Practicing anthropology represents a dynamic and increasingly vital dimension of the broader anthropological discipline, distinguishing itself through its explicit focus on the application of anthropological theories, methods, and insights to address real-world problems and practical challenges. Unlike academic anthropology, which primarily aims to generate new knowledge for theoretical understanding, practicing anthropology is oriented towards problem-solving, policy formation, and direct intervention. It leverages the unique perspectives of cultural relativism, holistic analysis, and ethnographic immersion to understand complex human systems, inform decision-making, and facilitate positive social change across diverse sectors. This applied orientation bridges the gap between abstract academic inquiry and the tangible needs of communities, organizations, and governments worldwide.
The roots of practicing anthropology, while having earlier antecedents, were profoundly shaped and accelerated by significant global events, none more so than the Second World War. This period acted as a critical crucible, forcing the discipline to move beyond purely academic pursuits and engage directly with urgent national and international crises. The exigencies of war created an unprecedented demand for cross-cultural understanding, leading governments and military organizations to actively seek the expertise of anthropologists. This engagement not only broadened the scope and recognition of anthropological work but also laid the foundational groundwork for its professionalization, diversification, and the enduring ethical considerations that continue to shape the field today.
Defining Practicing Anthropology
Practicing anthropology, often interchangeably referred to as applied anthropology, is the branch of anthropology that employs anthropological knowledge, theories, and methods to solve contemporary human problems. Its core premise is that the deep understanding of human culture, social structures, and behavior, which is the hallmark of anthropological inquiry, can be directly translated into actionable strategies and solutions for a wide array of practical issues. This stands in contrast to “pure” or “academic” anthropology, where the primary goal is the advancement of theoretical knowledge for its own sake, although the boundaries between the two are increasingly permeable.
At its heart, practicing anthropology is inherently interdisciplinary, often collaborating with experts from fields such as public health, business, environmental science, urban planning, education, and international development. It operates under the conviction that context-specific, culturally informed approaches are essential for effective interventions. Anthropologists engaged in practice are typically client-oriented, working with specific organizations, communities, or governmental bodies to achieve defined outcomes. This often involves identifying problems from the perspective of the affected populations, understanding the cultural logic underlying behaviors, assessing the potential impacts of proposed interventions, and facilitating culturally appropriate solutions.
The methodologies employed by practicing anthropologists largely mirror those of academic anthropology but are adapted for applied contexts. Ethnography, with its emphasis on participant observation, in-depth interviews, and long-term immersion, remains a cornerstone. This qualitative approach allows practitioners to uncover emic (insider) perspectives, cultural nuances, and tacit knowledge that quantitative methods might miss. However, practicing anthropologists frequently integrate quantitative data collection and analysis, survey research, and mixed-methods approaches to provide comprehensive insights and measurable outcomes. They are adept at translating complex cultural understandings into accessible language for non-anthropological audiences, producing reports, policy briefs, and presentations that inform decision-makers.
The scope of practicing anthropology is incredibly broad, encompassing numerous specialized areas. Cultural Resource Management (CRM) involves identifying, evaluating, and protecting archaeological and historical sites, often in compliance with environmental and heritage laws. Development anthropology focuses on designing and evaluating programs aimed at improving livelihoods, health, and social equity in developing regions, ensuring projects are culturally appropriate and sustainable. Medical anthropology applies anthropological insights to health issues, working on public health campaigns, understanding illness experiences, improving healthcare delivery, and addressing health disparities. Business anthropology contributes to market research, user experience (UX) design, organizational culture analysis, and cross-cultural communication for multinational corporations. Environmental anthropology addresses issues of conservation, resource management, and climate change, focusing on local knowledge and community engagement. Forensic anthropology aids law enforcement in identifying human remains and understanding contexts of death. Other significant areas include educational anthropology, design anthropology, human rights, and social impact assessment.
Ethical considerations are paramount in practicing anthropology. Given that practitioners often work with vulnerable populations or within power structures, issues of informed consent, confidentiality, data ownership, potential harm, and accountability are constantly at the forefront. Anthropologists are trained to be reflexive, critically examining their own biases and the potential impacts of their work. The goal is not merely to apply knowledge but to do so responsibly, ensuring that interventions are equitable, just, and respectful of cultural diversity, while avoiding instrumentalizing communities or perpetuating inequalities. The profession emphasizes a commitment to the well-being of the people and communities studied, ensuring that their voices are heard and their interests are considered.
The Development of Practicing Anthropology During World War II
While rudimentary forms of applied anthropology existed prior to the 20th century, often associated with colonial administration or early social reform movements, it was the Second World War that served as an unparalleled catalyst for the widespread development and recognition of practicing anthropology as a distinct and valuable field. The unprecedented global conflict created an urgent and pressing demand for cultural expertise, fundamentally transforming the discipline from a largely academic pursuit into a field with demonstrable practical utility.
Before the war, anthropology in the United States, particularly the Boasian school, was heavily focused on ethnographic fieldwork and theoretical development, primarily within university settings. There were some applied initiatives, such as those related to Native American policy within the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), where anthropologists like John Collier sought to apply cultural insights to improve administrative practices. However, these efforts were often limited in scope and sometimes fraught with ethical complexities due to the inherent power imbalances. The outbreak of World War II, however, abruptly shifted the landscape, requiring a rapid mobilization of intellectual resources to support the war effort.
The war presented complex challenges that academic anthropology, with its deep understanding of human cultures, was uniquely positioned to address. The United States government, intelligence agencies, and military needed to understand the cultures of both allies and enemies, anticipate public reactions, formulate effective propaganda, manage occupied territories, and maintain morale among soldiers and civilians. Traditional academic research methods, which often required prolonged fieldwork, were impractical or impossible in wartime conditions. This necessitated innovative approaches and the deployment of anthropological expertise in novel ways.
