Between universalism and particularism: Historiographical concerns in the history of anthropology

Abstract

Since the late 1960s, George W. Stocking, Jr., professor emeritus of anthropology at The University of Chicago, has-with only occasional lapses--pursued a strictly internalist methodological approach to the historical investigat ion of the European and European-American behavioral sciences (Lewis, 1992, pp. 110-113). Stocking's books, editions, and articles have withstood both the initial criticisms and the tests of time. Indeed, the longevity and durability of his contributions are testaments to the acuity of his keen mind (Stocking, 1968, 1992, 1993). Typical of Stocking's influence on the methodological orientation of scholars of the history of science is Professor Nancy L. Stepan's defense of the formers' internalist position in her book, Idea of Race in Science: Great Britain, 1800-1960. At that time, Stepan made the case--in an even stronger and more precise fashion than Stocking h imse l f fwhen she wrote (1982), "Social and political factors...did not determine directly the specific form scientific arguments took about race." Furthermore, scientific arguments, Stepan added, "were instead derived from procedures and the content of the sciences themselves" (p. xv). Unwittingly, however, as the great historian of race, George M. Anthropology has not exhibited the degree of continuity on the issue of black Westerners" presence in the discipline--for it certainly has skeletons in the closet in reference to this issue--that one might presume by focusing solely on Boas's pioneering yet futile efforts in diversifying the racial composition of his students. Nevertheless, some of anthropology's leading practitioners (both black and white) are making a concerted push to reinvigorate Boas's early mission.