Cookie policy: This site uses cookies to simplify and improve your usage and experience of this website. Cookies are small text files stored on the device you are using to access this website. For more information on how we use and manage cookies please take a look at our privacy and cookie policies. Your privacy is important to us and our policy is to neither share nor sell your personal information to any external organisation or party; nor to use behavioural analysis for advertising to you.

The great divide

The discipline of anthropology has split firmly into two factions - social anthropologists and evolutionary anthropologists. Hannah Fearn asks whether or not the warring sides can be reconciled

Renowned anthropologist Eric Wolf once described his discipline as "the most scientific of the humanities and the most humanistic of the sciences".

Perhaps he was attempting to capture the uniqueness of a subject that can talk to both academic camps but, by the time he died in 1999, his words articulated the growing split within the discipline.

Today, anthropology is at war with itself. The discipline has divided into two schools of thought - the social anthropologists and the evolutionary anthropologists. The schism between the two is simple but deeply ingrained. Academics in the subject clearly align themselves with one side or the other; once that choice is made it defines their career.

The division lies in the question of whether or not anthropology is a science, and if it accepts that Darwinian evolutionary theory guides research into human behaviour and the development of societies.

On one side are the evolutionary anthropologists. "(They believe) our behaviour is based on things that we did to find mates in our years of evolution," says Alex Bentley, a lecturer in anthropology at Durham University. "Then we have the social anthropologists. Some of them really strongly reject this kind of thinking. They consider it reductionist. They are focused on the specifics of culture."

Put crudely, social anthropologists describe and compare the development of human cultures and societies, while evolutionary anthropologists seek to explain it by reference to our biological evolution. The two sides of the one discipline are struggling to unite.

"They just do not see eye to eye. They don't see anything the same way," says Bentley. "It can be very difficult. In some departments they hardly speak. Professionally there is almost no overlap. One is more descriptive and the other is more analytical. It's a very clear dividing line in many departments. It often causes a lot of acrimony."

This division dates back to the 1970s, when eminent American anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon (now retired emeritus professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara) presented his work on the Yanomami tribes of Venezuela in the context of evolutionary biology.

At first, evolutionary anthropologists were considered the mavericks of the discipline and regarded with both amusement and disdain. But the popularity of the subdiscipline has grown over the decades, and universities now face a challenge in keeping their anthropology departments operating civilly. The divisions within the subject are even guiding the hiring process, with many recruiters ensuring a balance of interests when hiring new staff.

"(Departments) might say: 'We'll have a social anthropologist this time but next time we can have a biological anthropologist.' It's that much out in the open," continues Bentley. Even undergraduates are forced to select one route of study or another from the outset. The effect on the subject is obvious: "While the two sides aren't communicating (the discipline) is not working as efficiently as it could," Bentley concludes.

Although the debate may be hosted within academe, there is nothing considered about the war of words exchanged between the two camps. Today's anthropologists are certainly not afraid of a bit of mud-slinging.

"A lot of anthropologists are interpretivists; they are interpreting what they see. They're not working within the framework of the scientific method," says Ruth Mace, professor of evolutionary anthropology at University College London. "That's all well and good, but why should we be more interested in one person's interpretation over someone else's interpretation unless we have got some commonly accepted grounds for testing competing hypotheses?"

For Mace, the debate over whether to work within the "scientific method" is holding anthropology back. "If you're interested in making formal hypotheses about why people do what they do, we have to test those hypotheses," she says. "I'm a scientist - that's what I do. I think that evolutionary theory provides a very real framework for trying to understand that. If a discipline isn't saying anything that is of interest to any other discipline then that is a problem. The scientific method is a common currency across all scientific disciplines, most of the social sciences included. In that way, disciplines can speak to each other."

Mace believes that cultural anthropology is still very dominant, and that trying to work as an evolutionary anthropologist is difficult within a British university. "It's unfortunate that the discipline's divided," she says. "It's difficult to do science in a non-science department."

But Tim Ingold, chair of social anthropology at the University of Aberdeen, finds this view hard to accept. He says it is the biological anthropologists' refusal to compromise that is at the root of the split.

"They seem to be stuck on a very rigid form of argument, and it's one which they're not prepared to question. They already assume they have the correct answer. It's extremely frustrating. They're not prepared to accept any kind of criticism from people on the social side," Ingold says. "From where I sit, the biggest obstacle to satisfactory integration in this way is this dogmatic adherence to a fairly orthodox neo-Darwinian paradigm.

