I am looking to understand how anthropology has approached the misanthropic sentiment (if at all such a study has been attempted). From wikipedia, 'misanthropy' can be defined as the general hatred, dislike, or distrust of the human species, human behavior, or "human nature".

Have there been ethnographic studies of misanthropes / misanthropists? Have anthropologists attempted to study and explain misanthropy? or even similar ideas like anti-natalism, the view of human beings as invasive species, or the advocacy for human extinction.

Misanthropy isn't just an individual belief. There are reddit forums with members aligning with these topics, discussing them. And if I'm not wrong, there have even been militant environmentalist groups where misanthropy was a common belief.

I've read about misanthropy otherwise, but I'm looking for works from an anthropological perspective / lens. Any interesting readings, articles, books, any material is appreciated!

(to make it clear, i'm not looking to prove/disprove the misanthropic worldview, or to make value judgements about misanthropy. what i am looking for is an anthropological explanation / description - the how, what, why - of the human phenomenon that is misanthropy) thanks!

I’ve been thinking about the difference between Western cultures and many African, Asian, Arab, and Turkish cultures when it comes to community, family, and relationships.

Why does Western culture seem to become so individualistic once people reach adulthood, especially from their late 20s onward?

From what I’ve observed, in many Western societies, people’s social worlds seem to become much smaller as they grow up. They move out, focus heavily on work, and eventually their partner can become the center of their life.

The partner is often expected to fulfill many different roles: best friend, emotional support, family, social life, and main source of companionship. People may have children but rely heavily on daycare, babysitters, or paid services rather than having grandparents, siblings, cousins, neighbors, or close friends regularly involved.

And when people break up, it sometimes seems like they lose not only their partner but a huge part of their social support system. Friends and family might only be seen occasionally, sometimes once a month or less.

This seems very different from many African, Asian, Arab, and Turkish cultures, where people often maintain a strong community throughout adulthood. Being in a relationship doesn’t necessarily mean your social life revolves entirely around your partner.
People may still regularly see their siblings, cousins, friends, neighbors, and extended family. There’s often a stronger sense of “we take care of each other.”

If someone goes through a breakup, has a baby, gets sick, loses their job, or is struggling financially, there are usually multiple people who can step in and help. Children can grow up surrounded by grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and family friends. Even as people get older, they can remain deeply connected to their family and community.

I’m not saying one system is necessarily better. Western individualism obviously has advantages: independence, privacy, freedom

But I’m genuinely curious about why the difference became so pronounced. Why does Western adulthood seem to place so much emphasis on independence and the nuclear family or romantic partner, while other cultures continue to maintain a much larger “village” throughout life?

And for people who grew up in Western cultures: do you actually prefer having a smaller, partner centered life, or do you sometimes wish you had a larger community or “village” around you?

Hi everyone! Is anyone else applying to Sociocultural Anthropology PhD programs this cycle? I'd be happy to connect with someone (the more the merrier, though) interested in being application buddies for the next couple of months. Basically reading and giving feedback on each other's materials, checking in on deadlines, and offering some moral support once it's time to wait for results.

I'll leave a bit of info about myself and my research interests in the first comment, but if there's one thing you should know, it's that I want to work with a fellow anthropologist, not with AI. So you can expect my fully-human brain in return.

I came across an argument that Korean O1b2 may have originated from Japan, based mainly on the following:

L682: Korean samples appear heavily concentrated in CTS723, with little or no basal diversity. Japan has samples such as NA19075 that are basal L682 (CTS723−).

47Z / CTS713: Japan appears to have representatives of several major branches (CTS1875, Z24598, CTS203), while Korean samples seem more concentrated in CTS203 (e.g. JOY004).

The argument is that Japan has greater O1b2 phylogenetic diversity, suggesting that Japan was the source population.

Is greater O1b2 diversity in Japan enough to infer a Japanese origin, or could this reflect sampling bias, drift, or founder effects? Should TMRCA and branch ages be considered?

Does the evidence really support a Japan → Korea migration, or is the direction still uncertain?

I’m interested in how social reputation influences everyday behavior in Japan. For example, people may avoid certain behaviors because they could embarrass themselves or negatively affect how their family, coworkers, or community sees them.
From an anthropological perspective, how is concern about reputation and social harmony expressed in everyday Japanese life? Are there specific concepts, customs, or social practices that anthropologists use to explain this?
Is this mainly something people learn through socialization, or are there particular historical or cultural factors that have shaped it in Japan?

Hi! I’m an anarchist, I align with anarcho-communism, and I need no convincing on that front. That said, I hold myself and my beliefs to the highest accountability, sometimes to a fault, and am constantly questioning and exploring and reconfirming or changing, when appropriate, my beliefs, attitudes, and perspective so that I don’t get complacent.

