CHAPTER 22

SOCIOLOGY/ANTHROPOLOGY AND HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION

Chris Ugwu, PhD

Introduction

One of the challenges of History, which concerns itself with the past events, is that of reconciliation (reconstruction) - using its varied affiliate disciplines. The need for well-reconstructed historical facts and figures needs not much emphasis, as it has helped to rebuild societies, enshrine peace and unity, among other good things in human ecosystem. A reconstructed History gives credence to how a group of people lived in the past and what helped them to live inharmony and peaceful co-existence. To achieve the ideal of reconstruction, many disciplines are used. In this study, Sociology and anthropology were examined as veritable means of Historical reconstruction.

Furthermore, Forber and Griffith (2011) believe that in reconstructing the deep past provides the resources to successfully explain puzzling traces, from fossils toradiation signatures, often in the absence of extensive and repeatable observations; which are hallmarks of good historical reconstruction.

This study considers the fields of Sociology and Anthropology as tools for an historical reconstruction. It reviews the impacts of the afore-mentioned fields of study, (which are seemingly parts of history) towardsa successful historical reconstruction. Forber and Griffith (2011) argue that the convergence of independent evidential inferences would be a kind of consilience (Whewell 1858), that provides the primary source of support for such historical reconstructions. However, due to individualized way of looking at issues, different kinds of approaches arise as one considers reconstructing the historical past.

Forber and Griffith argue that the task of historical reconstruction involves crafting a causal etiology for a specific event or set of events, adding that historical reconstructions involve both chronology and history, referred to as chronologyhistory. While the chronology identifies the temporal sequence of events, history identifies the causal links and processes connecting events across time. Again, historical events are often unique, and the causal reconstruction can vary in scope from vast (the evolution of the vertebrate eye) to minute (the exact cause of a mechanical failure). So, reconstructing history using Sociology and Anthropology faces the problem of getting a unified methodology. To solve this problem, proponents and opponents in this area agree on integrated approach.

Definition of Sociology

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica, Sociology, a social science that studies human societies, their interactions, and the processes that preserves and changes them. It does this by examining the dynamics of constituent parts of societies such as institutions, communities, populations, and gender, racial, or age groups. Sociology also studies social status or stratification, social movements, and social change, as well as societal disorder in the form of crime, deviance, and revolution.

American Sociological Association (ASA, 2019) defines sociology as the study of society; a social science involving the study of the social lives of people, groups, and societies; the study of our behavior as social beings, covering everything from the analysis of short contacts between anonymous individuals on the street to the study of global social processes; the scientific study of social aggregations, the entities through which humans move throughout their lives' or an overarching unification of all studies of humankind, including history, psychology, and economics.

ASA summarizes the definition of Sociology as:

 The study of society;

 A social science involving the study of the social lives of people, groups, and societies

 The study of our behavior as social beings, covering everything from the analysis of short contacts between anonymous individuals on the street to the study of global social processes

 The scientific study of social aggregations, the entities through which humans move throughout their lives'

 An overarching unification of all studies of humankind, including history, psychology, and economics

The above appears to agree with that of Arizona University (2017), which defines Sociology as the study of human society, its origins, functions, and problems, and focuses on relations among people, groups, classes, organizations, and cultures. The undergraduate major provides a foundation for careers in many professional fields, and for graduate training as a sociologist in academia, government, business, or community agencies. It further sees the subject as one that explores and analyzes issues vital to our personal lives, our communities, our nation, and the world. The curriculum in sociology is designed to show students the social character of human life and the impact of varying forms of social organization on human affairs.

The sociologist Dorothy Smith (1999) defines thesocial as the “ongoing concerting and coordinating of individuals’ activities.” Sociology is the systematic study of all those aspects of life designated by the adjective “social.” These aspects of social life never simply occur; they are organized processes. They can be the briefest of everyday interactions—moving to the right to let someone pass on a busy sidewalk, for example—or the largest and most enduring interactions—such as the billions of daily exchanges that constitute the circuits of global capitalism. If there are at least two people involved, even in the seclusion of one’s mind, then there is a social interaction that entails the “ongoing concerting and coordinating of activities.”

