User:J Smithx/sandbox

Anthropology in Asia

Most Asian countries are considered peripheral in comparison to the West, although this can partly be contributed to Western anthropological ideologies that influence Asian countries through colonial contact, historically. Despite this, it is unsuitable to apply the same theories and methods used in Western anthropology to other non-Western countries throughout the world. While the discipline of anthropology is historically built from nation-building and colonization from core countries, language and publishing barriers, funding opportunities and political status all influence the structure of anthropological research in each Asian country. Anthropology in the social and cultural perspective have not always had a strong tradition in Asian anthopology, but ethnography, ethnology, and folklore often have dominant roots within the discipline. By better understanding these challenges and connecting with scholars in these areas of study, we can begin to connect world anthropologies in order to better serve our subjects and our audiences.

China

Cai Yuanpei, the father of anthropology in China

Chinese anthropology was founded by scholar Cai Yuanpei. Cai Yuanpei was a scholar educated at the University of Leipzig, and he brought both Western influence and standardization into the discipline of anthropology in China. The first department of anthropology was founded in 1928 with Cai Yuanpei’s creation of Academia Sinica in Beijing. At Academia Sinica, physical anthropology and archaeology held focus.

Franz Boas also brought Western influence to China, and British functionalism would make a lasting impact on Chinese anthropology. In addition to Cai Yuanpei, Wu Wenzao was one of the most influential proponents of Western-influenced anthropology, and he took classes under Ruth Benedict (one of Boas’ students that would be influential in the field of anthropology on her own overall). Wu began teaching at Yenjing University in 1929, where he would influence students such as Fei Xiaotong and Lin Yaohua, who would go on to be important in the scene of Chinese anthropology. Chinese Ethnological Association created in 1934, but its progress was halted by China’s involvement in World War II in 1937.

World War II pushed back the institutional development of anthropology in China until the late 1940s. With this revitalization, Chinese anthropologists began to look inwards at themselves for subjects of study. This inward focus led anthropologists of the time to attempt to use anthropology to better Chinese society. 1940-late 1950s was a time of Soviet influence in China, followed by 1957-1977 and Mao Zedong’s era of the People's Republic of China. During this time, Maoist aims supplemented ethnology and Chinese national identity creation.

Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) building

Post-1978 was a time of reform in China following the end of Mao Zedong's leadership. Academia was reconstructed, and anthropology subsequently saw a revival during this time. Exchanges between foreign faculty and students helped to globalize Chinese anthropology and bring in other perspectives. Liang Zhaotong was an advocate for the revival of social and cultural anthropology, but for this to happen, anthropology had to be seen as a useful tool for improvements in the field of the social sciences and society. Anthropology was held in lower regard than ethnology in China due to the ideology of Mao Zedong, and anthropologists left anthropology for other disciplines in social science, such as sociology, which subsequently saw a large period of development in the 1980s. This lower regard for anthropology also caused the field to receive less attention and less funding from the public and Chinese institutions.

The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) and the State Education Committee founded the Chinese Anthropological Association in 1981 (now part of the East Asian Anthropological Association). Today, anthropology in China is still influenced by its history of being less practical and less important in the field of social sciences. This causes a lack of public interest and awareness in Chinese anthropology in favor of more “professional” disciplines, such as medicine, business, law, etc.

Japan

Torii Ryuzo 1952

The creation of anthropology in Japan was a response to the research of Edward Morse, the first professor of Zoology at Tokyo Imperial University, where he discovered signs of cannibalism in Japan. Japanese nationalism motivated Japanese peoples to study themselves rather than being subjects of study by outsiders. This motivation led to the formation of Anthropological Society of Tokyo in 1886. Tsuboi Shôgorô was a leading member of this group, and he is named one of the founding fathers of Japanese anthropology. In 1892, he became the first professor of anthropology at Tokyo Imperial University.

In 1895, the Japanese colonial empire was marked by the annexation of Taiwan and led to an increase in domestic ethnographers in this region. Torii Ryūzō was Tsuboi's successor and greatly attributed data and photographs of Taiwan during this time period. His own research abroad redirected peoples' focus from themselves, Japanese folklore-studies, to the colonial Others. The expansion Japanese imperialism drove Ryūzō's research of others. This shift in research subjects created a separate discipline, ethnology or 'race studies.'

In 1934, Japanese Society of Ethnology (Nihon Minzokugakkai) was formed, which separated Japanese folklore and ethnological studies from comparative ethnology.

In 1968, the Eighth Congress of the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES) was held in Japan.

In 2004, in response to the IUAES, the Japanese Society of Ethnology changed its name to the Japanese Society of Cultural Anthropology; this is one of the largest organizations at 2,000 members.

