Group 11: How Do We Distinguish Between Civilized Societies

Group 11 How Do We Draw A Distinction Between Civilized Societies

How do we draw a distinction between civilized societies and groups of “savages”? Are those of us living in modernized societies really closer to the true definition of savage than the arbitrary way the term was used in the Victorian era? Can one define a group of people as civilized or savage based purely on their moral system? What roles do history, environment, upbringing, individual psychological factors, and society play in shaping our cultures? What impact has globalization had on our world? What impact will it have moving forward? Will it bring our cultures and societies closer together? Or will it contribute to destruction and chaos?

Do all field-workers have to be ethnographers, or are there alternative methods of study? Is it better to study other cultures from the inside (participant) view, or the outside (analytical/critical) view? How did the industrial revolution shape and contribute to the field of Anthropology?

Paper For Above instruction

The distinction between what constitutes a "civilized" society versus a "savage" society has historically been shaped by subjective, cultural, and often biased perceptions, particularly during the Victorian era. This dichotomy has been used to justify imperialism and colonization, often by asserting moral or cultural superiority of certain groups over others (Fanon, 1961). In modern times, however, such rigid classifications are increasingly challenged due to a more nuanced understanding of cultural relativism and the recognition that all societies develop within specific historical and environmental contexts (Boas, 1911). The idea of civilization is thus less a reflection of moral superiority and more a cultural construct influenced by various factors—including history, environment, upbringing, and individual psychology—that shape societal norms and behaviors (Tylor, 1871). Furthermore, globalization has significantly impacted this dynamic by promoting intercultural exchange and often leading to cultural homogenization, but it can also deepen cultural divides depending on how it is managed and experienced (Held et al., 1999).

Historically, the Victorian era propagated a hierarchy where Western societies deemed themselves superior, thus classifying non-Western peoples as "savages" or "primitives" (Kuper, 1999). Modern anthropology seeks to overcome such ethnocentric perspectives through ethnographic methods, participant observation, and cultural relativism. These methodologies emphasize understanding societies within their own contexts rather than comparing them against Western standards (Geertz, 1973). Ethnography involves immersive engagement, usually with community members, to gain insider perspectives—yet alternative methods such as linguistic analysis, archival research, or cross-cultural surveys offer valuable insights into societies that may not be accessible through participant observation alone (Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007).

The debate of insider versus outsider perspectives in studying cultures remains pertinent. Inside or participant perspectives allow researchers to experience cultural nuances firsthand, fostering empathy and deeper understanding (Malinowski, 1922). Conversely, outside or analytical perspectives provide critical, comparative insights but risk imposing external biases or misinterpreting behaviors if not balanced appropriately (Levi-Strauss, 1966). The integration of both approaches often yields the most comprehensive understanding of cultural dynamics.

The industrial revolution played a pivotal role in shaping modern anthropology. It catalyzed the need to document and understand mechanized societies rapidly changing due to technological advances (Boas, 1911). It also fostered the growth of colonial ventures where anthropologists often accompanied explorers and administrators, thereby influencing the discipline's focus on "primitive" societies (Kuper, 1999). The rise of scientific methods during this period contributed to the development of ethnography as a rigorous and empirical approach. Additionally, technological innovations—such as photography and later film—enabled anthropologists to record cultural practices more accurately, broadening our understanding of human diversity (Hillers, 2012).

Globalization continues to reshape cultural landscapes by facilitating unprecedented levels of interconnectedness. While it promotes cross-cultural dialogue and exchange, it also presents challenges such as cultural erosion, loss of indigenous languages, and homogenization of practices (Appadurai, 1996). Moving forward, the impact of globalization on cultural diversity will depend on how societies navigate these tensions—either by embracing hybrid identities or resisting cultural dilution. Ultimately, globalization has the potential to foster greater understanding and solidarity among cultures but requires conscious efforts to protect and honor diverse cultural heritages (Tomlinson, 1999).

References

• Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalisation. University of Minnesota Press.
• Boas, F. (1911). The Mind of Primitive Man. The Macmillan Company.
• Fanon, F. (1961). The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press.
• Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books.
• Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in Practice. Routledge.
• Hillers, M. (2012). Visual Anthropology: Photography as a Research Tool. Routledge.
• Held, D., McGrew, A., Goldblatt, D., & Perraton, J. (1999). Global transformations: Politics, Economics, and Culture. Stanford University Press.
• Kuper, A. (1999). The Chosen Primes: Anthropology and the Racial Politics of Culture. Routledge.
• Levi-Strauss, C. (1966). The Savage Mind. University of Chicago Press.
• Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Tylor, E. B. (1871). Primitive Culture. John Murray.