I mean who cares. Honestly: it’s completely unconnected to anything that really matters to us. Phenomenologically its one of the most boring experiences one can have, and you can’t even see it without special gear. Am I the only one who thinks the emperor has no clothes on this one?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m amazed and gratified to see there is a culture out there that can invest so much meaning out of so little — I am, after all, an anthropologist. And I only begrudge the astronomers their massive funding a little bit. What really bothers me is the screwed up priorities that make this sort of thing a media spectacle.
I understand that astronomers are deeply personally committed to goals which most people find incomprehensible and not worthwhile — all academics suffer from this problem. I understand that moving science forward is important and that there is, somewhere, down the road something useful that comes from much of the basic research that astronomers do. And I understand that we need science education that explains to people why this stuff is important and they should continue funding it.
But often this validation of disciplines like astronomy is made by delegitimizing disciplines like — wait for it — anthropology, which deal with topics which are extremely value relevant to most people. Hiding behind the transit of venus is a glorification of ‘hard science’ which goes hand in hand with the dismissal of the ‘soft’. Riding alongside it is media coverage telling people to spend a portion of their day thinking about the stars rather than whether austerity will actually lead to economic growth.
Anthropology is not like the dream of perfect pure knowledge that so many people aspire to (bench science isn’t either, but that’s another story). We just produce another kind of knowledge about things that matter here, today, and now to people. The transit of Venus will not come again in your lifetime. Neither will your child’s birthday, or the invasion of Iraq. These are the things that have concrete effects on our lives and matter deeply to us. Anthropologists study these moments because they matter — something that other scientists, socialized to pursue more remote goals, somehow look down on us for. I’ll never understand them and, apparently, vice versa.
I admit there’s a fair amount of ressentiment in this post, and maybe the astronomers out there will complain that social issues already get way more coverage than astronomical data. But just think: what if people took the time they spent observing the transit of venus and spent it learning about income inequality in their home town? Or if they learned about a place radically different from their home town? Or if they tried to figure out whether tax cuts do or do not stimulate the economy? Or if they took their photo album off their shelf, sat down with their children, and sharing their family history?
Social issues get covered widely in the media, it’s true. But social science often does not. And the disciplines that hit closest to home, the ethnographic ones, don’t deserve to be bumbled off the radar by the frickin’ transit of Venus.
Ok I’m done venting. I feel better now.
That should say: *”Of course they should, but economics is usually normative…”
I think Al West is correct that the writing thing is a bit of a red herring. I did fieldwork with roboticists in Japan. They get a lot of media coverage. Like a lot. As much as any academic/research does I think. But their actual papers are kind of boring and not that well read. Often they are not really good writers either; certainly they don’t take creative writing courses. That is fine, because, like Al said, no one is meant to read those papers but other roboticists directly interested in the most recent specialized data/models/etc. and the writing style required to do that is just a bare-bones ability to communicate. They have other avenues in which their research is communicated to the public (particularly public demonstrations).
Now I don’t think it has much to do with whether their research is “relevant” or not either. Because, as Ryan has pointed out, what is relevant is in the eye of the beholder. And different people are interested in different things at different times; some of the time that has to do with “relevance”, and some of the time not. Roboticist projects are usually pitched (in the media) at least with some reference to a real function that a specific robot can perform (“care for elderly and disabled people” is common); but the production of wonder has a lot to do with the ‘interesting’-ness of robots as kind of weird and “cool” in themselves. Likewise, it seems to me that there is little reason to think that anthropologists, in order to be well read (or well reported), need to focus on being relevant as such, which seems to imply they should sacrifice good ideas (“truth”) at the altar of “branding” (why has this latter term gained so much traction? doesn’t anyone else hate it?). There is also little reason to suggest that anthropologist should make a concerted effort to try not to be relevant, which, as an ethos, would really reinforce the caricature of the irrelevant ivory tower eccentric. That may seem like not much to base a discussion on. But I think its still true and important.
