Nicholas Wade’s new book, A Troublesome Inheritance, drops on Amazon today. Wade, a science writer for the New York Times, has been critical of cultural anthropology in the past — and the feeling has pretty much been mutual. Inheritance is set to create a ground swell of indignation in the anthropological community because it is one of the most biologically reductionist writings to come out in years. The AAA has, to its credit, been on top of the issue and has hosted a showdown between Wade and Augustín Fuentes. Expect more coverage from us, including a couple of guest blogs, in the next couple of months.
Anthropologists of a critical bent take deep personal satisfaction in denouncing racism and reductionism wherever they find it. These days, its rare for something as blatant as Wade’s book to appear with the blessing of a major press. So… yeah. I’m guessing that it’s going to be on.
I personally prefer to use claims, reasons, and evidence to criticize authors. When books like this appear, however, its easy for passions to get inflamed and for people to make personal attacks: Jared Diamond’s comb-over is ugly, Charles Murray’s male pattern baldness makes him look like Princess Leia, etc. We also tend to make arguments of guilt from association: Madison Grant was wrong and so are you. Both of these rhetorical maneuvers don’t do justice to the uniqueness of an author’s position or engage its particulars directly — and thus are unanthropological.
As this moves forward I hope people punch above the belt. It shouldn’t be hard, since Wade is such an easy target.
TNT,
The thesis that neanderthals and anatomically modern humans interbred dates back long before Wolpoff was even born, and it was common enough knowledge that even popular books on anthropology carried the information in a matter-of -act way.
Here’s an example. As you’re reading it, try to guess what book this selection is from:
Answer? The Passing of the Great Race by Madison Grant, published in 1916.
There’s nothing wrong with building off various lines of evidence, but is someone who wrote nearly twenty years ago the best source for one of those lines of evidence?
Social scientists don’t spend much, if any, time going through the historical sources in their field. You can get a PhD in economics without ever reading Adam Smith, David Ricardo, David Hume, or Alfred Marshall. You can get a PhD in genetics without ever reading Charles Darwin or Alfred Russel Wallace.
That’s not necessarily a good thing. I can think of several reasons why economists and geneticists ought to read the major historical works in the field of economics and biology, but it’s true that most social science classics have been superseded by so much research that what’s true about them has been subsumed in the field and what’s not true about them has been dumped.