Thus, a key insight of sociology is that the simple fact of being in a group changes your behaviour. The group is a phenomenon that is more than the sum of its parts. Why do we feel and act differently in different types of social situations? Why might people of a single group exhibit different behaviours in the same situation? Why might people acting similarly not feel connected to others exhibiting the same behaviour? These are some of the many questions sociologists ask as they study people and societies (opentextbc.ca).

Subfields of Sociology

According to World Heritage Encyclopedia (licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0),Sociology studies society using various methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis to understand human social activity, from the micro level of individual agency and interaction to the macro level of systems and social structure (see www.self.gutenberg.org/articles).

Nature of Sociology

World Heritage Encyclopedia describes Sociology consists of :

 The study of society.

 Academic discipline – body of knowledge given to - or received by - a disciple (student); a branch or sphere of knowledge, or field of study, that an individual has chosen to specialize in.

 Field of science – widely-recognized category of specialized expertise within science, and typically embodies its own terminology and nomenclature. Such a field will usually be represented by one or more scientific journals, where peer reviewed research is published. There are many sociology-related scientific journals.

 Social science – field of academic scholarship that explores aspects of human society.

To it, the essence of sociology includes:

 Positivism

 Antipositivism

 Structural functionalism

Conflict theory

 Public sociology

 Social research

 Social theory

 Feminism

Branches

It lists the following as branches of sociology:

 Analytical sociology

 Applied sociology

 Architectural sociology

 Behavioral sociology

 Chinese sociology

 Collective behavior

 Comparative sociology

 Computational sociology

 Critical sociology

 Cultural sociology

 Dramaturgical sociology

 Economic sociology

 Educational sociology

 Empirical sociology

 Environmental sociology

 Evolutionary sociology

 Feminist sociology

 Figurational sociology

 Historical sociology

 Humanistic sociology

 Industrial sociology

 Internet sociology

 Interpretive sociology

 Jealousy sociology

 Macrosociology

 Marxist sociology

 Mathematical sociology

 Medical sociology

 Mesosociology

 Microsociology

 Military sociology

 Phenomenological sociology

 Policy sociology

 Polish sociology

 Political sociology

 Psychoanalytic sociology

 Public sociology

 Pure sociology

 Rural sociology

 Social inequality

 Social psychology (sociology)

 Sociology of aging

 Sociology of agriculture

 Sociology of architecture

 Sociology of art

 Sociology of autism

 Sociology of childhood

 Sociology of conflict

 Sociology of culture

 Sociology of cyberspace

 Sociology of deviance

 Sociology of development

 Sociology of disaster

 Sociology of education

 Sociology of emotions

 Sociology of the family

 Sociology of fatherhood

 Sociology of film

 Sociology of finance

 Sociology of food

 Sociology of gender

 Sociology of generations

 Sociology of globalization

 Sociology of government

 Sociology of health and illness

 Sociology of human consciousness

 Sociology of immigration

 Sociology of knowledge

 Sociology of language

 Sociology of law

 Sociology of leisure

 Sociology of literature

 Sociology of markets

 Sociology of marriage

 Sociology of motherhood

 Sociology of music

 Sociology of natural resources

 Sociology of organizations

 Sociology of peace, war, and social conflict

 Sociology of punishment

 Sociology of race and ethnic relations

 Sociology of religion

 Sociology of risk

 Sociology of science

 Sociology of scientific knowledge

 Sociology of social change

 Sociology of social movements

 Sociology of space

 Sociology of sport

 Sociology of technology

 Sociology of terrorism

 Sociology of the body

 Sociology of the family

 Sociology of the history of science

 Sociology of the Internet

 Sociology of work

 Sociography

 Structural sociology

 Theoretical sociology

 Urban sociology

 Visual sociology

Multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary fields involving sociology

 Agnotology

 Agrarian studies

 Anthrozoology

 Area studies

 Behavioral economics

 Cass Identity Model

 Communication studies

 Community informatics

 Criminology

 Cultural studies

 Demography

 Development studies

 Disability studies

 Environmental studies

 Food studies

 Gender studies

 Geodemography

 Global studies

 Gerontology

 Human ecology

 Political ecology

 Science studies

 Science, technology and society

 Social architecture

 Social epistemology

 Social geography

 Social informatics

 Social philosophy

 Social studies of finance

 Social theory

 Sociobiology

 Sociomapping

 Sociometry

 Sociomusicology

 Systems theory

 Urban studies

 Victimology

 World-systems theory

Two of the above subfields are discussed below.

