with the environmental conditions in different territories.
He
said that "since human population often, in fact usually, differ in the
frequencies of one or more, usually several to many, genetic variables,
they are by this test racially distinct." (Dobzhansky, 1962)
However, this definition of race is not favored by some other
anthropologists. For example, Frank B. Livingstone even rejected the
concept of race. He pointed out that although it is true that there is
biological variability between the populations of organisms which
comprises a species, this variability does not conform to the discrete
packages labeled races. In other words, there are no races, the are
only
clines. He suggested that the variability in the frequency of any gene
does not utilize the concept of race. (Livingstone, 1962)
Sherwood L. Washburn defines race as a group of genetically
similar
populations. He also suggests that races intergrade because there are
always intermediate population. Moreover, he compared the concept of
race
with the concept of type. A "type", according to Washburn, is a group
of
individuals who are identical in those characters by which the type was
sorted. In this sense, the race concept and the type concept are
fundamentally different. (Washburn, 1952)
To summarize, concerning the concept of evolution, there exists
the
contrast between evolution as universal process and evolution as
individual and multilinear process. Concerning the concept of race, the
gene is essential to the definition of race. However, whether, or not
there exists a concept of race is disputable.



Bibliography


Reference Cited
Boyd, William C.
1952 The Contribution of Genetics to Anbthyropology. in Anthropology
Today, ed. by
A.L. Kroeber, pp488-506, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Dobzhansky, Grigrievich
1962 On the non-existence of human race. Current Anthropology 3
(3):279-281.
Livingstone, Frank B.
1962 On the non-existence of human race. Current Anthropology 3
(3):279-281
McGee, R. Jon & Richard L. Warms
1996 Anthropological Theory: An Intorductory History. Mountain View,
CA:
Mayfield
Publishing
Washburn, Sherwood & Lancaster, C.
1968 The Evolution of Hunting. in Man the Hunter, ed. by R.B. Lee &
I.
DeVore,
pp.193-303, Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co..


Word Count: 1001