♪ Music ♪
In this lecture on foundations and debates in
anthropology, Dr. Paige West presents the history
of anthropological ideas and investigations.
She first defines epistemology as a framework for
what we know and how we produce knowledge.
She highlights how European exploration of the
world led to the systematic inquiry of societies
and cultures and she notes that ideas about
cultural evolution and the progression of
social systems reflect enlightenment ideals.
She then focuses on the material and intellectual
impacts of colonialism and imperialism which
were oriented toward bringing resources and
knowledge from the world back to the Metropol.
Critiques of these approaches to understanding
cultures led to the ethnographic turn in anthropology
which studies cultures in their own context.
She ends with critiques of the concepts of culture and
cultural evolution to highlight the epistemological
differences between colonial and anti-colonial anthropology.
Today I'm going to talk a little bit about some of the
foundational ideas behind both the discipline of
anthropology, but also some of the taken for granted ideas
about culture and human behavior that anthropologists
hear other people talk about that drive us crazy.
And one of the reasons that I decided to do this
lecture when I was thinking about what I wanted to
talk to you all about, I work with natural scientists
a lot and have for a very long time and have these
conversations where I'm asked questions, sort of as
Michael was saying earlier, I'm asked questions about
the Aztecs, I'm asked questions about archaeology,
but I'm also asked questions about culture and
human social behavior that are grounded in a very
particular European history of ideas about otherness.
And so I want to just give us a kind of genealogy to
work from because it helps us understand some of
the taken for granted ideas about others that we have
as people that are kind of children of the European
Enlightenment, but also helps us to understand some
of the basis of anthropology and what the discipline
of anthropology and its many, many guises has
been pushing back against for a long time now.
So for as long as there've been written records people
have been going out to other places and interacting
with other people and these are very old, so think
about Gilgamesh, think about Herodotus, think about
these very old narratives of discovery and exchange.
European exploration begins in earnest in about the
11th century with a Christian Crusades to Africa in
the Middle East and I'll talk later on about Edward
Said and his brilliant book Orientalism and how
that refocused the discipline of anthropology and
many other disciplines and he's really beginning at
that moment, so stories about and images of other
people began to seep back into what is now Europe.
In the 13th century you have the Mongols
conquering the Holy Roman Empire in
Central and Eastern Europe and in the 13th
century you have Marco Polo spending 17
years in China in the court of Kubla Khan.
All of this brings information, what we might think
of as an early kind of data set about others back to
Europe and Europeans start trying to make sense of it.
1499 Vasco da Gama finds his way around
Africa to India sailing and in 1492 Columbus
sailed to what gets called The New World.
1513 Balboa sailed around South America
and discovered the Pacific Ocean and in
1552 Magellan circumnavigates the globe.
So for a really long time Europeans have been
going out into the rest of the world and they've
been bringing back images and stories and in
many cases captives with them to Europe.
They also as we all know took diseases all over the
world with them, so in some ways these forays by
famous men are at the heart of the history of
anthropology that I kind of want to explode for us today.
So people from and in other places have always
traveled also, but when we think about where
the anthropology that we're engaging with
comes from, we're thinking about a very
European history of movement, of travel,
of desire, and of the production of knowledge.
These forays put Europeans in contact with
different kinds of people and these different
kinds of people, these others really became the
object of anthropological study, they became the
object of anthropological discipline as it emerged.
These explorers all had lots of other kinds of people
on their ships; they had people that were missionaries,
they had people that were naturalists, they had lots of
people that were writing things, so again there's this
amassing of this huge amount of data about others.
When Europeans go out into the wide, wide world
and encounter people not like them, these people
present a bunch of challenges to Europeans, to
their understandings of the relationships between
themselves, God, and nature and the people that they
encountered and described seemed extraordinarily
different, they seemed primitive, they seemed savage
and these are the words that were used to describe
them initially and Europeans had a lot of trouble
seeing how the early Europeans had a lot of
trouble seeing how they could fit these people
into the single kind of family of God's creation.
And so this starts really early on, think
about Sir Thomas Aquinas, 13th century.
13th century he pronounces that all non-European
peoples are imperfect humans and that they're
therefore natural slaves to Europeans and this
follows from his ideas following Aristotle about
natural law, so natural law is this very early
philosophy that certain rights and values are
inherent by the virtue of human nature, that
they're universally cognizable through human reason.
People thought about this for a while this idea of
natural slaves and it seemed plausible, but then
some problems arise and they think well how could
these imperfect natural slaves have the mental and
moral capacity for free agency and conscious choice
and you have to have free agency and conscious
choice if you want to be converted to Christianity
and since part of the project was to convert to
Christianity, they have to be refigured, people
have to be figured out again, so Christian
theology would either have to change to fit
these non-Europeans in or non-Europeans
would have to be fit into Christian theology.
So fast forward to the 16th century, you
have two Spanish theologians Bartolomé
de las Casas and Jose de Acosta.
