///Anthropology meaning///

Anthropology is the study of humans, past and present. To understand the full sweep
and complexity of cultures across all of human history, anthropology draws and builds
upon knowledge from the social and biological sciences as well as the humanities and
physical sciences.

/////Psyhology and anthropology////

Anthropology is the study of the human race. It is the science of humanity and takes
inspiration from humanities, natural and social sciences. Anthropologists study people,
evolution and a shift in culture, trends and ultimately way of life and civilizations.
Psychology is the study of the human mind. It is the scientific study and analysis of
mental functions and behavior and is an academic and applied discipline. It understands
people, groups, society and much more. Get to know more on anthropology degrees
on topdegreeprograms.com.
Anthropology and psychology both are social sciences. By studying anthropology and
psychology we establish a relation between why something exists the way it is among
the human race.

Psychology and anthropology are interdisciplinary fields and study human beings
through different viewpoints. All that is studied by establishing a relationship between
anthropology and psychology are:
A relationship between the brain and human behavior

 Human development
 Psychological illness and treatment
 Influence of people and environment on a person
 Influence of culture on people
 Changing behavior of people according to the cultural setup
 Human capability to understand, comprehend and implement things and a
change in psychological behavior
The diverse fields of study which are related to psychological anthropology are:

 Anthropological demography and epidemiology

 Attachment
 Cultural and cross-cultural psychology
  Dreaming – The science and secret behind dreaming about something is well
explained here.
 Ethnomedicine
 Family and child health
 Global health disparities
 Infectious disease
 Medical ethnobotany
 Parental care and child development
 Personality
 Social learning
 Substance abuse
 Suicide – The various reasons for suicide and suicidal tendencies among people
are detailed herein.
 The self and power – A person has lot of inner energies and power to conquer
various things.
The various educational programs which are offered under the psychological
anthropology branch of science are:
1. Graduate Concentration in Behavior, Evolution, and Culture
2. MSc in Psychological and Psychiatric Anthropology
3. Program for Psychocultural Studies and Medical Anthropology
4. Research and training in psychological/medical anthropology
The course subjects that would be included in Psychological Anthropology are as
follows:
 Anthropological Studies of Learning and Schooling
 Psychological Anthropology
 Culture, Mental Illness and the Body
 Identity and Agency
 Culture and Cognition
 Culture and Human Behavior
 Cognitive Anthropology
 Ethnicity, Nationality and Identity
 Psychological Anthropology
 Psychological Anthropology
 Psychological Anthropology
 Cognitive Anthropology
 Advanced Topics in Psychological Anthropology
  Madness and Culture
Applicable to?
People who are working in the below fields are benefited from studying both
anthropology and psychology:

Health is an area which needs an understanding of the human mind in order to sort
mental and physical illnesses. It is necessary to understand about the various people
and health issues they faced in order to get rid of diseases or epidemics which would
have affected an entire chunk of society.
Education needs an understanding of the human mind and psyche as professors and
teachers deal with students who are from different backgrounds, socio-economic strata,
family setups, cultures, religion, and much more.
Psychology understands people and sorts out differences in their minds about various
issues. By studying both anthropology and psychology you understand how to sort out
differences well.
Social policy is about the various social policies in existence. In order to frame a social
policy by the government they need to understand people extremely well.
Study of Anthropology – Know Anthropology features in order to have an in depth
understanding of various degrees in this field.

Psychology has relationship with anthropology or the "science of man". Anthropology

studies the history of human race, the physical evolution of mankind, and the
development of human civilization. It is concerned with the social problems of primitive
man and their culture, tradition, customs, and manners.

Psychology studies how these cultural factors influence the human behaviour.
Particularly, the cross-cultural psychologists draw from the knowledge base of the
anthropologists to understand the unique anthropology facilitates the study of
psychology. Similarly, the knowledge of abnormal and social psychology helps the
anthropologists in explaining the man, his religion, and culture. Moreover, psychological
techniques are applied for the comparative study of culture.

Thus, there is a close relationship between anthropology and psychology. The

relationships among anthropology, sociology and psychology are so close that they are
classified under the discipline of "Behavioral Sciences".

