I was recently contacted by a graduate student from a prestigious local university where I had volunteered to provide counseling/mentoring assistance. The student is enrolled in a PhD program and going through an identity crisis -- to be an academic/researcher or to pursue a career outside of the academy, i.e. real world. The student wanted to discuss options in "consulting" and "management" as career paths. I have done a bit of each most of my professional career, so I accepted the student's request to meet and discuss the topics.
Arriving at a time and place, of course, is always a challenge first time out. So when we didn't connect immediately, we exchanged emails and eventually synchronized our schedules. Personally, I found the meeting to be interesting and hopefully the student did too. But there are a few things I observed that, should we meet again I will have to bring up, especially if the student plans to succeed in the real world. This is what I want share here.
About the initial contact:
In the email exchange to set up the appointment, the first message was initiated by the student and was correctly addressed and in the salutation my name was correctly spelled. In my response, I signed the email with my full name. Subsequently, the student responded but misspelled my surname and continued to do so in all subsequent emails. This could easily have lead to a decision on my part to cancel the meeting. My response would have been, "If you are not concerned enough to spell my name correctly what value are you going to give to my time spent helping you?"
Lesson: BAD MANNERS ALWAYS CHECK AND MAKE CERTAIN YOU SPELL NAMES CORRECTLY AND KNOW HOW TO PRONOUNCE IT.
The Meeting: The meeting was scheduled for a local coffee shop, "my office" so to speak. I generally like to hold my first meeting with a client or student in a public setting to see how they act in public and to assess the areas that they might feel free to discuss candidly and what they might prefer to hold back on to discuss privately. An important part of this first contact is punctuality. This student was 10 minutes late and gave only a very cursory or flippant excuse. BAD IMPRESSION. Not being on time can be viewed as a sign of disrespect if not for the person with whom the appointment is made, then at least a sign of how important the meeting is to the one who asked for it. Excuses don't work, an explanation is called for. That, "sorry to be late" is weak. "I had trouble finding a parking spot" especially in the reality of our meeting would have been quite valid.
Lesson: BE ON TIME. NO EXCUSES! IF ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, GIVE EXPLANATIONS.
The Discussion: When one is asked to counsel or mentor someone, you want to learn both what their concern is for seeking help and also something about where they are coming from emotionally and objectively. That is you want to know what the personal context is which brought them release there is an issue. This means you want, in this case, the student to carry most of the conversation. To do this the student should be the interviewer. They should have a "story" which outlines who they are; why they have a problem:; what they are looking for in the way of assistance; and most of all why they picked you. Next, they should have a series of specific questions they hope to find answers to. These don't need to be detailed or require detailed answers. But, they should be topical covering such things as "what do I need to know?" "Where should I look?" What can I expect ?"or What was your experience?" That is, the student should take charge of the interview. It is as much an audition as it is a research project
In this case, I found myself carrying the conversation. The questions that would have lead to answers the student might have been interested in hearing where not asked. Instead I found myself being expected to raise the questions and the answers. There is enough of the academic in me to fall into the lecturing trap, especially when a student takes the passive role.
But as a mentor, there is a buyer's regret that sets in afterwards when you realize that you have lectured the mentee rather than mentored or coached an "aspiring professional." Lesson: If you ask someone for help -- know what it is you want before hand and use the mentor/coach/counselor's time efficiently, especially when it is given for free. You may think it is free and treat as such, but the mentor does not see it either as free nor worthless just because he/she does not charge you for it.
Lesson: RESPECT THE SITUATION YOU HAVE CREATED AND THE PERSON YOU HAVE ENGAGED TO HELP YOU.
Follow-up: After our hour long "discussion" or better "session," we parted with the normal courtesies. I left it open as to whether the student wanted to do follow-up meeting. Later in the day, since I had mentioned several books that might be consulted to followup on points raised in the "lecture.", I wrote an email to the student with information and links to the source. I include a confirmation of the meeting. Here it is a week later and I have not yet received either a email thank you for the meeting or the follow up information I sent, but more importantly no feed back about what had transpired been helpful or not has come from the student. Which begs the question, Do we meet again? I doubt it.
Lesson: NEVER CLOSE A DOOR YOU HAVE OPENED UNLESS YOU KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT YOU WILL NEVER NEED TO GO THROUGH IT AGAIN.
What has been your experience?
Showing posts with label employment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label employment. Show all posts
Friday, August 8, 2014
Thursday, May 10, 2012
REBRANDING ANTHROPOLOGY Part 1 -- What happened to culture?
According to the American Anthropological Association
Anthropology is the study of humans, past and present.
