proposition paper: can anthropology be objective?

7/29/2019 Proposition Paper: Can Anthropology be Objective?

1/6

K i m b l e | 1

Melissa Kimble

ANTH 410

Proposition PaperRevision

Can Anthropology be Objective?

Objectivity is a word that is often debated in relation to anthropological research and the

validity of its empirical findingsCan anthropology be truly scientific if the data fits within

the constraints of what is arbitrarily objective? Since science is a cultural construct

subjectively created, is science itself as purely objective as we define it; or rather, the etic

observation of life as we universally perceive it? Max Weber, in his Objectivityof

Knowledge in Social Science and Social Policy, would lead me to question whether or not data

collected anthropologically meets the criteria forscientific objectivity. Contemporary debates

on objectivity within Anthropology discredit scientific inquiry as being inherently bad and

oppressivea tool utilized by the oppressor for the purpose of mystification. If I ascribe to an

objective model in my pursuit toward obtaining a network analysis of the Trinity River for the

recovery of human remains, does that make my study inherently bad because a major

component of how the data pertaining to this project is used is defined by geospatial sciences and

collected by biological anthropologists? Roy DAndrade, inMoral Models in Anthropology,

would argue for the value of understanding how things work, and that inherent goodness or

badness are merely ethnocentric labels created by critical anthropologists.

Weber explains to us that personal views prevalent in empirical sciences weaken the

weight of scientific arguments and that judgment of the validity of such values is a matter of

belief Essentially, since information is obtainable only through experience or observation,

interpretation of the validity is restricted to the values of that individual. He tells us that because


2/6

K i m b l e | 2

practical studies in social science are incapable of producing indisputable building blocks of the

individual, the more comprehensive a study of a culture becomes, the more it becomes clear

that the given data will continue to be an insufficient explanation for individual action. There is

an inability to produce an unambiguous response with experientially produced observations,

because the interpretation by the observer fails to produce a universal corroboration. A

universally corroborated truth, or axiom, is important in this discussion because, according to

Weber, only axioms can be contributed as free of biasor free of subjective content. A bias is an

interpretation that is not shared unanimously, and cannot be identified as a universal truth. By

Webers definition, one can only be objective if the observation is challenged on common

ground and continued to be interpreted as valid and free of bias. In an effort to make social

sciences free of bias, Weber explains that the accepted norm should not be the assumption that

the data obtained is either objective or subjective, but rather the bias of the interpreter, o r the

criticized writer, should be illuminated and cross examined by other writers and their biases.

A dichotomy of thought should not emerge from this (as is common), but an interwoven

synthesis of the prevalent. No single interpretation should ever be accepted as the universal truth

for that particular social study.

To Weber, experiential data is fundamentally seen as observations on relationships of

the phenomena of human social life; if data is obtained through the genba of society, then

observed society will consist primarily of human interaction. Weber questions the value of

attempting to formulate elementary factors of human social life if these factors cannot be

translated into units that can describe historical or economically based social manifestations. The

attempt at processing human social interactions into quantifiable and translatable building blocks

has certainly lost its flavor within contemporary anthropology, so the question that I pose to


3/6

K i m b l e | 3

myself is whether or not anthropologically collected data on social interactions can be interpreted

as reliable data for the analysis of behaviors in relation to drowning. Weberian thought would

deduce that attempting to quantify social trends would lose its value because of the inability to

reduce interactions to quantifiable building blocks. Phenomena of human social life is more

accessible than ever (access to news sources nationally, personal interviews, peer reviewed

articles, etc), so I personally feel as though quantifying data related to incidents of drowning in

regards to why it is more common in certain social conditions and geographic regions is a

feasible and necessary addition to developing regions of higher likelihood of incidence.

