|
|
| |
Current
Anthropology
Chilungu, Simeon W. Issues in the Ethics of Research Method: An Interpretation of the Anglo-American Perspective. Current Anthropology, 1976 Vol. 17 No.3: 457-481 Simeon
Chilungu’s article examines the subject of Western bias in
current anthropological methodology. As an African anthropologist
educated in Regarding the area of data collection, Chilungu believes that the selection criteria for “target cultures” primarily include that the given culture be foreign, exotic, and primitive. He also suggests that it would be helpful not harmful to include indigenous people as principal ethnographic researchers, citing their invaluable contributions in many anthropological endeavors. Chilungu feels that there is no objectivity in anthropology as it exists today because those brought up in a Western manner inherently lack objectivity due to “monopolarization”. He also criticizes the emerging trends of “anthropology camouflaged” and “anthropology disguised”, in which scientists do their research unnoticed, as unethical and suggests that anthropology should be “displaying research skills which are universally acceptable”. His key complaint with data collection, though, lies with the practice of opportunistic sampling instead of probabilistic sampling. He feels that using a small sample group or selecting particular subjects without representing the full demographic range can lead to unwarranted generalizations about the entire culture. He attributes the lack of this methodological training to the homogenistic logic of Western anthropology, the thought that somehow all people in a given culture will display identical behavioral characteristics. In the description and analysis of anthropological data, Chilungu has several issues to press. He suggests that while Western anthropologists are known for their qualitative analyses, such as wide ranging descriptions of all known behaviors and events, they ignore such issues as frequency and intensity. This can, he argues, lead to defective conclusions about various cultural traits. Chilungu also states that wherever exact probabilities can be provided, they should be. He says that generalized assumptions and complaisance with verbal description have allowed inaccurate and biased ideas to slip into the information being presented. Chilungu is particularly concerned about information dispersion in the field of anthropology. He points out that much of the work being published use words that communicate a feeling of Western superiority. He maintains that the word “primitive” occurs particularly often in anthropological literature, also in many titles. Even if it is clearly defined in an anthropological context, the author still feels that the existence of such words perpetuates unneeded stereotypes associated with indigenous peoples. He also finds fault in the wide use of the words “mutilation”, “tribe”. Mutilation, he suggests, is a highly subjective term. He observes that this term is never applied to circumcision, a Western tradition, while it is used profusely in regards to many non-Western people. Chilungu has further concluded that anthropology as it has been taught is essentially the study of non-Western people by Western people and therefore carries with it a racial factor that cannot be ignored. COMMENTS J.A. Barnes comments that most of what Chilungu has to say about collecting quantitative data and probabilistic sampling is common sense and simply good advice for all social scientists. He observes that all of Chilungu’s examples are drawn from Anglophone anthropologists and sociologists and ignore the other “imperial traditions” such as the French and Dutch. He also takes issue with Chilungu’s problem with so many words in the anthropological lexicon. He feels that using terms like ethnic and mutilation and tribe must be treated as dynamic terms to be used carefully but effectively. Jean Copans feels that a history of anthropological theory, which Chilungu mentioned, would be very helpful in tackling some of the issues at hand. In understanding the development of anthropological thinking, one could gain a more objective perspective on the discipline and how it is administered. Copans feels also that the bias of Western anthropology is neither cultural nor psychological, but rather lies in the political and ideological effects of the colonial relationship that the Western world established with so-called primitive societies. Johannes Fabian seriously disagrees with most of the issues Chilungu explores. He states that “if Chilungu were right - that good and just social science can only thrive on random sampling and probability calculations – his paper should be thrown on the same scrap heap of soft-headed, biased anthropology which he reserves for most of the works he cites. Fabian suggests that the solution to the problem lies not with ethics but rather with the search for the object of anthropology, getting at its ideological and theoretical foundations. He also feels that overuse of probabilistic sampling and data prediction will degrade communication between anthropologists. REPLY To
Barnes, Chilungu argues that similar prejudices would likely be
found in any examination of the French, Russian, Dutch, German,
or Spanish anthropological works. He also admits that he has been
influenced by Western tradition, having been educated in In response to Copans’s criticisms about where the prejudice in anthropology lies, the author argues that indeed “politics, economics, ideology, language” are part of any culture. Chilungu argues that his original text never included Copans’s distinctions. He maintains that his examples were meant to display the inherent bias that lies in the Western anthropological lexicon that so many anthropologists worldwide are expected to accept. To Fabian, the author replies that the only communication that would be eliminated would be “false information,…biological and sociocultural prejudice. To the comments on the accusations pertaining to his own biases, Chilungu had nothing to say. CLARITY: 3
Chilungu, Simeon W. Issues in the Ethics of Research Method: An Interpretations of the Anglo-American Perspective. Current Anthropologist September, 1976 Vol.17(3):457-480. This article is
a direct discussion of the ethnocentric and biased perspective of
Anglo-Americans, as seen by a non-western anthropologist. Originally
from Chilungu begins by summarizing the data collection method of participant observation, emphasizing the point that within participant observation a person of western origin will at their discretion use negative and sometimes derogatory language when describing a non-western culture, something they would never apply to their own culture. Here Chilungu also analyzes the fallibility of data collection methods specifically addressing the point that when published, many anthropologists neglect to advise the reader of their data collection methods or at times where they specifically were located while collecting the data. Moving on to the idea of accountability, Chilungu again notes differences in what a western versus a non-western anthropologist would be held accountable for. To further his point, Chilungu obtained a copy of Miner’s “Body Ritual among the Nacirema” a parody of specific American customs and interviewed fifty-two people. Chilungu himself states that the interviewees were not a random representational sample but believes that his findings are the first step in alerting western anthropologists to their biased perspective. His findings from this article are that of the people