Modes of Cultural Analysis Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Explain how evolutionary theories have been applied to the study of human culture. Identify two critiques of evolutionary approaches. Describe how anthropologists have studied the functionality of culture. Distinguish Malinowski’s functionalism from Radcliffe-Brown’s structural functionalism. Explain how ontological anthropology defines the study of reality. Anthropologists have a number of ways of studying the elements and aggregates of culture. Some approaches emphasize the development of a particular aspect of culture over time, while other approaches examine how the different parts of culture fit together. Evolution, Adaptation, and Historical Particularism Some anthropologists are interested in the origins of human cultural forms and how these forms have changed over long periods of time. Just as Charles Darwin applied the notion of evolution to explain how biological species change over time, many 19th-century anthropologists used evolution to explain how cultures changed over time. This approach is called cultural evolutionism . Like Darwin, these anthropologists believed that simple forms evolved into more complex forms. Comparing different cultures of the world, they assigned the ones they considered more rudimentary to earlier evolutionary stages, while the ones they considered more complex were assigned to the more advanced stages. For example, British anthropologist Edward Tylor argued that human culture evolved from savagery through barbarism to civilization. He identified savagery with people who used gathering and hunting to meet their basic needs. The domestication of animals and plants was associated with barbarism. Civilization resulted from more advanced forms of farming, trade, and manufacturing as well as the development of the alphabet. Not surprisingly, British scholars identified their own culture as highly civilized. Elaborating on Tylor’s scheme, American anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan subdivided each of these three stages into an even more elaborate model and proposed a mechanism for moving from stage to stage. Morgan focused on technology as the primary driver of cultural evolution. New and better ways of making things, according to Morgan, resulted in new patterns of social practice and thought. Advanced technology was associated with advanced civilization. But is technology the only measure of cultural accomplishment, or even the best one? Members of societies in which people gather and hunt for a living have vast stores of knowledge about their environments. Typically, they can name hundreds of plant species and tell when and where to find each of them. Many hunters can examine animal tracks to discern the species, sex, age, and condition of the animal as well as how long ago the tracks were laid. People in these societies also actively sustain and nurture diversity in their environments, careful to avoid depleting important resources. Is it really accurate to think of such cultures as simple? All cultures are complex, though in different ways. Technology is highly valued in American culture, while environmental knowledge and sustainability have historically been less valued. Is it any wonder that early American anthropologists ranked other cultures according to one of their own most cherished values? Perhaps people in more environmentally sustainable cultures might consider the United States to be an example of environmental savagery. Both Tylor and Morgan , like most anthropologists of their day, thought that all cultures passed through this single set of stages in the march toward civilization. This kind of theory is called unilineal evolution . Disagreeing with this way of thinking, anthropologists such as Franz Boas argued that there is no single line of cultural evolution but that each culture changes according to its own unique historical trajectory. Moreover, cultures evolve not in isolation but in constant interaction with one another. Rather than focusing on technological changes within a culture, Boas highlighted the diffusion of material objects, practices, and ideas among cultures in complex relations of trade, migration, and conquest. Though theories of unilineal cultural evolution have been largely abandoned, some anthropologists are still interested in discovering regular patterns that might govern how human cultures change over long periods of time. In the 1950s, American anthropologist Julian Steward developed an approach called cultural ecology , recognizing the importance of environmental factors by focusing on how humans adapt to various environments. Steward’s approach showed how humans in each environmental zone develop a set of core cultural features that enable them to make a living. Central to each cultural core are ways of getting or making all the resources necessary for human survival—in particular, food, clothing, and shelter. Similarly, anthropologist Marvin Harris developed a theory called cultural materialism , arguing that technology and economic factors are fundamental to culture, molding other features such as family life, religion, and politics. Though recognizing the importance of cultural change, many anthropologists reject the notion that all cultures change according to a general universal model, such as cultural materialism. Drawing from the Boasian notion that each culture follows its own historical path; many cultural anthropologists analyze change in terms of historical particularism . In this approach, contemporary processes are understood as products of the unique combination of internal and external forces unfolding over time in a particular culture. Functionalism Rejecting the comparative unilineal models that assigned each culture to an evolutionary stage, a number of cultural anthropologists developed a radically different approach that attempts to understand each contemporary culture in its own terms. Functionalism seeks to understand the purpose of the elements and aggregates of culture in the here and now. Bronislaw Malinowski , an early proponent of this approach, argued that the function of culture is to meet human needs. All humans need to satisfy the need for food, clothing, and shelter. The fundamental purpose of culture is to provide a means of satisfying those needs. In the course of meeting those basic needs , humans in all cultures develop a set of derived needs—that is, needs derived from the basic ones. Derived needs include the need to organize work and distribute resources. Family structures and gender roles are examples of cultural elements addressing these derived needs. Finally, cultures also address a set of integrative needs, providing people with guiding values and purpose in life. Religion, law, and ideologies fulfill these integrative needs. Malinowski sought to understand both the biological and psychological functions of culture. At first glance, this approach may not seem all that different from evolutionary approaches that identify the core set of cultural features devoted to human survival. What was so different in Malinowski’s approach was his attempt to show that even so-called primitive societies had functionally complex cultural systems for meeting the full array of human needs. Malinowski’s three-volume ethnography of the economics, religion, and kinship of the Trobriand people of Papua New Guinea demonstrated this fact in striking and elaborate detail. A second version of functionalism, advocated by British anthropologist Alfred R. Radcliffe-Brown , identified the functions of various elements of culture in a slightly different way. Rather than looking for the way culture satisfies biological or psychological needs, structural functionalism focused more on how the various structures in society reinforce one another. Culture is not a random assortment of structural features but a set of structures that fit together into a coherent whole. Common norms and values are threaded through the family structure, the economy, the political system, and the religion of a culture. Structural functionalists conceptualized culture as a kind of machine with many small parts all working in tandem to keep the machine operating properly. While recognizing the value of this approach, contemporary anthropologists have complicated the mechanistic model of culture by pointing out that the various elements of culture come into conflict just as often as they reinforce one another. Although few anthropologists would now identify themselves as structural functionalists, the holistic approach to culture as an integrated system is derived from this important theoretical foundation. Structuralism In the previous paragraph, you learned about structural functionalism, an approach that marries functionalism with social structure. In a different sense, the term structure can refer to patterns of thought embedded in the culture of a people—that is, conceptual structure. French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss pioneered this approach, sometimes called French structuralism . Lévi-Strauss considered culture to be a system of symbols that could be analyzed in the various realms of culture, including myths, religion, and kinship. In these realms of culture, objects and people are organized into symbolic systems of classification, often structured around binary oppositions. Binary oppositions are pairs of terms that are opposite in meaning, such as light/dark, female/male, and good/evil. For example, kinship