- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
About this topic
| Summary | This philosophy of anthropology section is within philosophy of social science, so the term 'anthropology' is here taken as short for social and cultural anthropology. Philosophy of anthropology aims to contribute to our understanding of anthropology as a discipline through doing philosophy. Most works within this category fall into one or more of the following areas. (1) Attempts to answer questions about the nature or value of anthropology, e.g. what distinguishes anthropology from other disciplines? is it possible to pursue anthropology as a science? what moral obligations does anthropology give rise to? (2) Attempts to identify the commitments of a given type of anthropology, e.g. functionalist anthropology, structuralist anthropology; and also philosophical evaluations of these commitments. (3) Attempts to define more general concepts that are closely connected to anthropological research, e.g. the concept of a culture, the concept of a belief system; and also assessments of their value to anthropology. |
| Key works | Wittgenstein 1967, Quine 1957, Jarvie 1967 and Davidson 1973 are key works written by philosophers. A number of key works are by anthropologists reflecting on their discipline. See Malinowski 1922 (introductory chapter), Radcliffe-Brown 1940, Evans-Pritchard 1961, Lévi-Strauss 1969, Geertz 1973, Harris 2001, Sperber 1985, Sperber 1996, Clifford & Marcus 1986, Spiro 1986, Spiro 1996, Strathern 1987, Strathern 1987, Strathern 1990, Moore 2013, Csordas 1990, Gell 1992, Gell 1994, Abu-Lughod 1996, Henare et al 2007 and Ingold 2014 |
| Introductions | Jarvie 1967 and Sperber 1985 are good places to start. Hacker 1992 is useful for understanding Wittgenstein's criticisms of Frazer. Lynch 1997 serves well as an introduction to what a conceptual framework is and whether there can be alternative conceptual frameworks. Zahle 2016 provides information on how participant observation relates to the divide between the natural and social sciences. |
Show all references
Related
Siblings
- Philosophy of Archaeology (684)
- Philosophy of Economics (12,830 | 3,114)
- Philosophy of Education (33,671 | 28,225)
- Philosophy of Geography (1,112)
- Philosophy of History (9,629)
- Philosophy of Law (27,526)
- Philosophy of Political Science (400)
- Philosophy of Sociology (749 | 49)
- Philosophy of Social Science, Miscellaneous (5,394 | 1,003)
Contents
1964 found
Order:
| 1 — 50 / 1964 |
- Human Person According to John Dewey.Baiju Anthony - manuscriptDewey’s approach to the study of human nature is consistent with the standpoint of scientific psychology. Man according to him is the product of the process of evolution. His nature has changeable and unchangeable elements. Dewey’s approach to the study of human nature is characterized by a scientific spirit. He rejects the dualistic view, faculty view, and the tabula rasa view on human nature. Deweyan presentation on human nature is in a way was one of his most cherished dreams. In (...)
- What is Spoken of when We Speak about Being.Niel Bezrookove - manuscriptτὰ ὄντα ἰέναι τε πάντα καὶ μένειν οὐδέν: Another look at being, asking what a interlocutor means to show by saying they feel themselves to be something. An ambiguity of the verb "to be" is disambiguated to reveal that it can be meant to show what something is and a process of being something. The relationship between being and essence is made by describing engagement through the encounter, giving us a non-exhaustive account of something's essence. Practice is then understood as (...)
- Societies differ in how they handle the same facts: an axiom of social anthropology? II.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptMarilyn Strathern claims that it is, or was, an axiom of social anthropology that societies differ in how they handle the same facts. I present two clarifications neither of which looks suitable for axiomatic status.
- How much was known about Bacup beforehand?Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptThis paper considers Jeanette Edwards’ claim that she knew little about the town of Bacup beforehand, in response to the question of why she did fieldwork there. I draw attention to dissatisfaction with this answer as avoiding the question. Also, there is an argument that she and you and I all know a lot about Bacup, compared to various groups studied by social anthropologists.
- Victorian anthropology paradox: another solution.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptParts of the Victorian middle class were troubled by how Victorian society was both highly evolved and contained savage parts. I propose a solution to the paradox they faced.
- On a quick argument downplaying British anthropology’s colonialist role.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptI introduce and examine an argument presented by American anthropologist Herbert S. Lewis against thinking that British anthropology played a significant role in supporting colonialist projects: the British empire was large and centuries old, so it seems very unlikely that two dozen anthropologists late on made much difference.