Psychology has relationship with anthropology or the "science of man". Anthropology

studies the history of human race, the physical evolution of mankind, and the
development of human civilization. It is concerned with the social problems of primitive
man and their culture, tradition, customs, and manners.

Psychology studies how these cultural factors influence the human behaviour.
Particularly, the cross-cultural psychologists draw from the knowledge base of the
anthropologists to understand the unique features and influences of a culture. They use
the methods of the anthropologists. So the study of anthropology facilitates the study of
psychology. Similarly, the knowledge of abnormal and social psychology helps the
anthropologists in explaining the man, his religion, and culture. Moreover, psychological
techniques are applied for the comparative study of culture.

Thus, there is a close relationship between anthropology and psychology. The

relationships among anthropology, sociology and psychology are so close that they are
classified under the discipline of "Behavioral Sciences".

////Soiology and anthropology//

Anthropology and Sociology is the study of the nature of humanity along with the
complexities of social relationships, and offers a way of understanding the whole context
of human experiences. It incorporates the study of cultures, institutions, social
behaviours, economies and systems of meaning, and includes the topics of religions,
politics, kinship, gender, education, health, migration, landscapes and the media.

Anthropology is the study of humanity and human behavior. It is the only discipline
that offers a conceptual scheme for the whole context of human experiences. It provides
a broad framework into which many other subjects can be fitted.
Social Anthropology is the comparative study of the institutions, social behaviours,
and systems of meaning of all human societies. It is concerned with describing how any
given society organizes its relations to the environment, its economy, social interaction
and groupings, structures of political authority, gender roles, religion, and all other
aspects of its culture. As social scientists, Anthropologists formulate general theories
about human social behavior and cultural understanding usually based on the intimate
study of highly localized phenomena in contemporary and historical contexts. This is
known broadly as ethnography.
Sociology, which has much in common with Social Anthropology, is the systematic
study of human social relationships, with an emphasis on group behaviour and social
structure, especially in industrial societies. The academic staff in our Discipline group
focuses on qualitative, ethnographic sociology.

The relation between sociology and anthropology is widely recognized today. In fact,
anthropologist Kroeber pointed out that the two- sciences are twin sisters. Robert Redfied
writes that viewing the whole United States, one say that the relations between sociology
and anthropology are closer than those between anthropology and political science, which
is partly due to greater similarity in ways of work.

Anthropology is a general science like sociology. 'The word anthropology' is derived from
two Greek words, 'anthropos' and 'logos' meaning the study of man. More precisely, it is
defined by Kroeber as the science of man and his works and behavior. Anthropology is
concerned not with particular man but with man in-group with races and peoples and
their happenings and doings.

There is a great deal of similarities between anthropology and sociology. A number of

subjects include society, culture, family religion, social stratification, etc. For this reason
an eminent anthropologist like A.L. Kroeber regards "Sociology and Anthropology as twin
sisters" Etymologically, anthropology means the study of the science of man. It traces the
development of human race, and studies, in particular, the primitive preliterate people
and their culture. Anthropologists are sure that anthropology is deeply concerned with
the physical and cultural development of human beings from the time of their origin to
this day. There cannot be two opinions about the fact that the field of its investigation is
very vast. Its major divisions are as follows.
(i) Physical Anthropology

Physical anthropology is concerned with the characteristics of human anatomy. Their

physical characteristics provide adequate knowledge about human race and the origin of
human beings.

(ii) Archaeological or Historical Anthropology

It aims at the reconstruction of the social life of pre-historic man. In other words, pre-
history deals with the cultures of the pre-historic period so that they can understand the
present social structure better.

(iii) Cultural Anthropology

Cultural Anthropology, in the main is concerned with the material and non-material
culture of the pre-literate human beings. In other words, it concentrates on the study of
the primitive man's culture, the primitive man of the past and of the present times,

(iv) Social Anthropology

Social Anthropology studies man as a social being. It has been rightly said that 'social
anthropology deals with the behavior of man in social situations.' According to some
scholars, 'Social anthropology and sociology are in their broad sense, one and the same'.
There are others who regard it as a branch of sociology.

