Philosophical Anthropology

The Subject of Anthropology and the Peculiarities of Anthropological Research

What is the uniqueness of humans? How do people differ from other living beings, and to what extent? When and where did they first appear on Earth, and what is the origin of humanity? What accounts for the differences among individuals? How do various communities shape human lifestyles, and why are they structured in particular ways? What factors contribute to the distinctions between generations, and can we foresee the future of humanity? To what degree and in what ways can we influence the development of human qualities? Are there hidden abilities within individuals, and is it possible to cultivate them?

These questions, along with many others derived from them, encompass the study known as anthropology (the study of humankind). Anthropology serves as a unique mirror through which people discover themselves.

Yet, humanity is not merely what it is; it also encompasses what it can become. It is more of an open project subject to change than a finished creation. The quest for self-knowledge has long been regarded as the cornerstone of philosophy, forming the very center of a worldview's coordinate system. The study of humanity is approached from multiple scientific perspectives, each revealing different facets. The physical structure and functioning of the individual, their psychological organization and personal integrity, modes of social interaction, the worlds created by human communities, and their interaction with the natural environment—these are all distinct yet closely interconnected aspects of human existence. Integral or philosophical anthropology synthesizes these individual fragments into a cohesive whole. Such research possesses an interdisciplinary nature, with the primary aim of understanding the genesis of humanity.

So, what does it mean to know the human being? Clearly, each of us perceives others as akin to ourselves (to whom we are often not indifferent). People resemble one another, yet they also stand out from each other. To know people is, first and foremost, to comprehend this diversity and navigate within it. Thus, anthropology, as an empirical science, investigates the unity of shared traits and their variability within human diversity.

However, our interest lies not only in describing what is but also in uncovering the causes that give rise to this diversity. Moreover, through understanding these causes, we hope to derive insights about the possibilities for constructing our identities. Here, the inquiry involves not only a statement of what has been and what is, but also a contemplation of the horizon of potential changes concerning the choices available for personal and societal development. Who can we become, and what efforts are worthwhile in attempting to change ourselves (or to preserve ourselves from change)? In anthropology, the researcher seemingly dismantles the established image of humanity, expanding it while stripping away unfounded assumptions and clichéd interpretations. Therefore, to know a person means to unveil the unknown within them, while simultaneously cleansing the concept of humanity from the layers of unwarranted judgments shaped by tradition.

The worldview of each community contains a representation of itself, contrasted with other beings that are different from itself. These representations are always emotionally charged and perceived through the prism of social morality, which establishes a particular relationship to the familiar and the unfamiliar, to those who are unlike us. They hold significant meaning, as it is through these representations that individuals identify themselves as part of their own group. Thus, anthropological research is often accompanied by intense debates, where each side frequently accuses the other of bias, lack of objectivity, contrived constructions, and the undermining of moral foundations or ideological partiality. Hence, a central task of anthropology is the demythologization of the image of humanity, which requires a critical examination of the methods used to justify assertions about human qualities. This necessitates a degree of detachment, which I refer to as perceiving from the perspective of an "alien," for whom everything that seems self-evident to us requires clarification. For instance, why do girls apply lipstick? The answer, "because it's beautiful and it's the norm," would not satisfy the anthropologist-turned-alien, as it fails to address the root of the question: why is it considered beautiful, and why is this method of beautification accepted? Why, in this society, do girls (and not boys) apply lipstick? Why do they apply it to their lips (and not their ears, foreheads, or noses)? Why specifically with lipstick (and not something else)? What is the broader significance of this practice, what motivated those who first began doing it, and what is the genesis of this habit that prompts others to repeatedly imitate it? What would happen if someone chose not to engage in this practice? How would such a refusal impact them? Finally, why is this custom absent in other communities? Attempt to answer all these questions!

A characteristic feature of the anthropologist should be tolerance towards differences, an impartial perception of them, and the simultaneous ability to see alternatives beyond the established norms. At the same time, the anthropologist is a person who views themselves and others from a personal standpoint. This experience of self-perception and the perception of others is reflexive and serves as a source of data that cannot be obtained from the perspective of an outsider or "alien," but it also cannot be unreservedly projected onto others, attributing to them everything the researcher sees in themselves. Hence, the fundamental issue in anthropological interpretations is defining acceptable analogies. When you think someone thinks or feels something, assigns significance to something, or perceives a particular meaning in what is happening, do you not substitute yourself for that other individual to whom you ascribe these attributes? Obviously, only those who have experienced dental pain can truly understand it. Can you truly experience another's sensation or feeling as if you had embodied someone else, directly reading their thoughts and comprehending their world with their "heart" and "mind"? (This empathetic understanding is also referred to as empathy). Our sensory understanding is directly contingent on how justifiably each person can interpret themselves as similar to another. Therefore, by placing ourselves in their situation, viewing the world through their eyes, and feeling with their skin, we might imagine what another person is experiencing. This, perhaps, is the deepest understanding one can achieve. Yet, how often do errors and evils occur because we measure goodness by our own standards and put ourselves in another's shoes, believing we know how they think and feel, while forgetting that the other is not ourselves and that they inhabit a different world? Thus, the anthropologist, like a tightrope walker, must balance between relatively reliable, objective descriptions of facts and the risky attribution of a universal inner world to individuals. The former plays a crucial role, as we can never be entirely certain of ourselves, even though it may seem that the most comprehensible being is indeed ourselves. What can a person express from within? The knowledge of oneself expands the horizon of self-perception only when we encounter the unexpected within ourselves, something we do not anticipate from ourselves. However, this occurs in others, meaning that the other, as akin to me, embodies that surprise through which I can better understand my qualities. People care for one another and borrow qualities from each other. We become human by resembling others while also distinguishing ourselves among them!