systems are varied and complex, but they are fundamentally structured by oppositions such as male versus female, older versus younger, and relation by blood versus relation by marriage. Lévi-Strauss examined myths as well, showing how the characters and plots emphasize binary oppositions. Consider the many European folktales featuring an evil stepmother (Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty), a character that combines the opposition of good versus evil with the opposition of blood relation versus relation by marriage. Lévi-Strauss argued that myths operate as public arenas for conceptually pondering and processing the fundamental categories and relations of a culture. Ontology In recent decades, some cultural anthropologists have come to focus on the nature of reality, including but not limited to human perspectives and experiences. Ontology is the study of the true nature of existence. In some cultures, for instance, the social world consists not only of embodied persons but also of spirit beings, such as ancestors and witches, who interact with people in mysterious ways. And in some cultures, people are not just bodies but assemblages that include souls, spirits, characters, or fates. Ontological anthropology explores how culture constructs our social and natural realities, what we consider real, and how we act on those assumptions. Reaching beyond human realities, ontological anthropology also attempts to include nonhuman perspectives, relationships, and forms of communication. For instance, in his provocative ethnography How Forests Think (2013), anthropologist Eduardo Kohn describes how the web of life in the Amazon rainforest consists of continual communication among plants, animals, and humans. He examines how Amazonian peoples engage with dogs, spirits, the dead, pumas, rivers, and even sounds. Humans and these nonhuman beings are both antagonistic and interdependent in this interactive web. Predators and prey read one another’s behavior, interpreting intentions and motivations. Kohn’s effort is to get beyond conventional modes of human thought and language to understand how humans are embedded in nonhuman ecological realities. Dame Mary Douglas 1921–2007 Dame Mary Douglas . Personal History: Mary Douglas was born in San Remo, Italy; her British parents had stopped off on their way home from Burma, where her father had been working as a colonial civil servant. As children, Mary and her younger sister lived with their mother’s parents in England until they were old enough to be sent to Catholic boarding school—a fairly common practice for the children of colonial officers. After the death of her mother and her dearly loved maternal grandfather, young Mary found security in the order and routine of the convent school (Lyons 2011). This respect for rules and order combined with a reverence for the Catholic Church to shape her lifelong commitment to studying the sacred aspects of the social order. Area of Anthropology: At Oxford, Douglas studied with the prominent structural functionalist E. E. Evans-Pritchard. From him, she learned that African belief systems such as witchcraft were structured by an underlying logic. In this approach, the goal of fieldwork is to examine oral forms of culture as well as ritual and social practice in order to discern the underlying logic that governs culture as a whole. Douglass went to the Kasai region of what was then the Belgian Congo, where she studied how the Lele people used animals in practical and symbolic ways. She was particularly interested in a strange animal called the pangolin. Though a mammal, the pangolin has scales and no teeth. This pangolin is classified as a mammal but has scales like a reptile or fish. Pangolin were considered sacred to the Lele people, who did not classify them as a food animal. (credit: Official photographer of the U.S. Embassy in Ghana/Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain) Douglas described how the Lele observed a fundamental distinction between edible and inedible animals. Animals who lived among humans, such as rats and domesticated chickens, were considered part of society and therefore inedible (most of the time). Only wild animals were considered food. Pangolins are wild animals, but the Lele did not eat them (usually). Why? Douglas argued that the weirdness of the pangolin made people single it out for special consideration. Pangolins have scales like fish, but they live on land and climb trees. They look vaguely reptilian, but they do not lay eggs, instead giving birth to live young. Rather than teeth, they have long snouts that they use to vacuum up small insects. Thus, the pangolin defied the conventional categories the Lele used for dividing up the animal world. This breach of categories made the pangolin both repellent and sacred to the Lele. Members of a special fertility cult engaged in rituals in which they ate pangolins to ingest the power of this anomalous animal. As this examination of cultural categories and anomalies suggests, Douglas was also influenced by Claude Lévi-Strauss and the approach of French structuralism. Like Lévi-Strauss, Douglas viewed culture as a coherent system of categories that were expressed in oral culture and social practice. Accomplishments in the Field: Following her work on the Lele people, Douglas went on to conduct a broadly comparative study of objects, practices, and people that were considered ritually dangerous, subject to rules of prohibition called taboos. She showed how the subjects of taboos are often “matter out of place” (Douglas 1966, 44), things that defy conventional categories for dividing up the social and natural world. In her most famous work, Purity and Danger (1966), Douglas examines a wide range of taboos, such as rules against eating certain foods or engaging in sex at certain times or with certain persons. She examines the set of social and dietary rules established by ancient Hebrews, detailed in the book of Leviticus in the Old Testament. According to these rules, the Jewish people were forbidden from eating pigs, shellfish, and certain wild animals. They were not allowed to wear garments made of cloth that combined different fibers—such as, for example, a linen-cotton blend. Men were prohibited from having sex with menstruating women. In fact, women were considered so unclean during menstruation that anyone or anything that touched a menstruating woman became contaminated for the rest of that day. What do all of these prohibitions have in common? Douglas shows how each forbidden object or condition produced discomfort because it transgressed conventional categories. Shellfish, for instance, are sea animals, but they don’t have fins or scales, and many of them do not swim. Menstruation is blood loss, but it does not indicate injury. Moreover, menstruation is hidden and connected to the dangerous states of pregnancy and childbirth. In Hebrew law, menstruation itself was considered a dangerous and contaminating exception to the purity of persons and objects. In her later work, Douglas applied this style of analysis to a variety of other social phenomena, including humor and trickster figures. She argued that humor functions as a release for thoughts and actions that might threaten the social order. Whereas taboos regulate and prohibit interaction with dangerous objects, animals, and people, humor seeks to sap them of their dangerous power by making light of them. Importance of Her Work: After more than 25 years of teaching at the University of London, Douglas moved to the United States, where she held positions at the Russell Sage Foundation and Northwestern University. She continued to publish widely on such topics as consumerism, environmental risk, and decision-making in bureaucracies. When she retired, she moved back to England. In 2006, she was made Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire. She died in 2007 at the age of 86. cultural ecology how humans develop culture as an adaptation to various environments. cultural materialism an evolutionary approach that identifies technology and economic factors as fundamental aspects of culture, molding other features of culture such as family life, religion, and politics. cultural evolutionism the study of the origins of human cultural forms and how those forms have changed over long periods of time. diffusion in an anthropological context, the spread of material objects, practices, and ideas among cultures in complex relations of trade, migration, and conquest. functionalism a form of analysis that focuses on the contemporary purposes of culture. historical particularism an approach to cultural change that describes the combination of internal and external factors that shapes the unique historical trajectory of each culture. ontological anthropology an approach that explores how culture constructs our social and natural realities, what we consider real, and how we act on those assumptions. Reaching beyond human realities, ontological anthropology also attempts to include nonhuman perspectives, relationships, and forms of communication. ontology the study of the nature of existence. structural functionalism a form of analysis that describes how various aspects of culture fit together and contribute to the integrated whole of culture. structuralism the study of culture as a system of symbolic categories embedded in the myths, religion, kinship, and other realms of a culture. unilineal evolution the idea that all cultures pass through a single set of developmental stages.