Let’s take what I think is a timely contemporary example of a widely read (or widely reported) piece of work produced by an anthropologist: David Graeber’s Debt book. Graeber, I think, is a good writer; he has a rather enjoyable style and clearly a unique voice. I think he wrote something very original yet also very relevant to current topics of the day. But not something that is opportunistic, since he is very interested and passionate about the material, and the book clearly develops a set of concerns that can be traced through his earlier work (even if the first-time reader won’t see those connections). He is not confined to some old vision of anthropology; nor is he overly concerned with reinventing everything, He uses much of the unique insight the discipline has to offer onto his topic through the judicious citation of a wide range of ethnographic examples and theoretical concepts, while also not being overly restricted to certain modes of anthropological method and inquiry. You can take issue with part or all of Graeber’s book, project, personality, ideas, or whatever. That’s not the point. Because I think its quite clear that the Graeber book has been successful outside the discipline in ways that anthropologists are “never successful” at achieving (and this success has in turn launched him into mini-superstar status) and that the reason is because of ALL of these things that he did (and does) well. There is not one ‘secret’, I think, to producing a great piece of work that is widely influential on “the public”. There is no one switch to flip, one change to make, that will fix the ‘crisis’ of anthropology (which I don’t really think exists in the way that most people involved in anthropology talk about it, but I guess that’s a different discussion).
@Maniaku
Thank you. One of the most sensible things that I have ever read here. While acknowledging how important it is to many young scholars in an era of restricted funding and reduced opportunities for research in exotic places to legitimate research done closer to home, one has to wonder if the field as a whole hasn’t suffered from the loss of the cachet that association with exotic peoples and places once gave it. It is not accidental that the archetypal anthropologist in the public mind is Harrison Ford in Raiders of the Lost Ark or that primate studies, e.g., Jane Goodall’s, get more press than studies of human populations that are not seen, as CEOs, celebrities and “undiscovered tribes” are, exotic enough to be interesting. In a world of, to quote an old Panasonic slogan, “Always something new,” difference per se becomes boring.
That is why “relevance” has become a buzzword in the propaganda trades. “Different” but “nothing to do with me” doesn’t cut it any more. And where “relevance” is supposed to consist of pointing to yet another example of people at the dirty end of the world’s great stick, it runs head on into what has been labeled “compassion fatigue.” “Depressing…please, God, not me” instead of “We have to do something about this.”
Interesting observations, John and Maniaku.
I cannot say something unsavory towards the early field studies and research of the pioneers of Anthropology. Studying the different and exotic was relevant and imperative during their time. The goal before was knowing unknown identities for multiple reasons such as national integration, academic curiosity, spiritual recruitment, biological and behavioral comparison, proving and disproving social and cultural theories,etc. The anthropological practice then can be generally described as descriptive.
Now that the problem, as far as identities are concerned, is about their loss and survival, I don’t think it is still reasonable for anthropology not to be prescriptive. Identities that are losing and surviving are obvious everywhere– from wives or husbands who have midlife identity crises resulting to divorce or domestic abuse and violence to warring gangs who want to reestablish their dominance and identities to large scale incidences of ethnic violence due to groups’ social and cultural identities.
Why get stuck at knowing unknown identities in a highly globalized world when the present need is solving problems related to lost identities? Urban middle class families, who can no longer afford their mortgage or rent, missing their old lifestyle and economic status, becoming homeless, and resorting to crimes for survival need to be studied than the nomadic group wearing bird feathers as headdresses in the Amazon. Why some mothers sell their daughters on Craigslist is a problem. Why the feather headdress of a nomad is red is not really the kind of thing anthropologists should be problematizing in today’s economic and political climate.
*resulting in divorce
Hey Al,
“But if an anthropologist researches some aspect of capitalism in America, then what they’re doing already has a hundred experts, many of whom will have a much better grasp of the problems and the intricacies of analysing the relevant data than the anthropologist.”
