|
|
Re: naive question
Kristen Corey (kcorey@post.cis.smu.edu)
18 Dec 1996 21:15:53 -0600
In Anthropology, we do not take the etic view simply because it is all we
have access to. Anthropology as a discipline has two goals. On one
hand, we seek to contribute knowledge about specific cultures to the general
pool of knowledge about humanity. On the other hand, we seek generalizable
data for the purposes of comparison. Thus, we have the significant
distinction between the general and the particular. Of course, etic
analyses are more amenable to this "general" goal, and emic description
to the "particular." For more on this, you might consult Geertz on thick
and thin description, Fortes on description and analysis, or Goodenough
on general and particular.
The two are inseparable in modern Anthropology. Without attention to
the general, we are left with anecdotal cases from which there is no
possibility for cross-cultural conversation. Without the particular, the
voices of human beings on their cultural and social lifes, we have
nothing to substantiate our analyses.
Anthropology has come a long way from the days of Morgan, Malinowski, and
Boas. All disciplines evolve. My basic point is that the etic view is
not something we "settle for," it is an essential element to what we do.
We are closer than ever to emic descriptions, culture as viewed through
the eyes of its' participants. Granted, there are always mitigating
factors in the collection of emic data, but a part of the focus of our
work today is to point out and describe the possible effects of those
factors.
Take, for example, Malinowski's work among the Trobriand Islanders. His
analysis of trading phenomena was jaded by the fact that he had no access
to women - partly because his own cultural bias led him to discount the
importance of women's roles, and partly because he was a man. Weiner's
research in the same area brought to light the importance of what was
missing from Malinowski's analysis - the role of women's work and banana
leaves in mortuary rituals.
And, we must not forget that there are often differences
between what people do and what they say they do. As Anthropologists, we
know this and take great measures to consider the significance of these
differences and to consult alternate sources to substantiate our data.
What we are able to say about cultures through our research will always
be "what the anthropologist thinks is going on." But, we are not
entirely unable to make connections between this and what people say is
going on. To say that we take the etics because that is all we have
access to is to say that Anthropology is a cop-out. Anyone, with the
proper training, can record what people say. An Anthropologist is
someone who can take these emic descriptions and produce meaningful,
substantive, and verifiable statements about what it is to be a human
being in specific cultures and across cultures.
Respectfully Yours,
Kristen M. Corey
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: naive question
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: Southern Methodist University
Keywords:
Cc:
In Anthropology, we do not take the etic view simply because it is all we
have access to. Anthropology as a discipline has two goals. On one
hand, we seek to contribute knowledge about specific cultures to the general
pool of knowledge about humanity. On the other hand, we seek generalizable
data for the purposes of comparison. Thus, we have the significant
distinction between the general and the particular. Of course, etic
analyses are more amenable to this "general" goal, and emic description
to the "particular." For more on this, you might consult Geertz on thick
and thin description, Fortes on description and analysis, or Goodenough
on general and particular.
The two are inseparable in modern Anthropology. Without attention to
the general, we are left with anecdotal cases from which there is no
possibility for cross-cultural conversation. Without the particular, the
voices of human beings on their cultural and social lifes, we have
nothing to substantiate our analyses.
Anthropology has come a long way from the days of Morgan, Malinowski, and
Boas. All disciplines evolve. My basic point is that the etic view is
not something we "settle for," it is an essential element to what we do.
We are closer than ever to emic descriptions, culture as viewed through
the eyes of its' participants. Granted, there are always mitigating
factors in the collection of emic data, but a part of the focus of our
work today is to point out and describe the possible effects of those
factors.
Take, for example, Malinowski's work among the Trobriand Islanders. His
analysis of trading phenomena was jaded by the fact that he had no access
to women - partly because his own cultural bias led him to discount the
importance of women's roles, and partly because he was a man. Weiner's
research in the same area brought to light the importance of what was
missing from Malinowski's analysis - the role of women's work and banana
leaves in mortuary rituals.
And, we must not forget that there are often differences
between what people do and what they say they do. As Anthropologists, we
know this and take great measures to consider the significance of these
differences and to consult alternate sources to substantiate our data.
What we are able to say about cultures through our research will always
be "what the anthropologist thinks is going on." But, we are not
entirely unable to make connections between this and what people say is
going on. To say that we take the etics because that is all we have
access to is to say that Anthropology is a cop-out. Anyone, with the
proper training, can record what people say. An Anthropologist is
someone who can take these emic descriptions and produce meaningful,
substantive, and verifiable statements about what it is to be a human
being in specific cultures and across cultures.
Respectfully Yours,
Kristen M. Corey
|