THE SCIENCES and HUMANITIES = ANTHROPOLOGY

There is an often-quoted description of anthropology, credited to Eric Wolf:  “Anthropology is the most humanistic of the sciences and the most scientific of the humanities."

This is a true definition for our discipline. It describes the basic methodological concepts that Franz Boas prescribed for the training and practice of anthropology. Anthropologist should be trained in the role of participant - observer. This is a role that requires the anthropologist to serve as a cross-cultural interpreter. 

The field anthropologist is both the observer of the peoples who are his/her subjects and is also the advocate or witness for them in her/his own native culture. For the ethnographer, and anthropology in general, this is a role not unlike that of the lawyer representing a client in civil society. Our client is "our people".

The role has been the source of the tensions we observe throughout the history and evolution of American anthropology. The tension arises from the conflict between the political and social values of the dominant social system that governs our personal world and our "professional worlds" as anthropologists. The tension leads to questions that many of us have had to answer for ourselves, but that we often chose to ignore or avoid in our professional and personal lives.

As scientists, we can ask: “Where does Culture appear in our paradigm?”” Where does Humanity appear?”” Where are the differences?”” How are these two elements related?”” How do they add to our understanding of our and other’s everyday lives?” As scientists, we seek to observe the existential reality of human evolution and existence.

As humanists, we must ask: “What are human beliefs and values?” “How are they applied to real life situations?” “How does the individual apply these to their particular situation?” “How does society interpret the individual’s behavior?” As humanists, we seek to understand the meanings of the actions we, as participant, experience in based on the meanings of those we are observing.

As "observers", these are academic questions. They are questions that professionals can discuss within the traditional academic and professional association venues. They are the subject of “professionals” debate based on their academic, scientific, and scholarly research. Their interpretations influence and are influenced by their underlying culture, their unique personal and professional experiences, and their own personal motivations. They are participants in their own cultural universe. That is, like all human activity – they behave like human beings.

As “participants”,  this role is more perplexing. “How do we distinguish between the existential experience of the trained observer and the “native” participant?” Just because we share an experience, does this mean we understand it in the same way?

“Ethnocentrism” is the term we use to describe value judgments that individuals apply to situations that they either experience or observe. That is, they base their judgments of the situation on the meaning they were taught and not necessarily about the existential or factual nature of the situation. Boas recognized this tendency and argued that the professional anthropologist should adopt a “value free” perspective.

A “value free perspective” is based on the concept of “cultural relativity”.  Like the “Theory of relativity” in physics, the human observer’s perspective of the event determines its meaning. In order to understand a people’s experience, one should examine the context of the “values and beliefs” through which they experience the situational event. 

 The challenge of ethnocentrism is unique to the understanding and study of humanity. It is at the very heart of what anthropology is about as both a science and as an humanity. It is the moral and ethical question we face personally and professionally -- one that has not yet been realistically addressed by the profession, either existentially or ideationally.

The Boasian Ethic of American Anthropology

The 11 Rules of an Boasian Anthropological ethic form a American anthropological tradition and ethic.
These rules are:
1. a combination of humanistic and scientific values;
2. a focus on the concept of culture;
3. an emphasis on non-literate, small scale sociocultural systems as the subject of study;
4. a holistic perspective in the study of sociocultural phenomena;
5. a reliance on the comparative method of analysis;
6. a tradition of employment in a research setting associated with a museum or university;
7. an orientation toward historical particularism, i.e. understanding the role and function of sociocultural phenomena in context;
8. a tradition of participant-observation in a personal field work experience;
9. the ideal of the scientific role as a standard for judging professional status;
10. an objective and relativistic moral and ethical position;
11. a four field approach in the basic training of recruits to the profession and in the organization of the profession. (Bainton 1979: 127 - 128)

What does it mean to be a career anthropologist?

Anthropology is a formal discipline that seems to affect some by awakening a spiritual sensitivity. Whether secular scientists or humanists, the anthropological ethic transcends the skepticism of agnostic secularism, by offering a alternative way to understand and accept the human condition.

