toBEintheWORLD is the name of a new anthropology blog. In his first posts, anthropology student Pawel Tomasz Chyc (University of Poznań, Poland) asks anthro-bloggers to explain what they understand as “anthropology”.
For, in his opinion, good anthropologists have to define the terms they use precisely – this includes also the term culture. He perceives “a lack of precision” both in anthropological articles, books and blogs. “Lack of precision”, he writes, is “one of the fundamental problems of anthropological theory”.
>> read “Anthropology and culture – call for precision!”
>> read “to define ‘anthropology’ (indications)”
I’m not sure if I agree. I think anthropology might rather profit from being defined in many different and vague or experimental ways.
There are huge differences between American anthropology and German or Norwegian anthropology. I am no big fan of the American four-field approach and their focus on culture. I would rather define anthropology as the science of the diverse ways people live on this planet (= core definition). Its main method of gathering data is fieldwork (which also can be defined in many ways). It also relies on knowledge in other disciplines like history, linguistics, psychology, biology, archaeology etc
Pawel Tomasz Chyc’ posts remind me of a short discussion we had nearly three years ago after I had written the post The Five Major Challenges for Anthropology. Kambiz Kamrani from anthropology.net wrote that “Anthropology will never succeed until it clearly defines culture.”, while Erkan Saka disagreed: “This emphasis on definition is against all I know about social sciences”, he wrote.
See also the definition of anthropology on Anthrobase, the definition by the American Anthropological Association, the text “What is anthropology” by Thomas Hylland Eriksen and my post “Take care of the different national traditions of anthropology”
Dear Lorenz, thank you for help with my ‘call for precision’.
It’s very interesting that yours core definition of anthropology precising anthropology as ‘science’. Because this idea isn’t so obvious. Do anthropology should be a science? Or should be simply a way of interpretation where “anything goes” depend on discourse?
Indeed I’m asking are there any boundarys of anthropology?(which interpretation is anthropological which not?)
Hello Lorenz,
do we need to define anthropology? Well I suppose that depends on how you define “need,” or what the meaning of is, is.
I do agree with you and Erkan. As we all know, it’s not that there has never been an attempt to precisely define “culture,” for example, it’s that there were too many, and too little agreement. When using the term — and I use it only out of laziness, because it is not really needed — it is up to each author to add a line to their writing saying, “and when I say ‘culture,’ what I mean is…”
The same applies, I think, to anthropology itself. It’s not that none of us “knows” what “it” is, it is that we all have differing visions of what “it” has been, might be now, could be in the future, and the lack of any substantial common agreement creates this illusion that none of us knows what “it” is.
Anyway, it is great to have a new blogger join us, and one from Poland at that. Today was the first time I ever got a chance to correspond with a Polish anthropologist.
I’m agree with Maximilian that indeed all we knows what is anthropology.In the same way as we knows what is art for example. We don’t have to precising what is art, because this is not a science (core definition of art is against all I know about art).
If anthropology is science I’m afraid we are hard pressed for precise a core deffinition. If isn’t science we don’t have to. Maybe only tradition creates this illusion that anthropology is science, and there is no others arguments.
Why shouldn’t anthropology be a science? Science is always about interpretation, even natural sciences. But I know that for American media, science mostly means natural sciences. Maybe anthropology is not serious enough for them? But maybe you have something different in mind?
Yes, I think there are boundaries. I would say that interpretations that are not empirically based are not anthropological in my view, for example information based exclusively on questionnaires or experiments (as in psychology). There must be something more than that!
You ask “do we need define anthropology?” My answer is: yes, if anthropology is a science, we have to.
I want focus ours attention on anthropology as discipline.I think is necessary to start at this point. All (science) disciplines have his own boundaries so…I think yours notice about anthropological boundaries (as interpretations empiricaly based) could be deeply right.