A history of Anthropological Theory

Recently I have read the following book. Its main points are:

Book title: Paul Erickson and Liam Murphy.2003. A history of Anthropological Theory. Peterborough, Ont.; Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press, c1998.

Main points:

-conclusion – generally speaking, at the dawn of the 21st century, the adherent of anthropological postmodernity and globalization theory arise form a camp of ‘human scientist’ whose proverbial tents are pith alongside those who defend narrowly materialist vision of their discipline. (174)

-we believed that there has continued to exit general agreement about the unity of anthropological theory and this unity remains largely intact. (176) for one thing, Boas, Geertz and Levi-Strauss remained firmly enshrined with an anthropological pantheon. This may reflect a significant defect in the postmodern critique: namely that it only succeed at throwing the historical baby out, questioning the work of ancestral generations but offer little substance to replace them. (176)

- we can speculate to a limited extent about trends of the future. We believe that one implication of the diversity encountered in this book is that anthropologist will continue to consider consensuses regarding the best theories and method the ‘holy grail’ of our discipline; this longing might well prove utopian. (178)

- we are living in and passing through a ‘Janus-faced’ moment, in which we are looking both to the past and to the future for inspiration.(178)

- equally important is that the history of anthropological theory is really a history of anthropological theory. We must allow for other anthropologies’, or other tales of discovery and cross-cultural encounters – other methods and context in which knowledge is formed. (179)

- it seems that the history of theory is defined not so much by ‘facts’, as by the tendency of different anthropological historians and the changing consensus that develop around one or another perspective. Only the most novice readers will conclude that theory is ‘out there’, ready to be plucked from the air by a fortuitous ‘discoverer’.(180)

A history of Anthropological Theory

Recently I have read the following book. Its main points are:

Book title: Paul Erickson and Liam Murphy.2003. A history of Anthropological Theory. Peterborough, Ont.; Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press, c1998.

Main points:

- part III – the later 20^th century and beyond -  early 20^th century was under the sway of Emile Durkheim and his intellectual progeny (Mauss, Levi-strauss and Radeliffe-Brown). (113) In North America anthropological knowledge was shaped by Franz Boas. (113)

- in the later decades of the 20^th century, a tension between the particular and general emerged as a central problem on both side of the Atlantic. Boas’ descriptive approach suffered from a need for explanatory theory. In filling the blank, one school that came out was from sociologist Max Weber. In part III we studied his work and thought and others. (114)

- in the latter half of the 20^th century, Durkheimean-based structuralism and structural-functionalism had showed signs of strain. Meanwhile in American, Boasian-inspired framework was found inadequate. These concerns surfaced in the 1970’s with the discovery of the theories of Max Weber and Michel Foucault, known as interpretive anthropology. (131)

- in the 19^th century Durkheim employ an organic analogy to understand how social group cohere, and Marx understood the control of material conditions of life to be the engine driving human history. Both theorists believed that forces exited outside the individual acted to condition cultural meaning and structured social relations. (132) Such a formulation left little room for the creative agency of individuals. (132)

- in contrast Max Weber was credited with viewing the holistic individual – acting, thinking and feeling, all were as central to the social and cultural forms. His work was thought as idealistic, contrasted with materialism of Marx. Weber had been influential with the rise of political economy and postmodernism in the 1970s and 1980s. (132) In his work “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” his ideas were evolutionist, different from the unilineal theories (from primitive to civilized) of his contemporaries. (131)

- Weber sought a theory that placed existing beliefs and structures in particulars historical context (i.e. a particular period). Therefore he was often thought as multilinear evolutionist whose theory accounted for the great diversity of human life. (133)

- his schema was that: Complex society gave rise to stratified hierarchy of social. The urban artisan experienced alienation and economic marginalization (including the merchant class). Their expectations was embodied and expressed through an explicitly religious framework. (133) (c/f the rise of Buddhism - human worldly suffering) Weber view religion as the engine that drove social transformation through time. (133) (i.e. idea led to changes)

- for Weber, the most significant example was Calvinist Protestantism, an urban merchant religion that rationalized a new relationship between human being and god. (134) Under a new covenant ‘revealed’ to Calvin, individuals were direct to recreate heaven on earth through hard work. Through this, merchant and artisans now were elevated to a position of ethical superiority, no longer dominated by ruling elicits. Material prosperity was a sign of god’s grace. This new system ultimately resulted in the global triumph of industrial capitalism. (134)

- Weber’s idea about social evolution (new idea, new system) was useful to anthropologists who were reluctant to view society and culture as static organisms as suggested in the Durkheimian theory. (134)

- the essential premise of structuralist theory (in its various guises) was that culture constrained, or controlled people more than it served, or enabled them. It was as if people were simply the vehicle for social and psychical structures. (135)

