For my students:
How can I explain Socio-Cultural Anthropology to a beginner? Many introductory books discuss the concept of Socio-Cultural Anthropology, detailing its history, how it transitioned from being an agent of colonialism to a radical critique of colonialism, imperialism, and any abuse of power. In my opinion, Socio-Cultural Anthropology is an ideology and highly political. It must be based on the understanding that all human life holds equal value, and every individual throughout time and space deserves recognition as an equal. This means there is no place for social Darwinism.
If you're unfamiliar with Social Darwinism, it is based on Darwinian evolution but was theorized by Herbert Spencer in the 19th century and continues to influence some anthropological theories today. Spencer formulated the idea of 'survival of the fittest,' applying the same laws that govern, according to Darwin, the physical world and its biological organisms. In Spencer's view, human minds, cultures, and societies evolved similarly. There were primitive minds and cultures that would die out, and superior minds and cultures (referred to as races until the early 20th century) that were naturally superior and would form modern society. The idea was that human culture ranged from primitive to savage to civilized ('naturally,' the civilized world was represented by the European male). The concept of 'the dawn of time,' from which the human species is believed to have emerged, implicitly uses social Darwinism since this evolution is presented as a development from animal-like to human-like. You might recall the famous illustration of a primate gradually walking more erect until it resembles modern humans. Today's anthropology has 'declared war' against social Darwinism (but we should never forget that this idea originated from our own discipline!).
Why is it that there is no social evolution? Reflecting on the purpose of such a theory and who might be interested in using the notion of 'survival of the fittest' will help you see the true nature of social Darwinism, which has justified and continues to justify atrocities like the Holocaust, eugenics, genocide, and land theft.
To offer a more visual explanation for why social evolution does not differentiate us from our ancestors or other cultures and societies, consider the evolution of our planet, who we were, who we are, and who we will become. Our 'evolution' is just a nanosecond of the entire evolutionary process, and therefore it cannot be concluded that today's humans are significantly different from each other or our ancestors. The only real difference is that our ancestors lived in different environments than we do today. In essence, our ancestors, potentially even the Neanderthals (though this is speculative), were the same as we are today. And certainly, since we reached the Homo Sapiens level, no hierarchical difference can be made between any society or individual throughout time and space. There are no primitive societies, and no societies or people are 'less' than Europeans and Euro-Americans, contrary to their claims. Of course, we modern humans (Homo sapiens) are very different from one another, but who defines what these differences mean in degree and importance? Consider that humans share 90% of our genes with cats, and the fruit fly (Drosophila) shares about 60% of its DNA with us. The differences between us and Homo sapiens in the distant past or between different 'cultures'/societies are, from this perspective, less than minimal. Today's anthropological project is shaped by this understanding, which examines the intersections between different forms of difference and how they are acted upon politically.
Instead of asserting that every 'culture' has the cultural right to be who they are (cultural relativism, which had and has its purpose when considering colonialism and missionaries, but becomes problematic when applied to the Third Reich or the Taliban), anthropology today defines itself by unwaveringly fighting for human rights, the right to dignity, justice, and the right to live, thrive, and exist. For me, the limit is only reached when those rights violate (as in violence) the rights of others. Another aspect of cultural relativism must be considered as well: who will claim which rights of a society are upheld and which will not? Cultural relativism arose from the idea that a European anthropologist could understand a tribal/primitive/hunter-gatherer culture better than the people within, since their cultural laws were easily detected (hence the idea of simple and complex societies or societies with "Culture X" versus those that are so complex they are not seen as having culture: First World countries, nation-states, and European countries). European anthropologists described cultural laws and morals for these so-called simple societies. In addition to 'translating' culture for European colonial administrations and societies, the idea that an anthropologist could understand an entire society is absurd.
At the beginning of the discipline, anthropologists also became aware of the 'extinction' (a word normally reserved for natural processes but could also be called mass murder and genocide) of certain "simple" cultures due to European colonialism. They decided to document as many customary rules and stories as possible and collect as much material 'evidence' (also known as stealing) to 'save' these societies. This was called salvation anthropology and was just the flip side of a coin that had destruction and deceit, or racism, written on the other side. It was still the same coin.
