Is seeking a career in anthropology worth it? Personally, I've

>>2002394
>anthropology
>career

thanks for the laugh anon.

>>2002396
What careers could be gained from pursuing a cultural anthropology degree, given that you manage to escape the tumblr bullshit and get a masters.

File: 1277665412948.gif (215KB, 360x480px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 360x480px

>>2002394
>Is seeking a career in anthropology worth it

Worth it depends on what you seek. One could define worth as the sense of fulfillment you receive from the work.

Also, no

>>2002394
Hey, I'm the guy who posted in your prev. thread about archaeology. Sorry I vanished, just couldn't stay awake.

Since you expressed some interest in it, I'll quickly sum up the sitch with archaeology. If you stay in academia, you of course have a shot at doing really cool stuff, in the Americas, overseas, wherever, but it's a crowded and very competitive field.

THAT BEING SAID, contrary to popular belief, if you're OK with working in the US, you absolutely can get work as an archaeologist with just an undergrad degree, working for one of several gov't agencies or for one of many private firms (In America and many other countries, companies and gov't agencies have a legal obligation to take reasonable precautions to avoid destroying sites and artifacts of archaeological import; the vast majority of working archaeologists in America are employed in the private sector, working under contract on such sites.) It's still competitive and it takes a while to get to the point where you can count on steady work/a reasonable salary, but I'd describe the career prospects in private archaeology as "challenging" rather than "bleak."

Like I said in the other thread, I'm not any more qualified to talk about the career prospects of cultural anthro than the next guy, but I know they are not great. So far as I know you're pretty much limited to academia, which means it'll be every bit as crowded and competitive as academic archaeology. The only reason it's easier to get employed as an archaeologist is because the private sector employs so many people. So I really can't recommend it.

However, from what you wrote, I'm not sure cultural anthro is what you're really interested in, anyway.
>My key interests recently is the western transition from Aristotelian to Post-Modern
>its compatibility with other cultures alongside classical intellectual/religious traditions
That'd fall under classics, or history, or folklore & mythology, or even philosophy. cont'd

>>2002394
>humanities degree
>worth it
Only if you're wealthy or scholarship-worthy enough to not go into debt for it.

I mean, in the humanities the divisions between the fields can be a little arbitrary and they sometimes bleed into each other, but what you're describing doesn't really sound like cultural anthro. Examining various cultures' systems of thought, sure, that's anthropology, but an analysis of the evolution of the western philosophical tradition? An look at the compatibility of Aristotelian ethics with ancient Chinese or Indian or Mesoamerican philosophy? Not so much. If I were your undergrad advisor I'd point you towards the Classics or Religious Studies depts. Probably. I don't really know. All I know is that's not really the sort of thing you'd study as an Anthro major.

>>2002883
OP here. I suppose the biggest thing is its application to modern conflict. Relevant to my current interests would something like the feasibility of western secularism in the various middle eastern nations, for instance. I'm sure I'd have to find a specialization in time, whether it is relevant to my current interests or later ones, but generally speaking how is what I'm discussing doing separate from what anthropologists do? What could I expect from being a cultural anthro major?

>>2003017
Well, most importantly, cultural anthro is a purely descriptive field. Anthropologists are (at least in theory) supposed to limit themselves to making factual statements, to arguing about what *is*, not what should or could be. Researching the nature of religiously-motivated violence in a community in Iraq? That's anthropology. Cross-referencing those findings with what we know about religious conflict across the whole Middle East? Still anthropology. A thoughtful consideration of the feasibility of western secularism in the Middle East, and how that might reduce religious conflict in the region? While a paper like that might incorporate plenty of anthropological research, really, it'd be political science, or something like that. That's not to say anthropologists can't have political beliefs, of course -- I can think of plenty who are very politically active, and obviously their beliefs are informed by their work -- but it's definitely not the kind of thing you'd be writing about as an anthro major, or teaching about as a TA or a professor. And you don't need to be a career anthropologist to write a book that incorporates anthropological research!

As for what to expect as an anthro major, I hit the fucking character limit again. cont'd below

>>2003125
Heading out but I'm keeping the tab up. Thanks for speaking with me, m8.

What to expect as an anthro major -- lots of writing, obviously. Lots of reading, sometimes interesting stuff, sometimes dry stuff, sometimes stuff that really should be interesting but isn't because for whatever reason very few anthropologists can string together a sentence without using jargon.

Your course content depends on where you end up going to school -- I've just been assuming you're American, but maybe I'm wrong. If you are, you can count on plenty of classes about various Native American societies, probably with an emphasis on whatever groups happen to live/have lived nearby -- e.g. the Navajo if you're going to school in the southwest (Although sometimes you can get surprised -- I took a shitload of classes on Arctic groups because that's where one of my professors did most of her fieldwork.)

You can expect a couple more general classes, discussing the anthropology of medicine, violence, religion, ecology, and so on. You'll probably have to take a few lab sciences, at the very least a physical anthro class, covering genetics and a lot of human anatomy and so on. You'll probably take at least one class on anthropological theory, going over the history of the field itself and how it's evolved. You may or may not be encouraged to go to archaeological field school. You don't need to if you don't want to be an archaeologist, but a lot of anthro majors do, and it's a pretty valuable experience.

There are dull patches, but it's interesting stuff. And it really is useful, intellectually, anyway. It helps put a lot of history and society into context. I'm not trying to warn you away from an anthro degree, it's a lot of fun, but the job prospects are not great, and you *can* learn a lot of it on your own (although going over it in a formal setting helps ensure you're exposed evenly to competing ideas etc). On the other hand, if you pair it with something more marketable, it makes a pretty ideal double major, in my opinion.

>>2003137
Don't mention it. Obviously I wouldn't have studied this stuff if I didn't enjoy talking about it, so it's not like I needed much encouragement. I'm afraid my posts were a little scattered, it's late here (again), but I hope they helped.

>>2003155
Now I'm curious: What actual careers can come out of this?