Why Anthropology Remains Integral to Cognitive Science

Abstract

The key justification Beller, Bender, and Medin (2012) invoke in questioning the place of anthropology in cognitive science-and whether the former should remain in the latteris that the presence and influence of anthropology has continuously decreased since the cognitive revolution. The implication is that anthropology must either contribute more to cognitive science or accept an inevitable divorce from it.Despite serving as a catalyst for debate, the above justification is unsound. It not only relies upon dubious assumptions but also ignores the presence of anthropology in the cognitive science of religion (CSR) and the influence of cognitive anthropology (CA) in understanding social cognition. Each of these points is briefly addressed in turn.First, it is said that anthropology has faded into the background of cognitive science ever since the cognitive revolution. This claim is based on the following assumptions. Because anthropologists are generally absent from the Cognitive Science Society, hostile to collaborative research, and publish fewer articles than cognitive psychologists in cognitive science journals, they are turning anthropology into the "missing discipline" (pp. 342-46). Yet these observations neither entail the lack of anthropological contribution nor its impending divorce from cognitive science. After all, attendance at the meeting of an academic society is not an accurate measure of cross-disciplinary contribution; the interdisciplinary hostility of a few scientists does not constitute interdisciplinary incompatibility; and advancements in cognitive psychology do not entail losses for anthropology.Second, the presence of anthropology may not be evident in all areas of cognitive science, but that is certainly not the case for CSR (see Whitehouse & Cohen, 2012). Whether it concerns the Neolithic mind, the biogenic foundations of shamanism, or the cognitive and evolutionary roots of religion, anthropologists have made an unmistakable impression on the field. In fact, the standard model of religion in CSR-that religion is the unintended product of brain function-is largely attributable to anthropologists Correspondence should be sent to Jordan Kiper,