AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

VITAL TOPICS FORUM

What Is Science in Anthropology?
Peter Peregrine, Yolanda T. Moses, Alan Goodman, Louise Lamphere,
and James Lowe Peacock

INTRODUCTION inductive–deductive, quantifiable public procedures or ‘op-

Peter Peregrine Department of Anthropology, Lawrence Uni- erations’ subject to replication by independent observers.”
versity, Appleton, Wisconsin 54912, and Santa Fe Institute, This definition seems so narrow that much of anthropolog-
Santa Fe, NM 87501 [email protected] ical research—for example, field research done by a lone
participant-observer—might not be included.
Although definitions of science in anthropology may be in-
“The purposes of the Association shall be . . . to advance anthropology as congruous, there does seem to be a general agreement that at
the science that studies humankind in all its aspects . . . ” AAA Statement
of Purpose least two opposing modes of thought are present in anthro-
pology: one focusing on logical, reasoned argumentation;
the other on more inventive, insightful exploration (e.g.,
The governing documents of the American Anthropological Boyer 2003; see also Wolf 1964:1–3). The former tends
Association repeatedly refer to anthropology as a “science.” to be called a “scientific” approach, the latter a “humanistic”
What does science mean in this context? And is it true that or “interpretive” approach. But one has to question whether
anthropology is a “science”? These are questions with which these two modes of thought are truly different. Are “human-
anthropologists have wrestled for generations, yet no clear istic” approaches devoid of logic or reasoned argument? Are
answer has emerged. That these questions are still important “scientific” approaches devoid of insight and inventiveness?
was demonstrated following the 2010 AAA annual meeting. These kinds of dichotomies are found elsewhere in discus-
The executive board removed the word science from the sions of science in anthropology and raise similar questions.
association’s long-range plan and sparked a brief, though Science is said to be concerned with generalizations rather
widely publicized, controversy. The important point is that than particulars; science is concerned with exploring evo-
if members of the AAA did not find “science” in anthropology lution rather than history; science emphasizes theory at the
important, the changes to the long-range plan would not have expense of context; science uses measurements and statis-
been controversial. tics rather than words and interpretations; science employs
Earlier discussions of science in anthropology suggest a hypotheticodeductive approach; science is empirical; sci-
that anthropologists have always been confused about what ence is replicable, science is . . . what? What is science in
science means in the context of anthropology. Leslie White anthropology?
(1949:3–7), for example, defined anthropological science as
“sciencing”; that is, what people who call themselves an-
thropological scientists do. Although this idea seems almost SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES: A FALSE
prophetic of contemporary understandings of science, it is DICHOTOMY
not a particularly useful definition. Eric Wolf (1964:13) Yolanda T. Moses Department of Anthropology, University
provided a similarly ineffectual definition: “Anthropology of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA 92521; yolanda.moses@
is both a natural science, concerned with the organization ucr.edu
and function of matter, and a humanistic discipline, con-
cerned with the organization and function of mind.” Psy- Science and humanities are broad terms used to convey ideas
chologists might argue that the organization and function of and concepts about anthropology. We are a four-field de-
mind is a scientific concern, and there are certainly those partment at the University of California, Riverside, and as
in fields such as environmental ethics who would see a con- a faculty member I try to integrate a wide range of concep-
cern with the organization and function of matter as an tual frameworks and methodologies to indicate a wide range
obviously humanistic one. Marvin Harris (1979:27) defined of ways of knowing and understanding humans and human
science in anthropology as “an epistemology which seeks to behavior. Science and the scientific method is a particular
restrict fields of inquiry to events, entities, and relationships way of looking at existential phenomena to make sense of it.
that are knowable by means of explicit, logicoempirical, It is useful, for example, when one is looking at large data

c 2012 by the American Anthropological

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST, Vol. 114, No. 4, pp. 593–597, ISSN 0002-7294, online ISSN 1548-1433. ⃝
Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1433.2012.01510.x
594 American Anthropologist • Vol. 114, No. 4 • December 2012

