Educational Anthropology

The following article summarizes the academic discipline known as educational anthropology. Although the field was institutionalized and professionalized in the 1960s, it has roots in the broader discipline of anthropology, and thus dates back to the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Once the field solidified in the late twentieth century, practitioners distinguished their field from others by declaring their primary focus of study the transmission of culture through education, both formal and otherwise. In addition to bringing more awareness to the role culture plays in education, anthropologists also made significant contributions to the social sciences through innovations in methodology. Anthropologists are credited with the ethnographic approach to research, emphasizing the importance of 'the other' through comparative methods, and finding the 'unfamiliar and exotic' in the study of familiar cultures, even one's own.

Keywords Comparative method; Culture; Cultural pluralism; Cultural therapy; Cultural transmission; Educational anthropology; Ethnography; Mead, Margaret; Spindler, George; Spindler, Louise; Educational Theory; Educational Anthropology

Overview

History of Educational Anthropology

"Educational Anthropology or anthropology of education, (either one sounds awkward) has as long a history as anthropology itself" (Spindler, 1987, p. 2). This quote provides a fitting introduction to the field of anthropology and education. George Spindler, one of the modern-day founders of the discipline, organized a conference in 1954 that became a pivotal moment in the institutionalization of the field, but even as he argues himself, the roots of the discipline run much deeper. The quote is playful too, in recognizing that along with the formalization of the field came the formalization of a name that is difficult to say.

That the roots of the discipline run deep is demonstrated most aptly by the contribution of one of the most recognizable anthropologists of the early twentieth century. Margaret Mead, who earned notoriety in 1928 with the publication of "Coming of Age in Samoa," gave a great deal of attention to the concepts of teaching and learning. Indeed, she once categorized cultures according to whether they are 'learning cultures' or 'teaching cultures,' defining the former as "small, homogenous group(s) that show little concern for transmitting culture because there is virtually no danger of anyone going astray" and the latter as those cultures in which it is necessary for "those who know to inform and direct those who do not know" (Wolcott, 1987, p. 27).

Of course, Mead was just one of many anthropologists making contributions to our understanding of education in the early twentieth century. Indeed, Eddy (1987) refers to the period between 1925 and 1954 as "The Formative Years" and notes that a bibliography of studies that addressed formalized education and enculturation reads like a "Who's Who of American and British founders of modern anthropology" (p. 7). In addition to the people who were studying education and anthropology during this time, the Formative Years were notable for other reasons as well. Much of the funding for studies in anthropology came from private sources, such as the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Corporation, and anthropology was viewed largely as an applied science. In 1941, the U.S. Government contracted with anthropologists to study the 'educational problems' of Native Americans; the work of other anthropologists contributed significantly to the 1954 Supreme Court ruling Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that ended segregation. And abroad, anthropologists studied the problems of education in Africa, although it wasn't until mid-century that practitioners "recognized the need to adapt education to individual and community needs rather than to transfer Western educational practices wholesale" (as quoted in Eddy, 1987, p. 13).

While the contributions of anthropologists to educational issues during the first half of the twentieth century were impressive, as Margaret Mead stated at the 1954 Stanford Conference, they were largely "dependent upon personalities rather than any on-going institutionalized process of any sort" (Eddy, 1987, p. 13). The conference would later come to signify the institutionalization and specialization of educational anthropology, although the conference itself was not the direct cause. Indeed, higher education enrollment growth following World War II, along with a tremendous increase in public funding (and a simultaneous shift away from private funding), led to a focus on the development of the profession within the academy. Curriculum development needs of the 1950s and 1960s, and the recognition of the failure of schools to meet the needs of the urban poor and urban minorities, gave anthropologists an opportunity to formalize their contribution to education in specific ways. The formalization and specialization process culminated in 1970, with the development of the Council on Anthropology and Education (CAE). As Eddy (1987) argues, the organizing principles of the CAE reflect "remarkable continuity" between educational anthropology's past and future. The principles, listed below, provide insight into a definition of the field:

• Anthropology, as a discipline, is concerned with cross-cultural and comparative studies;

• American society is a multi-cultural society and an important subject of inquiry in its own right;

• Anthropology has contributions to make to the study of child development and learning, in all the various ways and environments in which they occur;

• Ethnography is an effective tool for studying learning and teaching systems, and the results of ethnographic studies can contribute to educational policy;

• And, education today takes place within context of large cultural, social, political, economic, and technological change.

