What do you think is the cultural anthropology side of Infanticide?

Question

What do you think is the cultural anthropology side of Infanticide?

Answer 1

In what context? Ritual? s*x selection of offspring? Culling defectives? Population control?

Answer 2

As for how cultural anthropologists feel about it:

There is cultural relativism, in which all beliefs, practices, etc. of a culture are supposed to be viewed only within the context of that culture, not by the standards of another.

There is also cultural universalism, which states the above, with the exception of those practices which are outright harmful and/or fatal. It's a sticky issue but most all the anthropologists I know fall in the second way of thinking. Indeed, a lot of cultural anthropologists nowadays are using their knowledge of other cultures to help people in those cultures, from community development to stopping female genital mutilation.

Infanticide has been a topic of interest for a long time. It is NOT for population control, though, it does manage sometimes to serve that purpose. That way of thinking is referred to "methodological collectivism", and wrongly attributes to the group decisions that are made on an individual level. Studies have demonstrated it usually because the costs of keeping and raising the child outweigh the benefits of doing so for the parents. In societies in which this has been practiced, this is usually the attitude towards daughters. For example, with certain Inuit groups, a boy continues living and hunting for his parents into adulthood and after marriage, whereas the girl, once she's reached puberty, will be leaving and contributing to her husband's family instead. Of course then that has the benefit of creating a network, but, at least one son is still preferable and a greater benefit. Because of that, it often leads to beliefs in that culture that are transmitted generation to generation, such as boys are preferable to girls.

Answer 3

done out of necessity for the whole maybe.

Like sending a troops overseas to protect the US.

I know, very different.

Answer 4

Anthropologists and sociologists have developed to different theories on the evolution from the familiar structures and its functions. According to these, in the most primitive societies two existed or three familiar nuclei, often united by kinship bonds, that moved together part of the year but they dispersed in the stations in which they were scarce foods. The family was an economic unit: the men hunted whereas the women gathered and prepared foods and took care of of the children. In this type of society it was normal the infanticide and the expulsion of the familiar nucleus of the patients who could not work.

Answer 5

While we believe in cultural relativism most cultural anthropologist will agree that infanticides is a violation of the Declaration of Human Rights.

Answer 6

i think it is despictable anywhere in any culture

Answer 7

The Prime Directive of Anthropological thinking is to view cultural habits from the perspective of the culture that practices it.  Unless I'm mistaken, you're asking that if this takes precedent over cultural anthropologist's feelings as human beings.

As the other answerers have already noted, I think the answer is a resounding no.  

Even if some culture, for whatever reason, practices ritual infantide the benefits can never outweight the universal value of human life, most assuredly one that has a whole life of choices yet to be made.

Answer 8

Population control, protein & food conversation, birth control, (2 year weaning period between births,