Anthropology

(1)The idea of cultural relativism circumvents in the ability of utilizing opportunities towards studying culture and its facets in a wider perspective without traces of bias and prejudice. Here, cultural relativism is an anthropological approach which posits that all cultures are of equal value and need to be studied from a neutral point of view (Glazer, 1996, p.1). Seeing its relevance within the discipline, this principle remains to be an important precept that shapes the outcome of any anthropological analysis or perspective.

    Methodologically, cultural relativism remains to be useful for scientists because of its ability to provide a keen sense of awareness on principles shaping how individuals and groups within a societal standpoint view reality. This then encourages greater means to synthesize research perspectives and widen new means towards valuing changes within the anthropological discipline.

    However, there are also associated limitations in this perspective. Here, they include (1) ascertaining similarities in different cultures, (2) hinders the ability to establish a common viewperspective in addressing elements prevalent in different cultures, and (3) may prove to be problematic in seeking to outline a comparative perspective among cultures for it may create one that is greater or supplements the principles that are studied

(2)    Applied anthropologists can facilitate change and stabilization within the Iraq in the aftermath of the 2003 war by bringing in the anthropological and social climate shaping policy implementation and development in the region. Here, it resonates with the ability to understand the differing perspectives in terms of values and culture between the U.S. troops and the numerous religious parties in Iraq. Given the diversity of affiliations among Iraqis, it can also be seen that they share a differing view of analyzing democracy and how the current situation is catering towards further destabilization of their culture and identity. Seeing the ability of applied anthropologists in catering towards a diverse and wider view in specific observations, their policies are more in-tune with reality and what Iraqis need sociologically and anthropologically speaking.

    On the other hand, the ability of anthropologists to address these issues in Iraq would remain feasible but never an easy task to accomplish. This is because there are corresponding challenges that need to undertaken and experienced. Since these anthropologists are also outsiders, it may take time for acceptable policies are incorporated into the system. So if policy makers desire a short-term strategy, this process remains to be difficult to achieve.

(3)    The idea of participant observation revolves in the process of seeking to understand the dynamics shaping a particular culture or group. In particular, the researcher participates in peoples daily lives and records what he or she sees and hears (Minnesota State University, 2003, p.1). Such actions then encourage better view and analysis on how these principles equally shape actions and responsiveness of actors in different issues shaping their realities.

    Analyzing its strengths, the value of participant observation establishes better means of analyzing issues and trends in a more effective manner. Since the information gained is through the researchers experience, it is more in-tune with reality and fosters greater appreciation of an anthropological issue. Similarly, it also shows how people perceive knowledge and develop a keen sense of how culture shapes lives (Minnesota State University, 2003). However, one drawback of this approach remains in the value that researchers analyze data. Here, since they are immersed with the culture, interpretations may become biased or opinionated. The idea of fieldwork remains important in anthropology because it bridges the study from theoretical perspective to what is happening in reality. It is in here that anthropologists can study issues in a clearer and direct manner.

(4)    Assessing the differences between horticulturalists, agriculturalists, and industrialized farmers, it can be seen that their divergence corresponds to specific farming methods and how it is administered accordingly. In particular, horticulturalists seek to develop and adapt to the current trends shaping crop development. Here, they try to incorporate traditional and new methods (technology) to help innovate and promote continued effectiveness and growth in their specific specialization. This then encourages better means for expanding and maintaining crop diversity.

    On the other hand, an agriculturalist revolves around the cultivation of the soil. Their main focus has been to allow the land to provide effective means for crops and different plants to grow and develop. Here, they are primarily concerned only with reinforcing means for land to continue to be supplemental for plant life and crop development. In essence, they see the soil as primary catalyst in reinforcing stability and sustainability in farming methods.

    Lastly, an industrial farmer is one that seeks to promote efficiency with the incorporation of technology and new methods related to increasing productivity and profit. It can be seen that the main focus of this process corresponds to the value of enhancing crops and land to meet the demands of the business.