Chinese, Mandarin

Spanish

English

Hindi

Arabic

Portuguese

Bengali

Russian

Japanese

Punjabi

German

Javanese

Malay

Telugu

Vietnamese

Korean

French

Marathi

Tamil

Urdu

Turkish

Italian

Chinese, Yue / Cantonese

Thai

Gujarati

Chinese, Jin

Chinese, Min Nan

Persian, Dari

Persian, Western

Polish

Pashto

Kannada

Chinese, Xiang

Malayalam

Sundanese

Hausa

Odia

Burmese

Chinese, Hakka

Ukrainian

Bihari, Bhojpuri

Tagalog

Yoruba

Bihari, Maithili

Uzbek

Sindhi

Amharic

Fula

Romanian

Oromo

Igbo

Azerbaijani

Chinese, Gan

Dutch

Kurdish, Central

Kurdish, Northern

Kurdish, Southern

Malagasy

Lahnda, Saraiki

Nepali

Sinhalese

Chittagonian

Zhuang

Khmer

Turkmen

Assamese

Madurese

Somali

Marwari

Bihari, Magahi

Haryanvi

Hungarian

Chhattisgarhi

Greek, Modern

Chewa

Dakhini

Akan, Twi

Akan, Fante

Kazakh

Chinese, Min Bei

Sylheti

Zulu

Czech

Kinyarwanda

Marwari, Dhundhari

Haitian Creole

Chinese, Min Dong

Ilocano

Quechua

Kirundi

Swedish

Hmong

Shona

Uyghur

Hiligaynon

Mossi

Xhosa

Belarusian

Balochi

Anthropology

<OpenstaxParagraph>
	The remainder of this chapter will examine social inequalities in detail. It will cover racism, classism, and sexism along with some common paradigms and theoretical frameworks that explain systems of inequality and power.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	According to philosopher Thomas Kuhn, <OpenstaxTerm>paradigms</OpenstaxTerm> are worldviews that often define a scientific discipline during a specific time period. In <OpenstaxEm>The Structure of Scientific Revolutions</OpenstaxEm> (1962), Kuhn argues that paradigms can shift when a dominant paradigm cannot explain newly discovered phenomena under which normal science operates. Each of the theories that follow was based on a paradigm shift in the social sciences of its time period. The frameworks that anthropologists use to understand power imbalances have been built on the critiques of many of the initial anthropological explanations for power imbalances and social inequalities.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>Social Darwinism and Unilinear Cultural Evolution</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxTerm>Social Darwinism</OpenstaxTerm> played an important role in the colonialist attitudes of the 19th and 20th centuries. Charles <OpenstaxTerm>Darwin</OpenstaxTerm>’s theory of evolution, discussed in detail in <a href="./cf0085c6-528c-4101-ad26-19c612c5a2fa@153910e:f2d19c15-4aa7-4e4b-8f70-1d0840761243.xhtml">Biological Evolution and Early Human Evidence</a>, speaks of how traits beneficial to the procreation of a species are passed down, creating changes over time that lead to the evolution of species on Earth. In his <OpenstaxEm>Principles of Biology</OpenstaxEm> (1864–1867), social scientist Herbert <OpenstaxTerm>Spencer</OpenstaxTerm> applies the principles of evolution to human societies, combining his concept of the “survival of the fittest” with French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck’s views that acquired characteristics can be passed down. Spencer argues that characteristics such as a tendency to work hard and achieve success are passed down from generation to generation, as are traits such as weaknesses and laziness, thus attributing ongoing social inequalities to biological differences.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Social Darwinists of the 19th and 20th centuries utilized Spencer’s survival theory (under Darwin’s name) to argue that competition for resources meant that “weak” human individuals should die out so that “stronger” traits could be passed down to the next generation. Social Darwinists claimed that any group that conquered another was better fit to survive and that those who were conquered would benefit from the civilizing influence of more powerful nations.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Although popular among certain social scientists, <OpenstaxEm>social Darwinism</OpenstaxEm> was not a term often used in anthropology. Anthropologists instead turned to the theory of <OpenstaxTerm>unilinear cultural evolution (UCE)</OpenstaxTerm>, made famous by anthropologists E. B. <OpenstaxTerm>Tylor</OpenstaxTerm> and Lewis H. <OpenstaxTerm>Morgan</OpenstaxTerm> in the 19th century. UCE, which was based on comparing and contrasting different cultures, theorized that societies progressed in a linear fashion, from the lowest level of <OpenstaxTerm>savagery</OpenstaxTerm> through <OpenstaxTerm>barbarism</OpenstaxTerm> to <OpenstaxTerm>civilization</OpenstaxTerm>. Social Darwinism and UCE upheld social inequalities because these theories argued that the defining features of civilization were social hierarchy and inequality. They were the basis for White Europeans’ claims that their culture held more power, had more value, and allowed them to exert military power over lands that were not their own.