Anthropological Theories in Later Twentieth Century

Anthropological Theories in Later 20th Century

The anthropological theories in the later twentieth century primarily addressed questions of cultural structure, kinship, cognitive systems, economic relations, symbol systems, and cultural change.[1] Structuralism, for instance, emphasized the universal logic of dualities, or binary oppositions, and inquired into how culture is organized by underlying cognitive structures.[2] Structural Marxism, an extension of structural anthropology, combined Marxist dialectics with structuralist analysis to explain how economic systems are shaped by cognitive and ideological frameworks.[3]

With roots in linguistic anthropology and Boasian cultural relativism, cognitive anthropology emphasized the emic perspective—interpreting culture from the inside out—and viewed culture as a mental code.[4] Cultural neo-evolutionism, on the other hand, focused on the environmental and technical elements that influence cultural development and sought cross-cultural generalizations.[5] Similarly, symbolic and interpretive anthropology examined how individuals create and understand their environments, conceiving culture as a system of meanings.[6]

However, religion was not treated as a primary area of investigation in many twentieth-century anthropological theories, which often ignored it. French structuralism, for example, emphasized social bonds—such as kinship exchange—and binary oppositions.[7] Religion was frequently absorbed under broader symbolic systems rather than examined as a separate domain, even though myths and cosmological symbols were studied. Although it symbolically addressed religious topics, Claude Lévi-Strauss’s examination of myth lacked theological or doctrinal exploration of religion.[8]

In general, the goal of each theory was to promote a more methodical, scientific, or integrated view of society and culture. Sahlins, for instance, developed a theory of the intersection of structure and history with his concept of the “structure of the conjuncture,” explaining cultural development through interactions between distinct systems.[9] A linguistic and cognitive conception of culture as a mental code that could be systematically studied through the emic/etic framework was also advanced by cognitive anthropology.[10] Taken together, these theoretical innovations illustrate anthropology’s ongoing effort to understand the intricate logic underlying human cultural experience—to balance form and meaning, and to reconcile cognition and material life.

Bibliography

Erickson, Paul A., and Liam D. Murphy. A History of Anthropological Theory. 6th ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2021. pp. 117–129.

[1] Paul A. Erickson and Liam D. Murphy, A History of Anthropological Theory, 4th ed. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013), 117-118.

[2] Erickson and Murphy, History of Anthropological Theory, 119-121.

[3] Erickson and Murphy, History of Anthropological Theory, 123-124.

[4] Erickson and Murphy, History of Anthropological Theory, 128-129.

[5] Erickson and Murphy, History of Anthropological Theory, 130.

[6] Erickson and Murphy, History of Anthropological Theory, 118.

[7] Erickson and Murphy, History of Anthropological Theory, 119-121.

[8] Erickson and Murphy, History of Anthropological Theory, 121-122.

[9] Erickson and Murphy, History of Anthropological Theory, 124-126.

[10] Erickson and Murphy, History of Anthropological Theory, 128-129.