Postmodernist Anthropology, Subjectivity, and Science: A Modernist Critique

Abstract

Central to the postmodern project in anthropology is its critique of science and the scientific method, a critique which it shares with (because it was borrowed from) postmodernist thought more generally. However, unless otherwise specified, in what follows the terms postmodernist and postmodernism will refer to postmodernist anthropology specifically, not to postmodernism more generally. (For a superb survey of the history of postmodernist thought in general, see Harvey [1989], especially chapter 3.) The postmodernist critique of science consists of two interrelated arguments, epistemological and ideological. Both are based, however, on the central postmodern notion of subjectivity. First, because of the subjectivity of the human object, anthropology, according to the epistemological argument, cannot be a science; and in any event the subjectivity of the human subject precludes the possibility of science discovering objective truth. Second, since its much-vaunted objectivity is an illusion, science, according to the ideological argument, serves the interests of dominant social groups (males, whites, Westerners), thereby subverting those of oppressed groups (females, ethnics, third-world peoples). Since both of these arguments stem from the central emphasis that postmodernists place on subjectivity, my primary concern in this essay' is to assess the postmodernist interpretation and use of that critical concept. Hence, in what follows I shall do three things. First, I shall summarize those claims of the postmodernist view of subjectivity which, in my view, are valid. Second, I shall argue that although valid, these claims are not new, having been innovated many years ago by the founders of the Culture and Personality movement. Third, I shall argue that the postmodernist innovations have unfortunate consequences for anthropological scholarship. I A short version of this essay was presented to the Symposium on Postmodern Subjectivities at the 1993 annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association, organized by Claudia Strauss and Takie Lebra. I am indebted to David Jordan, Marc Swartz, and Donald Tuzin for their helpful criticisms of earlier drafts.

The politics of knowledge in education

“…Indeed, science is considered to be not universal human knowledge, that is, knowledge available for understanding by all people across time and place, but the socio‐cultural knowledge of the ‘West’. In this view, knowledge is always ideological and modern science is the Foucaudian ‘knowledge‐power’ used in the West's political and economic interests (Spiro, 2006). Along with the rise in the influence of constructivism, another outcome of the ‘knowledge is ideology’ approach has been the development of localised ‘knowledges’, for example ‘feminist epistemology’ (Harding, 1998), ‘red pedagogy’ (Grande, 2009), ‘southern theory’ (Connell, 2007) and ‘indigenous methodology’ (Smith, 1999).…”

Un ambiente enfermo: significados de la contaminación industrial en Isla de Maré, Bahía, Brasil

“…En su teoría sobre pureza, contaminación y peligro, la autora sostiene la noción de necesidad de controles sociales para mantener un mínimo de estabilidad y contener el desorden sociocultural provocado por la contaminación, a la que denomina "ofensa" contra las referencias ordenadas de un contexto social. Las expresiones de los moradores de la Isla de Maré son acogidas en este estudio como construcciones culturales de modelos explicativos sobre contaminación y enfermedades asociadas (Spiro, 1996;Helman, 2003).…”

Conformity and resistance as cultural process in postmodern globalizing times

“…Consequently, the human sciences cannot hope to take a seat beside the more robust sciences. In the second place, since the dream of objectivity is just that, a dream, the indelible ideological side of science exerBrought to you by | Michigan State University Authenticated Download Date | 6/8/15 10:19 PM cises its power over peoples of developing societies and marginalized groups within developed societies (Spiro 1996).…”