Go to FLOTSAM & JETSAM
- Add a comment
- Go to WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ANTHROPOLOGY?
Cynthia, We will break off a conversation, abruptly restart it much later.
I was thinking about my comments. I seem to believe the litmus tests for science are prediction and utility.Steven Hawking might put a contract out on me, or just buy a chair with big Waldoes and squish me himself (sort of).
If the door bell rings and a little sqwacky voice says "MAILMAN", I'm outta there. Cat might be packin' a laser...
posted by
majroj
on June 13, 2006 at 11:43 AM
| link to this | reply
Maj, that's why it HAS lasted 32 years, when you
say something, she never knows what direction the words are going and in what order they will wind up. It keeps life interesting.
posted by
Cynthia
on June 11, 2006 at 5:51 AM
| link to this | reply
My last comment DID take a hard turn there, didn't it.
Imagine living with that day after day for thirty-two years!
To my wife! 
posted by
majroj
on June 9, 2006 at 8:40 PM
| link to this | reply
FactorFiction, You never know what people will find interesting.
When I wrote this I had no idea there would be this much interest in a rather esoteric topic, but it just shows if you write about what truely engages you, readers will comment.
posted by
Cynthia
on June 9, 2006 at 4:41 AM
| link to this | reply
Maj, this comment is pretty "meaty"
I had to read it several times to catch your drift, but I think I got it and as usual you make some very interesting points.
posted by
Cynthia
on June 9, 2006 at 4:35 AM
| link to this | reply
Azur, sounds like your man has had a far more interesting
career following his own muse than he would have had going the academic route.
posted by
Cynthia
on June 9, 2006 at 4:32 AM
| link to this | reply
What an interesting post.
Anthropology, as in any science, can only produce a generalization, a trend, the broader picture, what will likely or has likely happened. But there are always those points on the graph that don't fit. What happens to the anomalies? They are discarded. The scientist treats them as if they did not happen, because they are not statistically important. Tell that to the anomaly of course.
posted by
FactorFiction
on June 6, 2006 at 9:27 AM
| link to this | reply
Now, "applied anthropology"...more meat there.
As with what used to be called "Industrial Psychology", it involves observation, more control of the environment, and linear/repetitious studies to develop and test hypotheses. Marketers and factory owners have probably gotten more bang for their buck than the government or academia in this sort of research, and their data (when not kept as a proprietary secret) has application to everyday issues.
When I was young and was a Sociology major for a quarter (haha) I thought research could be done just with the students in your class in college as a population (ala "Psych Today") and that pure research was invariably worthwhile. I now think that research without deadlines and real reasons for existence tends to be sinecures for "chronic collegiates". You need to be able to look up and see the pendulum blade swinging ever lower to get on with things and quit examining your navel.
"Writers colonies" rarely produce material of lasting worth, but Ray Bradbury produced "Farenheit 451" alone and typing against the clock on rented-time machines in a university library. Most groundbreaking clinical and surgical developements have been developed on the battlefield, and our advances in satellites and computers were impelled by WWII and the "Cold War".
posted by
majroj
on June 6, 2006 at 8:07 AM
| link to this | reply
Cynthia
Yes, he could have gone into academia as he was a gifted scholar - won all the prizes - but he decided against it. He is good at spotting trends and describing them so I guess that's how he ended up doing journalism and art rather than advertising. So anthropology has its uses - far more useful than studying journalism,
posted by
Azur
on June 6, 2006 at 5:22 AM
| link to this | reply
AZUR and MAJ, anthropology has certainly "moved on" past
it's 19th century history. Unfortunately I find many anthropologist spend more time arguing with each other, battling for a piece of turf, rather than advancing our knowledge of ourselves.
And Azur, as to making a living, the only way you can get anywhere in academia with a degree in anthropology or archaeology is if you go whole hog and get your PhD. Then you get a job and tenure in a university OR do field research. There is an alternative in the commercial world for work as an anthropologist. Many big corporations and advertising agencies use anthropologist to study how their customers use their products. It helps to figure out what we need, or think we need, or what companies can tell us what we need so they can sell us more products.
posted by
Cynthia
on June 6, 2006 at 5:08 AM
| link to this | reply
Majroj, I thought it had moved on from how you describe the hey day.
I must ask an anthropoologist. I have one in-house (and archeologist) who topped his university when he studied these topics. Of course while that degree was fascinating and great fun, it did nothing to prepare him for his economic activity in the real world.
posted by
Azur
on June 5, 2006 at 10:43 PM
| link to this | reply
Cynthia, I agree about the heyday.
