Towards integrative anthropology again and again: disorderly becomings of a (biological) anthropologist

Abstract

Any study of the world, including that of the human, is a move toward and into complexity not away from it. Human action and perception are as evolutionarily relevant as are human genes, bones, and muscles. As an anthropologist interested in behaviour and evolution my focus is the interface of biological histories and systems with the social and cultural lives of humans and the other animals we share close relations with. In this essay influenced by, and following from, Tim Ingold's 'From Science to Art and Back Again: The Pendulum of an anthropologist' I chart my history as a scholar via the patterns and changes in the anthropological, primatological, and evolutionary approaches that I have witnessed and have taken part in. I conclude with a call for an integrative anthropology that draws from contemporary evolutionary theory and biology along with a deep connection with the humanities and the arts.

Music: a versatile interface for explorations in art & science

“…I was very pleased to find considerable resonance of my own findings in aspects of the contributions by various ISR authors (McLeish 2019, Montagu 2017, Lonxi 2010, Fuentes 2018, to name a few)and also from some of the references (such as Gibson 1966, whose work seems so familiar that I must have absorbed it effortlessly from its influence on music psychology). However, I also encountered numerous comments and observations within the journal which reminded me that for many researchers, music is still thought of as being exclusively a carrier of emotional expression, and a way to unwind at the end of the day.…”

Developing evolutionary anthropology in local ecosystems

“…For example, Cartmill 2 ,p.188 ), in discussing this issue, states “It is noteworthy, for instance, that not one of all the physical anthropologists who has studied and theorized about the mystery of human bipedalism and its origins has ever undertaken a systematic comparison of human beings with large flightless birds.” Evolutionary anthropology's cynosure with humans and nonhuman primates is compounded by the recognition that the four subfields that traditionally represent American anthropology have been increasingly disassociated 4 . Despite repeated calls for unification and cross‐pollination, 5,6 including the development of integrative anthropology research programs that bring multiple subdisciplines and fields together 7‐9 there is much to be done. Our contention, like many others, is that we have much to gain from stepping outside of the order primates, and many evolutionary anthropology studies have done so 10‐14 .…”

“…Evolutionary anthropology's cynosure with humans and nonhuman primates is compounded by the recognition that the four subfields that traditionally represent American anthropology have been increasingly disassociated. 4 Despite repeated calls for unification and cross-pollination, 5,6 including the development of integrative anthropology research programs that bring multiple subdisciplines and fields together [7][8][9] there is much to be done. Our contention, like many others, is that we have much to gain from stepping outside of the order primates, and many evolutionary anthropology studies have done so.…”

Miért érdemes az antropológiának (mégis) odafigyelnie az evolúcióelméletre?

“…Bár Descola elvárása Kohn felé talán embertelen vállalkozásnak tűnhet, kritikájában visszatér az a motívum, hogy az antropológiának nem elég saját "nyugati" ontológiai előfeltevéseit elővigyázatosan kezelni, mindeközben másik lábával mégis a nyugati tudományos diskurzusok talaján kell állnia. Az antropológiából erre egy olyan válasz érkezett a fejlődési rendszerelmélet beemelése révén (lásd Ingold-Pálsson 2013), ami kritikus a neo-darwinista megközelítéssel szemben, és megpróbálja kikerülni a természet-kultúra, öröklés-nevelés ellentétként való megfogalmazását, felülírva azt az elképzelést, mely szerint az biológiai és szociálantropológia megközelítései ellentétesek (Fuentes 2018).…”

“…A különböző hagyományokban más-más felosztás szerint strukturálódó antropológia erőssége Fuentes szerint éppen az állandó dialektikusság és véleménykülönbség, ami lehetővé teszi, hogy egy integratív, intellektuálisan bőkezű tudomány maradjon, ami képes kezelni a komplexitást és szükségszerű bizonytalanságot (Fuentes 2018). Ehhez, ahogyan története során számtalan más tudományterületre hatást gyakorolt (nem beszélve a képzőművészetről), folyamatos termékeny csereviszonyban kell állnia akár látszólag távol eső diszciplínákkal és módszertanokkal is.…”