To accept the anthropological ethic doesn't require the individual to be exposed to a professionally trained academic, or applied anthropologist. One can come to the discipline through introspection and informal contact with the anthropological legacy.

For these individuals, converted by the unique perspective that anthropology gives them to the human condition, it comes from a melding of humanistic science with scientific humanism. This melding transcends the tribally bound tradition of their sectarian belief systems. This perspective forms the foundation for the "career" anthropologist - the individual who lives his/her life based upon the anthropological ethic.

Not all anthropologists share this view. Some feel that only the anointed, PhD academic researcher qualify for sainthood. Others would extend the inner circle to those who teach and hold the precious PhD degree. Still others, more liberal in their theology, would extend membership to those who apply their formal anthropological training in the real world and are paid to do so -- i.e. professionals. These "conservatives" forget, if they ever knew, that at one time, none of these priestly professional classes existed in American before 1879.

The early western "anthropologists" came to their conversion through an interest, curiosity and secular acceptance of the principle of human universality often found in their own sectarian religious beliefs, but more often ignored in practice by their coreligionists. It was a conversion that came when the formal traditional ethic failed to explain to reality of life as experienced through day to day living. It cames from accepting the relativity of life, as explained by cultural differences, as against the absolute certainty imposed by religious and traditionalist formalities. For these emergent "anthropologists," this new ethic was based on the avocational pursuit of personal curiosities, interests and enlightenment rather than any vocational or professional desire for personal financial enrichment.

Today, we have a cast and class structure within anthropology. It is a system which draws a line between the academic caste and other professionals, on the one hand, and between the vocational or "professional" (class) and the avocational anthropologists, on the other.

In my mind, these are false distinctions which, unfortunately, have real negative consequences for individuals and the discipline. The true distinction between anthropologists and the general population should be based on the matter of commitment to the anthropological ethic. Such a commitment leads to a CAREER ANTHROPOLOGY. A career anthropologist is one who lives a life based on the core values of anthropology regardless of the financial rewards or costs of such a commitment.

What is this core ethic?

As I look back on the events of my life since I first encountered "anthropology" in the early 1960s; and I consider the path that I have wandered since then, I find a singular consistency. That consistency is found in the original anthropological perspective which I have come to call the Boasian Principles. These are the principles that lead to a "Career anthropological" ethic.

As an ethic for anthropology, Boas and his students established a set of 11 informal rules for anthropology. As the founder, and “god-head” of American anthropology, Franz Boas' principles became the normative ethic for future generations of American anthropologists. The 11 Rules of an Boasian Anthropological ethic form a American anthropological tradition and ethic.

These rules are:
1. a combination of humanistic and scientific values;
2. a focus on the concept of culture;
3. an emphasis on non-literate, small scale sociocultural systems as the subject of study;
4. a holistic perspective in the study of sociocultural phenomena;
5. a reliance on the comparative method of analysis;
6. a tradition of employment in a research setting associated with a museum or university;
7. an orientation toward historical particularism, i.e. understanding the role and function of sociocultural phenomena in context;
8. a tradition of participant-observation in a personal field work experience;
9. the ideal of the scientific role as a standard for judging professional status;
10. an objective and relativistic moral and ethical position;
11. a four field approach in the basic training of recruits to the profession and in the organization of the profession. (Bainton 1979: 127 - 128)

Even in our deeply segmented 21st century discipline, I find it amazing how well these rules have held up. Despite the monumental changes that have taken place in the social sciences and in the world at large, I find that most of these principles as valid today as they were when first established. However, I question the sixth principle which imposes a limitations on employment to a university or museum setting. This is like condemning all Christians or Buddhists to a lifetime in the monastery.

The strength and longevity of any belief system, philosophical or religious, rests in its practical application by providing a method for answering the questions of daily life for the individual and the community of believers.

With the exception of the sixth principle, I find this in the Boasian ethic. I have learned that we do not need to pursue our careers in the museum and/or the university even as these are still the ideal our teachers and mentors hold up to the aspiring student. But we can perform the functions that these metaphors represent by choosing to become Career Anthropologist and applying the Boasian ethic.

What has been your experience?