Re: What is Anthropology?

Richard G. Calo (rgcalo@EDEN.RUTGERS.EDU)
Wed, 24 Apr 1996 10:39:33 EDT

On Wednesday, April 24, John McCreery wrote:

> First a note of warm appreciation to Richard Calo for sharing
> with us his reply to Holly Swyers. There's a richness and
> humanity there that reminds me of Mike Salovesh, another of
> my heroes here. Still, in the gentlest possible way I would like
> to take issue with Richard when he writes,
>
> "For me, the problem became: what on earth can I learn about
> others' ways if I don't know enough about my own ways to
> compare and contrast, and even deduce what may be common-
> - particularly since the latter is what moves us toward the
> 'universals' which are the building blocks of scientific
> theorizing? Holistic theory and method showed me what was
> common between that society, that society, and that other one
> over there. So where was my society? Particularly since, as far
> as I could tell, all the comparisons were being made from the
> initial starting point of 'my' society?"
>
> The assumption that learning about others' ways would
> depend on prior knowledge of one's own ways seems to me
> fundamentally flawed. Does an infant need prior knowledge of
> its parents' language and culture to acquire them as she grows
> up? What makes anthropology anthropology is precisely the
> encounter with the Other that confronts us with puzzling
> differences, calling into question habits and customs we have
> taken for granted. Turning back into oneself without taking
> into account how that self appears through Other's eyes can
> all too easily lead to self-inflicted blindness. Which is not to
> deny that the Other in question may be a sister or neighbor
> who lives uncomfortably close to hand. The key questions are
> always these: Is there difference enough to shock us into
> greater self-awareness? Plus the empathy needed to listen and
> facilitate learning--ideally in the Other as well as oneself?
>
> John McCreery
> Yokohama
> April 24, 1996


Thanks John, you're right. I think that part in my post came out wrong.
I did not mean that learning about others depended explicitly on prior
knowledge of one's own ways, but that it didn't make much sense
learning about others' ways without also learning about one's own.
Where learning about others differs from a child acquiring it's parents'
language and culture, is that in the latter, the process of acquisition is
what sets who the child is, initially. The child can probably afford to be
self-centered because this self-centeredness may be necessary to the
process of developing something he or she will soon learn to refer to
as 'me.' However, at the anthropological level (as a way of thinking that
attempts to include others, I suppose), it is exactly this self-centeredness
which has to be overcome. And I agree with you totally on how it happens:

> What makes anthropology anthropology is precisely the
> encounter with the Other that confronts us with puzzling
> differences, calling into question habits and customs we have
> taken for granted.

My only qualm with this is, although we say we proceed in this way, I
have not read that many ethnographies, or even attempts at theory
building, which take into account this give and take between the different
groups-- although, I am very happy to believe, that is rapidly changing.

Richard


Those _are_ key questions:

> The key questions are
> always these: Is there difference enough to shock us into
> greater self-awareness? Plus the empathy needed to listen and
> facilitate learning--ideally in the Other as well as oneself?