sets and trying to extrapolate patterns. The lens of the hu- physiological perturbations (commonly thought of as stress)
manities is also a way of taking those patterns and exploring during the period of enamel formation: prenatally through
what they mean on the ground in more nuanced culturally childhood. The number and location of DEHs provides a
textured contexts. In doing so, one can call on the study of chronological history of early life stresses, and as such, they
local knowledges and history (written and/or oral) as well are an established part of the toolkit of biological anthro-
as discourse analysis. pology and bioarchaeology. I study hypoplasia patterns to
This range of complex anthropological approaches must document nutrition and health changes associated with early
be used to adequately explain how we got to be who we are agriculture, enslavement, globalization, and other forms of
as humans by being able to track our social–cultural, eco- poverty and inequality.
logical, and biological choices from prehistorical to modern For a century, ameloblasts, the enamel-forming cells,
to postmodern societies. This continuum of ways of know- have been known to be under strong genetic control. They
ing also provides us with a more robust way of bringing start enamel formation at a precise place and time and pro-
an anthropological perspective to very complex societal and ceed methodically to secrete enamel protein matrix in an
global problem-solving strategies in the 21st century. For orchestrated, well-timed fashion, some four microns every
example, to answer the question “what is the meaning of day until the process is complete. Voila.
race in contemporary U.S. culture?” means that we have to However, under stress the ameloblasts might stop se-
take a look both diachronically and synchronically through creting enamel matrix, and the result is a permanent record
the scientific lenses of culture, biology, archaeology, and of underformed enamel—the hypoplasia. The enamel devel-
linguistics. The historical archaeology of diverse ancestral opment literature presents a uniformitarian explanation that
communities provides a lens through which to examine the makes sense: if the perturbation is sufficiently severe and long
spatial and material cultural implications of this socially con- lasting, all ameloblasts in the sheet-making enamel matrix
structed edifice called the United States beginning in the will react in the same way and stop secreting enamel matrix.
colonial era. Linguistics allows us to research the power Because enamel once formed cannot self-repair, a hypopla-
of language and identity, especially exploring discourses of sia, an undergrowth of enamel, is the permanent result.
power and appropriation. For example, how has the lan- But that is not what I observe. I see incredible variabil-
guage of privilege and subjugation manifested itself in the ity in how enamel-secreting ameloblasts responded to the
past? How does it continue to do so now? same perturbation. Even though the resulting hypoplasia is
Biology shows in very concrete ways how science, pol- formed by the same sheet of ameloblasts, it is often thick
itics, social norms, and religion colluded to create a very in some places, thinner in others, and in still other places,
tightly controlled social construct about racial hierarchy the enamel appears unaffected. The ameloblasts that made a
and inferiority that still exists today in the form of struc- particular line of enamel are specialized epithelial cells, ge-
tural and institutionalized racism. Biological anthropology netic and developmental clones, whose purpose is to make
demonstrates that race, or the concept that we call “race,” is enamel. They are bathed in the same blood-supplied soup of
about explaining human variation. And cultural anthropol- chemicals. However, individual ameloblasts respond differ-
ogy helps to make transparent how culture creates race and ently. Why is the response less uniform than the scientific
how it continues to be perpetuated through institutionalized literature suggests, and at times downright chaotic?
processes of subordination and domination. I do not think anyone knows why two genetically iden-
In our future anthropological engagements, we will need tical cells that are located right beside each other and are by
to continue to utilize both the sciences and humanities to all measures exposed to the same environmental conditions
provide the robust conceptual frameworks that will guide behave so differently. But when an anthropologist thinks
our multilayered and multisited research and praxis projects. about it, the results should not be surprising.
For it is only through utilizing both concepts that we will be Biologists once had a simple explanation for variation.
able to tackle such intractable problems as world poverty, Nature plus nurture plus some interactive factor equaled
the differential impact of globalization, global health dis- phenotype. We now know that that this additive equa-
parities, ethnic and religious animosities, the widening gap tion fails to usefully explain relatively “simple” processes
between the haves and have nots in our own country and like the formation of enamel by ameloblasts. As Richard
elsewhere, and a more sophisticated class analysis in the Lewontin and others have argued, natures and nurtures are,
United States and elsewhere that uses an understanding of at the very least, interwoven multiplicities. Molecules, cells,
intersectionalities as its framework. organisms, and societies somehow direct their own scripts
and often follow unpredicted trajectories. Life develops, is
WILL SCIENCE TAKE AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL emergent, contingent, context dependent, and fabulously
TURN? surprising.
Alan Goodman Dean of Faculty Office, Hampshire College, A cell can become cancerous in a myriad of differ-
Amherst, MA 01002; [email protected] ent ways. Why? How does one capture the complex web
of context, reason, and result of a human thought or ac-
Dental enamel hypoplasias (DEHs), areas of decreased tion? Instead of expecting the regularity of enamel develop-
enamel thickness, are permanent, chronological records of ment that our cultural brains have trained us to see, asking
 Vital Topics Forum • What Is Science in Anthropology? 595