Anthrozoology

Wikipedia (2019) posits that Anthrozoology (also known as human–non-human-animal studies, or HAS) is the subset of ethnobiology that deals with interactions between humans and other animals. It is an interdisciplinary field that overlaps with other disciplines including anthropology, ethnology, medicine, psychology, veterinary medicine and zoology. A major focus of anthrozoologic research is the quantifying of the positive effects of human–animal relationships on either party and the study of their interactions. It includes scholars from fields such as anthropology, sociology, biology, history and philosophy(www.

self.gutenberg.org/articles).

Anthrozoology scholars, such asPauleen Bennett recognize the lack of scholarly attention given to non-human animals in the past, and to the relationships between human and non-human animals, especially in the light of the magnitude of animal representations, symbols, stories and their actual physical presence in human societies. Rather than a unified approach, the field currently consists of several methods adapted from the several participating disciplines to encompass human–nonhuman animal relationships and occasional efforts to develop sui generis methods

Agnotology

Wikipedia (2019) notes that Agnotology (formerly Agnotology) is the study of culturally inducedignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. More generally, the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where more knowledge of a subject leaves one more uncertain than before. David Dunning of Cornell University is another academic who studies the spread of ignorance. "Dunning warns that the internet is helping propagate ignorance – it is a place where everyone has a chance to be their own expert, he says, which makes them prey for powerful interests wishing to deliberately spread ignorance"(Wikipedia).

In his 1999 book The Erotic Margin, Irvin C. Schick referred to unknowledge "to distinguish it from ignorance, and to denote socially constructed lack of knowledge, that is, a conscious absence of socially pertinent knowledge". As an example, he offered the labeling "terra incognita" in early maps, noting that "The reconstruction of parts of the globe as uncharted territory is ... the production of unknowledge, the transformation of those parts into potential objects of Western political and economic attention. It is the enabling of colonialism."

There are many causes of culturally induced ignorance. These include the influence of the media, either through neglect or as a result of deliberate misrepresentation and manipulation. Corporations and governmental agencies can contribute to the subject matter studied by agnotology through secrecy and suppression of information, document destruction, and myriad forms of inherent or avoidable culturopolitical selectivity, inattention, and forgetfulness.

Proctor cites as a prime example of the deliberate production of ignorance the tobacco industry's advertising campaign to manufacture doubt about the cancerous and other health effects of tobacco use. Under the banner of science, the industry produced research about everything except tobacco hazards to exploit public uncertainty.

Another example is climate denial, as illustrated in the 2012 PBS Frontline documentary Climate of Doubt, which argues that oil companies have for at least the last decade, paid teams of scientists to downplay the effects of climate change.

Tribal resistance to science that contradicts medical or dental dogma heavily biases decision making, prompting vitriolic attacks that contributes the suppression of scientific knowledge in service of protecting a sanctioned narrative.

Agnotology also focuses on how and why diverse forms of knowledge do not "come to be", or are ignored or delayed. For example, knowledge about plate tectonics was censored and delayed for at least a decade because some evidence remained classified military information related to undersea warfare.

Definition of Anthropology

According to American Anthropology Association (AAA, 2019), anthropology is the study of what makes us human. Anthropologists take a broad approach to understanding the many different aspects of the human experience, which we call holism. They consider the past, through archaeology, to see how human groups lived hundreds or thousands of years ago and what was important to them. They consider what makes up our biological bodies and genetics, as well as our bones, diet, and health.

Anthropologists also compare humans with other animals (most often, other primates like monkeys and chimpanzees) to see what we have in common with them and what makes us unique. Even though nearly all humans need the same things to survive, like food, water, and companionship, the ways people meet these needs can be very different. For example, everyone needs to eat, but people eat different foods and get food in different ways. So anthropologists look at how different groups of people get food, prepare it, and share it. World hunger is not a problem of production but social barriers to distribution, and that Amartya Sen won a Nobel Prize for showing this was the case for all of the 20th century’s famines.