"I have always seen anthropology as something that bridges the divide between science and the humanities, but the terms on which most biological anthropologists insist that (the two sides) should be brought together are completely wrong and unhelpful."

Indeed, Ingold is concerned about the rise of evolutionary anthropology in US academe. "Everybody looking across the pond would say that the way in which things have gone there has been unhelpful to the discipline."

When Ingold established the department of anthropology, he recruited a team of social anthropologists. Despite this, he deliberately chose not to call it the "department of social anthropology" as he did not want to be divisive.

He says anthropology is now locked in a stalemate for which he blames the lack of movement on the part of the evolutionary anthropologists. "They're just not prepared to compromise," Ingold says. "I believe anthropology should be a science but there are many ways of doing science."

How can the discipline expect to unite if neither side is prepared to talk to the other and to compromise? Despite the clear division, many anthropologists remain hopeful. They believe a common ground can be found, and are working to bring both camps together.

Harvey Whitehouse, professor of anthropology at the University of Oxford, is one of them. He aims to show how the two sides of anthropology can work in tandem, and tells social anthropologists that they must accept that biological differences have an impact on the development of society if academic research in anthropology is to progress.

"Over the course of the 20th century, anthropology became 'mindblind', but more generally the discipline developed a kind of biological myopia. The future of anthropology lies in the development of much sharper vision in these areas," wrote Whitehouse in an insert for Joy Hendry's An Introduction to Cultural and Social Anthropology: Sharing Our Worlds. "Just as feminist scholarship has begun seriously to grapple with and contribute to the discoveries of evolutionary sciences and experimental psychology, so too must anthropology ... In my own area of specialist interest, the anthropology of religion, there can be little doubt that natural features of cognition contribute to the content and salience of beliefs in the afterlife."

In fact, the recent book Religion, Anthropology and Cognitive Science, co-authored by Whitehouse, shows just how easily ethnography, history and cognitive science can be integrated in an anthropological study of religion.

"Children, it now seems, cannot be raised to believe just anything; nor can adults be converted to any type of ideological system," Whitehouse wrote.

"Religions must exploit certain fundamental universal human intuitive biases and predilections if they are to get a foothold. The cognitivist project has certainly been valuable in explaining why many features of religious thinking and behaviour are much the same everywhere."

The Royal Anthropological Institute is at the vanguard of a new unity within the discipline. Hilary Callan, the institute's director, says the charity exists to represent the interests of all anthropologists. As such it has inevitably faced its critics.

"The discipline has suffered from the progressive divergence between the sub-disciplines. There has been a tendency for the biological end to be associated with the political right and the sociocultural with the political left. I would not support that polarisation. I think it's a false one," she explains.

"We are positioned as an institution that's representative of all of the subdisciplines. There have been debates about whether there has been over-representation of the interests of social anthropology at the expense of biological and evolutionary anthropology."

But Callan is optimistic, and such criticisms have not deterred the institute from its aim of getting biological and social anthropologists talking to each other. The institute is hosting lectures with a focus on all disciplines bringing the two forks together - psychology and behaviour; nature and culture; Darwinism and religion.

It is also publishing new texts looking at the oldest questions of anthropology, such as kinship, with the newest cross-disciplinary theories. Callan calls this progress the "green shoots of new growth".

"If there has been a problem it has been a problem of separateness, but that separateness has not been complete and without exception. The issue of reaching across boundaries is not just a question of bringing together biological and social anthropology," she says.

New research subjects, such as medical anthropology and the anthropology of tourism, are examples of this reaching out. At Durham University, Robert Barton, head of the anthropology department, has deliberately recruited a team of academics who will work to bring the two elements of the one discipline closer together. He cannot understand why the two subdisciplines have been kept separate for so long, and believes that the division has led anthropology to lose its way academically.

"There was a kind of confusion about what the aims (of anthropology) were," Barton says. "We're interested in the same kind of phenomena. Sometimes we're working in parallel but not really talking to one another about what methods of study we're using and how these might contribute to each other's interests."

Barton's employment strategy has been aimed at bringing in academics specifically interested in exploring the areas of interaction between social and biological anthropology, whether they are from a scientific or humanities background.