This definition is somewhat different from the usual and traditional discourse we encounter about anthropology. The traditional approach placed “culture” at the center of the anthropological paradigm. Anthropology’s brand and identity within the social sciences has traditionally been the concept CULTURE. Today, that is no longer true as the above definition clearly shows.
In a recent posting (October 2011) I made to the AAA site on LinkedIn I asked the following question,
"What definition or metaphor do you find most helpful when you are defining "Culture?"
In 1963, A.L. Kroeber and Clyde Kluckhohn published a book entitled "CULTURE: A critical review of concepts and definitions" In their study of the term and it's history and use, one finds a wide range of ideas about what is the core concept of anthropology. These definitions are, in a way, a road map of the intellectual development within anthropology up to the mid-20th century. Now fifty years later, the concept of culture has changed with the times, the metaphors and the theories of the profession and prejudices of its students.
What is your definition? What are your metaphors? How do you describe "culture" to your students, colleagues, and clients?
Since then, I have received a total of 8 responses. None of them truly addresses the question except in the most general of terms. It seems that culture is no longer the central organizing principle around which the four fields of anthropology, ethnology, physical/biological, archaeological, and linguistics orbit.
Yet when you ask anthropologists and practitioners, “What is anthropology?”, the most frequent response is “the study of culture.” As a practicing applied anthropologist for the past 30+years, I find that this response has not changed. Most anthropologists coming out of academia appear to think that the concept of “culture” is anthropology’s biggest selling point. Ethnographic research is the new and improved TIDE when it comes to applied social science.
These anthropologists seem to think, or feel, that they are the possessors of the great secret. It is a secret that every potential employer needs to know in order to succeed. As the bearers of this secret, these anthropologists seem to feel that they will be immediately embraced and employed to share this secret. The secret, of course, is – “culture.”
The problem, seen by these anthropologists, is that the potential employer lacks an understanding of the role culture plays in his/her business. What the employer needs is a staff anthropologist, or at least an anthropologically trained consultant, to research and provide answers to “cultural” problems in the business. What they don’t seem to understand is, that outside of academia, the “culture” concept no longer is the exclusive cache of anthropologists.
They are often surprised to discover that the term “culture” has long been accepted and integrated in the popular vocabulary of the employer and most other applied social and behavioral sciences serving the business community. As generally used, “culture” defines the fact that there are “differences” between Us (the business) and Them (Stakeholders).
Meanwhile within the profession, which has defined itself mainly as an academic discipline, the concept itself has lost its unique centrality and meaning.
Dating from the 1940’s, the profession has been struggling with question, “What is anthropology?”
Is anthropology the study of humanity or culture?
Why is anthropology a four field discipline and should it be?
Is the natural focus of anthropology the study of preliterate society?
What is anthropology’s role in the sciences and/or humanities?
Lacking any consistent answer other than “Anthropology is the study of humans, past and present,” it seems that American Anthropology has lost its brand identity.
It may be time to reposition the brand.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
"What does the applied ethnographer need to know about business?"
In an
interesting discussion about the problems of working in a corporate and
interdisciplinary / multidisciplinary environment, Gavin Johnson questions the meaning and value of disciplinary boundaries. While certainly the
environment has a strong influence on how and which disciplines may be
recruited and assigned to a project, there is another issue. I have
addressed part of this question in an essay entitled, “What business needs to know from applied ethnography”
There is a complementary question. "What does the applied ethnographer need to know about business?" I feel that it is more important, or at least equally important, to address this problem from the anthropologist/ethnographer perspective. In particular, the status/role that the applied ethnographer is required to occupy and play in the business context. This is as
Rather than as
Traditionally, the ethnographer is a lone wolf, going off into the wilds of real life, encountering a herd of another species, and in chameleon-like fashion inserting oneself into the herd as a participant/observer. In this role, the ethnographer acts as both the instrument and the intelligence operating the instrument recording the data. The product of these efforts are written for an audience of other lone wolves who share their stories and observations grounded in the similarity of the status/role of the “field” experience. This is like a group of pro-golfers or tennis players getting together after the U S Opens to discuss the techniques and experience of the various matches..
As part of an interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary team, however, the ethnographer is constrained by both his/her status as “anthropologist” on the team and by her/his role as “ethnographer” in the specific research assignment. Playing a team sport is very different from an individual sport. In a team sport, there is an overall game plan. In the game plan, each player has a specific assignment, the effectiveness of the team and the plan is dependent upon each player sticking to their assignment. This means subordinating one’s ego to the team’s mission. The applied anthropologist, playing the position of “ethnographer” must understand what his/her role is, in general, and also specifically, on his/her team.
