Considerations Regarding Anthropology in High School Curricula

Abstract

Few courses in anthropology have been taught as such at the high school level in the United States. Nevertheless, both in high schools and in elementary schools, and more particularly in the private schools, information which the anthropologists consider their own special interest has been used. Thus, children may be taught information about the Eskimo, apparently the favorite culture to represent the non-Western world and almost undoubtedly the only primitive one existing in the curriculum-makers' Baedeker, although an occasional bow in made to the American plains or Southwest. Now and then, studies of the major Asian countries are made whose focus is cultural rather than properly geographical. Other cultures, ranging up to the most complex, ordinarily appear to be brought into a curriculum more as functions of the description of the locations inhabited by humans than as descriptions, informed by some conception as to the nature of culture, of the specific cultures themselves. In short, one may safely assert, I believe, that the students get some sense of the variations exhibited by societies but mostly as curiosa and oddities of peculiar peoples. They do not get a sense of the cultural necessities of variation and differences as these derive from the technological articulations with environment. Rather, variation and differences are presented as if they were more or less accidentally associated with particular kinds of geographic features. Children appear rarely to be taught that there is such a class of events as technologies which can systematically be studied like geography or economics. Rather, they become familiar only with technical activities which they see as scattered hither and yon rather planlessly on the earth's far-away surfaces, activities such as camel-herding here, rice-paddy planting there. Certainly they get no sense of the effects of technology as a formal determinant of social structure and as conditioners of ideologies; far less are they presented, or do they achieve, a notion of culture as a total system. Much less are they led to see culture as a system which operates by its own laws, which has its own distinguishing characteristics and process, and whose variants cannot be reduced to any known ultimate value hierarchy. Thus, by learning mere esoterica, they are prevented from learning the fundamental first step required of all anthropologists, the scientific and ethical principle of cultural relativism. Consequently, too, they are prevented from learning the kind of perspective on world, culture, and self which anthropology can afford.