Apart from these major divisions, there are quite a few branches of Anthropology as well.
These branches can he described as human evolution or the study of fossil man and
linguistics.

Anthropology not only studies the fossil man but also investigates the characteristics of
the different culture groups and their changes through the study of language, which the
human beings of the pre-literate and historical periods used. All this goes to show that
anthropology is a very vast subject and it is deeply concerned with the man and his culture
as it developed in the remote past. Dr. S.C. Dube does not find any difference between
sociology and anthropology. He thinks that the two disciplines are identical, but in fact,
there are some differences between the two disciplines. It is sociology, which concerns
itself with the same phenomena, as they exist at present.

Anthropology concentrates on man as he is. On the other hand, sociology analyses man
as social animal. It is an indispensable fact that sociologists in their attempt to understand
the social phenomena of present times, draw upon the knowledge of the past. Nor can it
be denied that they, in their desire to study man and society, make the best use of the
invaluable data furnished by anthropological researches. In the same way, the data
obtained by sociologists have immediately benefited anthropologists. Thus, there is no
use of stressing on the fact that sociology and Anthropology are closely related to each
other and are inter-dependent.

Differences between Sociology and Anthropology

Not withstanding their inter-dependence the two sciences differ from each other in many
respects. The points of differences are as follows.

(1) The primitive, pre-literate people and their culture from the subject matter of
anthropology. The completely human society is the basis of its investigation. It not only
studies, the physical characteristics of the human race but also studies the influence itself.
On the other hand, sociology takes note of the influence of the human race exerts on social
relations, and it deals with people and their culture in the present context. Nor is it all. It
focuses the attention of sociologists on some of the particular aspects of society. Thus it is
quite obvious that the subject-matter of sociology is not the concern of anthropology. In
respect of subject matter, both anthropology and sociology differ from each other.

(2) Anthropology has for its subject matter the small and static culture of people who
belong to the pre-literate period. In sharp contrast to anthropological concern with small
and static cultures, sociology investigates the culture of society which, to say the least is
very vast and dynamic in nature.

(3) It is really curious that sociologists can easily manage with the second-hand
informations, while anthropologists cannot hut depend upon the first-hand knowledge.

(4) Anthropology is concerned with the past where as sociology is concerned with the
present. The future of social institutions does not worry anthropologists, because
anthropology is not at all concerned with it but it cannot be said about sociology, as it is
deeply concerned with the future of social institutions. Social Anthropology, which is the
branch of anthropology proper, makes on investigation of ancient human societies and
pre-historic archaeology, the other branch studies the ancient cultures. Sociology and
Anthropology alone studies the human society as it exists,

(5) Finally, Sociology and Anthropology have dissimilar methods since their subject
matter differs. It has been seen that sociologists in their study of man and society make
use of statistics, documentary evidences, etc. The anthropologists’ especially social
anthropologists use functional methods in their study of the primitive man and his
culture. It is not possible for an anthropologists to complete his research project without
living with those people of a particular society whom he has chosen for his investigation.
On the whole anthropology employees the methods used by natural sciences, while
sociology uses the methods of social science.