I disagree with your argument that the experts have a better grasp of the relevant data, especially when there is a lot of disagreement, for example, between economists and economic anthropologists about how to even think about human economies. Oftentimes economists are looking at very different things than anthropologists, and they have very different perspectives about the ways in which economies work. Depends on the economist, but the point is that I would not assume that the economists automatically already have all the answers, or that their approach is the only way to look at things.
“That was the point; an ‘ethnography of Wall Street’ is a sociologist’s task, even if we (bizarrely) call it ‘ethnography’.”
Frankly, I could care less whether the task is done by a sociologist or an anthropologist, especially since the two fields share so much in terms of both theories and methods. I mean, are you really all that concerned about whether people like Durkheim, Mauss, or Pierre Bourdieu were technically anthros or sociologists? I am not all that worried about maintaining some strict wall between the two.
“There are few reasons to read an anthropologist’s account of Wall Street over a sociologist’s or even an economist’s.”
Actually, I can think of a lot of reasons why I would prefer to read an anthropological account of Wall Street versus one written by an economist. In truth I’d be interested in reading all three accounts to see how they all assess (or don’t) how Wall Street works.
“Nowadays fieldwork is a necessity and you can work on anything that an economist could also work on, just with a particular method. That’s a terrible division of labour, to say the least.”
Why? The method–or how we approach and actually study subjects–is everything. You act as if an economist’s study would be the end all just because it addresses a particular subject or theme. Hardly.
“What do you mean by “anthropology” there?”
I mean anthropology as I know it. The study of humanity in the past and present. This includes the methods of anthropology (interviews, participant obs, archival research, stats, surveys, maps, whatever) and the theoretical foundations of the discipline. To me, there is no reason why the theories and methods of anthropology *must* be restricted to particular populations, subjects, or societies. For me, fascinating results can come from studying more classic subjects (as you advocate) or the kind of work that Karen Ho undertook.
“Why study modern economies when there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who already do this and when pre-modern economies receive so little attention?”
So, in effect, your argument is that anthropologists should not study modern economies because the econs and the sociologists already have that covered. I disagree, to say the least. Have you read some of the work of Graeber, Keith Hart, or some of the other economically minded anthropologists out there? I think they are adding a layer to our understanding of how economies work that is definitely not getting covered by the econs out there.
“The desire to be “relevant” is causing anthropologists to ignore the really interesting things out there that only they are trained to study, and Rex’s post, showing disdain for anything that isn’t of immediate value besides its intrinsic interest, is symbolic of this.”
Really interesting according to whom? Also, your assumption here is that anthros are looking at things like modern economic systems only because of some desire to be relevant and nothing more. I’m not so sure about that one. Personally, I am interested in economic anthropology because it provides a very different take on the subject of economics than the vast majority of economists–that’s for sure. Look, I have read my fair share of work by economists. I think the econ anthros out there (Hart, Graeber, Wilk, etc) are absolutely adding a perspective about human economic systems that is extremely valuable. And your basic argument that we should simply leave economics to the economists kind of falls flat in my book.
All in all, we have a very different vision of anthropology. That’s pretty clear. So it goes. If we end up ever working in the same department, maybe we can get into some big fights about this and then go get some beers afterwards. Cheers.
Of course. The point is, though, that limiting yourself only to things you think are important with regard to certain social issues in your own society is not a good ethos either. Classicists don’t try to be relevant or irrelevant; when their research is relevant, they let people know it, but most classicists work on topics they find interesting rather than those of social importance. That hasn’t done much to diminish public passion for Greco-Roman civilization, nor to threaten the existence of Classics departments. There are plenty of reasons why Classics is considered important in our society, and robotics too, and anthropologists studying groups lost to the historical record have their work cut out making them interesting to other people sometimes. But anthropology was, until relatively recently, the kind of discipline you got into out of sheer interest. Like astronomy, or Egyptology, or mathematics.
Ryan,
So, history, economics, Classics, Sinology, sociology, public health, media studies, social and cognitive psychology – they’re all just anthropology? I agree that they are, in that they study fundamentally the same thing, people, but disciplines are divided up by division of labour and by topic, and anthropology covers things that no other discipline does – like marriage alliance and pre-state social structure.
