:: wikimiki.org ::
| 人类学 |
人类学人类学顧名思義就是研究人類的本質的學科。它研究的主題主要有兩個面向：一個是人類的生物性和文化性，一個則是人類今日特質之演變朔源。至於從事人类学研究的专家則称之为人类学家。
词源與定义
人类学一词，起源于希腊文ανθρωπος(人)和λογος(学科），意思是研究人的學科。由於19世紀後期至20世紀初科西方多視科學為萬物救贖，固有部分學者稱其為“人的科学”（The Science of Man），不過今日之人類學可稱之為科學的部分遠不如其主體的人文特質。1501年德国学者洪德开始使用“人类学”（Anthropology）一词，但是当时只是用来指人体解剖和人的生理研究。直到1863年，英国创立伦敦人类学学会，其研究范围才与现在的人类学研究比较一致。
不過近代人類學的意義要到艾德華·泰勒爵士之後才逐漸成形。在他試圖以人類學意指對人類社會的“泛文化比較”後，整個人類學開始朝以研究各族群文化的方向發展。這其中，法蘭茲·鮑亞士提出輔以語言學、考古學（特別是史前考古）進行貫時性與同時性的整體研究。在他的堅持與努力下，人類學在絕大多數的美國大學和部分英國校園，成為結合多門分支學科的龐大學門，也使人類學的意義大大不同於之前對體質的研究。
人类学的研究范围在不同国家有不同的定义。一般有狭义和广义之分。
- 狭义：在某些欧洲大陆的国家，人类学指的是研究人类体质的学问，其中包括灵长类学在内。
- 广义：在英国和美国等国家，人类学不仅包括体质人类学，還可能包括人类的社会和文化在内，叫做社会人类学或文化人类学，另外還加上考古学、语言学而構成所謂的“四大分支”。
也就是说，日本以及欧洲国家的人类学范围相当于英、美等国的体质人类学或生物人类学。而在中国大陸，广义的人类学和狭义的人类学概念都有人采用。
历史
請參見人類學史
人类学的研究对象
最早，人類學的研究對象僅限於人體測量與解剖上。但在艾德華·泰勒爵士之後，人類學開始注重由器物著手的泛文化比較，換句話說，即是種關在室內進行的博物學研究。之後，在美國，地質學家出身的“文化人類學之父”法蘭茲·鮑亞士提倡“四大分支”的人類學，並對這種“安樂椅上的人類學家”大加撻伐，使得人類學的研究對象逐漸轉向活的部落（特別是美洲印地安人）文化，其中包含他們的語言、共同行為與歷史。
文化（社會）人類學
但最重要的轉變在於波蘭裔英國社會人類學家布羅尼斯拉夫·馬凌諾斯基的貢獻。大約1930年代前後，他首創以透過參與觀察法寫成的民族誌作為人類學研究的依據和基礎。在他革命性的創建下，人類學家（特別是文化人類學家）開始以親身赴當地與土著生活，乃至參與當地活動的方式進行各文化（特別是小型的部落文化）的研究與紀錄。大約同時，露絲·潘乃德以接觸文學作品、影片、外僑訪問為基礎的遙距研究則成為對無法進行參與觀察法的文化研究的另一種途徑。
這種以“原始”部落文化為對象的主流人類學研究，在1950年代中期後逐漸受到挑戰：首先，二次世界大戰結束後，隨者軍隊的進駐，以及英美諸國對殖民地的態度改為放任與鼓勵其自立，使得過去認知的“傳統部落”快速的現代化，導致自馬凌諾斯基以來的“搶救人類學”（即儘可能在現代化影響前，快速紀錄這些未受“污染”的部落文化的人類學）思維不再可行。其次，最早主張參與觀察法的人類學家相繼去世，而在各國政府鼓勵下人類學者又大量增加，使得新一代人類學家逐漸崛起。基於這幾個理由，人類學者的研究對象朝以下幾個方向發展（一）部分人類學者，特別是受到馬克思主義影響的人類學者，開始結合文獻與民族誌資料進行歷史人類學的研究。這方面以艾瑞克·沃爾夫的歐洲與沒有歷史的人為代表作（二）部分人類學者回到本國，在國內較少數的次文化群體（幫派、同性戀、少數民族的都市社區等）進行研究（三）多數學者仍以第三世界的部落文化為研究對象。不同的是，他們開始注意這些部落受現代化影響的調適與改變情形（四）以克勞德·李維史陀為代表，結合語言學、哲學和精神分析，研究各文化之下的共同心智與象徵，由此而延伸出神話學詮釋這獨特的學門，並以結構主義之說影響到哲學、社會學其他學科。
到了1980年代左右，受到後現代與女權運動影響，文化人類學家重新檢討過往往種種強調科學與量化的田野研究，並開展出幾條新的研究對象，其中包含（一）透過對文本的分析，建立起以文化概念為主軸的新歷史人類學（二）重新檢討二元建立價值論，並結合女性主義的兩性人類學研究（三）回到過去已做過的部落地，用新的眼光詮釋這些文化。
以廣義的角度來看，今天的人類學研究對象不再是特定的、原始的異文化，而是包含自身出發的每個文化。而今天的人類學家除了重複檢討與反省外，也在尋找更多可發揮的研究對象。
體質人類學
此外，在考古學家與體質人類學家合作下展開對靈長類的長期田野觀察，希望以此方式解答史前考古學無法研究人類先祖行為的遺憾，而這類研究其中又意外啟發對靈長類語言溝通系統的研究。
語言學
考古學
人類學理論與學派
人類學體系龐雜，各學門又隨時間發展出多樣的的理論，故總體而言十分龐雜。但基本上人類學最主要的特点是（一）反映在体质人类学和考古學上的演化论和（二）反映在文化人类学上的文化觀點。下列透過對各主要分支的理論描述，釐清各學派與理論個主張與關聯。
體質人類學
文化（社會）人類學
最初，人類學的研究仍以生物和博物學觀點看待一切，特別是體質與文化方面，因此有兩個以泛文化比較為基礎的學派影響甚大，即社會演化論和傳播論。前者以達爾文演化論為基礎，主張所有人類的社會是單線進化的，而這文化進化的過程是由物質上的落後到先進，思維上的簡單到複雜。而各文化即停在不同的進化階段。
- 歷史特殊論
- 文化形貌论
1920年代
- 功能论
結構功能論
- 文化进化论
- 文化生态学
- 政治人類學派
- 能源学说
- 结构主義论
- 文化心理论
- 象徵人類學
- 詮釋人類學
語言學
考古學
人类学的研究方法
人类学的研究方法主要有：
;全貌觀 : 从社会文化和人类行为的各个方面和层次研究社会的文化元素和行为，把社会或文化当作一个整体来研究
;文化相對論 : 这是对文化人类学的研究态度和文化评价。要求研究者客观地看待被研究的对象。一般采用文化主位研究法，从被研究者的角度来看待被研究者的文化。
;泛文化比較 : 对不同的文化进行广泛的比较研究。
;參與觀察法
人类学领域和分支
人類學由於歷史因素，在分類上主要可以分成北美與歐陸兩套系統。在歐陸，由於受到地理大發現和進化論的影響，人類學的範圍侷限於體質人類學和社會人類學。而文化人類學又因為法國涂爾幹實證社會學派對泛文化社會的興趣，在歐陸演變成社會人類學這樣的名稱。
在北美，有文化人類學之父美稱的法蘭茲.鮑亞士主張歷史特殊論以文化、語言和體質三個層面同時研究人類，因此北美和受美國影響深厚的國家，其人類學皆以這三大分支作為主要架構。另外，因為北美考古學多研究無文字的印地安人遺址，民族誌成了很重要的參照文獻，故考古學和人類學始終息息相關。
到了1960年代以賓弗為首的新考古學主導了世界上多數地區的考古學研究。此學派認為考古學應以研究人類行為模式為最主要目的，故其理論方法幾乎是以人類學的方法做考古學研究。於是在此風氣影響之下，世界各地(歷史悠久的歐陸除外)括起一陣將考古學的納入人類學體系的風氣。
今天的人類學主要可以化約成以下的結構
:"人類學"
::學院研究
:::文化人類学（或名社會人類學）
::::民族學
::::民族誌
:::语言學
:::考古学
:::體質人類学
::應用人類學
除此之外，近年來由於聯合國等組織以及許多企業聘用大批人類學家進行非研究性工作，應用人類学的地位也日漸提升，故有人稱其為「人類學的第五大分支」。
以下大致解釋一下各分科的研究性質與內容
体质人类学(又稱為生物人類學)主要是研究人類的生理與生物面向。主要分支有：
- 人体形态学
- 人种学透過生理上的特徵，研究與比較人類各族群生理上的差異
- 人体测量学用测量和观察的方法描述人类体质特征状况
- 古人類學以演化論為前提，研究人类尤其他生物演變至今的過程
- 靈長類學透過對靈長類生物的觀察與紀錄，推斷史前人類可能的思維與行動
文化人類學（或稱社會人類學）佔人類學比重遠超過其他三者。其可分成幾個部分：
- 民族誌
- 民族學
- 歷史人類學
語言人類學研究的是人類的溝通方式。主要的分科上有：
- 語義學
- 語音學
- 動作學
- 社會語言學
- 歷史語言學
考古學因研究對象與方法不同：，可以分成許多分支。下列為幾個比較重要的分科：
- 動物考古學
- 植物考古學
- 實驗考古學
- 水下考古學