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>Functionalism</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxTerm>Functionalism</OpenstaxTerm> is a theory attributed to French sociologist Emile <OpenstaxTerm>Durkheim</OpenstaxTerm> in the early 20th century. In anthropology, the best-known of the functionalists are Bronislaw <OpenstaxTerm>Malinowski</OpenstaxTerm> and A. R. Radcliffe <OpenstaxTerm>Brown</OpenstaxTerm>, who examined the purpose that certain cultural characteristics serve in the order of society. For functionalists, egalitarian societies have certain rituals or beliefs that maintain equality, while in stratified societies, the <OpenstaxTerm>hierarchy</OpenstaxTerm> of roles maintains order when conflict arises. The function of social stratification, then, is to give power to those who are most equipped to lead, or to motivate those with talents to achieve positions of power and create wealth for the larger society. A functionalist view understands social inequalities as a reflection of people’s varying levels of benefit to the group.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Later theorists criticized functionalism for its use of research that was <OpenstaxTerm>ahistorical</OpenstaxTerm>, meaning that it did not acknowledge the specific historical experiences of a group and thus attempted to understand societies without taking into consideration their connections to other cultures. For instance, functionalists largely ignored the impacts of <OpenstaxTerm>colonialism</OpenstaxTerm> on small, seemingly isolated populations, arguing instead that social stratification—and, consequently, global political inequalities—was an unyielding and inevitable part of the process of becoming a “complex society.”
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxH3>Conflict Theory</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxTerm>Conflict theory</OpenstaxTerm>, created by the late 19th-century political philosopher Karl <OpenstaxTerm>Marx</OpenstaxTerm>, offers a more pessimistic view. Marx argued that hierarchy is not a means of keeping society balanced but rather the main source of conflict among humans. He and Friedrich <OpenstaxTerm>Engels</OpenstaxTerm> originally conceptualized two classes of <OpenstaxTerm>capitalism</OpenstaxTerm> in terms of ownership. The <OpenstaxTerm>bourgeoisie</OpenstaxTerm>, descended from powerful families, were the owners of the means of production, while the <OpenstaxTerm>proletariat</OpenstaxTerm> were those who sold their labor and lived off a wage. The powerless majority, the proletariat, were far removed from the decision makers and power holders, who had separated the proletariat from their own skills through industrialization and mechanization. In this view, the conflict between those with wealth and the means of production and those without is the basis of all social conflict.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	As more social scientists grappled with differences in class and wage, they began to critique conflict theory more. W. E. B. Du <OpenstaxTerm>Bois</OpenstaxTerm> ([1940] 1984), an American sociologist working in the early 20th century, added wage and race theories to the classic examination of class conflict. He questioned whether there was a relationship between one’s knowledge in a trade and one’s wages and subsequently concluded that the worth of labor was determined solely by capitalists (the bourgeoisie). Du Bois further observed that class distinctions were forming among Black groups in Philadelphia, mostly unnoticed by White people, who continued to generalize them as one monolithic group. His critique was that conflict theory did not take race into account as both an area wherein class differences occur and another area that can cause conflict (and detract from issues of class and wage). Du Bois’s pioneering ethnographic studies at the turn of the 20th century were among the earliest scientific research on Black Americans’ lived experience of race and racism in the United States. His influence on and relationship with anthropologist Franz Boas were significant factors in Boas’s own disavowal of race as a determinant of the value and worth of diverse cultures. Du Bois’s work remains relevant in the present day as anthropology continues to address its own historical roots in colonialism.