Chemistry wholly reduces to physics; that was the great project of chemistry through the twentieth century under great chemists like Linus Pauling. The whole thing is, ultimately, physics. But if you go into a physics department you shouldn’t expect to study chemistry, even if they are ultimately the same thing. They should correspond with one another, but these disciplines take a lot of time to understand. If you spent all your time reading about physics, you (probably) wouldn’t be able to answer the research questions that chemists work on. You wouldn’t be a chemist if you did that.
The research questions that anthropology used to be about haven’t gone away. It’s just that the method we’ve got and have to do PhDs with is becoming less and less capable of answering them, and the acceptance of sociological topics in anthropology departments has led to a decline in the number of people studying anthropological problems.
I find it very weird to hear social problems in the USA called “ethnographic” problems by Rex in his post. This usage is very recent. Social questions are things like, “how do we reduce the wealth gap?” and “would it be good to raise taxes for the rich?” They’re normative and designed for answers now, in the present, to serve as the basis for action. Ethnographic questions are things like, “who were the Scythians?” and “why do Tetum speakers use the same word, lolon, for room, womb, and tomb?” You might not find those latter interesting or relevant or anything worthwhile at all, but they are ethnographic problems in contrast to social problems nonetheless. There is already a perfectly good sociological vocabulary for describing the things Rex is discussing, but he chooses terms derived from anthropology – seemingly for no other reason than brand loyalty. That is a very strange, recent, development, and it’s not a necessary one if the reason behind it is the desire to be read.
But it’s not everything. It’s just a way of finding out things to be analysed in order to answer questions about people. The method anthropology has is very, very narrow, and applies not to research questions or philosophical problems, but to a kind of current affairs. It can only find out what is happening now. I’m interested in finding out the answers to questions about people both more generally and with regard to topics you call “classic” but which are really just anthropological in contrast to sociological ones. Sociologists don’t tackle matrilateral cross-cousin marriage; and I don’t doubt that there will come a day when that phenomenon is no longer practiced on earth, and when it will be beyond the reach of the method practiced by anthropologists. Then what? Who will study it? Will a new discipline arise that will study such things after the term “anthropology” has become so debased in meaning? Will brief, cursory kinship-based social structure courses still be taught in anthro departments out of sheer precedent and brand loyalty?
I’m not arguing against anthropologists tackling big themes, and I really, genuinely don’t care whether big theme books about people are written by anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists, or even geographers and MBAs (in contrast to all those people who hate Jared Diamond for butting in). It’s just very odd that for PhDs and other research, a lot of people in anthropology departments take on topics that other disciplines are already devoted to. That’s really weird. This is especially odd when there is a lot that anthropologists have left to do, that only they can do.
There was a recent post on here saying that anthropologists can look for employment in sociology and film studies departments. The reason for this is simply that a lot of anthropological research just is sociology. I’m interested in the history and prehistory of the Malay archipelago, human kinship, pre-state social structure, marriage alliance, the fundamental nature of human cognition and social organisation, the origin of writing, the spread of literacy throughout Afro-Eurasia, as well as warfare, headhunting, and human sacrifice. I’m also interested in contributing to the ethnographic record by conducting research in previously unresearched areas, of which there are surprisingly many. These are all fundamental, vital, fascinating, anthropological topics, and trust me when I say that sociology departments don’t hire people with these interests.
You’re probably right that we won’t agree, but I won’t agree to disagree. That’s too apathetic.
Al,
“You’re probably right that we won’t agree, but I won’t agree to disagree. That’s too apathetic.”
Now that’s a good answer. Thanks for that one. The last thing we need is more apathy.
“So, history, economics, Classics, Sinology, sociology, public health, media studies, social and cognitive psychology – they’re all just anthropology?”