What is Educational Anthropology?

As educational anthropology became a more formalized and specialized discipline, those who studied it felt it was important to distinguish it from other disciplines. Recognizing that "learning fell more or less in the province of the psychologists and social structure in the province of sociologists and social anthropologists, we felt that cultural transmission would be a natural [focus] for anthropological applications to education" (Spindler, 2000, p. 31). Pai, Adler, and Shadiow (2006) similarly place the emphasis on culture, arguing that educators have not "always been clear and precise about the myriad ways that cultural factors influence the process of schooling, teaching, and learning" (p. vii). Our lack of awareness, they claim, has led to "unsound educational policies, ineffective school practices, and unfair assessment of learners" (p. vii).

Culture Defined: Because anthropology of education is about culture, and specifically the ways in which culture is transmitted, it's important to begin with a definition of culture itself. As with most subjects of study, scholars debate the exact meaning of culture, but agree with the following basic definition.

"Culture is most commonly viewed as that pattern of knowledge, skills, behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs, as well as material artifacts, produced by a human society and transmitted from one generation to the next" (Pai, Adler, & Shadiow, 2006, p. 19).

Pai, Adler, and Shadiow (2006) further describe culture as goal-oriented and as a system of norms and controls designed to govern behavior. They emphasize the process of symboling, - or the bestowing of meaning upon objects and actions - as a critical in the development of culture, explaining that it is the process by which, for example, "an ordinary cow becomes a sacred cow and plain water becomes holy water" (p. 21). Finally, culture is pervasive and impacts nearly every aspect of human life. Studies suggest that our experience of pain is shaped by the language available to us to describe it, and that even something as simple as our perception of colors and shapes is not just a physiological response, but depends on the categories available to us to understand them (Pai, Adler, & Shadiow, 2006).

The above definition perhaps begs the question, "How does the individual relate to the larger culture?" As described, it might seem that any single person is determined by the norms of the larger group, but anthropologists are quick to qualify their definition with the acknowledgement that "every person's interpretation of his or her culture is idiosyncratic and cultural knowledge varies from person to person, depending on age, sex, status, and individual experience" (Spindler, 2000, p. 38). Furthermore, anthropologists liken culture to a map; in the same way a map is an abstract representation of a territory and not the territory itself, culture is an abstract representation that provides only a general understanding of a group of people (Pai, Adler, & Shadiow, 2006). Implicit norms and the processes through which individuals relate to one another may tell us as much about a group of people as the explicitly stated norms.

Schools and the transmission of culture - A brief history

Scholars argue about the purpose of schools - specifically, whether they are intended to reproduce societies, transform societies, or some combination of both. Stated differently, the question is also whether schools provide equal opportunity for all, or whether they maintain class structure, limiting opportunity for certain groups of people. While the question may still be open for debate, what is undeniable is that the history of schooling in America tells a story of the transmission of the dominant culture, even when the rhetoric surrounding schooling suggested otherwise. The following is a brief summary of what Pai, Adler, & Shadiow (2006) describe in greater detail in their chapter titled "Schooling as Americanization: 1600-1970s."

Puritan Perspective (1647-1870): Schools during this time period were viewed as a primary mechanism of Americanization. They were intended to enculturate students who belonged to the white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant (WASP) community and acculturate those from a different heritage (Pai, et al, 2006). The puritan school was intolerant and hostile toward diversity, and helped establish a single, dominant culture.

Keeping America American (1870-1920s): This period was characterized by massive immigration to the United States; most of the immigrants were from southern and eastern Europe, or Asia, and were not English-speaking, Anglo-Saxon or Protestant. Rather than embrace an increasingly diverse society, educators viewed schools as a way to assimilate the newcomers. Immigrants were expected to divest themselves of their own culture, and as they did so, educators argued, prejudice and discrimination would disappear.