- 史前考古學
- 歷史考古學
- 埃及考古學
- 聖經考古學
- 古典考古學
- 工業革命考古學
應用人類學範圍廣泛，研究的範疇也非常多元，其中大略分成以下幾領域：
- 經濟
- 工業人類學
- 社會
- 都市人類學
- 教育人類學
- 人类聚居学-建筑学、地理学、社会学、人类学的交叉学科
- 宗教人类学
- 艺术人类学
- 旅游人类学-旅游学和人类学的交叉学科
- 政治
- 政治人类学-政治学和人类学的交叉学科
- 國民性研究
- 醫療
- 醫療人類學
包含心理人類學、法醫人類學
- 人類學與公共衛生
人類學與考古學
參見：考古學
在人類學分科當中，爭議最大的莫過於考古學的歸屬與否。不可否認，考古學似乎與歷史學十分有關聯。但基於種種因素，人類學與考古學密切結合在一起。
考古學的源頭可追朔自文藝復興時期，但近代考古學卻是在19世紀中葉才逐漸成型，這原因在於當時地質學的發展以及達爾文提出的演化論，相繼動搖了傳統由神學主導的神創論，進而肯定人由生物而來的自然路徑，以及各地發掘出來的“古怪石頭”所代表的意義——即石器本身乃人類使用之工具。
但在考古研究走向學術化、科學化的路程之後，研究對象也因地區不同而逐漸分成“歷史”與“史前”這兩個支流：前者自埃及象形文字解讀出來後發展一瀉千里，尤其結合美學與藝術研究，使整個學科成為輔助歷史學的重要學科。相較之下，後者被賦予自然史上的意義：即希望以有限的資料，來理解的人類出現與發展的過程。
人类学架構
- 考古
- 古人類
- 文明起源
- 人類體質
- 群體遗传学
- 人體構造
- 种族
- 靈長類
- 分子科技
- 文化
- 聚落
- 城市
- 经济体系
- 農業
- 工業化
- 交換體系
- 政治制度
- 分配體系
- 殖民與資本主義
- 宗教與巫術
- 儀式
- 族群性
- 婚姻與家庭
- 亲属与继嗣
- 親屬體系
- 兩性研究
- 现代世界
- 文化變遷
- 艺术
- 繪畫藝術
- 音乐艺术
- 雕刻艺术
- 口头艺术
- 神話學
- 文化與生態
- 語言與溝通
- 符號
- 語言
- 歷史語言學
- 肢體語言
- 語音
- 語義
人類學的目的
簡單而言，人類學研究的目的就是以全面的方式理解人這個體。但更深層而言，這種研究不僅僅在於人的軀體構造之理解，而是人類所有思維與想法的可能性。換句話說，人類如何行動、如何認知自己的行動、行動的結果又如何影響人的思考以及人與其他群體、象徵的互動即是人類學最根本想解答的問題。
人類學的研究不在於找出份解答，也不在於試圖給予一標準答案。相反的，人類學研究試圖找出所有的可能解答，然後用各種解答盡可能回答問題的某個部分。如此回答之下，人類學強調的是尊重每個群體的解答，以及用同理心詮釋每個解答的真實認同。也許在其他學科看來，人類學家只是在玩“換句話說”的遊戲，只是某種不科學的社會科學。但以另種層面而言，人類學的研究目的並非追求一個真實，而是追求所有面向的真實——即使真實只有一個，但每個人看到的“那個”真實，往往難劃齊一。
参考文献
- 威廉·A·哈维兰著，王铭铭等译，《当代人类学》上海人民出版社，1987年 ISBN 7-208-00082-4
参見
- 人类学家列表
- 文化人類學
外部链接
- [http://www.sachina.edu.cn/index.php 社会学人类学中国网]
- [http://anthrop.vip.sina.com/ 人类学天地]
- [http://www.shuku.net:8080/novels/zatan/renleixue/rlx.html 人类学——人及其文化研究]，爱德华·泰勒 著 连树声 译（全文）
- [http://www.face21cn.com/rlx/ face21cn人类学网站]
category:人类学
category:社会科学
category:人类
ja:人類学
ko:인류학
ms:Antropologi
simple:Anthropology
th:มานุษยวิทยา
zh-min-nan:Jîn-lūi-ha̍k
人类学家人类学家或称人类学者是指专门从事人类学研究的人。由于人类学分科众多，作为个体的人类学家一般只研究其中的一门或几门分科。人类学家大都从事学院或大学的教育工作，但越來越多人類學家從事應用層面的人類學工作。
人類學家的角色
總體而論，人類學是以各種層面理解人的整體，特別是強調體質人類學、文化人類學、語言學和考古學這四大領域的知識整合併用，故為一種帶有濃厚博物學氣息的學科。人類學家也同樣試圖全面學習各種人類層面的知識，可在各學科日趨專精的今天，人類學者不再以博學者的角色自居。
最早出現在“人類學”一詞時，指的是對人類生理構造進行研究的“解剖學”。因此，19世紀中業前的“人類學家”以高妙的解剖技術為著。他們常在公開場合下表演解快速、高效能的屍體解剖，藉此激起人們對他們的信任。透過無數屍體的分解，這些人類學者建立起深厚的人體知識，因此對醫學、人種學中關於骨骼構造、大腦等“不為人知”的部分有大幅度的認識。
19世紀
人类学家相对于其他学科的学者，是从更广阔的基础上来研究人类的行为，而不是局限于从社会科学或生物学的角度来看待这种行为。所以人类学家更擅长于在复杂的生物或文化上对人类进行总体上的一般观察。而通过文化人类学对不同文化的研究，人类学家的研究结果常常会对社会学家、心理学家、经济学家的一些结论提出质疑和挑战。因而人类学家常常扮演对社会科学吹毛求疵的富有建设性的角色。
由于考古学、语言学、民族学在传统上也隶属于人类学，而且他们的研究也有许多共同之处，因此考古学家、语言学家和民族学家往往也能是人类学家。
人類學家的工作
参考文献
# 威廉·A·哈维兰著，王铭铭等译，《当代人类学》上海人民出版社，1987年 ISBN 7-208-00082-4
参看
- 人类学家列表
category:人类学家
simple:Anthropologist
1501年
----
大事记
- 巴拿马成为西班牙殖民地。
- 巴塞尔和沙夫豪森加入瑞士。
- 直布罗陀规入西班牙。
- 苏孟凯造反。
- 米开朗基罗开始雕刻大卫像。
出生
- 5月6日——玛塞禄二世，教皇（逝世1555年）
- 9月24日——杰罗姆·卡当，意大利数学家（逝世1576年）
逝世
- 3月1日——艾里谢尔·纳瓦依，中亚哲学家、启蒙运动家和诗人（出生1441年）
Category:16世纪
ko:1501년
德国
德意志联邦共和国（Bundesrepublik Deutschland，BRD，简写为Deutschland），世界主要的工业化国家之一，位于欧洲中部，北部是北海、丹麦和波罗的海，东部与波兰和捷克接壤，南临奥地利和瑞士，西面则临法国、卢森堡、比利时以及荷兰。
德国在第二次世界大战后被分为西德和东德，1990年两德统一。
历史
参见：德国历史
雖然中世纪以来，德语以及德意志民族神圣罗马帝国（Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation或Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Germanicae）已经存在，今天的德国却只是到1871年才建立。
德意志帝国的前身是由普鲁士所主导的德意志邦联（Deutscher Bund）。普鲁士政府虽然强力压迫1848/1849年的德国民族主义运动，但却采纳其思想，向丹麦、奥地利和法国发起三次统一战争。1871年1月18日普鲁士国王威廉一世（Kaiser Wilhelm I）在凡尔赛宫加冕为德意志皇帝。
此后，欧洲帝国主义时期在殖民地上的争端、欧洲结盟体系的僵化以及当时在欧洲国家中战争工具化的普遍思想，使成为欧洲主要强权的德国被卷入由其盟国奥匈帝国触发的第一次世界大战(1914年)，德国随后侵略了比利时、卢森堡、法国和俄国。德军开始时节节胜利，但之后却变成持久战。由于战争带来的饥荒，1918年11月，德意志帝国全境爆发动乱。为避免发生内战，德国首相巴登的马克斯亲王于11月9日宣布德皇威廉二世退位。1918年11月11日德国宣布投降。战后签订的凡尔赛和约规定德国对战争承担责任。
由于民众对凡尔赛条约的普遍不满，1920年至1924年间德国大量印刷纸币來付战争赔款引致的通货膨胀导致中产阶级家庭破产，加之1929年世界经济带来冲击并随之产生世界经济的衰退，由阿道夫·希特勒领导的德国国家社会主义党（纳粹党，NSDAP）于1933年取得政权，在他的主导和其它政党让步下，一系列反犹太人和反阻扰纳粹党的人的法律得到通过。希特勒对邻国领土的野心导致了第二次世界大战的爆发。1939年9月1日，德国部队进攻波兰。
