Ethology, ethogeny, etics, emics, biology, culture: On the limitations of dichotomies

Abstract

AbstractEthogeny, supposedly patterned on ethology, differs as an approach to human social behaviour in obvious respects. Ethogenists follow an emic research strategy, whereas human ethologists have strongly favoured etic research options. However, recent trends to a broader, evolutionary approach in human ethology suggest that an avoidance or rejection of verbal reports and ethogenic methods merits reconsideration, The distinctions involved in the eticlemic contrast are examined, and compared to Richer's distinction between D‐ and N‐type agreements. It is argued that none of the distinctions are dichotomous. The useful aspects of the distinctions refer to the generality of findings, and the validity of evidence. Bearing these in mind, ethogenic methods have a place in a broader human ethology. So far as validity is concerned, the value of a comparison of information from different sources, such as verbal and non‐verbal data, is stressed. So far as generality is concerned, ethogenists may consider this to be very limited because of idiosyncratic cultural factors in the causation of human social action. A reconsideration of the biology/culture dimension in terms of function rather than causation may lead to more optimism in this respect, and be more productive scientifically.