Anthropology News • January 2006 IN FOCUS

ANTHROPOLOGY ON A GLOBAL SCALE

In light of the AAA's objective to develop its international relations and collaborations, AN invited international anthropologists to
engage with questions about the practice of anthropology today, particularly issues of anthropology and its relationships to globaliza-
IN FOCUS tion and postcolonialism, and what this might mean for the future of anthropology and future collaborations between anthropologists
and others around the world. Please send your responses in 400 words or less to Stacy Lathrop at slathrop@aaanet.org.
One former US colleague pointed out
American Cultural Anthropology that Boas’s four-field approach is
today presented at the undergradu-
and British Social Anthropology ate level in some departments in the
US as the feature that distinguishes
that the all-embracing nature of the social anthropology from sociology,
Connections and Four-Field Approach
highlighting the fact that, as a
Differences Most of our colleagues’ comments AAA, as opposed to the separate cre-
ation of the Royal Anthropological German colleague noted, British
began by highlighting the strength
Institute (in 1907) and the Associa- anthropologists seem more secure
of the “four-field” approach in the
ROBERT LAYTON AND ADAM R KAUL about an affinity with sociology.
US. One argued that this approach is tion of Social Anthropologists (in
U DURHAM Clearly British anthropology traces
in fact on the decline following the 1946) in Britain, contributes to a
its lineage to the sociological found-
deeper impact that postmodernism higher national profile of anthropol-

A
consistent self-critique ing fathers—Durkheim, Weber and
has had in the US relative to the UK. ogists as professionals in US.
amongst anthropolo- Mauss—thereby placing primary
Another responded that this split has Also, because of the vetting sys-
gists is that we have emphasis on social structure in
only occurred in some departments tem involved in recruitment in the
largely failed as a collec- anthropological analyses; whereas in
while other departments firmly stick ASA, and because the ASA is partic-
tive discipline to engage fully in pub- the US there is a stronger sense of the
to the four-field approach. ularly designed for social anthro-
lic debate and policymaking in the influence of the American greats
Historically, combining sociocul- pologists, it has remained very
same way that other social scientists within anthropology itself—Boas,
tural anthropology with the other small in size (in the 100s) compared
have done. As global communica- Mead, Kroeber, Lowie, Geertz.
“subdisciplines” of linguistics, to the AAA (in excess of 10,000).
tion technolo- It is perhaps appropriate then to
archaeology and biological anthro- This exclusive focus on social
gies improve ex- continue to label our sister anthropo-
pology never really took off in anthropology is dramatically illus- logical clans “social” versus “cultural”
ponentially and Britain in the same way that it did in trated in David Mills’ report that
the possibility of anthropology, although this differ-
the US. In Britain, archaeology was Louis Leakey was invited by E E ence should be painted more in
inserting an an- always more closely associated with Evans-Pritchard to attend the meet-
thropological shades of grey than in blacks and
classics or art history departments. ing where the ASA was formed, but whites. If we are related clans, then in
perspective into Linguistics is more often than not a he was not invited to join! the US, anthropologists have a habit
public debates subdiscipline of English literature of creating fictive academic kinship
increases, this departments in the UK. Biological
Robert Layton C O M M E N TA RY charts that stretch back to Boas. By
self-critique anthropology had the closest affilia- contrast, UK social anthropologists
comes more and more to the fore. tion with social anthropology in
Likewise, in the early 20th century, tend to name their anthropological
But can anthropologists from differ- Britain in the 19th century, but
the institutionalization of anthropol- intellectual ancestors in a line back to
ent national and regional “tradi- when the discipline became institu-
ogy in academia was rapid in the US, Malinowski or Evans-Pritchard. None-
tions” communicate and collabo- tionalized in academia, this connec-
while in Britain there are still only a theless, since there has been a great
rate enough to create the unified tion was all but abandoned. Only a
relative handful of departments. On deal of communication between
disciplinary “voice” that would al- handful of British anthropology anthropologists on either side of the
low for effective the one hand, the result is an inti-
departments such as University Atlantic for the last 100 years the the-
engagement? mate feel to the social community of
College London, the University of oretical differences that result, while
One of the Durham, Oxford Brookes University anthropologists in Britain. On the
evident, are very subtle indeed.
first barriers that (and to some extent Cambridge) other, it is well recognized that the
Nevertheless, these subtle differ-
must be over- AAA has done far more during the
bridge this gap today. ences are powerful. For national and
come in order to last century to professionalize and
Thus, what is often couched as regional anthropologists and their
better situate promote the discipline in the US, in
one of the key distinguishing fea- professional organizations to under-
ourselves in the and out of academia, than British
tures of anthropology in the US— stand one another, much less create
forefront of pub- associations have done in the UK.
the broad four-field study of human- an international collaborative an-
Adam R Kaul lic debate is to Some contributors to our discussion,
ity—is certainly not a universal fea- thropological voice in public debates,
educate each however, argued that the sheer size of
ture of the discipline worldwide. In these different histories must be rec-
other about the connections and the discipline in the US tends to
differences between our traditions. the US, the influence of Boas and his ognized. This certainly does not
students cannot be understated encourage professionals to identify mean that we need to abandon our
Here, as a first step, albeit a small
when discussing the American four- more strongly with a subfield such as unique traditions and perspectives,
one, we briefly highlight the major
field approach. With its focus on ecological or cognitive anthropology but if we don’t recognize the barriers
differences and connections be-
tween American “cultural” anthro- Native American and “primitive” than is the case in the UK where the- to fostering communication within a
pology and British “social” anthro- cultures, this combination of subdis- oretical and topical eclecticism is globalized anthropology, how can
pology. The differences between ciplines made sense in the early days more acceptable. we expect to contribute a voice to a
these two traditions was the subject of American anthropology. globalized world? A■N
of a recent round of emails in our Theoretical Orientations
Professionalization There is also a subtly different theo- Robert Layton is the head of the depart-
department, which is made up of a
ment of anthropology at the University of
significant number of American as The professionalization of the disci- retical orientation resulting from the
Durham. Adam R Kaul, who lectured
well as British and continental pline also historically differed in the different intellectual heritages of there in 2004–05, is now assistant professor
European anthropologists. US and the UK. One colleague stated anthropology in the US and Britain. at Medaille College in Buffalo, New York.

14