A
QUESTION: CHOOSE ANY ONE THEORY PERSPECTIVE IN ANTHROPOLOGY AND GIVE ITS STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS TOWARDS UNDERSTANDING HUMANITY

In a bid to fully understand the subject of anthropology, a number of theories have been coined, In as much these theories which takes in Marxism, Functionalism, Evolution perspective among other have done justice in their attempt to give light on the subject of humanity, they have been found wanting in some respects. This essay will discuss the evolution perspective and show its strength and weaknesses.
Anthropology is defined by Wolf E (1994) as the study of humans which takes a broad approach to understand the many different aspects of human experience and to achieve this anthropologists consider the past , through archeology, to see how human groups lived, they also consider what makes mans biological bodies and genetics, they even go to the extent of comparing humans with other animals to ascertain how humans are similar and different from these. In general they draw and builds upon knowledge from social and biological sciences, as well as the humanities and the natural sciences.
Evolution theory perspective or evolution anthropology as it is sometimes referred to is defined by Barnard A (2000) as the interdisciplinary study of the evolution of human physiology and human behaviour and the relation between hominids and non-hominid primates. He adds that evolutionary anthropology is based in natural and social science
One of the major proponents of the evolution perspective in understanding humanity was Herbert Spencer who according to Harris, M (2000) applied Darwin’s biological evolution to philosophy and , psychology and the study of the society. His main argument was that people with higher physical and mental traits make greater social advances, and in turn those living in more developed societies have experiences that further promote their intellectual faculties. Characteristics of primitive thinking that he enumerated were, a lack of conception of general facts, of ability to anticipate future, limited concepts, no abstract ideas or ideas of causality - but acute senses, quick perceptions, quick imitative learning of simple ideas, child-like thinking and rapid development reaching an early limit. Spencer extended these ideas to origin and abilities of lower socio-economic classes within the industrialized nations.
Another authority who also added his input to this theory according to Kottak C.P. (2010) is Wilhem Wundt who believed that primitive and civilized man had the same intellectual capabilities but that they just exercised them differently. He adds that his main thrust was to find psychological explanations based on data from ethnology. He contrasted stages, such as ``primitive'', ``totemic'', ``age of heroes and gods'' and ``enlightened age of humanity'', and associated each with a distinctive type of thinking.
The evolution perspective also benefited from the contribution of Edward Taylor, according to Taylor emphasized much on empirical work rather than speculation and he also mounted a rationalistic attack on divine inspirations and religious beliefs. Taylor is also said to have defined culture as a complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society. This definition emphasized the learnt and therefore changeable, as opposed to the inherited characteristics of different peoples. Taylor believed that all groups harbor vestiges of past practices eg saying ``God bless you'' on sneezing and that behavior can be understood when seen in past and present context he adds that even the most irrational customs are products of reasoning. This ``rational'' view of culture was basic to the evolutionary viewpoint. Taylor also believed in evolutionary scheme of cultures thus savagery, barbarism and civilization.
Lewis Henry Morgan also added his input to this perspective, his input according to Harris M (2000) was nothing more than elaborating on Taylors three major stages found in the evolutionary scheme. He pointed out that savagery was divided into the phases and that the lower stage was the origin of human race and that it was characterized by subsistence on wild plants. The second stage he said was characterized by fishing and the upper stage of savagery saw the introduction of bows and arrows .After savagery Lewis argued that men then evolved into barbarism which like savagery also had three similar phases which saw the introduction of pottery, domestication of animals and plants. Lewis also pointed out that civilization was the last stage in the evolution of man and that it was characterized by the introduction of writing which he says binds the past and the future.
This theory has been applauded greatly by for creating the science of humans developing systems of classification and also developing the concept of psychic unity which challenged the ethnocentric and racist ideas of degeneration and innate disposition to account for cultural diversity and paved way for the comparative method.
In as much as this theory has been instrumental in understanding humanity it should be noted that the theory has its flows and hence is found wanting in some regards, Begley S (2007) points out that the theory lack the support of actual field experience which makes it to rely on second hand accounts, he further adds that some of the data does not support theories for example the theory poses that all societies go through the same stages of development which is not true and it further equates civilization with material advancements which include technology which should not be so.
Sherwin, F. ( 2007) points out that the theory is further contradicted by evidence as it purports that all primitive societies are not peaceful and equitable, this will be painting all people with the same brush where some primitive societies were found to be more peaceful than the civilized ones. The ethnocentric view that European rational civilization is the basis and criteria for judging the worth and value of other cultures is also problematic, it had racist elements as the European society became the standard by which primitive societies were judged to be inferior, this therefore justified political and economic domination and hence fueled colonization was self serving on the part of the Europeans who heavily advocated for the theory. This theory also ignored the input of history and environment on the behavior of people, which has been proved to be fundamental.
In a nutshell, it can be concluded that the evolution perspective has been of great help and has contributed a lot in the study of humanity though it has proved to have some weaknesses in some respects. REFRENCES

1. Barnard, Alan (2000) History and Theory in Anthropology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. 2. Wolf, Eric (1994) Perilous Ideas: Race, Culture, People. Current Anthropology 3. Harris, Marvin (2000) The Rise of Anthropological Theory. Alta Mira Press 4. Kottak, C. P. (2010). Anthropology : appreciating human diversity (14th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill 5. Begley, S. 2007. Beyond Stones & Bones. Newsweek. 149 6. Sherwin, F. 2007. Scientific Discoveries Continue to Erode Darwinism. Acts & Facts. .