In class on Thursday, there
was a moment where Dr. J apologized to anthropology majors before continuing
with the "thrashing" of the subject that is supported by both Locke
and Montagu's essays. What was said was that anthropology, especially the
anthropological concept of race, is concerned with creating a classification of
phenotypical (observable) traits in order to have a classification of
hierarchical genotypical traits. In plain English, this is saying that
anthropology does exactly what we have just labeled one of the most damaging
and effective ideas for racism; namely, the idea that race expresses culture
biologically.
I am not an anthropology
major, but this definition confused me; if this is the case for the subject of
anthropology and we have proved it to be false, why is it still a field
of study in almost every college and university in America? A friend of mine
that is majoring in anthropology at Northwestern provided me with an answer.
Some of the things she said were pertinent to our class:
1. Much of the work
anthropologists are doing now is focused on repairing this damage. By going
back and looking at the "old goal" with the knowledge that it was not
only scientifically untrue, but also a direct catalyst of racial discrimination
across history, anthropologists can now...
2. Look at history with a
less biased and more critical view. Interestingly, what my friend said here
almost directly mimicked the instructions that Locke gave at the end of his
essay. Anthropology is now supposed to be a "dynamic and social
interpretation of race/culture," operated by "principles of organic
interpretation" and "principles of cultural relativity." These
are Locke's words, but they are simply a more carefully composed representation
of my friend's explanation of the purpose of her own major in anthropology, as
explained by the higher-ups at Northwestern.
______________________________
Yesterday I read about the
Westboro Baptist Church, a group that I previously knew about, but not by name
or in any sort of detail. You all probably know them too, but if you don't here
is a quick refresher- Westboro Baptist Church.
Their leader, Fred Phelps, seven full years after the creation of his hate
organization, won 14.72% of the votes for the Democratic Primary in Kansas.
That means that 15,233 people voted for him.
Although I realize that
now, more than ever, it is possible for scientists to double-check and call out
illogical or unfounded arguments, it still frightens me how sure I am of some
things that I have no real backing for, as well as how many of those unfounded
arguments are still reaching (through families passing them down, hate
organizations, etc.) groups of people in the U.S.
______________________________
Going back to my conversation with my friend, I
wonder how substantial of an impact philosophers, Locke especially, had on the
field of anthropology. Could it be possible that they changed the entire nature
of the subject? I am certainly not well educated on the current state of
anthropology across the globe; I have consulted but one source on the subject.
But if what my friend said is true, and even if it is true just for one person
at one university in one country, doesn't that say something remarkable about
the nature of what is accepted as "right" at any given time in human
history?
Henry!
ReplyDeleteYour friend did make a valid point. We learn a lot about ourselves by looking at how we evolved. I think I do understand were you’re coming from though. You’re saying that Locke’s theory was disproved by the science that we have today, and like so for his preceding philosophers. If you're concern is what will the future have as a definition of “right” that can be studied with anthropology. I think you see somewhat of an ongoing trend that is being presented. I’m not saying you’re wrong in any way, this is just what I know about anthropology.
Anthropology is holistic which means that it considers every way of life. It places everyone under the same global and cultural context. If I were an anthropologist, I would say that this loss of our history(Locke) only informs us of our plans for the future. Anthropology isn’t grouped separately based on what is right, but it is conjoined by that which is justifiable and present.
If my definition is correct then if what we know as “right” shifts to “wrong” then it will serve as a tool for the future anthropologist to study.
I am more than sure that philosophers had a major impact on the study of anthropology. I too am no expert in the field however, it is a growing field that is generating a lot of interest. I definitely agree with you're confusion on the nature of what is "right" and how it has evolved over time. The evolution of "right" has changed overtime to an extent but it is still a little flawed.
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question "why is it still a field of study in almost every college and university in America?' It is important to remember that anthropology now covers a range of topics that help us to better understand human behavior and culture in historical and practical ways. It is understandable to see how anthropologists have redefined the study of race to where it is now. in addressing what is right and wrong because of the technology we have today, institutions can readily share ideas in the form of blogs, journals, and other media that help to define what is generally accepted as truth.
ReplyDelete