- in Britain, the most influential and respected symbolic anthropologist was Victor Turner. Whereas Turner derived his insight from Durkheim, Geertz’s intellectual linage originated with Weber, who emphasized on meaning, as opposed to structure. Weber had given Geertz’s work a very different orientation. Geertz’s theory incorporated the idea that culture was a set of moral values. For Geertz, epistemology was grounded in the assumption that ‘man is an animal suspended in webs of significant that he themselves has spun’. The study of culture was ‘an interpretive one in search of meaning’. (140)

- for many anthropologist working in the 1960s and 1970s the most influential social theory were development and underdevelopment theory, and the world-system theory (I. Wallerstein). They became the foundation for the generally called (anthropological) political economy. (148)

- in the 20^th century, the political and economic disparity between the ‘developed’ and ‘underdeveloped’ world growing apace since the break of colonialism following WWII.(149) Andre Gundar Frank began to criticize modernization. He believed that global capital agenda was the systematically extracting surplus good and labor. Under-development in many nations was the result of progressive capitalist exploitation. (149) The most detailed exposition of this kind emerged in the work of Immanuel Wallerstein. He identified the bourgeois capitalist in the core nation of Europe and America who appropriated the profits in the periphery.  Euro –American economically exploited the external population and their produce, in a world-system of unequal exchange. (149)

- the precise meaning of the terms ‘postmodern’ and ‘postmodernity’ were still further obscured by another adjective ‘post-structural’. Strictly speaking, the term post-structural and poststructuralism referred to the growing malaise and increasing uneasiness with structuralism that erupted in the 1970s. (157)

- the initial flood of interest in deconstructing mental, cultural, and social structures, as manifested in literary and philosophical discourse, was notably the work of Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu.(156)

- writing in the 1970s, Foucault viewed social institution and relationship as being grounded in discourse of power that shape relation between people at all levels in a society. (158)

- the different roles played by the individual bore the stamp of certain kinds of people’s relation (dominate/dominated). Whoever dominated these relations would control the economic and ideological conditions under which ‘knowledge’ or ‘truth’ was defined. (158) In this way, beginning with the enlightenment and the rise of the nation-state, discourse of science, sexuality, and humanism preserved their power through mechanism of control such as prison, hospital, asylum. Foucault’s contribution to postmodern social theory had been in showing how power determined different social forms through history.  (159)

- “Foucauldian theory redefines the concept of ‘knowledge’ itself. No longer is a reference to real or objective understanding, knowledge is primarily a way of naming and ordering the world that favors the powerful and seek to maintain the status quo.”(161)

- addressing similar issue relating to power and domination form another angle was Pierre Bourdieu. (161) For Bourdieu, social structures and cultures were not to be compared to machines or organism, because culture and society were ultimately not things but system of relationship – or fields.

- within fields, the total imposition of one group’s set of taxonomies (hierarchy, good and bad taste) upon another’s results in the production of a ‘natural’ order, or doxa.(162)

- throughout 1980s and 1990s, Foucault’s and Bourdieu’s ideas had a dramatic impact on anthropological theory. Suddenly there seemed no center, no firm ground from which student of human life could gaze objectively at their subject matter. Henceforth, no ‘truth’ would be taken for granted. Deconstruction became a new watchword for anthropologist. Positivism to explain the world was no longer seen as a possible. (163)

- a latter-day heir to world –system theory and anthropological political economy was the study of globalization, or the ‘globalization theory’. (168) Among the better know text were Arjun Appadurai’s “Global Culture: Nationalism, Globalization, and Modernity”, and Roland Robertson’s “Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture”. (168)

- it was the emphasis on the production of the wholly new social and cultural form and “systems” that distinguished globalization-oriented anthropology from their predecessor in the world-system theory. The globalization perspective insisted that, local culture were not passively overwritten by the unstoppable, global steam roller known as western industrial capitalism (i.e. individual nation’s people had the agency). (171) The formerly peripherals themselves becoming the base for global cultural practices. (c/f Japanese pop music, sushi cuisine etc.)(171)

(to be continued)

A history of Anthropological Theory

Recently I have read the following book. Its main points are:

Book title: Paul Erickson and Liam Murphy.2003. A history of Anthropological Theory. Peterborough, Ont.; Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press, c1998.

