D'ANDRADE, Roy. The Sad Story of Anthropology 1950-1999

Cross-Cultural Research
http://ccr.sagepub.com The Sad Story of Anthropology 1950-1999

Roy D'Andrade Cross-Cultural Research 2000; 34; 219 The online version of this article can be found at: http://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/3/219
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Society for Cross-Cultural Research
Additional services and information for Cross-Cultural Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://ccr.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from http://ccr.sagepub.com by Marco Aurelio on November 8, 2007 2000 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Cross-Cultural DAndrade / THE Research SAD STORY / August OF2000 ANTHROPOLOGY
The Sad Story of Anthropology 1950-1999
Roy DAndrade
University of California, San Diego
Within the social sciences, anthropology appears to have been more strongly affected by external political trends than its sister disciplines. The trends affecting anthropology appear to primarily reflect ideas and attitudes of the intellectual Left in American universities and colleges. As the intellectual Left moved from the antigovernment activism of the early 1960s to Marxism and expectations of the death of capitalism in the 1970s, and through the disenchantment with socialist communism and alienation from Western culture expressed by postmodernism in the 1980s and 1990s, the centrality of these attitudes in the anthropology professorate of the elite universities resulted in profound changes in the research organization of anthropology and its choice of methods. This article will attempt to outline these changes and their impact on the effectiveness of anthropology as science. A major thesis of this article is that anthropology, more than the other social science disciplines, has been affected by the changing political attitudes of the past 50 years. It should immediately be said that the political attitudes that have influenced anthropology are primarily the political attitudes of academics, not the attitudes of the American voter. Following the Second World War, the political attitudes of academia have consistently been oriented toward the Left side of the political spectrum. However, the specific content of these attitudes has varied greatly from one period to anCross-Cultural Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, August 2000 219-232 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.
219
220
Cross-Cultural Research / August 2000
other. In the period from the end of the Second World War through the mid-1960s, the mainstream academic political position was that of liberalism positively oriented toward civil rights, social welfare, and the self-determination of nations. THE 1950S AND 1960S The intellectual agenda of anthropology during the 1950s and early 1960s shifted from that of prewar anthropology. From the early 1900s to the Second World War, the primary agenda of social and cultural anthropology was to document the life of illiterate peoples. By 1949, when Murdocks Social Structure was published, a large body of ethnographic work had been completed. Murdock had detailed in his Outline of Cultural Materials (1965) the kind of information that a good ethnography should contain, and by the early 1960s, world samples of more than 500 societies could be coded for most of these items. When I entered graduate school in 1957, the shift in the prewar agenda was already in place. The goal was still ethnography. However, there was a general sense that classic ethnographies, as good as they were, lacked depth in certain important ways. The new goal was to produce more theoretically oriented accounts. There was, of course, controversy about which theory should be used. From Lounsbury at Yale and Goodenough at Pennsylvania came an agenda that stressed an approach based on linguistic units and the taxonomic and paradigmatic organization of the lexicon. From Geertz and Schneider, influenced by Talcott Parsonss ideas about the separation of culture from the social system and personality, came an emphasis on symbols and meanings, different in tone but similar in intent to Kluckhohns work on values. Between the two, the field of cognitive anthropology began, interested in symbols and meanings but focusing on semantic analysis. Levi- Strausss influence in the United States increased during this period, introducing structuralist ideas from Jacobsen and Saussure to the analysis of kinship, myth, and ritual. Whiting, Spiro, and others were interested in the expressive and defensive personality functions of culture. Less concerned with culture as idea and symbol, Sahlins, Steward, Harris, Rappaport, and others held to a more materialist orientation, stressing the importance of economic and environmental factors. The Boasian school, with its emphasis on historical
DAndrade / THE SAD STORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY
221
relationships, continued to be important in area studies. In much of this work, there was a stress on methods part of the agenda was to improve ethnography in ways that would yield better data that would then be relevant to theoretical issues. In a loose way, this agenda of theoretically relevant description fit the academic and national political climate of the time. Democracy, education, science, and technology were the American way and the American export. Anthropologists, although ambivalent about losing their tribal peoples, felt that bringing back ever better understandings of other peoplesother societies and other cultureswould yield a natural positive benefit in creating better public policies and a more enlightened citizenry. This was also a period of economic growth. In constant dollars, the income of the average American citizen doubled from 1947 to 1972. The Peace Corps, the development