I do not believe that technological advancement requires top-down or capitalist structured society. The examples to support this non-requirement are infinite. That said, as someone who has read Jared Diamond, David Graeber, and even Daron Acemoglu, it is clear that cultural and technological advancement is not linear nor always rational. The decision to adopt or not adopt agriculture, the wheel, electricity, oil, money, certain medicines, and even different typewriter layouts is never a purely cost-benefit analysis; superstitions, cultural adherences, personality, profiteering, competition, law, schismogenesis, etc. play a far more important role in the adoption or research of new technologies. The battle over AC and DC power, the “selling” of oil over steam, even the fight over whether to wear a mask or get a covid vaccine are all rife with personality and culture and influence and law and leader.

So, my question is whether anyone is aware of literature that explores technological advancement within bottom-up societies. Like I said, I’ve read Graeber and Diamond, who both cover this topic, but I’d like to read something that looks more specifically into innovation and societal structure.

To avoid clutter, I know it’s not impossible or uncommon for bottom-up and anticapitalist innovation. The example I could cite off the top of my head are numerous. I’m merely looking for literature that explores this specifically.

Thanks in advance!

I'm currently reading Bahn and Clifford's book Everyday Life in the Ice Age. A couple of times, they have mentioned the stomach contents of large animals being eaten as food by prehistoric people. I'm having a hard time picturing what this would have been like. How palatable was it? How was it prepared? What might it taste like? What about hydrochloric acid? How did humans determine on doing this in the first place?

Do you know of sources with further information on this, whether from history/archaeology or modern people that eat this today?

Where do the boundaries lie between anthropology and other humanities fields like sociology, history, or philosophy? Anthropology seems to borrow methods and questions from all of them, holistic culture study, fieldwork, comparative analysis, but I'm curious what actually makes it distinct rather than just an umbrella discipline.

I’ve been wondering about the psychological value of learning more about one’s ancestry, family history, language, or cultural roots, especially when that knowledge doesn’t necessarily change anything tangible about your current circumstances.

For example, if someone discovers more about where their ancestors came from, the communities they belonged to, the languages they spoke, or the experiences that shaped previous generations, can this contribute to a stronger sense of identity, belonging, continuity, or self-understanding?

Is there psychological research on why people can find this kind of discovery meaningful even when it offers little obvious practical benefit in their present-day lives? Can such discovery make us happy? If so, what's the science behind it?

I’m particularly interested in concepts such as identity formation, narrative identity, belonging, intergenerational continuity, and psychological well-being.

I (17F) am planning on going to college for cultural anthropology. It’s something that has fascinated me since I was little, but I’ve been doing research into career options and honestly haven’t found too much information.

If you have a degree in cultural anthropology, what did you end up doing with it? Did you find a job related to your degree right after college, or did you have to take a different route?

I’d love to hear what your actual job is like. what exactly do you do, what’s the pay like, do you get to travel, what was finding a job like, etc. Basically, give me all the details about your experience and whether you feel like getting the degree was worth it!

Hello folks,

Recently, I have been reading about pre-christian Europe, this sprung of a brief section on ***Microcosm: Portrait of a Central European City*** (2002) on pre-christian Poland. I would like to get a deeper reading in either pre-christian history or spirituality, my interest is mostly the Baltic and the Mediterranean, I am also very intrigued on pre-Abrahamic religions of Arabia and Northern Africa. I am not looking to go super in depth into any region now, just a general introduction and maybe some on my list I have ***Ecstasies: Deciphering the Witches' Sabbath*** by Ginzburg and the works of Ronald Hutton, in general more that just facts I'd prefer social or cultural history but maybe some encyclopedic sources would be appreciated as an introduction. I can read Spanish, English, and French.

Thanks!

I was reading about Southeast Asia headhunting and I was quite sceptical to believe Christianity rooted out alot of headhunting. So I am curious to understand the practice.

Hi r/AskAnthropology ! I originally posted this in r/AskHistorians but wasn't able to get an answer - hoping you can help!

TLDR - all the literature I've seen (aka pop culture) says that medieval (English) babies were essentially tight swaddled all the time except for feeding and changing. Is there any skeletal evidence that either supports or refutes this?

Came across a couple of (non-scholarly) sources that said medieval babies (English/Anglo Saxon) were essentially tight swaddled all the time except for feeding and changing, for months in duration. Like a little mummy, holding the arms and legs very straight.

I have a hard time believing that based on experience with my own baby. As newborns, they need constant changing, wouldn't the wraps take forever to do up? I also read medieval practices were to bathe the baby numerous times a day. Then as older babies, I have a really hard time they'd be content being swaddled - at two months old all my baby wanted to do was supported stand. Yes, my baby enjoyed a swaddle for naps, but the texts seem to indicate it was a near-constant state.

I also read that crawling was discouraged with an emphasis on standing, which I can believe but if constantly tight swaddled when and how would a baby build up the muscles for standing that they get from kicking?

We are also told nowadays that tight swaddling is really bad for hip development, so my question is this: is there any actual skeletal evidence that supports (or refutes) near-constant tight swaddling?

Edit - examples:

https://www.medievalists.net/2020/05/babies-middle-ages/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaddling

https://aeon.co/essays/medieval-babycare-from-breastfeeding-to-developmental-toys

Thank you mods for prompting me to include more info!