Considered to be a semi-peripheral country in comparison to the West, Japan is home to the largest number of anthropologists in Asia as well as the largest center for anthropological research in Asia. Japan's history resembles a colonial power in East Asia. Currently, language and audience discrepancies hinder open conversations between Japanese and American anthropologies. Since Western academic anthropologists publish in English, their local and global audience is essentially one. In Japan, writing for a global audience requires publishing in English. While Japanese scholars are knowledgeable about Western anthropological theories and trends, institutional factors deter Japanese anthropologists to publish in English; a more extensive peer review process can delay publication approval for years resulting in outdated empirical data. Japanese academics prefer to publish in university in-house journals where there is a much shorter delay in publication approval. A local audience means publishing in Japanese and increasing the gap between world anthropologies.

Philippines

The movement of indigenization of anthropology in the Philippines challenges foreign-adopted Western concepts, theories and methods. To understand the viewpoints of this process, indigenization can be examined as a historical process, a perspective of native concepts, and as both a problem and solution created by colonial or neocolonial educational curriculum.

From 1560-1898, the Philippines was under Spanish colonial regime. During this time, Spanish colonizers established society through theologoical orthodoxy. They valued their own written history over the Philippines' native traditions, and oral tradition was undermined by colonization.

From 1898-1941, the second period of colonization by the United States took place. Ethnographic knowledge was established as the basis of integration of indigenous elements into mainstream Philippine society. In 1914, anthropology curriculum was established at the University of the Philippines, and three years later, an anthropology department was created. In 1921, the anthropology department at the University of Philippines merged with the sociology department.

During the post-war era (1946-1968), student activism, national pride and identity reinforced the process of decolonization; the University of the Philippines was at the forefront of this movement. Filipino scholars increasingly pursued graduate programs in the United States anthropology departments. This created an issue that will be discussed further.

From 1970-1986, social and political consciousness in the Philippines marked a revolutionary period. The country adopted conflict models; Marxist ideology was more suitable for the Philippines that was in a crisis state. In the late 1970s, the Philippine Folklore Society was formed. This growth of folklore studies was due to the further development of indigenization in the Philippines. In 1977, The Philippine Anthropological Society (Ugnayan ng Agham Tao or UGAT) was founded.

After 1986, this period was marked by a heightened cultural consciousness. President Corazon Aquino promoted culture through creation of the National Commission for Culture and Arts (NCCA).

The distance between native and foreign anthropologists is a conflict in the Philippines. While most scholars receive formal education in Western societies, they often return "home" and view their native society through a foreign, Westernized lens they were conditioned and educated by. Native anthropologists are hindered by a perspective based on bias. Interests, training, values, and field exposure can result in differences between foreign and native anthropologists. It is important to recognize these different angles, politics of representation, and ethnographic authority in order to successful observe others as well as our own societies. Another challenge in anthropology in the Philippines is discussed by Filipino anthropologist, Carlos Jr. P Tatel, about funding for research on governmental and regional levels. He explains that anthropology proposals for funding often deviate from original plan in order to fit the agendas of agencies who grant travel and research funding.

Siberia

Siberia as a territory was important in the development of Russian anthropology due to its position of alterity within Russia. Siberia and the people of Northern Russia were points of great interest throughout various periods in Russian history as it tried to better understand its own people.

Vladimir Bogoraz, one of the founding fathers of Siberian studies in Russia

The beginnings of ethnographic research in Siberia were heavily influenced by anthropology in Germany and ideas of Russian nationalism in the 19th century. The expedition led by Franz Boas, the Jesup North Pacific Expedition from 1897-1902, helped to bring international attention to the concept of doing anthropology in Siberia in relation to Russian anthropology in addition to bringing Boas’ anthropological perspective into Russia. Also on this expedition were Vladimir Bogoraz, Vladimir Jochelson, and Leo Sternberg, who would be known as the founding fathers of Siberian studies, and influential ethnographers in Russia.

The nationalistic undercurrent in Russia at the time of the beginnings of researching Siberia as a place of intrigue was reflected in the Russians' attitude towards the people in Siberia. The impetus to study Siberians was rooted in the idea that one day the people in the area would all assimilate to Russian culture, and due to this, the current culture of the people should be documented and recorded. Russian ideologies heavily influenced the research field in Siberia, and studying Russian and Siberian history was an easier route for research due to the uncertainty of what would be acceptable to study under the Russian government in the 19th and 20th centuries. Under Soviet Russia in the early 20^th century, ethnology moved toward a more lstructural and functionalist view, with the goal of generally understanding human culture. When Joseph Stalin came into power, this view shifted as Stalin aimed to homogenize Russian culture and identity. Ethnologists were employed by the state with a focus on understanding, regulating, and standardizing the different ethnic groups of Russia.