Social Sciences


The Paradoxes of Culture Learning Outcomes By the end of this section, you will be able to: Identify four paradoxes in the concept of culture. Define four mechanisms of cultural change. Provide a detailed example of the mobility of culture. Describe culture as an arena of argument and contest. Explain how members of a culture can have different versions of their shared culture. As European immigrants settled in the western frontier of the United States, they faced the challenge of reinventing the elements of culture familiar to them in very different environmental and social conditions. Used to living in houses made of wooden planks or logs, they found themselves on vast plains with very few trees. A common adaptation to this environmental limitation was to dig into a slope of earth to create a dugout home with turf walls and roof. This Nebraska home, photographed with cow on its roof in 1870, was constructed in the side of the hill directly behind it. While such dugout homes were practical and functional, those who lived in them typically strove to replace them with wood-frame houses, as symbols of wealth and achievement. (credit: Solomon D. Butcher/Library of Congress, Public Domain) While these homes were perfectly functional, many Euro-American settlers considered them dirty and backward. When their farming ventures became prosperous, they often undertook the great expense of importing wood from forested areas to build the kind of house familiar to them from life back east, either on the East Coast of the United States or in the European countries they originally came from. While conducting fieldwork in Lesotho in the 1980s, cultural anthropologist Jim Ferguson observed that people who became prosperous often replaced their round homes made of mud and stone and thatched roofs with rectangular ones featuring cement floors and galvanized steel roofs. While the round buildings were functionally adapted to local conditions, made of local materials, cool on hot days, and warm in cool nights, the rectangular ones heated up like ovens under the hot sun and were noisy in the rain. The materials were imported and expensive. Talking to one man who was planning to replace his round house with a rectangular one made of cement and steel, Ferguson suggested that local building methods and materials might be superior to foreign ones. Looking me carefully in the eye, he asked, “What kind of house does your father have, there in America? ... Is it round?” No, I confessed; it was rectangular. “Does it have a grass roof?” No, it did not. “Does it have cattle dung for a floor?” No. And then: “How many rooms does your father’s house have?” ... I mumbled, “About ten, I think.” After pausing to let this sink in, he said only: “That is the direction we would like to move in.” (Ferguson 2006, 18) In both cases, for Euro-American settlers and Lesotho villagers, the idea of home is not a settled matter but subject to the forces of environmental adaptation, functionality, social status, and ideological debate. Both examples illustrate a set of tensions at the heart of the concept of culture. Originally, anthropologists studied culture as a fairly stable and consensual set of features commonly embraced by the people of a certain geographical area. In the course of the 20th century, however, anthropologists began to realize that this notion of culture was misleading and incomplete. In the early 20th century, American anthropologist Franz Boas argued that the elements of culture are highly mobile, diffusing through the cultural contacts of trade and migration. Since the 1960s, cultural anthropologists have come to emphasize the controversial aspects of culture: how people disagree and argue over the dominant values and practices of their societies. Much of this controversy stems from the unevenness of culture within a society—how people in different social categories and subgroups participate differently in their common culture, with different versions or perspectives on the same cultural norms and practices. Despite these forces of change and controversy, there is something durable and shared about culture, some set of common elements that distinguishes the whole way of life of each society. Even as cultures change through innovation and contact, they often hold on to some of their distinctive features. In the 1980s, some scholars thought that increases in global trade, migration, and technology were transforming all the diverse societies of the world into one uniform global monoculture. In the 2020s, we see that the opposite has happened. In many parts of the world, we have seen a resurgence of cultural identities and explicit efforts to maintain, rehabilitate, and reinvent forms of cultural heritage. So riddled with contradictions is the concept of culture that some anthropologists have suggested ditching the whole notion altogether and finding some other concept to bind together the four fields in their pursuit of knowledge about humanity. Perhaps such an integrated understanding of humanity isn’t even possible. Or maybe the contradictions of culture are the most illuminating aspects of the culture concept. Maybe those contradictions are anthropology’s most important contribution to our understanding of humanity. This textbook takes the latter approach. Culture is the whole way of life of a people subject to a set of contradictory forces. These forces constitute four central paradoxes of culture. Paradox 1: Culture Is Continuous, but It Changes Cultural materials, practices, and ideas are handed down from older to younger members of a culture, giving some degree of continuity to culture over time. However, many factors can intervene in this process of cultural reproduction to subtly alter or dramatically change the elements and aggregates of culture. In some contexts, younger people either fail to precisely learn the culture of their elders or deliberately reject those cultural lessons. Through travel and trade, people learn about other ways of doing things, and they take these ideas back to their own cultures, trying them out to see how they might improve their own ways of life. Accidents and deliberate experimentation introduce new possibilities. People may simply get tired of doing things one way over and over and thrill at some refreshing style or craze. We can identify four main mechanisms of cultural change. These four mechanisms overlap and interact as the history of a culture unfolds over time. Diffusion is the movement of an element of culture from one society to another, often through migration or trade. Friction occurs when two or more elements of culture come into conflict, resulting in alteration or replacement of those elements. Innovation is the slight alteration of an existing element of culture, such as a new style of dress or dance. Invention is the independent creation of a new element of culture, such as a new technology, religion, or political form. In the examples at the beginning of this section, building techniques and ideals move along with human migration to new settings, where they must be altered to fit the materials and challenges of the new environment. In colonial and neocolonial contexts, dominant groups may introduce the techniques and ideals of their own homelands as “superior” even if they don’t work very well in the environments of colonial conquest. Some cultural inventions are so successful that they transform the whole way of life of a people. Consider the information technologies that have reshaped American life since the 1970s, such as computers, the Internet, and cell phones. These tools have changed the ways Americans communicate, work, learn, shop, navigate, and entertain themselves. Diffusing through trade, these inventions have transformed cultures all over the world in diverse ways. In many societies, modes of interacting through communication technologies come into conflict with norms for interacting face-to-face, creating friction between the two realms. Where the movements, behavior, and social relationships of young women are tightly controlled, for instance, mobile phones allow women to secretly make new friends, explore new topics of conversation, and engage in behavior their elders might not sanction. Sometimes the forces of innovation and invention catch on, and sometimes they don’t. In the 1970s, Ralph Hasty, a disc jockey from southwest Missouri, moved to Northern California, where he lived and worked for many years. There, he learned about a new technology for building houses in the form of geodesic domes, structures comprising intersecting polygons assembled from prefabricated kits. In late 1980s, he returned to live in southwest Missouri, bringing with him this enthusiasm for geodesic construction. He ordered a kit and built a geodesic dome house on a piece of rural land, intending to sell the house and use the profits to build more of these geodesic wonders. Well, things did not exactly go to plan. The locals apparently found the house far too weird to suit their notion of home. From the outside, the dome looked like some sort of futuristic greenhouse or zoo habitat. On the inside, conventional furniture did not fit in the oddly shaped rooms of the dome. Once finished, the geodesic home sat on the market for a number of months, and eventually, he had to sell it at a loss. It must be mentioned that Ralph Hasty, geodesic innovator, continued to live in a conventional rectangular house for the rest of his life. Ralph Hasty stands in front of the geodesic dome he built. Although providing all of the needs of a secure and warm dwelling space, it was hard to find a buyer for this unconventional home. (credit: Jennifer Hasty, Public Domain) Paradox 2: Culture Is Bounded but Mobile Because many elements of culture are shaped by environmental forces, trading opportunities, and local histories of settlement, culture becomes associated with territory. But because of the mobility of people, objects, and ideas, culture rarely stays within the boundaries of any society; rather, it wanders restlessly along lines of travel, communication, conquest, and trade. People move around a lot, and this is nothing new. On the popular British television series Time Team , archaeological excavations all over the United Kingdom uncover artifacts from ancient times that were produced in far-flung places such