questions about the surprising variation could lead to new nomenon with “a subjective” unity or as a whole. There is
insights into what goes on within and between ameloblasts no doubt that Boas felt these two approaches were of equal
and to better interpretations of the resulting record of importance and both were “science” (the usual translation of
perturbations. the German word Wissenschaft).
If simple enamel formation is that complex, then what Since Boas’s time, anthropology has continued to evolve
of real people’s lives? Anthropology, if it is still to some these two parallel visions of science, both grounded in empir-
degree “the science of humanity,” is certainly not so much ical observation. On the one hand, the nomethetic impulse
about figuring out how humans and cultures obey equations uses quantitative methods to test hypotheses, producing pub-
and laws that are to be proven true or false. Rather, humans lic knowledge that can be verified or revised by additional
and cultures are fascinating to us for much the same reasons research. This has become the norm in much of biological
they fascinate novelists: their counterintuitive nature, their anthropology and archaeology, as well as some approaches to
surprises, their complexities, and their contradictions. cultural anthropology. On the other hand, the ideographic
For me, the question is not whether anthropology is a or “cosmographic” approach has been developed through
science; anthropology is a type of science. The more central ethnography, at first the lone ethnographer in a small isolated
question is whether anthropology can help other sciences to community but increasing through participant-observation,
catch up to the complexities of lives, humanities, and global lengthy interviews, archival research, and other qualitative
cultures. Anthropology can provide lessons for the biological methods, often by a team of anthropologists or other re-
sciences and perhaps science in general. Anthropology can searchers. One could argue that Geisteswissenschaft is really
be a model of the science to come by its embracing of site just “interpretive” anthropology, but I would counter that
specificity, the importance of context, the importance of unlike literary and philosophical studies where the “text” is
multiple sources of information and evidence, and what we the center of analysis, in cultural anthropology, texts (field
find out when we listen to and observe real people in real notes, transcribed interviews, texts written by members of
places living their complex lives. a community under study) are the “data” or empirical core
Controlled experiments are important as are experi- for making an analysis of culturally constructed categories
ments that study parts of systems. But let’s also provide and on-the-ground relationships between individuals and
ample support for the observation of humans and cultures groups.
in context. Let’s remember that ethnographic and anthro- In developing this “cosmographic” approach, many cul-
pological studies of real lives are bound to be messy and tural anthropologists over the last 30 years have spent a
contradictory. Results might change depending on context, great deal of time doing two things: (1) interrogating our
and we may be unable to explain everything simply because own concepts so as to unpack Western assumptions and
the processes are not themselves simple. Maybe science will better translate the categories used by our interviewees and
take an anthropological turn. (2) finding ways to include in our published texts the voices
of those we study as well as invite their coparticipation in
WHAT IS SCIENCE IN ANTHROPOLOGY? TAKING research and writing. In other words, there is an effort to
A PAGE FROM BOAS transform “informants” or “subjects” into collaborators. But
Louise Lamphere Department of Anthropology, University these efforts, though influenced by some postmodernists
of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87114; [email protected] (e.g., Foucault and de Certeau but not Derrida or Lyotard),
have not turned most of us into postmodernists. We are
In answering the question of “What is science in anthropol- still committed to empirical work, to grounding our argu-
ogy?,” it is useful to go back to Franz Boas, the founding ments in analysis of what people say and do. We still urge
“father” of American anthropology, whose work is based our students to write dissertation proposals focused on a
on the German distinction between Geisteswissenschaft and problem, to have a clear methodology for researching that
Naturwissenschaft. In his famous essay “The Study of Geog- problem, to use their fieldwork material (the “data”) to make
raphy” (1887), Boas distinguished between the thorough an argument, to relate that argument to the anthropological
understanding of individual phenomena through historical literature, and to point to “findings” and “conclusions” about
contexts (what Boas called “cosmography”) and the deduc- those they study and with whom they collaborate.
tion of the laws that governed the physical world (e.g., as But there should also be room within anthropology for
studied by the physicist). Geography, astronomy, geology, those who feel uncomfortable adopting the mantle of “sci-
and history could all be thought of as branches of knowledge ence” and who see themselves as taking an interpretive or
studied through Geisteswissenschaft, while physics, chem- humanistic approach. These might include folklorists, or
istry, physiology, and experimental psychology were part those committed to collecting oral histories, making ethno-
of Naturwissenschaft. For Boas, the physicist’s work was graphic films or studying artistic traditions. As a “big-tent”
rooted in a logical, objective, and aesthetic approach that discipline, anthropology builds on “knowledge from the so-
broke a phenomenon “into its elements” rather than one that cial and biological sciences as well as the humanities and
was motivated by “affective” impulses and that treated a phe- physical sciences” (AAA n.d.).
596 American Anthropologist • Vol. 114, No. 4 • December 2012