Yes and no. Yes for the reason you already mentioned: they all study humanity in a broad sense. But no because they each have their own methods and theoretical tradition (though there is overlap on both counts). And to me, sociology and history come closest to anthropology. In fact, in many ways sociology and anthropology look really similar to me…and this does not bother me all that much. We share many of the same roots, methods, and underlying principles. Still despite many of the similarities, there are some clear differences between these disciplines, and I chalk it up to methodology combined with the intellectual histories of each one. Rather than chosen subject matter, THAT is what I think separates these disciplines, and what can lead to some different ways of looking at similar (or even the same) problems.
“But it’s not everything. It’s just a way of finding out things to be analysed in order to answer questions about people. The method anthropology has is very, very narrow, and applies not to research questions or philosophical problems, but to a kind of current affairs. It can only find out what is happening now.”
In my view anthropological methods aren’t narrow in the least. But this is probably a reflection of my US-centric four-field training. So to me anthropological methods can include a pretty wide range of strategies, not just those of social anthropology. But I’d also include archival research in the mix as well. So to me anthropological research methods can tackle what is happening NOW, but also what happened in the past.
“It’s just very odd that for PhDs and other research, a lot of people in anthropology departments take on topics that other disciplines are already devoted to. That’s really weird.”
Hmmm. The best I can say is that this is not that weird to me. In the case of economics, as I have already said, I think that anthropologists are actually in a good position (and have the right training) to provide an understanding of human economic systems that economists aren’t covering in the least.
Clearly, Al, we have some very different views about this. So what’s your solution? What needs to be done, in your view, to alleviate the situation. Does the discipline of anthropology need to find a way to impose strict thematic boundaries? How will these boundaries be defined and upheld? And, more importantly, what are the stakes here? Why does this whole issue matter?
Thanks, by the way, for the discussion.
Courtesy of Torgeir Fjeld on lit-ideas
Society sooner or later must return to its lost leader, the cultured and fascinating liar. Who he was who first, without ever cutting the chase, told the wandering cavemen at sunset how he had dragged the megatherium from the purple darkness of its jasper cave, or slain the mammoth in single combat and brought back its gilded tusk, we cannot know, and not one of our modern anthropologists, for all their much-boasted science, have the gall to tell.
Oscar Wilde, /The Decay of Lying/
Why are you arguing about leaving economics to economists? Nobody is taking it from them. Economists do study economics. Sociologists, anthropologists, and some psychologists study parts of it that are being left out by mathematicalized economics.
Alfred Marshall’s Principles of Economics (8th edition) has the most holistic definition:
“Political economy or economics is a study of mankind in the ordinary business of life; it examines that part of individual and social action which is most closely connected with the attainment and with the use of the material requisites of wellbeing.
Thus it is on one side a study of wealth; and on the other, and more important side, a part of the study of man.”
Isn’t “a study of mankind” anthropology? I do think, however, “business of life” is a qualifier. It can be about managing to survive that obviously involves money or anything of value that is important for survival. Marshall’s inclusion of “individual and social action” sounds psychological and sociological to me, but again “material requisites of wellbeing” is another qualifier that suggests goods or products that satisfy needs and demands.
The last part is very telling– economics, indeed, partly studies wealth. That’s what economists do–analyze money, numbers, profit, capital. They are too preoccupied with money and wealth, which is quantitative, that they abandon the most important question, “what does money or wealth or lack of it do to humans?” which is qualitative and anthropological.
Damn close reading!
Maybe there are economic anthropologists here who can give us details how the linear evolution of economics from being qualitative to quantitative happened. I think the evolution of exchange–from barter and other primitive modes to the use of money–had something to do with it.
Ryan,
In the statement that provoked this comment I was referring to anthropology when it is considered to be the application of participant-observation, not anthropology as I would class it. I agree that anthropologists investigating anthropological issues use a huge range of methods, but my point is that anthropology has become conflated with the participant-observation method. Patrick Kirch is an excellent anthropologist who has spent his life and career working on the settlement of the Pacific and the nature of its societies. It’s all fascinating stuff. He uses ethnographic, archaeological, linguistic, oral historical, and genetic data to uncover this – the four-field approach, but interlinked to, in his words, “triangulate” developments in the prehistoric Pacific Ocean. That’s anthropology; the attempt to answer certain ethnographic questions.