as Rome, Scandinavia, and the Middle East. In episode 4 of season 16 (2015), the team excavated a town in Wales that was constructed by Romans during the time of Roman conquest. There, archaeologists unearthed the foundations of Roman buildings along with a variety of Roman objects, including a third-century Roman coin, a Roman tool for removing earwax, a twisted-wire bracelet, and a knife handle decorated with gladiators. Other Time Team investigations have uncovered artifacts from travelers and pilgrims to sacred religious sites. These objects have diffused to British cultures through conquest, trade, and migration. As people move around, so do objects, technologies, practices, and ideas. This fabric shop displays a number of colorful wax print patterns. Although wax print fabrics are now associated with Africa, the wax print technique actually originated in Indonesia. (credit: “National Colors” by Miranda Harple for Yenkassa.com/flickr, CC BY 2.0) However, certain integrated sets of things, practices, and ideas do cluster in certain places. Take a look at the cloth in Figure 3.15. This kind of cloth is quintessentially African. It’s called wax print , and indeed, clothing made of wax-print cloth is very popular in many parts of Africa. Wax-print cloth is industrially produced cotton cloth with intricate designs and bold colors. In most African countries, a vast selection of designs and brands of wax prints can be found in any market. Rather than buying ready-made clothes in clothing shops, people more often purchase cloth in the market and take it to a seamstress or tailor to be made into the garment of their own choosing. Many wax-print designs are symbolic, serving as a means of nonverbal communication for the people who wear them. Some cloths are associated with proverbs, occasions, monuments, and famous people. In the West African country of Ghana , many cloth designs are named using the vivid proverbs of the large Akan cultural group. One popular design features a bird in flight, associated with the Akan proverb Sika wo antaban , meaning “money takes flight.” Another elaborate motif is called Akyekyde? Akyi , or “the back of the tortoise,” worn by wise people who move through life with slow intention. One design with long, corrugated stripes is called sugarcane, which is said to mean “I love you like sugar.” The various designs on these fabrics are understood to each have a special meaning. In the upper left, is an example of the Sika wo antiban design, meaning “money takes flight.” (credit: Ninara/flickr, CC BY 2.0) Though iconically associated with African dress, wax print actually originated in Indonesia, derived from local techniques for making batik cloth. Batik is made using wax to draw designs on plain cotton cloth that is then immersed in a dye bath. When the wax is melted off, the design remains against the background of color. When the Dutch colonized Indonesia in the 1700s, Dutch merchants were impressed with the beauty of local batik and sought to use their own methods of mass-produced block printing to imitate the vibrant colors and elaborate designs of Indonesian cloth. In the 1880s, Dutch and British merchants introduced their own mass-produced wax prints to people in their African colonies, particularly along the west coast of Africa. Dutch wax cloth was enthusiastically embraced by Africans, who began to infuse certain patterns with social meanings. With independence in the mid-20th century, many African countries developed their own wax-print textile industries using designs developed by local artists. Exemplifying the cultural paradox of locality and mobility, wax-print cloth is culturally embedded in African culture while carrying a complex history of global trade, appropriation, and colonial domination. In the context of global power relations, the mobility of culture poses questions about who has the right to claim or use elements of culture diffused from elsewhere. As part of the process of cultural immersion and participant observation, many cultural anthropologists adopt the dress, diet, gestures, and language of the peoples they study while they are conducting fieldwork. Often, anthropologists bring their love of these cultural elements back to their home societies and continue to use and practice them to show their appreciation for the cultures they have studied. However, some people may find it unsettling to see a white Euro-American anthropologist wearing an African wax-print dress—or a silk sari from India, or an ornately woven lliclla cape from Peru. In your travels, have you ever purchased an item of clothing or jewelry worn by local peoples? Is it appropriate to wear such items in your home society? If someone is using cultural items as a way of honoring that culture, many people would think it’s perfectly fine. If someone is wearing items from another culture as a form of humorous costume, such as a sports mascot or Halloween costume, most people would find that offensive. An even more serious problem emerges when a person uses or claims cultural elements from another society in order to make a profit. What if, for instance, someone from the American fashion industry copied a wax print motif such as Sika wo antaban , using the design for American clothing, housewares, or art? The elements of culture, both material and nonmaterial, constitute the intellectual property of the people of that culture. Claiming or using the elements of another culture inappropriately is called cultural appropriation . Paradox 3: Culture Is Consensual but Contested In any society, people interact using a set of assumptions about the sorts of behavior and speech considered appropriate to certain people in certain situations. That is to say, culture is consensual; through their words and actions, people agree to a certain way of doing things. As discussed earlier in this chapter, culture includes conventionalized roles, behavioral norms, and shared ideas for framing situations. For example, imagine that someone in the United States has just graduated from college and is looking for a job. What should that person do? In the United States, it is common to spend time crafting an impressive résumé, using a specific form of technical language that accentuates the quality of a person’s skills and experiences while demonstrating their educational background. Instead of listing “worked as a camp counselor,” someone might indicate that they “developed systems of cooperative leadership among youth in an environmental awareness program.” A recent graduate would likely post this linguistic masterpiece to a job search website such as Indeed.com. For many people in China, such a strategy would seem very rudimentary and even grossly inadequate. Seeking opportunities for education, employment, and business, people in China frequently rely on a cultural system known as guanxi . Informed by Confucianism, guanxi refers to gifts and favors exchanged among people in wide social networks based on mutual benefit. Guanxi is based on family ties but also includes relationships formed in schools, in workplaces, and even among strangers who meet at parties or through mutual friends (Yin 2017). While still in school, a student may be on the lookout for people who might be able provide access to employment opportunities in the future. Using the practices of guanxi , the student would seek to establish personalized links with such people in the hope that these links might prove advantageous in the future. Say, for instance, a student hopes to get a job in solar technology after graduation. That student might seek out professors whose teaching and research suggest connections in that industry. To establish relations of guanxi , the student would not only take courses from that professor but also attempt to establish some sort of personal rapport. This is typically done through strategic gift giving. In a particularly brutal winter, a student might knit a sweater for the professor. An artistically inclined student might sketch a portrait of the professor and frame it as a gift. Importantly, the gift must go slightly beyond the bounds of their professional relationship as professor and student. Over time, the student might find ways to meet with the professor, further cementing the social bond. After carefully cultivating this personalized relationship over months or years, the student might then ask the professor to use industry connections to help them find a job. What this means is that personal connections can be just as important as, if not more important than, the language or qualifications of a person’s résumé. While Americans emphasize the importance of job-search techniques, personal connections also play a role in securing employment in the American context, particularly in highly paid, competitive industries such as software development and finance. In many societies, people prefer to work with people they trust. Rather than hiring a random stranger, many prefer to hire someone recommended by a trusted friend or business partner. In guanxi relationships, relations of trust are established through the exchange of gifts and favors over time. But what if the people who are hired in competitive industries are the ones who deployed their strategic social connections and not necessarily the ones who are most skilled, talented, or otherwise best suited to the work? What if the companies who are hired to complete infrastructure projects such as roads and bridges are not necessarily the most competent or experienced ones but those who have given strategic gifts to government officials? What if people use their guanxi networks to obtain special privileges, such as government licenses or social services? Legal scholar Ling Li (2011) argues that some people use the cultural system of guanxi to facilitate and rationalize bribery and other acts of corruption. In 2012, the Chinese government launched an ambitious campaign against corruption among government officials. More than 100,000 people have been investigated and charged with corruption, including many high-ranking government officials, military officers, and senior executives of state-owned companies. Investigations have revealed how powerful people use their extensive guanxi networks to secure deals, exert influence, and extract goods and services. The campaign against corruption in China raises