Discipline Of Armchair Anthropology In The 19th Century

e way anthropologists have studied their subjects has changed over the course of a hundred years. Like any scientific discipline, anthropology has had its own evolution and growing pains before it became what we now know as modern anthropology. Armchair anthropology refers to the simplicity in which the anthropologists in the 19th century conducted their research and also the way in which they viewed their subjects as lesser than them because they were not white. Armchair anthropologists include Lewis Henry Morgan, Emile Durkheim, and Karl Marx. As the discipline aged, methods and techniques improved. Instead of reading about a culture, the anthropologist would go and study that culture. The 20th century brought anthropologists such as …show more content…
In this essay, each of the evolutionists will have a paragraph dedicated to them and their work. Each 20th century anthropologist will also have a paragraph dedicated to their work and their reaction to the 19th century evolutionists work and theories. After this essay it will become clear how different 19th century and 20th century ideologies were and how much the anthropology as a discipline has grown.
Lewis Henry Morgan, 1818 – 1881, was an American anthropologist who wrote Ethnical Periods in 1877. He is commonly known for his humankind division theory that consisted of three stages of humankind - savagery, barbarism, and civilization (Erikson & Murphy pg. 40). The theory suggests that humankind started out at the very bottom of his hierarchy, savagery. According to Morgan, there is very little known about the savagery stage and savagery …show more content…
In his writing he discusses three forms of authority - general character, foundations and instability, and charismatic kingship - and what it takes to be a charismatic leader. Even though Weber was speaking in sociological terms it is relevant within anthropology because a charismatic leader can change people’s values in a society (Erikson & Murphy pg. 82). Weber starts off by saying that society was and always consist of bureaucracy and patriarchy. The general character of charisma includes a patriarch natural leader who have knowledge, however, not everyone can possess a charismatic trait since it was believed the be supernatural. A person that was charismatic “knows only inner determination and inner restraint. The holder of charisma seizes the task that is adequate for him and demands obedience and a following by virtue of his mission” (Weber). The foundations and instability of charismatic authority include the ability to relinquish his charisma, Weber even compares the relinquishment of charisma to Jesus on the cross. If the leader does this however, he is deserted by his followers. In contrast, the leader “gains and maintains authority solely by proving his strength in life. Above all, however, his divine mission must ‘prove’ itself in that those who faithfully surrender to him fare well. If they do not fare well, he is obviously not the master send