It seems that the divide between "scientific anthropology" and "humanistic anthropology" is as real as it gets in American anthropology. However, I think, this divide is epistemologically artificial and methodologically limiting. Your opinions will be very welcome here, but it is my inclination is that there is no well-defined boundary between humanities, social sciences and so called hard-sciences. On top of that, we are, as academics, bound to logic and rationality in our thinking. Most importantly, we are asking the same questions and we are worried about the same problems. There is no excuse for not discussing when there is a possibility of an unifying anthropological epistemology. Instead of discussing, however, we are trapped in our past and in our differences. As a field that celebrates diversity and heritage like no other, it is a shame that we cannot celebrate our own heritage and diversity.
I think that anthropology is a great discipline. Not from a personal point of view, but from an intellectual one. The questions it asks about the human condition and progress are of utmost importance to understand "human" in a holistic sense. Within anthropology, there is an unmatched methodological and theoretical diversity. The possible connections with other parts of the academic are countless. As a field, anthropology is in the middle of the intellectual world. This central position, however, becomes problematic, when the field starts to break-down into mis-communicating, separate sub-fields. While anthropology is losing its groundbreaking edge, other disciplines, such as biology, physchology, history, political science, regional studies, genetics, behavioral studies, neuroscience, sociology, demography and many others start to occupy the traditional areas of anthropology. If this trend continues, I am afraid anthropology will be eventually marginalized within the academia.
I am hoping with this e-mail to initiate a series of discussions about the communication within anthropology. I outlined three questions that highlight my perspective about the issue, as a molecular anthropologist
1. The reflection of neoliberal democracy within academia. How do you measure the value of an idea, statement or argument. The good example here is the Creationism vs. evolution. I like to know, for instance, what is the stance of a cultural anthropologist about this issue and why? Why are biological anthropologists think that defending evolutionary theory is a matter of life/death? Why, in general, is evolution critical for biological anthropology? Is there a dislike of evolution in cultural anthropology?
2. Are the results or arguments that emerge through scientific methodology essentially 'stronger' than those that come from humanities? What is the real difference? Is the difference just historical?
3. Why identity, a purely social construct, is still embedded in the biological categories even today? What should anthropology do to understand the reasons behind 'ethnic', or 'racial' categories? Without the knowledge of biological theory, is it possible to study racial constructs? Without the knowledge of cultural theory, is it possible to study human variation? More generally, is it possible to understand human condition without biology or culture?
Since there may be a hundred more questions, I will stop here. Hopefully, more will be added to these questions, and we will start discussing these. I will repeat here my firm belief that the discussion within anthropological sub-fields may and should create a more coherent and comprehensive understanding of human condition and progress.
Posts
