Should anthropology merge with sociology, history, political science, and other social studies?

Now that the separate disciplines have had the opportunity to develop and mature, is it time to consider a merging into a unified social science or social studies, which would provide multiple perspectives and a more fully rounded understanding?

Anthropology has increasingly split internally, with cultural anthropologists, biological anthropologists, linguistic anthropologists, and archaeologists tending to go their own ways, and pursuing their specialties on their own. At the same time, cultural anthropologists have gained appreciation of, and increasingly integrated historical and macrosocial perspectives in their work.

As Geertz has said, our special concept of "culture" is out in the streets, that is, widely and popularly used, and our special research strategy, ethnographic participant observation, has been borrowed by other disciplines. Theories and theoretical debates are often common among the disciplines. Would we not gain more by closer collaboration?

Views: 376

Replies to This Discussion

Approaching the question ethnographically, does anyone know why the Harvard Department of Social Relations, a powerhouse of cross-cultural and interdisciplinary research in the 1950s and 1960s, went out of business?
I've always liked the idea of greater cross-collaboration between these fields. I would also add at least some geographers to the list as well.
Good question, John. The Harvard Department of Social Relations was certainly an exemplary attempt to establish an integrated social science. I wonder how much Talcott Parsons was instrumental to its formation, while after him there was no magnet to hold it together. But I am just guessing.

Of course, Ryan; geographers too. Often it is impossible to tell the work of cultural geographers from that of cultural anthropologists.

So what do you think: should OAC become Open Integrated Social Studies Cooperative?
Perhaps my interdisciplinary proposal is based on out of date assumptions, i.e. that anthropology is oriented toward discovery and that closer collaboration with other similar disciplines would facilitate that goal.

But in the last days I have been reading grant applications of McGill anthropology graduate students, and they are heavily oriented, not so much toward discovery and explanation, but toward "human rights." Many of the thesis and dissertation research projects are about the human rights of particular populations, their victimization, usually at the hands of others, and the ways to amelorate their problems. To be fair, many of the proposals appear to take into account the complexities of social relations, are intelligently formulated, and rise above sloganeering. But it is indicative that more than a few of these students have been deeply involved with NGOs of various stripes.

If this orientation is more general than limited to my Department, as I think it is, would it not be fair to say that contempoary cultural anthropology is edging toward community organization, social work, and cultural ethicism, rather than toward history, geography, and psychology? If so, perhaps my proposal for an integrated social studies is outdated.
Phil, let's suppose you are right. Where does this leave you, you personally? You are senior, you are tenured. Why not reach out yourself to congenial folk in other disciplines?

I myself find great satisfaction in being involved with the social network analyst community. My last two academic conferences have been INSNA Sunbelt conferences, where I get to interact with all sorts of people: sociologists, political scientists, epidemiologists, public health researchers, mathematicians, intellectual historians, network security specialists, anti-terrorism and defense department folk — all brought together by a shared interest in networks and network analysis. Great fun, and enormously stimulating.

Another possibility is to build connections with anthropologists in emerging centers outside the USA and Europe. Many of the anthropologists I've met in Taiwan and Japan, for example, seem to be carrying on with what appears to be mainly good, old-fashioned discover-and-explain anthropology.

Lots going on out there. Seek and ye shall find.
Hey Phil,

I think inter-disciplinary studies are the wave of the future. It may take some time, but with information becoming more abundant and accessible, and as teaching technology evolves, it may be easier for a student to be trans-disciplinary, utilizing many social science fields, hard science and beyond. Here's to the future!

-Jer
Could it be that the future is here, at least to some extent — in professional schools?

I am pondering my daughter's curriculum. She has just started an Master of Public Policy (MPP) program at the Kennedy School at Harvard. Her first semester core curriculum includes courses in statistics, economics, ethics, management, and international relations. Her classmates include people who are in joint programs, combining the MPP at Kennedy with law, business or medical school. Her professors include people with considerable real-world as well as academic experience. Just yesterday, ethics faculty were invited to her statistics class. The stats prof put up a numbers-driven argument for racial profiling; a leading bioethicist provided an ethical critique.

What I am noticing here is the way in which a common project — here learning to be good policymakers — relaxes tension around disciplinary boundaries. Reminds me of something I've noted in my research on advertising creators in Japan.

A recurring theme in comments by successful creative directors is that it doesn't matter where the idea comes from: the art director may come up with the copy; the copywriter may suggest the image; an account executive or marketing guy may suggest the basic idea. Professional specialization comes into play after the concept is decided, and everyone gets to contribute his or her specific expertise to its realization. Again the joint project relaxes disciplinary boundaries — while leaving intact and encouraging the specific craft skills that each discipline brings to the project.
Phil sees a possible future for interdisciplinary in a unified social science. Others, however, are moving toward integration with biological sciences — and, no, I am not talking about the "If I were a horse" stories told by evolutionary psychology. See, for example, Greg Downey and Daniel Lende's manifesto Why Neuroanthropology? Why Now?
Interesting data point. Consider what has happened at Arizona State, where Michael E. Smith now teaches in the School of Human Evolution and Social Change (formerly the Department of Anthropology). On Savage Minds, Smith notes the presence of a rather special colleague.

Nobel winner Elinor Ostrom not only does good work, but she is affiliated with an Anthropology PhD program at Arizona State University. She took up a part-time position here 3 years ago and founded the Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity, which has anthropologists and others working on common pool resources, collective action, and other good things. Even though we no longer have a “Department of Anthropology” at ASU, we still have degrees in anthropology (BA, MA, PhD), we teach anthropology courses, and now we have a nobel laureate as a colleague!

Ostrom, who won the Nobel Price for Economics has a Ph.D. in Political Science. Now she is involved with anthropologists. If this were the wave of the future....
I'm currently taking a seminar from Smith, and he is a huge proponent of interdisciplinary work. He finds that as an archaeologist studying ancient urbanism, he has more in common with urban planners and historians than he does with people from other subfields of anthropology.

John McCreery said:
Interesting data point. Consider what has happened at Arizona State, where Michael E. Smith now teaches in the School of Human Evolution and Social Change (formerly the Department of Anthropology). On Savage Minds, Smith notes the presence of a rather special colleague.

Nobel winner Elinor Ostrom not only does good work, but she is affiliated with an Anthropology PhD program at Arizona State University. She took up a part-time position here 3 years ago and founded the Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity, which has anthropologists and others working on common pool resources, collective action, and other good things. Even though we no longer have a “Department of Anthropology” at ASU, we still have degrees in anthropology (BA, MA, PhD), we teach anthropology courses, and now we have a nobel laureate as a colleague!

Ostrom, who won the Nobel Price for Economics has a Ph.D. in Political Science. Now she is involved with anthropologists. If this were the wave of the future....

RSS

Translate

OAC Press

@OpenAnthCoop

Events

© 2019   Created by Keith Hart.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service