When we see the word, “science,”
most people think about the physical, biological, and the mathematical fields. If
we define science, usually the word comes up as “systematic knowledge of the
physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation” or “any
of the branches of natural or physical science” (“Science”). Scientists come
up with a hypothesis on an area that they are interested in experimenting and
making observations to draw conclusions or other questions that may arise
during the experiment. In a way, this is what anthropologists do, specifically
for the medical anthropologists when dealing with the biological, physical sciences.
“Pursuing these interests in the projects…seen,
designing a focused inquiry, following through on the inquiry with tact and
rigor…” (Janzen Ch.1). The only difference would be what the anthropologists’
focuses are, which are usually understanding human actions and thinking and
figuring out how that happens.
This week, I stumbled upon an article
from 2 years ago about the American Anthropological Association (AAA) that they
have taken out the word, “science,” out of their long term goal statement. Previously,
one of the statement was as the following: “…advance anthropology as the science that studies humankind in all its
aspects.” In place of that, the association now says its purpose is to “advance
public understanding of humankind in all its aspects” (Landau). After hearing about this, there were a
lot of talks among the anthropologists and social science enthusiasts how they
were against this idea or rather embracing it to classify anthropology as its
own distinct field. “The American
Anthropological Association responded to that criticism this week with a statement explaining that it had intended to
emphasize a more “inclusive” list of domains that fall under anthropology”
(Landau). Those who opposed the AAA are voicing that being “inclusive” doesn’t
necessarily need to take science out. They feel that regardless of what area of
anthropology is being studied, the scientific method still applies. They feel
that it is rather a difference of "stretching" to cover [for
medical anthropology]…an applied perspective that emphasizes the insinuation of
cultural sensitivities into health development programs and clinical practice;
on the other hand, there is an emphasis on the interpretation of beliefs, disease constructs,
and therapies, including the somewhat newer demonstration of the cultural or
symbolic character of biomedicine” (Jenzen Ch.2). In order to support the
practices, such evidences would be provided as well after much observations and
experiments.
For example, the picture
above illustrates, what it looks like a dietary recommendation chart, and
in the center of the chart shows a family that seems to be interacting with
each other. The appearance and the setting of where this family is at,
indicates that this was from the primitive life stage for humans. Because their
culture and their lifestyles differed back then, their dietary recommendation
should differ significantly than the one we have today. There are some caterpillars,
kangaroos, ostrich, etc which seem to represent the protein intake. By
observation and the trends of the human’s eating patterns, anthropologists are
then able to come up with a chart like this, thus supporting that science has
played a role in organization of the chart as well.
If this was not science, then how
would anthropologists explain this picture without the usage of science? They would observe and make interpretations,
based on its context, that focuses on their interaction and how their thoughts
process. But how would the the food in the colored blocks be categorized? The
explanation to these division would require some science since it is based on
specific groups of nutritional needs. If this was all not based on science,
then the chart would consist of one block, rather than three because that would
be what the anthropologists observe that these food are what they eat.
Going along with the anthropologists who agree on having the term “science” to be taken out, they reason that anthropology should be its own category and science pertaining to the core sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.). They claim that the evidence used are usually opinions and inferences and therefore not known facts. It is something that they “cannot prove or disprove, and therefore anthropology is not true science” (Landau).
Because this article was written 2 years ago, I checked the AAA’s long-term goal on its official website and I noticed that the change was made a year later. The AAA seemed to have listened to the concerns of the anthropologists who opposed categorizing anthropology as non-science field. One of the amendment states: “drawing from and building upon knowledge from biological and physical sciences as well as the humanities and social sciences” ("Long-Range Plan"). After much deliberation, it seems like anthropology cannot separate itself from science, no matter what the knowledge is, the only difference is its context and how it is situated.
Reading: Janzen Ch. 1 & Ch.2
Work Cited
AAA Executive Board. "Long-Range Plan." Long-Range Plan. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Oct. 2012. <http://www.aaanet.org/about/Governance/Long_range_plan.cfm>.
Landau, Elizabeth. " Putting 'science' Back in Anthropology.” CNN, 3 Dec. 2010. Web. 23 Oct. 2012. <http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/03/putting-science-back-in-anthropology/?iref=allsearch>.
"Science." Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 23 Oct. 2012.
<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science?s=t>.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis blog and comment bring up some interesting ideas about how we perceive science and academics, and how these pertain to the creation of knowledge. I like that the point of the AAA removing the word ‘science’ from their description of anthropology as a field of study was brought up, and I have been struggling with the idea of objective science versus subjective knowledge. Also, what does removing this term do for the field of anthropology and why did the AAA decide to change their definition?
ReplyDeleteThe ways in which we perceive the truth of science or any other form of knowledge creation has an effect on how this knowledge is connected to power. For many people in the U.S., the term science is tied to descriptions such as legitimate, provable, and objective. How and why are these terms connected? It seems to me that while it is true that scientific practices aim to understand and describe natural phenomena through an objective lens, one of the ways they do this is by decontextualizing what they are looking at. This is useful in many instances in biomedicine as well as other fields, but it can have real consequences how we connect objective and legitimate knowledge. The problem arises when we look at how scientific knowledge is used as a synonym for legitimate knowledge. The reasons that science is seen as a more legitimate form of knowledge is because it is tied to the dominant power structure here in the U.S. and around the world. It is just one more way that we use to make meanings out of what we see around us, and the rigid structure of what is and is not accepted as scientific can only address certain questions. How do we define science and how does this shape our ideas about the knowledge it creates? Who are the actors that help to shape these ideas?
One of the ways that scientific knowledge helps to create realities is by defining something according to proscribed scientific doctrine. This happens with diseases all the time. HIV and polio are viruses. What this means for many people is that they are small organic entities that can pass between people and cause all sorts of health problems. However, many of the realities of people who live with HIV and polio are left out of this explanation. A poor person who lives in South Africa and is infected with HIV has a much different experience with the disease than a wealthy person that lives in the U.S. and is also infected. Granted, it seems that these are social problems and should be dealt with as a social issue, but how we discuss and attach scientific truths to reality affects how we perceive and deal with these issues. Science, like other knowledge, is a representation of something- not the actual object or idea that is being discussed. All representations necessarily do not capture what is being analyzed completely and so when we perceive that one form of knowledge is more important than another, then we are missing out on knowing part of whatever it is that is being discussed. It seems that the AAA may have removed the term science from their definition of anthropology because anthropology does not conform to the structure that defines science. How does this relate to how we view anthropology as a legitimate form of knowledge creation?
David Coomes