American Cultural Anthropology and British Social Anthropology

Anthropology News • January 2006 IN FOCUS ANTHROPOLOGY ON A GLOBAL SCALE In light of the AAA's objective to develop its international relations and collaborations, AN invited international anthropologists to engage with questions about the practice of anthropology today, particularly issues of anthropology and its relationships to globaliza- IN FOCUS tion and postcolonialism, and what this might mean for the future of anthropology and future collaborations between anthropologists and others around the world. Please send your responses in 400 words or less to Stacy Lathrop at [email protected]. One former US colleague pointed out American Cultural Anthropology that Boas’s four-field approach is today presented at the undergradu- ate level in some departments in the and British Social Anthropology US as the feature that distinguishes Connections and Four-Field Approach that the all-embracing nature of the social anthropology from sociology, Most of our colleagues’ comments AAA, as opposed to the separate cre- highlighting the fact that, as a Differences German colleague noted, British began by highlighting the strength ation of the Royal Anthropological anthropologists seem more secure of the “four-field” approach in the Institute (in 1907) and the Associa- ROBERT LAYTON AND ADAM R KAUL about an affinity with sociology. US. One argued that this approach is tion of Social Anthropologists (in U DURHAM Clearly British anthropology traces in fact on the decline following the 1946) in Britain, contributes to a its lineage to the sociological found- deeper impact that postmodernism higher national profile of anthropol- ing fathers—Durkheim, Weber and consistent self-critique has had in the US relative to the UK. ogists as professionals in US. Mauss—thereby placing primary amongst anthropolo- Another responded that this split has Also, because of the vetting sys- emphasis on social structure in gists is that we have only occurred in some departments tem involved in recruitment in the anthropological analyses; whereas in largely failed as a collec- while other departments firmly stick ASA, and because the ASA is partic- A the US there is a stronger sense of the tive discipline to engage fully in pub- to the four-field approach. ularly designed for social anthro- influence of the American greats lic debate and policymaking in the Historically, combining sociocul- pologists, it has remained very within anthropology itself—Boas, same way that other social scientists small in size (in the 100s) compared tural anthropology with the other Mead, Kroeber, Lowie, Geertz. have done. As global communica- to the AAA (in excess of 10,000). “subdisciplines” of linguistics, It is perhaps appropriate then to tion technolo- This exclusive focus on social archaeology and biological anthro- continue to label our sister anthropo- gies improve ex- pology never really took off in anthropology is dramatically illus- ponentially and logical clans “social” versus “cultural” Britain in the same way that it did in trated in David Mills’ report that anthropology, although this differ- the possibility of the US. In Britain, archaeology was Louis Leakey was invited by E E inserting an an- ence should be painted more in always more closely associated with Evans-Pritchard to attend the meet- shades of grey than in blacks and thropological classics or art history departments. ing where the ASA was formed, but perspective into whites. If we are related clans, then in Linguistics is more often than not a he was not invited to join! the US, anthropologists have a habit public debates subdiscipline of English literature of creating fictive academic kinship increases, this Robert Layton departments in the UK. Biological COMMENTARY charts that stretch back to Boas. By self-critique anthropology had the closest affilia- contrast, UK social anthropologists comes more and more to the fore. tion with social anthropology in tend to name their anthropological But can anthropologists from differ- Likewise, in the early 20th century, Britain in the 19th century, but intellectual ancestors in a line back to ent national and regional “tradi- the institutionalization of anthropol- when the discipline became institu- Malinowski or Evans-Pritchard. None- tions” communicate and collabo- ogy in academia was rapid in the US, tionalized in academia, this connec- theless, since there has been a great rate enough to create the unified while in Britain there are still only a tion was all but abandoned. Only a deal of communication between disciplinary “voice” that would al- relative handful of departments. On handful of British anthropology anthropologists on either side of the low for effective the one hand, the result is an inti- departments such as University Atlantic for the last 100 years the the- engagement? mate feel to the social community of College London, the University of oretical differences that result, while One of the anthropologists in Britain. On the Durham, Oxford Brookes University evident, are very subtle indeed. first barriers that other, it is well recognized that the (and to some extent Cambridge) Nevertheless, these subtle differ- must be over- AAA has done far more during the bridge this gap today. ences are powerful. For national and come in order to Thus, what is often couched as last century to professionalize and regional anthropologists and their better situate one of the key distinguishing fea- promote the discipline in the US, in professional organizations to under- ourselves in the tures of anthropology in the US— and out of academia, than British stand one another, much less create forefront of pub- the broad four-field study of human- associations have done in the UK. an international collaborative an- Adam R Kaul lic debate is to ity—is certainly not a universal fea- Some contributors to our discussion, thropological voice in public debates, educate each ture of the discipline worldwide. In however, argued that the sheer size of these different histories must be rec- other about the connections and the discipline in the US tends to differences between our traditions. the US, the influence of Boas and his ognized. This certainly does not encourage professionals to identify Here, as a first step, albeit a small students cannot be understated mean that we need to abandon our more strongly with a subfield such as one, we briefly highlight the major when discussing the American four- unique traditions and perspectives, ecological or cognitive anthropology differences and connections be- field approach. With its focus on but if we don’t recognize the barriers tween American “cultural” anthro- Native American and “primitive” than is the case in the UK where the- to fostering communication within a pology and British “social” anthro- cultures, this combination of subdis- oretical and topical eclecticism is globalized anthropology, how can pology. The differences between ciplines made sense in the early days more acceptable. we expect to contribute a voice to a I these two traditions was the subject of American anthropology. globalized world? AN of a recent round of emails in our Theoretical Orientations department, which is made up of a Professionalization There is also a subtly different theo- Robert Layton is the head of the depart- retical orientation resulting from the ment of anthropology at the University of significant number of American as The professionalization of the disci- Durham. Adam R Kaul, who lectured well as British and continental pline also historically differed in the different intellectual heritages of there in 2004–05, is now assistant professor European anthropologists. US and the UK. One colleague stated anthropology in the US and Britain. at Medaille College in Buffalo, New York. 14.

Load more