|
|
Re: Anthropology within the Social Sciences
Mark A. Nadler (mnadler@ASHLAND.EDU)
Sat, 11 Mar 1995 11:29:59 -0500
On Fri, 10 Mar 1995, Cliff Sloane wrote:
> Thozi asked me to post this to the entire list. This was written in
> haste, so the ideas need more tightening up.
> --Cliff
>
> Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 15:19:56 -0600 (CST)
> From: Cliff Sloane <cesloane@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
> To: Mr Thozi Nomvete <NOMVETE@getafix.utr.ac.za>
> Subject: Re: Anthropology of own and other cultures
>
> > This leads one to conclude that sociology and anthropology lie on a
> > continuum differentiated only by methodologies which they sometimes
> > exchange between themselves. If this is so, when do
> > methodological tools become sociological and when do they become
> > anthropological? Is the difference between the two fields not really
> > one of emphasis?
>
> 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 -> sociology
>
> 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
>
> On the subjects of study, going from concrete to abstract, one has
> comp. literature -> ethnomusicology -> folklore -> linguistics
> all of which "borrow" heavily from anthro
>
>
> Cliff
>
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:
Physics>Chemistry>Biology(especially evolutionary theory)>
Psychology>Anthropology.
Also, I think most people think of certain types of social
insects as having a society (sociology) without having a culture
(anthropology).
Mark A. Nadler Internet: mnadler@ashland.edu
Ashland University Phone: (419) 289-5912
Ashland, OH 44805 Fax: (419) 289-5949
|