Anthropology is an ill-defined and reactionary discipline

[synthesis]

Discuss.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

There are some Marxist anthropologists who have taken off from Engel's Origin of the family, Private Property,and The State. Most of Marx/Engels views in anthropology , based on Morgan, Bachofen and others have been shown to be largely true, with some modifications. For obvious reasons this direction has not been favored by academic anthropologists. Anthropologists who use a historical materialist approach are in a minority, as I understand.

Micheal Taussig is one of the few Marxist anthropologists/activists that I know of.He works with indigenous people in CFolumbia and has been influenced by Walter Benjimin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Taussig

As I understand the functionalist school pioneered by Malinowski comes close to historical materialism but isn't quite the same. It focuses on how different parts of a society interact.They recognize class struggle but don't see it as the prime mover of society.

I could be wrong about this. This is the impression I have anyway.

Perhaps this should be in the science section?

I finally have a serious post in chit chat!

[Os Cangaceiros]

Man, my anthropology teacher was so fucking boring. His name was David Hicks, and I guess he'd been teaching anthropology at New York State since before the Oregon Trail. Seriously, he's the living proof that tenure can be a horrible thing. Homeboy should've retired when the Vietnam War broke out, goddamn.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Man, my anthropology teacher was so fucking boring. His name was David Hicks, and I guess he'd been teaching anthropology at New York State since before the Oregon Trail. Seriously, he's the living proof that tenure can be a horrible thing. Homeboy should've retired when the Vietnam War broke out, goddamn.

You went to Stony Brook? Much of my extended family went their as well as a former room mate. From Hick's website the guy sounds pretty boring.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Yup. It's not a bad school...they actually have a really good History department (which was my field), although they're best known for their medical program. And the unhappiness of their student body (http://www.sbindependent.org/node/1918), LOL.

You have no idea how boring DH was, LOL. I couldn't even read his book about East Timor, and I pretty much never went to class (which I guess is why I finished the class with a C+...I was honestly expecting to fail). The legend of Stony Brook anthro appeared to be William Arens, though, who's book The Man-eating Myth had a pretty big impact on the field for a time, although it's come under fire in recent years.

[Raúl Duke]

Anthropology is an ill-defined and reactionary discipline

It was, but to say that about it now is just down-right silly.

[Widerstand]

How is a discipline reactionary? Can a toothbrush be reactionary, too?

[Rusty Shackleford]

i see functionalism as borderline reactionary, hardcore status-quo, and almost fascistic.

yes, a discipline can be reactionary imo.


EDIT: and the anthropologist in Red Dead Redemption proves its possibility as reactionary. The whole field of study developed in the west to look at "lesser" civilizations wasnt it?

[Raúl Duke]

i see functionalism as borderline reactionary, hardcore status-quo, and almost fascistic.


functionalism is also present in sociology, in fact it may still more-or-less carry some weight there. I rarely ever heard mention of "functionalism" in anthropology.



yes, a discipline can be reactionary imo.

perhaps sub-branches (since many sub-branches carry ideological, philosophical, and/or theoretical backgrounds; i.e. evolutionary pychology) but it's silly to say that "the study of humans and human culture" (anthropology) or "the study of society" (sociology) are in themselves "reactionary."

[Rusty Shackleford]

functionalism is also present in sociology, in fact it may still more-or-less carry some weight there. I rarely ever heard mention of "functionalism" in anthropology.



perhaps sub-branches (since many sub-branches carry ideological, philosophical, and/or theoretical backgrounds; i.e. evolutionary pychology) but it's silly to say that "the study of humans and human culture" (anthropology) or "the study of society" (sociology) are in themselves "reactionary."

i was actually talking about functionalism within sociology.

the whole notion that "society is a wheel, and each part is a spoke in it" screams of class collaboration when the intention is to also make that wheel maintain its usefulness.

it basically legitimizes wealth disparity, racism, sexism, and aging value systems.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anthropology way back when (like, in the 19th century) always brought images to my mind of delving deep into the jungle to find some forgotten tribe, complete with safari cap and notebook, and taking powerful hallucinogenic drugs around a raging bonfire with a group of shamen. It's a shame that modern day anthro no longer has that glamorous image.

[Raúl Duke]

i was actually talking about functionalism within sociology.

the whole notion that "society is a wheel, and each part is a spoke in it" screams of class collaboration when the intention is to also make that wheel maintain its usefulness.

it basically legitimizes wealth disparity, racism, sexism, and aging value systems. I agree with you, although functionalism isn't as popular anymore these days to my knowledge.


and the anthropologist in Red Dead Redemption proves its possibility as reactionary. The whole field of study developed in the west to look at "lesser" civilizations wasnt it? In America, at the time, Anthropology was focused on "salvage anthropology" which was basically just create/document ethnographies and collect artifacts because "inferior cultures" where going to be replaced by America's white-man culture. They saw whole cultures as quaint things befitting to be museum exhibits.