- Did Gregory Bateson say that the term “function” has no place outside mathematics?Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptA textbook by Norwegian anthropologist Thomas Hylland Eriksen tells us that Gregory Bateson criticized the use of the term ‘function’ in social anthropology on the following grounds: it has no place outside of mathematics. But consulting the Bateson text referred to, he does not say that in his section on function and even endorses certain uses of the term “function” in anthropology. I look into these and his criticisms of functionalism, responding to the criticisms.
- Why was The Golden Bough so popular?Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptI presume numerous readers would have reacted as later critics famously did: we lack the sources to pursue Frazer’s goal of explaining why there was this rite of succession. Consequently, I find the popularity of his book puzzling. I cast doubt on Marilyn Strathern’s explanation and offer a wild conjecture.
- R.R. Marett’s 1923 objections to Sir James Frazer’s anthropology.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptThis is a one page handout presenting R.R. Marrett's objections to Frazer from an article reviewing books by Frazer and also one by Malinowski (and others not referred to here).
- George Eliot and the explanation of rituals.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptI contrast the Frazerian approach to rituals with an approach suggested by George Eliot in her esteemed novel Middlemarch.
- Against the symbolism solution for why kinship is significant in the West.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptIs kinship insignificant in Western societies? This paper presents an objection to the symbolism solution for why it is significant.
- Max Gluckman’s objections to Sir James Frazer.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptThis is a one page handout presenting objections from Gluckman's book Politics, Law, and Ritual in Tribal Society.
- Off the verandah? A puzzle from Malinowski and British social anthropology.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptThis one page handout presents a seemingly inconsistent triad from Malinowski, concerning the requirement to do intensive fieldwork, and solutions to it.
- Five counterexamples to a definition of dirt.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptThis paper considers five counterexamples to Mary Douglas's definition of dirt, one of which is extracted from a scene from George Eliot's novel Middlemarch and another from Marilyn Strathern's essay on anthropology at home.
- All-or-nothing reasoning and the kalela dance paradox.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptAn explanation for why the Bisa do not perform a traditional dance to express their identity is all-or-nothing reasoning: “We would have to water it down for this audience and that is not a Bisa dance.”.
- What is an exotic culture?Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptThis brief paper distinguishes between two intuitive concepts of what an exotic culture is. The first concept applies when the customs and beliefs of others are very different. The second concept applies when there is a significant departure from a natural baseline.
- How well do we understand our own societies? Kakonomia again and Kathleen Stock on the perspective of love.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptHow well do we understand our own societies? In this paper, I raise quite obvious puzzles for Diego Gambetta and Gloria Origgi’s depiction of Italy as a kakonomy and Kathleen Stock’s depiction of ordinary people.
- British structural-functionalist anthropology, feminism, and partial connections.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptMarilyn Strathern’s arguments against the possibility of feminist research bringing about a paradigm shift in social anthropology have led to a number of responses. Regarding one argument she presents, her own writings suggest a response: the argument that feminist research cannot bring about such a shift, because it is only concerned with part of society. A foray into the history of British social anthropology is of value for appreciating this argument and the response.
- Societies differ in how they handle the same facts: an axiom of social anthropology? III.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptAccording to Marilyn Strathern, it is, or was, an axiom of social anthropology that societies differ in how they handle the same facts. I present a challenge which I anticipate and respond to it.
- Anthropology away versus anthropology at home: a deconstruction.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptIt is tempting to represent anthropology at home versus anthropology in exotic places like so: “Whereas the latter is obviously legitimate and of interest to the discipline, the former is a borderline phenomenon at best and no department could function with just it. It is probably parasitic.” This paper offers a deconstruction of this portrait, but not a spectacular one, in which anthropology at home is presented as essential for accountability.
- Why Bacup? A boring standard answer!Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptThe anthropologist Jeanette Edwards sounds as if she is tired of the question, “Why did she do fieldwork in Bacup?” and the background commitments she regards as motivating that question, concerning what is an obviously legitimate place to do anthropology fieldwork. I present what is, or seems suited to being, “a boring standard answer” for the anthropologist at home.
- On outsiders who know your society better.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptHow can an outsider know your society better than you? Philosophers call this kind of question “epistemological.” A well-known answer amongst anthropologists is that they may know an aspect of it better: if everyone unthinkingly makes a certain assumption and the anthropologist is aware of an alternative to that assumption. I contrast that answer with an answer “derived” from the writings of George Bernard Shaw, who claimed to know America better despite never having been there.