of the United Nations, and the growing political independence of the once colonized world all contributed to a general sense of optimism about the international scene. The number of departments of anthropology grew rapidly and, with the assistance of the baby boom, the academic job market for anthropologists grew rapidly. VIETNAM One great temptation in thinking about history is wondering about counterfactualswhat would have happened if only X had or had not happened? What would have happened if President Johnson had decided not to prosecute the Vietnam War? But whatever might have happened, what did occur brought about a great shift in the political attitudes of academia. The universities and colleges were the sites of resistance to the war. The radical Left pushed the liberal Left off center stage. In anthropology, those anthropologists who were guilty by virtue of having any association, however innocent, with the war were condemned by name on the floor of the business meeting of the American Anthropological Association. The war radicalized a generation of students and young faculty who were against science as part of the military industrial complex and who were profoundly alienated from what was called the establishment. At first, only sporadic books and articles argued that anthropology should change in the direction of the new antiestablishment,
222
antiscience, and anticapitalist attitudes. These publications, like Reinventing Anthropology, edited by Dell Hymes and published in 1972, contained mainly young anthropologists and seemed to have little effect. It appeared that the mainline cultural agenda of theoretically improved ethnography had not changed. However, as the Vietnam generation matured and moved to positions of importance in anthropology departments, the shift to a more Marxist and antiscience orientation grew to become the mainline of cultural anthropology. Sherry Ortner, in 1984, wrote a good piece about anthropology from the 1960s through the 1980s. She began by outlining the debates of the 1960s between the symbolic anthropologists, structuralists, and cultural ecologists. Ortner went on to say,
Starting in the late 1960s, in both the United States and France (less so in England), radical social movements emerged on a vast scale. First came the counterculture, then the antiwar movement, and then, just a bit later, the womens movement; these movements not only affected the academic world, they originated in good part within it. Everything that was part of the existing order was questioned and criticized. In anthropology, the earliest critiques took the form of denouncing the historical links between anthropology on one hand, and colonialism and imperialism on the other. But this merely scratched the surface. The issue quickly moved to the deeper question of the nature of our theoretical frameworks, and especially the degree to which they embody and carry forward the assumptions of bourgeois Western culture. The rallying symbol of the new criticism, and of the theoretical alternatives offered to replace the old models, was Marx. (1984, p. 138)
Ortner traces the theoretical twists and turns through the 1970s and 1980s concerning the shifts from standard Marxism to French structural Marxism to political economy to power, practice, and discourse. These debates occurred at a high theoretical level, mainly outside anthropology. In anthropology, although little explicit theoretical discussion took place in the journals, a great shift in agenda took place. The new goal of ethnography and research was no longer theoretically relevant description but moral critique. The critique was directed against power, domination, and oppression. However, the classical Marxist emphasis on material factors was greatly attenuated. Capitalism was still an enemy, but primarily because it, like the state, science, the media, and Western bourgeois culture, was powerful.
223
The major critique in anthropology was directed against pernicious ideas. The Marxist notions of ideology and false consciousness were reworked into a critique of culture itself, now seen as the most powerful source of oppression. The overall thrust was more Hegelian than materialist. As Adam Gopnik put it, in a recent New Yorker piece on French intellectual life,
The new anti-liberal polemic has often been associated, fairly or unfairly, with people like the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, who . . . has become Frances dominant intellectual. . . . Anyone familiar with the general shape of post-Marxist thought will immediately recognize the key ideas. Social consent is manufactured, and representative democracy is an illusion; there exists only the struggle for domination, and its prime arena is now not the marketplace but the media-place, where bourgeois culture attempts to perpetuate its domination by denying even the possibility of any other way. Liberal society is really a Hobbesian universe, made more dreadful by the gaiety of its disguise, like one of those serial killers dressed as clowns in a slasher movie. (1999, p. 66)
CRITICAL ANTHROPOLOGY By the mid-1980s, critical anthropology had become mainstream. The goal of mainline cultural anthropology was to critique hidden and open oppressions of Western bourgeois culture: its racism, sexism, nation alism, homopho bia, and scientism. The Enlightenmentthe historical center of liberal ideascame to be seen as a well of poison. According to this agenda, the task of the ethnographer was to examine the resistance of non-Western and peripherialized peoples to the Western modernizing forces that oppress them. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were enemies, science was an enemy, and rationality was a destructive force. Bureaucratic planning was one of the major generators of oppression. Conformity on the part of ordinary people was treated as evidence of their complicity in their own oppression. Evolutionary biological theories were thought to be dangerous because of their potential use by racists, and epistemological relativism was given lip service, not because it was really believed but because any other belief was thought to lead to positivism, science, and racism.