1. There were more "unspoiled" cultures, if you could ignore or escape the impact of European colonialism.
2. It was ok to treat indigenous peoples as curiosities. This could allow for splendid objectivity but also for sensational trivialities.
3. There was an overweaning feeling that if you collected enough data, or religious idols or shrunken heads you could eventually piece together the picture. Either it is unknowable, or we have asked the wrong questions, or the answers like in some many other human pursuits are so mundane that we have thrown them awayin favor of continuing thte seach for some grail when what we were looking for was Dixie cups. Or the number "42".
I recommend recent re-examinations of "Ishii, The Last Yahi" and the end of his life as compared to the older more sanctioned and more romantic versions.
posted by
majroj
on June 5, 2006 at 10:34 PM
| link to this | reply
Ariel70, Anthropology isn't "pseudoscience", but it can never be "science"
in the classic sense with regards to reproducibility etc. In fact, I think being a good anthropologist might be harder than being a good scientist because you can't just sweep up some test tubes (or copper vapor lasers or particle accelerators) and whomp up an experiment, because people aren't to be treated like that, and tend to screw up your dependent and independent variables anyway.
Anthro can produce the data but it contains so much "chaos" that either the conclusions are elemental (population pressure plus maldistribution of essential goods equals either war, migration, adoption of a hierarchal society, or a dying off), or so specialized that they comprise a marvelous study which records and archives a people in time like a photo on a shelf of a Yamomani in a hammock from 1952...gone forever, but not forgotten so soon. I think we basically agree but I amfar more pessimistic about how the fruits of the study are used.
I'm waiting for Cynthia's next post!
posted by
majroj
on June 5, 2006 at 10:25 PM
| link to this | reply
Majroj, Cynthia et al
Sorry about the peremptory " Here!" Poltergeists, see?
posted by
ariel70
on June 5, 2006 at 5:23 AM
| link to this | reply
hereMajroj, Cynthia
I was not a " real" science, such as maths or physics that identified, for example, the reasons for the centripetal collapse of the Inca civilization in Meso-America.
It was the " pseudo-science" of anthropology that pointed the finger at their milpas ( slash and burn ) system of agriculture as being the prime cause of its demise.
It is not anthropology iteslf that is inherently faulty, but our failure, or inability, to heed its conclusions. To stick to the above example, the environment of South American countries is still being destroyed by milpas agriculture, and excessive logging, etc.
posted by
ariel70
on June 5, 2006 at 4:49 AM
| link to this | reply
Shypettite, thanks for the comment!
posted by
Cynthia
on June 5, 2006 at 4:00 AM
| link to this | reply
Maj, Ariel70, TAPS, Saul, and FranklymyDear,
your comments were enlightening. All the issues you raised have been part of the battles surrounding anthropology in the 20th and 21st century. I think anthropology may have had it's heyday in the 19th century, when people were pretty naive about who and what we are as a species. It was very helpful to me to hear your different and thoughtful perspectives. I have some interesting stories about the influence of politics on anthropology which I might write about in a followup post. Thanks.
posted by
Cynthia
on June 5, 2006 at 3:58 AM
| link to this | reply
Obviously my spelling teacher was not one of these!!
posted by
majroj
on June 4, 2006 at 10:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Ariel70, anthropology is frozen in a nascent state. But it affords certain
talented (and sometimes unscrupulous) people an opportunity to exercise their strongest apptitudes and needs in a manner which can usually be non-injurious to the subjects.
I think Anthropology, like "Political Science", ought to have a separate generic label; say "Discipline" with a capital "D".
I sometimes think it just as well that reporducibility and predictability are things that human behavior not only tends to avoid, but ought to. The closest to real hard and dependable Anthropology, Sociology and Social Psychology man has consistently come is when he uses fear and death to wipe clean the slate of civilization; I refer to the masters of the art, Napoleaon Bonaparte, I.V. Lenin, the Khmer Rouge, the recent military rulers of North Korea (since the Korean War), and the militant imams of the Persian regions.
Oh, yeah, did I mention some of the large televangelists?
posted by
majroj
on June 4, 2006 at 10:12 PM
| link to this | reply
The more things change, the more they remain the same. At our most
atavisticly human, the technology wizard is fundamentally no different than a native of the rain forest. People are people, driven by desires and necessities, internally and externally.