- Devaluing local concepts: Elmdon from village to commuting centre.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptAnthropologist Audrey Richards does not appear to value the use of the concept of real Elmdon to maintain village identity in the village of Elmdon. I make a proposal about why it makes sense to devalue this use, aside from the liberal respect for individuals that Richards suggests.
- Rejecting the why-do-fieldwork-there question and the metaphysics of the self.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptJeanette Edwards sounds as if she wishes to reject the question “Why did you do fieldwork there?” I propose a metaphysical route to this, which is to say, “The self before fieldwork is not my self,” but this conflicts with the traditional Lockean account of personal identity.
- Gluckman versus Frazer: if-I-were-a-horse arguments.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptI present anthropologist Max Gluckman’s explanation of what “if-I-were-a-horse” arguments are and introduce three questions. How do we define this kind of argument? Are earlier anthropologists “guilty” of them? And is it a bad idea to make them? I address the first two questions, proposing that Frazer is not much guilty of precisely these, though his project calls for them.
- A third solution to a Victorian anthropology paradox: structural-functionalism.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptThis paper presents a structural-functionalist solution to a paradox that historian of anthropology George Stocking dug up: from the point of view of parts of the Victorian middle class, Victorian society was highly evolved yet also contained savage components.
- “The term ‘function’ has no place outside mathematics”: is this even coherent?Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptThis paper argues that a criticism attributed to Gregory Bateson – that the term ‘function’ is from mathematics and has no place in social science – looks incoherent, when subject to clarification.
- “What is the difference between your objection to Marilyn Strathern on feminist anthropology and Kamala Visweswaran’s objection?”.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptI respond to the charge that one of my objections to Marilyn Strathern’s rejection of feminist anthropology is the same as an objection made by Kamala Visweswaran. They may seem very similar to begin with, but I argue that there is both a difference in focus - in which premises we are concentrating on - and in method.
- On the very idea that social anthropology can contribute to the study of specialization.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptI present an argument against the very idea that anthropology can contribute to the study of specialization. But an obvious reply is “Actually anthropologists at home can study specialization.” I provide some details concerning this reply, focusing on incentives to specialize directed at sensitive souls.
- Fieldwork places: legitimate, illegitimate, obviously legitimate, better, worse.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptJeanette Edwards observes a pattern of questions of the form “Why do anthropology fieldwork in location X?” - she only hears the question posed of some places - and she explains this pattern by saying that some places are taken to be obviously legitimate for anthropology fieldwork whereas others are not. I draw distinctions between legitimate and illegitimate, obviously legitimate and not obviously legitimate, and better and worse. The distinctions lead to a different explanation.
- A sixth kind of legitimate fieldwork in social anthropology: cross-disciplinary.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptI present the concept of cross-disciplinary legitimacy: the fieldwork which an anthropologist has done is considered legitimate fieldwork in another discipline as well. Also, I present a puzzle regarding how the anthropologist untrained in another discipline can do such fieldwork and a response.
- Imperialism and British anthropology again, with European intellectual cults.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptI address the problem that British social anthropologists ignored the wider colonial relations which the societies they studied were part of, by proposing a solution from reflecting on the structure of European intellectual cults.
- British social anthropology, wider processes, and causal overdetermination.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptBritish structural-functionalist anthropology famously faces an objection that it is incapable of dealing with the influence of wider processes. An analytical response to this objection, which at least needs to be registered, is that some wider processes can be ignored when there is causal overdetermination.
- Tribalism again? Annie Saumont’s ghostly story and the kalela dance paradox.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptI draw attention to how Annie Saumont’s “You Should Have Changed at Dol” provides a solution to the paradox. With appropriate background knowledge, Saumont’s story, despite its modern form, displays various convergences with Descartes’ meditations; likewise the Bisa dance may feature convergences with traditional dance.
- A built-in objection against if-I-were-a-horse argument.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptMax Gluckman introduces us to if-I-were-a-horse arguments, but what is wrong with them? In this paper, I draw attention to an objection built-in to the terminology.