Anthropologists also try to understand how people interact in social relationships (for example with families and friends). They look at the different ways people dress and communicate in different societies. Anthropologists sometimes use these comparisons to understand their own society. Many anthropologists work in their own societies looking at economics, health, education, law, and policy (to name just a few topics). When trying to understand these complex issues, they keep in mind what they know about biology, culture, types of communication, and how humans lived in the past (AAA, 2019).

Subfields of Anthropology

AAA (2019) posits that American anthropology is generally divided into four subfields. Each of the subfields teaches distinctive skills. However, the subfields also have a number of similarities. For example, each subfield applies theories, employs systematic research methodologies, formulates and tests hypotheses, and develops extensive sets of data.

Archaeology

Archaeologists study human culture by analyzing the objects people have made. They carefully remove from the ground such things as pottery and tools, and they map the locations of houses, trash pits, and burials in order to learn about the daily lives of a people. They also analyze human bones and teeth to gain information on a people’s diet and the diseases they suffered. Archaeologists collect the remains of plants, animals, and soils from the places where people have lived in order to understand how people used and changed their natural environments. The time range for archaeological research begins with the earliest human ancestors millions of years ago and extends all the way up to the present day. Like other areas of anthropology, archaeologists are concerned with explaining differences and similarities in human societies across space and time.

Biological Anthropology

Biological anthropologists seek to understand how humans adapt to different environments, what causes disease and early death, and how humans evolved from other animals. To do this, they study humans (living and dead), other primates such as monkeys and apes, and human ancestors (fossils). They are also interested in how biology and culture work together to shape our lives. They are interested in explaining the similarities and differences that are found among humans across the world. Through this work, biological anthropologists have shown that, while humans do vary in their biology and behavior, they are more similar to one another than different.

Cultural Anthropology

Socio-cultural anthropologists explore how people in different places live and understand the world around them. They want to know what people think is important and the rules they make about how they should interact with one another. Even within one country or society, people may disagree about how they should speak, dress, eat, or treat others. Anthropologists want to listen to all voices and viewpoints in order to understand how societies vary and what they have in common. Socio-cultural anthropologists often find that the best way to learn about diverse peoples and cultures is to spend time living among them. They try to understand the perspectives, practices, and social organization of other groups whose values and life ways may be very different from their own. The knowledge they gain can enrich human understanding on a broader level.

Linguistic Anthropology

Linguistic anthropologists study the many ways people communicate across the globe. They are interested in how language is linked to how we see the world and how we relate to each other. This can mean looking at how language works in all its different forms, and how it changes over time. It also means looking at what we believe about language and communication, and how we use language in our lives. This includes the ways we use language to build and share meaning, to form or change identities, and to make or change relations of power. For linguistic anthropologists, language and communication are keys to how we make society and culture.

Relationship Between Anthropology and History

Kwosek(2017) believes that history and anthropology are cognate disciplines and are also "frenemies" at many universities. She opined that neither of them is objective in describing phenomena, pointing out that though history appears to be objective, but any review of historiography will always reveal historian bias and also becomes the general trends in writing history at any given time, adding that anthropology is also subjective.

The main difference often comes down to research methods. Historians tend to privilege written records. Anthropologists tend to privilege participant observation or archaeological and biological artifacts. The subjectivity in both disciplines comes from the researcher's interpretation of issues under review.

Kilman (2019) in Quara.com said that anthropology includes a kind of contextual cultural history of every group being studied and that history was needed to explore anthropology because one needs to understand the context of the current cultural climate, adding that anthropology was unique among other humanities and sciences via different elements like Cultural Relativism in which one tries to judge a culture by its own rules and standards as opposed to applying own prejudices and ideas. This of course does not mean that anything goes, but it does mean that what one thinks are weird, strange and the product of one’s own cultural upbringing.

Saha (2019) in also quara.com opined that the two subjects or areas of knowledge are quite similar in some ways, and yet different in so many other ways. He argued that while history is the study of events which had occurred in the past, places where it occurred, and based on written records of the events and people involved, anthropology, on the other hand, is the study of the people who lived at a particular time and place and how they interacted among themselves and also with their surroundings. Anthropology is often based on biological evidence like skeletons, or artifacts discovered in the particular location, rather than widely spread.

