Edward H. Spicer (Ned) was invited to participate in a symposium,
organized by Thomas Weaver of the University of Arizona, entitled
"Anthropology in the 1990's: Conditions, Needs, and Prospects."
The symposium was held in conjunction with the American Association for the
Advancement of Science meetings in San Francisco in the winter of 1974. The
subheading of the symposium was, "Suppose They Began the Twenty-First
Century and Forgot to Invite Anthropology!!!"
Ned presented his paper entitled, "Anthropology in the
society of the 1990s", on February 28, 1974.
Twenty years later, in 1994, the paper was republished
in Human Organization with a forward by his widow, Rosamond
Spicer, under the title, "Reassessing Edward Spicer's Views on
Anthropology in the Society of the 1990s: How and Why This Paper by Edward H.
Spicer Was Written" (Spicer, Rosamond 1994 Human Organization,
Vol. 53. No. 4, pp. 388 - 395). From her forward, we can gain an insight into
Ned's thinking and approach to the future.
Rosamond observed that
"In preparing this paper on the future of cultural
anthropology, Ned apparently gave it a great deal of thought. As was his habit,
he wrote down voluminous notes and lists of ideas. He also made a number of
starts, each different from the last.”
“At one point he wrote, 'I react strongly against nineteenth
century economic-determinism, that technology and physical environmental
conditions are the essential factors to consider in forecasting. I rather look
to the future in terms of the adaptation of social structures and cultural
orientations to one another in the context of the influence of firm cultural
products. I shall therefore take off from consideration of the probable
alternative trends which we may expect in the form and functions of societal
structures and cultural value orientations.' "
“Such a point of view was always the basis of his thinking
and writing." (p. 388)
In describing Ned, Rosamond says,
"His interests, reading, and studies ranged through
drama, literature, economics, city planning, philosophy, history, poetry, the
environment, and all the fields of anthropology. All of this vast array of
information and understanding he brought to bear in some way or another on any
project he undertook, on any subject on which he wrote.”
“Perhaps one of his outstanding characteristics was his
ability to synthesize, as was so evident in his Cycles of Conquest.
I have long thought that the practice of that art of synthesis was connected
with another, the appreciation and writing of poetry. I mention all these
aspects of Ned because they seem to be contained in the following paper."
(p.388).
It was his global interests and ability to synthesize vast
amounts of material that I remember from my first graduate classes with Ned.
I was drawn to his Community Development Seminar where he
challenged us to look at the problem at hand from multiple points of view. He
asked us, “What are the “felt needs” of the various parties in this change
situation?”
He encouraged us to seek a synthesis of these views as a way toward
understanding the issues and their complexities. As community developers, he
taught us that our job was to help the parties to synthesize their shared
interests. Our job was to facilitate, not impose, problem resolution.
Ned was a humanist who understood and taught the connection
between a people’s past, present and how these shaped their future. In his
paper on the February day in 1974, he outlined 5 trends in the social and
cultural environment that he felt would shape the next 20 years for
anthropology.
The five trends that Ned chose to characterize the society
he envisioned for the 1990s were the following:
(1) increasing intercommunication among the peoples of the
world;
(2) increasing occupational specialization with accompanying
organic differentiation within societies;
(3) increasing failure of technological solutions for the
resolution of human problems in acceptable ways;
(4) increasing assertion and self-expression of ethnic
groups within nation-states; and
(5) increasing reaction against centralization in political
and administrative structures.
He stated "In general, continuation of these trends
will, I believe, result in a society more heterogeneous than it was in the 19th
or any previous century, more aware of its heterogeneity, with stronger than
ever tendencies to compartmentalization, with increased awareness of and
interest in non-technological and non-economic factors affecting human life,
and with a growing tendency to view the nation-state in a wholly new light,
especially with reference to its ethnic components and its political and
administrative units." (p. 389)
This raises the
bigger question -- what is a legacy?
In Edward Spicer's case, it was a combination of students
trained with his unique perspective of anthropology as both a science in the
pursuit of knowledge about the human condition and a body of knowledge about
that condition that could and should be used to bring about a better world.
Second is his body of work, the depth of which has just been
scratched. That body of work is to be found first in Spicer's bibliography starting on p.342 and ending on
p.350 of James Officer's Memoir of Edward E. Spicer published in the National
Academy of Sciences
Biographical Memoirs V.68 (1995). The second is his papers located in
the Edward H. and Rosamond B. Spicer Archive at the
Arizona State Museum Library. It is from these resources that the legacy
resides to be picked up and carried forward by all who hold these values.
Now nearly 40 years later, it might be worth considering
just how prescient Ned’s predictions were for the 1990s and for the 21st
Century. Was he right? Partially right? Or, Did he miss the mark?
What are your thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment