Search

In the United States, the discipline of English literature and language has cohered around modeling domestic policy, while anthropology has cohered around modeling foreign policy. This is illustrated by way of anthropology's relation to the conceptual apparatus created in United States Indian policy as part of a global strategy in mapping foreignness. The author suggests an alternative outline for a history and calls for an expanded and self-conscious (re)vision of anthropology's role in constituting international order.

Growing concerns about anthropology's impact in both academia and the broader social arena have led to calls for more “public” and more relevant anthropology. In this article, we expand on these exhortations, by calling for systematic joining of critical social theory with application and pragmatic engagement with contemporary problems. We argue for the repositioning of applied anthropology as a vital component of the broader discipline and suggest that it should serve as a framework for constructing a more engaged anthropology. In revisiting disciplinary history and critiques of applied anthropology, we demonstrate the central role that application has played throughout anthropology's evolution, address common misconceptions that serve as barriers to disciplinary integration, examine the role of advocacy in relation to greater engagement as well as the relationship of theory to practice, and conclude with an assessment of the diverse work that is subsumed under the inclusive rubric of “anthropology in use.”

In the 1960s, U.S. physical anthropology underwent a period of introspection that marked a change from the old physical anthropology that was largely race based to the new physical anthropology, espoused by Washburn and others for over a decade, which incorporated the evolutionary biology of the modern synthesis. What actually changed? What elements of the race concept have been rejected, and what elements have persisted, influencing physical anthropology today? In this article, I examine both the scientific and social influences on physical anthropology that caused changes in the race concept, in particular the influence of the American Anthropological Association. The race concept is complicated but entails three attributes: essentialism, cladistic thinking, and biological determinism. These attributes have not all been discarded; while biological determinism and its social implications have been questioned since the inception of the field, essentialism and the concomitant rendering of populations as clades persists as a legacy of the race concept. [Keywords: race, essentialism, physical anthropology]

American anthropologists have repeatedly addressed questions about the nature of anthropology as a science and the relationship of anthropology to society. Complex interactions between anthropology and political events in American life have challenged definitions of science, including anthropologists as citizens, scientists, and professionals and the roles they appropriately play. A series of exchanges and events between the 1930s and 1970 are examined in order to shed light on some of the recurrent dilemmas of definition and practice in anthropology as anthropologists have grappled with them in different times and in relation to different contexts. [Keywords: U.S. anthropology, U.S. history, science]

Ward H. Goodenough's optimistic summary of anthropological knowledge during the 20th century leaves missing links around the inevitable political and processual nature of the discipline. Conflict within the discipline and response to public events also are part of the story. Effects of the Cold War highlight the relations of knowledge and power in anthropological practice. Common humanity remains the focal point of anthropology. [Keywords: U.S. anthropology, 20th century, complexity, world events, reflexivity]

This article reviews the growth of knowledge in the four fields of anthropology. It is not an intellectual history but, rather, focuses on what I consider to have been the important developments in substantive knowledge. [Keywords: U.S. anthropology, four fields, 20th century, substantive knowledge]

Older ecologies have been remiss in the narrowness of their spatial and temporal horizons, their functionalist assumptions, and their apolitical character. Suspending functionalist assumptions and an emphasis upon (homeo)stasis, “the new ecological anthropology” is located at the intersection of global, national, regional, and local systems, studying the outcome of the interaction of multiple levels and multiple factors. It blends theoretical and empirical research with applied, policy-directed, and critical work in what Rappaport called an “engaged” anthropology; and it is otherwise attuned to the political aspects and implications of ecological processes. Carefully laying out a critique of previous ecologies by way of announcing newer approaches, the article insists on the need to recognize the importance of culture mediations in ecological processes rather than treating culture as epiphenomenal and as a mere adaptive tool. It closes with a discussion of the methodologies appropriate to the new ecological anthropology. [“the new ecology,” political ecology, applied or engaged anthropology, linkages methodology]

An “external,” nomothetic perspective that has been formulated by some historians of science (e.g., Kuhn 1968) is used to examine the history of anthropology in the United States. Regularities that characterize the growth of the physical sciences and the production and use of literature associated with them are shown to be characteristic of anthropology as well. Implications for the way anthropology will be done in the future are discussed. [anthropology, future of, growth of, history of]