The Melting Pot Ideal (1920s - 1965): Educational rhetoric during this period took a more liberal tone, arguing that a common society should be created from its diverse elements - a new synthesized culture that was not any single element but rather a 'melting pot' of diverse influences. "In reality, what happened...was that all varieties of ethnicities were melted into one pot, but the brew turned out to be Anglo-Saxon again" (Pai, et al, 2006, p. 63). As the century progressed, increasing attention was paid to achievement and excellence in schools - largely as a result of the perception that American students were falling behind when compared to their international counterparts - but little attention was paid to cultural diversity.

The Great Society & Beyond: Educational policy during the 1960s and 1970s attempted to address social and economic inequality by giving everyone - especially urban, poor, minorities - equal access to education. Compensatory education programs such as Head Start, for example, were designed to give students the necessary skills to succeed. Critics argued, however, that such programs were modeled on a deficit view of minorities.

Cultural Pluralism: Pai, Adler, and Shadiow (2006) argue that education in the United States has moved from one of cultural imperialism to one in which diversity is now more highly valued. If the twentieth century was about Americanization, they argue, the twenty-first century is about cultural pluralism. Cultural pluralism, a term first coined by Harvard-educated philosopher Horace Kallen in 1915, is "an ideal that seeks to establish and encourage not only cultural diversity but also a basis of unity from which the United States can become a cohesive society enriched by shared, widely divergent, ethnic experiences" (Pai, Adler, & Shadiow), 2006, p. 95).

It's important at this point to make a distinction between cultural pluralism and cultural relativism. Pluralists do not argue that all cultures are equal, in particular equally functional, or that all cultures should be practiced regardless of the consequences to the larger society. They recognize that there are objective standards by which cultural practices can and should be judged. Pai, Adler, and Shadiow (2006) provide several examples of cultural practices that are functional to greater or lesser degrees. In other words, because a cultural practice exists does not necessarily imply it is the best way of meeting the need it was designed to meet.

How is Educational Anthropology studied and applied?

Ethnography: The introduction of ethnography to the social sciences was so significant a contribution that anthropology and ethnography have become nearly synonymous. So much so, in fact, that, practitioners lament the fact that it overshadows other contributions each field of study can make. Wolcott (1987) wrote,

"In the 1970s, 'things ethnographic' definitely caught the educator eye. Wide interest in ethnography provides us with an unusual opportunity to demonstrate that anthropology has more to offer to the field of education than simply a 'fieldwork' approach to research. Perhaps anthropology can serve as a reminder to educational researchers that their preoccupation with method borders on making method an end in itself. Anthropological concern has never been with method per se. It's focus is in making sense of the lived-in world" (p. 29).

The popularity of ethnography surpassed the practice itself, as practitioners doing any kind of qualitative research began calling it ethnography. George and Louise Spindler (1987), pioneers in educational anthropology, argued that it "shouldn't be called ethnography unless it [was]" and set out to correct the misunderstandings by providing clear guidelines for its practice. The following is a brief summary of what they describe in their chapter titled "Teaching and Learning How to Do the Ethnography of Education" (Spindler, 2000).

According to Spindler and Spindler (2000), "the most important requirements for an ethnographic approach, as we see it, is that behavior in situations must be explained from the native's point of view, and both the behavior and explanation must be recorded as carefully and systematically as possible..." (p. 250). More specifically, they outline ten criteria for 'good ethnography,' which are:

• Observations are contextualized;

• Hypotheses emerge in suti, as the study goes on in the selected setting;

• Observation is prolonged and repetitive;

• The native view of reality is inferred through observation and other forms of inquiry;

• Ethnographers elicit socio-cultural knowledge from informant-participants;

• Tools such as instruments, codes, schedules, and questionnaires, are generated in suti, as the study goes on in the selected setting;

• Ethnographers adopt a comparative approach, and recognize cultural variation;

• Ethnographers recognize that some sociocultural knowledge will be implicit and tacit;

• Ethnographers do not predetermine responses from natives by the kinds of questions asked but rather cultural knowledge must emerge in natural form;

• And, ethnographers should use all and any tools that will enable them to collect more live data.

