#AAAFail
![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
War between anthropology-as-science and anthropology-as-literary-theory continues, news at 11.
The short version: Anthropology has long been split between people who consider themselves scientists (they are using falsifiable hypotheses and empirical data to learn facts about how people behave) and people who feel that postmodern literary theory is a better way to approach the subject in a way that is conscious of one's own cultural biases. The scientists call the literary theorists "fluff-heads" while the literary theorists call the scientists as shallow as pro wrestlers. The American Anthropological Association (generally considered to be on the anthropology-as-literary-theory side of the fence, but still playing an important role in the rest of anthropology as the host of the annual academic-job-seeking process) recently amended their mission statement in the anti-science direction. Or rather, they wrote a new "long-range plan" that differs from their previous mission statement in the important sense that it can be approved by the executive committee without an actual vote of the membership.
As some Iain M. Banks fan writes: "I thought it was pretty telling that the AAA's move was not to make the statement more inclusive or add language clarifying that nonscientific inquiry was also valued. It was just to delete science."
There's a lot of self-important posturing and other forms of wanking on all sides, on the blogs and (of course) on twitter. This post has quite a few more good links.
Disclaimer: anthropology was my worst subject in college, and I haven't paid much attention to it since. I know which side of this debate I'd stand on, but I'm woefully underinformed.
The short version: Anthropology has long been split between people who consider themselves scientists (they are using falsifiable hypotheses and empirical data to learn facts about how people behave) and people who feel that postmodern literary theory is a better way to approach the subject in a way that is conscious of one's own cultural biases. The scientists call the literary theorists "fluff-heads" while the literary theorists call the scientists as shallow as pro wrestlers. The American Anthropological Association (generally considered to be on the anthropology-as-literary-theory side of the fence, but still playing an important role in the rest of anthropology as the host of the annual academic-job-seeking process) recently amended their mission statement in the anti-science direction. Or rather, they wrote a new "long-range plan" that differs from their previous mission statement in the important sense that it can be approved by the executive committee without an actual vote of the membership.
As some Iain M. Banks fan writes: "I thought it was pretty telling that the AAA's move was not to make the statement more inclusive or add language clarifying that nonscientific inquiry was also valued. It was just to delete science."
There's a lot of self-important posturing and other forms of wanking on all sides, on the blogs and (of course) on twitter. This post has quite a few more good links.
Disclaimer: anthropology was my worst subject in college, and I haven't paid much attention to it since. I know which side of this debate I'd stand on, but I'm woefully underinformed.