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxFigure id="fig-00003" src="https://openstax.org/apps/archive/20240226.174525/resources/8099bb7ba3a695534c7e56d0048bcf11810b7fbc" alt="Black and white portrait of a man wearing a vest, suit jacket, and bow tie." mediaType="image/jpeg" width="614" height="800" />
<OpenstaxFigureText width="614">
	<strong>Figure 9.4</strong> W. E. B. Du Bois’s pioneering ethnographic research was among the earliest scientific studies of race and racism in the United States. (credit: “W. E. B. (William Edward Burghardt) Du Bois, 1868–1963” by Cornelius Marion Battey/Library of Congress, Prints &amp; Photographs Division, Public Domain)
</OpenstaxFigureText>
<OpenstaxH3>Critical Race Theory</OpenstaxH3>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	<OpenstaxTerm>Critical race theory (CRT)</OpenstaxTerm>, developed by legal scholars in the 1980s, asserts that much of the inequity experienced by oppressed people in the United States can be understood through the critical lens of race. CRT states that racism is endemic, or regularly found in the laws, policies, and institutions of the United States. Thus, people who are socialized in American institutions often do not see the ways in which racism plays out in their daily lives. Notions of color blindness and meritocracy uphold the idea that <OpenstaxTerm>racism</OpenstaxTerm> either does not exist or is actually related to class, socioeconomics, or other factors. <OpenstaxTerm>Color blindness</OpenstaxTerm> is the idea that people “don’t see color,” meaning that they are unaware of the ways in which someone may experience the world because of the color of their skin. A <OpenstaxTerm>meritocracy</OpenstaxTerm> is a system in which people succeed entirely through their own hard work; thus, someone who believes in the notion of meritocracy overlooks any structural or racial inequities that may keep individuals from accessing the resources necessary for success (Delgado and Stefancic 2013). In the United States, these two concepts are often used together to blame poor (especially poor Black) individuals and families for their own misfortunes instead of looking to structural causes of poverty and income inequality. The term <OpenstaxEm><OpenstaxTerm>welfare queen</OpenstaxTerm></OpenstaxEm> is often used by politicians and the media to refer to a specific (Black or minority) demographic, even though statistically, White women are the most common recipients of government benefits. One way to challenge everyday endemic racism is to utilize <OpenstaxTerm>counter-storytelling</OpenstaxTerm>. These stories counteract the socialized assumptions that keep people of color marginalized. For instance, counter-stories are important in challenging the power of stereotypes such as the “welfare queen.”
</OpenstaxParagraph>
<OpenstaxParagraph>
	Critical race theory has become a hotly debated topic among politicians in the United States. CRT is often misunderstood by critics, who see it as a one-sided examination of (particularly American) history and society because CRT examines society through the lens of power and oppression. It often focuses on which groups benefit from cultural changes, including such things as civil rights legislation, essential to a democracy’s guarantee of equal opportunity and protection under the law. In anthropology, CRT is an important tool for examining both modern institutions and the experiences of individuals in the United States, especially in regard to social inequalities. As just one example, CRT can shed light on the decisions made by those in power when redrawing the boundaries of voting districts. These decisions are often made with the goal of cementing a majority for a particular political party while diluting the voting power of citizens who don’t typically belong that party, a practice known as <OpenstaxTerm>gerrymandering</OpenstaxTerm>. It is important for social scientists to consider the potential role of race and racism in making these decisions. If race and/or racism were found to be a factor, then these political decisions would be considered an example of <OpenstaxTerm>systemic oppression</OpenstaxTerm>.
</OpenstaxParagraph>