interviewed, the vast majority found the culture they were reading about to be primitive and would themselves not want to live in it. Chilungu concludes his argument with five recommendations on how to improve the field of anthropology by educating new students not only in correct data collection methods but also in being more open to non-western people and ideas. Comments This article generated a large number of responses, many questioning the validity of his argument. J.A. Barnes, Jean Copans, Johannes Fabian, Sue-Ellen Jacobs, Joseph Jorgensen, Andre Kobben, Satish Saberwal, Bob Scholte, W.G. Studdert-Kennedy, Sol Tax, and A. Watchtel all dispute Chilungu’s argument, stating in A. Wachtel’s terms, that he described, dissected and distorted the western field of anthropology. They argue that although beginning with an argument regarding the biased Anglo-American perspective, he writes for a large part on data collection and interpretation in which he points out many errors and discrepancies. Heralding his article as a step in the right direction, James Hirabayashi, Naomi Katz, Samwiri Lwanga-Lunyiigo, Khalil Nakhleh, Maxwell Owusu, Michael Panoff, A.K. Quarcoo, and Aidan W. Southhall praise Chilungu for raising the question of Anglo-American perspective of being biased and at time there interpretation of other cultures negative to the point of being derogatory. All of these commentators in support or against the argument comment on the need for more research regarding perspective and its psychological impact. Reply Chilungu responds by not only thanking those in support of his argument, but by thanking the journal itself for allowing the article to be published. Addressing specific comments by his peers, Chilungu furthers his argument for a perspective based bias and attempts to re-qualify his observations on the ability to manipulate data and then its interpretation. He concludes by cryptically stating that there is only a problem if one considers there to be one. CLARITY: 4
Cohen,
Erik. Environmental Orientations: A Multidimensional Approach
to Social Ecology Current Anthropology Mar., 1976 Vol. 17(1):49-70 In this article the author develops a multidimensional framework for conceptualizing the modern, urban landscape by defining a number of environmental orientations and sub-orientations. While other authors have constructed similar frameworks, he believes that they are useful only for the analysis of a limited range of problems. Through the system that he develops however it would be possible to analyze a wide range of problems having to do with social ecology. There are four environmental orientations and eight sub-orientations that make up Cohen’s framework. The first of the four orientations is the instrumental orientation, which has to do with the environment as a location of resources. Contained within this orientation are the technological and economic sub-orientations. The former refers to the exploitative possibilities that are available to different peoples because of their knowledge while the latter refers to the accessibility of resources. The second orientation is the territorial orientation, which is concerned with the environment as it relates to control. The strategic and political sub-orientations make up this orientation. Strategic sub orientation would be related to the environment, its features, and how these features affect physical control over the territory. Political sub orientation relates to the legitimate and institutionalized control over a territory. Sentimental orientation is the third of Cohen’s four orientations and relates to environment by how people are attached to it. The sub orientations of this are primordial and prestige. Primordial would be the attachment that one feels to a particular location because of a sense of belonging. Prestige would refer to the social value which is placed on a particular place. The final orientation that is discussed is the symbolic orientation which relates to what significance the environment holds, or what it means to an individual or group. One of its sub orientations is the aesthetic which refers to the physical beauty of the environment. The other sub orientation, moral-religious, would be what moral or religious meaning the environment has for an individual or group. The author refers to the framework described above as a multidimensional approach in that it covers many different dimensions of social ecology. By using this approach we can analyzes three major problems in social ecology: ecological institutionalization, ecological consequences, and ecological transformation. Ecological institutionalization is the conflict between environmental orientations, ecological consequences are associated with the impact of orientations on the ecosystem, and ecological transformation refers to how the dynamics of an ecosystem are changed by the various orientations. COMMENTS Reviews of Cohen’s article were very mixed. While most agree that he had set forth what could be a useful means of exploring social ecology, there are a number of questions regarding how useful his approach would be for looking at complex social situations that would most likely involve all of his orientations. Another issue which was of concern to readers was his support, or lack there of, for his ecological orientations and the conflicts between them. They felt that the orientations may provide a good theoretical framework; however, some of those commenting on his work seemed unconvinced of their validity. REPLY In defense of his multidimensional approach, Cohen says that it was meant only as a means of pointing out problems inherent in social ecology and serving as a way to redirect study in this area. He points out that in the beginning of his paper he explains that this approach is not theory but rather a starting point for those wishing to examine the relationship between man and his environment. Some anthropologists are looking for a cure-all for social ecology, which Cohen says is not the purpose of this approach. He also says that his orientations cover a wide range of the man-environment relationship and as of yet no one has been able to propose additional orientations for material that lies beyond his approach. CLARITY: 4
Cohen, Erik. Environmental Orientations: A Multidimensional Approach to Social Ecology. Current Anthropology March, 1976 Vol. 17(1):49-70. Cohen develops a framework for different outlooks and perspectives on the environment, which he entitles “environmental orientations”. By doing so, he hopes to develop a new approach to social ecology as it exists in the 1970’s. He argues that different perspectives of the environment cause “man” to act upon it in different ways. Such a statement may be considered obvious to anthropologists and students of anthropology today, but this statement seems to have been revolutionary and somewhat disputed when made in 1976. Because this statement was not widely accepted, Cohen develops an argument to provide evidence to support his claim. In order to strengthen his argument, Cohen refers to well known theorists such as Emile Durkheim, who wrote that reality is socially constructed. Cohen extends this theory to the natural environment as well, questioning the tendency of his contemporaries to believe that a specific culture is an adaptation to the environment. Instead, environment is seen as a social construction. Cohen also develops a table (entitled “The Paradigm for Social Ecological Analysis”) to support this claim. This table lists different aspects of society and their relationship to the natural world, such as types of Environmental Organization, Modes of Orientation, and Institutions. Also included in the table are four categories of “Orientation to Environment” which include “Instrumental”, “Territorial”, “Sentimental” and “Symbolic”. Cohen provides great detail for each of these categories in order to clarify the meaning of each. These explanations are clear and direct and therefore allow several readers to interpret the table in a unified manner that disallows confusion. Cohen’s table involves various aspects of society and the environment, and is therefore a self-proclaimed “multidimensional approach”. According to Cohen, such an approach attacks three major problems that are present in social ecological theory in the 1970’s. These are: 1) the problem of conflict between various environmental orientations, 2) the problem of differential impact of the various orientations on the ecosystem as a whole, and 3) the problem of the differential dynamics of ecosystems dominated by different mixes of orientations. Comments Most comments
