“Ethnocentricity is the natural condition of mankind” says I.M. Lewis (1976) at the very beginning of Social Anthropology in Perspective. Ethnocentricity, from this perspective, does not seem like being able to elude its very consequences. Most importantly, ethnocentricity brings along the requirement of contemplation and making comparisons which are end up with the alienation of the others, and putting the mostly sharp verges along the strong and the weak. In fact, the distinction between the strong and the weak is beyond as well as within the ethnocentricity. It is beyond the ethnicity since the both the strong and the weak are created in an ethnicity. However, at the macro level, it might be stated that human’s inclination to highlight his …show more content…
After this theoretical passing, I will touch upon the role of the experimental economics in the observation and detailed interpretation of the distinction between the strong and the weak. Indeed, in a certain point, I will focus on “the weakest of the both species were among the first to pay the debt of nature” (Townsend, 1786, p. 38) and I will mostly stress on the poverty as one of the main factor of being the weakest (and also vice versa). In this context, poverty will be my intersection set while analyzing relation between the social anthropology which has been evolved from the social Darwinism and the experimental economics which depends on the assumption of the distinction social Darwinist put and also observes the weak throughout the extensive field …show more content…
On the other hand, social anthropologists do not break the bond between the conventional domains of politics, religion, culture, gender, economic development etc. Also, they attach importance and priority to the description of individual knowledge, feeling, and values as this ‘private’ sphere relates to the public