Uncommon Ground: Holism and the Future of Anthropology

Abstract

Anthropology has long been a contested field with roots in both scientific and humanistic discourse. The “four-field” approach in American anthropology has been used by some as a means of suppressing conflict and enforcing a false sense of unity. While critiques of the four-field approach are warranted, in fact holism represents anthropology's greatest strength. Anthropology gains a competitive advantage over other disciplines in its ability to combine biological and cultural approaches. Moreover, the four-field model, while historically contingent, is well suited to the institutional and political realities of the American academy, especially the public research university.

KEYWORDS:

• general anthropology
• holism
• subfield isolation

Notes

¹The problem with the term “prehistory” in archaeological usage is the multivalent nature of the term “history.” It is fairly uncontroversial that many of the cultures that archaeologists study had no written history (although Andean quipus and other forms of recording would seem to undermine that assumption in many parts of the New World). However, history refers as well to the res gestae, or events themselves, and more broadly to notions of historical consciousness and agency. Thus to speak of “prehistory” is, like with other examples of the trope of “pre-ness,” to ascribe a lesser humanity to those in such a state.