why did anthropologists in the colonial era find social change so difficult to theorise, and do their successo

Question

why did anthropologists in the colonial era find social change so difficult to theorise, and do their successors nowadays find social change analytically less problematic

Answer 1

You can only draw on past experience. Social change had remained stagnant for centuries. It would be like trying to theorize humans with wings. It just wouldn't work.

Answer 2

Anthropology as an established social science only really co-existed with the colonial era from the end of the 19th century. The last hundred plus years have seen more concentrated change in the West than at any other period of human history, and it was against this backdrop that much early anthropology took place. Compared to the rate of 'progress' in the US and Europe during this time, the studied subjects - mostly agrarian, pasturalist or hunter gatherer peoples living under colonial regimes - seemed to be stuck in a motionless void. In actual fact no society stays still; but many of the early pioneers were partially tainted by their own beliefs in racial supremacy, which assumed that non-Western peoples were incapable of conscious change, and were instead at the mercy of their environments. It is also argued that another reason to avoid discussing change was to minimise the effects of colonialisation itself.

A reluctance to see anthropological subjects in a state of change was further stimulated by the reaction against rapid developments back home. Such was the pace of change that many Westerners perceived in their subjects a closeness to the land and to nature that was being eroded in an increasingly industrialised and urbanised Europe and US. The mythical 'noble savage' did not change, and was therefore superior in many ways to his Western cousins: living in the bush was a far nobler, more 'civilised' way of life than being an urbanised factory worker. It therefore suited the personal attitudes of the colonial anthropologists to see their subjects free fromthe change that had blighted the West. It should be noted here that many anthropologists during this period had actively rejected a life back in the West, otherwise they would not have moved out to the colonies in the first place - and so were more likely to see their subjects in a romanticised manner.

Modern anthropologists find it far easier to accept change. This is for a variety of reasons. Firstly, experience has shown that all societies constantly change. Second, many of the presuppositions and prejudices that led to odd theories of stagnation have been lost now that peoples and cultures understand each other better. Thirdly, an increasing emphasis on the anthropology of the West (see the excellent work of Kate Fox for some good examples of British studies) has revealed and proved that the West and non-West share a lot more in common than people previously believed: one thing being that the only thing that doesn't change is change itself.

Answer 3

some say that Christianity is both the most ideal project in historic previous or the biggest hoax in historic previous. yet Feminist theory is nicely previous Christianity, in this appreciate. we are informed that we really act a particular way because we are taught that way, as hostile to any organic and organic changes, because the starting up of guy. Whoa!!!!! Now that theory reaches and breaches the signifance of the different theory or theology that has ever existed! (for sure, not absolutely everyone take the conception to the acute of each and everything being commonly socially built). The Masculists indoctrine a similar theory, that is the position I disagree. I propose, once you're only putting forward that we are a made from the ambience, nicely yeah.... that is already been lined in Psychology. So, that is why I equate this with those who practice the acute variety to this theory.

Answer 4

It should also be noted that anthropologists didn't really exist in the colonial age. The systematic, scientific study of culture is largely a product of the late 19th century and methodology wasn't refined until the 20th.