Doing biocultural anthropology: Continuity and change

Abstract

Biocultural anthropology has long represented an important approach in the study of human biology. However, despite demonstrated utility, its somewhat amorphous identity leaves some scholars questioning just what it means to be biocultural. In this article, rather than providing proscriptive doctrine, we contribute to these conversations about the nature of biocultural anthropology by considering what biocultural research does. We begin with a consideration of some of the foundational themes of biocultural work including recognition of the dialectical nature of sociocultural and biological forces, interest in inequality, and incorporation of both evolutionary and political economic perspectives. To emphasize the consistency of biocultural work over time, we also trace these themes from originating work to their appearance in current research. We then identify some of the key actions of the biocultural approach, noting that biocultural work can execute any number though rarely all of these actions simultaneously. We then offer brief introductions to the articles that make up this special issue, highlighting the ways in which each piece undertakes key biocultural actions. Following these introductions, we provide a discussion of some of the types of biocultural work that are not present in this special issue, recognizing the breadth of biocultural research across multiple subfields of anthropology. Finally, we point to some potentially fruitful directions for future biocultural research. In the end, we conclude that while biocultural anthropology may not have a cohesive or set agenda, it does have a clear and recognizable form of content and methodology illuminated by its actions.

The 1918 influenza pandemic did not accelerate tuberculosis mortality decline in early‐20th century Newfoundland: Investigating historical and social explanations

“…Further, it is becoming more common to approach the study of infectious diseases and their outcomes on human health holistically by placing a high value on how human behavior and culture become embodied as health, rather than approaching infectious diseases and their biological impacts as individual and mutually exclusive (Goodman & Leatherman, 1998;Herring & Swedlund, 2010;Zuckerman & Martin, 2016). Anthropologically, this is referred to as the biocultural synthesis, which calls specifically for the investigation of how political-economic and social processes affect human biology, and vice versa (Goodman, 2013;Goodman & Leatherman, 1998;Hoke & Schell, 2020;Leatherman & Goodman, 2020;Wiley & Cullin, 2016). Even over two decades after Goodman and Leatherman's (1998) foundational text, there is an absence of engagement with the role of history (Leatherman & Goodman, 2020).…”

Biocultural approaches to transgender and gender diverse experience and health: Integrating biomarkers and advancing gender/sex research

“…Anthropology has clearly contributed to understanding the diverse ways that gender is lived across cultures and the breadth of variation in biological sex (eg, see Ainsworth, 2015; Blackless et al, 2000; Davies, 2007, 2010; Fausto‐Sterling, 2000; Herdt, 1994; Nanda, 1999). Yet despite decades of growth in biocultural approaches, it remains uncertain how best to engage this diversity and the interactions among gender and sex (Fausto‐Sterling, 2012; Hoke & Schell, 2020; Leatherman & Goodman, 2020; Wiley, 2020; Worthman, 1995). In this article, we suggest ways to broaden biocultural research when working with transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people through the integration of minimally invasively collected biomarker samples (MCIBS).…”

SARS‐CoV‐2 infection inIndiabucks the trend: Trained innate immunity?

“…It was obvious that a one-size-fits-all approach to tackle COVID-19 in India was going to fail but was still pursued (Muliyil, 2020;Patel, 2020aPatel, , 2020bPatel, , 2020cThomas, 2020). It is a fact that India has not developed a biocultural or "cultural-biological research" (Goodman, 2013;Hoke & Schell, 2020) framework of human biology within the realm of medical sciences in order to better understand the diseases that affect its population. A discipline like medical anthropology, which is most relevant to a country like India (Joshi, 2016) has not been given any impetus as a sustainable research area for many decades.…”

“…If we do not acknowledge the limitations of our current approaches to understanding and handling human diseases and act fast, we are bound to see more COVID-19-like situations in the future, where we will see a similar disconnect between our model systems-based knowledge and the real-world situation. One potential solution to this long-standing problem could be to begin to reorient ourselves toward a medical/biocultural anthropological-centric approach to research on human health and diseases (Hoke & Schell, 2020). It is a different matter that India's response to COVID-19 could have been better if it had not neglected its huge infectious disease burden over the years and built a robust public health surveillance, monitoring, and management system besides addressing its lacunae of dialectical thinking in health sciences.…”