He was charismatic and charming, a true believer in the power of subjective introspection and ‘objective’ observation. He taught us that the fundamental difference between sociology and anthropology was in the methodology. Anthropologists conduct ‘field work’, immersing themselves fully in the culture around them. They do this in modern cities (say for example, studying the underground punk movement in Jakarta, Indonesia) or they do this on remote islands (continuing the work on the kula trading communities perhaps). Large scale or small scale didn’t matter to him it was more to do with the fact that when you live with people on a day to day level you begin to understand some things more clearly. At the same time other ‘certainties’ dissolve with experience and everything changes. This in turn informs the kinds of questions that are asked and this is the sticking point.

Sociologists have been critised for their survey method which simply asks pre-determined questions based on limited experience of the subject in question. Getting the right answers requires knowing where to start, which line of questioning to pursue.

I personally took all this on board that year, whilst also learning a little bit about physical anthropology too.

What never sat well with me was the obvious contradiction in the idea of ‘participant observation’ a method so cherished in anthropology. Surely it is clear that to participate in something (as a subject) the lines of objectivity are blurred, impossible. I never agreed with the faux science.

Furthermore, whilst different departments hold up these theoretical ideals the divisions eroded a long time ago – they are no longer useful to contemplate. I studied ‘the sociology of development’ as a unit in anthropology, I also studied ‘development and change’ as a unit in political science. The themes discussed and the assignments set were virtually indistinguishable (except of course that I probably learnt more about the structure of the World Bank organisation in political science). Both courses critiqued a linear, Western model of ‘development’ and both concerned themselves with unequal power relationships in the world economy and how decisions from the top can effect communities on the ground. I read widely from many disciplines to find the answers I sought.

Generally, as a result of all this, I feel that the distinction really just allows people to stay in jobs. While the status quo props up careers and there’s not much incentive for things to change from the inside.

Post-colonial critiques of anthropology (often by anthropologists themselves) are also another nail in the coffin for the discipline. It’s hard to continue to justify the overall tendency for the outsider anthropologist to speak on behalf of people. Those that were silenced, now speak for themselves. Did you catch the video on the rigged Mugabe elections? Case in point: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/04/zimbabwe1 as well as the resurgence of oral history/first person narrative that is accommodated so well on the web. But I digress.

And this Iraq’s Human Terrain- HTS in Hindsight

And I’ll top it with a link to everyone’s favorite counterinsurgency blog Abu Muqawama, the founder of which spends his off hours following the adventures of Sir Harry Paget Flashman.

Here’s a bit from an author at Harvard of all places who styles herself “Charlie:”

“This blogger is reluctant to write-off all of academia as irrelevant, tweed-lovers. Most all of her advisors did significant government consulting work, and the academy and policy-makers were better for it. But these sad, petulant attacks from a small Ivory Tower fringe shouldn’t be tolerated. They are the last refuge of ill-informed scoundrels.

The humanities are the sum total of the observations of technical experts in one field observing the behavior of technical experts in another and finding them amusing and odd.
For myself I don’t “do” anything, more than I have to. Mostly I just “am.” I’d say it give me perspective and that perspective is harder to come by than knowledge.
Again, basic stuff.

correct me if i’m wrong, but i don’t agree with the “human origins” (#19) point, as a significant part of anthropological study is based on the idea that “culture” as an abstract leaves no physical history, therefore nothing beyond the present can ever be understood.

this is of course unique to cultural anthropology, because archaeology deals entirely with material remains.