Lecture notes
History & Theory of Anthropology
Lecture 1-1: Introduction
The nature of anthropological theory
- Hume’s critique on empiricism (11)
- “Theory” > (heuristic) model
- Heuristic = helps to explore, not explain certain processes
- Probabilistic theories (12) = suggesting an association between different phenomena
- The problem of interpretation (15)
Anthropology as a science
- “Scientific” view on anthropology > research will lead to generalized knowledge >
explanation
- Interpretivist view > research will lead to an understanding of particular cultural
contexts > interpretation
- Evans-Pritchard (1950): anthropology belongs to the humanities.
- scientific view has disappeared. what kind of knowledge do we use?
Anthropology: our position in academia
- between humanities (philosophy, literary studies, history, descriptive approach) and
social science (political sciences, geography and economics)
Glick Schiller
Putting aside embedded assumptions about the social binaries of the Euro-American centric
project, like North-South, native-foreign etc. (134)
Contributors strive to forge an anthropological theory that analyzes and transcends
categories of difference by locating domains of commonalty without failing to theorize
differential and unequal power and the positioning of place, gender, class and colonialities
“A desire to take the discussion or research beyond the ivory tower to the very people whose
daily predicaments are at the heart of scholary work”
What is theory?
Theory is careful generalization and parsimonious abstraction, on the basis of observation
of, and interaction with, concrete social situations, which are then systematized through
comparison with the generalizations of other social scientists and through a historicized
examination of how our own ideas develop [. . .]. It is through ‘theory’ that we can move from
singular, commonsensical apprehensions of the social world to more general, critical
understandings. (Hertz 135)
,there is a world to be understood and that it is a social world that is always framed by the
human understandings and actions and interactions it encompasses. Moreover, comparison,
generalization, abstraction and the historic- ally specific context of an idea must all be part of
the development of theory.
Anthropologists argue that to analyze and theorize is to impose on someone else’s reality
one discards the Euro-American project not by discarding the construction of the ‘cultural
other’ but by articulating separate mutually exclusive visions of being.
Thus, Positioning Theory also asks: if the heritage of anthropological theory as primarily a
Euro-American pro- ject is set aside, what understandings of evidence, analysis, and reality
come to the fore? The theory we seek is formulated with the assumption that underneath
con- tending views there is a shared human capacity to experience, understand, and
communicate with others that has not been articulated by Euro-American univer- salisms
theory should not be ‘something one exhibits’ but rather ‘something that one uses’
The analyst establishes the compatibility and incompatibility of different theories by
ascertaining whether the tools work together to construct and explain, thus accounting
heuristically for the theoretical ramifications of the different theoretical tools employed.
Use of reflexivity
by not only writing but also thinking through the medium of a European lingua franca,
generally English, and uncritically embracing Euro-American theory
Lecture 1-2 What is theory?
What is the purpose of theory?
With knowledge of theory, anthropology becomes an attempt to answer philosophical and
practical problems. Interpretation and communicating about the things you try to understand.
Without theory?
We won’t be able to analyse problems
Theorizing means... making assumptions explicit
- theory is already there (theory-laden)
- describing is perceiving (interpretation)
- reflection on frames (language, concepts)
- the anthropologist is part of the production of knowledge (everything we study is
already affected by our presence)
Subject/object distinction in anthropology
- When anthropologists participate in another culture, they change it (...) in ways that
can’t be predicted, controlled (...) or even identified (31)
- Pre-reflexive anthropology > the anthropologist’s voice is authoritative (not
questioned)
- “indeed, the very reputation of scientific anthropology (...) depends on this denial of
the anthropologist’s identity, beliefs, and state of mind” (43)
, - the anthropologist is her own research instrument - you are the vessel, so you should
know the vessel through which you perceive knowledge
Positivism (scientific anthropology, modeled after natural sciences) > we can research
reality without taking into account the researcher’s identity and beliefs e.g. functionalism,
materialism etic understanding
What was the postmodern critique on this position?
- impossible to get objectivity
- anthropologist should know their own points of view
- interacting (not detached way) leads to moral behaviour
Anthropology before anthropology
- Historically, anthropology is a Western project
- Is this still the case? And does it matter?
“The other is not me”
- “The other is like me”
- “The other is not like me”
Encounters with the other: expansion
- Travel writing: Herodotus (5th century BC)
- Marco Polo 1295-1324
- Travel writer; traveled on the Silk Road and lived in China
- Ibn Khaldun 1331-1405
- ‘Modern’ historian
- Pioneer of the social sciences
- Study of North African societies
- Materialist reasoning
- Theory of solidarity
The age of exploration
- Expansion of knowledge, territory, power > diverging interests
- Las Casas and the “Indian question” (and the start of the Transatlantic slave trade)
- NB: Some notes on language...