第二次世界大战初期，德国取得了军事上的胜利，成功控制了欧洲本土的大部分地区以及苏联和北非的大片领土。1941年，德国开始了大屠杀（Holocaust），有组织地杀害了大约600万犹太人、大约1000万斯拉夫人和吉普赛人，以及大约25万德国籍残疾人（所谓的“安乐死项目”）、以及强迫其他“劣等民族”作为强制劳工。德军占领苏联欧洲大片领土后，德军的党卫队等对苏联和波兰等斯拉夫民族也进行了灭绝性的大屠杀。战事于1943年发生大转机：苏联、英国及美国对德军造成重创。1945年5月，德国在希特勒自杀后正式投降。
战后德国和柏林被分成四块，分别由英国、美国、苏联和法国控制。苏联对德国工业设施的掠夺、货币以及对其他一些问题的阻挠导致苏联与其它三盟国关系僵化以及冷战开始，最终德国被分裂成两个国家：由西方三盟国主导的德意志联邦共和国，（即联邦德国、西德）以及由苏联主导的德意志民主共和国（即民主德国、东德）。西柏林（West-Berlin）则成为位于东德的西德飞地，有特殊国际法地位（东德官方首都称呼"柏林"不包括西柏林）。苏联由1947年末开始操纵德国统一社会党（Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands, SED）的成立，进一步巩固了德国的分裂。1948年7月1日西方三盟国向联邦德国州长移交法兰克福文件（Frankfurter Dokumente），把管辖权交还联邦德国。
法兰克福
冷战中德国成为北大西洋公约与华沙条约的聚焦点。随着西德的货币改革，苏联政府1948之1949年试图通过地面封锁西柏林向西方三盟国施加压力，使得美国使用后期由运输机构成的空桥（Luftbrücke）维持西柏林的供给。冷战造成的西德与东德重新军事化尤其使东德经济背上了重大的负担，随之引起群众向西德逃亡。1953年6月17日在东柏林发生暴乱，被苏联驻军和东德人民警察镇压。1961年东德为了阻止公民向西德逃亡，在它的柏林管辖区界限上建造柏林墙。与此同时，苏联领导人，赫鲁晓夫为了支持东德的独立，号召从全社会主义阵营征召技术工人和工程师支援因公民逃亡受损的东德工业。
西德在战后快速恢复并再度崛起，成为欧洲新的重要经济支柱。冷战后期，联邦德国开始了积极争取国家重新统一的努力。随着戈尔巴乔夫的上台，苏联在东德立场的迅速软化；加之民主德国内部激进派的响应和鼓动，在美国的支持和苏联的默许下，1989年，柏林墙拆除，1990年10月3日，以东德并入西德的方式两德重新统一，加速了1990年共产主义在欧洲的崩溃。
西德自1955年5月9日加入北大西洋公约组织成员，并且是欧盟前身欧洲煤炭与钢铁共同体（Europäische Gemeinschaft für Kohle und Stahl）以及之后的欧洲经济共同体（Europäische Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft）创建成员。合并后的德国现在是欧洲以及欧盟中最重要的国家之一。
二战后美英法在德国西部，苏联在德国东部驻有重兵。后形成北约与华约的军事对峙，德国是双方对峙的最前线。直到今天，北约仍然没有放弃对德国的军事控制，特别是美国在德国还驻有最强大的一个装甲师，并在德国拥有最大的海外空军基地。所以德国并不是一个政治上完全独立的国家。
政治
参见：德国政治
德国自1949年起是一个采用议会民主的联邦制国家，联邦拥有一个两院制的议会，各州有在教育、警察和其它方面上高度的独立主权。
德国的国家元首是联邦总统(Bundespräsident)，任期5年，由联邦大会(Bundesversammlung)间接选举产生。联邦大会由联邦议会(Bundestag)议员以及同样数目的各州代表组成，专门选举国家的元首。总统的权利受到限制，其角色大部分都是象征性的。
德国联邦议会由两院组成，两院一起组成了德国的立法机构。联邦议会现拥有598席，代表由直选或间接选举产生，任期4年，设有联邦议会会长(Bundestagspräsident)一人，在国内外礼仪上享有仅次于联邦总统的第二高地位。联邦参议院(Bundesrat)拥有69席，代表则来自16个联邦州(Bundesländer)，参议院主席(Bundesratspräsident)由州总理轮流担任，在国内外礼仪上享有第三高地位。
德国总理(Bundeskanzler)虽然在国内外礼仪上仅享有第四高地位，却是德国联邦的政府首脑。总理往往是议会多数党的成员，由议会选举产生。联邦政府设副总理一人，目前由外交部长(Außenminister)兼任。现行的基本法(Grundgesetz)力图避免重蹈魏玛共和国的覆辙，规定了例如总理的间接产生、政党必需获得5%选票或3个直选席位才能进入议会、只有下院全体议员都同意继任者之后才能免去总理、军队除救援外不许使用于国内事务等等。也正因为如此，到目前为止的历届德国政府都是联合内阁。此外基本法中的1至20款(“人的尊严不可被侵犯”等)被看做是不许被更改的部分。德国联邦的宪法体制(Verfassungsrecht)由基本法、统一协议(Einigungsvertrag)以及其它国际协议组成，各州另外有自己的宪法，但受联邦宪法体制约束。
德国拥有一个分立的联邦司法系统，包括一个宪法法庭，高级法院，以及在行政、金融、劳工以及社会议题方面有管辖权的法庭。德国的最高法院是联邦宪法法庭（Bundesverfassungsgericht）以及欧州法庭(Europäischer Gerichtshof)，各州另外设有州宪法法院(Landesverfassungsgericht)。公民在充分理由情况下可以通过行政诉讼取消政府行政措施，通过宪法诉讼解除政府立法，通过欧洲法院还能够达到宪法不恰当条款的修改，这样就确保了宪法解释的统一性、欧盟协议在全欧洲解释的统一性并保护了公民的基本权利。
行政区
参见：德国行政区
德国被划分为16个联邦州（Bundesländer，单数Bundesland），其中有三個是獨立的城市州：
- 巴登-符腾堡（Baden-Württemberg）
- 巴伐利亚（Bayern）
- 柏林 (城市和州)（Berlin）
- 勃兰登堡 （Brandenburg）
- 不來梅(城市和州)（Bremen）
- 汉堡 (城市和州) （Hamburg）
- 黑森（Hessen）
- 梅克伦堡-前波美拉尼亚（Mecklenburg-Vorpommern）
- 下萨克森（Niedersachsen）
- 北莱茵-威斯特法伦（Nordrhein-Westfalen）
- 莱茵兰-普法尔茨（Rheinland-Pfalz）
- 萨尔 （Saarland）
- 萨克森（Sachsen）
- 萨克森-安哈尔特（Sachsen-Anhalt）
- 石勒苏益格-荷尔斯泰因（Schleswig-Holstein）
- 图林根（Thüringen）
德国进一步被划分为36个地区（Regierungsbezirke）和438个县（Kreise）。
地理
参见：德国地理
德国位于欧洲中部，南临阿尔卑斯山脉在德国境内的最高峰楚格峰(Zugspitze, 2,963 m)，北部则环北海和波罗的海。陆上与法国、瑞士、奥地利、捷克、波兰、丹麦、荷兰、比利时、卢森堡共九个国家接壤，是欧洲西部邻国最多的国家。在交通方面，连通欧洲东西部和南北部的高速公路和铁路都经过这里，有欧洲路上“十字路口”之称。法兰克福国际机场是欧洲第二大机场。
德国地势南高北低，呈阶梯状，南北两地农业有较大差异。 北德平原，地势低平，气候夏季温凉，冬季阴冷，土壤较为贫瘠。农村主要利用草场发展畜牧业，也种黑麦、燕麦、马铃薯，经营比较粗放，人口较为稀疏。 南部高原山地，河谷地带土壤肥沃，日照时间较长，盛产葡萄、烟草、水果，以及用于制造啤酒的啤酒花。河谷两侧德山地则为森林和高山牧场，人口较稀。
德国境内有多条欧洲主要河流穿行而过，包括了莱茵河(Rhein)、多瑙河(Donau)以及易北河(Elbe)等。
工业
德国是全球七大工业国之一。鲁尔区是德国的传统煤钢工业区。慕尼黑、汉堡、斯图加特、沃尔夫斯堡也形成了强大的制造业集群。柏林、蔡斯、德累斯顿则是德国东部（原民主德国）的工业重镇。德国工业品以质量精良著称，但成本较高。
经济
参见：德国经济
