Did the “national character” or religion of my teachers influence their writings? To try to answer, I will follow Mead’s practice of “using yourself as data.” She joined Einstein in her awareness of the interplay between the observer and the observed.

I always think it is worth remembering that the German Intellectual Tradition (the Git?) was not a monolith and Boas, in particular, is difficult to stuff in one box or another.

There is a video of Boyer’s talk at the original UBC conference online, but I can’t find the URL now. But his chapter is posted on his website:

http://artsci.wustl.edu/~pboyer/PBoyerHomeSite/articles/9999BoyerConsilienceAnthropology.pdf

@MTBradley: Your statement, “excavations lead by classicists have a reputation as being far less systematic than those lead by anthropological archaeologists” is way off base. Classicists do fieldwork and analysis that is far more meticulous, exacting, and precise (Boyer’s erudition mode) than anthropological archaeologists. As a member of the latter group, I am sometimes ashamed at the sloppiness or our empirical work compared to classical archaeologists. We used to be able to claim superiority on social theory, comparison, and big-picture issues, but now the best classicists are as good as, or better than, anthropological archaeologists at this level, too.

I also appreciate the fact that Benedict highlights the value of life histories. I think that’s a good example of a research approach that benefits more from a humanities perspective. I mean, I guess you could analyze life histories through some rigorous scientific framework, but I’m not sure what purpose that would serve.

In the original post Rex asks: “Wouldn’t it be great if we could get back to this sort of style?”

It would be great. I used to wonder why so many intro courses assigned Benedict’s Patterns of Culture–the book is pretty old, after all. But I do think that part of the reason is the way that it’s written. It is undoubtedly readable, and sometimes I wonder when and why the communication style of anthropology went in a completely different direction. Anyway, I think that finding ways to rethink the overall style of communication and writing is a pretty good idea.

Rethinking your remark this morning, I recalled where I had heard a similar proposition. I was interviewing Sekizawa Hidehiko, then the Director of the Hakuhodo Institute of Life and Living as part of the research for my book on Japanese consumers. I had noted that all of the institute’s researchers were employees of Hakuhodo, the advertising agency that created the institute. Some were from creative divisions (Sekizawa himself had been a copywriter), some from the marketing or R&D division, one, who would later be in charge of the R&D division and then promoted to the agency’s board of directors, a systems engineer. When I asked if the institute ever employed academics, Sekizawa grinned and said, No, academics only see the world as their discipline sees it. Hire a sociologist and all you get is sociology. Hire an economist and all you get is economics. The institute’s members preferred to think of the institute as like the British intelligence service, MI5, “high amateurs” (a Japanese-English term) who know a lot of different stuff and are all intensely interested in what is going on around them. “Sounds like anthropologists to me,” I thought to myself.

P.S. When I use the term “peasant” I am not putting down people who acquire deep expertise in narrow fields. I think of Candide at the end of his journey cultivating his own garden. I think of someone like my dad, an avid horticulturist who knew all the plants in every inch of the gardens he made and in which he spent much of his life—common and scientific names, seeds, roots, stems, leaves, flowers, fruit, growth patterns, preferred climates and soils. He was, among other things, responsible for introducing bamboo cultivation to York County, Virginia.

The other aspects of his legacy are not unimportant…but that we forget to remember these aspects based in Jewish liberalism as they are becoming important in this thread was amazing.

Rex, Boas got into a great deal of trouble for his pacifism—-; it’s also good to remember that he asserted his German heritage when German immigrants were working in the horrific conditions of the steel mills in Pittsburgh and the coal mines of Appalachia (my own great grandad from Germany died of TB in the textile mills of Connecticut, then) —and as Boas advocated for equality for immigrants and African Americans. My comments hadn’t been meant as a general discussion of Boas, but a reflection that we choose to selectively forget our ancestors’ past humanism in taking on the academic elites and the price paid for it ..as well as a means to ask how today’s attempts to engage in public anthropology are against the interests of elites. We understand now that the elites of Boas’s times were developing “science” in attempting to justify social inequality—-what’s going on today that serves the academic elites? Just asking for light…and noting a continuity…

Some ‘scientists’ argue that anthropology is a ‘pre-paradigmatic’ science but someone (Stephen Murray?) has argued that it is actually a post-paradigmatic one. We have seen what rigor in science and decided against it. I feel like we are constantly in the process of ratcheting up the quality of claims and analysis and then realizing we don’t want to do that sort of scholarship and falling back into amateurism. Not that I have anything against it. But I think one of the things that appeals to use about Benedict’s piece is it’s lack of scholarly focus or analysis — it’s “you know, the humanities. Like, Santayana and stuff” quality.

“However, to gloss him as “german,” when he was a stigmatized and perhaps racialized by the dominant elite in Germany, is indeed a disservice to the liberal ideas he embraced and transmitted to his students…”

Why would it be a disservice to account for Boas’s German roots? I don’t get it. Boas self-identified as a German-American. He clearly had strong intellectual and cultural ties to Germany, to the extent that he spoke out publicly against US intentions at the outset of World War I. I don’t understand why this is so problematic in your view.

“I do however, detect in my readings of Boas, strains of thought that are certainly consonant, if not derivitative of, the German intellectual tradition.”

Yep, you’re right about that. Boas was educated in Germany, and what came to be known as Boasian anthropology was heavily shaped by his training in German cultural geography.

Additionally, Boas clearly identified himself as a German-American once he was in the states…his 1916 New York Times op-ed “Why German Americans Blame America” is one example.

So…I find Linda’s comment a little puzzling. I’m unclear as to why it’s a disservice to Boas to note his German cultural and intellectual heritage. He seemed to embrace it, after all.

Anyway, great idea for a reading Alex. I’m checking it out right now…