The History of Anthropology
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL ITEMS VOLUME 16 " NUMBER 3 ■ SEPTEMBER 1962 230 PARK AVENUE " NEW YORK 17, N. Y. ON STUDYING THE HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY Dell H. Hymes * On April 13-14 of this year a Conference on the History We can be partly gratified by the attention—by being of Anthropology was held in the office of the Social Sci- singled out for study by historians of science. It must ence Research Council. The attendants numbered 33 prove that our claims to be something of a science are and included anthropologists, historians, historians of being given credence. Yet it means some discomfort too, science, sociologists, and a few other interested persons. for we have our own accounts of our origin, nature, and Papers prepared for the conference were discussed. In destiny. It may seem atfirst that the historians of science this brief paper I should like to tell you about the confer- visit us simply out of sincere interest in these traditions ence, not so much in terms of its content as in terms of its of ours, to be edified by them, as we have been, and to import. This lies mainly, I think, not in the intrinsic record them for the rest of the world and posterity, lest value of what occurred—like most short conferences on they be lost. Eventually, however, we may discover that areas new to organized research, it was intense, varied, our attentive visitors do not always take our accounts at and confused—but in the fact that it did occur. The oc- face value. They move from one campfire to another, currence of aformal conference on the history of anthro- and compare notes. We realize that they could hardly pology marks a definite shift that affects the interests and become one with us, if they had not undergone the same fortunes of all anthropologists. sort of initiation (field work), been exposed to our ways * The author is Associate Professor of Anthropology and Linguis- Alpert, University of Oregon; Bernard Barber, Barnard College; Joseph tics at the University of California, Berkeley. He was a participant in B. Casagrande, University of Frederica de Laguna, Bryn Mawr the Council's Conference on the History of Anthropology, April 13- College; Fred Eggan, University of Chicago; Raymond Firth, London -14, for which lie prepared a paper, "Toward a History of Lin- School of Economics and Political Science; John F. Freeman, American guistic Anthropology." The present report is a condensation of one Philosophical Society; David H. French, Reed College: John C. Greene, presented by the author at the annual meeting of the Kroeber lowa State University; Jacob W. Gruber, Temple University; A. Irving Anthropological Society, held jointly with the Southwestern Anthro- Hallowell; Robert Heine-Geldern, University of Vienna; Pendleton pological Association in Berkeley, on April 19-21. The longer report Herring; Melville J. Herskovits, Northwestern University; Dell H. will be published in Kroeber Antliropological Society Papers, No. 26 Hymes; Daniel Lerner, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Alex- (1962). ander Lesser, Hofstra College; Edward Lurie, Wayne State University; The Council's conference was an outgrowth of the November 1959 Nancy O. Lurie, University of Michigan; Alfred Mtoaux, Conference on the History of Quantification in the Sciences sponsored Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr.; Thomas A. Sebeok, Indiana University; by the former Joint Committee on the History of Science (of the Na- Harry L. Shapiro; Richard H. Shryock; Joseph J. Spengler, Duke tional Research Council and Social Science Research Council), on which University; Geoige W. Stocking, Jr., University of California, Berkeley; a report by Robert K. Merton appeared in Items, March 1960. The Sol Tax; C. F. Voegelin and Florence M. Voegelin, Indiana Univer- 1962 conference was organized by an ad hoc subcommittee consisting sity; Anthony F. C. Wallace, University of Pennsylvania; Rulon Wells, of A. Irving Hallowell, University of Pennsylvania (chairman); Robert Yale University; Leslie A. White, University of Michigan; and Harry K. Columbia University; Harry L. Shapiro, American Museum Woolf, Johns Hopkins University. Each had been invited by the of of Natural History; Richard I-I. Shryock, American Philosophical So- subcommittee to contribute a paper on an aspect of the history ciety; Sol Tax, University of Chicago; and C. F. Voegelin, Indiana anthropology of particular interest to him. The invitation was ac- University, with the slalt assistance first: of Joseph B. Casagrande and cepted by 23 persons, including Kenneth E. Bock of the University later of Rowland L. Mitchell, Jr. The participants included Harry of California, Berkeley, who was unable to be present. 