224
Last year, I made up a questionnaire about these topics and gave it to our 1st-year graduate students (n = 9). (University of California, San Diego graduate students do not tend to be especially radical. I also gave the same questionnaire to a sample of more than 100 undergraduates and found a very similar pattern of results.) More than 80% agreed that Western oppression is a major world problem. In addition, 100% agreed that oppressive relations between men and women are created by cultural systems of belief. More than 80% agreed that the social sciences should focus on issues of gender, race, class, and ethnicity, and 67% agreed that different cultures have different but equally valid moral standards. More than 50% agreed that there are no factsonly observations made from a certain viewpoint that can always be contradicted by other observations made from other viewpoints. However, 0% agreed that the best way of understanding culture and society is through science. NUMERICAL ILLITERACY The effect of these attitudes on the organization of the discipline has been powerful. More than just affecting the content of courses, it has affected who gets hired. This is especially evident with regard to those anthropologists who have a quantitative orientation. The departure from the Berkeley anthropology department by Brent Berlin, Paul Kay, and Gene Hammel illustrated what Nancy Scheper-Hughes termed epistemological struggle within the university, epitomized by the refusal of the majority of the Berkeley department to hire a quantitative cultural anthropologist. The same kind of split occurred at Stanford, where the impossibility of hiring scientifically oriented anthropologists in a department dominated by cultural anthropologists has resulted in the administration creating two separate departments of anthropology. At Irvine, once a central place for quantitative anthropology, a position for a quantitative anthropologist was lost because the department was unable to agree on an acceptable candidate. Today, there are almost no anthropology departments that give standard quantitative training, let alone training in probability models, causal analysis, and multidimensional scaling. The departments in most elite universities do not, and see no need to, teach any of this to cultural anthropologists.
225
Well, one might ask, who needs statistics, quantitative analysis, and ques tion naires any way? Cul tural anthro pologys main strength is ethnography and there are not many statistics in most ethnographies. But one cannot do cross-cultural research if one does not know any statistics. And without statistical methods, there is no systematic way to compare ethnographies, which leaves anthropology without a strong method to generalize beyond the individual case. Even more incapacitating than not being able to do cross-cultural research, without some knowledge of statistics such findings cannot even be understood. Furthermore, much of the epistemology of the social science depends on statistical ideas. Let me give an example. This year an anthropology graduate student said to me, What does chi-square have to do with understanding how people think? If one tries to tell a modern cultural anthropology student that all generalizations about the worldincluding generalizations about what people thinkrequire at least a contingency table or the comparison of mean differences, the student looks at you as if you had just landed from the moon. This makes no sense to them. To go on to more complex issues concerning correlation, partitioning of variance, clustering of attributes, degrees of consensus, and so on is impossible. The basic epistemological schemas are not there and not missed. A basic framework is missinga framework needed to evaluate generalizations of any sort. To this jeremiad, mainline cultural anthropology has ready answers. We do not need generalizations, they say, because we do interpretations. Meanings are qualitative, not quantitative. We do not need to test our ideas about oppression, domination, power, and the pervasive power of regimes of knowledge. We know these things are true from our own experience and the writings of important figures like Foucault and Bourdieu. We know cultural discourse causes people to interpret the world in certain ways, and these ways determine the subjectivity of people and hold them in oppression. We will study those places in which such oppression is most prevalent and most resisted: in the barrios and ghettos, in the world of migrants, in the situations of displaced persons, in the history of colonized peoples, and in the dislocations caused by global capitalism. What we want to do is observe the local working out of this great truth and free people from the regimes of power and knowledge that enslave them.
226