- Montaigne > savage (sauvage) is seen as ‘natural’ human
- Romantic period: fascination with nature as a cultural critique > culture seen as
decadent
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau: the ‘nobel savage’ as the opposite of degenerate civilized
humans
- The term ‘savage’ has been current in anthropology > positive connotation (e.g. Lévi-
Strauss: La pensée sauvage)> legacy of Romanticism
Enlightenment social theories
- “Universal histories” or evolutionary schemes (18th century)
- Cultural evolution: universal stages of development
- e.g. savagery > barbarism > civilization (Ferguson)-
, - Rational thinking as the motor of change
Auguste Comte’s theory of stages:
- Idealism: society’s essence is its belief system > change occurs through advances in
reasoning
- Popular among the bourgeoisie > bourgeois worldview and agenda for progress
Working group:
Why is the field of epistemology most relevant for anthropology?
- Epistemology is the study of nature and source of knowledge. Epistemology is
concerned with how we evaluate these claims and the basis on which we accept or
reject them.
- Anthropologists work in constant different contexts. They themselves are the most
important research instrument. As such, their findings are highly subjective. You
would come up with totally different research findings than I would. So, in what way
can we say that we are objective? Our object of study is not done in a laboratory.
- Debate concerning relativism vs. positivism. Should all cultural traits be regarded as
equal and valuable?
Theory is on an abstract level and helps us to think and delimit our scope
Theory is a set of relations among concepts, connected to each other
Documentary: Knots and Holes
1. Filtering, small fish escape the net, the big ones stay in. Distinguishing and filtering
main and side issues
2. Creating structure, the net is a gaze to look through, a lens
3. You throw out a net, and you see what comes of it. Same with a theory. You go with
a certain perspective to the field and you hope it turns out that way.
Van de Port’s criticism on theory
- “If we do not throw out a net, everything is possible…” Or, if we want to understand
everything rationally, scientifically, etc. we miss out a lot of valuable information.
- There are different stories. Rational ones, in which evidence is necessary. But there
also stories in which you would need to use your imagination
- “Keeping alive the tension between openness and closure, knot and hole, grasping
and caressing, this film invites its audiences to ponder the observation that all we
humans ever do is to impose structures onto life and being, then to find out that
neither life, nor being, follow our designs.”
Or in other words: throw away your theoretical design now and then…
History & Theory of Anthropology
Lecture 1-1: Introduction
The nature of anthropological theory
- Hume’s critique on empiricism (11)
- “Theory” > (heuristic) model
- Heuristic = helps to explore, not explain certain processes
- Probabilistic theories (12) = suggesting an association between different phenomena
- The problem of interpretation (15)
Anthropology as a science
- “Scientific” view on anthropology > research will lead to generalized knowledge >
explanation
- Interpretivist view > research will lead to an understanding of particular cultural
contexts > interpretation
- Evans-Pritchard (1950): anthropology belongs to the humanities.
- scientific view has disappeared. what kind of knowledge do we use?
Anthropology: our position in academia
- between humanities (philosophy, literary studies, history, descriptive approach) and
social science (political sciences, geography and economics)
Glick Schiller
Putting aside embedded assumptions about the social binaries of the Euro-American centric
project, like North-South, native-foreign etc. (134)
Contributors strive to forge an anthropological theory that analyzes and transcends
categories of difference by locating domains of commonalty without failing to theorize
differential and unequal power and the positioning of place, gender, class and colonialities
“A desire to take the discussion or research beyond the ivory tower to the very people whose
daily predicaments are at the heart of scholary work”
What is theory?
Theory is careful generalization and parsimonious abstraction, on the basis of observation
of, and interaction with, concrete social situations, which are then systematized through
comparison with the generalizations of other social scientists and through a historicized
examination of how our own ideas develop [. . .]. It is through ‘theory’ that we can move from
singular, commonsensical apprehensions of the social world to more general, critical
understandings. (Hertz 135)
,there is a world to be understood and that it is a social world that is always framed by the
human understandings and actions and interactions it encompasses. Moreover, comparison,
generalization, abstraction and the historic- ally specific context of an idea must all be part of
the development of theory.
Anthropologists argue that to analyze and theorize is to impose on someone else’s reality
one discards the Euro-American project not by discarding the construction of the ‘cultural
other’ but by articulating separate mutually exclusive visions of being.
Thus, Positioning Theory also asks: if the heritage of anthropological theory as primarily a
Euro-American pro- ject is set aside, what understandings of evidence, analysis, and reality
come to the fore? The theory we seek is formulated with the assumption that underneath
con- tending views there is a shared human capacity to experience, understand, and
communicate with others that has not been articulated by Euro-American univer- salisms
theory should not be ‘something one exhibits’ but rather ‘something that one uses’
The analyst establishes the compatibility and incompatibility of different theories by
ascertaining whether the tools work together to construct and explain, thus accounting
heuristically for the theoretical ramifications of the different theoretical tools employed.
