Historical Anthropology

The readings this week, in my opinion, made a good case for the pursuance of historical anthropology. It is clear to most historians that contingency and historical “what ifs” can illuminate and accentuate historical plausibility but require adequate detail in research and focus. Anthropology, as characterized here, seems to have been formed studying overarching influences and themes in order to accurately gauge the reason for and result of cultural change. In my opinion, anthropology must take into account individual aegis in the formation and change of cultures. John and Jean Comaroff write “without human agents, without specified locations and moments and actions, realities are not realized, objects are not objectified, nothing “takes places,” the social is not socialized, and the present has no presence.” In one way this quote indicates that individuals literally create meaning and add meaning to actions, realities, objects, and social relations. However, this quote also impresses the importance of perceiving individual meaning and action in understanding how cultural forms are destroyed or shifted. The perception of History and Anthropology as two conceptual frameworks by which past events, peoples, may be interpreted divides pertinent relationships and comparisons. Historical Anthropology may afford the application of Geertz’s “thick description” and a better and fuller understanding of past events and people. By allowing a closer and more complete description of both the literal events and their causes along with the overarching cultural context, Historical Anthropology can inform us about the how and why of change. These two fields, though analyzing at different levels, are especially related in today’s social histories. As variable and different as insights from each field can give, both History and Anthropology struggle with the fact human culture consists both of individuals as well as characterizing individuals.