In what sense can anthropology be considered a science? The concept of a scientific paradigm can be useful in understanding the various approaches that have been current in 20th century anthropology. The discipline first took form during the 19th century, initially emerging within the context of a general 'natural history paradigm', then developing more rigorously under the influence of a 'geological paradigm'.
Kuhn, The structure of scientific revolutions.
Stocking, Chaps. 1 & 2, pp. 1-41
Weissmann, Gerald & Andrew Weissman. 1987. The Text in Context, pp. 191-199 in They All Laughed at Christopher Columbus. New York: Times Books (CFAL - on reserve)
Kaplan, David & Robert Manners. 1972. Culture theory. Foundations of
Modern Anthropology ser. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Chaps. 1 & w (pp. 1-87) (CFAL GN315 K3 - on reserve)
also of interest:
Degerando, Joseph-Marie. 1969. The Observation of Savage Peoples.
Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California Press (trans. from the French Considerations sur les methodes a suivre dans l'observation des Peuples Sauvages. 1800). (Schwerin)
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. How does Kuhn define the concept of paradigm? Is it the same as "world view?" How does he distinguish between a paradigm and a 'community' of scientists that use the paradigm? Or does he really not distinguish between the two?
2. In what way does the discussion by Weissman and Weissman
suggest that "you find what you are looking for?" How does this relate to
the concept of paradigm? How might a shift in paradigm affect the questions asked
and
the results obtained by an investigator?
3. What is "normal science?" What are some examples of the way in which "normal science" works? What kinds of problems have been those of "routine puzzle-solving" in different historical periods? Are there some routine puzzles that cultural anthropologists might "solve" using a particular paradigm?
4. What factors are important in what Kuhn calls a "scientific revolution?" Are individuals, or groups of individuals, the major factors in bringing about a revolution - or are there larger forces at work?
5. Kuhn suggests that in natural science there has usually been one paradigm at a particular hisitorical period, while in the social sciences there is much controversy over how to study legitimate problems (i.e. that there are multiple paradigms). Given what you know about anthropology or other social sciences, would you agree (that there are often several different paradigms in a particular period)? If so, does this call into question the utility of applying Kuhn's model to the social sciences?
6. What are the differences between the ways in which Stocking
treats the history of science and the way in which Kuhn does? Were the
anthropologists in France in the 1800s using a paradigm? Were they doing normal
science? Was there a "scientific revolution" going on in this period? (In
other words, are Kuhn's concepts useful in looking at the development
of anthropology in this period?)
Once you are finished here, please feel free to return to the Anthropology 546 syllabus, the UNM Homepage, or the UNM Fall 1998 course listing.