- Why Bacup? An Oxford-style response.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptThis paper presents what I at least regard as a University of Oxford style response to a question often posed to social anthropologist Jeanette Edwards, “Why Bacup?” The question can be a brief way of communicating various puzzles which an inquirer is seeking to solve and I presume “an Oxford person” is going to ask for a clarification of the question, perhaps offering some options.
- On the distribution of why-fieldwork-there questions.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptJeanette Edwards tells us that she is often asked about why she did fieldwork in the English town of Bacup, whereas she has not heard anthropologists who did fieldwork in Papua New Guinea asked why there. She commits herself to a certain explanation for this: potential inquirers assume that non-Western societies are legitimate objects of study for social anthropology but this is not assumed for Western societies. I propose another explanation: it is not about the legitimacy of the object of (...)
- Disappearing ranking systems and increasing sense of inequality in Elmdon.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptI address a puzzle identified by the anthropologist Marilyn Strathern in her text on the village of Elmdon: that a disappearing ranking system has actually led to an increasing sense of a division, between the haves and the have-nots in the village.
- Savage and civilized on controlling the weather, from The Golden Bough.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptSir James Frazer’s The Golden Bough presents a puzzle regarding how primitive peoples believe they can control something which civilized people regard as beyond their control: the weather. I clarify the puzzle and consider Frazer’s solution to it, as well as other solutions.
- How did the arts originate? The group demarcation and the scientific account.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptWhy did human beings first begin making art? In this paper, I present two accounts of its origins, one of which connects the arts to the desire for group demarcation and another to scientific impulses.
- An unmonstrous family? Omissions in Kathleen Stock’s history of gender identity theory.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptThis is a one page handout identifying some notable omissions from her brief history of gender identity theory.
- The virgin birth debate and testimony.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptVarious tribes deny that pregnancy is caused by sexual relations. Is this irrational? I present a puzzle involving testimony which some tribes might once have faced.
- Max Gluckman versus the structureless again: what did he actually say?Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptWhat did Max Gluckman actually say about apparently structureless societies? I introduce a fictional example to make sense of what he says regarding the Tonga.
- Confessions: “It’s not you, it’s me” and another reaction to the apparent distribution of why-fieldwork-there questions.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptJeanette Edwards remarks on the distribution of questions asking why an anthropologist did fieldwork there: that she is often asked this question about the town of Bacup but she has not heard the question about fieldwork in Papua New Guinea. I present two confessions to do with her remarks. One confession is a hypothesis I entertained about why Edwards says that. Another confession leads to an alternative explanation of her data.
- “What is the difference between your response to Marilyn Strathern on feminist anthropology and Janaki Nair’s response?”.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptMarilyn Strathern argues against the possibility of feminist research bringing about a paradigm shift in social anthropology. In an earlier paper, my interpretation of Strathern’s argument, or one of them, is similar to Janaki Nair’s response in broad outline. But it is different in detail and I also object to Strathern’s argument, whereas Nair endorses the argument she extracts. Here I identify differences and I object to the Nair-Strathern argument as well.
- On the value of philosophers in the social sciences: fixing disciplinary constitutions.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptThis paper argues for the value of philosophers in a school of social sciences within a university, for fixing what I call disciplinary constitutions. A disciplinary constitution is a statement of “How our discipline works: how we achieve the ends of our discipline.” A lot of people depend on a constitution, but such a thing usually runs into problems and philosophers can identify these problems and propose solutions. I suggest that it is essential for the autonomy of an ambitious school (...)
- Against structural skepticism: Max Gluckman’s response to Elizabeth Colson.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptA quite recent book casts the anthropologist Elizabeth Colson as a systems skeptic, with Max Gluckman attempting to counter her skepticism. In this paper, I offer clarifications of the skepticism and of the counter.
- The Golden Bough as an argument against diffusionism.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptThis paper interprets Sir James Frazer’s The Golden Bough as presenting an objection to diffusionism: the diffusionist theory cannot account for the isolation of the rite Frazer focuses on, in the societies studied by classicists.
- Is kinship insignificant in Western societies?Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptThis paper considers an argument for why kinship is not significant in industrialized Western societies. There are various objections to the argument, of which I present one supported by two examples.
- Beyond tribalism: an attempted solution to the kalela dance paradox.Terence Rajivan Edward - manuscriptI propose a solution to the paradox of the kalela dance, as presented by Richard Werbner, based on a variety of liberalism I once identified.
| 1 — 50 / 1964 |
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-74b44d4489-r8j2s N