Speaking also on the above sub-title, Dey (2019) posits that whereas some anthropologists regard anthropology as a branch of history. Human being is born in a natural way, but social life is not the production of nature, and that social level is different from biological level, adding that culture of a particular society is not the production of human nature. He argued that the structure of any society has no natural order like that of the structure of solar system or atom. “Society is a web of social relations supplied by history and united among them by moral values. The forces of nature have no hand in keeping them united. In this way, society is a social and moral order and sociology, which studies it, is a social science.” He enthused.

Dey believed that history and anthropology are both related to human actions. Social anthropology discusses human actions which cause social events. According to him, history presents a description of these events. Social anthropology studies the origin of civilization and culture and reactions of evolution, etc. On the other hand, history studies particular civilization or culture on the basis of a particular period.

Differences Between Anthropology And History

Dey (2019) compares and contrasts the two phenomena as follows:

SIMILARITIES

 Both Study the past and ancient things

 Anthropology makes history, which describes human actions.

DIFFERENCES

ANTHROPOLOGY HISTORY

1. Anthropology also studies the physical aspects of man along with social aspect.

2. The viewpoint of anthropology is anthropological

3. 3. Anthropology is mainly related to human culture 1. History has no interest in the physical aspect of man.

2. The viewpoint of history is historical.

3. History is mainly related to Political events.

The Relationship between Sociology and History

Lukass (1987) noted that social science was a relatively recent subject though, as it originated around 1850 but that ‘a philosophical and analytical interest in human society existed from the beginning of history.” He quoted Aristotle as saying: “that human society was, by its nature, different from all other groupings, wherefore its analysis and study called for a different kind of realism.”

Nevertheless, Wen (2016) observed that there was a direct relationship between sociology and history, but quickly noted that both could not be separate as sociology deals with the present while history deals with the past, and that anyone writing history of the past must know the social condition of that society.

According to him, history is the study of past events and movements found in the written records and establishes the causes of past events of a particular nation at a given time, which might include the likes of economic, social, political and public administration. “The historian also study wars, accommodation, assimilation, acculturation and other such activities including the behaviour of those past people at a given time,” he said.

Wen opined that conversely, sociology studies the origin and growth of all the social institutions which give idea of past events with the help of historical data as he wouldn’t be able to find such information through observations. To him, Sociology differs from History, as it covers the past, present, and the future events with regards to human behaviour, whereas History restricts itself to the past events only.

Again, through the analysis of historical data, Sociological generalization is made regarding present social institutions, as historical information might provide the basis for tracing past trends of social movements, including socio-cultural changes.

Wen (2016) therefore listed the differences between sociology and history thus:

Differences between Sociology and History

Sociology

i. It is interested in the study of the present social phenomena

ii. It is a young social science

iii. It is based on analytics

iv. It is absorbed in nature. It studies mostly regular, the recurrent and the universal

v. Sociology is generalized and seeks to establish generalizations after a careful study of the social phenomena.

vi. Sociology follows the sociological approach. It studies human events from the sociological point of view.

History

i. It deals with past events of humans. It is silent about present.

ii. It is an age-old social science. It has a long story of more than 2000 years.

iii. It is a descriptive science.

iv. History is concrete. The historians are interested in the unique, the particular and the individual.

v. History is individualized and rarely makes generalization. It establishes the sequence in which events occur.

vi. History studies human events in accordance with the time order with historical approach.

Sociology as a Corollary of History

The study affirms that much as sociology studies human behaviour of individuals and groups with respect to social structures and institutions, it draws its data from historical findings of the objects of study at any point in time. This is because over time man’s interaction with his environment gives rise to historical facts and so constitute a substrate upon which sociology is consummated.

Furthermore, the quantitative and qualitative research methods from historical findings have been used by sociologists to do their work. These include the verbal facts of history as well as those with quantitative approaches. Sociology tends to fix social problems arising from human and cultural diversities. This would have been a mirage, if there were no historical documentations of these differences.