///////anthropology and criminology/////

1-INTRODUCTION:
Criminology is a discipline that has its roots in the scientific and philosophical ideas of
the Enlightenment. Cesare Beccaria was the pioneer who formulated the principles of
the so-called Classical Criminology, whose assumptions were based on theories of
social control of Hobbes, Montesquieu and Rousseau.
The basis of the classical theory of criminology was leaning on the social contract
theory, which claimed that the men would gather freely in society according to a series
of agreements that guaranteed the order and harmony. It is in relation to this
agreement, which proposed the punishment of those behaviors that were harmful or
dangerous to the social body, and the reward of those who somehow contributed to the
maintenance of equilibrium. Thus, establishing a typology of those behaviors
considered as deviations that made possible to classify an individual as a criminal. On
this basis, the penalties imposed by law ensured the smooth functioning and survival of
society, and “any sentence that exceeds that consensus or having other purposes is
illegal and violates the social contract” (Taylor, Walton, Young. 1990).
This classical criminology, which also could be called legal-criminology was based
primarily on the right, especially that of Indo-European tradition, according to Antonio
Beristarain, is based “on a right and righteousness rigidly controlled people’s lives, and
supports or require the State as a center of community relations “(1978).
Since each discipline arises in the context of a specific socio-historical features that
somehow explicit and implicit assumptions that support it, it is necessary to add that, for
these times comes to criminology, as Foucault says, it begins to develop a discourse
that first articulates a binary conception of society: there are always two groups, two
categories of individuals … ” . This binary structure through society, establishing a
framework of explanation marked by asymmetry, where there is “a fantastic race as the
only true (which holds power and is the holder of the standard) and which are in danger
for biological heritage. At that moment will all biological-racist discourse about the
degeneration and all institutions within the social body, will operate the discourse of
race struggle as a principle of segregation, disposal and standardization society
“(Foucault, p. 56.. 1996).
It is precisely from this same speech, which will develop the idea of deviation which
characterizes the behavior of the offender. The strayed is an inferior being who has a
disease, it must be “healed” from standardization processes specifically linked to
institutional confinement.
Although throughout the development of criminological discipline have been several
paradigm shifts in regard to the conception of “man offender” is currently still being felt
in our institutions and institutional practices for the purposes of this discourse: the crime
is a disease carried by certain individuals who had a “bad socialization” and should be
excluded and shut up “resocialized” and integrate them as healthy members of society.
2-Positivism:
Criminology, as noted above, has suffered from the beginning a series of paradigm
shifts linked to the concept we had in each historical moment for the “crime” and
“criminal conduct.” Basically we want to cut, for the purposes of this study, this
sequence and overlap paradigm in three stages: the Classical Criminology, Revisionism
and Revolution Neoclassical Positivist (Taylor, I., Walton, P., Young, J. Chapter 1) .
Of the three, only we will stop with special emphasis on the positivist view. Regarding
the first, already mentioned some characteristics in the introduction to this work.
Regarding the latter, supports the revision of some of the classical conceptions (such as
universal criminal measures without taking into account individual differences among
offenders) and the addition to the field of criminology specialists from other disciplines
outside criminal law as the psychiatrist and social worker later.
As regard to the positivist paradigm which is currently still widely practiced in some
contexts, “this is based on the application to social phenomena, in general, and human
behavior, in particular, the tools and techniques stipulated as fundamental and effective
for the study of the physical world. Thus, the positivists, promote and endorse
techniques for the quantification of behavior, from which they can approach the
objective reality (the idea of neutrality of the observer) and discover the underlying laws
of human action, for the particular case of criminology, could be discovered from the
analysis of statistics and the subsequent generalization of results (what is most
important quantitative and definitive character for qualitative).
Importantly, as allege Taylor, Walton and Young, there are different modes or forms of
positivism. For this work, we would refer to “biological positivism, because the premises
of this, they established a way of seeing and conceiving the subject of criminal behavior,
mostly based on the concept of” deviation “, which, as we saw the introduction of this
work, was always present (more or less) from the origins of criminology.
3-ANTHROPOLOGY AND BIOLOGICAL Lombroso Positivism:
The theory of evolution supported by Darwin, gave rise to the development of the
evolutionary paradigm (in both biological and social event), under which developed
disciplines such as anthropology and criminology.
Anthropology-like criminology, has its roots in the philosophy of the Enlightenment,
when much of the world had been explored and had contact with other peoples of totally
