Читать книгу Anthropology For Dummies - Cameron M. Smith - Страница 31

By the 1930s, anthropology was underway as a distinctive academic field worldwide, with anthropologists trying — in different ways — to examine some of the basic questions outlined in the section “Getting to the Heart of Anthropology” earlier in this chapter. Bodies of theory even developed, each a different lens through which to interpret the cultures worldwide (which were being documented by ethnographers). Essentially, a scientific approach was applied to the study of humanity. The key feature of the scientific approach is objectivity (the idea that one can learn about the universe impartially). For example, in prescientific times, humanity and the Earth were quite literally considered the center of the universe; but centuries of impartial, objective study show that not even our galaxy is at the center of the universe, and our species is just one of many millions or billions on Earth.

Now, like any idea, this could go too far, as when people improperly applied biological concepts to cultural change (resulting in the idea of social Darwinism, a mistaken idea I examine in Part 3 of this book), but essentially it was a step in the direction of objectivity, of trying to filter out ones’ own cultural preconceptions when thinking about or documenting other cultures. It was an attempt, then, to combat ethnocentrism.

Although some today subscribe to the postmodern philosophy, which essentially states that all knowledge is socially constructed and that you can never get out of the box (you’re hopelessly imprisoned in an ethnocentric shell) — I don’t buy it. I believe human beings can be somewhat objective and make accurate statements about what they observe. For example, I have good reason to believe that Pluto exists and will continue to exist even if humanity suddenly became extinct. From this perspective, we did not invent Pluto, we discovered it.

Don’t get bogged down by the hierarchy of scientific terminology regarding observations. An observation is something that you’ve seen or otherwise carefully documented; a hypothesis is a statement that proposes the relationship between two variables (for example, the liquid state of the variable water will change to the solid state when the variable temperature is sufficiently decreased). A theory is a more complex form of hypothesis, and a fact is a statement — normally based on multiple confirmed hypotheses — that can account for many well-documented observations. Note that a theory is not just a wild guess; it’s normally a well-researched and plausible proposition.

The attempt to add some scientific objectivity to anthropology led to the recognition and adoption of two very important perspectives:

 The emic perspective is that of a person within a culture — it’s the insider’s view. For example, it’s a New Guinea highlander’s concept of what constitutes murder, even though a Western scientist may have a different perception of that word.

 The etic perspective is that of a person from outside a culture — it’s the outsider’s view. For example, it’s a scientist’s definition of murder that he or she wants to use in comparing many different societies’ punishments for having killed another person.

Although remaining emic or etic in your fieldwork or observations isn’t always easy, anthropologists strive for both emic and etic knowledge. You can read more about emic and etic perspectives in Chapter 12.