Spindler and Spindler (2000) conclude playfully by arguing that ethnographers must be 'pesky people,' willing to suffer resentment and rejection in the field, and willing to persist in the face of informants who are unwilling to share personal information. They also caution against the pitfalls of inference, arguing that true ethnographies are those that offer observations first and foremost, and inference only minimally. Inference, they argue, should come at a later stage in the research process, when doing ethnographic interpretation.

Importance of the Other: Another significant contribution of anthropology to social science methodology is the comparative method, or the introduction and emphasis on 'the other.' Anthropologists argue that by studying different cultures you not only learn about the other culture itself, but gain a new perspective on your own culture as well. As Spindler (2000) argues, "We felt then and we feel now that the comparative stance is essential to an anthropological position. We have lost sight of this in recent time and most articles published as educational anthropology are published as though they were dealing with only one culture" (p.36).

Making the familiar exotic: Just as the comparative stance is essential to anthropological methodology, so too is it sometimes necessary to study one's own culture. As anthropologists acknowledge, this can sometimes be more difficult than studying 'the other,' so comfortable and familiar is one's own culture. Margaret Mead is remembered for once quipping that if a fish became an anthropologist, the last thing it would discover would be water (Spindler, 2000). And Spindler argues that making "the exotic and different familiar enough to be perceived and communicated..." may be the central problem for the field researcher (p. 36).

Indeed, in many ways this was Spindler's challenge as a young anthropologist conducting a 1951 classroom study of teacher Roger Harker, a case that in many ways helped define his career and the field. After spending weeks studying the Menominee Indians, Spindler found little to 'observe' in the typical American classroom. What he discovered in the end, however, was nearly as startling as his inability to first see it, for he was able to prove that Roger Harker, hailed for his teaching ability, was teaching to only sixty-percent of the children in his classroom, and virtually ignoring the others.

This young man, with the best of intentions, was...informing Anglo middle-class children that they were capable, had bright futures, were socially acceptable, and were worth a lot of trouble. He was also informing lower-class and non-Anglo children that they were less capable, less socially acceptable, less worth the trouble. He was defeating his own declared educational goals (Spindler, 2000, p. 205).

Cultural Therapy: The 'Roger Harker' study was important to Spindler, not only for shaping his career, but for highlighting teachers' need for cultural therapy. Loosely defined, cultural therapy is "a process of bringing one's own culture, in its manifold forms - assumptions, goals, values, beliefs, and communicative modes - to a level of awareness that permits one to perceive it as a potential bias in social interaction..." (Spindler, 2000, p. 367). In the case of Roger Harker, Spindler demonstrated to the teacher how his narrow, upper-middle class, white Protestant background impacted his interactions with students who didn't share his culture. In the process of bringing Harker's culture to his awareness, he also helped Harker understand cultures different from his own.

Educational Anthropology in the Future

As America becomes an increasingly diverse country, and as the boundaries between countries become more permeable in the twenty-first century global economy, educational anthropology has more to offer than ever before. According to Census projections, Hispanics will comprise 18% of the U.S. population in 2025, while African Americans and whites will comprise 13% and 62% respectively (Pai, Adler, & Shadiow, 2006). Already, nearly 40% of school-age children live in low-income families, while 17% live below the poverty level.

In such a diverse society, then, giving teachers the capacity to recognize and value cultural differences will be imperative. What is at stake, some argue, is nothing less than the human dignity. "The culture to which one belongs [is] the root of the individual's identity...To reject a person's cultural heritage is to do psychological and moral violence to the dignity and worth of that individual." (Pai, Adler, & Shadiow, 2006, p. 22).

Terms & Concepts

Acculturation: The process whereby children in school learn a culture that is new and different - the dominant culture - from the culture they practice at home. A minority student living in urban America, for example, being taught by a white, middle-class teacher is learning a white, middle-class culture.

