Do We Need a Postmodern Anthropology for Mission in a Postcolonial World?

Abstract

There was a time when mission studies benefitted from a symbiotic relationship with the social sciences. However, it appears that relationship has stagnated and now is waning. The argument is made here, in the case of cultural anthropology both in Europe and the United States, that a once mutually beneficial though sometimes strained relationship has suffered a parting of the ways in recent decades. First, the article reviews the relationships between missionaries and anthropologists before World War II when it was possible to be a 'missionary anthropologist' with a foot in both disciplines. In that period, the conversation went two ways with missionary anthropologists making important contributions to anthropology. Then, the article reviews some aspects of the development of the two disciplines after World War II when increasing professionalism in both disciplines and a postmodern turn in anthropology took the disciplines in different directions. Finally, the article asks whether or not the conversation, and thus the cross-fertilization, can be restarted, especially since the youngest generation of anthropologists has recognized the reality of local Christianities in their fields of study.

The culture problem: How the honor/shame issue got the wrong end of the anthropological stick

“…The British tradition of studying honor and shame, even though it was more developed and nuanced than its contested American equivalent, never gained much interest outside the discipline. Back in America, on the other hand, Benedict’s idea of shame and guilt cultures became popular beyond anthropology and was also picked up by missionaries (see for example Cozens, 2018: 327–328; Rynkiewich, 2011: 73). For example, while Ruth Lienhard recognizes the danger of simplification when talking about shame or guilt cultures, she defends Benedict’s main distinction as follows: “I find it helpful” (2001: 131).…”

“…Consequently, Georges, as well as other proponents of the honor/shame issue, “have proceeded as if there were shame cultures and guilt cultures, as if they knew the meaning of these terms, and as if a whole society could be one or the other” (Rynkiewich, 2011: 74). They study culture by starting with the self, thus taking an etic approach from the perspective of an “objective” outside observer (Barnard, 2000: 114; Pike, 1967).…”

“…How did the honor/shame issue get the wrong end of the stick? During the 1950s and 1960s missionary anthropologists brought the then current Boasian cultural anthropology together with missions theology, which resulted in the subdiscipline of American missiology (for example, Nida, 1963 (1954); Pike, 1967; see also, Priest, 2015; Rynkiewich, 2011: 5–10). Up to around the 1980s, missiologists continued to draw regularly on anthropology, but more selectively.…”

“…Michael Rynkiewich explains further: “Anthropology changed in the 1980s and 1990s, but missiology did not get the news. Anthropology gained some new insights, but missiology seemed satisfied with what it had already learned” (2011: 8). Much of missiology never even considered the postmodern critique, and thus neither learned from it nor moved beyond it, as anthropology eventually did.…”

“…This needs to be accounted for in mission. Raising awareness of such crucial matters has been the main contribution and strength of proponents of the honor/shame issue so far (see, for example, Georges, 2010; 2014: 35–46; Malina, 2001: 27–57; Rynkiewich, 2011: 76; Wu, 2016).…”