25 Illinois; 1902, Unesco; Merton, early enough in their careers. But, disconcertingly, they wrestling with verbal tools; horizontal sectioning, re- seem untroubled, and confident in ways of their own. lating an author to contemporary, including nonanthro- They even presume to decide for themselves what por- pological, figures and ideas, that is, seeing more than the tion of our accounts they will believe! The situation is "vertical" dimension of the profession's history that can mildly embarrassing, especially if we wish to protest, be viewed as a lineal succession through time; in general, since we have been in the business of doing the very a clear sense of historical context and of historical prob- same thing to other groups for years. lems, judgments that are not anachronistic or a priori, In essence, a good deal of the history of anthropology but informed by historical relativism that answers to an is going to be written by men who are not by origin, per- anthropologist's wariness of ethnocentrism, studies that haps not even by aspiration or empathy, anthropologists. are more than chronicle. What should be our view, then, of the question, "Who As one of the papers that had these marks of a truly shall write the history of anthropology"? Shall we turn professional history of anthropology, I may cite that on the subject wholly over to historians of science and schol- Tylor and the concept of culture by Stocking. 1 When arship? Or shall anthropologists continue to take part? someone writes a paper showing that Matthew Arnold The best solution, I believe, is one already validated held a position of major importance in the cultural life in the history of science, and one for which there is ample of the times vis-a-vis that held by Tylor, between which precedent among ourselves: turn some of the informants there was an interaction; that Arnold in fact held a con- into professional collaborators. As put by Richard ception of culture closer in some respects than Tylor's Shryock, himself an eminent figure in the history of sci- to our own; and that the changes in the use of the terms ence, the important thing is not the particular origin "culture" and "civilization" in parallel passages of Boas' of the scholar, but that he know enough both of the sci- earlier and later writings show that when Kroeber and ence and of history. Historians can learn anthropology; Kluckhohn attributed the modern concept of culture to anthropologists can learn history. Tylor's definition, and to Boas an apparent delay of a I believe that this solution is not only best, but neces- generation in its subsequent development, they had mat- sary. I would add only the qualification that it should ters almost exactly turnedabout, then we are in thepres- not be one-sided, that there be not only historians that ence of a level of scholarship that makes retrospective learn anthropology, but also anthropologists, some of speculation about the history of anthropology passe. If them, that learn history. In short, we must prepare to anthropologists want to talk about it themselves, they train some anthropologists as specialists in the history will have to meet similar standards. of anthropology. (This has already occurred in one or two cases at the University of Pennsylvania.) IMPORTANCE OF HISTORY The desirability of this course may be shown by ref- FOR CURRENT THEORY erence to the content of the conference. I should like to Each time a major intellectual issue arose—the rela- single out three characteristics that were both apparent tionship of science and humanities in anthropology, the and important: (1) how much the professionalization of comparative method, the place of Boas a historical the history of anthropology is already under way; (2) — topic was converted into a substantive contemporary how important this history is in current theory and con- issue; this elicited arguments and sometimes emotions troversy; (3) that the historian of anthropology, nee his- among the anthropologists present. A negative lesson is torian, and the historian of anthropology, nee anthro- how little ready sense of the historical problem in this pologist, converge but do not merge entirely. area most anthropologists have, or at least how difficult they find it. to be historical about themselves. On the PROFESSIONALIZATION positive side, however, it shows that their history cannot be a matter of indifference to them, and that It is fair to say that only a portion of the participants one reason for historians of is to in the conference are, or intend to be, truly professional training anthropology provide the of that historians of anthropology; but the presence of that por- some objective control over use history for and controversy. If some tion was unmistakable. Some of their distinctive traits, legitimation, theory, of the anthropologists, their value in these which enable one to recognize their presence, are these: historians are re- to be increased for they use of out-of-the-way and unfamiliar sources, including spects is likely should be sensi- relevance of the history to current unpublished ones, such as letters; attention to textual de- tive to the issues.