different to the European world at the moment. As Paul Mercier says: “at this time
displayed as different orientations of thought, which prefigure the subsequent
anthropological debates. One can distinguish two main currents: one that emphasizes
the social and cultural relativism which, anxious to establish the norms of society ideal,
it refers to ‘wild’ in interpreting human evolution. ” It is from this period, slowly, the
discipline begins to slip from the philosophical to the scientific, this process culminated
with the formation of a scientific anthropology in the mid-nineteenth century, “when a
general climate of thought and research prepared the revolution Darwinian “(Mercier,
Paul. 1969).
The first school of this stage of anthropology is scientific evolution, in both its biological
and social. The unifying concept of it is the idea of evolution, an idea that is present in
many areas since 1830.
It is in this context that Cesare Lombroso, considered the founder of biological
positivism, developed since 1876, shortly before his theory of man criminal. Lombroso,
who belonged to the so-called school of criminal anthropology, establishes the concept
of the atavistic criminal, according to which the offender represents a regression to
earlier developmental stages, characterized by criminal behavior to be innate. This
atavistic criminal could be recognized by a series of physical stigmata or anomalies,
such as excessive development of the cerebellum, facial asymmetry, abnormal
dentition, and what is considered as the most atavistic on criminals, namely hovuelo in
the middle of the occipital.
Based on his studies of the physical characteristics of male criminal, Lombroso
developed the idea that it explicitly presented in terms of morphological shape-some
similarities with the wild man, like most pronounced frontal sinuses, jaw bulky, large
orbits , etc. This thesis is considered abnormal offender as a subspecies of mankind.
Also, this subspecies would consist of a series of criminal types, such as murderers,
thieves, and prostitutes.; All common morphological features but also to differentiate
themselves from the rest.
Previously, and in relation to the different phases that traverse criminology, we referred
to the change suffered by it from a design unidisciplinary (based on the right) to a
design that integrated social perspectives in relation to interpretation of the crime. But
with the advent of the theory of Lombroso, it began a period that runs parallel to the
former, though of much greater importance, in which sidesteps the problem of crime
interpretations based on social issues to pass considarar individual aspects of criminal
behavior.
As allege Taylor, Walton and Young, citing Lindesmith and Levin: “what Lombroso did
was to reverse the usual method of explanation from the time of Guerry and Quetelet,
and instead of supporting the institutions and traditions determined the nature of
criminal, said the criminal nature of determining the character of the institutions and
traditions “(p. 56).
Given that biological explanations of behavior went through a boom time, the socially
based interpretations came to have a back seat to those of a genetic character. The
importance of genetic theories of Lombroso is due to the large impact that was causing
the development of the theory of Darwinian evolution, a fact that bears his gradual slide
into the explanations in the social sciences.
Particularly in the context of criminology, Lombroso’s influence, and in the twentieth
century, makes moving the importance of social scientists in the study of crime in favor
of participation of the physician and psychiatrist.
4-attempt to overcome the innate:
Throughout the history of the development of behavioral science, human behavior has
been explained from the comparison with the behavior of animals, especially those in
the phylogenetic scale are closer to man and that share a biological computer with it:
the Primates. It is in this context that two opposing positions are expressed in terms of
behavior and involving the consideration, in this, innate factors or acquired factors. The
dispute between the two is already very long history.
At first, explanations of behavior from innate factors acquired great importance,
especially, as mentioned above, from the development of the theory of evolution by
Charles Darwin and its application to the field of human social world form what is called
Social Darwinism, which comes into existence from the mid-nineteenth and early
twentieth century (although its effects are still felt today). The application of positivist
ideas in the field of conduct, motivated the search for general laws to which he was
subject to human behavior. As a result, establishing the existence of determinism it.
Thus, explained “our savagery, the sinful behavior of children, juvenile delinquency,
rape, murder, theft and war, not to mention all forms of violence. All this is due to the
innate aggressiveness of man “(Montagu, pg. 194).
Biological positivism exerted a great influence in criminology, as is clear from the
statement made by Vera Regina Pereira de Andrade on the subject in the context of
that paradigm, “having for its object crime conceived as a natural phenomenon, causally
determined, took the task of explaining its causes using the scientific method or
experimental and the help of official crime statistics and to provide remedies to combat
it. She examines, basically, what the man (criminal) does and why it does. ”
The anthropologist Ashley Montagu, in a small study develops a critique of nativist view,
held mainly by Konrad Lorenz and Robert Ardrey, among others. According to the
same, the position of “innate aggression” is a leitmotif which is directed not to the