These questions are distinct from history and sociology, even though the lines between them are permeable. The point is one of division of labour and topics. As I said, sociologists don’t study asymmetric marriage alliance or the peopling of the Pacific.
It bothers me because anthropology does have a set of research questions that sociology doesn’t. Of course they’re similar in many ways, but it’s not the intellectual histories of the disciplines that separate them (as you note, many famous anthropologists are also famous sociologists, including Durkheim, Bourdieu, etc). It’s the subjects they (once) tackle(d). Recruitment to descent groups, the origin of the state, marriage alliance – those, among many others, are problems only anthropologists address. You appear to disagree, saying:
But then you admit later that anthropology’s research methods are quite broad, including archival research, etc. And, moreover, sociology employs almost all of the research methods of anthropology (historical linguistics isn’t so useful to sociologists, but participant-observation certainly is), so the divide isn’t one of method. It’s not one of background or theoretical assumptions either, because I hope we’re all on the same page in our general understanding of the universe. Latour is mad whether you’re a sociologist or an anthropologist, and I think we are all aware of this, across disciplinary boundaries.
The difference between the disciplines is really in what they study, as I say. Sociologists don’t study the migrations of Austronesian-speaking people into the Pacific or how the nature of marriage alliance affects recruitment to clans and lineages, or how a segmentary system actually works, or any number of other things. But anthropologists are also moving away from studying these topics! Where are anthropologists moving to? Territory already demarcated for sociology.
I don’t have one really, except a tightening of restrictions on what counts as an anthropology PhD. But since there are already thousands upon thousands of people with anthropology PhDs on topics that are (arguably) not anthropological in nature, I don’t think there’s much that can be done, certainly not by me, except complain, whine, and point out the problem. It is peculiar that “anthropology” has become the word for a brand of social science more than anything else. A brand that, bizarrely, welcomes crazy people like Gilles Deleuze.
As for why this matters – well, there has been a decline in the quantity and quality of anthropological scholarship, and a proliferation of mutually contradictory theories on topics that are reasonably well studied and understood. I’m sure there are a great many fantastic theses coming out of anthropology departments centered on those topics I consider sociological, but there are also a lot of students, even grad students, who study anthropology and come away without a good understanding of what the difference is between patrilateral and matrilateral cross-cousin marriage (to mention only one topic). I know that this is true because I know a lot of anthropology grad students at excellent universities (as I’m sure you do), and I know that many of them are totally ignorant of the intricacies of anthropological topics like that. There are no up-to-date textbooks on kinship out there (Fox’s is old, Stone’s is too brief, etc, and the field is developing all the time with data from primatology, etc), and none of them are habitually used on anthropology courses, so while psychologists have giant, intricate, wonderful textbooks for their sub-disciplines, anthropology students can’t expect systematic teaching on the toughest subjects. And they’re the only ones who get any training at all in those subjects. I find that a little sad, especially when the reason for it is simply that students want to study things other academics are already studying, but (usually) with a very slight twist.
Thank you as well for the discussion. It has been very interesting.
Hey Al,
“I agree that anthropologists investigating anthropological issues use a huge range of methods, but my point is that anthropology has become conflated with the participant-observation method.”
Ok, I see what you mean. Like when someone does participant-observation in geography or sociology and calls what they are doing “ethnography,” right? I guess the question is whether anthropologists own all of the exclusive rights to “ethnography” or not. Are we the only ones who really do ethnography?
“The point is one of division of labour and topics. As I said, sociologists don’t study asymmetric marriage alliance or the peopling of the Pacific.”
Well, I guess I don’t really buy into the original division of labor between anthropology and sociology. I never really have. I understand why sociologists were tasked with studying “society” (ie the west) and anthropologists were supposed to study “the rest,” but I really don’t think it ever made much sense. Why? Because that assumes a kind of deep, essential difference between the west and the rest that requires two separate fields of study. I think it only made sense if you accept the idea that there is some fundamental difference between these two (somewhat imagined) groups. I am suspicious about this claim.