In my opinion, statistics and quantitative methods are disliked so much because they are always a challenge to those who believe they already know the truth. For example, imagine someone making the claim that regimes of power and knowledge oppress people. Then imagine an audience of statisticians listening to this claim and trying to figure out what the relevant tables might look like, how the categories might be defined, or how one could know when one had encountered a relevant instance. Such an audience is likely to be skeptical. Thinking about things in statistical terms inevitably brings up issues of empirical and conceptual adequacy. One might think that although cultural anthropologists are uninformed about statistics and measurement, they might still be good at theory. But this is not the case. With a few exceptions, theory has never been a long suit in anthropology, and today there are no important theoretical innovators in cultural anthropology, with some exceptions from the subfield of psychological anthropology. To do theory well, one must be able to evaluate alternative models and then construct from these alternative models even better models. But, evaluation of alternative models immediately runs into the basic problem of how to evaluate models in the first place. What theoretical work there is in cultural anthropology is primarily based on reasoning from assumed first principlespeople must be shaped by their symbolic worlds, psychology cannot be relevant to cultural facts, and so on. This makes for a cut-and-paste approach to the great theorists: much debate, principle-begging arguments, little clarity and no progress. So, in my account, the special combination of antiestablishment attitudes generated by the Vietnam War brought about destructive changes in anthropology. The combination of epistemological relativism (there is no real foundation for knowledge) and moral advocacy (I know what is right and the world should change to conform to my vision of what is right) has had a joint effect that neither attitude might have had by itself. Epistemological relativism on its own is easily contradicted by even small advances in knowledge. It is a very weak intellectual position. Moral advocacy without epistemological relativism may have some problems with bias and serviceable definitions (Is the American police force an instrument of oppression?), but by itself it does not make good research impossible. Marvin Harris, a strong moral advocate for example, has been an important contributor to anthropological research and theory. It is the combination that is so deadly. Moral advocacy gives
227
certainty and the sense that every denunciation of oppression is a real achievement. And, epistemological relativism makes checking on the truth of such denunciations impossible. Some further evidence for this point comes from other social science disciplines. Many linguists, for example, hold far Left opinions. Chomsky is an exemplar. Political opinions do not interfere with doing good research in linguistics because the methodological canons are so strong. In linguistics, one cannot substitute moral righ teous ness for ana lytic rigor. Simi larly, in psy chol ogy, epistemological relativism has not entered the mainstream because the power of experimentation makes dismissal of results one does not like intellectually insupportable. If moral advocates in social psychology do good experimental work and if this supports their moral positions, so much the better for the discipline. Such work, whatever its animus, because it advances knowledge, helps rather than threatens the scientific agenda. THE PRESENT One can argue the inferences, but the general situation is clear. Although anthropology in the 1950s and 1960s was not particularly quantitative or measurement oriented, it was concerned with issues of descriptive adequacy and did not reject those who were trying to develop methods of systematic data analysis. This changed. The anthropologists who have quantitative skills were trained before the big agenda shift to cultural critique. Given the current trend, in 10 years there will be no young cultural anthropologists competently trained in quantitative methods. If one looks at the current field of cultural anthropology, it is not just statistics and quantitative methods that have been forced out. Linguistic anthropology is almost gone. Folklore is gone. Psychological anthropology is holding on but with a dwindling base. Economic anthropology is almost gone. Medical anthropology has shifted primarily to cultural critique. The study of kinship is in eclipse. Cross-cultural studies by anthropologists are in decline. The scholarly study of religion in anthropology has decreased almost to the vanishing point. The field of cultural anthropology has undergone radical despecialization. The immediate cause is that graduate students are not trained in these special fields, even though undergraduates
228
show interest and enthusiasm for these topics. The institutional base for specialization has been eroded to the point that reproduction of many of these subfields is close to impossible. My speculation is that the despecialization of cultural anthropology is ultimately based on the loss of canons of empirical justification. Specialists have no cachet if their empirical evidence is not taken seriously. To be taken seriously in mainline cultural anthropology today, one must have a project that enters the conversation with moral implications. The lack of good ways to decide if someone has a real finding has resulted in a general implosion toward the same few issues that everyone is talking about. The plight of graduate students is especially heartrending because they must figure out how to do some thing that is in, but not so far in it will soon be out. This has a further effect of putting a great deal of power in the hands of elite universities, because that is where what is in and what is out gets decided. Today, a young Ph.D. from a university in the sticks will have a hard time succeeding in cultural anthropology. Some might suspect I exaggerate. But try to elicit from your favorite anthropology informant the important findings of mainline cultural anthropology over the past 20 years. You will probably be told that we now know that culture is discourse, power is omnipresent, knowledge is central to power, Western culture is hegemonic, oppression is diffuse and general, and that we are now in a postmodern world of late capitalism and a global diaspora without fixed communities or cultures. It is hard to be impressed with this