responding to this article are positive. For example, Reply In response, Cohen addresses both Aberle and Tambs-Lyche. To Aberle, he replies that it was not his intent to make an empirical law or theory. This is a very smart decision because of the diversity and complexity of social ecology. If such a law or theory was developed, there would be numerous societies that would not fit into it. Therefore, it would not be beneficial to the discipline. Cohen illuminates a major misinterpretation in response to Tambs-Lyche. Tambs-Lyche finds it ridiculous that orientations affect the environment. In his response, Cohen states that he has said no such thing. Rather, he argues that orientation causes “man” to act upon the environment in certain ways. This may reflect the hesitancy of professionals in the 1970’s to fully acknowledge the influence that indigenous peoples have had over their traditional lands. CLARITY: 5
Gates, Marilyn. Measuring Peasant Attitudes to Modernization: A Projective Method. Current Anthropology December, 1976 Vol.17(4): 641-665. The author presents a method, which involves the use of photographic test for attitude measurement (PHOTAM) in peasant societies that are undergoing modernization. Gates applies the technique to a case study of Mexican peasants partaking in an agricultural development project. She believes this method will stimulate a richer and more detailed response than other attitude scales developed in Western societies because peasants lack the exposure to those tests to which our society is accustomed. The procedure for PHOTAM is organized into ten steps. The first step is to intensively study the language of the area and administer interviews to identify key attitudes associated with the changes occurring in the traditional Maya agricultural system. Then a collection of attitudes that are critical for understanding the study is selected. Gates chose six clusters of attitudes: traditional agriculture, modern agriculture, authority, material and non-material wants and aspirations, and leisure. After that, photographs are taken depicting situations, environments, and cultural details familiar to the Mexican peasants being tested. Each photograph is designed to stimulate one or more of the six attitudes selected. Gates took 200 pictures but only used 21 of them for her study. Then selections of random subjects participating in the agricultural development projects are chosen. The photographs are shuffled and administered in this set order individually to each subject alone with the interviewer. Gates then asked the subject to invent a story about each photograph describing its content and context (who the people are, what they are doing, thinking, saying, and what might happen next). She then translated the responses in English word for word, including laughter, coughs, and swear-words. Gates took the six clusters and expanded then into 17 coding categories to create the attitude coding as clear and exact as possible, she also used a binary decision tree to narrow the responses even more to a specific attitude code. The attitude profiles were interpreted subjectively and objectively. Gates also tested the reliability and validity of her data by having a Latin American anthropologist with extensive field experience with peasants code 10% of her already coded data in order to make sure the results were similar. The last step of PHOTAM is optional and it involves performing cross-cultural testing and comparing the attitude profiles to demonstrate how effective PHOTAM can be in measuring attitudes in any peasant society. Gates’ results showed that the majority of Mexican peasants welcomed the development and modernization in spite of losing traditional practices. The responses given contained rich information of past traditions, experiences with other modern development projects, and associated aspects of the peasants’ way of life in their culture. Gates believes that the photographs are what make PHOTAM successful because when the peasants recognize familiar situations suspicions towards the anthropologist quickly fade away. She also noticed that the responses turned into first-person narratives, which contain more clearly projected attitudes than imaginative story telling. Gates says that this helps the anthropologist see the peasants’ world through their eyes. Gates also states that PHOTAM breaks the barriers of communication with peasants quicker than other anthropological methods. She also concludes that the ethnographic content of PHOTAM, when analyzed, is comparable to the results by an anthropologist using the participant-observation method in a typical village study; yet PHOTAM collects the data in a shorter period of time. COMMENTS Many commentators praised Gates for the way she used the technique PHOTAM to obtain data for an ethnographic interpretation of measuring Mexican peasant attitudes towards modernization. One commentator criticized Gates for not using historical research in her work, which would have helped her discover what new situations create new attitudes. Other commentators were disturbed by Gates statement that the results of PHOTAM are the same as the results of participant-observation methods, but that it can be done in a shorter period of time. This statement made the commentators question the efficiency of the PHOTAM. Also, some commentators believed Gates should have applied the PHOTAM test to the people who were modernizing the peasant community in order to retrieve more information to the cause of the attitudes. REPLY Gates replies that the contextual comments given to her will assist her in future studying and clarifying the relevance of PHOTAM to problems in agricultural modernization, which she will do in another paper. She argues for the reason why there many negative replies to PHOTAM being a quicker way of doing ethnography work is due to differences in research priorities. Gates states that PHOTAM will be a little less complete than that of results by the method of participant-observation. However, she strongly believes that PHOTAM is very useful if an urgent attitude survey is needed in regions where anthropological work is scarce. Gates does not believe that it is an absolute priority at this point to measure the attitudes of the people who are responsible for the modernization of the peasant communities; she thinks it is the peasants’ time to speak. CLARITY: 4