德国经济的体制一般被称为社会市场经济，这是德国总理艾哈德的杰出贡献，对改革中的中国也有很大影响。德国是欧洲货币联盟的创建成员，欧洲中央银行设在德国的法兰克福。
德国是全球技术含量第三高的经济体，仅次于美国和日本。然而它的社会市场经济体系却出现重大问题，长期为许多社会问题所拖累。经济结构的僵化导致高失业率成为长期而非周期性的经济问题，而德国的老龄化问题也造给社会保障体系造成了巨大的压力。对东德的经济发展也是一个长期的、花费巨大的挑战。德、法主导的欧元区计划的启动，将会给德国经济带来发展空间。
人口
参见：德国人口
德国人口主要是德意志人。在德国北部有少数丹麦人居住，萨克森地区则有少部分索布斯拉夫人口。德国境内有大约七百万定居的外国人，包括了外国雇员、政治庇护人士以及他们的家属。还有一些来自土耳其、克罗地亚、意大利、俄罗斯以及波兰的移民。
基督教新教(38%)和天主教(34%)是德国的两大主要宗教。除此之外还有1.7%的人口信奉回教，其余的26.3%的人口则没有宗教信仰，或属于其他较小规模的宗教。当今德国的犹太人人口为约12万人。
德国拥有顶尖的技术，有世界领先的机械工业、光学工业、化学工业以及汽车、飞机、航天、潜艇等制造业。德国的教育体系为12年义务教育。德国的国立高等教育原则上不收学费，除了通过[http://www.zvs.de/ ZVS]中央分配的少数所谓numerus clausus学科以外，不需要入学考试。德国政府对中下收入水平家庭的子女提供大学就读时期的生活费补助，其中一半作为贷款。1%的大学生获得不需偿还的奖学金。二战以后，进入大学的德国青年人数成长了三倍。德国的大部分民众属于中产阶级，良好的社会福利制度为人民提供了相对世界水平来说较高的医疗服务、失业保障以及其他社会需要。
文化
参见：德国文化
德国对世界文化贡献良多。德国是多位著名音乐家的摇篮，如贝多芬、巴赫、勃拉姆斯和瓦格纳等；著名的诗人则有歌德,海涅和席勒；哲学家有康德、黑格尔、费尔巴哈、马克思和尼采，以及科学家如爱因斯坦，马克斯·普朗克，卡尔·福理德理西·高斯等。至今德国科学家一共获得了超过60项诺贝尔物理、化学和生理医学奖。德国是导弹、火箭的发源地，也是现代计算机技术的创始人冯诺依曼的故乡。
德国官方语言是德语，属于拉丁语系、日尔曼语族。
德国是多种思想的发源地。19世纪在德国诞生了世界上第一个共产党－－德国社会民主工党，这是马克思亲自创建的，第一国际也产生于德国。马克思死后，德国社会民主工党中的一部分人放弃阶级斗争，走议会路线，被列宁抨击为“修正主义”，在此基础上产生了第二国际，德国是欧洲第二国际的大本营。20世纪，在希特勒努力下，德国又成为法西斯主义（国家社会主义）的发源地。由此可见德国工人运动和社会主义的传统极为深厚。
德国法典是有世界重大影响的法典，它和法国《拿破仑法典》构成大陆法系的基石。
德国拥有优良的现代陆军传统，其军制为日本、中国等学习西方现代军事的国家所效仿。尤其是德国的参谋部系统相当先进，它是世界上最先建立完善的参谋部系统的国家。德国陆军的技战术在世界处于领先地位，其坦克闪击战术属于世界首创。
德国海军传统不如英美深厚，但其潜艇部队训练有素，技战术属于世界顶尖水平。
- 著名德国人列表
- http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanisches_Nationalmuseum
德国公共假期
其他
- 德国通讯
- 德国外交
- 德国军事
- 德国交通
- 德国旅游
外部链接
- [http://www.bundespraesident.de/ 德国联邦总统]
- [http://www.bundesregierung.de/ 德国联邦政府]
- [http://www.bundestag.de/ 德国联邦议会]
category:德国
fiu-vro:S'aksamaa
als:Deutschland
ja:ドイツ
ko:독일
ms:Jerman
roa-rup:Ghirmânii
simple:Germany
th:สหพันธ์สาธารณรัฐเยอรมนี
zh-min-nan:Tek-kok
1863年
----
大事记
- 8月11日——法国确定柬埔寨为其保护国。
出生
- 1月1日——皮埃尔·德·顾拜旦，现代奥林匹克运动会发起人（1937年9月2日逝世）
逝世
-
Category:19世纪
ko:1863년
nb:1863
simple:1863
法蘭茲·鮑亞士法蘭茲·鮑亞士 （1858年7月9日——1942年11月22日）是現代人類學家的開創者之一，並享有“美國人類學之父”之美名。如同許多先驅，他所學於其他學科：自物理學中他獲得理念，並於地理學從事拿到博士前的學術工作。
早年生活與所受教育
法然茲·鮑亞士生於西發利亞的麥登。雖然他的祖父母為不折不扣的猶太人，其雙親卻同大多數德籍猶太人，仍懷有啟蒙時代的價值觀，其中也包含他們被現代德國社會所同化。鮑亞士對其猶太背景十分敏感，且會出言抗詰反閃族論者，並拒絕改信基督教，可他從不視己身為猶太人。在份自傳簡搞中，鮑亞士寫到：
:The background of my early thinking was a German home in which the ideals of the revolution of 1848 were a living force. My father, liberal, but not active in public affairs; my mother, idealistic, with a lively interest in public matters; the founder about 1854 of the kindergarten in my home town, devoted to science. My parents had broken through the shackles of dogma. My father had retained an emotional affection for the ceremonial of his parental home, without allowing it to influence his intellectual freedom.
:我早年的思想背景是“1948年革命乃生存之動力”此理念下的德國家庭。
From his early experience at the Froebel kindergarten in Minden, to his studies at Gymnasium, Boas was exposed to, and interested in, natural history. Of his work at Gymnasium, he was most excited by and proud of his research on the geographic distribution of plants. Nevertheless, when Boas attended university — first at Heidelberg, then Bonn — he focused on mathematics and physics (although he also attended a few courses in geography, including one taught by Theobald Fischer). He intended then to study physics at Berlin, but chose to attend the university at Kiel, in order to be closer to his family. There he studied physics with Gustav Karsten. Boas wished to conduct research concerning Gauss's law of the normal distribution of errors, but Karsten instructed him to research the optical properties of water instead. That research became the basis of his doctoral dissertation.
