The story of words is often the soul of history. From times immemorial a schism has festered, and a dichotomy has prevailed that has been indelibly etched into language. The word “heathen” evokes a negative connotation, yet the word is derived from heath and untilled land, a tiller of the land. The word “Pagan” was birthed from the Latin term paganus which means simply a villager or countryman. The Hebrew term `am ha·´a´rets original expressed the simple idea, “people of the earth,” but came to be used by the religious leaders to denote the dregs of society. These trite phrases shower light on this fracture in society between those branded civilized and those who are anything but such. The prevalence of this incubus that has haunted the attempts of mankind to understand one another has been veiled by a sheet of religion and borderline jingoism until modern times. The scars that less wealthy, or less advanced militarily, have brandished as a result of this cultural flogging, have often cicatriced the soul of the people, and caused deformations and deviations, rendering them nearly unidentifiable with their former existence. The study of these cultures or, Anthropology as it has come to be known, has in an enigmatic way, both fostered such distinction driven oppression, and attempted to resolve it. Although volumes have been penned on this topic I will consider here, in brevity, just two points: Anthropological guilt, and anthropological reconciliation.
To begin we must address the guilt of anthropology for these cultural crimes. Egotism and presumption seem to go hand in hand with learning and power, although never with wisdom. For the more heavily documented past three centuries, much of the outreaching to other cultures by men of inquiring minds has originated from the great European societies, or “western” as they have come to be known. These societies of Spain, France, England, and their offspring, have branded in their people, especially those of the academia, the premise that their nation, people, and way of life, have been and are the pinnacle of existence. This superciliousness has been coupled with wealth and power, and has been ingested as a noxious concoction, driven under canvas over the great seas, to the lands unknown, by men of good intent but cultural delusion. Like the great diseases that wiped out up to, or over eighty percent of the native inhabitants of many lands they “discovered”, the vigorous attempts to, modernize, civilize, or indoctrinate these people released a cultural miasma that served to poison many indigenous cultures. Theses early forays where marked less by true study of man as the Greek origins of the term “anthropology” imply, and more by as Richard A. Shweder intimated, “Western initiated globalization and Empire Building.” With knowledge though does come discernment, and with discernment comes repentance.
As time progressed, particularly toward the dawn of the twentieth century, it seemed that there was a maturation of the field of Anthropology. The eyes of what had previously been a nearsighted method of study begin to come into focus. This was an Anthropological reconciliation. The more empiricist or scientific methods such as those of Frank Boas’ “historical Particularism”, or Malinowski’s pioneering of the participant-observation methods where great strides in the field. The recognition of how hazy the definition of “civilized” or “advanced” truly are, when applied to a culture milieu or society, begin to dominate the study of man. Kenneth R. Good’s observations of the Yanomamis of Venezuela’s upper Orinoco region provides keen examples. Noting how this indigenous people have no formal numbering system, a fact that would have grated like a field hoe on a chalkboard in the minds of early discoverers, is in-fact an attribute of strength of culture. It was also noted insightfully by Schweder that the view of women by many Islamic cultures that disturbs many in the “West”, is in function a sign of, “dignified modesty, control, self-respect, civility.” The recognition of how important it is to have an open mind when peering into other cultures or peoples has allowed for great advancement, and will continue to do so, but it is not without its challenges.
How far is to far? How deep is too deep? What is truth? These questions are some of the latest in the idea of Anthropological ethics. In an attempt to eschew archaic methods of study or indoctrination, and work to preserve each cultures unique identity Anthropologist have to constantly adjust the lines of right and wrong, while not losing sight of the goal of discovery or impartial observation. This is a difficult struggle and sometimes a slippery slope. Researchers such as J Christopher Kovats-Bernat have noted candidly the need to be furtive or untruthful at times, not only for the preservation of the people being studied, but for their very life. Tkeyuki Tsuda spoke at length of the need to assume multiple fabricated identities for the sake of research, sometimes at the cost of his own emotional or psychological well-being. It is though, these very struggles that mark the striving toward better methods. It is this wrestling, or agonizing, that propagates discovery and advancement in fields of research. The dispelling of the notion of “primitive” or “savage”, a class set that has dominated society for millennia, is an arduous task. With Anthropologists at the leading edge of the fight advancements are being made, new standards are being set, and maybe one day the concept if epi-gnosis, or “accurate knowledge,” will be the hallmark of Anthropology.
References:
Firth, Raymond. “Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism”
Fall 1996
Behe J. Michael. Darwin’s Black Box.
New York: Simon & Schuster 1996
Peter D. Ward, Donald Brownlee. Rare Earth.
New York: Copernicus 2000
Rev. Walter W Skeat. An Etymological Dictionary of the English Language.
Clarendon Press 1888
Shweder, Richard. “On the Return of the Civilizing Project.”
Daedalus Summer 2002
Good, Kenneth R. “A Race Against Time.”
Americas
Lavenda, Robert H., Shultz, Emily. Core Concepts in Cultural Anthropology.
Phil Butcher 2007
Conklin, Beth A. Consuming Grief.
University of Texas 2004
Kovats-Bernat, Chrisotpher J. “Negotiating Dangerous Fields: Pragmatic Strategies for Fieldwork Amid Violence and Terror”
Washington: American Anthropologist March 2002
Tsuda, Takeyuki. “Ethnicity and the Anthropologist: Negotiating Identities in the Field”
Washington: Anthropological Quarterly July 1998