Hartung, John. On Natural Selection and the Inheritance of Wealth. Current Anthropology December, 1976 Vol.17(4):607-622. The author argues that the transmission of wealth along the male line is more advantageous in evolutionary terms due to the higher reproductive potential of the male and the greater degree of genetic similarity between males. He compares the reproductive variance of males and females to prove males have a higher reproductive potential and correlates the sex-chromosome transmission to the higher degree of similarity. He contends that by transferring wealth solely through the patrilineal line reproductive success of individuals will be maximized due to these two factors. The author begins by showing that males are capable of producing more offspring during their lifetime than females are because females are required to make a larger investment in offspring than males. He relates this data to the greater proportion of polygynous societies in the world. He then uses an economic model to show transmission of wealth along the male line is more beneficial due to the greater reproductive potential of the male. The author then discusses the transmission of sex chromosomes. He states that the Y chromosome has a significant behavioral component. He believes that the mechanics of sex chromosome transmission provide an additional benefit to males. This is due to the fact that the Y chromosome is passed intact to related males, the X chromosome is passed intact only when passed by males and is subject to genetic crossover when passed by females, and the source of a gene on the X chromosome is most likely an ancestor on the male line of descent. Due to these mechanics the male is theoretically more closely related to descendents than the female is. The author provides charts to prove this hypothesis. The author asserts that the potential differential reproductive success of males combined with the mechanics of sex chromosome transmission provide maximum reproductive success and maximal fitness when wealth is inherited through the male line. He says that this is a possible reason for the greater abundance of patrilineal kinship systems and uses statistical facts and mathematical models to prove his point. The author accounts for contradictory cases by saying that some cultures do not have sufficient wealth to be transmitted and some cultures also have sexual habits that make it difficult to discern paternity. COMMENTS One of the major criticisms of this article is the fact that for most of human history man was a hunter and gatherer where there was very little wealth to be passed on. Therefore, wealth could not be such a significant selective pressure on human evolution. Many commentators also criticize the author for assuming behavioral traits, like patrilineality, are genetically controlled. The author provides little evidence to back up this hypothesis. Many commentators also criticize the author for applying natural selection to the individual. The remainder of the criticism deals with technical matters like the author’s misuse of mathematical formulas. Most of the commentators say further research into this matter is necessary. REPLY The author concedes that he did not explain himself as well as he could have and maintains that natural selection can act at the individual level and have importance at the group level. Then he discusses the future of anthropology. He believes anthropology needs to be put back into an evolutionary context. The author also says that he uses the term wealth to refer to other resources, like knowledge, in addition to material ones. He also says that he does not support this preference for males, he only illustrates it. The author agrees that further research is needed. CLARITY: 4
Hartung, John. On Natural Selection and Inheritance of Wealth. Current Anthropology December, 1976 Vol.17(4):607-622. Hartung’s article explores natural and cultural selection of wealth inheritance. The tracing of the sex chromosome has revealed that males will be more closely related to their sons, and their sons’ sons, etc., than any other descendant of that same generation. In the case where the wealth had to be passed on to a daughter, the next best descendant that would have the highest probability of carrying and passing the original giver’s X chromosome would be the daughter’s son. Hartung contends that the most beneficial way for a male’s fitness to be passed to his descendents is by passing inheritable wealth to his son, and son’s son, etc. The basic conclusion is that the fitness enhancing potential of the giver’s wealth is capitalized when wealth is diffused along the male line rather than the female line. More precisely, this is achieved by concentrating wealth on descendants with higher relationship coefficients and higher reproductive potential. However, Hartung also accounts for the immediate weakness in his theory, and concludes that in societies where it is difficult to establish the male line, other special relationships may develop to continue the most reproductively beneficial inheritance tactic. In such cases, he proposes that exceptional matrilineal, mother’s brother or sister’s son inheritance patterns develop. Hartung justifies his hypothesis with genetic research and chromosomal ancestry diagrams. The author also provides explanations for deviances in his hypothesis. For example, some specific cultures employ sexual practices that are not favorable to a high chance of paternity. Hartung suggests that these societies cope by passing wealth from mother to son, and thereby ensuring that wealth is passed from male to male without jeopardizing correct assignment. Probability of maternity is also controlled in some regions through female genital mutilation. By removing the potential of experiencing sexual enjoyment, some cultures believe that women are less likely to engage in extramarital affairs. This helps ensure that male wealth is passed on to children of his female partner that are genetically his descendants. Hartung concludes that it is relevant to understand that patrilineal inheritance is primarily sustained through cultural transition, and that cultural behavior can adapt to change faster than genetically transmitted behavior. Comments Commentators support Hartung’s conclusion that wealth affects human behavior. However, many are not convinced that natural selection influences the inheritance of wealth, and that wealth transmits from generation to generation by biological units of inheritance, more specifically, the gene. It is argued that wealth passes mainly through the male line of descent because most societies are patriarchal and therefore it is the males who make the laws or decide the norms for wealth inheritance to benefit their own gender. Critics agree that reproductive fitness is enhanced over time through the passing of wealth to one’s offspring, and that reproductive success is greater through the male line than the female. However, Hartung is critiqued for drawing premature conclusions. Reply Hartung replies by stating that most of the criticisms are based on misunderstandings of his ideas and explanations, rather than on actual divergence of thought. He strongly supports his theory that any trait, whether physical or behavioral, is passed from generation to generation and can be acted upon by natural selection. He acknowledges that the idea of natural selection influencing culturally inherent behaviors is obscure and commonly not conventional. The definition of wealth used in this paper is reiterated because it includes material goods, resources, ability, and status. Hartung feels that his argument loses validity without this specific and complete definition of wealth. CLARITY: 2
