Comments on: ????????? http://www.ethnography.com/2007/09/102/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=102 A group blog on a wide variety of topics realted to anthropology Sat, 31 Jul 2010 01:50:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Donna http://www.ethnography.com/2007/09/102/comment-page-1/#comment-84 Donna Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:35:07 +0000 http://www.ethnography.com/2007/09/102/#comment-84 If that is what Alan Goodman is saying, then he didn't express it well. It sounded like he was saying that we (anthropologists) need to come up with a whole new discipline to achieve holism. If what he was trying to say was that we (anthropologists) should reclaim holism, and reject reductionism, then I agree. But we've got enough other disciplines and administrators questioning the utility of anthropology (HTS notwithstanding), without the president of AAA advocating for the reinvention of the wheel. If that is what Alan Goodman is saying, then he didn’t express it well. It sounded like he was saying that we (anthropologists) need to come up with a whole new discipline to achieve holism. If what he was trying to say was that we (anthropologists) should reclaim holism, and reject reductionism, then I agree. But we’ve got enough other disciplines and administrators questioning the utility of anthropology (HTS notwithstanding), without the president of AAA advocating for the reinvention of the wheel.

]]> By: Ethnography.com » Blog Archive » Jonathan Marks response to the Leakey Foundation regarding controversial writer Nicholas Wade invited to present at speaker series http://www.ethnography.com/2007/09/102/comment-page-1/#comment-83 Ethnography.com » Blog Archive » Jonathan Marks response to the Leakey Foundation regarding controversial writer Nicholas Wade invited to present at speaker series Tue, 16 Oct 2007 05:17:06 +0000 http://www.ethnography.com/2007/09/102/#comment-83 [...] Marks, Professor of Anthropology at UNC-Charlotte recently found our blog and has left a thoughtful comment on a post by Donna related to the controversy about Nicholas Wade being invited to speak at the Leakey Foundation. He [...] [...] Marks, Professor of Anthropology at UNC-Charlotte recently found our blog and has left a thoughtful comment on a post by Donna related to the controversy about Nicholas Wade being invited to speak at the Leakey Foundation. He [...]

]]> By: Jon Marks http://www.ethnography.com/2007/09/102/comment-page-1/#comment-77 Jon Marks Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:25:45 +0000 http://www.ethnography.com/2007/09/102/#comment-77 Maybe what Alan Goodman was saying is that bio-anthro has become co-opted by a reductive agenda, and has become intellectually distanced from what we all agree anthropology ought to be. Have a look at the book that Alan co-edited with a medical/cultural anthropologist and a historian, called “Genetic Nature/Culture,” based on a Wenner-Gren Conference. Here at the University of Edinburgh, there is no biological anthropology; the only course on human evolution is taught in archaeology; but the social anthropologists are all quite interested in what most of us would regard as biological anthropology, and were delighted to have me lecture to them on molecular anthropology a couple of weeks ago; and are going to turn out for my public lecture tomorrow called "Is that and ape in your genes?" The problem with Nick Wade is that he thinks (following prominent biological anthropologists such as Henry Harpending, and a long line of thought going back to Charles Davenport, who died in 1944 as the sitting president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, long after his work in human genetics had been thoroughly discredited) that genetics exists in opposition to anthropology. A different viewpoint, made in the Goodman-Heath-Lindee volume, is that there is an area of overlap between anthropology and genetics, and that it is quite possibly a very fruitful avenue to explore – but you won’t find it if you adopt the position that differences in group-level human behaviours are genetically based, and that anthropologists are fluffy-headed Marxist post-modernists who don’t think that there is a reality. I wish that viewpoint were an exaggeration, but it is really what Harpending and Wade believe. Personally, I think there is a reality, but it’s just quite different from what Harpending and Wade think it is. You might also have a look at the latest Current Anthropology, in which Joe Alter from Pittsburgh tries to raise some “biological” issues in a “cultural” context. I have a comment on it, and the next comment is by primatologist Craig Stanford from USC, who starts off with the ex cathedra pronouncement that anthropology is a subdiscipline of primatology. If that’s true, then IMHO it is so only in the sense that we are all subdisciplines of particle physics. “Mark” mentions that I lack the authority to dictate what you hear and read, and something about my personal tastes. I wouldn’t want that authority, and this isn’t about personal tastes at all; this is about minimal competency and ideologically-driven reportage. Wade lacks the first, and possesses the second. In fact, the only reason it is even in the Anthropology News is that when I wrote to the Leakey Foundation to inquire about the decision-making process by which they came to sponsor Wade as a spokesman for the field of anthropology, they did not have the minimal courtesy to respond. As it happened, the anthropology advisory committee of the New York Academy of Sciences had been unhappy with Wade's representation of the field in the NYT for quite some time, and had brought me into their discussions. Anyway, when the Leakey Foundation learned from Rachel Dvoskin that I had copied my letter to some other people, they got a little edgy and wanted to know to whom I had sent it – but still wouldn’t actually respond. It kind of makes you wonder whether the outfit is being run by Scooter Libby… Maybe what Alan Goodman was saying is that bio-anthro has become co-opted by a reductive agenda, and has become intellectually distanced from what we all agree anthropology ought to be.
Have a look at the book that Alan co-edited with a medical/cultural anthropologist and a historian, called “Genetic Nature/Culture,” based on a Wenner-Gren Conference. Here at the University of Edinburgh, there is no biological anthropology; the only course on human evolution is taught in archaeology; but the social anthropologists are all quite interested in what most of us would regard as biological anthropology, and were delighted to have me lecture to them on molecular anthropology a couple of weeks ago; and are going to turn out for my public lecture tomorrow called “Is that and ape in your genes?”
The problem with Nick Wade is that he thinks (following prominent biological anthropologists such as Henry Harpending, and a long line of thought going back to Charles Davenport, who died in 1944 as the sitting president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, long after his work in human genetics had been thoroughly discredited) that genetics exists in opposition to anthropology. A different viewpoint, made in the Goodman-Heath-Lindee volume, is that there is an area of overlap between anthropology and genetics, and that it is quite possibly a very fruitful avenue to explore – but you won’t find it if you adopt the position that differences in group-level human behaviours are genetically based, and that anthropologists are fluffy-headed Marxist post-modernists who don’t think that there is a reality. I wish that viewpoint were an exaggeration, but it is really what Harpending and Wade believe. Personally, I think there is a reality, but it’s just quite different from what Harpending and Wade think it is.
You might also have a look at the latest Current Anthropology, in which Joe Alter from Pittsburgh tries to raise some “biological” issues in a “cultural” context. I have a comment on it, and the next comment is by primatologist Craig Stanford from USC, who starts off with the ex cathedra pronouncement that anthropology is a subdiscipline of primatology. If that’s true, then IMHO it is so only in the sense that we are all subdisciplines of particle physics.
“Mark” mentions that I lack the authority to dictate what you hear and read, and something about my personal tastes. I wouldn’t want that authority, and this isn’t about personal tastes at all; this is about minimal competency and ideologically-driven reportage. Wade lacks the first, and possesses the second.
In fact, the only reason it is even in the Anthropology News is that when I wrote to the Leakey Foundation to inquire about the decision-making process by which they came to sponsor Wade as a spokesman for the field of anthropology, they did not have the minimal courtesy to respond. As it happened, the anthropology advisory committee of the New York Academy of Sciences had been unhappy with Wade’s representation of the field in the NYT for quite some time, and had brought me into their discussions. Anyway, when the Leakey Foundation learned from Rachel Dvoskin that I had copied my letter to some other people, they got a little edgy and wanted to know to whom I had sent it – but still wouldn’t actually respond. It kind of makes you wonder whether the outfit is being run by Scooter Libby…