He/she must also recognize that for any specific play, i.e. research assignment, that role may change. The ethnographer may be asked to be a “surveyor,” or “historian” instead of participant/observer. She/he must be prepared to adjust to the new assignment when the play is called without any second thoughts or reservations. The success of the team depends on the player’s ability to adjust on a moment's notice.
So yes, the disciplinary lines that are so pronounced in the academic world, become blurred in the “fog of corporate research” where the goal is to contribute to the corporate bottom line, and not to some disciplinary Hall of Fame.
There is a complementary question. "What does the applied ethnographer need to know about business?" I feel that it is more important, or at least equally important, to address this problem from the anthropologist/ethnographer perspective. In particular, the status/role that the applied ethnographer is required to occupy and play in the business context. This is as
 |
| a "Team Player" |
| the “lone wolf.” |
Traditionally, the ethnographer is a lone wolf, going off into the wilds of real life, encountering a herd of another species, and in chameleon-like fashion inserting oneself into the herd as a participant/observer. In this role, the ethnographer acts as both the instrument and the intelligence operating the instrument recording the data. The product of these efforts are written for an audience of other lone wolves who share their stories and observations grounded in the similarity of the status/role of the “field” experience. This is like a group of pro-golfers or tennis players getting together after the U S Opens to discuss the techniques and experience of the various matches..
As part of an interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary team, however, the ethnographer is constrained by both his/her status as “anthropologist” on the team and by her/his role as “ethnographer” in the specific research assignment. Playing a team sport is very different from an individual sport. In a team sport, there is an overall game plan. In the game plan, each player has a specific assignment, the effectiveness of the team and the plan is dependent upon each player sticking to their assignment. This means subordinating one’s ego to the team’s mission. The applied anthropologist, playing the position of “ethnographer” must understand what his/her role is, in general, and also specifically, on his/her team.
He/she must also recognize that for any specific play, i.e. research assignment, that role may change. The ethnographer may be asked to be a “surveyor,” or “historian” instead of participant/observer. She/he must be prepared to adjust to the new assignment when the play is called without any second thoughts or reservations. The success of the team depends on the player’s ability to adjust on a moment's notice.
So yes, the disciplinary lines that are so pronounced in the academic world, become blurred in the “fog of corporate research” where the goal is to contribute to the corporate bottom line, and not to some disciplinary Hall of Fame.
Monday, February 6, 2012
A Little History of Applied Anthropology on the Local Level 1974
The Following is an article I wrote for the Anthropology Newsletter (Vol 16 No. 8 October 1974) about a local self help group formed in Tucson Arizona. The group which called itself the Society for Professional Anthropology (SOPA/aka SPA)was the precursor of the Local Practitioner Organizations and NAPA. It was formed for the purpose of bring unemployed and other "anthropologists" together and to recognize the diversity that exists within the local community of trained anthropologists.
SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ANTHROPOLOGISTS FORMED IN TUCSON
The following material was written by Barry R Bainton,founding member of the Society. —DD\N
In recent years a growing concern among anthropologists and their students has been the changing employment market. If an anthropologist obtains employment outside of the "traditional" academic setting, he or she often finds it difficult or impossible to maintain professional identity as an anthropologist. In November 1974, a group of non-academically employed anthropologists in Tucson, Arizona, began a series of meetings to discuss this problem. Out of these meetings the Society of Professional Anthropologists (SPA) was formed.
The Professional Anthropologist
The use of the term "professional" has stirred and continues to stir debate within the group. Other names for describing the group have been offered, eg, "applied," "nontraditional," "practicing," etc. Yet none so completely encornpasses the concept that the group seeks to express as does "professional." What is a professional anthropologist? At first glance, the answer is obvious: one who is employed as an anthropologist is a professional anthropologist. Very few persons trained as anthropologists, however, are employed specifically as "anthropologists." To restrict the professional identity to those whose job title or description specifies "anthropologist" or "anthropology," is too strict a definition for it excludes all those who have developed new and possibly unforeseen "uses" for the art and science of anthropology and the anthropological perspective. A broader, and for the group useful, definition is an individual who is formally trained in anthropology, is employed or seeking employment in a professional capacity, and identifies anthropology as his or her primary source of professional focus. By "primary source of professional focus," I mean the basic intellectual and ethical foundation of his or her approach to his/her professional activity. That is, the individual brings to his/her employment an anthropological perspective or ethic. Thus, the Tucson group includes in its membership the traditional university level teaching anthropologist and the less traditional anthropologically trained businessman.
Why a Separate Group?
