Philosophical Roots of (American) Anthropology

This book, by William Y(ewdale) Adams (1998) has been on my shelves making me feel guilty. No longer. Why do anthropologists do what they do, indulging in the natural history of the human species. They don't look at themselves but leave that to sociologists. They concentrate on 'other', people different from white middle-class Americans - people in tribes, the Papua or Amazonian rain forests and so on. Is this studying humans in their raw state? (and are these people really 'primitive'?). Is the fact that they are uneducated (into western values) part of the attraction? I am not going to summarise the book, a survey of many philosophical schools. The conclusion indicates that the author doesn't know the answer either, either for the anthropology profession as a whole, or for individual anthropologists. We can't keep the 'primitive' in aspic, in a cultural museum, so many now educated descendants of classic studies may well not appreciate what has been concluded in their family name.  The anthropologist goes in, observes, listens, and then describes. They have then had pet theories - evolutionism (we still talk of stone-age aboriginees and bushmen), functionalism, structuralism - most of which have now withered. The answer may be the same as why do we bother, with great discomfort for the professionals,  to follow moose and snow tigers and watch them killing and having sex.  Seeing rare things, admiring, the thrill of the chase, the collecting instinct perhaps. 'I have seen a trance dance, got the photos and the tea-shirt'.

An educational parallel are those who go into schools as observers, watch, listen, comment. They may use a theory or two to help find a way through the dense forest of words, gestures and transactions. They may believe people they should be more sceptical of, and seek out people whose voices might otherwise be silent. They purpose, perhaps to cast light on something that needs attention and suggest improvements. That is a political philosophy, a demand for quality, for justice, for equity, and for respect. Tom Harrisson the anthropologist did this in the 1930s in Savage Civilisation - the savages of course meaning us, the imperial powers. Others, like  Napoleon Chagnon, on the Yanomami, did great damage (for status and profit) by describing the tribe as chronically violent and providing excuses for genocide by loggers. An anthropologist today has to be socially critical: in schools, this excites an interest in power and powerlessness, democracy and voice, freedom and repression, sarcasm and support, bullies and victims (adult as well as young), deception and honesty, lies and truth. An educational anthropologist with such an interest would probably not be invited into school twice. 

Garden Blog

To see our garden on Christmas morning, see
http://romancourtgardens.blogspot.com/
Christmas Greetings, Stephen

Marriage and statistics

Nick Clegg criticises tax breaks for married couples as social engineering.

The Tory Centre for Social Justice think-tank's  Gavin Poole said: "Nick Clegg's stance flies in the face of all the evidence, completely ignoring national and international data demonstrating how important marriage is to the health and well-being of children and families."Marriage is important because one in three couples who live together when a child is born split up before that child is five, compared to only one in 11 married couples."

The logic then is that if more people are bribed to marry, they will stay together longer. I am not against marriage, having been married 43 years and counting, but am against the abuse of statistics. Those couples with a deep commitment tend to stay together longer and tend to get married. Those who don't get married may have a deep commitment (2 out of 3 stay together on these figures and some would marry over time) leaving a comparatively larger number (as compared with the married group) of insecure couples in this non-married group. These are not suddenly going to become more secure because they have a marriage licence.

The argument is therefore statistical nonsense. 

Children on the street.

A long absence, my apologies. Too much other writing.


This item is about my former PhD student, Barnabe D'Souza in Mumbai. He has worked tirelessly for most of his life working with street children, attempting to rehabilitate them into jobs and worthwhile lives. This means educating them about drugs and safe behaviours, and offering them a sense of togetherness and purpose. Needless to say their lives judder from one crisis to the next. Abandoned once, society at large would continue to abandon them unless strong people get up and struggle on their behalf.
Congratulations to Barnabe. His PhD thesis is available on http://eprints.worc.ac.uk/512. His book From Ecstasy to Agony and Back: Journeying with Adolescents on the Street is available from Sage.