- This topic has 6 voices and 30 replies.
-
Posts
-
I think anthropology has its place, even if it's only for raw data rather than for interpretation. It's important to know how societies function, and anthropologists can operate as the "eyes and ears" in this role.
I used to think that, and have defended anthropology until recently, but not anymore. I don't know if it's really a Leftist thing, but there's just too way much human theorizing (yet they call it science) involved. If only they would act as eyes an ears and leave their opinions or bias out of it, but many of them don't. To me it seems many of the experts in the field come across as very arrogant.If one wants to know about a society or cuture, the best ways to do it, IMO, are through history, archeology, and geography.
Even geography has it over anthropology. At least geography considers and understands the impact of religion. Anthro (esp. cultural materialism) views religions as a result of something instead of the other way around. That's wrong.
That's why I minored in it. 🙂
Anthropology tends to deal with prehistoric origins and evolution. Archeology is probably better suited for what you are saying Phid.
Anthropology tends to deal with prehistoric origins and evolution. Archeology is probably better suited for what you are saying Phid.
Actually I was referring to anthropologist examinations on modern ritual that may shed light on older history, such as Aby Warburg's time spent with the American Indians of the Southwest in the early 20th century. Some of the traditional practices that were witnessed can shed light on societies that lived hundreds of years before.
It seems he's more a historian than an anthropologist. He looks at symbolism from historical records (paintings) instead of hypothesizing.http://www.educ.fc.ul.pt/hyper/resources/mbruhn/In contrast, anthropologists do this:
There are two major premises governing symbolic anthropology. The first is that "beliefs, however unintelligible, become comprehensible when understood as part of a cultural system of meaning" (Des Chene 1996:1274). The second major premise is that actions are guided by interpretation, allowing symbolism to aid in interpreting ideal as well as material activities. Traditionally symbolic anthropology has focused on religion, cosmology, ritual activity, and expressive customs such as mythology and the performing arts (Des Chene 1996:1274). Symbolic anthropologists also study other forms of social organization that at first do not appear to be very symbolic, such as kinship and political organization. Studying these types of social forms allows researchers to study the role of symbols in the everyday life of a group of people (Des Chene 1996:1274).
http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/436/symbolic.htmI just don't agree with this. It's too generalized.
Anthropology is like psychology and psychiatry. Only initiates are meant to understand their particular brand of mumbo-jumbo. The rest of us proles are just supposed to accept their pronouncements with reverence for their godlike powers of deduction.
It seems he's more a historian than an anthropologist. He looks at symbolism from historical records (paintings) instead of hypothesizing.
I believe he was among the first to spend time living among a people during a time when that was not the norm. Granted, he wasn't there with them that long, but at least he did it, and I think he showed others how to do it. That seems like anthropology in some sense, even if he didn't consider himself an anthropologist (it might not even have been a separate field back then). I could be wrong on this, but it seems that anthropologists work within cultures which do not have extensive historical texts. So it may not be as important when studying some cultures as others.
It seems he's more a historian than an anthropologist. He looks at symbolism from historical records (paintings) instead of hypothesizing.
I believe he was among the first to spend time living among a people during a time when that was not the norm. Granted, he wasn't there with them that long, but at least he did it, and I think he showed others how to do it. That seems like anthropology in some sense, even if he didn't consider himself an anthropologist (it might not even have been a separate field back then).
I think it just shows that anthropology uses other fields and then labels itself a science (and a separate field). Scout, +100!!!!! If you don't accept the fact that religion evolved from monkeys then you are shunned. After all monkeys freak out when a thunderstorm is around. Therefore this freaking out is just like human religion. Jane Goodall said it so it must be true. ::)
I am a facts guy. I distrust any discipline where there are no facts to back up theories, even paleontologists have fossils. What is supposed to make me think that someone totally divorced from a culture is qualified to comment on what its rituals and beliefs mean. This is just like the mental 😉 sciences 😉 I am supposed to believe that someone else can tell me why I am thinking and feeling what I do? This based on a few hours of interviews? Come on, the head shrinkers and anthropologists have a lot of people fooled. What they are really saying is this is what we think is going on or what this means, what is missing is the qualifier "but I dont know for sure". We are supposed to accept them at face value, which I simply cannot.
I have trouble when they conclude things based purely on speculation. I have more trouble that these speculations are accepted as FACT by academia.I have trouble that understanding another culture is considered an anthropologist's job, when instead it should be based on history.I have trouble that they label something as anthropology when in reality it is history, linguistics, economics, or archeology. That's all that anthropology is. And how and and why it became an accepted, separate field is beyond reason.
I have trouble when they conclude things based purely on speculation. I have more trouble that these speculations are accepted as FACT by academia.I have trouble that understanding another culture is considered an anthropologist's job, when instead it should be based on history.
I realize you have a beef here with anthro, but I'm not sure I understand your precise problem with it. It also sounds like you're referring to something specific that you disagree with. Maybe if you mentioned what you read I could get a clearer picture of it.The reason I'm unclear is because I don't see a dichotomy between "anthropology" and "history". It doesn't seem like an either/or situation. How else are certain aspects of history uncovered but by means of some anthropologizing? Anthrop. seems like a micro field which can be applicable to history in some contexts. When it serves the function of gatherer of facts, it can be helpful.Before we go further, let me point out that I think anthrop. has its problems, but maybe not in the exact same way you are looking at them. One such problem (based on my limited knowledge of the field) is a tendency to structuralize; that is, they might try to fit cultural behaviors and norms within a pre-conceived model which might be applied where it ought not. I don't think that speculation should be claimed as fact, either, but I think this can be addressed through empirical confirmation. And maybe the field should not be referred to as a "science" if it is called that. But in the end I think that careful study of cultural customs and behaviors, and making theories based on that, can be helpful in studying history. I'm sure there are bad anthropologists, but there are also bad historians out there as well.
the end I think that careful study of cultural customs and behaviors, and making theories based on that, can be helpful in studying history.
Isn't that what a historian does anyway? If one is interested in learning Mid East culture or any other culture, he's going to do it from a historical perspective because the student has to know the history of the people in order to understand them today. I don't see any other way.Granted this is just a beginner course I'm taking, but in even doing research for a paper I wrote, there is far too much monkey-to-man stuff. And I'm not just talking biological evolution...that I can deal with. When they start talking about cultural evolution in everything from family, to types of society, to religion etc. and say that all this evolved from monkey culture (!), that's a bit too over the top IMO.
Ok, I can agree with you that that kind of theorizing can be the source of disagreement with the field. In other words, when it reduces man and culture merely to a series of unconscious traits hardwired into his brain….in cases such as this I would take major issue with the field as well. By doing so anthropologists could easily rationalize behavior and break society down (including religion and politics) into a series of power moves, rather than anything which reflects what is actually true and good. Perhaps that is the reason for this quote about anthropology from an article (which is quoted directly in Wikipedia):
...contributed to the erosion of Christianity, the growth of cultural relativism, an awareness of the survival of the primitive in modern life, and the replacement of diachronic modes of analysis with synchronic, all of which are central to modern culture.
Such types of anthropology also annoy me. I guess that this is the part of anthropology where macro theories are made about societies, when they should instead stick to objective and non-judgmental statements about their observations.
Funny you should quote that. I think cultural relativism is about the only valid thing anthropologists have come up with. I don't know if it's possible to accomplish, but it's something that should be strived for to the best of human ability. Trying to remove bias or judgement is necessary when studying other cultures.