"What I am interested in doing here is bringing together those people who really do have something to say to each other," Barton explains. "There was a real barrier to that happening in terms of lack of understanding. In particular I think many social anthropologists misunderstood evolutionary biology. They caricatured it. One of my missions has been to break down those misperceptions that everything we're doing implies genetic determinism."

Barton's researchers are working on overlaps between the disciplines, and are focused on research that will reveal new truths about the human condition. An example of such work includes an analysis into whether the evolution of a pastoral way of life in certain parts of the world is linked to the biological capacity to digest milk. "That's the kind of process that people are interested in," he says.

Barton believes that his work to unite anthropologists also creates an opportunity to engage academics outside the discipline in a way that has been impossible until now because of persistent infighting.

"I'm very optimistic. We're going to see real collaboration going on across the social divide," he adds. "I'm totally convinced that it's essential they come together. I don't think there's any future for an anthropology that doesn't combine the different approaches and perspectives."

However, even here among those working to get the anthropology factions talking again, opinions are divided. At the Royal Anthropological Institute, Callan says that although evolutionary and social anthropologists can certainly work together profitably, they will never be united.

"What I think will happen, and what I hope will happen over the coming period, is that the specialisation and the proliferation of really excellent research within the subfields will continue," says Callan. "But there will be a growing core of common interest looking at the themes from different perspectives, and raising new questions and new kinds of answers to them.

"There will always be many anthropologies. The discipline won't speak with one voice or look in one direction."

Readers' comments (40)

  • "The Great Divide" by Hannah Fearn does not take into account the historical background of the theoretical schism in anthropology since its inception. Boas, a cultural relativist and physical anthropologist, was keenly interested in collecting and analyzing quantitative data of the whole spectrum of society. Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown, functionalist-structuralists and social anthropologists, were more concerned about interpretations of components within a society (e.g., kinship, caste, class, mode of production and reproduction).

    Hence, cultural anthropology became more closely associated with physical and biological anthropology, and social anthropology became aligned with sociology and structuralisms. In time, it could be argued that cognitive sciences became a bridge between the two, particularly as applied by ethnoscience.

    As I recall, when I was a graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, in the early 1980s, we had two very well defined moities (cf. Apinaye: A World Divided for All): (1) The social anthropologists and structuralists (William Shack, Elizabeth Colson, Gerald Berreman, Jack Potter, Laura Nader, and Paul Rabinow), who were housed on the second and third floors of Kroeber Hall; and (2) The cultural anthropologists and cognitivists (Brent Berlin, Paul Kay, William Geoghegan, and Eugene Hammel), who were housed at the Quantitative Anthropology Laboratory (QAL) in a quite separate location. It was quite laborious for QAL folks to walk a couple of blocks to ger their mail at Kroeber. Geographic separation was critical in maintaining theoretical domains.

    It was de rigeur for graduate students to join either the quantitative or the qualitative side early on, and this expressed alignment had to be upheld throughout their course of studies at Berkeley. These alignments determined things like research connections in the US and overseas, approval of field-statements, composition of dissertation committees, the degree itself, and whether or not the earned degree would be worth anything at all in terms of employment and publications. But this is a very long story and worthy of being told at length in book form with full documentation.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • War between social and evolutionary anthropologies is new wine in old bottle long long ago. nature versus nurture war was famous in social science. This old controversy and scientists enjoy this kind game playing. Truth is always based between two.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This reminds me of the situation in psychology at the moment between clinical practitioners and researchers.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I recommend the following essay on this issue. The argument is that the current debate is a replay of an old theological debate as to whether we are one (biology) or many (culture), and Shore gives the history of the argument. Briefly, his own thesis is that culture is our way of being biological.

