Anthropology, Science or Humanity?

Abstract

Rev. Robert J. Henle's article A Philosopher's Interpretation of Anthropology's Contribution to the Understanding of Man (1959: 22-40) is another instance of the fruitful interchanges taking place between cultural anthropologists and philosophers. However, it is unfortunate for two reasons that Fr. Henle limited his clarifying analysis to Redfield's one essay: one. the background literature on the issue of anthropology's relation to the natural sciences and to the humanities is crucial for an adequate understanding of Redfield's position; and, two, Fr. Henle may have inadvertently fostered a dichotomy now current among some anthropologists which philosophical analysis would dispel. In the following I wish to present a brief survey of some anthropologists' views on anthropology as a and as a and analyze the philosophical implications contained therein.' The conflict over whether anthropology is a science or a humanity is presented possibly in its boldest terms among British social anthropologists. Radcliffe-Brown insists that there is a place within the natural sciences for a study of society. Social anthropology, for him, seeks to establish generalizations by which particular social institutions can be understood (1952:3). Its methods are essentially similar to those used in the physical and biological sciences (1952:189). Firth substantially agrees with this position (1951: 19). Nadel also agrees with this position but adds a few important qualifications (1951:8). In sharp contrast to this position Evans-Pritchard contends that social anthropology is an art and a branch of the humanities. The social anthropologist seeks descriptive integration of pertinent phenomena and not universal laws, claims Evans-Pritchard (1951:6061).