explanation of that aggressive behavior, but primarily to suggest the exercise of any
control device on humans, and adds, “The views of Lorenz and Ardrey have precisely
the same defect, namely, the attribution of qualities of other animals to man” (Montagu,
pg. 195). He also argues, in this sense, the influence they can have the prejudices of
the man in the conception of the world and the problems that arose in him. ”
Specifically refers to the argument that gives Ardrey on some experiences of violence
which took over the course of his life and led him to convince the “murderous nature of
man.”
When it comes to Lorenz and their misjudgments, quoted a paragraph from his book
“On Aggression …”:” undeniably very strong factors should be able to overcome the will
of the individual reason so completely that it is obvious that are impenetrable to be
experienced … All these amazing paradoxes, however, found a spontaneous
explanation, which is placed by itself as a puzzle piece, if it is assumed that human
behavior, far from being determined only by reason and cultural tradition, is still subject
to all laws prevailing in all phylogenetically adapted instinctive behavior. From these
laws we have a good knowledge for the study of animal instincts “(Montagu, pg. 197).
These references made by Montagu, indicating the strong presence of positivist
conceptions of ideas that had been placed in delinquent conduct by the end of the last
century and early this.
5-CRIMINOLOGY, ANTHROPOLOGY AND THE RELATIVITY OF THE IDEA OF
CRIME:
Earlier we said that under the concept of biological positivism, the criminal was in
absolute terms as an abnormal, biologically based deviation represented a regression to
primitive states of human beings and that could be classified as a pathology. This
concept responds to playing a strong paradigm whose effects are still valid even today
in certain areas of our contemporary Western culture. The components of this paradigm
is articulated in the sequence bio-psycho-social, where the first component was the
most important, and the last-social-was rarely considered.
But it happens that, over time, the emergence of new theoretical concepts and the
relationship of different disciplines together, began to foreshadow-especially the issue of
crime-relativist conception of nature and based more on social in biology.
Both anthropology and criminology, has been developed from the study of “others.” In
the first case, the “other” cultural, in the second, the “other” as individuals or groups of
“deviants.” Regarding the latter, the concept of socio-centric character, it was gradually
diluted (though not total) for a consideration of the offense as a normal social
phenomenon.
Against all positions that make the offender as a deviant that somehow expresses a
kind of pathology, it is essential from a quote from Emile Durkheim (this does not mean
that it is fully in line with assumptions, some explicit and other implicit-present in the
same, although the idea of generality and relativity regarding the phenomenon of crime
as social status):
“The crime is not only observed in most societies of a given species, but in societies of
all types. There is one in which there is no crime. It changes shape, and acts are not
qualified everywhere the same, but everywhere and always have been men who were
driving in a way that drew on them to criminal penalties. If only, as societies pass lower
rates to the highest, the rate of crime, ie the relationship between the annual number of
crimes and the population would decline, one might believe that, although still a normal
phenomenon, the offense tended, however, lose their character. But We have no
reason to allow us to believe in the reality of this regression. Rather, many facts seem to
prove the existence of a reverse movement. […] So there is this phenomenon more
damning all symptoms normality, since it appears closely related to the terms of any
collective life. Making the crime a social disease would admit that the disease is not
something accidental, but on the contrary, a thing in some cases derived from the
fundamental constitution living … ” (Durkheim, E. pag. 92).
Reflecting further on the criteria of the above quotation, we can say that when a number
of people gather to form a group, between them a set of explicit or implicit agreements
regarding the development of the same form. These agreements are linked to what is
desirable to do and expect from others and what is not. In this type of situation is not
important extension of this group which may consist of two or more people, but the
fulfillment of the obligations undertaken (albeit implicitly) for the other members of the
same code base stipulated.
The breach of this code is considered a transgression. Transgression is a widespread
phenomenon in any society. For there to be infringement, there must also be a
consensus within the group that stipulates what behaviors are desirable and which are
not.
Thus, in every social setting is a widespread conception about what the action of
breaking certain rules, certain guidelines. The act of crime is basically linked to the act
of transgression.
As part of the idea of crime as a social product, we can mention Montagu, who explicitly
stated that: “The crimes and criminals are products of society, yet, instruments and
victims of the same society. Society and offender criminal because of their crimes and
criminal offenses and offenders, and then punishes them for damage, in most cases,
the same company led them to commit. A crime is what society chooses to define as
such. Something can be considered a crime in one society may not be so in another.
But whatever it is what a society may or may not be considered a crime, all societies
