Ever since we touched on issues of anthropological methodology one or two classes ago, I have been thinking about the relationship between anthropology and science, and the relationship between the two. I'm particularly interested in hearing other points of view on this one.
A good brief article which covers the decision of the American Anthropological Association to remove the word science from its long-range plan statement, as well as the reaction to it, can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=%22anthropology%20a%20science%22&st=cse (I found the image of the cat going around clawing up all the furniture particularly amusing.)
To restate my position from class, while I think that anthropology is not as falsifiable in the Popperian sense as the physical sciences, anthropology does use many scientific epistemologies: observation, hypothesis testing, quatitative/statistical analyses, even (in archaeological anthropology at least) experimentation. The systematic removal of the word science from the AAA's long-range plans seems to be an attempt to distance itself from these methods which, as a whole, form a central piece of anthropological methodology. I prefer to think of anthropology not as a science but as a consumer of the scientific method.
What do you think?
--Nat
As someone who is not situated in the field of anthropology, I cannot fully appreciate the weight or implications of this event and the debate in which it is embedded. Nonetheless, I will attempt to comment.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the term "science" is a divisive one among anthropologists. It is a term that rallies-- for some as a common methodology and for others, a practice to be opposed. From the post and the article, it seems that the term "science" is being used in two ways: as a methodology and as a framework.
I would indeed find it odd if any anthropologist called all scientific practices "illegitimate." Science offers powerful tools that are quite productive when applied responsibly. However, contention seems to arise when science is the framework for anthropological self-conception. I would then like to ask: what is the relationship between methodology and framework? Scientific methodologies certainly are well harmonized in a scientific framework. However, what are consequences for scientific methods if the framework is lost? It seems that this new framework would displace science as the center thereby locating its methodologies as one among several. To what extent does this "distance" science? To what extent are they undermined? Not employing scientific methods, I don't know. Perhaps those of you who practice science anthropologically could explain.
I would also like to supplement an additional question to this article. From one perspective, it seems that the change attempts to reframe the discipline in order to make anthropology more hospitable to those who do not identify with a scientific approach. What would be the consequences of NOT changing the name? Should those who do not identify with science be excluded or led to understand that their methods are indeed already scientific? Could a failure to address this rift lead to a splitting of anthropology into two disciplines? If so, would this be a good or a bad thing?
Hi Nat,
ReplyDeleteI saw this article when it was published in The Chronicle last weekend, and I have been meaning to add it to the mix: Horgan, John. “A Prescription for the Malaise of Social ‘Science’.” The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 13, 2011. http://chronicle.com.ezp-prod1.hul.harvard.edu/article/A-Prescription-for-the-Malaise/126311/.
To reiterate its punch line, Horgan (most famous, probably, for his 1996 book The End of Science, but also buzzed about among students of Religion for Rational Mysticism, published in 2003) suggests that “Social scientists should consider identifying not with the harder sciences or the humanities but with engineering,” that is, if they want to soothe the tensions felt between those who want to see the social sciences ‘harden up’ (the “hardies”) versus those who don’t (the “softies”).
I'll let you check out Horgan's points on this for yourself, but I will add here that he also mentions the AAA’s emendation, and interestingly, he cites Geertz, who he calls “the archetypical softy”: “Social scientists are chasing a moving target, one they can never catch,” Horgan says. “As the anthropologist Clifford Geertz, the archetypal softy, wrote, social scientists can construct only ‘hindsight accounts of the connectedness of things that seem to have happened: pieced-together patternings, after the fact.’”
This is a bit of an aside on Geertz himself, but it has been interesting for me to see just how differently emphasized (and sometimes differently interpreted) Geertz’s work is within and across disciplines. I was thinking, first of all, about how positivist he might be made to sound in the quote we have from him in our essay prompt versus just how non-positivist or ‘soft’ he is typically considered to be. But I was also thinking about the ways in which different disciplines claim pieces of Geertz for themselves. When I recently mentioned to a friend of mine in Political Science that I was reading Geertz, she said, “Oh, right, primordialism,” referring to what Geertz has to say in “Integrative Revolution” (Chapter 10 in The Interpretation). Weeks ago, had you brought Geertz up to me, however, I would have said instantly, “Oh, right, ‘model of, model for’.” Whatever Geertz has to say about primordialism would not have even crossed my mind.
Anyway, I’m curious to hear what you think about Horgan’s suggestion. Does it make good sense? How would you respond to it?
~Liz