Anthropologists should exercise caution when wanting to 'save' people or environments. In accordance with the ethics of anthropological research methods, called participant observation, the protection of individuals or groups always comes first before the anthropologist's interests, even if this interest is called 'saving'. This, in itself, is one of the biggest flaws of 'development' (whose development and where to? Who decides the direction and proposed outcome?).
So, what is anthropology about if it is not about translating, civilizing, or saving 'other' cultures?
Anthropology does not mean learning about others, but working together with the people we have the privilege to meet, learning to be reflexive and demanding political change in our own societies (and their attitudes towards otherness) by using comparative ethnographic material to bring about social and political change within our own society.
Therefore, Anthropology is far more than the study of cultures and societies; it is about trying to promote a way of living built on respect for others.
Anthropology, in my understanding, is based on a fight for justice. Anthropology should discover, criticize, and call for support against any attempt to limit or derail such rights. It is essential to understand that anthropology does not claim we are all the same; instead, it highlights the difference between sameness and similarity. There is a difference between having access to the same rights and being the same.
What might be initially difficult to comprehend and may seem like a semantic cliché is one of the fundamental teachings in anthropology, if there is such a thing: we humans, from the distant past, the present, and the future, are, through our differences, the same. It is the differences that make us a fascinating subject to study, but the more anthropology delves into the differences between cultures, histories, societies, and peoples, the more we discover that we are very much the same.
To explore this concept depends on a critical method, not merely the qualitative research method called participant observation in anthropology, which is, of course, the most important research method for anthropology, but another method. This method should be the foundation of academia anywhere on this planet, and regardless of how academia is defined, it serves as the most vital weapon against injustice, crimes against humanity, oppression, war, and all the terrible things we seem to inflict upon each other throughout history. The most important method is: asking questions. Questions may not necessarily seek answers, but they remain the best tool for unsettling the powerful, strengthening the powerless, and initiating change in the face of violations of fundamental human rights.
Anthropology once claimed to be based on cultural relativism, which means judging "cultures" based on their own value systems. This might hold true in some ways, arising from a world where people lived in cultures unaffected by one another. However, this world no longer exists. We are more involved in each other's lives than ever before. You might seek an objective anthropology that uncovers fundamental human truths, and then you might argue that those truths are not valid for some cultures (implying, however, that they are the "real" truths). But this is not possible. There is no objective anthropology or single truth; we humans are incapable of being objective or studying humans from a detached perspective where we, as humans, do not influence the research process. This is not even true for the "hard sciences." We live with one another, in close proximity, perhaps not in geographical or temporal proximity, but we inhabit this one planet we call home together. We are in it together, for better or worse – and it is in this context that I am calling Cultural Relativism obsolete. We all share an understanding of universal human rights in this world. There might be cultures that do not share these values; however, should we not judge those values since they contradict the concept of human rights? What about the Third Reich, femicide, female mutilation, or genocide in general? These are not acceptable violations of universal human rights based on cultural relativism; they are crimes against all of us, against the notion of humanity as it stands today. No cultural rights will or should ever supersede a person's right to life, dignity, justice, peace, and well-being.
Returning to the power of questions, I firmly believe in their potential. I tell my students that I expect them to leave a course with more questions than they had when they started. Sometimes this seems uncomfortable. We like people to provide us with answers. However, as soon as you accept other people's answers without ever having asked the question, you submit to their power and, in doing so, contribute to the destruction of the free spirit, your free spirit. Anthropology, with the help of many other people in various societies, seeks to uphold this free spirit. We cannot do this on our own; we need assistance from others. This is the anthropological project: we need to learn as much about ourselves as we learn about others. Others will learn about us, teach us about ourselves, and anthropology becomes a commitment to the human endeavor we joined when we were born. It is our collective effort against injustice and the destructiveness and horror of such injustices throughout history, today, and in the future. We must rise and fight. We battle with our questions and refuse to accept simplistic answers. Answers are never easy. If you feel content and comfortable with an answer you received, be suspicious, as someone may have just taken advantage of you, increasing their power and limiting your own thinking and responsibility. Yes, carrying this responsibility is difficult, but embracing this responsibility to ask questions is what makes you an anthropologist.
These are my modest, wandering thoughts on what Socio-Cultural Anthropology is. I'm not providing you with an answer, but rather offering something to ponder and question – I hope.