Boas received his doctorate in physics from the university at Kiel in 1882. He was unhappy with his dissertation, but intrigued by the problems of perception that plagued his research. Boas had developed an interest in Kantian thought when he took a course on aesthetics with Kuno Fischer at Heidelberg, and at Bonn took courses with Benno Erdmann, leading Kantian philosophers. This interest led him to "psychophysics," which addressed psychological and epistemological problems in physics. He again considered moving to Berlin to study psychophysics with Hermann von Helmholtz, but psychophysics was of dubious status, and Boas had no training in psychology.
Coincidentally, Theobald Fischer had moved to Kiel, and Boas took up geography as a way to explore his budding interest in the relationship between subjective experience and the objective world. At the time, German geographers were divided over the causes of cultural variation. Many argued that the physical environment was the principal determining factor, but others (notably Friedrich Ratzel) argued that the diffusion of ideas through human migration is more important. In 1883 Boas went to Baffin Island to conduct geographic research on the impact of the physical environment on native (Inuit) migrations. He returned to Berlin to finish his studies, and in 1886 (with Helmholtz' support) he successfully defended his habilitation thesis, Baffin Land, and was named privatdozent in geography.
While on Baffin Island he began to develop his interest in studying non-Western cultures (in 1888 he published a book, The Central Eskimo). Moreover, in 1885 Boas went to work with physical anthropologist Rudolf Virchow and Ethnologist Adolf Bastian at the Royal Ethnological Museum in Berlin. Boas had studied anatomy with Virchow two years earlier, while preparing for the Baffin Island expedition. At the time, Virchow was involved in a vociferous debate with his former student, Ernst Haeckel, over evolution. Haeckel had abandoned his medical practice to study comparative anatomy after reading Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, and vigorously promoted Darwin's ideas in Germany. Like most other natural scientists prior to the rediscovery of Mendelian genetics in 1909 and the development of the modern synthesis in 1918, however, Virchow felt that Darwin's theories were weak because they lacked a theory of cellular mutability. Accordingly, Virchow favored Lamarckian models of evolution. This debate resonated with debates among geographers. Lamarckians believed that environmental forces could precipitate rapid and enduring changes in organisms that had no inherited source; thus, Lamarckians and environmental determinists often found themselves on the same side of debates.
But Boas worked more closely with Bastian, who was noted for his antipathy to environmental determinism. Instead, he argued for the "psychic unity of mankind;" a belief that all humans had the same intellectual capacity, and that all cultures were based on the same basic mental principles. Variations in custom and belief, he argued, were the products of historical accidents. This view resonated with Boas's experiences on Baffin Island, and drew him towards anthropology.
While at the Royal Ethnological Museum Boas became interested in the Native Americans in the Pacific Northwest, and after defending his habilitation thesis, he left for a three month trip to British Columbia via New York. In January, 1887, he was offered a job as assistant editor of the journal Science, in New York. Alienated by growing anti-Semitism and nationalism, as well as the very limited academic opportunities for a geographer, in Germany, Boas decided to stay in the United States.
Aside from his editorial work at Science, Boas secured an appointment as dozent in anthropology at Clark University, in 1888. Boas's opportunities at Clark were limited, however, because the university did not have an anthropology department. Moreover, Boas was concerned about University president G. Stanley Hall's interference in his research. In 1892 Boas joined a number of other Clark faculty in resigning, to protest Hall's infringement on academic freedom. Boas was then appointed chief assistant in anthropology at the 1893 World Columbian Exposition in Chicago.
Fin de Siècle Debates
科學對上歷史
Some scholars, like Boas's student Alfred Kroeber, believed that Boas used his research in physics as a model for his work in anthropology. Many others, however — including Boas's student Alexander Lesser, and later researchers such as Marian W. Smith, Herbert S. Lewis, and Matti Bunzl — have pointed out that Boas explicitly rejected physics in favor of history as a model for his anthropological research.
This distinction between science and history has its origins in 19th century German academe, which distinguished between Naturwissenschaften (the sciences) and Geisteswissenschaften (the humanities), or between Gesetzwissenschaften (the law-giving sciences) and Geschichteswissenschaften (history). Generally, the first term in either binary refers to the study of phenomena that are governed by objective natural laws; the second term refers to those phenomena that have meaning only in terms of human perception or experience. In 1884 Kantian philosopher Wilhelm Windelband coined the terms nomothetic and idiographic to describe these two divergent approaches. He observed that most scientists employ some mix of both, but in differing proportions; he considered physics a perfect example of a nomothetic science, and history, an idiographic science. Moreover, he argued that each approach has its origin in one of the two "interests" of reason Kant had identified in the Critique of Judgement — one "generalizing," the other "specifying." (Winkelband's student Heinrich Rickert elaborated on this distinction in The Limits of Concept Formation in Natural Science : A Logical Introduction to the Historical Sciences; Boas's students Alfred Kroeber and Edward Sapir relied extensively on this work in defining their own approach to anthropology.)
Although Kant considered these two interests of reason to be objective and universal, the distinction between the natural and human sciences was institutionalized in Germany, through the organization of scholarly research and teaching, following the Enlightenment. In Germany the Enlightenment was dominated by Kant himself, who sought to establish principles based on universal rationality. In reaction to Kant, German scholars such as Johann Gottfried Herder argued that human creativity, which necessarily takes unpredictable and highly diverse forms, is as important as human rationality. In 1795 the great explorer and naturalist, Wilhelm von Humboldt, called for an anthropology that would synthesize Kant's and Herder's interests. Humboldt founded the University of Berlin in 1809, and his work in geography, history, and psychology provided the milieu in which Boas's intellectual orientation matured.
Historians working in the Humboldtian tradition developed ideas that would become central in Boasian anthropology. Leopold von Ranke defined the task of the historian as "merely to show what really happened," which is a cornerstone of Boas's empiricism. Wilhelm Dilthey emphasized the centrality of "understanding" to human knowledge, and that the lived experience of an historian could provide a basis for an empathic understanding of the situation of an historical actor. For Boas, both values were well-expressed in a quote from Goethe: "A single action or event is interesting, not because it is explainable, but because it is true."
The influence of these ideas on Boas is apparent in his 1887 essay, "The Study of Geography," in which he distinguished between physical science, which seeks to discover the laws governing phenomena, and historical science, which seeks a thorough understanding of phenomena on their own terms. Boas argued that geography is and must be historical in this sense. In 1887, after his Baffin Island expedition, Boas wrote "The Principles of Ethnological Classification," in which he developed this argument in application to anthropology:
:Ethnological phenomena are the result of the physical and psychical character of men, and of its development under the influence of the surroundings...'Surroundings' are the physical conditions of the country, and the sociological phenomena, i.e., the relation of man to man. Furthermore, the study of the present surroundings is insufficient: the history of the people, the influence of the regions through which it has passed on its migrations, and the people with whom it came into contact, must be considered.
This formulation echoes with Ratzel's focus on historical processes of human migration and culture contact, and Bastian's rejection of environmental determinism. It also emphasizes culture as a context ("surroundings"), and the importance of history. These are the hallmarks of Boasian anthropology (which Marvin Harris would later call "historical-particularism"), would guide Boas's research over the next decade, as well as his instructions to future students. (see Lewis 2001b for an alternative view to Harris'.)
Although context and history were essential elements to Boas's understanding of anthropology as Geisteswissenschaften and Geschichtswissenschaften, there is one essential element that Boasian anthropology shares with Naturwissenschaften: empiricism. In 1949 Boas's student, Alfred Kroeber summed up the principles of empiricism that define Boasian anthropology as a science:
# The method of science is to begin with questions, not with answers, least of all with value judgements.
# Science is dispassionate inquiry and therefore cannot take over outright any ideologies "already formulated in everyday life," since these are themselves inevitably traditional and normally tinged with emotional prejudice.
# Sweeping all-or-none, black-and-white judgements are characteristic of totalitarian attitudes and have no place in science, whose very nature is inferential and judicial.