The explanation given in Objectivity ofKnowledge in Social Science and Social Policy

is that we are incapable of developing any type of law that involves relationships or any type of

event that is entirely individual. The only standard by which we can go by (as per Weber), are

those that involve the interaction of the individual with a material object. It is allegedly

impossible to realize the full extent of a social interaction, because there is an infinite array of

possibilities that could be attributed to any single interaction therefore no one law can be

created to define any individual interactive element in a society. Materials, however, can be

independently interpreted and are believed to be a static feature within a society that an etic

observer can comprehend. While the ability to predict individual action is unlikely in any given

event, if an anthropologist was able to record certain factors that increase the likelihood of an

event occurring, such as drinking alcohol within close vicinity of a rapidly flowing river and

particular areas where this was popular, probability of an event can be approximated. In my

research, probability of where a body entered a water source drastically increases the ability to

predict the maximum comprehensible range a body can travel along a river.


4/6

K i m b l e | 4

While Webers final ruminations on cultural research as a science were regarded as an

absurdity, I believe that ethnographic work [today] should never be aimed at an outsider

attempting to pull together a comprehensive, but static understanding of a particular culture

(perceived as frozen in time, just as Meads ethnography on the Samoa). If data collected on the

sub-cultural habits of a particular demographic more prone for water-related incidences was

regarded as a fixed state, it is likely that the data will gradually become more obsolete and

stereotyped. Taking into consideration the gradual (or sudden) change that occurs within any

field is fundamental in understanding how things work. It is not conductive, scientifically

speaking, to regard any universally accepted truth as standard, but as something that has been

challenged and has yet to be disproven. Weber also touches on the value of observations coming

from within the society of interest, which I feel is particularly prevalent today given the rate that

distances are closing globally from one culture to the next.

Moral Models in Anthropology, by Roy DAndrade leads me to question whether or not

there is inherent goodness or badness that may reside within my study. Is my objectivity

taking away from the nature of what it is Im attempting to study? Is the way the data is being

interpreted and collected cloaking any overarching issues prevalent within the United States, or

is it a relevant study that should be absolved from ethnocentrically produced labels on value.

One such argument within moral anthropology is that statistics gathered on a particular

demographic leads to the dehumanizing of the group of individuals that are being analyzed. The

data necessary for this study relies heavily on drowning statistics and information gathered on

decomposition in aquatic settings. The decomposition rates described were obtained by forensic

anthropologists who are attempting to develop a method of visual interpretation of the bodys

state of decomposition in relation to how long it has been since the individual had passed. The


5/6

K i m b l e | 5

question that may be posed is whether or not data of this nature will detract from the importance

of the individual that you are attempting to recover in a cloud of numbers and data. I think it is

fair to say that those who intentionally step into a profession that is dedicated to search, rescue,

or recovery, will tell you that each case is as important as the last. I would cite this as a prime

example of social science research findings that do not have a dehumanizing effect on the

population being studied, but quite the opposite. Much like the argument that, guns dont kill

people, people kill people, DAndrade explains that the anthropologists cited in his article

assume that generalizations are bad, but in reality, its the way the generalizations are used. In

using generalizations to optimize research, the end result will be a database that can help in the

recovery of human remains. Recovery itself attributes itself to a multitude of results that would

generally be regarded as beneficial, such as closure for the family or forensic analysis.

Fortunately, the study that I am proposing will be one that can be reviewed, tested for validity,

and replicated; a study objective enough to be proven or disproven.

In terms of the argument between subjectivity and objectivity, I feel as though our

terminology is fundamentally flawed. This brings me to Eric Wolfs explanation of atomistic

thinking and the resulting billiard balls that shape our reality. The contrast and functionality of

language funnels a particular understanding of binary oppositions. Polarized oppositions only

create an assumption of objectivity on data labeled to be scientific, which may not actually be

scientific at all. A new analytical category should be produced that possess a duality that

enables a clean junction betweenboth subjectivity and objectivity, and as DAndrade put it, let

us hope that anthropology, as a science, will survive.


6/6

K i m b l e | 6

Bibliography

1. D'Andrade, R. (1995). Moral models in anthropology. (Vol. 36, pp. 399-408).Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2744050

2. From Sam Whimster, The Essential Weber(London and New York: Routledge,2004), pp. 359-66, 374-83. First published in German in 1904. Reproduced bypermission.

3. Wolf, E. R. (2010).Europe and the People without History. University of CaliforniaPress.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2744050http://www.jstor.org/stable/2744050http://www.jstor.org/stable/2744050

proposition paper: can anthropology be objective?

Documents