One of the most significant governmental agencies to employ anthropologists during WWII was the Office of War Information (OWI). The OWI was responsible for propaganda, public relations, and morale both domestically and internationally. Anthropologists like Ruth Benedict, Margaret Mead, Geoffrey Gorer, and Clyde Kluckhohn were recruited to provide cultural analyses of enemy nations (particularly Japan and Germany) and allied populations, as well as to inform domestic policy. Without the possibility of direct fieldwork, these anthropologists pioneered “culture at a distance” studies. This methodology involved analyzing existing literature, government documents, films, propaganda, émigré interviews, and popular media to construct cultural profiles and predict behavior.
Ruth Benedict’s seminal work, The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (1946), a study of Japanese culture and character, emerged directly from her wartime contributions to the OWI. Though criticized later for its reliance on “culture at a distance” and potential for overgeneralization, it provided crucial insights for American policymakers during the occupation of Japan and remains a landmark example of applied cultural analysis. Margaret Mead, another prominent figure, worked on understanding British and American national character for the OWI, aiming to bridge cultural gaps between the two allies and enhance cooperation. Her work also included studies on food habits and morale on the home front. These anthropologists were instrumental in developing psychological warfare strategies and guiding public opinion campaigns.
Beyond the OWI, anthropologists were also involved in other government agencies. The Board of Economic Warfare (BEW) employed anthropologists to understand the cultural and economic contexts of resource-rich regions, particularly in Latin America, to ensure the flow of strategic materials. The Foreign Broadcast Monitoring Service (FBMS) utilized anthropologists to analyze enemy propaganda and identify cultural nuances in broadcasts. Within the War Department, anthropologists advised on cross-cultural training for troops deployed to various regions, helping them understand local customs and avoid misunderstandings that could impede military operations or community relations.
A more controversial area of anthropological involvement was with the War Relocation Authority (WRA), which administered the internment camps for Japanese Americans during the war. Some anthropologists, like Alexander Leighton and Morris E. Opler, worked within the WRA, ostensibly to mitigate the harsh conditions and understand the social dynamics within the camps. However, their involvement has been subject to intense ethical scrutiny, as their work, regardless of intent, was perceived by some as complicit in the unjust incarceration of American citizens based on their ethnicity. This experience highlighted the profound ethical dilemmas inherent in practicing anthropology, particularly when working within powerful state structures that might conflict with the well-being and rights of the communities being studied. It forced anthropologists to confront questions of complicity, power dynamics, and the potential misuse of their knowledge, contributing to the development of stronger ethical guidelines for the profession in later decades.
The war also saw anthropologists contributing to domestic efforts aimed at improving industrial efficiency, community morale, and health. The Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Indian Affairs continued to employ anthropologists, whose work sometimes shifted to support wartime production efforts or address social issues related to migration and labor shortages. These roles demonstrated the applicability of anthropological methods to understanding and managing social change within the United States itself.
The impact of World War II on practicing anthropology was profound and multifaceted. Firstly, it undeniably demonstrated the practical utility and relevance of anthropological knowledge on a large scale. Governments and other powerful institutions recognized that understanding human culture was not merely an academic exercise but a strategic imperative. This newfound recognition significantly elevated the profile of the discipline. Secondly, the war fostered methodological innovations, particularly “culture at a distance,” which, while imperfect, allowed for rapid assessments under constraints. Thirdly, it led to a significant increase in the employment of anthropologists outside traditional academic settings, paving the way for a more diverse career landscape for future generations.
Furthermore, the wartime experience catalyzed the professionalization of practicing anthropology. Organizations like the Society for Applied Anthropology (SfAA), founded in 1941 just before the US entered the war, gained considerable momentum as a forum for practitioners to share experiences, develop best practices, and debate ethical standards. The increased visibility and demand for anthropological expertise led to the development of applied anthropology programs in universities post-war, aiming to train students specifically for roles outside academia.
However, the war’s legacy for practicing anthropology was not without its shadows. The ethical challenges raised by involvement in programs like the WRA spurred critical self-reflection within the discipline. It underscored the importance of independent ethical review, accountability to research subjects, and a vigilant awareness of how anthropological knowledge could be manipulated or used to reinforce existing power structures. This critical examination ultimately strengthened the ethical framework of the profession, making ethical training a cornerstone of anthropological education and practice.
Practicing anthropology, in essence, is the dynamic application of anthropological knowledge and methods to solve real-world problems, bridge cultural divides, and inform effective policy. It is a field driven by a commitment to context-specific understanding, human-centered approaches, and ethical engagement. The Second World War served as a crucial turning point in its development, forcing anthropologists out of the ivory tower and into the corridors of power, thereby accelerating its growth, broadening its scope, and firmly establishing its practical relevance.
The exigencies of the war compelled governments to seek systematic cultural intelligence, highlighting the indispensable value of cross-cultural expertise in navigating a complex global landscape. This period demonstrated that anthropological insights could be critical for strategic planning, public messaging, and managing diverse populations. While challenging ethically in certain contexts, particularly concerning its involvement with wartime policies that infringed on civil liberties, this era ultimately propelled the professionalization of practicing anthropology. It led to the establishment of dedicated academic programs, strengthened professional organizations, and fostered a greater recognition of the discipline’s utility beyond pure theoretical inquiry. The legacy of WWII continues to shape the field, underscoring both the immense potential and the inherent ethical responsibilities that accompany the application of anthropological knowledge in complex real-world settings.