Use of reflexivity
by not only writing but also thinking through the medium of a European lingua franca,
generally English, and uncritically embracing Euro-American theory
Lecture 1-2 What is theory?
What is the purpose of theory?
With knowledge of theory, anthropology becomes an attempt to answer philosophical and
practical problems. Interpretation and communicating about the things you try to understand.
Without theory?
We won’t be able to analyse problems
Theorizing means... making assumptions explicit
- theory is already there (theory-laden)
- describing is perceiving (interpretation)
- reflection on frames (language, concepts)
- the anthropologist is part of the production of knowledge (everything we study is
already affected by our presence)
Subject/object distinction in anthropology
- When anthropologists participate in another culture, they change it (...) in ways that
can’t be predicted, controlled (...) or even identified (31)
- Pre-reflexive anthropology > the anthropologist’s voice is authoritative (not
questioned)
- “indeed, the very reputation of scientific anthropology (...) depends on this denial of
the anthropologist’s identity, beliefs, and state of mind” (43)
, - the anthropologist is her own research instrument - you are the vessel, so you should
know the vessel through which you perceive knowledge
Positivism (scientific anthropology, modeled after natural sciences) > we can research
reality without taking into account the researcher’s identity and beliefs e.g. functionalism,
materialism etic understanding
What was the postmodern critique on this position?
- impossible to get objectivity
- anthropologist should know their own points of view
- interacting (not detached way) leads to moral behaviour
Anthropology before anthropology
- Historically, anthropology is a Western project
- Is this still the case? And does it matter?
“The other is not me”
- “The other is like me”
- “The other is not like me”
Encounters with the other: expansion
- Travel writing: Herodotus (5th century BC)
- Marco Polo 1295-1324
- Travel writer; traveled on the Silk Road and lived in China
- Ibn Khaldun 1331-1405
- ‘Modern’ historian
- Pioneer of the social sciences
- Study of North African societies
- Materialist reasoning
- Theory of solidarity
The age of exploration
- Expansion of knowledge, territory, power > diverging interests
- Las Casas and the “Indian question” (and the start of the Transatlantic slave trade)
- NB: Some notes on language...
- Montaigne > savage (sauvage) is seen as ‘natural’ human
- Romantic period: fascination with nature as a cultural critique > culture seen as
decadent
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau: the ‘nobel savage’ as the opposite of degenerate civilized
humans
- The term ‘savage’ has been current in anthropology > positive connotation (e.g. Lévi-
Strauss: La pensée sauvage)> legacy of Romanticism
Enlightenment social theories
- “Universal histories” or evolutionary schemes (18th century)
- Cultural evolution: universal stages of development
- e.g. savagery > barbarism > civilization (Ferguson)-
, - Rational thinking as the motor of change
Auguste Comte’s theory of stages:
- Idealism: society’s essence is its belief system > change occurs through advances in
reasoning
- Popular among the bourgeoisie > bourgeois worldview and agenda for progress
Working group:
Why is the field of epistemology most relevant for anthropology?
- Epistemology is the study of nature and source of knowledge. Epistemology is
concerned with how we evaluate these claims and the basis on which we accept or
reject them.
- Anthropologists work in constant different contexts. They themselves are the most
important research instrument. As such, their findings are highly subjective. You
would come up with totally different research findings than I would. So, in what way
can we say that we are objective? Our object of study is not done in a laboratory.
- Debate concerning relativism vs. positivism. Should all cultural traits be regarded as
equal and valuable?
Theory is on an abstract level and helps us to think and delimit our scope
Theory is a set of relations among concepts, connected to each other
Documentary: Knots and Holes
1. Filtering, small fish escape the net, the big ones stay in. Distinguishing and filtering
main and side issues
2. Creating structure, the net is a gaze to look through, a lens
3. You throw out a net, and you see what comes of it. Same with a theory. You go with
a certain perspective to the field and you hope it turns out that way.
Van de Port’s criticism on theory
- “If we do not throw out a net, everything is possible…” Or, if we want to understand
everything rationally, scientifically, etc. we miss out a lot of valuable information.
- There are different stories. Rational ones, in which evidence is necessary. But there
also stories in which you would need to use your imagination
- “Keeping alive the tension between openness and closure, knot and hole, grasping
and caressing, this film invites its audiences to ponder the observation that all we
humans ever do is to impose structures onto life and being, then to find out that
neither life, nor being, follow our designs.”
Or in other words: throw away your theoretical design now and then…
