There are multiple instances where Governmental agency intervention has scared

potential relationships in research subjects. The involvement of the government can impact
research by encouraging anthropologists to engage with only specific groups or cultures, as well
as fund observational projects based on their own benefit. This results in a disconnect between
other cultures who are not “of interest” to the governmental agencies, as they are not funded
and therefore not supported. For example, after World War II, the government encouraged
research subjects involving the countries and nationalities involved in the war. A Note on
Ethocentrism in Anthropology claims that we, “have lost our objectivity and decided that those
objectionable little people must have an evil, a ‘pathological,’ or at best an ‘adolecent’ culture.”
(A Note on Ethocentrism in Anthropology). It’s notable that in this instance, not only was the
government pushing for research of Japenese societies, they also had already developed an
opinion on how their culture worked. This not only scared the relationship that the United States
had with Japan, but also created more subjectivity to the anthropologists researching their
society. Governmental agencies create a bias in anthropology due to their influence on
researching only cultures that directly affect them. It can be difficult for anthropologists to
observe cultures that they are interested in without the support and funding from the
government.
There have been many instances where I have wondered how anthropologists are able
to be completely objective in an observational environment. As humans, it is not possible to be
100% objective. (Murudja). No matter how rational, independent, or neutral a person claims to
be, there is always going to be a comparison. After all, the environment and culture that the
researchers grow up in is their foundation; the only way they know life. When traveling to
observe other cultures and societies, they will always think its different than their own.
Comparing their way of life to that of their research groups is inevitable because of human
nature. Whether it’s subconscious or not, bias is always present. An example of this is the idea
of xenophobia, defined as the fear of “other.” Some anthropologists or members of society worry
that when they study groups from other cultures, they may lose sight of their own and won’t be
able to love it the way they are supposed to. By doing this, they may not completely engage in
their research and could leave out significant details regarding the society. They may only note
what they want to be known, even subconsciously. The idea of objectivity in anthropology is
crucial to the true understanding and appreciation of other cultures, however there will always
be some degree of bias and subjectivity due to the characteristics of human nature.
History has played a large part in anthropology and the way we know the world works.
Back in the early days, much less was known about the field of anthropology and the study of
other cultures. Instead, superior cultures were seen as true “humans” while others were viewed
more as animals. In Cultural Representation of Native American Groups, it says, “As in the case
of Native American women, these stereotypic characterizations that predate advertising imagery
of Indians are incorporated and further developed within advertising.” (Project MUSE). As
presented in the article, the historical view of the Native American culture was presented as
more wild and savage-like rather than humane. Throughout the article, multiple examples were
provided of advertisements using the Native American culture as a way to catch the eye of
consumers. Terms such as “noble savage” were used to term members of the culture,
presenting them as more of an animal than a human. This still impacts the way anthropology is
viewed today. Those early historical views on smaller cultures that weren’t considered dominant
are still in the back of the minds of many members of society and makes it harder to be
completely objective when studying them. In all, the impact of historical narratives and views on
cultures played a large role in the stereotyping still seen today.