Authorizing Knowledge in Science and Anthropology

An analogy exists between today's defenders of science in the science/culture wars and 19th-century defenders of euclidean geometry. Current critics have appointed themselves as arbiters of truth in a manner analogous to that of 19th-century mathematicians and theologians who argued against noneuclidean geometry that challenge Euclid's mathematically, philosophically, and theologically entrenched fifth postulate. The science wars then and now are not about science versus antiscience, objectivity versus subjectivity, but about authority in science: what kind of science should be practiced, and who gets to define it?     

The Role of Anthropology in Cognitive Science

Culture in Mind: Cognition, Culture, and the Problem of Meaning. Bradd Shore. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. 428 pp.     

The Science of Humanics: Multidisciplinary Renaissance of General Anthropology

Discussions of the scope and proper definition of anthropology make it worthwhile to outline why and how anthropology can be treated as a natural (and exact) science. The paper describes its multidisciplinary components and how the deterministic properties of biological individuality and the probabilistic constraints of the cultural dimensions can be brought together. Such a synthesis enables us to treat values within a biological framework and suggests the old term "humanics" for the multidisciplinary nexus . [anthropological biology, humanics, multidisciplinary synthesis, interaction measurement, behavioral biology]     

Crosscurrents: Social Movements and the Anthropology of Science and Technology

Along with growth and acceptance of the anthropology of science and technology has come a narrowing of focus both topically and methodologically. An alternative topic of inquiry (social movements) and an alternative method (a limited return to nomothetic inquiry) offer potential for research that is relevant to both social change actors and social scientists such as sociologists and political scientists. A comparative analysis of existing anthropological research on science, technology, and social movements provides the basis for limited generalizations regarding the types and circumstances of charged cultural repertoires that both social movements and elites invoke.     

The Funding of Research in Social-Cultural Anthropology at the National Science Foundation

The National Science Foundation is the largest single source of finds for research targeted in cultural anthropology. The patterns of funding for "senior" research (post-Ph.D.) since 1956 are described and analyzed. Total dollars spent have increased, but the average grant size has decreased in recent years. The chances of getting funding are found not to be different if one is female or more senior, has resubmitted a previously declined proposal, or has a Ph.D. from an "elite" program. Smaller proposals and proposals from "elite" institutions have a slightly higher probability of getting funded. Differences in funding across research areas (geographical and substantive) are also discussed.     

Science, Reason, and Anthropology: The Principles of Rational Inquiry

Science, Reason, and Anthropology: The Principles of Rational Inquiry. James Lett. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, Inc., 1997. 151pp.     

From Margin to Center: From Medical Anthropology to Cultural Studies of Science

Writing at the Margins: Discourse between Anthropology and Medicine. Arthur Kleinman. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. 314 pp.
Sickness and Healing: An Anthropological Perspective. Robert A. Hahn New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995. 327 pp.
The Harmony of Illusions: Inventing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Allan Young. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995. 327 pp.     

Medical Anthropology as Cultural Anthropology

Book reviewed in this article:
Medicine, Rationality, and Experience: An Anthropological Perspective . Byron J. Good.
Knowledge, Power, and Practice: The Anthropology of Medicine and Everyday Life . Shirley Lindenbaum and Margaret Lock, eds.     

Keeping Biological Anthropology in Anthropology, and Anthropology in Biology

Considerable tension among the subfields has existed within the discipline of anthropology. As a result, some anthropology departments have splintered, and the hallmark "holistic approach" of anthropology has been considered more myth than reality. However, as promoted by the American Anthropological Association and the American Anthropologist for over one hundred years, enhancing the holistic nature of anthropology remains an important and necessary endeavor. This article provides an introduction to this special issue of the American Anthropologist , which focuses on the subfield of biological anthropology. Hopefully, as a result, increased connections among the subfields will be fostered, for the betterment of both biological anthropology and anthropology in general. The underlying theme of this article and the subtext for the entire special issue is clear: Biological anthropology needs anthropology, and anthropology needs biological anthropology. [Keywords: biological anthropology, subfields, four-field approach, holistic]