The Polar Elements of Anthropology

There are TWO polar elements that make up Anthropology. These are the Organic evolution of Humans and the Second is the Superorganic (or Culture).

The First is the Organic pole that focuses on humans and their evolution as a species. It makes up the core of Paleoanthropology as carried out by archaeologist and paleontologist focused on early humans.

The Second is the Superorganic pole that focuses on the ideational or cultural domain of humans living in supraorganic or social groups. It makes up the broad areas of Social/Cultural anthropology and Linguistic Anthropology.

One must also remember that between the poles there comes a blending of elements. Physical anthropology, for example, ranges from the study of the similarities and differences in the physical body of individuals to the effects of physical reproduction (genes) on a supra-organic population. Linguistics, in the broader sense as semiotics, deals not only with the encoding of sound patterns, but also on the range of behavioral communication activities performed by individuals that melds into the superorganic (meanings) of cultures.

The former is existential in the sense that its evidence is physical and real in the form of archaeological sites, bones, tools, and features. The latter is ideational in the sense that it is expressed through language and behaviors. These are the ways that the members of the social unit express themselves and their meanings through their behavior and their works (technologies).

To ignore the former is to ignore the fact that humans are part of the natural evolution of life on the planet. To ignore the latter is to ignore the importance of culture as the mechanism through which humans have risen to the point of the dominant species on the planet. To ignore the middle ground is to ignore what has and will make us human.

The emergence of technology, or transorganic behavior, as the human method for solving survival problems and transmitting the solutions across generations is the link between the organic and superorganic poles. It is also the glue that holds us together as a self-aware and self-reflective species.

Updated version 8 14 2018

Where does GENDER fit in anthropology?

Anthropologically gender is an important variable because of its biological origin, that is as a technical term, gender denotes one's sexual function as a member of the species. From the evolutionary perspective it is significant in terms of the biological mechanism that produces adaptations over time, and today in terms of the medical consequences for the individual person as a biological organism.

Socially, these distinctions are and have been critical to the formation of human reproductive unit (the family) and the process of raising of an immature offspring to a sexually mature member of the group. It also is important in the way society, the group, responds to individuals born physically "different" from the local gender norm, or the behaviors that differ from those norm. How a society adapts to these situations are certainly anthropological questions.

Culturally, as many point out, gender is simply assumed by the members of a culture. They simple conform to the norms symbolism of dress, styles, occupations, etc. The anthropological questions that relate to these gender differences arise from the comparison between cultures and sub-cultures. Also the anthropologist is interested in the definitions and responses to deviance from these expected differences.

While cultures and societies may address the gender issues differently, the biological significance of gender to the species has, until the end of the last century, been a critical element in the definition of the human animal. Today, with fertility and transgender medical technology, the biological imperative for gender is coming under question and the human, social, and cultural responses are definitely a subject for anthropological study.

Finally, the role of technology and gender raises another set of questions where technology cancels out the physical advantages that once were associated with the biological advantages one gender held over the other. Again, these are anthropological questions about the biological nature of gender worthy of study.

Political attitude as an influence on Human Evolution?

 I recently ran across a question in the Anthropology Network which asks how political perspective influences the role of culture in the evolution of H sapiens.The writer presented the question in terms of poll and asked readers to respond by selecting between 5 political attitudes ranging from the most conservative to the most radical. Specifically, between Reactionary and Radical.

At first I dismissed the question and the poll as "interesting" but irrelevant. How could my political outlook today have anything to do with the development of culture and human evolution? But as I thought about some more, I realized the question really attacks the question of how does cultural dynamics work and what impact has this had on the evolution of our species and its cultural diversity. A question that has been at the center of my own anthropological interests for more than four decades.  

The answer which I have found come from readings dating back to the 1960s and 1970s related to a seminar in community development which I took with Dr. Edward H. Spicer upon my return from the Peace Corps. The key book was Ward Goodenough's Cooperation In Change. Goodenough builds much of his theoretical argument based on the work of Anthony F. C. Wallace's Culture and Personality.

I realized that political attitude played out at the supraorganic or societal level certainly can influnce the cultural response of the group and thus indirectly the course of human evolution.

Anthony F. C. Wallace answered this question a long time ago and the Eastern religions even longer ago. It is the tension between "radical" and "reactionary" that produces the evolution in Human culture which in turn has promoted the biological evolution of the Homo sapiens species.

Wallace identifies two forces or principles at work in cultural development. The first, here the radical, is the principle of the ORGANIZATION OF DIVERSITY (OD). Human group activity which brings diverse elements in the environment(s) together to successfully solve a survival problem favor the survival of that group. The willingness to experiment and break with or question tradition is a radical position leading to innovation.

The second, here the reactionary, is the principle of REPLICATION OF UNIFORMITY (RU). Individual activity does not guarantee success and individual success does not guarantee group success. What is required to produce both innovation and evolution is the replication of successes across generations and the elimination of failed experiments. The resistance to change, orthodoxy, is critical to the replication of success.

Culture, based on these two principles, provides the tension which enables these principles to operate. Evolutionary success is the centrist or moderate product of these principles operating in a give environment. Change the environment and the system must recalibrate, i.e. the species must adapt and evolve..

So to answer the original question, I must ask another question: What is the environment for making a choice?