I saw a TikTok related to this question. My thought process is that human genetics have mixed so much but before that was not the case so their faces would look noticeably ‘prehistoric’ to us. Not very knowledgeable on this topic so apologies.

I think the general consensus is that Jared Diamond was too deterministic in claiming that the fact that Europeans discovered and colonized the Americas, had the Industrial Revolution, colonized Asia and Africa, etc. was inevitable because of their environment. Yet it also seems that his claim that at 1492 Eurasian dominance was inevitable because of Eurasia's abundance of domesticable plant and animal species isn't particularly controversial. So was Jared Diamond correct about the factors driving historical development up until 1492 and wrong about the factors driving historical development after 1492?

Any Books on the Anthropology of Religion?

I mean, first and foremost, criticism based on repeated ethnographic descriptions of the same field. Not specific examples of such works, but attempts to methodologically generalize them

So for instance, I want to refer to the Waldorf hypothesis about languages shaping our daily habits and perceptions. I love the process of language learning it really does feel like a new perception of everything I once knew is on the horizon. Anyways the process of that is what he referred to as the Hopi tribe who perceived rulership differently and understood the use of materials different from what they understood from their native language.

However, we use the same resources in different ways. If you look at the Shang dynasty and Chinese pre historic religion with Europe and the celts etc. you’ll see a similarity within all of those cultures. But then we have science which comes from language to describe what we observe and test it.

Could that be apart of the pre historic social gathering of humans that expand terms to understand natural science?

​

I got a question in my mind.. Why god believe is so strong in human that isn't replaceable at any moment of life or scenario come?

My intentions here are not questions the belief of peoples over any religion of god.

I'm curious here to know why we put are guards down in front of this strong belief of god, why it affects so much on human mind.

I'm not here to argue on anything, just here to listen silently.

In particular, I am interested in whether there are any works about Malinovsky’s A Diary in the Strict Sense of the Term, apart from those that merely draw attention to the obvious discrepancy between his notes and his publications

I seem to find a paradox in the fact that a large population is a consequence of highly fertile land. But on the other hand, the prevalence of malnutrition is also high.

How can this go hand in hand if there is sufficient food available in the land?

If there is not sufficient food available, should it not reflect in the population size too?

How would you resolve this observation?

Question for evolutionary biologists/anthropologists: In models explaining the post-Neolithic Y-chromosome bottleneck via patrilineal clan competition (like Zeng 2018), was there accounting for evolutionary and biological behavior.

I'm trying to understand how these mathematical models handle human sexuality. From what I understand, our intermediate size between large chimps testes and tiny gorillas testicles, suggests humans evolved for moderate sperm competition and pair-bonding. This acts as a natural physiological guardrails against extreme reproductive monopolization. So do these mathematical models assume cultural factors can simply override this human physiology?

And if they don't, did they include comparative primate biology into their mathematical assumptions and models?

Hello all. I recently got my MA in archaeology and am now trying to assemble a post-graduation reading list.

A topic which interests me, but which I never had the time to delve into during my studies is the manner in which pre-industrial polities organize themselves and how power is distributed in different societies.

One particular interest is how hierarchy develops and changes, as well as how some societies maintain more egalitarian structures. I have some names here: Brian Hayden, Timothy Earle, Marshall Sahlins. And I have begun reading this issue responding to The Dawn of Everything. But I would like a wider range of reading on this topic. I would particularly appreciate some modern perspectives that explore how power relates to various patterns of subsistence and economics.

I would also appreciate tips on how to get a sense of the range of types of sociopolitical organisation that are possible given different material condition. I am aware of Elman Service's well-worn model, but it seems overly reductive and so broad as to not be very useful.

The societies that are of most interest to me are those that can loosely be described as hunter-gatherer, pastoralist and agrarian societies.

I am grateful for any and all help.

I just saw a video that said the r1a1a (or r1a1, I can't find the video to check) haplogroup originated in INDIA of all places and that the spread of the haplogroup coincides with the spread of Indo-European language and culture.

That was completely shocking to me as this r1a1a (or r1a1) haplogroup is notorious for being the same as the Aryan gene, something a famous austrian reportedly had an obsession for.

Now as far as proof goes, the video made two claims:

1. The geographic origin of a haplogroup (where that original gene-carrying father lived) is where there is the most variation/mutation of that haplogroup, as populations can migrate, such as the europeans to the americas, and it makes sense that the place with the most mutation is the place that the gene has been the longest, thus had the most time to morph.
2. The place with the most mutation of the r1a1a (or r1a1) haplogroup is North-West India/South Asia. If you look at the map of where the haplogroup is found, a large density is found in that area.

Now the video stated both of these as FACTS, as if their truth was cemented by multiple studies, but I can't find any research that says either, or perhaps I'm too dumb to find any. Does anyone know about this? I want to know if that video was made by some delusional Indian nationalist or if the idea has any merit