正向演化對上達爾文演化論
One of the greatest accomplishments of Boas and his students was their critique of theories of physical, social, and cultural evolution current at that time. This critique is central to Boas's work in museums, as well as his work in all four fields of anthropology.
For this reason, some people have argued that Boasian anthropology is at odds with Darwin's theory of Evolution. This argument is unfounded, and mistakenly assumes that people using the word "evolution" always mean the same thing. In fact, Boas supported Darwinian theory, although he did not assume that it automatically applied to cultural and historical phenomena. The notion of evolution that the Boasians ridiculed and rejected was the then dominant belief in "orthogenesis" – a determinate or teleological process of evolution in which change occurs progressively regardless of natural selection. Boas rejected the prevalent theories of social evolution developed by Edward Burnett Tylor, Lewis Henry Morgan, and Herbert Spencer not because he rejected the notion of "evolution" per se, but because he rejected orthogenetic notions of evolution in favor of Darwinian evolution.
The difference between these prevailing theories of cultural evolution and Darwinian theory cannot be overstated: these theorists argued that all societies progress through the same stages in the same sequence. Thus, although the Inuit with whom Boas worked at Baffin Island, and the Germans with whom he studied as a graduate student, were contemporaries of one another, evolutionists argued that the Inuit were at an earlier stage in their evolution, and Germans at a later stage. This echoed a popular misreading of Darwin that suggested that human beings are descended from chimpanzees. In fact, Darwin argued that chimpanzees and humans are equally evolved. What characterizes Darwinian theory is its attention to the processes by which one species transforms into another; "adaptation" as a key principle in explaining the relationship between a species and its environment; and "natural selection" as a mechanism of change. In contrast, Morgan, Spencer, and Tylor had little to say about the process and mechanics of change.
Furthermore, Darwin built up his theory through a careful examination of considerable empirical data. Boasian research revealed that virtually every claim made by cultural evolutionists was contradicted by the data, or reflected a profound misinterpretation of the data. As Boas's student Robert Lowie remarked, "Contrary to some misleading statements on the subject, there have been no responsible opponents of evolution as scientifically proved, though there has been determined hostility to an evolutionary metaphysics that falsifies the established facts."
In an unpublished lecture, Boas characterized his debt to Darwin thus:
:Although the idea does not appear quite definitely expressed in Darwin's discussion of the development of mental powers, it seems quite clear that his main object has been to express his conviction that the mental faculties developed essentially without a purposive end, but they originated as variations, and were continued by natural selection. This idea was also brought out very clearly by Wallace, who emphasized that apparently reasonable activities of man might very well have developed without an actual application of reasoning
Thus, Boas suggested that what appear to be patterns or structures in a culture were not a product of conscious design, but rather the outcome of diverse mechanisms that produce cultural variation (such as diffusion and independent invention), shaped by the social environment in which people live and act. Boas concluded his lecture by acknowledging the importance of Darwin's work:
:I hope I may have succeeded in presenting to you, however imperfectly, the currents of thought due to the work of the immortal Darwin which have helped to make anthropology what it is at the present time. (Boas, 1909 lecture; see Lewis 2001b.)
學術生涯早期：博物館研究
In the late 1800s anthropology in the United States was dominated by the Bureau of American Ethnology, directed by John Wesley Powell, a geologist who favored Lewis Henry Morgan's theory of cultural evolution. The BAE was housed at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, and the Smithsonian's curator for ethnology, Otis T. Mason, shared Powell's commitment to cultural evolution. (The Peabody Museum at Harvard University was an important, though lesser, center of anthropological research).
It was while working on museum collections and exhibitions that Boas formulated his basic approach to culture, which led him to break with museums and seek to establish anthropology as an academic discipline.
During this period Boas made five more trips to the Pacific Northwest. His continuing field research led him to think of culture as a local context for human action. His emphasis on local context and history led him to oppose the dominant model at the time, Cultural evolution.
Boas initially broke with evolutionary theory over the issue of kinship. Lewis Henry Morgan had argued that all human societies move from an initial form of matrilineal organization to patrilineal organization. Indian groups on the northern coast of British Columbia, like the Tsimshian and Tlingit, were organized into matrilineal clans. Indians on the southern coast, like the Nootka and the Salish, however, were organized into patrilineal groups. Boas focused on the Kwakiutl, who lived between the two clusters. The Kwakiutl seemed to have a mix of features. Prior to marriage, a man would assume his wife's father's name and crest. His children took on these names and crests as well, although his sons would lose them when they got married. Names and crests thus stayed in the mother's line. At first, Boas — like Morgan before him — suggested that the Kwakiutl had been matrilineal like their neighbors to the north, but that they were beginning to evolve patrilineal groups. In 1897, however, he repudiated himself, and argued that the Kwakiutl were changing from a prior patrilineal organization to a matrilineal one, as they learned about matrilineal principles from their northern neighbors.
Boas's rejection of Morgan's theories led him, in a 1907 article, to challenge Otis's principles of museum display. At stake, however, were more basic issues of causality and classification. The evolutionary approach to material culture led museum curators to organize objects on display according to function or level of technological development. Curators assumed that changes in the forms of artefacts reflect some natural process of progressive evolution. Boas, however, felt that the form an artefact took reflected the circumstances under which it was produced and used. Arguing that "[t]hough like causes have like effects, like effects have not like causes," Boas realized that even artefacts that were similar in form might have developed in very different contexts, for different reasons. Otis's museum displays, organized along evolutionary lines, mistakenly juxtapose like effects; those organized along contextual lines would reveal like causes.
Boas had a chance to apply his approach to exhibits when he was hired to assist Frederick Ward Putnam, director and curator of the Peabody Museum at Harvard University, who had been appointed as head of the Department of Ethnology and Archeology for the Chicago Fair in 1892. Boas arranged for fourteen Kwakiutl Indians from British Columbia to come and reside in a mock Kwakiutl village, where they could perform their daily tasks in context.
After the Exposition Boas worked at the newly-created Field Museum in Chicago until 1894, when he was replaced (against his will) by BAE archeologist William Henry Holmes. In 1896 Boas was appointed Assistant Curator of Ethnology and Somatology of the American Museum of Natural History. In 1897 he organized the Jesup Expedition, a five-year long field-study of the natives of the Pacific Northwest, whose ancestors had migrated across the Bering Strait from Siberia. He attempted to organize exhibits along contextual, rather than evolutionary, lines. He also developed a research program in line with his curatorial goals: describing his instructions to his students in terms of widening contexts of interpretation within a society, he explained that "...they get the specimens; they get explanations of the specimens; they get connected texts that partly refer to the specimens and partly to abstract things concerning the people; and they get grammatical information." These widening contexts of interpretation were abstracted into one context, the context in which the specimens, or assemblages of specimens, would be displayed: "...we want a collection arranged according to tribes, in order to teach the particular style of each group." His approach, however, brought him into conflict with the President of the Museum, Morris Jesup, and its Director, Hermon Bumpus. He resigned in 1905, never to work for a museum again.
學術生涯晚期：學院人類學
Boas had been appointed lecturer in physical anthropology at Columbia University in 1896, and had been promoted to professor of anthropology in 1899. Nevertheless, the various anthropologists teaching at Columbia had been assigned to different departments. When Boas left the Museum of Natural History, he negotiated with Columbia University to consolidate the various professors into one department, of which Boas would take charge. Boas's program at Columbia became the first Ph.D. program in anthropology in America.
During this time Boas played a key role in organizing the American Anthropological Association as an umbrella organization for the emerging field. Boas originally wanted the AAA to be limited to professional anthropologists, but W.J. McGee (another geologist who had joined the BAE under Powell's leadership) argued that the organization should have an open membership. McGee's position prevailed and he was elected the organization's first president in 1902; Boas was elected a vice-president, along with Putnam, Powell, and Holmes.
At both Columbia and the AAA, Boas encouraged the "four field" concept of anthropology; he personally contributed to physical anthropology, linguistics, archaeology, as well as cultural anthropology. His work in these fields was pioneering: in physical anthropology he led scholars away from static taxonomical classifications of race, to an emphasis on human biology and evolution; in linguistics he broke through the limitations of classic philology and established some of the central problems in modern linguistics and cognitive anthropology; in cultural anthropology he (along with Bronislaw Malinowski) established the contextualist approach to culture, cultural relativism, and the participant-observation method of fieldwork.