list. Part of this list is simply definitional (culture is discourse). Part consists of statements of interest rather than findings (power is omnipresent). Part is magical thinking (that by calling capitalism late capitalism, we create its demise). Part consists of moral complaints (oppression is diffuse and general). Part consists of items of confused general knowledge (the global diaspora without fixed communities). And part is probably just plain wrong (we are in a new postmodern periodthis is said despite the evidence that the modernizing triad of new technologies, capitalized industries, and increasing prosperity is waxing, not waning, both in new nations and in Western Europe and the United States). Some times I doubt my own con clu sions. Could main line cultural anthropology really have such a naive, moralistic, unsophisticated, jargony, and paranoid agenda? After writing the para-
229
graphs above, I looked at them and thought I must be exaggerating. Then, the January Newsletter (1999) of the American Anthropological Association arrived, and I read the column written by the Newsletter editor, D. Heath, for the Society for Cultural Anthropology, talking about the Societys June conference in San Francisco. Its general theme is states of power: culture, capital and govermentality. In Heaths column the reader is told anthropology seeks to rethink the relations between culture and power and shift to Foucauldian and political economy perspectives. What anthropologists should find out about is how culture is directly embroiled in different forms of ruling [and] the mutations of capitalism (p. 48). The conference seeks to bring together people interested in the interplay of culture and power in institutionalizing relations of production, ruling, markets, violence, and every day life. All of this suggests a series of critical questions such as how anthropologists can assess agencies like the World Bank, the Multilateral Investments Agreement, the ways globalization disrupts social formations, the new cultural and political relations to capital, and so on (Heath, 1999). The moralistic agenda is quite apparent, along with the idea that cultural meaning systems are appropriated by the oppressive forces to mystify oppression. There is no thought of testing the truth of these ideasthe impetus is to find ethnographic sites to document these truths. According to this agenda, there is no good power, only bad power, and no good money, only bad money. THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK I have been stressing that my account applies to mainline cultural anthropology. In anthropology, as in other fields, the mainline agenda is flanked by other agendas and maverick positions. Naomi Quinn (n.d.) has described academic disciplines as large circuses. In the circus of each discipline, there are many rings, and in each ring there are various performers. There is normally a center ring that commands the attention of most of the audience, but that is always in danger of losing the focus of attention to other rings. For almost 20 years, the agenda of moral critique and antiscience has been in the center ring. But the show is wearing thin. Empiricism, what ever its philosophic prob lems, is a pow erful force. The huge enter prise of nat ural science has become annoyed with epistemological relativism. Cultural studies are becoming an
230
academic joke. (And in academia, one can argue for ideas that are very strange and still be accepted and sometimes even admired. But one cannot be a joke.) Perhaps the brightest spot in anthropology is in the application of evolutionary paradigms to the study of human nature. Harvard maintains a strong program in biological anthropology, as do the University of California, Los Angeles; the University of California, Santa Barbara; and Pennsylvania State. Quantitative and statistical training for these students is relatively good and the connection with work in genetics and ecology gives biological anthropology work a source of strength outside anthropology departments. There is an interest in evolutionary psychology in cross-cultural work as well as systematic cross-species comparisons. Psychological anthropology, with its ties to cross-cultural research, struggles along with some successes despite the fact that about one third of its practitioners, by my count, say they do not like science. Cognitive anthropology receives good support from the growing interest outside cultural anthropology in the brain and consciousness. THE FUTURE Finally, let me say something about the future. Chaos theory tells us that the future is often something we cannot predict. On the other hand, some trends continue a long time. First, based on various attitude studies (Manolis, Levin, & Dahlstrom, 1997), it appears that the new generation of undergraduates are not nearly as moralistic in orientation as their teachers. It is unlikely the agenda of critique will motivate them. They are also skeptical of almost everything, from politicians to classroom moralizing. What will a new generation of cultural anthropologists turn to? They may turn to a biologically based evolutionary agenda or to psychological exploration of the interaction of culture and psyche, as some of the brightest graduate students I know have done. As the old agenda of moral critique and relativism fades, they may become the new pioneers. They will be handicapped by their lack of training in methods and math, but let us hope they can remedy that. Geertz once remarked that he did not think that the field of cultural anthropology would outlive him; I disagree. I think institutional frameworks have remarkable durability. In my lifetime, I saw that the intellectually successful innovations of departments or programs in social relations did not succeed in reorganizing
231
