T<scp>he</scp> S<scp>tudy of</scp> A<scp>nthropology</scp>*

IHE contemporary student of anthropology is in a difficult position in Tattempting to achieve a sound orientation in our rapidly changing and developing discipline. Nowhere is this more true than in the general field of cultural anthropology, where there is an apparent schism between those who call themselves ethnologists and the newer group of social anthropologists. Ethnology, which has had its major development in the United States, has been concerned primarily with culture history and culture process; social anthropology, on the other hand, is primarily a product of British anthropology and has emphasized social structure and function as its major concepts. These differences in emphasis and interest have led to considerable misunderstanding on both sides. As one who has had a foot in both camps for some two decades I may perhaps be permitted some observations on this situation, along with some suggestions as to a common meeting-ground. ' Since World War I1 rapid changes have taken place in all branches of anthropology. Genetics and the experimental method, plus a host of new fossil finds from Africa, are revolutionizing physical anthropology; archeology, with the aid of radiocarbon dating and other new techniques, is beginning to achieve a world-wide chronology and is turning to cultural anthropology for further insight into cultural development; linguistics, with structural methods well established, is re turning anew to historical problems and re-examining the relations of language and culture. But ethnology, one of whose tasks it is to synthesize and interpret the conclusions reached by its sister disciplines, is lagging behind.I t is not clear how long anthropology can remain partly a biological science, partly a humanity, and partly a social science. As we shift from the descriptive, data-gathering phases of anthropology to analysis, interpretation and theory, it is inevitable that realignments will come about. My predecessors in the presidency during the postwar period have sketched some of these new developments and realignments as they have seen therna2 It is highly probable that the forces for fusion will prevail over the tendencies to fission in the near future, so far as the United States is concerned; in England the forces are more nearly balanced, and the outcome is more uncertain.8 In the long run we may or may not follow the patterns set by other disciplines.Turning to the field of cultural anthropology, one of the important developments of the last few years has been the series of articles and books defining, denouncing, or defending "social anthropology." Murdock, in the most out-

show abstract

“…* See, particularly, Benedict (1948) , Hallowell (19SO), Beals (1951), Howells (1952), andBennett (1953).…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Anthropology and the Method of Controlled Comparison*

Eggan

1954

American Anthropologist

200

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…He won the Viking Fund Medal and Award for 1954 (Straus, 1955). He was elected President of the American Anthropological Association in 1951 (Howells, 1952b …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Obituary: William White Howells (1908–2005)

McHenry¹,

Delson²

2008

American J Phys Anthropol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interdisciplinary Research and the Concept of Culture

Bennett

1954

American Anthropologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Either we limit our studies to the kind of thing a single man can readily do, and work within the bounds of traditional disciplines, or we boldly try to understand society, and to that end use all the materials and techniques available. Before long those who choose the latter alternative-which, under the press of events, seems to be chosen for them . . . will use each other's materials and they will do what human limitations made necessary: work together on large projects, using their professional skills in common and educating each other. T IS the purpose of this paper to discuss some consequences which the I growing movement for unity and cooperation among the social sciences has for anthropology. I t is believed that participation in this movement has produced certain stresses in the intellectual relationships of anthropologists,' as well as changes in the conceptual tools anthropologists must use in their work. Cultural anthropology alone is considered; a study of possible effects upon the other fields of modern anthropology is a task requiring separate treatment.Most of the observations in this paper are based on the writer's own experiences in interdisciplinary research and teaching;2 consequently the essay is in some respects a personal testament. However this may be, the purpose of the paper is not to advocate anthropology's participation in interdisciplinary studies, or to suggest that all the difficulties of our science may be cleared away by such participation. The whole question of the relationship of any one of the several sciences of man to a unified approach is a very difficult one which cannot be handled in a brief paper, and which must await further treatment?FEDERATION vs. INTEGRATION It may be surprising to some that the question of anthropology's relationship to interdisciplinary studies is to be raised a t all, since one of the essential tenets of the anthropological faith has been a kind of interdisciplinary union of separate but converging studies of man-the famous and slightly arrogant "study of man." This point therefore deserves preliminary comment.The traditional anthropological conception of interdisciplinary effort meant-and for many, continues to mean-a simple federation or coexistence of classificatory groups of data relating to man. Traditional anthropological interdisciplinary research meant-for example-physical anthropology contributing the biological descriptions, linguistics the materials on speech, and ethnology the customary behavior data for a given group of humans. Experiments in integrative, explanatory research (beyond mere combination of data) -for example, Boas' study of variation in head form in differing cultural and 169

show abstract

The Study of Anthropology*

Cited by 4 publications

References 4 publications

Social Anthropology and the Method of Controlled Comparison*

Social Anthropology and the Method of Controlled Comparison*

Obituary: William White Howells (1908–2005)

Interdisciplinary Research and the Concept of Culture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About