Honigmann, John J. The Personal Approach in Cultural Anthropological Research. Current Anthropology June, 1976 Vol.17(2):243-261. A balance is sought between the personal and objective approaches in cultural anthropology. Usefulness of the personal approach depends on the goals of the research and on the specific subfield of anthropology. The personal approach is a trained investigator’s unique version of reported events and what she or he believes to be true based on the conclusions. The author describes and defends the personal approach and discusses the responsibilities that accompany the method. According to the author the method is individualistic and maintains associations with logic and attempts to avoid contradictions. By combining artistic intuition and reason the argument becomes credible. The approach is most often incorporated in ethnography and ethnology. Ideally, the researcher will have something original and interesting to say based on their training and imagination. The personal approach is nonrepeatable and cannot be taught; it can only be learned through practicing the method. According to the author the personal approach only works when the investigator is trained and qualified to report and draw conclusions from the specific observations. Also, the investigator must maintain integrity to report what she or he believes to be true based on their training and value judgment. The author believes that the theory brings a personal component to ethnographic methods and is credible without utilizing standardized, objective modes to obtain data. The author describes instances when objective evidence can be combined with the personal approach to support the conclusion. For example, an ethnographer can employ scientific tests and utilize scales to better understand a culture. Under specific conditions operational definitions and statistics may augment the credibility of inferences. Use of the personal or objective approach depends on the individual anthropologist, the research question, and the subfield she or he operates in. The personal approach is most suited for research that aims at making connections between cultural patterns and interpreting meaning within specific cultures. The method is also equipped to investigate historical narration. COMMENTS The majority of the comments reflected an overall agreement with the author and found the authors views coherent and understandable. Some asked why is it that a certain author, method, or theory can prove more convincing at a particular moment in time. A question of balance between personal knowledge and objectivity was also raised. The personal approach was criticized by certain commentators for being too extreme in its emphasis on subjectivity and for an increased probability for error in data collection. REPLY The author was curious as to why there were so few disagreements and criticisms. He echoed the question of balance between personal knowledge and objectivity and stated that it is a dilemma especially in relation to the credibility of ethnographic work when certain environments are predominantly compatible with objectification. However, the author states that knowledge produced objectively is, to a degree, also subjective and is dependent on history and reflects values and judgments associated with that period in time. He also counters the claim that the personal approach allows for an increased probability for error in data collection. The author states that error originates when patterns are inconsistent with perceptions. CLARITY: 3
Honigmann, John J. Personal Approach in Cultural Anthropological Research. Current Anthropology June, 1976 Vol.17(2):243-61. Honigmann’s
aim in writing this article is to describe and defend the use of
the personal approach in cultural anthropology. He clarified this
notion with several examples; one in particular is how directors
use the personal subjective approach when they bring out the message
they believe the playwright intended. Honigmann explains at the beginning
of this article that what he hopes to clarify for is why it is inaccurate
to view the personal and objective approaches as adversaries. The
uses his own work with the Inuit and native peoples of This article is divided into sections, which provide a clear understanding that flows into a commonsense description of how to correctly use the personal approach. Section one is the most valuable in backing the author’s belief in encouraging the use of the personal approach in cultural investigations for it gives the premise for which the personal approach should be used. The use of the personal approach rests upon, “… that certain circumstances value lies in the very uniqueness and non-repeatability of a particular investigator’s version of reported events or conclusions drawn from these events” (244). The author explains the fallacies behind believing that the personal approach rests on assumptions, and therefore should be looked at as incredulous. To Honigmann this notion is untrue, as knowledge that is either attained by the personal approach or standardized methods are unstable and always subject to vacillation due to new data or changing theories. The remaining sections of this paper are devoted to the examination of the uses of the personal approach in writing up and producing the results of research. Comments The commentators predominantly agreed that Honigmann indeed proves that subjectivity exists in all research procedures. Many of the comments support his view that even when using the quantitative standardized objective approach, personal factors influence each stage of this approach. Criticism is minimal, however, one of the flaws that was detected was Honigmann’s lack of acknowledgment that other approaches to studying anthropological events can be more valuable than the personal approach. Reply The author express surprise, because the commentators found few flaws, and in the most part generally agreed with his position. He spends time on each of the issues that were highlighted as concerns by the commentators, such as the notion that anthropologists cannot be distinguished from novelists or playwrights if only the personal approach is followed. To Honigmann this notion is inaccurate for anthropologists undertake lengthy professional training, exposure and experience in how use to the traditional methods of ethnography. An important part of the author’s reply is his acknowledgement of three replies in particular, since they provided him with new insights on his paper that, with further undertaking, could expand into new areas in cultural anthropology. CLARITY: 4
Hunt, Robert C. and Hunt, Eva. Canal Irrigation and Local Social Organization. Current Anthropology September 1976. Vol. 17(3):389-411. The
authors’ main argument is the presence of a strong connection
between irrigation systems and social organization in By
