I know that Anthropology and Sociology are very close in terms of subject matter, but since I have the choice to major in either, I was wondering which would be best for a future career in public health. What is the difference between medical sociology and medical anthropology?
Anthropology vs Sociology BA for Public Health
- Thread starter indya
- Start date
at a bachelors level I really do not think it makes any difference. Anthropology and sociology are two very different perspectives if you are looking into advanced study or specific careers. Do a bit of research on both if you are unsure. I majored in anthro and love it dearly. I couldn't stand sociology!
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2009
- Messages
- 1,700
- Reaction score
- 114
If you're open to other majors, Biology, Chemistry, or Environmental Science is a good place to go. Particularly if you're interested in environmental, chemical, molecular, or genetic work at all. This, of course, assumes you're interested in epidemiology and more specifically, those fields of epidemiology. Biology is a great foundation for all things related to disease causation and disease mechanisms.
For instance: I was a dual Biology + Environmental Science major in undergrad. Translated nicely over to my interests now where I'll be working in environmental exposures utilizing molecular and genetic techniques in epidemiology. I couldn't imagine trying to learn a lot of the basic science behind what I'm doing now for the first time right now.
Then again, study what you like. It's probably too early to think about what direction of public health you might like (particularly since you're probably a high school senior or rising freshman in college). A lot of things can change in the 4+ years.
For instance: I was a dual Biology + Environmental Science major in undergrad. Translated nicely over to my interests now where I'll be working in environmental exposures utilizing molecular and genetic techniques in epidemiology. I couldn't imagine trying to learn a lot of the basic science behind what I'm doing now for the first time right now.
Then again, study what you like. It's probably too early to think about what direction of public health you might like (particularly since you're probably a high school senior or rising freshman in college). A lot of things can change in the 4+ years.
I majored in Anthropology in college and I loved it. Sociology has a stronger focus on statistics which I believe would be more useful for a degree in public health. At my college the Anthropology and Sociology degrees were very similar except that Sociology required courses in statistics. Many of the Sociology courses could have been counted towards an Anthropology degree and vice versa.
I agree. I did my undergrad in anthropology and am currently an MA candidate for medical anthropology. The differences are definitely subtle, but they're there. I agree with the other posters that said to try them out. After you take a few classes you'll start to see the difference and get a feel for what you like better.
For me personally, I like the philosophy and theoretical aspects that anthro offers (not to say that sociology doesn't offer theories) and the perspective that anthropologists take in research. And as someone said above, socio does deal more in statistics (which, if you decided on anthro, could be helped by taking a biostats course). It seems like it's really personal preference in the end. Good luck!
I disagree. I supposed British Social Anthropology (a la Radcliffe-Brown) I can see similarities to sociology, but not in the Cultural approach of Malinowski/Boas. Sociology primarily is concerned with western culture and society, whereas anthropological ideals/theories can be applied across all cultures/societies. Anthropology also makes use of quantitative methods so I do not believe that statistics is the defining difference. The difference is the meaning of the stats. Sociology bases its hypothesis nearly solely on data (statistical) collected. Anthropology has a major level of observational interpretation using stats as a back up to the hypothesis.
To me, the major difference is outlook. Anthropologists see people as individuals that make up a culture which influences society as well as is influenced by society. We almost see culture as a living, breathing, thing. Sociology tends to focus more on society as a whole and it's functionality without the anthropological perspective of the individual. Sociologists tend to view society as something that dictates the behavior of its people.
Malinowskian views believe that culture develops to deal with biological needs and environmental problems thus creating an environment. Radcliffe-Brownesque ideas are that culture exists to meet the needs of society. I personally feel that anthropology (currently) believes in both. To me, anthropology is a way of looking at the world as much as is it a field of study. I do not feel that sociology requires an "enlightened" outlook in order to truly understand (since it is mainly hard data and rather black and white).
These are two totally different fields that just both happen to be interested in people. Both serve their own purposes and we need to distinguish between them because both are important and calling them the same negates their importance.
Note: I am aware that many sociological theories in the past are based on some major anthropological players like Mal, RB, Evans Pritchard, and especially Durkheim. The foundations of sociology and the modern sociology are very different though. Anthro tends to keep more in touch with the old school dudes. I believe sociology is more in tune with Lazerfield (but don't quote me on this).
I'm done ranting now!
Go anthro! lol
To me, the major difference is outlook. Anthropologists see people as individuals that make up a culture which influences society as well as is influenced by society. We almost see culture as a living, breathing, thing. Sociology tends to focus more on society as a whole and it's functionality without the anthropological perspective of the individual. Sociologists tend to view society as something that dictates the behavior of its people.
Malinowskian views believe that culture develops to deal with biological needs and environmental problems thus creating an environment. Radcliffe-Brownesque ideas are that culture exists to meet the needs of society. I personally feel that anthropology (currently) believes in both. To me, anthropology is a way of looking at the world as much as is it a field of study. I do not feel that sociology requires an "enlightened" outlook in order to truly understand (since it is mainly hard data and rather black and white).
These are two totally different fields that just both happen to be interested in people. Both serve their own purposes and we need to distinguish between them because both are important and calling them the same negates their importance.
Note: I am aware that many sociological theories in the past are based on some major anthropological players like Mal, RB, Evans Pritchard, and especially Durkheim. The foundations of sociology and the modern sociology are very different though. Anthro tends to keep more in touch with the old school dudes. I believe sociology is more in tune with Lazerfield (but don't quote me on this).
I'm done ranting now!
Go anthro! lol
