Re: ANTHRO-L Digest - 1 Mar 1995 to 2 Mar 1995

M.D.Fischer (M.D.Fischer@UKC.AC.UK)
Fri, 3 Mar 1995 15:57:05 +0000

Eric Arnould wrote:

> Subject: RADICAL MIDDLE
>
> I'VE BEEN THINKING MORE ABOUT RICK WILK'S DECLARATION FOR THE RADICAL
> MIDDLE. MIDDLE IMPLIES A CONTINUUM, BUT IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM RICK'S
> POSTING WHAT CONTINUUM OR, MORE INTERESTINGLY CONTINUA, HE WANTS TO
> POSITION HIMSELF, AND RETROACTIVELY THE LATE (AND INCREDIBLY MUCH
> MISSED BY ME AND OTHERS!) BOB NETTING.

> SOME POSSIBILITIES: MODERNISM-POSTMODERNISM?, CATERTESIAN DUALISM-
> HABERMASIAN-WITTGENSTEINIAN CONSTRUCTIVISM?, HUMANISM-SCIENTISM?
> ETHNOGRAPHIC REALISM-LITERARY INTERPRETIVISM? NICE GAL(GUY)ISM-MEAN
> GUY(GAL)ISM? ITS JUST NOT CLEAR.
>
> WHICH RAISES THE ISSUE OF WHO GETS TO DEFINE WHAT IS MIDDLE

> WHICH RAISES THE USUAL AND WORTWHILE ISSUES OF EPISTEMOLOGY AND
> ONTOLOGY, WHICH IS WHERE I THINK THE DEBATE REALLY LIES.

I think the middle ground Rick Wilk is referencing relates to 'doing'
anthropology, perhaps in both senses of the term.

Eric has presented as his candidate middle-ground continuii a list of
philosophical positions. The philosophy of anthropology may establish
some interesting and important points as people attempt to establish
what anthropologists are doing when they do anthropology, but to some
of us what is more important are results. To some of us these results
might include a re-presentation of subjective voices, establishing a
high correlation between social forms and demographic patterns, or
success in influencing policy which affects indigenous peoples.

The philosophy of anthropology does not define anthropology. It is a
theory about anthropology, not of anthropology. There are many
positions, and some, or all of them, must not apply. We can achieve (or
not achieve) results regardless of whether we understand the
philosophical underpinnings of our methods. Indeed that our results may
come in spite of our failure to understand. For example, gender has
become an important issue in anthropology not because of any
philosophical position, but because it contributes to almost any goal
an anthropologist can undertake. Studying gender produces results,
however these might be defined.

The middle-ground (or lack thereof) in anthropology should be with
respect to goals, not philosophical or epistemological positions. This
is not to say that it is not important to understand how we operate as
anthrologists. But we should not stall until we find out.


Michael Fischer