traditional departmental boundaries. Anthropology is firmly established in the curriculum of most colleges and universities, and cultural anthropology has the support of biological anthropology and archaeology, fields in which doing science is well established and that have continued to make real discoveries. On the other hand, I am afraid that, with the exception of some bright mavericks, the field of cultural anthropology will become more peripheral in the social sciences and lose ground to sociology and social psychology. Sociology is plagued by many of the same agenda problems as anthropology, but it is much larger and has a diverse collection of methods and theories. Sociologists do ethnography too, and they combine survey data and institutional statistics of all sorts with historical analysis and modeling. They are involved in more practical applications and many have continued to take both theory and method seriously. I expect sociology to become an increasingly powerful discipline in the next 20 years. Social psychology will, I feel sure, expand into the field of psychological anthropology. Social psychologists have not only the advantage of numbers, but they are also good methodologists and experimentalists. There is growing interest among social psychologists in exploring the effects of culture on the human psyche, and collaborative cross-cultural work with psychologists from other nations is routine nowadays. There will still be a niche for psychological anthropologists, especially those interested in the psychological makeup of people from exotic cultures, but psychology will most probably command the big battalions. I believe there will also be a place for the continuing practice of ethnography. Most cultural anthropologists are not good at systematic data analysis, but they are good at putting together the complex impressions engendered by participant observation into coherent accounts. There is a place for informed reporting. Ethnography today is something like a high art form in which excellent writing skills, skillful self-presentation, proper presentation of moral sentiments, and real world information are combined into sometimes interesting and illuminating accounts. Cultural anthropologists pay considerable attention to these accounts. However, my guess is that participant observation based ethnography will continue to lose its importance as a scientific method of interest to other fields and that a variety of techniques involving the analysis of many kinds of datahistorical, institutional, legal, survey, and even experimentalwill erode its pride of place.
232
Despite all this, potentialities still exist in cultural anthropology. Cultural anthropologists do know something about human groups and how ideas function within groups. Many are fine observers of particular human scenes. The problem is to work out how to increase the knowledge and skill of the field, rather than just letting it erode away. In any case, systematic cross-cultural research will flourish regardless of what happens in anthropology because its findings and problems are theoretically and humanly interesting. I hope anthropology will participate, but if it does not, there is no need to mourn. If anthropology becomes too ignorant to do cross- cultural research, the old mother field still deserves a goodbye wave and maybe even a tear. The great cross-cultural exploration begun more than 100 years ago will continue with or without anthropology.
References
Gopnik, A. (1999, January 4). Noel contendere. The New Yorker, 61-67. Heath, D. (1999). States of power: Culture, capital & governmentality. Anthropology Newsletter, 40(1), 48-49. Hymes, D. (1972). Reinventing anthropology. New York: Random House. Manolis, C., Levin A., & Dahlstrom, R. (1997). A generation X scale: Creation and validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(4), 667-684. Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social structure. New York: Macmillan. Murdock, G. P. (1965). Outline of cultural materials (4th Rev. ed.). New Haven, CT: Human Relations Area Files. Ortner, S. (1984). Theory in anthropology since the 1960s. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 26, 126-166. Quinn, N. (n.d.). Women theorizing gender: The case of cultural anthropology. In S. Strum & L. Fedigan (Eds.), Primate encounters: Models of science, gender, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Roy DAndrade is a professor of anthropology at the University of California, San Diego. He received his Ph.D. from Harvard University in 1962. His major interests are in cognitive anthropology, quantitative methods, theory, and American culture. He is the author of The Development of Cognitive Anthropology (Cambridge University Press, 1995).

D'ANDRADE, Roy. The Sad Story of Anthropology 1950-1999

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

D'ANDRADE, Roy. The Sad Story of Anthropology 1950-1999

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cross-Cultural Research

http://ccr.sagepub.com The Sad Story of Anthropology 1950-1999

Cross-Cultural DAndrade / THE Research SAD STORY / August OF2000 ANTHROPOLOGY

The Sad Story of Anthropology 1950-1999

Cross-Cultural Research / August 2000

DAndrade / THE SAD STORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY

Cross-Cultural Research / August 2000

DAndrade / THE SAD STORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY

Cross-Cultural Research / August 2000

DAndrade / THE SAD STORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY

Cross-Cultural Research / August 2000

DAndrade / THE SAD STORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY

Cross-Cultural Research / August 2000

DAndrade / THE SAD STORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY

Cross-Cultural Research / August 2000

DAndrade / THE SAD STORY OF ANTHROPOLOGY

Cross-Cultural Research / August 2000

You might also like