Main points:

Part II – the early 20^th century - 20^th anthropological theories represented a sharp break from that of the 19^th century. Anthropologist sought to distance themselves from the uni-lineal evolutionary and hereditation doctrines of their predecessors. (73) Under the influence of Franz Boas, anthropology in the US involved the cultivation of a distinctively holistic, ‘four-field’ approach to the study of human life. They helped to set the burgeoning field apart from its British and French counterparts as a distinctive expression of anthropological knowledge. (73)

- Ruth Benedict was interested in the relationship between culture and personality. According to her, each culture had its own personality configuration or gestalt. By studying three different cultures, she explained how the three cases illustrated the power of culture to shape divergent normative personalities. In typical Boasian fashion, she concluded that because what was deviant in one culture could be normative in another. Deviance was not determined by nature. (82)

- Sigmund Freud was a clinical psychologist who tried to help his patients overcome psychological disorders. He began to speculate on the origin of these disorders. (83) His central insight was that people in the present experience conflicts because humanity in the past experienced conflict. (84)

- for Freud, civilization was opposed to human biological nature because it tried to tame the animal instincts of people.(85) The story began with the primeval family, which, for Freud, was patriarchal and characterized by unrestricted sex. In the primeval family, sons desired their mother sexually, but their authoritarian father had priority of sexual access. (85)

- the theoretical foundation of 20^th century French anthropology could be found in Emile Durkheim. He influenced A. R. Radcliffe-Brown and his theory of structuralism. Durkheim was considered as the forerunner of French structural anthropology. (90) His theory developed in progression with the publication of four books. In his book ‘Division of Labor in Society’, Durkheim explored the diversification and integration of culture. (90)

- Durkheim’s central insight was that social solidarity could be achieved in two different, organizationally opposite ways. (90) His vision of society was very different from that of Karl Marx. For Marx, the state would wither away. For Durkheim, the government was necessary to regulate socially interdependent parts. (91)

- for Durkheim social facts were collective representation of the collective consciousness. Using suicide as a case study, he explained a particular social fact: suicide was an act that seemed to individualist yet, explained sociologically, could be shown to have a strong social dimension. (91)

- Durkheim in his fourth book, “The Elementary forms of the religious Life”,  exposed the societal origins of religion. For him the origin of something had its source in the group mind. (91)

- the intellectual transition from Durkheim to Claude Levi-Strauss was accomplished by Marcel Mauss. The most well-known elaboration of idea of the total social fact was expressed in his essay “The Gift”. One of the most important contribution was to shift focus from Durkheim’s’ ‘mind’ of group to the minds of individuals. (93)

(to be continued)

A history of Anthropological Theory

Recently I have read the following book. Its main points are:

Book title: Paul Erickson and Liam Murphy.2003. A history of Anthropological Theory. Peterborough, Ont.; Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press, c1998.

Main points:

Introduction: anthropology was divided into 4 subfields. First was physical or biological anthropology which included paleoanthropologist. Second was the study of artifact. The third was linguistic anthropology. The 4^th was cultural or sociocultural, the study of human lifeways. (17) Arguably there was a 5^th subfield: applied anthropology. (18)

- in this book anthropological theory could be considered to be a branch of science, humanism, or religion. (19) In science, people and god were treated as secondary to nature. In humanism, god and nature are treated as secondary to people: “Man is the measure of all things.” In Religion, nature and people were treated as secondary to god. (19) God created ‘heaven and earth’. (20)

- anthropology could be seen as searching for answers to fundamental questions asked: “were did we come from?”, “why do we differ?” Therefore, all people had their own version of anthropology. This book derived from the western cultivation. (20)

- part one – the early history of anthropological theory - anthropology in Antiquity - in common with all western academic disciplines, the roots of anthropology lied in the intellectual traditions of the Greco-Roman “ancient” world.(21) Greco-Roman civilization produced several Classical intellectual traditions. Some traditions seem scientific, while others appeared more humanistic or religious. (21) The root of anthropology could be found in classical science. (22)

- the first group of classical thinkers was philosophers whose thought predated that of Socrates. The pre-Socratics were really cosmologist. Some of their speculations were materialistic, meaning that they invoked natural rather than supernatural cause. (22) Pre-Socratics philosophers saw people created by nature, not god. (22)

- in the 5^th BC, there was a major changed in Greek and shift in thought leading to new philosophical schools. One new school was Sophistry.  They taught practical skills (i.e. not for objective knowledge or absolute truth). Sophist Protagoras believed that human behavior was influenced by life circumstance. Behavior is a cultural convention, similar to the 20th century cultural relativism. (23)

- for some sophist relativism led to nihilism, the doctrine that nothing existed or was knowable. Feeling that knowledge was merely what was said to be true by people in power: an idea similar to the key part of Marxism. (23) (or Foucault) Some Athenian philosophers were opposing to sophistry. Socrates thought that there were universal values. Plato, his student, agreed that there was universal values existed because they were innate in the human mind. (23) (c/f. John Locke: clean paper human nature).