The commitment to science is widespread in the disci- of AAA. One reason is scope. Students can choose from a
pline just as it was 125 years ago when Boas first articulated menu including biological and cultural, archaeological, and
the contours of science within anthropology. other aspects represented more or less by the many sections
of the AAA. An example is my own department in a state
SCIENCE IN ANTHROPOLOGY university. Our general education and arts and sciences cur-
James Lowe Peacock Department of Anthropology, University riculum is currently subdivided into sciences, humanities,
of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27514; [email protected] and other aspects such as “philosophical” and “aesthetic.”
Anthropology is notable in offering courses that fulfill re-
In the early 1990s, a resolution was introduced at the annual quirements in virtually all the categories. That scope and di-
meeting of the American Anthropological Association to fire versity, which includes “science” and “humanities,” doubtless
the editors of the American Anthropologist on the grounds that explains the department’s survival and growth over decades
they forsook a scientific perspective to emphasize a humanis- of budget cuts (not to mention fads and trends including
tic, postmodernist one. While that resolution was defeated, online courses, neotheories, etc.).
it demonstrated a division of the field much like the current In evaluating the debate about anthropology’s identity,
one, a division that could be argued to have been with anthro- it is useful to go beyond anthropology. For example, in cre-
pology from the beginning. What seems new is that media ating a program in global studies and in pursuing global work
coverage of the recent controversy gave the impression that opportunities for students, my institution has involved many
anthropology had given up a claim to being a science, or at disciplines and nonacademic efforts. A few of the aspects are
least AAA had given up that claim. Without judging the claim as follows: a major in global studies, now almost a thousand
itself, it is worth noting a few possible implications. For ex- majors, area studies centers, study-abroad programs, and
ample, while I was AAA president a senator proposed to numerous projects, housed in an 83,000-square-foot build-
eliminate the social science program in the National Science ing financed largely by a bond package supported by the 100
Foundation. The American Association for the Advancement counties of the state. What is the point of noting this work?
of Science (AAAS) held a meeting of all its member orga- The point is that aspects of both “science” and “humanities”
nizations, including AAA, to address this threat. I attended, prove useful and necessary in such work, while others are
as did many other “scientists.” A speaker from the govern- less so. For example, the generalizing mandate of “science” is
ment advised us not to overestimate the clout of science, useful and necessary as is the “particularizing” aspect of “hu-
that it was a fraction of the clout of the Christian Right, manities,” yet both aspects impact negatively when pushed
for example, because the Right mounted a strong lobbying to extremes. Overly personal and particularistic introspec-
effort influencing congresspersons. We developed a strategy tion tries the patience of practitioners and policy makers, as
of contacting specific congresspersons whom we knew and do overgeneralizing analyses. Artful and shrewd applications
who we thought would support us. This strategy possibly of both scientific and humanistic aspects, however, can be
helped head off the cuts. Without membership in AAAS, very useful and even transformative.
would anthropology have been equipped to join this effort?
Having deleted its identity as a “science,” is AAA still eligible
to representation in AAAS? As the humanistic wing of AAA UNDERSTANDING DIFFERENCE
knows well, identity matters. Peter Peregrine Department of Anthropology, Lawrence Uni-
A less formal example of identity mattering is the pres- versity, Appleton, WI 54912; [email protected]
ence or lack thereof of anthropology in the wider culture.
A glance at airport bookstores and newsstands shows few In his classic essay “Thick Description” (1973), Clifford
contributions by anthropologists and fewer still labeled as Geertz builds a metaphor for culture around a Beethoven
such. Those few noted in passing recently are in newspapers quartet. He argues that, like culture, a Beethoven quartet
(e.g., the item about AAA giving up science), periodicals cannot be reduced to the score, the skills of the perform-
(primarily those treating science and dealing with archaeol- ers, the understanding of the audience, or any particular
ogy and biological anthropology), and two books, one giving performance. Rather, a Beethoven quartet is “a temporally
an evolutionary view of civilization and another tracing the developed tonal structure, a coherent sequence of modeled
contributions of a physician with anthropological training. sound . . . and not anybody’s knowledge of or belief about
A common denominator in much such writing is science anything” (Geertz 1973:11–12). Indeed, only “incorrigibles”
of some sort mixed with major issues about history and or “reductionists and reifiers” would think it is anything else
humanity, thus joining science and humanities. The pieces (Geertz 1973:11). I happen to teach at an institution with a
are written in clear simple language, sometimes by science conservatory of music, and quite a few of my students are
writers. These tendencies are mirrored in nonprint media training to be professional musicians. They must all be “in-
as well. corrigibles” because Geertz’s statement sends them into fits.
Bread and butter for the discipline is course enroll- For my music students, a Beethoven quartet is all of the things
ments. Anthropology courses have increased enrollments Geertz lists. They find Geertz naı̈ve in not understanding that
enormously if one compares figures over the century-plus the score, the musical skills, the specific performance, even
 Vital Topics Forum • What Is Science in Anthropology? 597

