Abstract
Seventeen years after Derek Freeman launched his bid to reform anthropology by refuting the ostensible key text of Boasian anthropology, the situation remains at stalemate, with Freeman claiming “ungainsayable” evidence for “closure,” whereas his critics claim that his own refutation has been refuted. But no group of anthropologists espouses Freeman's “interactionist” paradigm, and no studies in anthropological method written since the commencement of the controversy recognize it as a significant contribution to the field. I argue that the Freeman reform of anthropology has no progeny because its basic game plan is not in alignment with the anthropological problem-set that he would reform. Several key examples of misalignment are discussed, including the hoaxing hypothesis.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