Comparative Method: An approach to research that emphasizes the role of 'the other' - not only in an attempt to better understand 'the other' but also in an attempt to enhance understanding of one's self or own culture. Educational anthropologists often study the educational systems of other cultures, partly to bring insight to the educational systems of their own culture.

Compensatory education: The belief that disadvantaged, poor, and minority students can succeed if given access to the same kinds of experiences that enabled middle-class, white children to succeed. Programs such as Head Start were predicated on the compensatory model of education, but critics argue such programs denigrated minority culture while upholding white, middle-class values.

Culture: The pattern of knowledge, skills, behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs, as well as material artifacts, produced by a human society and transmitted from one generation to the next.

Cultural pluralism: An ideal that seeks to establish and encourage cultural diversity. Cultural pluralism also advocates building a cohesive society that is strengthened by shared, widely divergent, ethnic experiences.

Cultural therapy: A process of bringing one's own culture to a level of awareness that permits one to perceive it as a potential bias in social interaction. Although therapy is often synonymous with psychology, Spindler (2000) suggests that it is a teacher's culture that impacts her interactions with students more so than her personality.

Cultural transmission: Educational anthropologists distinguish their discipline from psychology and sociology by declaring the 'transmission of culture' through education - both formal and otherwise - as their main focus of study. Although many disagree, schools are often viewed as the primary vehicle through which a society transfers cultural knowledge to the next generation.

Deficit view: When members of a minority culture are perceived to be lacking because they don't practice the dominant culture. The dominant culture is viewed as the 'right' or 'normal' culture, and all minority cultures as 'sick' or 'wrong.'

Enculturation: The process whereby children in school learn their own culture. Students who belong to the dominant culture are said to be 'enculturated,' while those who belong to minority cultures are said to be 'acculturated.'

Ethnography: Qualitative methodology first introduced by anthropologists in which the researcher becomes a participant-observer in the culture he/she is trying to understand. Ethnographers believe behavior must be understood from the natives' point of view.

Bibliography

Demerath, P. (2012). Toward common ground: The uses of educational anthropology in multicultural education. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 14, 1-21. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=84624979&site=ehost-live

Eddy, E.M. (1987). Theory, research, and application in educational anthropology. In G.D. Spindler (Ed.), Education and cultural process: Anthropological approaches (pp. 5-25). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Ló Pez, F. A., Heilig, J., & Schram, J. (2013). A story within a story: Culturally responsive schooling and American Indian and Alaska Native achievement in the National Indian Education Study. American Journal of Education, 119, 513-538. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89394435&site=ehost-live

Pai, Y., Adler, S.A., & Shadiow, L.K. (2006). Cultural foundations of education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Spindler, G.D. (1987). Preview. In G.D. Spindler (Ed.), Education and cultural process: Anthropological approaches (pp. 2-4). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Spindler, G.D. (Ed.). (2000). Fifty years of anthropology and education: 1950-2000. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Weis, L., & Fine, M. (2013). A methodological response from the field to Douglas Foley: Critical bifocality and class cultural productions in anthropology and education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 44, 222-233. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89806305&site=ehost-live

Wolcott, H.F. (1987). The anthropology of learning. In G.D. Spindler (Ed.), Education and cultural process: Anthropological approaches (pp. 5-25). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Suggested Reading

Cherneff, J.B.R., & Hochwalk, E. (Eds.). (2006). Visionary Observers: Anthropological inquiry and education. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Kneller, G.F. (1965). Educational Anthropology: An introduction. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kohlman, M. J. (2013). Evangelizing eugenics: A brief historiography of popular and formal American eugenics education (1908-1948). Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 58, 657-690. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=88990263&site=ehost-live

Spindler, G. D. (2000). The four careers of George and Louise Spindler: 1948-2000. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 25-50. Retrieved April 24, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=4081783&site=ehost-live

Spindler, G. D. (1988). Doing the ethnography of schooling. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.

Spindler, G.D., & Spindler, L. (1983). Anthropologists view American culture. Annual Review of Anthropology, 12, 49-78. Retrieved April 24, 2007 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=11240751&site=ehost-live