questions about the morality and legality of guanxi practices. Although guanxi is a widely accepted system for gaining access to goods, services, and opportunities, people who don’t have elite connections may feel that this informal cultural system is unfair. For personal or ethical reasons, some people may challenge or resist the practices of guanxi . Chinese journalist Lijia Zhang (2013) describes how she was denied a promotion in her first job because she refused to give the expected guanxi gifts to her boss. Zhang reports that most Chinese people complain about the widespread practices of corruption but are forced to use their guanxi networks to get ahead in life. Guanxi illustrates how culture can be generally taken for granted but also highly controversial. Many other cultural norms are also widely accepted but challenged and resisted by certain groups who are disadvantaged or limited by those norms. Gender roles are a good example, as are norms of sexuality and marriage. Paradox 4: Culture Is Shared, but It Varies The examples of guanxi and the geodesic dome both illustrate another paradox: how culture is widely yet unevenly shared among members of a group. Different members of and groups in a society have different perspectives on their shared culture—and different versions of that culture. Among elites, the use of Chinese guanxi (or American “networking”) might seem to be a more personal and trustworthy process for making things happen. But for people who lack access to elite networks, these cultural norms may seem to be an exclusive and unfair tool of class oppression. Returning to the notion of home, consider the many, many versions of home in your society. People in different subgroups and regions live in structures of different shapes and sizes that are made of different materials. And yet, the members of a culture do share a common set of assumptions about home. Home is where we live, where we sleep, and most often where our family lives as well. Even with such diversity, people in a society have a common image or ideal of home. On the West Coast of the United States, geodesic innovators sought to expand the notion of home with a new shape and a new way of building. But in southwest Missouri, that variation of home did not take root. Alas. The four paradoxes all illustrate how culture operates as a force of stability in a society while also generating forms of constant alteration, adaptation, and change. As culture is mobile, controversial, and variable, some elements are always in the process of transformation even as other elements are maintained and reinforced. Over time, people reinterpret their cultural norms and practices and sometimes even reject them altogether in favor of some other way of thinking or doing things. This paradoxical view of culture points to the dynamic tensions of people living in groups. Societies are collectivities of individuals, families, regional groups, ethnic groups, socioeconomic classes, political groups, and so on. Culture provides a way for people to live and work together while also allowing for the expression and performance of distinctive differences. Rather than breaking down, culture responds to pressures for change with adaptation to new conditions. The paradoxes that make culture seem impossible also make culture flexible and durable. In an era that combines increasing polarization with an urgent need for cooperative change, perhaps we need culture now more than ever. Summary The discipline of anthropology is centered on the concept of culture. What we make, what we do, and what we think constitute the basic elements of culture. These elements combine in aggregates such as symbols, rituals, and social structures. Since the 19th century, anthropologists have developed various modes of analysis for understanding culture, some examining change over time and others considering the functions of culture at one particular point in time. While it is an incredibly useful tool for understanding human social life, the concept of culture is riddled with paradox. Though durable and integrated, culture is subject to constant change, mobility, contest, and variability. Critical Thinking Questions Romance over Time Write down the answers to the following questions. What does a person in your culture do when they want to become romantically involved with a particular someone? Are there common practices for this? What rules guide this behavior, explicit or implied? What are the different roles involved? Are there symbols and rituals? Is there some amount of disagreement in your culture about any of these activities? Now, find a person in your culture who is much older than you, perhaps a person over 70 years old. Ask that person to describe how people did the same things when they were your age. Ask the same set of questions, and write down the answers. How have romantic relations changed over time? What forces have shaped this change? What aspects have remained the same? What explains the durability of some practices? Based on this trajectory of change, can you predict how romantic relations will change in the future? Suggested Readings “Anthropological Theories: A Guide Prepared by Students for Students.” 2012. Department of Anthropology, University of Alabama College of Arts & Sciences. https://anthropology.ua.edu/anthropological-theories/. Bachmann-Medick, Doris, Jens Kugele, and Ansgar Nünning, eds. 2020. Futures of the Study of Culture: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Global Challenges . Boston: De Gruyter. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays . New York: Basic Books. Neumann, Birgit, and Ansgar Nünning, eds. 2012. Travelling Concepts for the Study of Culture . Boston: De Gruyter. Bibliography Bourdieu, Pierre. 1970. “The Berber House or the World Reversed.” Social Science Information 9 (2): 151–170. Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo . London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Ferguson, James. 2006. Global Shadows: Africa in the Neoliberal World Order . Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays . New York: Basic Books. Gennep, Arnold van. 1960. The Rites of Passage . Translated by Monika B. Vizedom and Gabrielle L. Caffe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hallowell, A. Irving. 1992. The Ojibwa of Berens River, Manitoba: Ethnography into History . Edited by Jennifer S. H. Brown. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Kohn, Eduardo. 2013. How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology beyond the Human . Berkeley: University of California Press. Li, Ling. 2011. “‘Performing’ Bribery in China: Guanxi-Practice, Corruption with a Human Face.” Journal of Contemporary China 20 (68): 1–20. https://ssrn.com/abstract=1712390. Lyons, Harriet D. 2011. “Dame Mary Douglas.” In Fifty Key Anthropologists , edited by Robert J. Gordon, Andrew P. Lyons, and Harriet D. Lyons, 46–51. New York: Routledge. Peters-Golden, Holly. 2002. Culture Sketches: Case Studies in Anthropology . 3rd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Scalco, Patricia. 2019. “Weaving Value: Selling Carpets in the Liminal Space of Istanbul’s Grand Bazaar.” Anthropology Today 35 (5): 7–10. Tylor, Edward Burnett. 1873. Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Language, Art, and Custom . 2nd ed. 2 vols. London: John Murray. Williamson, Kenneth. 2012. “Night Becomes Day: Carnival, Contested Spaces, and the Black Movement in Bahia.” The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 17 (2): 257–278. Yin, Xiangru. 2017. “An Analysis of Corruption in China: The Guanxi Network of Chinese High Level Officials and Governors.” Master’s thesis, Clark University. International Development, Community, and Environment (IDCE) (140). https://commons.clarku.edu/idce_masters_papers/140. Zhang, Lijia. 2013. “Author: In China, ‘Everyone Is Guilty of Corruption.’” CNN. October 24, 2013. http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/23/opinion/china-corrution-lijia-zhang/. cultural appropriation claiming or using elements of another culture in an inappropriate way. friction occurs when two or more elements of culture come into conflict, resulting in alteration or replacement of those elements. innovation the slight alteration of an existing element of culture, such as a new style of dress or dance. invention the independent creation of a new element of culture, such as a new technology, religion, or political form. intellectual property material and nonmaterial products of an individual or group that are protected by national and international laws and cannot be used for profit by others without attribution or compensation.

Social Sciences


Introduction The Grand Gallery of Evolution in the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, France displays 9,500 specimens of the estimated millions of species that currently live or once lived on the Earth in its collections. In addition to educating the public about the mechanisms of evolution, the exhibitions in the museum honor the scientists who helped contribute to our current understanding of the history of life on Earth. (credit: “Great Gallery of Evolution” by Mustang Joe/flickr, Public Domain) This chapter applies evolutionary concepts to the understanding of human origins and explains the biological variation seen in our ancestors across time. Chapters 4, Biological Evolution and Early Human Evidence and Chapter 5, The Genus Homo and the Emergence of Us, represent a field of study that is probably the most dynamic, controversial and highly debated subfield of anthropology. Perspectives and opinions vary not only within the mindset of the general public but also amongst scientists and anthropologists alike. As the human fossil puzzle begins to fill in with new discoveries, we find ourselves gaining valuable insights into what makes us human and the ways in which we are a part of, not separate from, the natural world. Despite our advances in the field, we also have to be prepared for the possibility we may end up with more questions than answers! It is these very reasons that explain why so many of us find this such a fascinating field and why so many of us take it so personally. It is after all a journey into the discovery of who we are and where we came from; and that should be of interest to all of us as members of the Homo genus.