    Human Diversity and Human Nature:
    The Life and Times of a False Dichotomy

    Bradd Shore
    Anthropology Department
    Emory University
    Atlanta, Georgia

    For inclusion in Being Human, Neil Roughley (ed.)
    -------------------------------------------------
    Here is one passage:

    ?Conventional wisdom within anthropology sees modern anthropology as an enlightenment reaction against traditional Christian views of the origin and nature of humanity. But there is an important sense in which the view of human nature that sees human variability as accidental rather than essential to human nature is an unexpected common ground for theological and scientific speculation. A deeply entrenched set of cultural and religious presuppositions linking human nature with universal rather than with variable aspects of humanity has had a significant impact on how modern scientists (including many anthropologists) have viewed being human.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Here's an example of the silliness of Darwinian Anthopology:

    THE modern gentleman may prefer blondes. But new research has found that it was cavemen who were the first to be lured by flaxen locks.
    According to the study, north European women evolved blonde hair and blue eyes at the end of the Ice Age to make them stand out from their rivals at a time of fierce competition for scarce males.
    The study argues that blond hair originated in the region because of food shortages 10,000-11,000 years ago. Until then, humans had the dark brown hair and dark eyes that still dominate in the rest of the world. Almost the only sustenance in northern Europe came from roaming herds of mammoths, reindeer, bison and horses. Finding them required long, arduous hunting trips in which numerous males died, leading to a high ratio of surviving women to men.
    And, as if that were not enough of a hoot, how about this:

    Some scientists believe that the fusing of lips evolved because it facilitates mate selection. “Kissing,” said evolutionary psychologist Gordon G. Gallup of the University at Albany, State University of New York, last September in an interview with the BBC, “involves a very complicated exchange of information—olfactory information, tactile information and postural types of adjustments that may tap into underlying evolved and unconscious mechanisms that enable people to make determinations … about the degree to which they are genetically incompatible.” Kissing may even reveal the extent to which a partner is willing to commit to raising children, a central issue in long-term relationships and crucial to the survival of our species.

    I rest my case--made for me by these turkeys.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If anyone is looking for an undergraduate degree that combines both aspects I would highly recommend the Human Sciences degree at Oxford University.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anthropology a science? Are those tied to Humanities disciplines so self-conscious that they need this label? Without being a science, disciplines such as history and anthropology still have much to offer to human knowledge.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The conflict between biological/evolutionary anthropology and social/cultural anthropology has erupted in especially acute ways in several American universities; at Stanford, for example, the department divided into two separate units several years ago, though the two departments were recently joined again, somewhat unhappily as I understand it.

    An important context for this conflict is the competition for scarce resources within single departments of anthropology, where simple differences in research interests are pushed into ideological warfare over hiring priorities, etc. Biology and English Lit faculty co-exist comfortably in separate departments with separate budgets, happily acknowledging the validity of each other’s work, but if they were to find themselves in the same department tough choices about the focus of the program’s training and research agendas, the next hire, or the public reputation of that hypothetical department would be have to be made.

    My evolutionary anthropology colleagues do interesting work, but I prefer to work on social and cultural anthropological issues that I see as fundamentally different in kind, not better or worse: I may be interested in the ways in which “love” works as an organizing trope in a body of literature, while my evolutionary colleagues study how “love” increases evolutionary fitness in reproducing communities, and with adequate resources we can both be happy. Sadly, those resources are rarely available.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Re: 'Darwinian anthropology'

    'X' organism evolved 'Y' trait in order to.... is quite plainly wrong! Clearly, whenever any trait is said to have evolved it should be 'because' the environment exerted some selection pressure upon it, not 'in order to' achieve some end.

    Richard Burnett Carter doesn't name the source of the ludicrous example cited, but it sounds very obviously journalistic, not academic.

    "Some scientists believe that the fusing of lips evolved because it facilitates mate selection". Well, that's interesting, but so what? It sounds as if evolutionary psychology is a field ripe for new and fascinating areas of evidence-based speculation that defy empirical investigation.

    I'll stick to social anthropology, thanks. It involves the imagination in quite a different way, it encourages critical reflection on the matter of epistemology instead of uncritically using science as legitimation for mere stories, and it's honest about the knowledge status of its claims.

    I wasn't aware that any silly feud was still going on between physical and social anthropologists, but it seems there is. It seems absurd that there should be when the two disciplines are dealing with an entirely different subject matter, like astronomers and astrologers. Of course, neither discipline would wish to be thought of as the latter! Maybe it's whichever one makes the more dubious scientific claims..?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As an anthropology student in California in the early 1990s, I was unaware of this debate, though vaguely aware of some perceived differences between social and cultural anthropology in the UK and the US.

    That I found this article via a link on fark.com is far more telling of the current state of affairs in anthropology, and of them what navel-gaze on what it was, is or should be.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10per page | 20per page | 50per page

  • Print
  • Share
  • Save
  • Print
  • Share
  • Save
Jobs