Re: Anthropology within the Social Sciences
Vance Geiger (geiger@PEGASUS.CC.UCF.EDU)
Sat, 11 Mar 1995 13:22:13 -0500
On Wed, 8 March Cliff Sloane wrote:
It seems to me that you can establish a 3- or 4-dimensional model
for all the social sciences.
On a continuum of time, one has history -> anthropology ->
On a continuum of group vs individual, one has
anthropology -> sociology -> psychology
On the notion of epistemology, one can scale it thus:
logic -> philosophy -> sociological theory -> anthro theory
------------------------- END Sloane --------------
While I can see the first two, the last may be altered: May I
suggest a branching where the derived characteristic is
"evolution" which has had a major impact on anthropology in
terms of both theories of biological and cultural evolution. I
am not sure sociology has experienced a similar impact.
logic -> philosophy -> sociological theory ->
I--> anthro theory ->
But then Mark Nadler offered:
Let me offer a slightly different continuum that B.F.
Skinner developed that I believe nicely shows the position of
anthropology in the overall scheme of things:
Also, I think most people think of certain types of
social insects as having a society (sociology) without having a
I think it would be remiss to underestimate the effects of
evolutionary theory, and in the present context, genetics.
Biological Determinism seems to be something that just won't go
logic -> philosophy -> Physics>Chemistry>Biology>Genetics>
Biology>Psychology> <evolutionary psychology
evolution > sociobiology
I--> anthro theory -> <-I
-> sociological theory -> ?
But then there is also all the weirdness:
I--> anthro theory -> \ /\
I /\ \---/ \ \
I \ / \
/----------\ I \/ \
I BIG ROCK I I \
\----------/ I I
Literary Theory -- I
we're happy with our numbers!
-> sociological theory ->