Social Sciences


What Is Biological Anthropology? Learning Outcomes: By the end of this section, you will be able to: Identify the five subfields of biological anthropology. Explain how each of the subfields contributes to our understanding of human origins and evolution. Understand the historical context of the field of biological anthropology. Looking to the Deep Past Biological anthropology , also referred to as physical anthropology or evolutionary anthropology , is one of the four major subfields of anthropology. While the other subfields focus on current and relatively recent human cultures, biological anthropology looks to the deeper past, asking questions about what it means to be human by exploring where humans came from as a species. Biological anthropology comprises numerous areas of study: human biological variation, paleoanthropology (human and primate evolution), primatology (the study of nonhuman primates), bioarchaeology (the study of bones found at archaeological sites), and genetic anthropology (the application of molecular science to archaeological, historical, and linguistic evidence to reveal the history of ancient human origins and migration). Each of these areas of study contributes something to anthropologists’ understanding of current human physical characteristics and behaviors. Exploring What It Means to Be Human Studies of human biological variation evaluate the physical similarities and differences between human populations across both time and space. Differences in morphology include features such as height, jawline, eye sockets, and ear and nose shape and size. Biochemical differences account for variations in the sense of smell, mutations in the CCR5 gene that offer resistance to HIV, and variations in skin pigmentation in response to levels of exposure to ultraviolet rays from the sun. These variations in modern human skin pigmentation are the result of evolutionary adaptations to different levels of exposure to ultraviolet rays from the sun. (credit: “School Diversity Many Hands Held Together” by Wonder woman0731/flickr, CC BY 2.0) The study of human biological variation is closely linked to the original conception of biological anthropology, which was formalized in 1930 with the establishment of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists , recently renamed the American Association of Biological Anthropologists . The change in name is an effort to move away from the term physical anthropology , which has come to be associated with views promoting scientific racism that no longer represent or align with views held by anthropologists today. In 1951, American anthropologist Sherwood Washburn introduced a “new physical anthropology,” changing the focus from racial typology and classification to the study of human evolution and the evolutionary process. This new focus expanded anthropology as a field to include paleoanthropology and primatology Paleoanthropology looks at the fossil evidence of humanity’s ancestors along with ancient material culture such as tools and other human artifacts. The physical morphology (shape and size) of skulls and other postcranial material (skeletal remains other than the skull) allow paleoanthropologists to form hypotheses about important milestones in human evolution over time. Primatology examines the behavioral and physical attributes of both living and fossil primates as well as their relationships with their environments. Humans are primates who share a common ancestry with nonhuman primates. By studying nonhuman primates, anthropologists can gain a better understanding of what it means to be a primate and what it means to be human. Genetic anthropology is used within several areas of biological anthropology. In this specialized area, DNA testing is combined with archaeological, historical, and linguistic evidence to reveal the history of ancient human migration or to track human disease. Forensic anthropology is a subfield of biological anthropology that applies scientific methods to the analysis of human remains for the purposes of identifying a victim and determining the possible cause of death. A major difference between forensic anthropology and other types of biological anthropology is that forensic anthropology is usually focused on crime scenes involving the death of an individual, whereas other types primarily focus on understanding patterns and features that may appear in a group or an entire population. Beginning in World War II, forensic anthropologists have been instrumental in helping identify victims of war and disasters. They have played critical roles in identifying victims of the Thailand tsunami in 2004 and the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Today, most forensic anthropologists work in a medical examiner’s office, assisting with autopsies and examinations of skeletal remains. Bioarchaeology studies human remains in archaeological settings with a focus on what skeletal material can reveal about the culture, diet, and presence of disease in a population. Bioarchaeologists are also interested in the socioecological system of a population, which helps anthropologists better understand the roles of environmental and ecological pressures and influences in shaping cultural identity, social inequity, sustainability, and access to and use of resources. Based on the biological remains found at archaeological sites, bioarchaeologists explore questions pertaining to social and funerary behavior, diet and nutrition, health, and disease. Bioarchaeology offers a window into the connections among biology, society, and culture. An example of what a bioarchaeologist might study is skeletal evidence of infant cranial boarding , which was practiced by many cultures, including the ancient Maya, the Inca, and some Native North American groups. The process involved binding a child’s head to a flat board in order to artificially deform the skull, possibly to meet an aesthetic ideal or to signify social status. Bioarcheologists have found that variations in how the board was attached to the skull provide important information about an individual’s social identity. This elongated skull is from a member of the Nazca culture, which flourished in what is now Peru in the years 100 BCE to 800 CE. It’s long, oval shape is the result of infant cranial bonding, the practice of deliberately shaping the development of an infant’s skull by bonding it to stiff boards. (credit: “Nasca Peru Deformed Skull” by VasenkaPhotography/flickr, CC BY 2.0) Ann Rosalie David 1946- Professor Ann Rosalie David , Egyptologist and forensic and biological anthropologist at the University of Manchester, UK. (credit: Professor David, Public Domain) Personal History: Professor Ann Rosalie David was born in Cardiff, UK and earned a bachelor of arts degree in ancient history from University College London in 1967 and a doctorate from the University of Liverpool in 1971. Her thesis was on ancient Egyptian temple rituals. Area of Anthropology : The focus of Professor’s David’s work has been biological anthropology and Egyptology. Accomplishments In the Field: Professor David is a Director of the KNH Centre for Biological and Forensic Studies in Egyptology at the University of Manchester. In this role, she established the Ancient Egyptian Mummy Tissue Bank, one of the only such tissue banks in the world. She served as the keeper of Egyptology at the Manchester Museum and has often worked in collaboration with Egypt’s Ministry of Health and Population on public health projects. One such project involved the identification of antibodies against schistosomiasis, a parasite spread by freshwater snails, in Egyptian mummies. David was made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE) in 2003 for her work in Egyptology. David has appeared in or consulted on several documentaries, including the television miniseries Private Lives of the Pharaohs (2000) and Secrets of the Pharaohs (2001) and the documentary short Mummies: Secrets of the Pharaohs (2007). Importance of Her Work: Ann Rosalie David was the first woman in Britain to hold a professorship in Egyptology. She was a pioneer in biomedical research, conducting research on disease, diet, and lifestyles in ancient Egypt. In 2010, her work on ancient Egyptian mummies found evidence to suggest that cancer may be a human-created disease, attributable in part to modern pollution and changes in lifestyle and diet (David and Zimmerman 2010). In this podcast , Professor Rosalie discusses her work with ancient Egyptian mummies. bioarchaeology the study of bones and other biological materials found in archaeological remains. forensic anthropology a branch of biological anthropology in which scientific techniques are used to determine the sex, age, genetic population, or other relevant characteristics of skeletal or biological materials related to matters of civil or criminal law. genetic anthropology a branch of biological anthropology that uses molecular science to explore questions concerning human origins, early human migrations, and the appearance of disease across time. morphology the physical shape and structural form of an organism or species. paleoanthropology the study of the origins and predecessors of the present human species based fossils and other remains. primatology the branch of biological anthropology dealing with the primates. socioecological system the interrelationship between the diversity of plants and animals, humans’ environments, and the diversity of human culture and language.

