Re: Sociology & Anthropology

I think there are really 3 issues here. The most obvious difference between anthropology and sociology, historically, has been the concentration of anthropologists in foreign countries -- especially in the colonies of their respective nations. I don't know enough about the history of the two disciplines in every country (I am pretty sure that what we consider "socio-cultural anthropology" is united with sociology in some countries) to identify where the two diverged and why, but I don't think it had much to do with disagreement over theory. It was probably more of a difference in methods (e.g. participant observation versus survey, or qualitative over quantitative), and focus (e.g. colonies rather than colonists). Anyway, to this day anthropologists borrow a lot of sociological theory (and vice versa).

Professor Merry White's comment reflects a long-standing bias in anthropology toward studying the 'Other', which we still see in ample evidence today: even when anthropologists do study within their own nation-states, they tend to focus on subaltern groups with which they do not (closely) identify. I don't think there's anything wrong with this; I think a lot of anthropologists are guided by research questions that are best addressed by focusing on certain groups that experience phenomena from perspectives that we don't commonly share in our privileged status. However, it is unfortunate that domestic fieldwork doesn't seem to carry as much prestige as studying "over there," wherever that may be; indeed it often seems like the distance between the field site and the nearest community of ex-pat / tourist Westerners is directly proportional to the level of prestige attached to working there. This is a shame, because I think anthropologists have a lot to offer through domestic fieldwork (the whole value-status disequilibrium problem is similar for historical archaeologists, but that's another post)


The second issue has to deal with the "holistic" approach that anthropologists still bravely advocate. While I'm a strong supporter of four-field anthropology, and I cringe whenever I hear about departments at other universities where the subfields are administratively segregated, I won't pretend to harbor expectations of becoming professionally proficient in all 4 areas. Honestly, I can't identify a single university that still takes the four-field approach seriously enough to require a generalized education. I suspect that the shift in academics toward a business-model is partially responsible: the folks in charge want anthropologists to contribute research on, and to teach about, specific (and especially, esoteric) subjects, not to teach how anthropology can vastly expand your worldview and raise your quality of life. Anyway, the sad fact is that most roomfulls of anthropologists are about as unlikely as sociologists to discuss the wide array of phenomena and research techniques pertaining to any given subject. You're much more likely to find discussions of pre-ceramic cultures at the SAAs, Japanese primates at the APAs, and early attempts to incorporate GIS into research at any conference, on any topic -- regardless of its geo-spatial applicability. (Money talks, and there's funding for GIS right now)


Anyway, if anthropologists really want to reclaim the "holistic" approach, we need to do more inter-subfield collaboration and train ourselves to work between the boundaries. We need more hybrid anthropologists. I'll see what I can do :P The point remains valid that anthropologists employ a wider range of techniques than sociologists, if primarily because we investigate a much wider range of subjects. I'll reiterate my campaign slogan for encouraging undergrads to declare anthro: you can pick virtually any issue discussed in any department at a major university and find a way to study it as an anthropologist.


Perhaps we're not so much "holistic" as we're spread out and diversified. This brings me to my final point, which is really more about socio-cultural anthropology than about the four-field discipline as a whole. I think anthropology has traditionally been a pipe dream. We've been in the business of making better stereotypes since the very beginning. Using various techniques informed by various schools of thought, we've tried to depict "the world as it is for _____," where it was assumed that ample scientific observation of any group _____ could paint a valid and "holistic" view of that group and their entire social structure. Hence the focus, originally, on "simple societies" that we assumed would be more easily manageable than our own societies, with which we are familiar enough to recognize the heteroglossia of everyday phenomena. By studying the "Other," especially the non-industrialized pre-literate "Other," anthropologists hoped to 1) avoid partiality and maintain objectivity, and 2) achieve a complete picture. All four branches have been accomplices to this scheme. We've focused on certain practices shared by a number of specific individuals, labeled these practices according to our own vocabulary (while shaving off any unexpected indigenous significances in the process), and then cataloged people according to whether or not their practices meet the criteria for those we've already standardized (read: butchered). Thus, for example, certain unorthodox Mormons in the U.S. Southwest are "polygamists," and in any given anthropological study dating before 20 years ago, the fact of their polygamy would have been the centerpiece of discussion. Descriptions would either: 1) clarify how they are different from the assumed "us," i.e. the Other-ness of their distinguishing practice, polygamy; or 2) reveal what we share in common, i.e. (implicitly or explicitly) defining the limits of polygamy. Two things happen when we apply a stereotype: we debase the stereotype, and we debase our knowledge of the people to whom we apply it. If I am a "student," for example, then my student-ness is assumed to be an integral and potentially overwhelming aspect of my identity. In some domains it may be the only quality that matters; likewise, my behavior and characteristics inform what it means to be a "student." However, the fact that I read journal articles on Sunday mornings doesn't mean that all students do; nor do I necessarily share values that are commonly associated with students. If I somehow gain celebrity with a wider social audience, then their impression of "student" might change -- even if the entire rest of the population that meets the criteria for being classified "student" remains unchanged. In sum, stereotypes of any sort are homogenizing and essentializing, as were earlier ethnographic accounts of group ____ , e.g. "the Hopi," or "the Japanese" as Benedict depicted them in Chrysanthemum and the Sword.

Anthropology wasn't destroyed by the serious critiques leveled against it during the post-colonial, post-modern period: rather, it emerged as a more realistic and potentially more scientific approach. Anthropologists can now begin the business of demystifying stereotypes; of pointing out the inherent limitations of all classification schemes and working towards "not the erasure of all differences but the recognition of more of them and of the complex ways in which they crosscut" as Abu-Lughod and Said demanded. We will continue to produce and inform stereotypes through our work; generalizations are a necessary component of the process of understanding our world. However, we can now recognize the limitations of our knowledge and instead of aiming for holistic pictures of entire groups, we can shoot holes in our own representations in order to demonstrate the wide diversity of lived experiences on the ground. The anthropologist's role is to ground truth generalizations, to show when and where stereotypical descriptions fail, what they always fail to capture, and how they might be used for political purposes that we never intended.