The four-field approach understood not merely as bringing together different kinds of anthropologists into one department, but as reconceiving anthropology through the integration of different objects of anthropological research into one over-arching object, was one of Boas's fundamental contributions to the discipline, and came to characterize American anthropology against that of
England, France, or Germany. This approach defines as its object the human species as a totality. This focus did not lead Boas to seek to reduce all forms of humanity and human activity to some lowest common denominator; rather, he understood the essence of the human species to be the tremendous variation in human form and activity (an approach that parallels Charles Darwin's approach to species in general).
In his 1907 essay, "Anthropology," Boas identified two basic questions for anthropologists: "Why are the tribes and nations of the world different, and how have the present differences developed?" Amplifying these questions, he explained the object of anthropological study thus:
:We do not discuss the anatomical, physiological, and mental characteristics of man considered as an individual; but we are interested in the diversity of these traits in groups of men found in different geographical areas and in different social classes. It is our task to inquire into the causes that have brought about the observed differentiation, and to investigate the sequence of events that have led to the establishment of the multifarious forms of human life. In other words, we are interested in the anatomical and mental characteristics of men living under the same biological, geographical, and social environment, and as determined by their past.
These questions signal a marked break from then-current ideas about human diversity, which assumed that some people have a history, evident in a historical (or written) record, while other people, lacking writing, also lack history. For some, this distinction between two different kinds of societies explained the difference between history, sociology, economics and other disciplines that focus on people with writing, and anthropology, which was supposed to focus on people without writing. Boas rejected this distinction between kinds of societies, and this division of labor in the academy. He understood all societies to have a history, and all societies to be proper objects of anthropological society. In order to approach literate and non-literate societies the same way, he emphasized the importance on studying human history through the analysis of other things besides written texts. Thus, in his 1904 article, "The History of Anthropology", Boas wrote that
:The historical development of the work of anthropologists seems to single out clearly a domain of knowledge that heretofore has not been treated by any other science. It is the biological history of mankind in all its varieties; linguistics applied to people without written languages; the ethnology of people without historic records; and prehistoric archeology.
Historians and social theorists in the 18th and 19th centuries had speculated as to the causes of this differentiation, but Boas dismissed these theories, especially the dominant theories of Social evolution and Cultural evolution as speculative. He endeavored to establish a discipline that would base its claims on rigorous empirical study.
One of his most important books, The Mind of Primitive Man (published in 1911), he integrated these various concerns and established a program that would dominate American anthropology for the next fifteen years. In this study he established that in any given population, biology, language, material and symbolic culture, are autonomous; that each is an equally important dimension of human nature, but that no one of these dimensions is reducible to another. In other words, he established that culture does not depend on any independent variables. He emphasized that the biological, linguistic, and cultural traits of any group of people are the product of historical developments involving both cultural and non-cultural forces. He established that cultural plurality is a fundamental feature of humankind, and that the specific cultural environment structures much individual behavior.
Boas also presented himself as a role-model for the citizen-scientist, who understand that even were the truth pursued as its own end, all knowledge has moral consequences. The Mind of Primitive Man ends with an appeal to humanism:
:I hope the discussions outlined in these pages have shown that the data of anthropology teach us a greater tolerance of forms of civilization different from our own, that we should learn to look on foreign races with greater sympathy and with a conviction that, as all races have contributed in the past to cultural progress in one way or another, so they will be capable of advancing the interests of mankind if we are only willing to give them a fair opportunity.
體質人類學
Boas's work in physical anthropology brought together his interest in Darwinian evolution with his interest in migration as a cause of change. His most important research in this field was his study of changes in body form among children of immigrants in New York. Other researchers had already noted differences in height, cranial measurements, and other physical features between Americans and people from different parts of Europe. Many used these differences to argue that there is an innate biological difference between races. Boas's primary interest — in symbolic and material culture and in language — was the study of processes of change; he therefore set out to determine whether bodily forms are also subject to processes of change. Boas studied 17,821 people, divided into seven ethno-national groups. Boas found that average measures of cranial size of immigrants was significantly different from members of these groups who were born in the United States. Moreover, he discovered that average measures of cranial size of children born within ten years of their mothers' arrival were significantly different from those of children born more than ten years after their mothers' arrival. Boas did not deny that physical features such as height or cranial size were inherited; he did, however, argue that the environment has an influence on these features, which is expressed through change over time. This work was central to his influential argument that differences between races were not immutable.
These findings were radical at the time and continue to be debated. In 2002 the anthropologists Corey S. Sparks and Richard L. Jantz claimed that differences between children born to the same parents in Europe and America were very small and insignificant, and that there was no detectable effect of exposure to the American environment on the cranial index in children. They argued that their results contradicted Boas's original findings and demonstrated that they may no longer be used to support arguments of plasticity in cranial morphology (see [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/23/14636]). However Jonathan Marks — a well-known physical anthropologist and former president of the General Anthropology section of the American Anthropological Association – has remarked that this revisionist study of Boas's work "has the ring of desperation to it (if not obfuscation), and has been quickly rebutted by more mainstream biological anthropology." In 2003 anthropologists Clarence C. Gravlee, H. Russell Bernard, and William R. Leonard reanalyzed Boas's data and concluded that Boas's original findings were correct. Moreover, they applied new statistical, computer-assisted methods to Boas's data and discovered even stronger evidence for cranial plasticity. See [http://lance.qualquant.net/gravleeetal03a.pdf]. In a later publication, Gravlee, Bernard and Leonard reviewed Sparks and Jantz' analysis. They argue that Sparks and Jantz misrepresented Boas's claims, and that Sparks' and Jantz's data actually support Boas. For example, they point out that Sparks and Jantz look at changes in cranial size in relation to how long an individual has been in the United States in order to test the influence of the environment. Boas, however, looked at changes in cranial size in relation to how long the mother had been in the United States. They argue that Boas's method is more useful, because the prenatal environment is a crucial developmental factor. (See [http://www.anthro.fsu.edu/people/faculty/CG_pubs/gravlee03b.pdf].)
Although some sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists have suggested that Boas was opposed to Darwinian evolution, Boas in fact was a committed proponent of Darwinian evolutionary thought. In 1888 he declared that "the development of ethnology is largely due to the general recognition of the principle of biological evolution;" since Boas's times, physical anthropologists have established that the human capacity for culture is a product of human evolution. In fact, Boas's research on changes in body form played an important role in the rise of Darwinian theory. It is crucial to remember that Boas was trained at a time when biologists had no understanding of genetics; Mendelian genetics became widely known only after 1900. Prior to that time biologists relied on the measurement of physical traits as empirical data for any theory of evolution. Boas's biometric studies, however, led him to question the use of this method and kind of data. In a speech to anthropologists in Berlin in 1912, Boas argued that at best such statistics could only raise biological questions, and not answer them. It was in this context that anthropologists began turning to genetics as a basis for any understanding of biological variation.
語言學
Although Boas published descriptive studies of Native American languages, and wrote on theoretical difficulties in classifying languages, he left it to colleagues and students such as Edward Sapir to research the relationship between culture and language.
His 1889 article "On Alternating Sounds," however, made a singular contribution to the methodology of both linguistics and cultural anthropology. It is a response to a paper presented in 1888 by Daniel Garrison Brinton, at the time a professor of American linguistics and archeology at the University of Pennsylvania. Brinton observed that in the spoken languages of many Native Americans, certain sounds regularly alternated. This is clearly not a function of individual accents; Brinton was not suggesting that some individuals pronounced certain words differently from others. He was arguing that there were many words that, even when repeated by the same speaker, varied considerably in their vocalization. Using evolutionary theory, Brinton argued that this pervasive inconsistency was a sign of linguistic inferiority, and evidence that Native Americans were at a low stage in their evolution.
Boas was familiar with what Brinton was talking about; he had experienced something similar during his research in Baffin Island and in the Pacific Northwest. Nevertheless, he argued that "alternating sounds" is not at all a feature of Native American languages — indeed, he argued, they do not really exist. Rather than take alternating sounds as objective proof of different stages in cultural evolution, Boas considered them in terms of his longstanding interest in the subjective perception of objective physical phenomena. He also considered his earlier critique of evolutionary museum displays. There, he pointed out that two things (artefacts of material culture) that appear to be similar may in fact be quite different. In this article he raises the possibility that two things (sounds) that appear to be different may in fact be the same.