Social Sciences


What’s in a Name? The Science of Taxonomy Learning Outcomes: By the end of this section, you will be able to: Describe the historical context of binomial nomenclature and scientific classification. Distinguish between the different categories of groups found in Linnaean classification. Explain the different definitions of species and how they are applied to different populations. Defining the Science of Taxonomy Taxonomy is defined as the classification and naming of things. Taxonomy organizes things into groups based on predefined criteria. The criteria can be as simple as color or height or as complex as the presence or absence of a trait, gene, or behavior. Taxonomy is a critical component of biological anthropology because it helps anthropologists organize humans and their evolutionary ancestors both spatially (by location) and temporally (through time). Taxon refers to a specific subgroup, such as the genus. Taxa is the plural form of taxon, used to refer to all groups. The classification system used for organizing living organisms was originally developed in the 18th century by Swedish botanist Carolus Linnaeus . His system, which he called the Systema Naturae , uses a structure known as binomial nomenclature . Binomial nomenclature assigns two Latin names to each organism. The first is termed the genus name . The second is the specific or the trivial name , commonly called the species name . In print, genus and species names are italicized. The first letter of the genus is capitalized, while the species or trivial name is lowercase. For example, the scientific name for the house cat is Felis catus , and the name for modern human beings is Homo sapiens . Linnaeus’s binomial nomenclature established a shared scientific language that would become universal across countries and cultures, avoiding the confusion caused by regional and colloquial names. In addition to establishing a shared language, Linnaeus’s naming system groups organisms that share common traits. For example, he grouped together animals with mammary glands into the category mammals. Mammals were further broken down according to other traits. For example, mammals that have opposable thumbs were grouped together as primates, and those without opposable thumbs were grouped as non-primates. This is a hierarchical classification scheme, meaning that organisms are grouped into successive levels from the broadest category of domain to the more specific level of species. When Linnaeus first created his Systema Naturae , he built five hierarchical levels into his taxonomy: kingdom , class , order , genus , and species . Humans are in the kingdom Animalia, the class Mammalia, the order Primates, the genus Homo , and the species sapiens . Over time, many levels have been added to the Linnaean system of classification, including domain, phylum, subclass, superorder, family, and tribe. The addition of these taxon groups has enabled biological anthropologists to better understand the variations present in various groups of organisms. However, biological anthropologists spend the majority of their time trying to understand the species level. This chart details the Linnaean hierarchical classification for the monarch butterfly. The broadest category, “Life”, appears at the top of the chart, with classifications of increasing specificity at each level that follows. “Species” is the most granular level. (attribution: Copyright Rice University/OpenStax, under CC By 4.0 license) Defining a Species While species is a word that most people are familiar with and comfortable using, just what determines a species is incredibly difficult to define. At the most basic level, a species comprises a group of organisms with shared characteristics that distinguish them from other groups. Most scientists distinguish a species based on behavior, genetics, and/or morphology. Species definitions are the basis for scientific names. The common name of a species, on the other hand, is usually based on general physical characteristics noted by a culture or local population. Common names are also referred to as folk taxonomy or ethnotaxonomy (classifications influenced by culture, etc.). There is a growing interest among anthropologists and the scientific community in preserving Indigenous classifications of the natural world and connecting them with scientific classifications. Decisions related to classification often involve tremendous taxonomical controversy, especially within the field of biological anthropology. There are more than 20 distinct species definitions , or ways of categorizing or distinguishing one type of organism from another. Below are the four most common definitions of a species. Biological Species The biological species definition states that a species is a group of interbreeding organisms that are reproductively isolated from other groups of organisms. Reproductive isolation means that members of a species are not able to mate successfully with members outside their species. Gorillas, for example, cannot successfully breed with Pan paniscus , the bonobo. The biological species definition uses the ability to interbreed as its foundation because successful mating leads to gene flow, or the movement of genetic material from one population to another. Ecological Species The ecological species definition emphasizes the role of natural selection in maintaining species boundaries. This concept is based on the idea that gene flow is neither necessary nor sufficient to maintain species boundaries. Instead, natural selection plays an important role in maintaining the boundaries between species. In nature, species boundaries are often maintained even though there is a substantial amount of gene flow between species. Gene flow between species generally occurs at places called hybrid zones , areas of overlap where two species are known to successfully breed. A classic example of a hybrid zone occurs on the island of Sulawesi in Southeast Asia, where Macaca maura (the moor macaque) and Macaca tonkeana (the Tonkean macaque) are known to have successfully interbred for more than 150 years. Despite this, the integrity of the two distinct species has been maintained. Phylogenetic Species The biological species definition is based on breeding behavior, specifically whether species are capable of mating with one another. This foundation is problematic when trying to identify species over time. It is hard to know whether two fossil specimens were capable of interbreeding. It is also difficult in the fossil record to distinguish between interspecific variation (differences between members of two different species) and intraspecific variation (variation within a species). Imagine finding the bones of two individuals, one five feet tall and the other six feet four inches. Identifying whether these individuals were members of two different species (interspecific variation) or representative of the normal variation within a given species would be extremely challenging. These problems are addressed by the phylogenetic species definition . The phylogenetic species definition states that a species can be determined by shared possession of one unique characteristic. For example, imagine you found a group of fossil leg bones. In order to decide if they were from the same species, you would need to determine if they had a trait in common that only these fossil leg bones possessed. If the bones all possessed trait A and this trait was not found in any other species already identified, then you would have a new species, and all of the fossil leg bones could be placed in that species. Mate Recognition Species The mate recognition species definition states that a species is a set of organisms that recognize one another as potential mates. A classic example of a group of species that can be distinguished using this definition is American crickets. Within a single habitat in the United States, there might be over 30 different species of crickets. Each species of cricket is known to produce a distinct song. Despite all these different species living side by side, the female cricket of each species will only mate with a male after hearing the male sing her species-specific song. The song, and the female recognition of it, constitutes a mate recognition system. This is analogous to the biological species definition in that the song acts as a reproductive isolating mechanism. binomial nomenclature the scientific naming system developed by Carolus Linnaeus that represents two parts of a taxonomic name. The name is italicized, the genus is always capitalized, and the species is always lowercased. For example: Homo sapiens . biological species definition a definition of species as members of populations that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. ecological species definition a definition of species that explains differences in form and behavior as the result of adaptations to the environment and natural selection. ethnotaxonomy the study of organism classifications and taxonomies developed and used largely by Indigenous peoples and other cultural groups. hybrid zones areas where two distinct species mate and produce offspring intraspecific variation the genetic variation seen within a species. interspecific variation the genetic variation seen between two species. phylogenetic species definition a definition of species based on individuals all possessing specific derived traits. reproductive isolation conditions that prevent potentially interbreeding populations from breeding. species a class of individuals that have some common characteristics or qualities. taxa the plural form of taxon, used to signify all taxonomic groups. taxon a specific group or subgroup of organisms. taxonomy the science or technique of naming and classifying life.

Social Sciences