From the above submissions, it makes sense to say that sociology is as a matter of fact, a corollary of history.

Sociology/Anthropology – Elements of Historical Reconstructions

At this point of discourse, this chapter looks into how sociology/Anthropology has influenced the course of history.

Barnes (1998) in an article titled: “Some Contributions of Anthropology to History,” noted that anthropology has an objective consideration of events in sequence – regardless of upon the course of civilization and doesn’t dwell only in man’s past civilization unlike history. This singular contribution encourages historical reconstruction.

Barnes also affirmed that anthropology in reconstructing History considers the vastness of an unwritten History of past ages, where people merge themselves entirely in social units that later gave rise to new forms of civilization; thus, leading to historical reconstruction. However, Kroeber (1931) in a Book titled: “Historical Reconstruction of Cultural Growth and Organic Evolution,” opined that sociological/Anthropological evolution and growth emanated from certain historical discourse with respect tosimilitude, aims and methods.

Kroeber reiterated the fact that culture in its cyclic nature sometimes compares organisms with regard to origin, ancient and recent, where they became similar to what is seen in fauna and flora that has similar characteristics. Here, neo-political cultures are compared with biota, which are of concern to historical and biological anthropologists.

Adjepong (2017), in an article: “The politics of Theorising in Historical Reconstruction – An Examination of the views of the Protagonists and Antagonists,’ noted that both the protagonists (pro-theorists) and antagonists (anti-theorists) have divergent opinions about historical reconstruction, but the duo agreed that that formulating and applying theories in the study and reconstruction of the past events was important.

Rose (1985) in a book: “Physical Anthropology and Reconstruction of Recent Pre-Colonial History in Africa,” was of the view that physical Anthropology was thought to offer some potential in new genetic approaches in comparing blood group distributions at a time when the use of non-documentary sources of evidence to reconstruct history held sway.

Zilberman (1982) noted that Paul Radin was able to solve contemporary problems in History using anthropological and Sociological theories, when he analyzed the society and its culture using combined functional and historical approaches that could have critical methodological and theoretical meanings, adding that it was both significant and informative. He also suggested non-verbal behaviours for Anthropologists, who do not consider language behaviour sufficient for describing cultural phenomena.

Anthropology as a Corollary of History

Anthropology as the Science Of History: Natural history deals with the characteristics of organisms past and present and social history comprises the characteristics of society past and present, which includes both pre- and documented history but slantly moves toward institutional development rather than particular non-repeatable historical events. By this, anthropology influences it. According to Marvin Harris (2001 P.1 = Harris 2001, p. 1), anthropology is a science of history.

Anthropology helps to reassert the methodological priority of the search for the laws of history in the science of man (Haris 2001, P.2) as it provide laws (being nomothetic) that help to shape the course of history. This appears to seek for “a general theory of history” in cultural materialism. Harris believes that people’s behaviour in any society is according to the law of history. This is the course anthropology pursues.

Anthropology as a corollary of history helps to define a deterministic relationship among cultural phenomena as similar variables under similar variables appear to give rise to similar consequences (Harris 1991, pp. xii-xiii). So, determinism believes that given certain causes, the result and only that result must occur.

Anthropological evolutions over time from prototype through classical one to the modern age anthropology has influenced historical perspectives as the system of evolution has helped to re-write history of events happening within and without societies. In some cases, it has given rise to institutions of history, among others. some medieval scholars of 11 century anthropology like Akbar s. Ahmed (1984) made cross-cultural comparisons of historical events This way anthropology influenced history.

Anthropology as a corollary of history, provides some enlightenment roots of discipline to history, asmany scholars consider modern anthropology as an outgrowth of the age of enlightenment (1784-1789, www.sup.org/books). This was a time when there was a systematic study of human behaviour, which has persisted till date. Jurisprudencehistory, Philosogy and sociology had came up as a result.

As a modern discipline, Marxist anthropologist, Eric Wolf characterised anthropology as “the most scientific of the humanities, and the most humanistic of the social sciences “that afore said saw the evolution of sociology and jurisprudence, among others. By this singular fit, anthropology has made historical phenomenon a thing of the present and not only something that exists in the past.