Another issue the Tucson group has considered is "why a separate group, why membership in AAA, the Society for Applied Anthropology, or other special interest groups?" In the discussion it quickly became evident that there exists a very large gap between the needs of the professional anthropologist and the current services available from the national organizations. Among these needs are: timely information about job openings in the range of fields professional anthropologists have exploited or seek to exploit; information about local developments within the professional activity area in which the anthropologist finds himself; a forum where anthropologists employed in similar and/or complementary areas can get together and discuss issues of local concern from an anthropological perspective; creation of a local pool of consultants by fellowship in a common interest group; role models for those who wish to practice their anthropology in a non-academic setting; and contact between the teaching and practicing anthropologist to help each understand and benefit from the perspective of the other.
On another level, then is a need for a local group representing a wide interest base to monitor local legislation and lobby for anthropological interests. Current federal funding patterns, ie, formula grants, revenue sharing and planning and review requirements, make it crucial that anthropologists on the local level be able to influence state and local agencies in the development and implementation of local legislation designed to take advantage of federal legislation. The critical point in the system is frequently the person in the local or state agency who writes the rules and regulations that ultimately put flesh on the bare skeleton of legislation. Therefore, those who initially met and who continue to meet in Tucson feel that the formation of a locally based professional association of anthropologists is desirable for their purposes. Membership in the SPA does not require membership in any other anthropological association, nor does it exclude it. One's professional interest may require membership in a wide range of special interests groups. In fact, the SPA encourages its members to be active in other groups. The information derived and shared with the membership of SPA can only help to meet the needs of group members.
The Purpose
The Society recently adopted the following purpose statement: "The purpose of the Society of Professional Anthropologists is to promote anthropology as a profession. The Society seeks to develop the art and science of anthropology and to promote its use for the betterment of the community. To further these goals, the Society and its members seek self development through active support of formal and informal means of communication between members and to promote the public's awareness of the values of anthropology and the anthropological perspective."
The History of the SPA
The Society developed out of two general local movements in Tucson. One movement evolved among local program evaluators. Recent federal social legislation has included the requirement of program evaluation as a program component.
In Tucson, program evaluators have been hired by the city government, local school district, health and research planning agencies, behavioral health programs and by private consulting firms, among others. In some cases, one-man evaluation programs operate in social or health service agencies. As these evaluators developed contacts with colleagues in other agencies and programs, a number of anthropologists discovered one another. From these discoveries they began meeting to discuss common problems in evaluation and to rekindle their anthropological interests.
At the same time, archeologists at the Arizona State Museum, located at the University of Arizona, have for several years been doing salvage and contract archeology throughout Arizona. In the last year, a new program was introduced at the University. The program, Cultural Resource Management, was stimulated by the federal legislation requiring a historical and archeological impact statement to be filed as part of the environmental impact statement for major construction projects. As a result a number of archeologists trained as cultural resource managers have been matriculated and have met to discuss common problems.
In November 1974, a meeting was called by the author and Margaret Knight to discuss the major events of the AAA annual meeting in Mexico City, which Knight had attended. Members of the evaluation and archeological groups, as well as persons who were known to share an interest in professional applied anthropology, were invited. Out of that meeting was born the Society of Professional Anthropologists.
The SPA
The Society has a mailing list of 125 persons, and an active membership of approximately 105 drawn from the Tucson and southern Arizona community Functionally the membership is drawn from the following activities areas: Services, 20; Teaching and Training, 19; Administration, 20; Research, 16; Students, 25.
Broken down by discipline, the membership shows the following distribution: Education, 32; Government, 7; Health Related Fields, 11; Social Services, 8; Business, 12; Archeology, 6; Housewives, 3; Students, 25.
The Society is governed by a Steering Committee composed of 18 persons. The Steering Committee meets regularly to plan group activities. A workshop on Consultancy, as well as discussion groups on Program Evaluation and Environmental Impact Statements, have been held. A newsletter has been created and published. A jobs network has been created to advise members of local employment opportunities. Plans are currently being made to monitor local and state governments for developments of concern to anthropologists and to prepare the group to help lobby for and against legislation that directly affects anthropologists and anthropological interests. One final point should be made concerning the Society of Professional Anthropologists. That is, it is a local, grassroots organization. Its activities and structure are designed to meet the needs of the professionally employed anthropologists in Tucson. Others in other locales may find their needs are different. We would encourage others who wish to, to form their own groups to serve their local needs. We would welcome word from any such group in the country.
If anthropology is to be successful in marketing its perspective, skills and students in the non-academic market, it will require those of us who profess to be professionals and anthropologists to demonstrate the utility of that perspective and those skills to the public and to potential employers. We may do this individually, but we can also do it collectively. In Tucson, Arizona, we have chosen to do it both ways.
ANTHROPOLOGY Newsletter October 1975
Vol. 16 No. 8 pp. 4 - 6
Monday, November 7, 2011
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)