]]> By: Donna http://www.ethnography.com/2007/09/102/comment-page-1/#comment-22 Donna Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:38:59 +0000 http://www.ethnography.com/2007/09/102/#comment-22 "equally charming." I like that, Tony. Yes, we do need to be that. And I think it's especially important for us to keep hammering at the idea that biology and culture interact in humans, that neither biology nor culture alone make *everything* happen, but are rather factors in a complex whole. We are constantly learning more about how those factors interact, and what that interaction looks like in real life. Being scared off by the extremes on both ends, or not commenting because they are extreme, leads the greater public to believe that we who hold to theories of moderation and complexity agree with the extremists, when in reality we'd like for them to shut up and stop pretending that they speak for everyone. “equally charming.” I like that, Tony.

Yes, we do need to be that. And I think it’s especially important for us to keep hammering at the idea that biology and culture interact in humans, that neither biology nor culture alone make *everything* happen, but are rather factors in a complex whole. We are constantly learning more about how those factors interact, and what that interaction looks like in real life. Being scared off by the extremes on both ends, or not commenting because they are extreme, leads the greater public to believe that we who hold to theories of moderation and complexity agree with the extremists, when in reality we’d like for them to shut up and stop pretending that they speak for everyone.

]]> By: Tony Waters http://www.ethnography.com/2007/09/102/comment-page-1/#comment-21 Tony Waters Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:14:38 +0000 http://www.ethnography.com/2007/09/102/#comment-21 Jonathan Marks' book "What Does it Mean to be 98% Chimpanzee?" is a very effective critique of biological determinism which I recommend. On the other hand, I also read Wade's book, too. Also after having heard about it on NPR. I disagreedwith the biological determinism of his approach. However, he does summarize well the state of the field, and I learned a lot by reading it about the development of language, etc. The larger problem I think is that as Donna wrote, anthropology and sociology try to pretend that the biological critique is so outlandish that they need not respond. This is not the case. Many people find the biological critique compelling which is why publishers are so receptive, and popular outlets so charmed by books like Wade, or for that matter the socio-biology of E. O. Wilson. We need to be equally charming. Part of what this means is that Marks' book needs to be more widely read. But we also need to dust off many of the critiques of social Darwinism that have emerged over the last 100 years in order to re-interpret the very real (and very interesting) data that is emerging from molecular biology. Jonathan Marks’ book “What Does it Mean to be 98% Chimpanzee?” is a very effective critique of biological determinism which I recommend.

On the other hand, I also read Wade’s book, too. Also after having heard about it on NPR. I disagreedwith the biological determinism of his approach. However, he does summarize well the state of the field, and I learned a lot by reading it about the development of language, etc.

The larger problem I think is that as Donna wrote, anthropology and sociology try to pretend that the biological critique is so outlandish that they need not respond. This is not the case. Many people find the biological critique compelling which is why publishers are so receptive, and popular outlets so charmed by books like Wade, or for that matter the socio-biology of E. O. Wilson.

We need to be equally charming. Part of what this means is that Marks’ book needs to be more widely read. But we also need to dust off many of the critiques of social Darwinism that have emerged over the last 100 years in order to re-interpret the very real (and very interesting) data that is emerging from molecular biology.

]]>