History is, strictly speaking, the study of questions; the study of answers belongs to anthropology and sociology.
The selfsame procedure which zoology, a branch of the natural sciences, applies to the study of animals, anthropology must apply to the study of man; and by doing so, it enrolls itself as a science in the field of nature.
In my introductory course, Anthropology 160, the Forms of Folklore, I try to show the students what the major and minor genres of folklore are, and how they can be analyzed.
The study of expression ought to form a part of the study of psychology, but it also comes within the province of anthropology because the habitual, life-long expressions of the face determine the wrinkles of old age, which are distinctly an anthropological characteristic.
If there were a science of human beings it would be anthropology that aims at understanding the totality of experience through structural context.
There is no shorter path for joining a neutral existential anthropology, according to philosophy, with the existential decision before God, according to the Bible.
Every historian has informally an anthropology, without ever using the word.
Whereas what man can learn about the world through his senses and through the intellect which relies upon sense-observation may be called ‘anthropology,’ what the spiritual man within us can know may be called ‘anthroposophy.’
I’ve done a lot of practical anthropology, living in villages with people and realizing how difficult it is to get out of poverty. When in poverty, people use their skill to avoid hunger. They can’t use it for progress.