“But anthropologists are also moving away from studying these topics! Where are anthropologists moving to? Territory already demarcated for sociology.”
And this territory that’s demarcated for sociology…you’re referring to modern or industrial society, right? Well, what happens when a community that was formerly the domain of anthropologists suddenly “modernizes”? Then what? Is this society now only the proper purview of sociologists? See, that’s one of the main issues I have with this division of labor between anthropology and sociology: it assumes a kind of static difference among different groups of humans.
“I don’t have one really, except a tightening of restrictions on what counts as an anthropology PhD. But since there are already thousands upon thousands of people with anthropology PhDs on topics that are (arguably) not anthropological in nature…”
But how, precisely, would you define what is and what is not “anthropology”? How would you actually make a clear boundary between anthropology and sociology, for example?
“It is peculiar that “anthropology” has become the word for a brand of social science more than anything else. A brand that, bizarrely, welcomes crazy people like Gilles Deleuze.”
Ok, but it’s not as if the ideas of folks like Deleuze dominate the discipline. Maybe in some circles, but not across the board as you seem to imply. I think that’s an overstatement. Besides, theorists like that kind of come and go like trends. In the early part of the 20th century a lot of American anthropologists were all caught up on the ideas of Freud and psychology, which led into the culture and personality school. These kinds of things come and go in waves, and often spark reactions and counter-reactions.
“I find that a little sad, especially when the reason for it is simply that students want to study things other academics are already studying, but (usually) with a very slight twist.”
Ya, I see where you’re coming from now. Things like kinship often get cast aside because people see that kind of anthropology as passe or whatever. But it’s anything but passe, whether you are studying industrial or non-industrial societies. Classic themes like kinship wield a lot of importance, and I agree with you that our crops of students need to know this stuff. At the same time, I also understand that certain themes and topics kind of come and go in cycles or waves. Kinship, to stick with your example, seems to be something that’s coming back around.
I’ll admit that I’m probably not the best person to be talking about disciplinary boundaries, because sometimes I feel like I am somewhere between an anthropologist, an archaeologist, a geographer, and a historian. I read across all those lines, even though my primary affiliation is with a certain lineage of US-centric anthropology (which was of course the byproduct of German cultural geography thanks to Franz Boas). All in all, I actually agree with you about the importance and value of certain aspects of the anthropological canon…but I think I have a fundamental disagreement with you about the proper SCOPE or SUBJECT that anthropology covers.
To me, any human group or society can be studied anthropologically, whether this means US-centric, British social anthropology, or Latin American anthropology. I just don’t think that anthropology is only pertinent to or useful for certain groups of people, mostly because I don’t think the divisions between those groups are really sharp enough to warrant some strict division of labor. Besides, I think a lot of the work of geographers, sociologists, historians, and anthropologists speaks to many of the same larger questions and problems. But I know that we’re all supposed to stay in our own departments because of the current regime of academia and all that.
Thanks again, Al. A pleasure.
“The difference between the disciplines is really in what they study, as I say. Sociologists don’t study the migrations of Austronesian-speaking people into the Pacific or how the nature of marriage alliance affects recruitment to clans and lineages, or how a segmentary system actually works, or any number of other things. But anthropologists are also moving away from studying these topics! Where are anthropologists moving to? Territory already demarcated for sociology.
So what’s your solution?”
Migration and kinship sound so genetic and biological. Maybe the saving grace for anthropology is to embrace biology and other hard sciences in its study of humans– their societies and cultures included.
I’m not really sure what you mean about kinship. It’s still active (by some people), just not in the structural-functionalist form (which was not willy-nilly “case aside” but rather criticized and found untenable). I guess the state of the art in these things is Janet Carsten’s Cultures of Relatedness. It’s true that not everyone studies kinship as a research topic as there is more specialization than in the old monographs, which had standardized chapters on economics, political organization, kinship, religion, etc. But specialization, whatever its problems, is different than a decline in quality.