In short, he shifted attention to the perception of different sounds. Boas begins by raising an empirical question: when people describe one sound in different ways, is it because they cannot perceive of the difference, or might there be another reason? He immediately establishes that he is not concerned with cases involving perceptual deficit — the aural equivalent of color-blindness. He points out that the question of people who describe one sound in different ways is comparable to that of people who describe different sounds in one way. This is crucial for research in descriptive linguistics: when studying a new language, how are we to note the pronunciation of different words? (in this point, Boas anticipates and lays the groundwork for the distinction between Phonemics and Phonetics.) People may pronounce a word in a variety of ways and still recognize that they are using the same word. The issue, then, is not "that such sensations are not recognized in their individuality" (in other words, people recognize differences in pronunciations); rather, it is that sounds "are classified according to their similarity" (in other words, that people classify a variety of perceived sounds into one category). A comparable visual example would involve words for colors. The English word "green" can be used to refer to a variety of shades, hues, and tints. But there are some languages that have no word for "green." In such cases, people might classify what we would call "green" as either "yellow" or "blue." This is not an example of color-blindness — people can perceive differences in color, but they categorize similar colors in a different way than English speakers.
Boas applies these principles to studies of British Columbian Inuit languages. Researchers have reported a variety of spellings for a given word. In the past, researchers have interpreted this data in a number of ways — it could indicate local variations in the pronunciation of a word, or it could indicate different dialects. Boas argues an alternative explanation: that the difference is not in how Inuit pronounce the word, but rather in how English-speaking scholars perceive the pronunciation of the word. It is not that English speakers are physically incapable of perceiving the sound in question; rather, the phonetic system of English cannot accommodate the perceived sound.
Although Boas was making a very specific contribution to the methods of descriptive linguistics, his ultimate point is far reaching: observer bias need not be personal, it can be cultural. In other words, the perceptual categories of Western researchers may systematically cause a Westerner to misperceive or to fail to perceive entirely a meaningful element in another culture. As in his critique of Otis Mason's museum displays, Boas demonstrated that what appeared to be evidence of cultural evolution was really the consequence of unscientific methods, and a reflection of Westerners beliefs about their own cultural superiority. This point provides the methodological foundation for Boas's cultural relativism: elements of a culture are meaningful in that culture's terms, even if they may be meaningless (or take on a radically different meaning) in another culture.
文化人類學
The essence of Boas's approach to ethnography is found in his early essay on "The Study of Geography." There he argued for an approach that
:... considers every phenomena as worthy of being studied for its own sake. Its mere existence entitles it to a full share of our attention; and the knowledge of its existence and evolution in space and time fully satisfies the student.
When Boas's student Ruth Benedict gave her presidential address to the American Anthropological Association in 1947, she reminded anthropologists of the importance of this idiographic stance by quoting literary critic A.C. Bradley: "We watch what is, seeing that so it happened and must have happened."
This orientation led Boas to promote a cultural anthropology characterized by a strong commitment to
- empiricism (with a resulting skepticism of attempts to formulate "scientific laws" of culture)
- a notion of culture as fluid and dynamic
- ethnographic fieldwork, in which the anthropologist resides for an extended period among the people being researched, conducts research in the native language, and collaborates with native researchers, as a method of collecting data, and
- cultural relativism as a methodological tool while conducting fieldwork, and as heuristic tool while analyzing data.
Boas argued that in order to understand "what is" — in cultural anthropology, the specific cultural traits (behaviors, beliefs, and symbols) – one had to examine them in their local context. He also understood that as people migrate from one place to another, and as the cultural context changes over time, the elements of a culture, and their meanings, will change, which led him to emphasize the importance of local histories for an analysis of cultures.
Although other anthropologists at the time, such as Bronislaw Malinowski and Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown focused on the study of societies, which they understood to be clearly bounded, Boas's attention to history, which reveals the extent to which traits diffuse from one place to another, led him to view cultural boundaries as multiple and overlapping, and as highly permeable. Thus, Boas's student Robert Lowie once described culture as a thing of "shreds and patches." Boas and his students understood that as people try to make sense of their world they seek to integrate its disparate elements, with the result that different cultures could be characterized as having different configurations or patterns. But Boasians also understood that such integration was always in tensions with diffusion, and any appearance of a stable configuration is contingent (see Bashkow 2004: 445).
During Boas's lifetime, as today, many Westerners saw a fundamental difference between modern societies, which are characterized by dynamism and individualism, and traditional societies which are stable and homogeneous. Boas's empirical field research, however, led him to argue against this comparison. For example, his 1903 essay, "Decorative Designs of Alaskan Needlecases: A History of Conventional Designs, Based on Materials in a U.S. Museum," provides another example of how Boas made broad theoretical claims based on a detailed analysis of empirical data. After establishing formal similarities among the needlecases, Boas shows how certain formal features provide a vocabulary out of which individual artisans could create variations in design. Thus, his emphasis on culture as a context for meaningful action made him sensitive to individual variation within a society (William Henry Holmes suggested a similar point in an 1886 paper, "Origin and development of form and ornament in ceramic art," although unlike Boas he did not develop the ethnographic and theoretical implications).
In a programmatic essay in 1920, "The Methods of Ethnology," Boas argued that instead of "the systematic enumeration of standardized beliefs and customs of a tribe," anthropology needs to document "the way in which the individual reacts to his whole social environment, and to the difference of opinion and of mode of action that occur in primitive society and which are the causes of far-reaching changes." Boas argued that attention to individual agency reveals that "the activities of the individual are determined to a great extent by his social environment, but in turn his own activities influence the society in which he lives, and may bring about modifications in form." Consequently, Boas thought of culture as fundamentally dynamic: "As soon as these methods are applied, primitive society loses the appearance of absolute stability.... All cultural forms rather appear in a constant state of flux...." (see Lewis 2001b)
Having argued against the relevance of the distinction between literate and non-literate societies as a way of defining anthropology's object of study, Boas argued that non-literate and literate societies should be analyzed in the same way. Nineteenth century historians had been applying the techniques of philology to reconstruct the histories of, and relationships between, literate societies. In order to apply these methods to non-literate societies, Boas argued that the task of fieldworkers is to produce and collect texts in non-literate societies. This took the form not only of compiling lexicons and grammars of the local language, but of recording myths, folktales, beliefs about social relationships and institutions, and even recipes for local cuisine. In order to do this, Boas relied heavily on the collaboration of literate native ethnographers (among the Kwakiutl, most often George Hunt), and he urged his students to consider such people valuable partners, inferior in their standing in Western society, but superior in their understanding of their own culture. (see Bunzl 2004: 438-439)
Using these methods, Boas published another article in 1920, in which he revisited his earlier research on Kwakiutl kinship. in the late 1890s Boas had tried to reconstruct transformation in the organization of Kkwakiutl clans, by comparing them to the organization of clans in other societies neighboring the Kwakiutl to the north and south. Now, however, he argued against translating the Kwakiutl principle of kin groups into any English word. Instead of trying to fit the Kwakiutl into some larger model, he tried to understand their beliefs and practices in their own terms. For example, whereas he had earlier translated the Kwakiutl word numaym as "clan," he now argued that the word is best understood as referring to a bundle of privileges, for which there is no English word. Men secured claims to these privileges through their parents or wives, and there were a variety of ways these privileges could be acquired, used, and transmitted from one generation to the next. As in his work on alternating sounds, Boas had come to realize that different ethnological interpretations of Kwakiutl kinship were the result of the limitations of Western categories. As in his work on Alaskan needlecases, he now saw variation among Kwakiutl practices as the result of the play between social norms and individual creativity.
實證派科學家
:There are two things to which I am devoted: absolute academic and spiritual freedom, and the subordination of the state to the interests of the individual; expressed in other forms, the furthering of conditions in which the individual can develop to the best of his ability — as far as it is possible with a full understanding of the fetters imposed upon us by tradition; and the fight against all forms of power policy of states or private organizations. This means a devotion to principles of true democracy. I object to teaching of slogans intended to befog the mind, of whatever kind they may b | | |