examining these cases in COMMENTS The comments on the article were quite mixed. Some scholars thought the points raised in the article were quite interesting and important to the study of irrigation systems. They felt that if the authors would include other disciplines, such as archaeology and history that it would enhance the point that they were trying to make. Others felt that they were simplifying the complex phenomenon of social stratification. Those who were critical of the article felt that the authors should not try to universalize a model for the world’s irrigation systems because of the variety among the different systems. Some scholars also argued that irrigation systems are not always used in the same manner and for the same purpose so they questioned why the authors assumed that the irrigation systems linked with social organization were solely agricultural systems. Why the authors chose water allocation to illustrate the linkage with social organization when there are other, perhaps more important resources, closely related to social organization than water, was also drawn into question. REPLY In response to examining other resources, the authors stood their ground and claimed that they did not want to include points that could not be backed with relevant information. In their opinion, the allocation of water still represents the strongest link to social organization. As for the universal model, they acknowledged that it would be difficult to do, but at the same time it needed to be done in order to be able to compare irrigation systems around the world. CLARITY: 4
Hunt, Robert C. and Eva Hunt. Canal Irrigation and Local Social Organization. Current Anthropology September, 1976 Vol. 17 (3):389-410. In this article, canal irrigation is identified as a major source of “intensifying plant food production” and as such is “a resource of unusual social power” (389). The Hunts have suggested that in agricultural societies based on irrigation, the distribution of power and social organization are directly linked to a hierarchy within the production system. They indicate that there are three fundamental issues to explore based on this assumption, including: “ (1) the local organization of the tasks pursuant to irrigation, (2) the linkages between the local level and higher levels of the system, and (3) the relationship between roles in the irrigation system and other roles in the local social organization” (390). The issue of water shortages dominates the article. Arguably, the allocation of water can be seen as a source of power because it reflects who maintains control within these societies and who will be affected by the decisions made. The Hunts recognize several major concerns within the irrigation system that are dealt with accordingly by different groups with varying levels. In the first section of the article, Local Organization of Tasks, they identify needs to be accomplished in order to maintain a successful crop and who in society dictates the decisions being made in these domains. Considering principles developed by Glick and Levi-Strauss, they determine that more frequent dilemmas, including allocation of water resources, maintenance of fields, and minor conflict resolution, are more likely to be handled by local authorities. While the less frequent ones, such as construction, repairs, and major conflict resolution, are coincidentally controlled by exterior power figures (391). The second section of the article, Linkages, focuses on the presence or lack of centralization within irrigation societies, and the relationship between the local and foreign authorities. A lengthy analysis is included in this section to reiterate exactly who maintains control over particular aspects of the irrigation system, and how local groups are subordinate to exterior ones (394-396). A comparison of interpretations made by Wittfogel, Kappel, and Millon suggests that community studies are largely insufficient when analyzing social organization through irrigational systems as they are always connected to larger bodies. Finally, Role Embeddedness, the last section consists of a discussion surrounding social stratification. Here it is argues that “where there is irrigated agriculture there is social stratification and that the stratification is importantly linked to differential decision-making power over the tasks of the irrigational system” (396). It is suggested by the Hunts that more research in this area is needed in order to fully appreciate the significance of roles in irrigational societies, as there is no documentation over long periods of time in any of these societies that pertains to the change in leadership and how it is reflected in the irrigation system (397). Comments The comments related to this article are mainly positive in nature, as critics have recognized the valuable information that the Hunts have extracted in their analysis of irrigated agricultural systems. The majority of commentators articulate the importance of the Hunts suggestions for further research on the subject in order to develop a clear perspective of the issues at hand. It is clear, well written, and precise in nature and as such deserves such recognition. Perhaps the only need for improvement in the article is to reduce the amount of repetitiveness in some areas, as points have been reiterated. Reply In the Hunts’ reply, as in their peers’ comments, they specifically address the importance of three main points: “Comparative-Study Design, Results, and Future Field Research” (405). Each one is again clearly dealt with, and strong points of the article are once more recognized. CLARITY: 4
Hutterer, Karl L. An Evolutionary Approach to the Southeast Asian Culture Sequence. Current Anthropology, June 1976. Vol. 17(2): 221-242. The
author explains that previous “archaeological frameworks” for
Southeast Asian cultural development have been shown to be inaccurate
in light of new archaeological data. Further, traditional frameworks,
for figuring out the chronologies for cultural development in a
particular region do not work well in Hutterer goes on to explain that because of this a proper framework for Southeast Asian prehistory will exhibit the following characteristics. Geographical discontinuity, two small adjacent areas may not match and an increase in the variety of sites and cultural traditions over time. Over time cultural-ecological specialization will tend to increase and there will be a tendency “towards increased interaction and interdependence between diverse groups” in any regional sequence. COMMENTS In
general the commentators agreed that Hutterer is mostly right in
his attempt to reevaluate traditional conceptions about REPLY Hutterer appreciates some of the clarification done by some of the commentators on parts of his paper, which in retrospect may have been misleading. He goes on to say that he is interested in the effects of ecological diversity on the human condition. Further he explains that some of the commentators where attaching meaning to his comments that he hadn’t intended, for example he didn’t intend to imply that there was not great cultural diversity in certain temperate climates as well, just that tropical environments in general will show the most diversity. He then defends the correlation between ecological, and technological diversity, saying that there is good reason to believe that greater ecological diversity results in greater technological diversity. CLARITY: 5
