Rick Froman wrote:
>I also enjoyed the statement by blogger Dooglas Carl that
>“continuing to use the term ‘science’ in the association's
>mission statement had become a concern because it maintained
>"the colonizing, privileging, superior positionality of anthropology
>that continues to plague the discipline."
http://recycledminds.blogspot.com/2010/11/views-from-anthill-anthropology-and.html
Correction: the blogger in question self-identifies as "dooglas carl" –
no upper case please. :-) (As his co-blogger is lana lynne I'm left
wondering which are their first names :-) – or if they are
noms-de-plume.)
In the sentence before the one quoted by Rick, dooglas carl places
"indigenous knowledge" on a par with ("equally valid") "Western
Science". It seems to me that the range of membership of the American
Anthropological Association is analogous to a biological society having
a membership which encompassed views ranging from that of
10,000-year-old-earth creationists to the most uncompromising
Darwinians.
So does dooglas carl (and members of the AAA who agree with him) really
think that the local belief that Krakatoa was the home of a
fire-breathing god who showed his wrath by destroying much of the
locality with thousands of its inhabitants is as valid as modern
scientific understanding of the origins of volcanoes?
It would be interesting to know if he is as open-minded about the
beliefs of Southern evangelicals who are convinced that natural
disasters are God's way of showing His disapproval of certain aspects
of American/Western society.
Allen Esterson
Former lecturer, Science Department
Southwark College, London
[email protected]
http://www.esterson.org
------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick Froman <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: RE:Being Objective
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 09:29:02 -0600
>>> "Lilienfeld, Scott O" <[email protected]> 30-Nov-10 5:33:09 AM >>>
On a possibly related note, see:
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/11/30/anthroscience
---------------------
And the Chronicle of Higher Ed did a similar story:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/anthropology-association-rejecting-science
What was interesting is that I read the Chronicle story blog first and
it made me think of the distinction between qualitative and
quantitative research we now see in psychology, although those terms
are evidently not used in anthropology. In fact, I believe anthropology
is the source, both methodologically and philosophically, of much of
what qualitative researchers in psychology do today.
Then when I read the Inside Higher Ed story, it made me think of the
APA/APS split, so much so that you could almost tell the story of
APA/APS by changing just a few organizational names in the story.
In any case, I was amazed by the extent to which the psychology and
anthropology stories seemed to overlap. I also enjoyed the statement by
blogger Dooglas Carl that “continuing to use the term ‘science’ in the
association's mission statement had become a concern because it
maintained "the colonizing, privileging, superior positionality of
anthropology that continues to plague the discipline." My heart was
warmed by the fact that my spell-checker still underlines
“positionality” although it was tempered by the fact that the word gets
112,000 hits on Google.
Rick
Dr. Rick Froman, Chair
Division of Humanities and Social Sciences
Professor of Psychology
Box 3055
John Brown University
2000 W. University Siloam Springs, AR 72761
[email protected]
(479)524-7295
http://tinyurl.com/DrFroman
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=6870
or send a blank email to
leave-6870-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