It wasn't till like the 60s-70s where anthropology shifts its focus (as do many fields, like sociology and history) and new anthropological theories are made. Also, public or applied anthropology appears and than you see anthropologists advocating for marginalized groups and/or put in place or appeal for culture-preservation programs.


always brought images to my mind of delving deep into the jungle to find some forgotten tribe, complete with safari cap and notebook, and taking powerful hallucinogenic drugs around a raging bonfire with a group of shamen. It's a shame that modern day anthro no longer has that glamorous image.

There are still people doing that, making ethnographies. There are still people doing studies on shamanic practices and/or partaking in them. However, many cultures and stuff have been already examined (however, one can always put out a new perspective and/or look into cultural changes or present day stuff that might not have already been covered.)

[Queercommie Girl]

Anthropology is just like a tool. If reactionaries can use it, there is no reason why it cannot be used by socialists for socialist ends.

I find the anthropological study into primitive communism that helps to provide a historical and scientific justification for gender equality and LGBT rights to be very interesting and positive, for example:

http://www.urkommunismus.de/catalhueyuek_en.html

Individuality and gender relations

The burial objects found in the graves emphasize not only social equality since they differ only marginally concerning their quantity and character (Mellaart 1967: 206) but also confirm the individual differences between persons. The burial objects even vary within one living space (Mellaart 1963: 100f.) and thus rather document differences between individuals than differences due to membership of different classes (Childe 1952: 143-144).

Mellaart could not imagine the societal wealth he found to be generally, equally distributed. Therefore he presumed that the area he excavated was the quarter of the priests, and in the rest of the town circumstances must have been poorer. This was an assumption which could be rejected with good arguments especially after the results of skeleton examinations had been published by Angel in 1971. Already in 1969, it was demonstrated that the collective findings were easier to reconcile with a society without stratification (Narr 1969: 12/2, see esp. Grünert 1982: 194, Hermann 1983: 65-68, and, on the basis of Mellaart's results: Hummel 1996: 269). Hodder's early investigations proved that Çatalhöyük looked everywhere as it did in the area excavated by Mellaart (Hodder 1996b: 360/2-361/1, Balter 1998: 1443/2, Hodder 2003: 10). This means that in Çatalhöyük those differences between people are absent that are so striking in a society divided into classes. Archaeologists accordingly describe this society as egalitarian (Balter 1999: 891/3, Moore 1998) or discuss subtle differences between an egalitarian and a stratified society (for a stratified society: Wason 1994: 153-179, for a society in between: Hodder 1996b: 366/2, for a purely egalitarian society: Hamilton 1996: 262/2). Here, Naomi Hamilton finds the resolving words for this discussion: "Difference need not mean structural inequality. Ranking by age, achieved status, social roles based on skill and knowledge etc. do not necessarily contradict an egalitarian ethos."

The graves in Çatalhöyük already show that a social division of labour was missing since the dead were given tools for various activities of basic production and in each house there were seeds (Connolly 1999: 798/2). However, it can also be seen that people were partially specialized according to their aptitudes in skilled activities that exceeded basic production, from burial objects such as painting utensils or copper (Mellaart 1967: 209). Presumably by producing ceramics, people in Çatalhöyük had discovered how to smelt metallic copper from copper ore, as documented by the preserved slag (Mellaart 1967: 217-218).

There is a striking difference to class societies: burial objects were not produced explicitly for burials, but they rather were goods which people had used during their lives and which were left to them in death (Mellaart 1967: 209). This also holds true for objects which truly are at the end of the "gradual spectrum". Perfectly crafted flint daggers, mirrors sanded from obsidian that were more brilliant than antique metal mirrors (Mellaart 1967: pl. XIV and XII) as well as flawless tools made from obsidian (Hamblin 1975: 17), all of them found in graves: they document both the deployed different preferences and abilities of people who were able to produce them and the respect of their fellow human beings who left these objects to them in their graves instead of retaining them for themselves. Pieces like these led Mellaart to the assumption that they could have been produced in this perfection only by full specialists, particularly since he did not find any midden resulting from production (Mellaart 1967: 211, Balter 1998: 1443/2). During the new excavations specific attention was paid, therefore, to microscopic traces of midden in the clay floors, and domestic waste was analyzed. In this way, evidence could be provided for midden resulting from working on stones. This means that manufacturing stones was not the task of full specialists but was conducted in every household, or associated households in the case of complex production processes that were possible only collectively (Connolly 1999: 798-799, also see Balter 1998: 1443/2 and Hodder 1999: 6/1). Burial objects that were found in a house had been produced and used in that house and been buried with the person who had manufactured and used them. Hodder draws the conclusion that "we cannot argue for total control of production by an elite" (Hodder 1996b: 361/2).

