Cognitive Anthropology: A Primer, Part III
Introduction
Anthropology is the academic study of humankind, and is a sprawling enterprise in and of itself, with branches that study societies (cultural), evolution and genetics (biological), and artifacts at excavation sites relevant to our species’ story (archaeology). But there is also the shy subfield devoted to the understanding of the mind known as cognitive anthropology. Within this discipline, researchers attempt to piece together the role of culture in the cognitive process such that a working definition of cognitive anthropology is simply the application of cultural anthropological methodologies to answer the question of how human intelligence is framed and molded by our cultural experiences.
Previous entries in this series looked at definitions and methodologies of cognitive anthropology. From those articles, we saw that there is contention about how this field fits into the broader web of cognitive science, as well as the fact that there is disagreement even among anthropologists as to how their research might fashion, brick by brick, the basis for a universal understanding of cognition. As an example, Boster (2012) asserts that the subdiscipline is key and important in the fact that it complements work done in cognitive psychology. Less enthusiastic were Beller and colleagues (2012), who listed various reasons for why there is friction, perhaps even inevitable friction, between cognitive anthropology and cognitive science. Finally, in our second entry, we looked over the qualitative and quantitative methods employed by researchers.
In our final discussion in this series, we will examine the intersections of cognitive anthropology with other research programs, including those within anthropology and without. These include archaeology, neuroscience, and psychology. The purpose of this last entry is to engage with the parallel domains that may benefit from this unique cross-disciplinary research. As well, we will end this series with a brief look at the future of cognitive anthropology.
Cognition and Other Anthropology Subfields
Closely related to cognitive anthropology is the emerging field of neuroanthropology, which is the marriage of culture and neuroscience that seeks to answer the twin questions of what Domínguez and colleagues (2009) call the “culture in the brain” problem (how social events and meaning are manifested in brain structures) and the “brain in the culture” problem (the neural substrates and processes that generate the bases of social interactions). In their paper, Domínguez et al. outline the specific applications neuroanthropology poses for cognitive anthropology as well as other subdisciplines: “Neuroanthropology is founded on the recognition of a fundamental interdependence between the interpretive/context-dependent/particularistic forms of inquiry of the humanities and the nomothetic/context-independent analytic forms of intelligibility used in science” (44). In other words, like the broader study of anthropology, there is a bridge erected between the social and the scientific, the very definition of a social science, yes, but highly important because it speaks of the applications of anthropology to other practices regardless of whether these are qualitative or quantitative.
Lende et al. (2021) assert that neuroanthropology must carefully contemplate the role of culture in scaling and comprehending the mind. There have been crucial insights: “Societies,” they write, “that stress interdependence over independence show differing patterns of neural activation in self-other tasks; interdependent cultures tend to show greater activation in circuits that are generally considered ‘self’ oriented in Western contexts.” What this means is that the broad brush strokes of culture cannot be ignored when it comes to studying the brain, and cognitive anthropology, with its emphasis on ethnographies as methodologies (see part two of this series for more information) brings this look at culture to the table.
Yet neuroanthropology is not the only developing subfield with applications for cognitive anthropology. A new field, cognitive archaeology, has been on the rise in academic publications. Cognitive archaeology concerns the development of the mind from ancient times to now as it can be measured and studied from our ancestors’ key artifacts. Essentially, cognitive archaeologists are asking themselves what sort of cognitive skill would be required to fashion a specific artifact or a specific domestic site. Coolidge and Wynn (2016) outline a major breakthrough that has been borne on the examination of stone hand axes crafted by our ancestor Homo erectus. In essence, to create such a tool would require a strong growth in working-memory, and thus lead to the explosion of culture over a period of roughly 150,000 years.
Cognitive Anthropology and Other Fields
Cognitive anthropology’s isolation from other cognitive science domains has meant that the cultural perspectives that anthropology favors are often explored without the input of anthropologists themselves. In their 2009 article, Brown and Seligman outline the potentially “productive” relationship with cultural neuroscience – itself an interdisciplinary handshake between neurobiology and cultural studies that aims to understand how culture affects and is affected by the brain (the question in other words that Domínguez and associates outlined in their neuroanthropology text) – should anthropologists “engage” other fields, the ethnography that such researchers employ can provide the groundwork for ecological stimuli for neuroscience experiments (Brown, 2009).
In their 2009 article, Brown and Seligman questioned the “monopoly” anthropology held over cultural studies, asserting that neuroscientists have made gains in conjunction with anthropologists, but modern technology has enabled us to peer inside the brain like never before. One such application is the biological study of human hierarchies. Anthropologists and neuroscientists agree that how humans arrange ourselves to show power or dominance varies widely across societies, but there are physical markers that one witnesses in a demonstration of power – for example, witnessing one’s favorite sports team win over another is associated with increased cortisol and testosterone, even if the power play in effect here is strictly symbolic and is removed by time and space (35).
Future Perspectives
It is worth asking what the future of cognitive anthropology will look like. Some researchers might express concern – of the approximately 175 Fellows of the Cognitive Science Society, only eight percent have a background in anthropology (Bender, 2022) – but others like the University of Connecticut’s James Boster feel that cognitive anthropology will continue to contribute to the upcoming breakthroughs for all of cognitive science and thus our own understanding of our part in society and our minds in their contexts. As stated above, per Boster (2012), anthropology is a unique and essential counterpoint to psychological inquiry – in cognitive psychology, one studies the individual while in cognitive anthropology we study the distribution of intellect across the social stratosphere. Thus anthropology has fed the work of other subfields of the broader cognitive science experiment.
Conclusion
Cognitive anthropology is a research discipline with a great amount of simultaneous excitement and misgivings, but it plays a vital role in the eternal question of what makes us humans what we are, how we operate, and the future of our minds. As we have seen, cognitive anthropology is undeniably controversial as a field, one that has had to fight to defend itself and its contributions to academic discourse. However, it is dynamic, ever-evolving, and deeply applicable to the biggest questions in science: Who are we? Where do we come from? What is our future?
The answers await.
References
Bender, A. (2022). Toward greater integration: Fellows perspectives on cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 6 – 13.
Beller, S., Bender, A., & Medin, D.L. (2012). Should anthropology be a part of cognitive science? Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 342 – 353.
Boster, J.S. (2012). Cognitive anthropology is a cognitive scientist. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 372 – 37.
Brown, R.A. & Seligman, R. (2009). Anthropology and cultural neuroscience: Creating productive intersections in parallel fields. Progress in Brain Research, 178, 31 – 42.
Coolidge, F.L. & Wynn, T. (2016). An introduction to cognitive archaeology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25 (6), 386 – 392.
Domínguez, J.F., Lewis, E.D., Turner, R. & Egan, G.F. (2009). The brain in culture and culture in the brain: A review of core issues in neuroanthropology. Progress in Brain Research, 178, 43 – 64.
Lende, D.H., Casper, B.I., Hoyt, K.B., & Collura, G.L. (2021). Elements of neuroanthropology.`Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1 - 21.
