Anthropology refers to the science of human beings which analyzes humanity according to different concepts ranging from the biological and evolutionary aspect to the aspect of society and culture that differentiate human beings from other animals. As an academic discipline, anthropology exists at the intersection of science and the humanities. Due to its diversity, anthropology has been classified into five main specialized fields. The biology and evolution of human beings has been classified under environmental psychology. The study of the social and cultural composition of human beings is classified as social and cultural anthropology or ethnology (anthropology of culture). The study of prehistoric cultures based on physical remains and past situations in contemporary cultures has been categorized as archaeological anthropology. Linguistic anthropology (anthropology of language) encompassed the ability of human beings to speak in different languages ​​and to have articulate speech in communication. Finally, psychological anthropology has emphasized the relationships between humans, cultures, and the social structures of human beings. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The beliefs and customs of other cultures have fascinated adventurers, travelers, and explorers throughout history. It was this fascination with understanding cultural diversity that led to the rise of anthropology. However, the anthropology of the second half of the 19th century, known as "armchair anthropology", was very different from what would be recognized and considered acceptable today, and was largely rejected by early anthropologists. of the 20th century. In this essay, I will explore the rise of ethnographic fieldwork, particularly the response to “armchair anthropology.” To do this, I will begin by looking at early anthropologists and how they collected their data when they were not in the field themselves, and compare it with the work of some of the major founders of anthropology social and critiques of armchair anthropology such as Bronislaw. Malinowski (1884-1942) and Alfred Cort Haddon (1855-1940). I will not include theoretical influences behind early anthropologists such as functionalist, structuralist, and Marxist theories, as they are neither necessary nor relevant to exploring the idea of ​​ethnographic fieldwork in response to armchair anthropology. For I will argue that armchair anthropology, despite its limitations, has been of inestimable value to later anthropologists through their innovative work rather than through their theoretical influences. Armchair anthropology, so to speak, was a reference to late 19th century scholars who came to anthropology. conclusions without the need for field work. In other words, they did not travel to other countries to collect their data for their ethnographic study. Some scholars of the time such as James George Frazer, Edward Burnett Tylor, and Lewis Henry Morgan were among the most prominent of the era. George Frazer (1854-1941) was writing articles for the Encyclopaedia Britannica when he was introduced to Tylor's book Primitive Culture (1871) and was soon writing anthropological articles. Frazer was to become the first professor of “social anthropology” in Britain. His career would be influenced by his work on religion, myth and ritual, culminating in his book "The Golden Bough 1890", a study of comparative religion. He was one of the first to studyreligion as a social function that can be compared and contrasted, and has often been considered one of the founders of contemporary anthropology. Despite his accomplishments, Frazer will be criticized for adding nothing original to the field, as it has been noted that almost all of Frazer's work came from other scholars, anthropologists, and missionaries with whom he corresponded regularly. He published numerous articles based on notes he had taken but rarely researched, all based on his own data, essentially the ultimate armchair anthropologist. The American lawyer and anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan (1818-1881) was greatly influenced by social developments. Morgan was particularly interested in "kinship" and the study of how societies and culture developed and would be known as a pioneer in his field through this work (White, 1948). He studied indigenous peoples, particularly the North American Indians, the "Iroquois", the natives. people who were forced off their land after the Revolutionary War. He argued that human progress could be identified through the progression of cultural evolution. In his most famous book "Ancient Society", the progression of human progress went from savagery to barbarism to civilization, the subtitle of his book. Another advocate of cultural evolutionism was Edward Tylor (1832–1917), who also worked with data acquired during the study of indigenous peoples and for his book that inspired Frazer, Primitive Culture. Culture was defined by Tylor as “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, custom and all other abilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society » which was partly influenced by Darwin's theory of biological evolution. proposed an anthropological definition of culture and still constitutes a key concept in the foundation of cultural anthropology today. Tylor, like Morgan, never actually studied in this area and, like Frazer, relied on second-hand data from explorers and missionaries. One of the first to challenge armchair anthropology was one of the founders of modern British anthropology, Alfred Cort Haddon (1910). observation lacked critical thinking and relied on unreliable sources for its information and that fieldwork was the safest method of collecting data on different peoples. For Haddon, the anthropologist could only produce accurate accounts by going on site and directly observing indigenous populations. He was not alone, and during the first decades of the 20th century other anthropologists argued similarly about armchair studies. The most iconic figure in the British community who promulgated fieldwork as a cornerstone of the discipline's practices was Bronislaw Malinowski. During the First World War, Malinowski, of Polish origin, was interned in Australia as an enemy alien and, unable to return to Europe, ended up residing in the Trobriand Islands for two years. It was also while living among the islanders that Malinowski recognized the importance of doing fieldwork. In the introduction to his book "Argonauts of the Western Pacific" (1922), he argued that it was important for researchers interested in human diversity to discuss the methods they used in the field to collect ethnographic material. Only by describing these rigorous practices in detail would researchers be able to demonstrate the scientific standards of the discipline. As with Haddon, Malinowskialso argued that it was essential for anthropologists to raise the scientific standards by which they collected, analyzed, and represented their activities. data. Essentially, the Trobriand Islands would become Malinowski's laboratory where he would develop his research program and transform the observational practices of all future anthropology researchers. Malinowski's persuasive rhetoric convinced many anthropologists to prioritize field studies over other methods of observation. Twentieth-century practitioners identified fieldwork as a necessary component of anthropological research. This period of anthropology has since been canonized as the founding years of the modern discipline. In response to armchair anthropology, younger generations of naturalists, like Haddon, began to question the techniques used by older generations. Haddon was initially trained in zoology. He quickly became an authority on anthropology after participating in an expedition to the Torres Strait in 1898. The expedition was also canonized as a key moment for the discipline by members of the British anthropological community, studying indigenous peoples by being directly among them. It was because of this experience of prolonged life among the islanders in their natural environment that Haddon sharply criticized early Victorian armchair anthropology for its lack of time spent in the field. Therefore, they had limited opportunities to collect substantial data and this criticism was reflected in many of Haddon's books and reviews. "As the investigators covered such a large area and often had only limited time in the locations they visited, the original observations must be considered to be more in the nature of an investigation than a detailed study. He also wrote that scientists without direct experience in the field were "simply retailing used goods over the counter." Haddon clearly felt that armchair anthropology was very outdated and unreliable. Haddon was not alone in attacking the practices of the “armchair anthropologist,” as his contemporaries WH Rivers and CH Reid were equally outdated and concerned with anthropological methodologies. Coincidentally, at the time of Haddon and other concerns, in the early 20th century, changes were developing within British academia. In particular, the funding provided many disciplines with an excellent opportunity to develop their new research techniques. Academic institutions now recognized the importance of funding the careers of academics. As Henrika Kuklick notes in her book The Savage Inside, "academic reformers set out to professionalize scholarship in the belief that the advancement of knowledge required that individuals be able to pursue paid careers throughout their lives by developing their specialized expertise, just as independent professionals did.” One of the first to benefit from this economic revival of institutional funding of the time was Malinowski who, thanks to his expedition to the Trobriand Islands, became known above all for the use of "participant observation" which is at the basis of all the modern ethnography we see today. However, like Haddon and others, he too articulated what they saw as unreliable analysis used by armchair anthropologists. As Kuklick explains: "As natural history specialties became more differentiated, their practitioners determined that naturalists needed to break away from their..