The 10 most important theories in anthropology and sociology: Do you know them all? In part two, we're going to go through the top five most influential and relevant theories that every student and educator in the social sciences should know.
The host, Dr. Alexander K. Smith, holds an MA from Oxford University and a PhD in the anthropology of Tibet and the Himalayas from the University of Paris (EPHE - PSL).
If there's anything you feel that we missed or should have been on the list, let us know in the comments below!
Endnotes:
[1]
Arguably, the most impactful publication in this regard is Conkey and Spector’s “Archaeology and the study of Gender” (1984), which paved the way for later theorists to deconstruct the projection of contemporary gender norms onto Neolithic societies. Prior to Conkey and Spector’s major works, Feminist anthropological theorists like Nancy Tanner and Adrienne Zihlman (1976, 1978) had already called into question the ‘man-the-hunter’ model and highlighted the environmental material biases that led, in the intellectual history of archaeology, to a systemic bias favoring male contributions to human social development (for example, that stone tools do not decay in the same way as fiber carrying nets and baskets). Their work spurred, in my opinion, a revolutionary change in archaeology, contributing to the development of a model that considers food-sharing as the key to human evolution rather than hunting. On this, I would recommend Leonardo (1991).
Conkey, Margaret W. and Spector, Janet D. 1984. “Archaeology and the Study of Gender” in Advances in Archaeological Method and theory, pp. 1-38.
Leonardo, Micaeola di (ed). 1991. Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology in the Postmodern Era. Berkley: University of California Press.
Tanner, Nancy, and Zihlman, Adrienne. 1976. “Women in Evolution, Part One: Innovation and Selection in Human Origins” in Signs 1(3), pp. 585-608.
Zihlman, Adrienne. 1978. “Women in Evolution, Part Two: Subsistence and Social Organization Among Early Hominids” in Signs 4(1), pp. 4-20.
[2]
Admittedly, this is a rather simplistic discussion of standpoint theory. I would suggest exploring Kenney and Kinsella (1997), Harding (1991, 2004) and Herrmann and Steward (1994) for a more expanded discussion.
Kenney, Sally J. and Kinsella, Helen (eds). 1997. Politics and Feminist Standpoint Theories, New York and London: The Hawthorn Press.
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Cornell University Press.
Harding, Sandra (ed). 2004. The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader. New York and London: Routledge.
Herrmann, Anne and Stewart, Abigail J. (eds). 1994. Theorizing Feminism: Parallel Trends in the Humanities and Social Science. Westview Press.
[3]
So, when I outlined this episode, I thought that Martin Nakata was much older than he actually is (he finished his PhD in 1998!). By using so many overlay from Sandra Harding, I feel like I may have de-emphasized Nakata’s contributions. So I want to stress that his work has been instrumental in highlighting the importance of indigenous standpoint theory and is well worth a read, additionally, if you are interested in subaltern studies, critical pedagogy, or any aspect of indigenous studies and education. In addition to Disciplining the Savages (2007), I would wholeheartedly recommend The Politics of Identity: Emerging Indigeneity (2013), written with Michelle Harris and anger and Indigenous Men (2008), written with Andrew Day. Despite the fact that his work focuses on Australian Indigenous Studies, it has a wide reaching theoretical applicability that North American students in anthropology would find extremely valuable.
0:00 Introduction
0:49 Marxism
7:00 Critical Theory
11:12 Symbolic Interactionism
15:46 Feminist Theory
21:45 Honorable Mentions
22:12 Intersectional Analysis
27:07 Conclusion