- Plato’s student was curious about the relationship among natural and social objects, his legacy included science. (24) Later Greek life and thought declined. (Shifted to Roman) Competing schools of thought emerged. Stoics believed that nature and society were highly orderly. This order was not created by people or god, but was a natural cosmic order. Sometimes called Logos. (25) A belief in a universals social order made it possible to compare and contrast particular social orders, a fundamental task of what today we called social science. (24) Contrary to Plato, Stoics believed in ‘blank state’, meaning that knowledge was not innate. (24)

- toward the end of the Roman Empire social conditions deteriorated. Several religions competed for appeal to the socially oppressed; all built on the Stoic idea of an overarching supernatural order in the universe.  They preached obedience to divine rather than civil laws. Outpacing competition, Christianity gained converts and became the state religion of Rome. (25) For anthropology, the most consequential Church father was Saint Augustine. According to Augustine, god was perfect and human nature was sinful. Human behavior was to be judged not by people or nature, but by god. (25) (saw the rise of god)

- the legacy of Antiquity to anthropology was the establishment of the humanistic, religious, and scientific intellectual outlook. These outlooks, especially the scientific outlook, had been preserved in anthropology ever since. (26)

- the Middle Ages: - in the period following Augustine’s death, Roman Empire was occupied by non-Christian ‘barbarian’. The Christian tradition flourished in the eastern Roman at Constantinople. (26) The interaction between Islam and Christianity occurred on the 8^th century when Islamic moors invaded Christian Spain. Christian theology became increasingly ‘rational’ meaning that human reason was brought to bear on theological issues. This trend culminated in the theology of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas reasoned that people could, and should know god through knowing nature. (27)

- inevitably, cracks in the whole system surfaced, scholars began to choose. Once this happened the door was open for anthropology to develop. (27) Three complex events produced knowledge that, outside Thomas Aquinas circles, made the syntheses unravel. These events were the renaissance, voyages of geographic discovery, and the scientific revolution. (27)

- renaissance thinkers came to realize that the Ancients possessed a fuller and more satisfying grasp of human nature than the Christians. Renaissance interest in the ancient world produced a new sense of time which no longer was static, but capable of changes. This realization led to systematic contrast of ancient and medieval ways of life and, in turn, to question the authority of the medieval catholic church. This contributed to the protestant reform movement. (28) A paramount reason for the change of medieval into modern times was the scientific revolution, as a method of intellectual investigation. (34)

- epistemology was the branch of philosophy that explored the nature of knowledge. Two major epistemologies emerged. One is deduction. The most famous architect to deduction was Cartesian: ‘I exit, therefore god exit, therefore the real world exists’. (34) The second epistemology was induction, the process of discovering the general explanation. (34) ( facts led to the truth)

- the Enlightenment was the name given for the time period from Newton’s principle of mathematics to the time of the French revolution in 1789. Intellectual produced key concepts of social science, in anthropology the most important of these concept was culture. (37) “Newton believed that god has created the universe while, unlike a theistic philosopher, he did not invoke god to account for its day-to-day machinations. Metaphorically, the Newtonian universe was a clock, god the clockmaker.” (38)

- the most important part of Locke’s epistemology for anthropology was his idea, resurrected from the ancient Stoics, that the mind of each newborn person was a ‘blank stage’. (38)

- aping the accomplishment of Newton, some enlightenment intellectuals sought to discover ‘laws’ of human history (universal historians). According to Locke, human experience was understood to have accumulated as culture. (39)

- Vico described how humanity had passed through the three stages of god, heroes, and man. Turgot described the passage of humanity though the 3 stages of hunting, pastoralism, and farming. (39)

- the French revolution overthrew the upper-class privilege, unleashing a new middle class, the bourgeoisie. (40)

- the revolution was fought on the basis of enlightenment ideals that insisted on the human capacity for moral and intellectual progress and, ultimately perfection. When the revolution turned out badly, European intellectual turned their backs on these ideals. The result was a rise in conservative attitudes. (40) (c/f similar to pondering over science after the Titanic sinking) (or science and the brutality of the WWII)

- conservatism appeared in a number of guises. One was fundamentalist Christianity. Many new Christian denominations develop, espousing ‘Evangelical’. Newton’s clockmaker god was replaced by god of divine intervention. (41) Another guise of conservation was romanticism that glorified non-rational, emotional side of human nature, and denied the primacy of Cartesian thought. Finally there was the racism (c/f nationalism). (41)

- conservatism also affected social science. Social scientists also felt that it was time to put more emphasize on stability. The result was the all-encompassing philosophy of Positivism. Positivism was the creation of Augustine Comet.  He described how almost all branches of knowledge had passed through three stages: theological, metaphysical, and positive. Theological was to explain thing in terms of deities, metaphysics on abstract concepts, and in the positive stage, in terms of science. (41)

- in 1859, British geologist Charles Lyell marked the first scientific consensus about the great time depth of prehistory and was the symbolic birth of the science of prehistoric archaeology. (58) Like cultural evolutionist, archaeologist used the comparative method to reconstruct the prehistory past. (58)

(to be continued)