Comments on: Four Sick Fields?

By: Kate

Kate — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 01:15:44 +0000

Wow, since this was posted ages ago I’m sure no one will see my comments, but I had to respond. I am a biological anthropologist and I was surprised at what a reductionist interpretation of bio anthro passed as correct here. As a reproductive ecologist that examines socio-environmental factors and their relationship to reproductive function, my work doesn’t have anything to do with genetics or carbon dating. If you want a great unifier, look to bio anthro’s subdisciplines of behavioral ecology and reproductive ecology. Lifestyle’s influence on biology is, to me and many others, greater than genetics’.

By the way, Lewontin did a pretty good job showing that race is not biologically significant back in the 70s with blood haplotypes (which is altogether different from saying it’s culturally significant). Most good bio anthro folks are quite satisfied with his answer.

I’d also have to echo Duke: we read your work, read ours and you won’t have such disdain for science. I’m continually amazed at the derisive shouts of “sociobiologist!” I’ve gotten from sociocultural… especially from people who have read only selected critiques of EO Wilson, not his original (or subsequent) work.

By: Grundfragen der Ethnologie

Grundfragen der Ethnologie — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:01:35 +0000

[...] ic Document. Available online:
http://www.aaanet.org/anthbroc.htm
GOLUB, ALEX. 2005.
Four sick fields?.
Savage Minds,
16 May 2005. Electronic Document. Available online:
ht [...]

By: Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » Mandatory ‘Biologists Don’t Get People’ Rant

Sun, 29 May 2005 20:52:52 +0000

[...] nothing against biology or evolution, and in fact I’ve argued on SM in the past for the value of a ‘four field’ approach. So I am not one of those dreaded & [...]

By: tigerbear

tigerbear — Wed, 18 May 2005 10:57:56 +0000

By the way, I’m not sure about this at all:

People who do biological anthropology, for there part, don’t understand why cultual anthropologists answer all questions regarding the physical composition of humans with the line “Boas proved race doesn’t exist years ago.”

There’s no reason why this hypothetical biological anthropologist should be satisfied by that answer at all, pertaining, as it does, to a time when aristogenesis was still a viable scientific theory. I don’t know exactly what orange-related question this person was asking, but the soc anther’s response is purely about apples.

By: tigerbear

tigerbear — Wed, 18 May 2005 10:15:47 +0000

I’d recommend John M. Lynch, who writes a blog called stranger fruit at:

http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/blog/

By: Will

Will — Wed, 18 May 2005 06:48:49 +0000

Seems to me, based on my experience as a rising graduate student in archaeology, that the four fields aren’t going anywhere. If anything, they are becoming more defined because of the branching off within those subfields (ethno-botanist, archaeo-astronomer, etc.). It’s just a very easy and efficient way to organize the vast field of anthropology. I have yet to encounter any tension between the fields (only because I’m relatively new to academia) but I’m not worried.

By: Duke

Duke — Wed, 18 May 2005 01:15:54 +0000

As an archaeology grad student at a dedicated 4-field school, I find this “ugly cousin” sort of attitude disappointing. Us bone diggers have plenty to contribute, and we read your work; read ours. We have temporal depth, and we encounter social forms that do not exist today, anywhere. Maybe you’d learn something. Culture, the unifying concept.

By: Rex

Rex — Tue, 17 May 2005 23:17:05 +0000

Tigerbear: We’ve talked about this amongst ourselves at length and have been looking around for archaeolgoical and biological anthro contributors. Any reccomendations?

By: tigerbear

tigerbear — Tue, 17 May 2005 18:22:58 +0000

Well, if engaging with biological anthropology is the issue, a good start might actually be to include a biological anthropologist in a group anthropology blog.

By: oneman

oneman — Tue, 17 May 2005 17:45:50 +0000

I agree that it’s an uneasy alliance — freakin’ Boas! I wouldn’t be so quick to write off biological anthro just yet, though — in addition to race, let’s not forget that all that stuff about human evolution, e.g. how we came to be culture-using creatures, is in their territory as well. As someone whose graduate department was explicitly sociocultural only, I find that I’m behind the curve on a lot of topics — though having covered the rudiments of the 4-fields as an undergrad, I think I’m in a better position than most non-anthros to pick them up. But in my own work, I definitely find more of use in history, philosophy, and literary criticism than I do from archaeology or biological anthro.

By: John Norvell

John Norvell — Tue, 17 May 2005 17:31:47 +0000

I like archaeologists, too! They’ve usually got the party going on. I read archaeologists. I just consider them second cousins. And a few of them are nasty.

By: Lonely Donut Man

Lonely Donut Man — Tue, 17 May 2005 17:00:28 +0000

I never met an Anthropologist that I didn’t like. You may want to shuffle the ‘bone diggers’ off by themselves and make it a holy trinity. They always were an odd lot.

By: Rex

Rex — Tue, 17 May 2005 06:21:33 +0000

Hmm…. so you consider linguistic and cultural anthropology to be joined at the hip, and you’re interested in biological stuff because you work on race, so… basically you dislike archaeologists :?)

Seriously though, thanks for your comments and feedback.

By: Motes & Theories on Anthropology

Motes & Theories on Anthropology — Tue, 17 May 2005 05:12:06 +0000

Anthropology: Scenes from a Marriage

I just watched Bergman’s Scenes from a Marriage over the weekend. This is us to a “t,” and I’d like to extend the analogy. Marianne and Johan have a marriage which is hilariously idealized in the press. But it’s loveless, despite mutual respect an…

By: John Norvell

John Norvell — Tue, 17 May 2005 04:19:53 +0000

By the way, the main referent of the “[sic]” part of my category pun is the number: for me linguistic and cultural anthropology are joined at the hip. I usually “three,” myself.