In relation to the previous point is the view that science and each respective branch has history and a community of followers, which is based within a society and culture. As Carrithers puts it, “No knowledge is knowledge simpliciter, but rather all knowledge is relative to a community of knowers” (1992:154). If we understand from the word “community” that it has a history, a social construction, a culture and based in the human world we see that science and its knowledge is not infallible or rather as infallible as the humans who administer and use it.
To summarise then we can say that natural science bares a closer relationship to anthropological and the humanities on closer inspection. While the practice may be unique to each field of study they all comprise an element of humanism in there collection, interpretation, and delivery. If understood in this way “Science is more provincial, less universal, and less powerful than we might have thought” (Carrithers 1992: 154-155).
If science is not absolute fact then how does anthropology and in particular the observer work within these parameters?
Humanities and their Focus
“These practitioners [the holy-mouth-man a witch doctor for the Nacirema people] have an impressive set of paraphernalia, consisting of a variety of augers, awls, probes, and prods. The use of these objects in the exorcism of evils of the mouth involves almost unbelievable ritual torture of the client” (Miner 1956: 504-505).
We see from this example a highly subjective view of a culture from North America, which could undermine the validity of anthropology as a science. The author has taken his views on these people from an entirely “own culture” perspective that lends little to objectivity. The language used is emotive and derisory that shows the author to be making a judgement on these people. It is wondered, if we look at anthropology as both a science and a comparative study, how deeply the interaction between ethnographer and these people became? It seems that there is a failure in both the observation and the production of the article or the writing up (ethnography).
The problem that faces any humanity, based discipline is that subject matter to be studied is humans and their environment. As Malinowski puts it when writing about people of the Trobriand Islands (1922: 11), “There is no written or explicitly expressed code of laws, and their whole tribal tradition, the whole structure of their society, are embodied in the most elusive of all materials; the human being.” Therefore if humans are “elusive” how is it possible to record, with a degree of accuracy that which can be slotted into our new understanding of science? Furthermore anthropology is more than just a study of people it is a study of the interactions of people that are different from ourselves. To capture this thought we should turn again to Carrithers (1992: 2), “ Human beings do not just produce society, but society in forms which are incalculably various, constantly mutable, and labyrinthine in their elaborateness.”
In answer to the above question, it is argued it is in the variability of human interaction, society and culture where the answer lies. As humans we learn to adapt to new environments, it is unique to human sapiens. As Carrithers points out (1992:5),” ...one set of the universals that unify our species, namely that set of capabilities that allows us to create cultural diversity.” Therefore, if we can learn to adapt to the new surely it is possible for the ethnographer to adapt and learn about the subject people they have chosen.
To further this idea, it is the aim of the participant observer to observe the subject at hand in its most natural environment. If the observer is disruptive to the environment that is to be studied then that environment is no longer natural and the results gathered will be polluted by their own presence. Therefore, it is essential that the ethnographer does learn how to adapt to the new environment and become part of it adding as little disruption to the lives of the people that they study. Malinowski (1922:7-8) study supports this argument by saying:
“It must be remembered that as the natives saw me constantly every day, they ceased to be interested or alarmed, or made self conscious by my presence, and I ceased to be a disturbing element in the tribal life which I was to study, altering it by my very approach, as always happens with a new-comer to every savage community.”
Going back to the point about learning to adapt also addresses the issue of objectivity. If we can learn to adapt, for example as an immigrant into a new country, we are able to, eventually, come to understand it when we participate with in it. The action we must take to achieve this is then the interaction with the people, learning of the language, being interactive and learning through process. To support this view Carrithers says, “Learning, living together, and changing the social world are done between people, not within them.” (1992: 10-11)
An ethnographer or anthropologist has another tool, which he can use to make his observations valid and that is basic personal experience. When we are upset, lets say, we display certain emotions and others react in certain way to sooth that outburst. We can recognise that observation and tying them up with our own experience of being upset personally and observing it in our own experience. This observation makes it no less valid, in a scientific sense, than knowing that litmus paper dipped in citric acid will turn a particular colour. It is not just the observations of emotions that is to be observed, it may also be casual conversation which may be of the utmost importance to the ethnographer and is identified as such through experience, albeit in a different form but similar non the less. (Carrithers 1992: 159-161)
To summarise, we see that there is indeed ground to base the idea that anthropology is a science. Science, as is shown, is not infallible and does not live on a plane that is separate to nature or social and cultural experience. In fact, it lives on the same plane. Once this has been established we can move on to think that to study humans in their environment is perfectly valid. This is despite the fact that pure objectivity may be out of reach (as it is in natural science). We cannot plug a society into a machine and get the answers we require but we can adopt valid methods as an alternative.
Bibliography
Carrithers, M. 1992. ‘The Question,’ pp. 1-9, and ‘The Bugbear, Science,’ pp. 146-165, Why Humans Have Cultures, Explaining Anthropology and Social Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ingold, T. 2000. ‘General Introduction’ pp. 1, and ‘A Circumpolar night’s Dream’ pp. 108, The Perception of the Environment, Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Malinowski, B. 1922. ‘Introduction The Subject, Method and Scope of this Inquiry’ pp 1-25. Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Miner, H. 1956. ‘Body ritual among the Nacirema’. American Anthropologist 58: 503-507.