Jarvie, I.C. On the Limits of Symbolic Interpretation in Anthropology. Current Anthropology December, 1976 Vol. 17(4):687-701. The author’s purpose is to offer “some skeptical arguments against “symbolic” interpretations of human action.” (687) His main concern with this approach is that it “adds unfruitful complication to anthropology, is fundamentally arbitrary, and is morally dubious.” (687) He contests the “distinction between practical or instrumental (or rational or observable) purpose and symbolic or communicative purpose.” (687) He opts to take on “a single, in some ways representative piece,” which constitutes “an exemplar of the whole symbolic-interpretation approach.” (687) E.R. Leach argued in “Golden bough or gilded twig” (1961) “that reports of primitive peoples who did not know the connection between coition and pregnancy were not to be trusted.” He expanded on this concept, comparing it to the Christian doctrine of virgin birth, in his 1966 Henry Myers Lecture. According to Jarvie, Leach invokes the distinction between the everyday world and metaphysics “to rescue palpable falsehoods from ridicule.” (688) This allows the anthropologist to seriously consider what would be dismissed in a different context. The author claims that, “For Leach and, I suspect, for others of the symbolic-interpretationist persuasion, “there are different kinds of truth.”” (688) The author offers two transcendental arguments against the symbolic approach. The first is that there are quite a few different symbol systems and that they are incompatible. This he concludes “possibly signals arbitrariness.” (689) The second is that by seeking a symbolic interpretation, we are presupposing “that a determinate meaning exists.” But, since we have no account of how the meaning got there, “we are forced to withdraw the supposition that a determinate meaning does indeed exist.” (689) It is a principle of intellectual economy that Jarvie claims to be invoking. COMMENTS Most commentators took exception to Jarvie’s conflation of all symbolic-interpretation approaches into one and then making “sweeping” generalizations and “distressing misrepresentations.” (Drummond, 694) Aronoff faults him “for focusing on Leach’s essay as if it were somehow representative of a nonexistent single approach.” (693) He uses the examples of irony, sarcasm, and rituals to show that cognition is multivocal and multileveled. He and others stress the use of different levels of meaning and analysis, not “different kinds of truth.” Hanson points out that the varied systems of symbolic interpretation “do not all ask the same questions,” and thus are not necessarily incompatible. (695) He and Aronoff both stress that we do have accounts of “how the hidden meanings got there.” (695) Leach declares “I hold hardly any of the opinions which Jarvie credits to me in the course of his argument.” (697) REPLY The author responds that he “wanted to raise the fundamental question “When should an anthropologist resort to symbolic readings of human acts and words?”” (700) His answer is to “go to symbolism only when intentional, instrumental, or functional readings are inadequate for the purpose at hand.” (700) Jarvie explicitly gives us two reasons why restraint is in order: (1) There is an immense number of such symbolic systems and they are untestable; and (2) that the assumption that there are hidden messages in what people say and do is contentious. He says that the other, implicit, reason is that doing symbolic analysis is “just too easy.” (700) We should start with, and generally stick with, literal analysis because it is far better to begin with what is testable. Jarvie claims to agree that there are certain kinds of questions for which symbolic interpretation is called for; such as those Burridge asks in New heaven, new earth (1969). “My paper called for limits to symbolic interpretation, not its abandonment.” (700) CLARITY: 4
Jarvie, I.C. On the Limits of Symbolic Interpretation. Current Anthropology December, 1976 Vol.17(4):687-701. In this article, Jarvie offers an argument against analyzing symbolism in relation to human actions. His statements are directed towards a single piece of literature in an attempt to avoid a transcendental argument. His chosen adversary is E.R. Leach’s 1967 article Virgin Birth. In his essay, Leach argues that virgin births must be viewed in a symbolic context rather than as factual events. This approach to rationalizing the belief of the Immaculate Conception reduces the potential for negatively viewing the culture. This negative form of viewing a society as primitive or lacking knowledge of biological functioning in the case of the virgin birth assumption degrades belief systems that are symbolically different. Opposed to this view, Jarvie believes that by using symbolic interpretation individuals are attempting to qualify information and actions by categorizing them as either physical or metaphysical based on their culture rather than learn what it is the people believe and why they believe what they do. Do they see significant meaning within the action is what Jarvie is suggesting the question should be. By means of offering hints through out this article Jarvie attempts to support his view by arguing that interpreting the symbolism of human actions insinuates that the action has deeper meaning. The author believes that the perceived symbolism of human actions lead to further confusion rather than clarity. Comments The commentaries relating to this article suggest the presentation of the argument is both difficult to follow and narrow. Focusing on only a single article as a base for this debate has greatly reduced the validity of the presented information. In the author’s effort to avoid creating a transcendental argument, he has in fact done just that. Reply Jarvie replies to the comments by arguing that an author has the right to write a paper that he believes in and not what others think he should write. The author believes that those reading his paper should not assume that he has stated anything more that asking a specific question “when should an anthropologist resort to symbolic readings of human acts and words”. It is in response to this specific question that his paper was written and not to refute of the use of symbolic interpretation. CLARITY: 2
Kerri, James Nwannukwu. Studying Voluntary Associations as Adaptive Mechanisms: A Review of Anthropological Perspectives. Current Anthropology March, 1976. Vol. 17(1): 21-47. Kerri’s purpose in writing this article is to make an analysis of previous studies done on the subject of voluntary association. In doing this, he attempts to explain how voluntary association may be viewed as an adaptive mechanism in changing social, cultural, ecological and technological situations. Kerri bases his analysis on his understanding that voluntary associations are more “pliable” than kinship relations. Individuals joined by voluntary association share a common interest, while membership to a kin group is determined by birth and marriage, and such common interest is not necessary. Therefore, the very nature of voluntary associations as a social grouping is much more flexible than kinship relations. In
order to make his analysis, Kerri gives a definition of voluntary
association. He states that “any private group voluntarily
and more or less fundamentally organized, joined and maintained
by members pursuing a common interest, usually by means of part-time,
unpaid activities” (Anderson, 1964:175-76). Still, the author
admits that membership of a voluntary association, or obligations
to one, are not necessarily voluntary. However, there may be instances
in which certain duties are necessary for membership while any
actual participation is not required. He gives the example of students
who are forced to pay general fees, but are not required to participate
in the activities they fund. The remainder of Kerri’s work
is devoted to making a cross-cultural illustration of existing
voluntary associations. He discusses past studies done in Africa, Kerri ends his article with a discussion of rotating-credit associations. He presents Geertz’s conception of the basic principle of rotating associations as being “a lump sum composed of fixed contribution from each member of the association is distributed, at fixed intervals and as a whole, to each member of the association in turn”. Geertz also suggests that these associations are a “middle rung” of a process of development, lying between an agrarian and capitalist societal system. Kerri concludes, noting the topics he discusses should not be considered comprehensive, because there is a lot of room for other interpretations from other fields of study. COMMENTS About