Just like the "living houses" that changed with their inhabitants and were adapted to changing living circumstances, this attachment of people to the objects of daily life conveys an integrated image of organic structures and vital coherences.

Truly outstanding and especially remarkable is the fact that women, too, received tools as burial objects, just as men did (Mellaart 1967: 209) (Footnote:This seems to have held true for neolithic civilizations in general, even for Central European linear pottery culture (linearbandkeramik) (Nordholz 2004: 124). However, this interrelation rarely seems to be observed. (http://www.urkommunismus.de/catalhueyuek_en.html#_ftn6) 6). In later class societies, men (of the "middle classes") received burial objects that allowed conclusions as to their profession but women's graves contained only jewellery: rich women were given rich jewellery, poor women poor jewellery. That these women worked just as hard - if not even harder - than men is not reflected in the burial objects. The tools in neolithic women graves illustrate that women were recognized as equals as a matter of course in the production of goods. This, in turn, supports the assumption that in this society the antagonism between production and reproduction was abolished. There are mural paintings in Çatalhöyük that complement and confirm this assumption; they show men dancing with children (Mellaart 1966: pl. LIV, LV, LIX, LXI), a motif that does not occur in class society until the 13th century B.C. and also later only led a shadowy existence. Also, in contrast to Mellaart's statement, not only women were buried with children but men also (Hamilton 1996: 253/1).


However, not only were women buried with tools but also men were buried with jewellery, partially with considerable amounts (Hamilton 1996: 262) (Fussnote:Mellaart's converse argument stems from the fact that he frequently determined the sex of the skeletons according to their grave goods (!). It was only after Angel's anatomical examinations of the skeletons six years after that the true facts were revealed (Hamilton 1996: 245/2, 258/2). (http://www.urkommunismus.de/catalhueyuek_en.html#_ftn7) 7). Naomi Hamilton who in Hodder's team is responsible for working with the graves and therefore for analyzing gender relations, doubts if the definition of a social gender apart from biological sex is at all helpful in the discussion on Çatalhöyük. She regards the concept of gender as bound to our times and their problems and considers the possibility that neolithic humans did not perceive man and woman as being a polarity (Hamilton 1996: 262). Indeed, already in 1990 Hodder developed the thought that the decisive polarity for neolithic perception may have been of a different nature (Hodder 1990). It is interesting that more recent considerations lead to an analogous assumption concerning the Palaeolithic (Heidefrau 2004). The author, Elke Heidefrau, writes: "Possibly, the discussion on gender ... mainly reveals something about our own culture: a culture in which it seems immensely important to know sex of another person (see the first question asked after the birth of a child). To us, a culture in which this is not the case seems almost unthinkable; therefore, such thoughts could open new horizons to us and thus enrich the current gender discussion!" (Heidefrau 2004: 148; translated). Obviously, at that time the real individuals were at the centre, and when they liked to adorn themselves their jewellery was not taken away from them when they died - regardless of their sex. And it was people who produced, possessed and used tools and therefore also kept them in their graves - again, regardless of their sex.

Hodder dedicated a separate publication to gender relations in order to refute the older conceptions of a matriarchy in Çatalhöyük (Hodder 2004). In this article in "Scientific American" he presents an impressive documentation of gender equality in Çatalhöyük: there were no significant differences concerning nutrition, body height and life style between men and women. Men and women performed very similar tasks, as can be deduced from the abrasion of bones. Both sexes stayed in and outside the house equally long and were equally active in the kitchen as in tool production. There are no hints pointing to a gender-related division of labour. It is only from artwork that one can deduce that outside the house, men hunted whereas women engaged in agriculture (cf. Hodder). Mural paintings show, however, women together with men in depictions of chase, as published in Mellaart's excavation reports (Mellaart 1966: Pl LIIb, LVIb, LXIIb). And the equal burial of men and women sealed equality even in death.

[GPDP]

I took an anthropology class earlier this year, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Though it was an intro course, the professor nevertheless was pretty thorough in telling us about the many aspects of the discipline. Not only that, but I suspect she was something of a socialist. She described herself as following the paradigm of "materialism" as opposed to "idealism," and even dedicated an entire class period to outline the origins of capitalism and what specifically made it a unique stage of history, going into Marxist theory to do so.

Also, one of my sociology classes this semester deals with studying societies within a global perspective, which so far has entailed studying various perspectives on societal development by both sociologists and anthropologists, including ol' Marx himself (seriously, this guy is EVERYWHERE in the social sciences). Indeed, there was a good bit of anthropologists who saw history as unilinear, going from primitive savagery to progressive civilization, while others refused to judge so-called "savage" people so harshly.