But maybe that's too simplistic, Cynthia. Maybe anthropology is about significance, the emphasis placed on aspects within a given culture. Great post.
posted by
saul_relative
on June 4, 2006 at 8:57 PM
| link to this | reply
Absolutly, very good post!!!
posted by
shypettite
on June 4, 2006 at 5:10 PM
| link to this | reply
Cynthia, One cannot, at times, help but question what is the value of what I know and what I do. We study social norms upon which culture system's are based, we watch for changes in those norms and we subconsciously become used to patterns and trends. When there is an unexpected result, we are either excited or shocked, depending on the outcome. Questioning is science. Questioning keeps us always studying. Questioning is good, especially when one questions themselves.
posted by
TAPS.
on June 4, 2006 at 10:42 AM
| link to this | reply
Majroj
MY! My! Don't you think that that's just a mite sceptical? You seem to imagine that anthropolgy has nothing whatsoever to add to the sum of human knowledge.
As a long-retired builder, I have no axe to grind on the subject of the relative merits of anthropology, and what -- by implication -- you state are the " real" sciences, but I think that anthropology has much to offer us.
One would hardly go so far as to trot out the well-worn " More things in heaven and earth ..." cliche, but to me, anthgropology is a real science.
But then, I left school at fourteen, back when the dinosaurs held dominion over the earth
posted by
ariel70
on June 4, 2006 at 8:45 AM
| link to this | reply
Cynthia How does any strictly observational study count as science?
You have hard science like chemistry where you can replicate experiments and control one variable.
You have microbiology where you try to do the steps above but have to account for some factors rather than control them because it would kill the subject, or it just can't be done.
And you have anthropology, where the rigor of science is pretty well thrown away and you try to detect patterns and parallels between situations, so the whole exercise starts to sound like a freshman's excuse as to why their research paper isn't complete at graduation time. Same ditto pure classic psychology (before chemical and industrial psych added some rigor, but still not much), cosmology, sociology, etc.
Science is an approach to find out the truth, but the basic human need to find the "truth" is "prediction". And to show off at the cultural equivalent of cocktail parties.
People are sneaky critters, that's why we're still around instead of being stray DNA in fossilized cave bear dung; we don't predict well, either as subjects or as predictors.
posted by
majroj
on June 4, 2006 at 8:27 AM
| link to this | reply
anthropology allows us a broader perspective on cultures and people
....but the day to day humdrum of living and dying, except with some basic changes to material conditions and customs, we all pretty much live our emotional lives the same as the next person, regardless if we're living in a mud hut or in a large metro area....analyzing why some people take their own lives or the lives of others, etc, is a different science...
posted by
FranklyMydear1
on June 4, 2006 at 5:46 AM
| link to this | reply
Cynthia
Dr Johnson said something like " The proper study of Man is the study of Mankind"
I guess he thought that it wasn't a proper study for womankind. Feminine modesty, and all that, you know.
Interesting post.
posted by
ariel70
on June 4, 2006 at 5:13 AM
| link to this | reply
Hi Whacky, Thanks for stopping by.
posted by
Cynthia
on June 4, 2006 at 5:04 AM
| link to this | reply
Azur, excellent point. Good anaology.
Thanks for commenting.
posted by
Cynthia
on June 4, 2006 at 5:04 AM
| link to this | reply
Blackcat, my friend Ivo is very forgiving
but anthropologists like most other academics can be vicious when defending their turf.
posted by
Cynthia
on June 4, 2006 at 5:02 AM
| link to this | reply
<img src="http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Images/Emoticons/emsmile.gif" />
posted by
Whacky
on June 3, 2006 at 10:18 PM
| link to this | reply
Human responses, whatever they may be, drive the study of anthropology
Don't they? If they were all entirely predictable there'd be nothing to study.
Expecting anthropologists to know how to anticipate everything is like asking a medical doctor to anticipate every virus or illness.
posted by
Azur
on June 3, 2006 at 9:14 PM
| link to this | reply
I thought the very thing while I took that class. I'm sure your friends
will forgive your lapse. LOL
posted by
-blackcat
on June 3, 2006 at 5:21 PM
| link to this | reply
naorem, can you explain yourself?
I have no idea what you are talking about.
posted by
Cynthia
on June 3, 2006 at 3:23 PM
| link to this | reply
go to basic is what anthro teaches mankind
posted by
naorem
on June 3, 2006 at 11:24 AM
| link to this | reply