half of the commentators were impressed by Kerri’s work,
finding it to be a detailed cross-cultural analysis of voluntary
association. Still, several commentators believed that Kerri ignored
certain areas such as Latin America and REPLY Kerri asserts that he covered his material in “sufficient detail” and did not ignore or omit information pertinent to his study. Instead, he finds that the commentators who criticized him on this point to be limited by having awareness of only their own work. Kerri explains that the study of voluntary associations does not have value for all human societies. He states that undertaking a study of such global scope will naturally create these kinds of problems. CLARITY: 4
Kerri, James Nwannukwu. Studying Voluntary Associations as Adaptive Mechanisms. A Review of Anthropological Perspectives. Current Anthropology March, 1976 Vol.17(1):23-45. The general purpose of the article is to illustrate how voluntary associations have been studied as adaptive mechanisms to social, cultural, ecological and technological change, particularly urbanization and associated migration (23). Specific attention is given to Rotating Credit Associations. This is achieved through a painstaking review and discussion of pertinent literature, published since the 1940’s. The central argument is reiterated that voluntary associations are a means of coping with, or bringing about change. Kerri begins by defining the pertinent term of voluntary association, contrasting it with kinship and territory groups, asserting that voluntary associations link members by common interest, over any other factor. He continues by contrasting voluntary associations with common interest associations. The author then
begins his exhaustive review of literature, first discussing those
works that impact the general and theoretical features of voluntary
associations. He follows with a geographic review, focusing on work
in Africa, Asia, Western Europe and Finally, Kerri tackles a topic of his own interest, rotating credit associations. He provides several examples in an attempt to explain both their relevance and purpose as a voluntary association. He asserts that these associations are adaptive, and may co-exist, or exist in the absence of formal credit institutions. In his conclusion, the author reiterates that his purpose in this article is to provide an overview of the available literature and assess it in terms of focus and contribution, as well as strengths and weaknesses. He also suggests that his personal biases may be evident in this process. His final summation includes the suggestion to adopt a new approach when dealing with voluntary association research, one that is problem-oriented, with the ability to demonstrate the relationship between various factors. His criticism of the existing literature is that it fails to explain how factors interact and lead to the creation of voluntary associations. Comments Critics of Kerri’s
article argue that the author failed to include much of the relevant
data. Specifically, comments are made regarding his primary use of
English documentation, as well as his apparently limited understanding
of certain cultural implications, including those in Reply In response, Kerri
first defends his review of primarily English literature, based on
the fact that it was available, and tended to focus more on the specific
construct he was pursuing, rather than complete ethnographic information,
which would not provide specific theory. Further, he admits that
as a result, his treatment of some areas including CLARITY: 3
Magnarella, Paul J. and Orhan Turkdogan. The Development of Turkish Social Anthropology. Current Anthropology June, 1976 Vol.17 (2): 263-274. The
primary objective of this article is to provide an overview of
Turkish social anthropology through historical and contemporary
context. The authors lay out a criterion of incorporating only
Turkish anthropologists focused on Turkish anthropology, and excluding
social anthropological work in The
authors begin with the late 18th century and early 19th century
as the foundations of social anthropology in Turkish
nationalism led to the second phase in anthropological history.
The 1920’s and 1930’s produced the first professional
Turkish anthropologist, Sevket Aziz Kansu. In the 1940’s
through the 1960’s, five major contributors conducted significant
Turkish anthropological research. 1) Niyazi Berkes studied Turkish
population sociology 2) Behice Boran worked on comparing social
structure and ecology in the mountains in Turkey 3) Ibrahim Yasa
conducted long term social, cultural in economic studies in a Turkish
village 4) Nermin Erdentug contributed the first in depth ethnographies
of rural The 1970’s activity greatly increased in social anthropological studies. The authors focused on the works that included: greater uses of quantitative techniques, greater application of social science studies to social problems, research in social science in urban areas, development of anthropology outside of major cultural centers, renewed interest in Turkish folklore, and increased activity by government to work on social problems. The authors also mention the establishment in 1935 of the Anthropology Institute of Ankara University and the contributions the facility has made in the field. They go on to discuss the faculty involved and their areas of study as well as various curricular opportunities. Finally
the authors discussed the hopes and the future for social anthropological
research in COMMENTS The
overall comments made about the article are positive especially
in regards to the biographical information that it provided. There
is some mention of other major Turkish contributors that should
have been included in the work. Nermin Erdentug clarified her role
in Turkish anthropology in the comments. One commentator criticized
the lack of information regarding the context surrounding the major
influences/people involved in Turkish social anthropology. They
also cite the lack of anthropological work in politics, religion,
ritual, and symbolism in REPLY Magnarella responds to the critiques by thanking the commentators for the information they provided that he had missed in his research. He goes on to mention other people that he has also found relevant after the fact. He argues that the criticisms of the lack of context surrounding important contributors are unfounded for the purpose of his article but would be relevant for an article with a different focus. As for the lack of anthropological research in areas of politics, religion, ritual, and symbolism, he provides numerous accounts where this information can be found. CLARITY: 5
Magnarella, Paul J. and Turkdogan, Orhan. The Development of Turkish Social Anthropology. Current Anthropology June, 1976 Vol.17 (2):263-270. This article deals
with the development of social anthropology in The authors include the opposing opinions of people against allowing European influences to change the Turkish social system. The points raised by the authors regarding the understanding of the movements that occurred in Turkish social anthropology are further supported by facts and arguments throughout this article. CLARITY: 4 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}