If we were to pay attention only to the Greek base of the word ‘anthropology’, its translation - the study of human beings - wouldn’t explain much. On the contrary, it would further mistify the subject. A similar effect is caused when we try to define it, as both students and teachers of anthropology, even though fascinated by it, have a slight reluctance and an eye-rolling reaction when posed the question: ‘what on earth is anthropology?’. Nothing seems to be fixed firmly in place here, as we are dealing with a social science that straddles the border of the humanities and the scientific world.  Nevertheless, it is crystal-clear to the open-minded.

The classification of anthropology’s branches is rather flexible but it looks pretty much like the following. A first branch, called biological anthropology, deals with human physiology and anatomy and is used to draw up theories concerning human evolution (consequent to this branch’s similarity with archaeology, the latter is at times considered to be part of anthropology). Grosso modo, the other part of anthropology can simply be dubbed as social anthropology, engulfing both linguistics and cultural anthropology. 

What depicts an anthropologist first and foremost is an underlying urge to know and understand different ways people have of looking at the world they live in, as they develop in their respective societies or groups. Through living amongst certain societies for extended periods of time (a method called participant observation), learning their languages and then presenting the etnographies is how anthropologists usually collect data, in the hope of understanding the differences and diversity of the studied groups of people. But it is vital to correctly interpret the momentum of such research: no matter how much interest is seemingly placed on differences between people, the core goal always was and always will be to reveal fundamental principles in the way that human beings organize and stage their social, political and sacramental life. Alas, until now, the world somehow lost touch with this all-too-important subject.

Anthropology should have changed the world, yet the subject is almost invisible in the public sphere outside the academy. [...] Anthropologists should have been at the forefront of public debate about multiculturalism and nationalism, the human aspects of information technology, poverty and economic globalization, human rights issues [...] but somehow [they] fail to get their message across. ( Eriksen, 2006 )

Now, ponder these images for a while. On Sundays, the HSBC building in Hong Kong, a renowned landmark, shades thousands of Filipina women, who swarm into the city’s business district to chatter, laugh, gossip, dance and rejoice. But this is in utter contrast with the other days of the week, in which the view is a lot grimmer: spiky and permanently stressed Chinese businessmen shouldering their way through the crowd. On these days of the week, the Filipina women work as amahs (Cantonese for “domestic helper”), a job that can easily be translated as slavery, having in mind that they sleep on bathroom floors and in kitchen cupboards, while obeying all of their Chinese masters requirements. Halfway around the globe, an immigrant family from Albania living in Belgium turns on its computer screen and has breakfast with their grandmother back home, via a webcam, just like in every other morning. Somewhat differently, a French entrepreneur, owner of a large mobile-phone producing company, is reflecting on a puzzling fact from the Far East and on how will it influence its business: in some parts of China it is customary to take your mobile-phone to a local Buddhist monk for a blessing.

Although all of the above cases constitute by their very nature anthropological themes, they primarily illustrate something of much more meaning: as the world witnesses more and more diasporas, as transnationalism reigns and rotten theories about globalisation seem to be taken for granted albeit the appalling consequences, anthropology is slowly moving into the spotlight, due to an ubiquitous compelling need for it. In today’s syncopated modernity, creativity and ‘infinite innovation’ are paramount, with right-brainers leading and reshaping everything around them. It is without doubt that the mere intention of being successful in this increasingly fast-paced world, where space and time seem to shrink, has us all stampeding for an intangibile success-acquiring secret. With all this rush, people seem to forget this ’secret’ lies in the person next to them, it’s in the human nature itself. The human brain is emotionally wired, the limbic system will always overpower the neocortex, feelings will always throne over logic and reason. Thus, our underlying characteristic is not reason, it’s being human. 

The technological advances that have been made are astounding and as a result people interact more than they have ever done, comparatively speaking. This, cumulated with the above-mentioned conditions of the modern day leads to only one natural conclusion: the key is in subtleties, in understanding others, in knowing what drives human beings, in answering major questions about the origins, reasons and potential of society, cultural innovation and human nature. Can anthropology provide these vital answers? Most surely. The trick is - yet again - in creatively reinventing bits of it, for general appliance. We’ll all stay tuned, won’t we?