As such, if there's one thing I've learned studying the social sciences, is that there aren't reactionary disciplines, only reactionary adherents who apply their own twisted ideology to serve the interests of power.

[maskerade]

I study social anthropology as an outside course, and i don't think it is fair to call it reactionary as a discipline. Yes, there are lots of reactionary theories, but i don't see why we can't just dismiss them as just that - reactionary.

The history of anthropology is a bit wack though, it was developed so colonialists could better conquer the natives. But social anthropology and cultural anthropology is at least extremely self-reflective and self critical.

It is also a really engaging subject, and it allows you to use your intellect creatively.

Besides, the marxist perspective in anthropology isn't as unpopular as it seems. In my university its taught in year 2, and lots of the tutors are marxists.

[Raúl Duke]

Besides, the marxist perspective in anthropology isn't as unpopular as it seems. In my university its taught in year 2, and lots of the tutors are marxists.

I my university, the only professors that would even recognize Marx and contributions are from history, sociology and anthropology departments. Not poli sci and they insult him in economics, if you want to talk about reactionary university disciplines than the presentation of poli sci and economics in college are the ones.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I took an anthropology class earlier this year, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Though it was an intro course, the professor nevertheless was pretty thorough in telling us about the many aspects of the discipline. Not only that, but I suspect she was something of a socialist. She described herself as following the paradigm of "materialism" as opposed to "idealism," and even dedicated an entire class period to outline the origins of capitalism and what specifically made it a unique stage of history, going into Marxist theory to do so.

Also, one of my sociology classes this semester deals with studying societies within a global perspective, which so far has entailed studying various perspectives on societal development by both sociologists and anthropologists, including ol' Marx himself (seriously, this guy is EVERYWHERE in the social sciences). Indeed, there was a good bit of anthropologists who saw history as unilinear, going from primitive savagery to progressive civilization, while others refused to judge so-called "savage" people so harshly.

As such, if there's one thing I've learned studying the social sciences, is that there aren't reactionary disciplines, only reactionary adherents who apply their own twisted ideology to serve the interests of power.

Well, Marx wasn't just seen as a the father of communism, but also the father of sociology as well. So it's no surprise.

[Nuvem]

Doesn't this post belong more in Sciences and Environment? I have nothing productive to add to the conversation. I'm just bored and have nothing better to do at nearly 4 AM.

[synthesis]

Anthropology isn't a science. Nobody even knows what the fuck anthropology actually is.

[Raúl Duke]

Anthropology isn't a science. Nobody even knows what the fuck anthropology actually is. Sociology, Anthropology, and History are considered part of social science.

The reason why "nobody even knows" now is due to the appearance of post-modernism which has criticized social sciences' techniques, criteria, etc and added doubt to how "100% objective" it is to the point where post-modernists just disregard it all. Not everyone takes a strong post-modern "disregard it all" view, some people feel that everything (i.e. all research), especially in the social sciences, has a subjective lenses/filters/biases affecting it although it doesn't discount what facts it contains/can be discerned and whatever objectivity it might have.


The last view is arguably particularly strong in anthropology, although that may have to do because anthropologists and anthropology majors are aware of and/or use the "cultural relativism" concept and see that perspectives interpret things differently from one another.

[GPDP]

I my university, the only professors that would even recognize Marx and contributions are from history, sociology and anthropology departments. Not poli sci and they insult him in economics, if you want to talk about reactionary university disciplines than the presentation of poli sci and economics in college are the ones.

My uni is an exception to this, at least in pol sci. I've had no less than two professors who sympathized with Marx there.

Not really sure about economics, as one of my pol sci professors states it's actually a fairly progressive department in comparison to the usual neo-classical shit so prevalent in economics academia, but the one class I took there did trot out the "Marx wanted a command economy" bullcrap we all know and love.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I've had professors who have been "sympathetic" to Marx before, but it's more in the sense that they recognize him as a great mind, rather than them actually endorsing what he proposed.

[Rusty Shackleford]

all my sociology professors are conflict theorists but grounded left-liberals.

[Q]

I'll point to the Radical Anthropology Group (http://www.radicalanthropologygroup.org/new/Home.html) of which Chris Knight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Knight_(anthropologist)) is a member.

[Mindtoaster]

Anthropology major here

At least half the other majors I know would describe themselves AT THE LEAST as democratic socialists (and thats saying a lot in Jackson, Mississippi) and most of the professors I've met have been extremely left-wing. Marxist theory was taught during intro level classes. I generally discuss class and class struggle in the papers I do best on.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Dear Americans, Archaeology is not a branch of anthropology.


That is all.