Originally posted by PalynkaATY, BdN, twhitehead?
From another forum:
[i]The word anthropology is something I can't dissociate with colonial history as it's a discipline that originated from a position of western dominance. In my view, "anthropology" is an outdated concept for a scientific field which only really made sense from the perspective of a dichotomy between the "more civilized" versus the "less c ...[text shortened]... ogy have to offer that other fields (including humanities along with sciences) do not?
1 edit
Originally posted by zeeblebotThoroughly disinterested, it turns out. If Palynka wants to purge academia of anthropologists, I won't stand in his way. He just better not complain if there's a campaign to eradicate economics because 'it's not a real science'.
ATY, BdN, twhitehead?
Interesting that anthropologists have been 'embedded' in US operations in Afghanistan, though.
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageScore another point for the imperialistic leftover.
Interesting that anthropologists have been 'embedded' in US operations in Afghanistan, though.
As for economics, nothing in my argument attacks anthropology for not being a "hard science" so the parallel is weak.
Originally posted by amolv06I wonder why sociology limits itself to human society rather than considering all the networks that constitute and limit the human.
Palynka,
It seems to me that today's academics are increasingly specialized. It seems to me that an integrated science, such as anthropology, would be apt at studying a field as diverse as humanity.
'Object of study': questionable premise.
Originally posted by amolv06See the Wittgenstein quote above.
Palynka,
It seems to me that today's academics are increasingly specialized. It seems to me that an integrated science, such as anthropology, would be apt at studying a field as diverse as humanity.
What is a holistic study of mankind? Can you give me an example of a paper that doesn't square perfectly into other fields?
1 edit
Originally posted by Palynkasurely a spry young economist like telerion or bbar has got to be better sport than some dried-up old mummy emeritus from the uni anthropology department.
Score another point for the imperialistic leftover.
As for economics, nothing in my argument attacks anthropology for not being a "hard science" so the parallel is weak.
they've got to be much better at dodging the question, for one thing.
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm not sure what a holistic study of mankind would consist of. But surely we can conceive a subject which strives to do that. If such a subject were to exist, do you not think it could provide some insight into the nature of man that can not be gained by studying man's individual characteristics? It seems like this is the goal of anthropology.
See the Wittgenstein quote above.
What is a holistic study of mankind? Can you give me an example of a paper that doesn't square perfectly into other fields?
Originally posted by amolv06Let's say I was a researcher in education focusing on the emotional needs of children in the classroom. Now a particular group of children is performing very poorly. Coincidentally, they all come from a minority culture very different to the prevailing Western culture. Would this be a good time to consult my colleague, the educational anthropologist?
I'm not sure what a holistic study of mankind would consist of. But surely we can conceive a subject which strives to do that. If such a subject were to exist, do you not think it could provide some insight into the nature of man that can not be gained by studying man's individual characteristics? It seems like this is the goal of anthropology.