It’s All in the Genes! The Foundation of Evolution Learning Outcomes: By the end of this section, you will be able to: Define alleles, genes, phenotypes, and genotypes. Distinguish the process of mitosis from the process of meiosis. Explain how Mendel’s laws of heredity affect human variation. Explain how the multitude of evolutionary forces contribute to variation in the human condition. The Units of Life Cells are the basic units of life in all organisms. They are the smallest entities that are capable of self-reproduction. There are two main types of cells: prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells , named for the types of organisms in which they occur. Prokaryotes are single-celled organisms, such as bacteria and archaea. Eukaryotes are more complex, multicellular organisms, such as plants and animals (including humans). One of the most important components of eukaryotic cells is the enclosed nucleus at the center of the cell; prokaryotic cells do not have this nucleus. The nucleus of a eukaryotic cell houses all of the genetic material, or DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), that controls cellular function. Normally, the DNA forms a long string within the nucleus. There are two main types of eukaryotic cells: somatic cells and sex cells (also known as gametes). The somatic cells make up the structural components of a body, such as the tissues, muscles, and organs. The sex cells are specifically involved in reproduction. The function of the sex cells is to unite with a sex cell from another individual to form a fertilized egg, also known as a zygote. In animals, there are two types of sex cells: ova, or eggs, and sperm. Cell division is the process that results in the production of new cells. However, sex and somatic cells divide differently. The cellular division of somatic cells is known as mitosis , while the cellular division of sex cells is known as meiosis . Mitosis of somatic cells is sometimes referred to as simple cell division because the parent cell divides once to produce two daughter cells that are genetically identical to each other and identical to the original parent cell. During mitosis, the DNA genetic material forms structures known as chromosomes. Each daughter cell inherits an exact copy of all 46 chromosomes found within the parent cell. In somatic cell division, also known as mitosis, the parent cell divides to produce two daughter cells that are genetically identical to each other and to the parent cell. (credit: “Major events in mitosis”by Mysid/Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain) Meiosis, or sex cell division, is more complicated. This type of cellular division only occurs in the testes of males and the ovaries of females. Instead of just one division, meiosis results from two cellular divisions that produce four daughter cells. In meiosis, the four daughter cells each receive half of the original genetic material from the parental cell. Thus, each daughter cell only has 23 chromosomes. It is on the chromosomes that genes are housed. Genes are the fundamental unit of heredity. They are best understood as the sequence or ordering of the DNA material that is housed in the nucleus. The genotype is the genetic material found within an organism's cells and it is the expression of these genes that will produce the phenotype or observable trait. Sometimes, the sequencing of the DNA material produces a variation of a gene, known as an allele . An allele is defined as a similar but slightly different form of the same gene that can activate the expression of a specific trait. Gregor Mendel and the Laws of Heredity The true nature of inheritance was not really understood until the beginning of the 20th century, when the 19th-century work of Gregor Mendel , a Catholic priest from Slovakia, was rediscovered. While in college, Gregor Mendel was introduced to cell theory , which states that all organisms are composed of cells and that cells are the fundamental unit of all living things. Cell theory raised many questions in Mendel’s mind, including whether both parents contribute equally to the cells in their offspring. In 1854, Mendel began a series of experiments with pea plants to help resolve this question and better understand how traits are inherited from generation to generation. Gregor Mendel was a Catholic priest whose experiments with selective breeding of pea plants established many of the rules of heredity. (credit: “Gregor Mendel Monk” by William Bateson, Mendel’s Principles of Heredity: A Defence /Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain) The first stage of Mendel’s experiments was identifying plants that breed true, meaning that each parent only produces one kind of offspring when self-crossed. A self-cross is essentially a self-mating; some plants, such as peas, have both male and female parts and can self-fertilize. Not all self-crosses are the same as the parent plant, however. For example, self-crossed pea plants that have yellow pods sometimes produce offspring with yellow pods and sometimes produce offspring with green pods. Mendel continued to selectively breed only those pea plants that produced offspring that were the same as the parents. He called them purebreds and referred to them as the P1 generation. It took him more than two years to establish plants that always bred true. Then Mendel selected seven traits of his pea plants that each had two distinct phenotypes, or observable expressions of the trait. For example, seed shape can be either round or wrinkled, while pod color can be either yellow or green. Over the next eight years, Mendel studied the mating and resulting traits of more than 28,000 plants. Mendel’s first round of experiments used his purebred pea plants to create what is known as a monohybrid cross . A monohybrid cross is a mating between two purebred individuals who differ in a single characteristic. In Mendel’s monohybrid crosses, the parent pea plants differed from one another in terms of whether the pods of the parental pea plants were yellow or green or whether the seeds of the parental pea plant were wrinkled or round. Mendel identified a number of distinct characteristics observable in the seeds, flowers, pods, and stems of pea plants. He used these observable traits as the basis for his breeding experiments, taking note of which traits were dominant and which unexpressed (or recessive) in offspring. (credit: “Mendel Genetics” by LadyofHats/Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain) In his first monohybrid crosses, Mendel mated a purebred yellow pea plant with a purebred green pea plant. He found that all the offspring resulting from this monohybrid cross were yellow, even though when the green peas self-crossed, all their offspring were green. In other words, all the hybrid offspring were yellow in color. A hybrid plant is one in whose parents differ in a term of a specific characteristic, such as pod color or seed shape. The trait that was expressed (yellow) Mendel referred to as dominant , and the trait that disappeared (green) he referred to as recessive . Mendel’s next set of experiments involved mating two hybrid plants—in other words, those that resulted from the monohybrid cross. In these experiments, he found that the recessive traits reappeared in a ratio of three dominant to one recessive. These diagrams are examples of Punnett squares, a simple method for predicting the observable results of breeding experiments. In the top square, a purebred green plant (yy) is crossed with a hybrid yellow plant (Yy). The four possibilities for offspring appear in the four interior squares of the diagram. In this case, half of the offspring will be hybrid yellow and half will be purebred green. The bottom diagram shows the results of a cross between a purebred green and a purebred yellow plant – in this case, all offspring are hybrid yellow. (credit: Copyright Rice University/OpenStax, under CC BY 4.0 license) Mendel’s experiments suggested two very important facts. First, Mendel noted that various expressions of a trait (such as pea color) were controlled by discrete units that occur in pairs and that offspring inherited one unit of each pair from each parent. This observation became Mendel’s first law of inheritance , the law of segregation , which states that the two alleles for each trait segregate, or separate, during the formation of gametes (eggs and sperm) and that during the reproductive process, the alleles combine at random with other alleles. Today, we know that the process of meiosis—division of sex cells—explains Mendel’s law of segregation. Each of the seven traits identified by Mendel is controlled by a pair of genes in the plant, one on each chromosome. During the reproductive cycle, the chromosomes separate from one another so that each gamete has only one allele for each trait. During fertilization, the alleles combine, and the two-gene state is restored. After Mendel established his first law of inheritance, he extended his studies to more complex situations. He began performing experiments with two set of traits, using dihybrid crosses . A dihybrid cross is a cross between individuals who differ with respect to two gene pairs—for example, a cross between a plant with a round yellow pea and a plant with a wrinkled green pea. Because yellow and round are both dominant traits and wrinkled and green are both recessive, all the offspring resulting from the first-generation mating were 100% yellow and round. The green color and the wrinkled pea shape had disappeared. However, these recessive traits reappeared in a ratio of three dominant to one recessive when two round yellow individuals from the first-generation dihybrid cross were mated. The green color and the wrinkled pea shape had not truly disappeared. In the second generation of the dihybrid cross, Mendel found that 9/16 of the offspring were round and yellow, 3/16 were wrinkled and yellow, 3/16 were round and green, and 1/16 were wrinkled and green. The results of these dihybrid crosses indicate that the two characteristics—pea color and pea shape—segregate independently. The expression of one trait is not influenced by the expression of the other trait. This is known as the law of independent assortment , which is Mendel’s second law of inheritance . There is nothing to dictate that round peas will be yellow or that wrinkled peas will be green. The alleles that code for different traits sort independently of one another during sex cell division (meiosis). Mendelian Inheritance in Humans Mendel’s laws of inheritance also apply to humans. Indeed, the principles of segregation and independent assortment account for the transmission of certain human traits. Human blood type is one of the most familiar Mendelian traits . Blood type has three phenotypes—A, B, and O—based on three alleles of a single gene. If only the A allele or both the A and O alleles are present, the phenotype is A. If only the B allele or both the B and O alleles are present, the phenotype is B. If both A and B are present, the phenotype is AB. If neither A nor B is present, the phenotype is O. Note that O is recessive to both A and B, while A and B are codominant. Codominance means that instead of one allele masking the other, the products of both alleles are observed. Additional examples of Mendelian traits, or those controlled by a single gene, include Huntington’s disease, widow’s peak, cystic fibrosis, sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, hemophilia, and red-green color blindness. OMIM, or Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man , hosts an online database of almost 5,000 Mendelian human traits. It is important to note that the majority of human traits are not controlled by a single pair of genes. More often, a single gene can have multiple effects. Even more commonly, multiple genes are needed to produce a single effect. These are referred to as polygenic traits . Most human traits are polygenic, not Mendelian. A good way of determining if a trait is polygenic is to assess whether the trait can be measured. Traits that can be measured, such as height or weight, are polygenic. Also, traits that have a wide range or lots of variability and can be affected by environmental factors are probably polygenic. The survival of a species depends on genetic diversity and variation. If there is a reduction of a gene pool due to geographic isolation or other environmental factors than a species is at risk of extinction. allele an alternative form of a gene that arises by mutation and is found in the same place on a chromosome, directly impacting the expression of a genetic trait or phenotype. genotype a complete set of genetic material found in an organism. law of independent assortment a law of inheritance stating that different genes and their alleles are inherited independently. law of segregation a law of inheritance stating that when two alleles for a trait separate during the formation of new zygotes, these alleles will combine at random with other alleles. phenotype the set of observable characteristics or traits of an organism, such as color and structural morphology. polygenic traits traits that are controlled by multiple genes instead of just one.

Social Sciences