9.1.3 Classic Theories of Social Inequality

1 What Is Anthropology?

1.1 The Study of Humanity, or "Anthropology Is Vast"

1.1.1 The Heart of Anthropology: Central Narrative and Commitments

1.1.2 Central Commitment #1: Exploring Sociocultural Diversity

1.1.3 Central Commitment #2: Understanding How Societies Hold Together

1.1.4 Central Commitment #3: Examining the Interdependence of Humans and Nature

1.2 The Four-Field Approach: Four Approaches within the Guiding Narrative

1.2.1 Biological Anthropology

1.2.2 Archaeology

1.2.3 Cultural Anthropology

1.2.4 Linguistic Anthropology

1.2.5 How the Four Fields Work Together: The Example of Race

1.3 Overcoming Ethnocentrism

1.3.1 Enculturation and Ethnocentrism

1.3.2 Primitivism and Orientalism

1.4 Western Bias in Our Assumptions about Humanity

1.4.1 Primitivism and Orientalism in Popular Culture

1.4.2 The Bias of Backwardness

1.5 Holism, Anthropology’s Distinctive Approach

1.5.1 Society as an Integrated Whole

1.5.2 Sources of Contradiction, Conflict, and Change

1.6 Cross-Cultural Comparison and Cultural Relativism

1.6.1 Relativism Is Not “Anything Goes”

1.6.2 Morality, Activism, and Cultural Relativism

1.7 Reaching for an Insider’s Point of View

1.7.1 The Challenge of Representing Others

1.7.2 Collaborative Methods of Representation

1.7.3 Working across Cultures toward Common Goals

1.7.4 Suggested Readings

2 Methods: Cultural and Archaeological

2.1 Archaeological Research Methods

2.1.1 Archaeological Techniques

2.1.2 Archaeological Dating Methods

2.2 Conservation and Naturalism

2.2.1 Early Efforts

2.2.2 Salvage Anthropology

2.2.3 Museum Collections

2.2.4 Interpretation and Voice

2.3 Ethnography and Ethnology

2.3.1 The Development of Ethnography and Ethnology

2.3.2 Perspective and Interpretation in Ethnography

2.4 Participant Observation and Interviewing

2.4.1 Participant Observation

2.4.2 Interviewing Informants

2.4.3 Ethical Considerations

2.5 Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis

2.5.1 Differences between Quantitative and Qualitative Information

2.5.2 Modeling

2.5.3 The Science of Anthropology

2.6 Collections

2.6.1 Archives

2.6.2 Three-Dimensional Collections

2.6.3 Ownership

2.6.4 Suggested Readings

3 Culture Concept Theory: Theories of Cultural Change

3.1 The Homeyness of Culture

3.2 The Winkiness of Culture

3.3 The Elements of Culture

3.3.1 Culture Is What We Make

3.3.2 Culture Is What We Do

3.3.3 Culture Is What We Think

3.4 The Aggregates of Culture

3.4.1 Symbols

3.4.2 Ritual

3.4.3 Social Structure

3.5 Modes of Cultural Analysis

3.5.1 Evolution, Adaptation, and Historical Particularism

3.5.2 Functionalism

3.5.3 Structuralism

3.5.4 Ontology

3.6 The Paradoxes of Culture

3.6.1 Paradox 1: Culture Is Continuous, but It Changes

3.6.2 Paradox 2: Culture Is Bounded but Mobile

3.6.3 Paradox 3: Culture Is Consensual but Contested

3.6.4 Paradox 4: Culture Is Shared, but It Varies

3.6.5 Suggested Readings

4 Biological Evolution and Early Human Evidence

4.1 What Is Biological Anthropology?

4.1.1 Looking to the Deep Past

4.1.2 Exploring What It Means to Be Human

4.2 What’s in a Name? The Science of Taxonomy

4.2.1 Defining the Science of Taxonomy

4.2.2 Defining a Species

4.3 It’s All in the Genes! The Foundation of Evolution

4.3.1 The Units of Life

4.3.2 Gregor Mendel and the Laws of Heredity

4.3.3 Mendelian Inheritance in Humans

4.4 Evolution in Action: Past and Present

4.4.1 Early Evolutionists and the Fixity of Species

4.4.2 Charles Darwin’s Role in Changing Views of the Natural World

4.4.3 Understanding Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection

4.5 What Is a Primate?

4.5.1 What Is a Primate?

4.5.2 Primate Behavioral Variation

4.5.3 Explaining Primate Success

4.5.4 Primate Classification and Taxonomy

4.6 Origin of and Classification of Primates

4.6.1 Understanding Concepts of Time

4.6.2 Fossils and Dating Methods

Question	Answer
not acknowledging the specific historical experiences of a group, and thus attempting to understand societies without taking into consideration their connections to other cultures.	ahistorical
the class of people who own the means of production. Historically, the bourgeoisie were descendants of powerful feudal families.	bourgeoisie
an economic mode of production based around markets, ownership of land and resources, and wage labor. Capitalism has produced classes that are grounded in acceptance of the idea that earned wealth or status is the basis for social hierarchy within a nation.	capitalism
a system through which European (and eventually American) countries exerted power over areas of the world in order to exploit their natural and human resources.	colonialism
the idea that people “don’t see color,” meaning that they are unaware of the ways in which someone may experience the world because of the color of their skin.	color blindness
a system in which people succeed entirely through hard work and natural abilities. Someone who believes that they live in a meritocracy consequently overlooks any structural or racial inequities that may keep individuals from accessing the resources necessary for success.	meritocracy
worldviews that often define a scientific discipline during a specific time period.	paradigms
the class of people who sell their labor and live off a wage, a.k.a. the powerless majority.	proletariat
power intertwined with racial prejudice.	racism