the audience are all part of the music, and that the music seek definitions of scientific or humanistic approaches but,
itself changes as scores are edited and analyzed, as musician’s rather, to implement whatever approach satisfies our inter-
skills and the instruments they play change, and as audiences ests and helps us answer our questions. In doing so, we must
develop new tastes and expectations. Not only do they think be mindful that other anthropologists may have different
Geertz is wrong to limit a Beethoven quartet to “a tempo- interests and questions for which our chosen approach is not
rally developed tonal structure,” but they feel that he insults useful. Rather than accusing them of being “incorrigible” for
them in effectively calling them either limited or foolish for not thinking the way we do, we should seek to understand
not assenting to his perspective. what our colleagues are doing and why they are doing it.
It would seem from recent controversies that a lot of After all, isn’t understanding difference what anthropology
anthropologists have followed Geertz in their failure to un- is all about?
derstand, failure to accept, and failure to validate scholarship
conducted under different “paradigms” than their own. This
is contrary to tolerance for other ways of knowing, toler- VITAL TOPICS FORUM COMBINED
ance that is the primary theme that I see running through
the essays of this “Vital Topics” forum. Moses suggests we REFERENCES CITED
need to “embrace a wide range of conceptual frameworks American Anthropological Association (AAA)
and methods” to understand humans and human behavior. N.d. What Is Anthropology? http://www.aaanet.org/about/
Goodman calls for an acceptance of “noise” in both our meth- WhatisAnthropology.cfm, accessed September 20, 2012.
ods and our findings. Lamphere notes that anthropology has Boas, Franz
always been a “big tent” discipline and should continue as 1887 The Study of Geography. Science 9:137–141. (Reprinted
one. And Peacock argues that anthropology’s success and in Stocking 1995:9–16.)
influence is directly related to the degree to which we re- Boyer, Pascal
tain the historic breadth of the discipline. I agree with these 2003 Science, Erudition and Relevant Connections. Journal of
points—tolerance of multiple perspectives makes sense for Cognition and Culture 3(4):344–358.
anthropology. The practice of anthropology is as diverse as Geertz, Clifford
the subjects we study, and for obvious reasons. We are an 1973 Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Cul-
holistic discipline, and we need holistic methods to serve ture. In The Interpretation of Cultures. Pp. 3–30. New York:
our interests. With that in mind, it seems counterintuitive Basic Books.
to limit our methods to one form, or even to value one form Harris, Marvin
of method above another. Our questions are diverse, and 1979 Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture.
our methods must be diverse as well. New York: Vintage.
It was my hope that this Vital Topics Forum would Stocking, George, ed.
come up with a definition of science in anthropology. That has 1995 Volkgeist as Method and Ethic: Essays on Boasian Ethnog-
not happened, but perhaps the forum has produced a more raphy and the German Anthropological Tradition. Madison:
useful result: an affirmation that anthropology is a discipline University of Wisconsin Press.
that embraces multiple perspectives, multiple methods, and White, Leslie
multiple ways of understanding humans and human behav- 1949 The Science of Culture. New York: Farrar, Strauss.
ior. Anthropology cannot succeed without tolerance for this Wolf, Eric
diversity of approaches. Perhaps our task, then, is not to 1964 Anthropology. New York: W. W. Norton.