Al, you talk about the difference from sociology being in what we/they study. What is it that believe is the topic of anthropology? The study of primitive peoples? The study of non-western peoples? Is contemporary Japan, so I can understand your argument, an example of a sociological or an anthropological space? Was Embree’s study of pre-WW2 village life anthropology? But not Anne Allison’s study of global cool and pop culture? Assuming that is the case, there is some point at which Japan ceases to be an “anthropological topic.” That is what I understand you to be implying. But I don’t understand on what basis since that seems rather arbitrary. While arbitrariness and power often go hand in hand, the result is almost always an affront to reason. So I’m glad you don’t have the power to determine what is considered a proper Anthropology PhD, which should be left as an intellectual space.
Anthropology was originally supposed to be the study of primitive peoples in order to understand the evolution of the human species. The specific contribution of ethnography and social anthropology was to conduct studies of contemporary primitive peoples which would give insights into how pre-historic people lived. This simply doesn’t work. All of this, and a suggestion to salvage the general intellectual mission of anthropology, is what Bloch talks about here:
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/PublicEvents/pdf/20050224-Bloch-Anthropology.pdf
Maybe you are concerned about the core questions of anthropology, and that’s fine. But let’s put this in perspective: the core question were never meant to be “how the nature of marriage alliance affects recruitment to clans and lineages, or how a segmentary system actually works, or any number of other things.” Those are specific questions from one slice of anthropological history, a piece of history that neither reflects anthropology’s original impetus nor its current state, and a piece of history based on a dubious theoretical framework.
And, since this is the internet, I should make at least one qualifier: please realize I use the word “primitive peoples” because it accurately describes what the founders thought they were doing, not because of my personal belief in the concept of “primitive”…
I should clarify some things here.
No, I don’t believe in a divide between “the West and the rest”. And that’s not what it’s about, at all. If the industrial revolution had occurred anywhere else on earth it would be just as different to the world that had come before it, at least with regard to the expertise required to understand it.
And there are plenty of people studying anthropological topics about what became “the West” – we just call them Classicists, Egyptologists, Assyriologists, professors of Indo-European studies, etc. Indo-European studies is identical to what anthropologists of the Austronesian world do – they use historical linguistics, archaeology, and ethnographies to understand the dispersal of people and their linguistic and cultural traits. It just so happens that many of the relevant ethnographies for Indo-European studies were written by people like Herodotus and Tacitus, and are mainly studied and researched by Classicists (although they are branching out considerably; see Martin Litchfield West’s recent books on Indo-European topics). They’re fundamentally the same, but our society places importance on these specific topics and so, for arbitrary reasons, they are separate disciplines. I would dissolve this.
I also don’t believe in aiming at understanding the “primitive” by studying existing “primitive” populations. That is a mistaken notion. I remember reading an essay by Gordon-Childe about the kind of inductive leaps made by some scholars in this attempt – Oswald Menghin, for instance, believed that the Swiss neolithic lake dwellers had matrilineal kinship, skull cults, the couvade, slavery, etc, because like Melanesians in his time they used the bow, lived in pile dwellings, and had hafted stone celts. This reasoning is of course extremely spurious.
But that isn’t to say that there aren’t similarities of some kind between groups without states, writing, industry, kings, etc. The Swiss lake dwellers didn’t live in states. And if they were around today, and someone went to find out what their society is like, the evidence would not be best understood by a political scientist. I also don’t think it would make a lot of sense to most anthropology grad students today, as their expertise is quite different.
Again, the physics/chemistry analogy: they study fundamentally the exact same thing. One demonstrably reduces to the other, in fact! But they study different things for the purposes of the division of labour. Chemists should know a lot of physics, but they should focus on solving chemistry’s research questions. Likewise, all those who research any aspect of humankind should be aware of all other disciplines and their principles, but they should try to answer questions that, for the purposes of the division of labour alone, are not answered by other disciplines.
I tried posting an extra part of that comment, but it hasn’t shown up, possibly because of length. I tried posting it again as a separate comment, a couple of times, and again it has disappeared into the system. Perhaps it will show up.