define crime as an act committed in violation of a law forbidding or omitted act in
violation of a prescriptive law. Hence the company is the one that defines the criminal
and not the criminal who defines himself. And almost invariably suggest here that
society is what makes the criminal because criminals in Actually, they become such, not
born “(p. 71. 1970).
All this means a break with the paradigm of bio-psycho-social and a reformulation of the
idea of crime from a relativistic perspective. In addition, stresses the concept that
although the crime may be an undesirable behavior within any society, is a perfectly
normal in the life of any group.
According to him, it is possible to consider the common crime as a way of seeking
security by the offender. Montagu clarifies the idea of seeking security should not be
understood in simplistic terms, but must be viewed as a “working hypothesis that can be
of practical use in understanding some of the conditions and motivations that lead to
crime” (p. 74).
In other words, we could say that in some cases, the offense must be understood as a
survival strategy, which develops because society does not provide the conditions
necessary for the safety of individuals.
Importantly, in our Western society has developed a series of devices, based in the
right-to seek treatment for the person considered criminal who takes her to
rehabilitation. Implicit in this term are those budgets linked to the positivist position on
the diversion pathological behavior and the need for standardization.
In our society, the fact of having been delinquent or have been imprisoned, a sufficient
condition to be marginalized and stigmatized, without possibility of redemption, although
there is a whole discourse to the contrary.
If, however, take into account the way that other cultures deal with the issue of crime
and the offender, you may learn something about some alternatives to treatment and
the redemption of criminal subject that can serve as a basis for reconsideration of our
punitive practices.
According to Malinowski, who worked in one of his books on the subject of crime among
the natives of the Trobriand Islands, between them, a number of mechanisms that
allow, in addition to restoring social order, the full redemption, and no word as is in our
culture-the subject who is suspected has transgressed the law of the community. One
such mechanism is the sorcery, the other suicide. Regarding the latter, although a
device end of redemption, is very effective in that it preserves the good name of the
family of the person who is believed to have committed a crime. Voluntary death of the
individual, produced in a public ritual act is considered as a demonstration of innocence
of the subject.
As to witchcraft, we know how important it is for tribal communities. If a person commits
a transgression of the law and is shown to have acted under the influence of a magic
spell, this fact alone is enough to ensure his innocence and non-stigmatization of the
individual by the community.
With this brief example, we want to make clear that in other communities are complex,
the phenomenon of crime has increased community containment, and does not occur
as in our culture that, despite being judged and penalized the offenders, after serving
his sentence, it is still considered a criminal case according to its permanent label of
“criminal.”
6 – CONCLUSION:
As told by Antonio Beristarain, contemporary criminology outgrown its original design
unidisciplinary to become a science, though this character is still very controversial,
multi-disciplinary in nature, based mainly in the social sciences. Its starting point is not
the law but of society, thus adopting a sociological angle. While the latter represents an
advantage over previous classical phase is still not fully satisfactory as long as it is still
present concepts that privilege the position of state and law as governing relations and
interpersonal communications.
Beristarain points to the formation of a criminology that these ideas much further than
sociocentric (based on the rule of law without taking into account cultural diversity),
which encourages and supports comparative studies of different legal and cultural
traditions. It is in this sense that we speak of a pluralist criminology within it integrates
different criminologies individuals “in the interest of variety.” I believe that anthropology,
which supports within it a comparative methodology, can provide a theoretical core to
allow the enrichment of the discipline of criminology, in addition to the contribution to
strengthening the socio-psychological paradigm based bio relativistic.
7-

Ethics- a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality, including good and bad,
right and wrong, justice and virtue, etc.

When anthropologists are observing a foreign society, they need to make sure that they do not harm
the community in any way by obeying their rules and ethical codes. This can be difficult because the
anthropologists may have their own moral obligations or religion, so they may have a different point
of view than the foreign society and have a hard time dealing with the actions or beliefs of it. But if a
conflict arises due to the clash of views, it is up to the anthropologist to resolve them using ethical
 codes.

When studying a society of humans or animals, the anthropologist must:

 have consent of the party they wish to study (unless they are animals)
 avoid exploiting and harming the safety, privacy, and dignity of the participants
 make sure that the way they work is beneficial to all parties
 know whether the group they are researching wishes to stay anonymous or get recognition