Summary Of Is Anthropology Really Possible By Irrell Tsuda
When one thinks about anthropology, they typically imagine someone going to a far off land with indigenous people that have stark differences to their culture. This idea of studying the “other” brings up several issues such as ethnocentrism or tunnel vision in which the anthropologist must learn to set aside their own culture to accept others. In recent years, a dichotomy of this traditional method has emerged, called native anthropology. Native anthropologists study cultures and communities they already identify with, giving the entire research a different approach. Many believe that this method addresses issues of focusing too much on difference and makes it easier to connect with the subjects that anthropologists study. Rather than a community
…show more content…
Tsuda challenges several of the theories related to native anthropology, like the assumption that it is easier since the anthropologist is already an ‘insider.’ While one may identify with a certain community, it does not necessarily mean the community will accept them back. The anthropologists still have to work to build relationships with the people they are analyzing because trust is not simply based on sharing similarities with someone. Tsuda also stresses that even though there is a greater sense of familiarity to native anthropology, it is the differences between the anthropologist and their subjects that drives the work. Even with sharing the same ethnicity or culture there are still variance because no two people share the exact same life. She argues that there can be many types of differences within a community such as generational, gender, and regional differences. All of these distinctions allow both the anthropologists and the subjects to get a better understanding of the rest of their community and in turn themselves. Tsuda’s interpretation of her work blurs the lines between native and non-native anthropology and shows that both methods have the ability to expand one’s knowledge and worldview no matter what community they are
Tsuda challenges several of the theories related to native anthropology, like the assumption that it is easier since the anthropologist is already an ‘insider.’ While one may identify with a certain community, it does not necessarily mean the community will accept them back. The anthropologists still have to work to build relationships with the people they are analyzing because trust is not simply based on sharing similarities with someone. Tsuda also stresses that even though there is a greater sense of familiarity to native anthropology, it is the differences between the anthropologist and their subjects that drives the work. Even with sharing the same ethnicity or culture there are still variance because no two people share the exact same life. She argues that there can be many types of differences within a community such as generational, gender, and regional differences. All of these distinctions allow both the anthropologists and the subjects to get a better understanding of the rest of their community and in turn themselves. Tsuda’s interpretation of her work blurs the lines between native and non-native anthropology and shows that both methods have the ability to expand one’s knowledge and worldview no matter what community they are