These guys, they're both living in what is now
Latin America and they're redefining the idea of
natural slaves again drawing on Aquinas and
Aristotle, they redefined the idea of natural slaves
and they say well no look, the indigenous people
of the Americas are not natural slaves, they're
actually more like natural children, they're more
like natural children and in thinking about them this
way, they were afforded the ability to be converted
to Christianity and afforded the ability to be brought
into the emerging capitalist system of the Americas.
So this redefinition follows the logic, but the natives
were like children, they were simple, they were not
fully formed and that Europeans should and would
bring them into the light of both God and capitalism
by saving them, that Europeans had a mandate to
help these folks along to a modern kind of existence,
so, but then this causes all sorts of other problems.
Europeans begin to ask well if the natives
are just like us only in this childlike state,
how could this be?
Are people historically connected?
Are these people degenerative?
Did they degenerate from a higher kind of
position to a lower kind of position?
And from the 16th through the 18th centuries,
Europeans worked out tons of schemes to show
how these people were historically related to non,
to Europeans right, so there's this kind of elaboration;
you still have all of this material that we would think
about in some ways as a dataset as empirical material
that is coming back into Europe from the 16th to
the 18th century you have the very beginnings of
anthropology in European philosophy and theology
that is trying to figure out how come these people
are different and because they're so different,
how do they fit in relation to Europeans?
So a key point here is that the kind of epistemological
genealogy that I'm drawing out for you here, others
are always defined in an opposition to what is
European and that's a really key thing, I mean,
one of the things when I talk to my students about
this, I do this lecture for the undergraduates every
year and for the journalism students every year,
think about the way that this stuff that I'm talking
about, this very old stuff crops up in representations
of indigenous people globally today.
The idea of people being child-like,
the idea of people having a mandate to
bring these folks in to the modern world.
So early on, most of these debates
are philosophers and theologians.
From the 16th to 18th century,
these schemes become more scientific.
This is also, as you all know, the
development of the modern disciplinary
sciences, the time of that development.
People begun to, began to debate monogenesis and
polygenesis, right, so there are debates about
monogenesis, which is the idea that all humans
constitute a single biological species with a common
origin and physical differences that are produced
by natural agents over time and then polygenesis,
the idea that human races constitute distinct
species with separate origins and the physical
differences are unalterable and racially innate.
Bonnie alluded to a little bit of this when
she was talking at the beginning about the
development of American Cultural Anthropology
pushing back against some of this.
At the time there's also an emerging belief in
orthogenesis, something that all of you that are
Darwinian sort of legacy scientists, have pushed
back against too in your disciplines, but orthogenesis
when it comes to human beings, so orthogenesis
is the kind of obsolete biological hypothesis that
organisms have an innate tendency to evolve in a
uni-linear fashion due to some internal mechanism
or driving force, that there is something inside
that pushes in an already defined direction.
Beginning in the mid-16th century, you have
the Scientific Revolution, so this really marks a
movement from this kind of medieval thinking
five theologians into more modern times.
So this is when we have the with Descartes we have
the idea of deduction, with Francis Bacon we have the
idea of induction, the former, kind of leading to French
rationalism, the latter leading to British empiricism.
All of this is important because it's leading up to the
Enlightenment and the Enlightenment is the period
where you really get the solidifying of these kind of
piecemeal theories about human culture and change
over time solidifying in a much more scientific way,
so the Enlightenment, as you know, is the period, the
name that's given to the period of intellectual history
in Europe from the 18th century, from about the
publication of the Principles of Mathematics, Newton's
Principles of Mathematics to the French Revolution.
So Enlightenment intellectuals were enamored
with the philosophy of Newton and they tried
to extend it from the natural to the social
realm and this is incredibly important because
of Newton's idea of mechanical philosophy.
This is the idea that the universe is a complex
machine with fine-tuned interacting parts.
The machine is always moving and it's the scientists
task to learn how it moved, so Newton still kind of
right at the beginning of the Enlightenment thinks
that it's kind of God as a clockmaker, God made
the machine and it's the scientists task to unlock
it and understand how the parts interact.
This leads to a sense that there are closed systems
that we still see today; that there're closed systems
and if we can just understand the interlocking parts,
we can pick them apart and we can understand the
closed systems; it's also as we all know an incredibly
important sort of genealogical moment in the splitting
of the disciplines; this idea that the biophysical world
can be split into multiple interlocking parts and
hydrologists can understand some, ecologists can
understand some, animal behaviorists can understand
some, anthropologists can understand some.
Another major Enlightenment figure that we need
to think about a little bit because we'll come
back tomorrow in my lecture and talk about
dispossession and sovereignty is John Locke.
John Locke's another major Enlightenment
figure, British philosopher.
He wrote an essay concerning human
understanding in 1690 and in that book or
in that essay Locke gives us the idea that the
mind of each newborn person is a blank slate.
It's a blank slate to be written upon by life and this
is him kind of reviving something from the stoic
philosophers, but it's incredibly important because
it's a kind of philosophy of experience and it's
indispensable for the emergence of the culture
concept because prior to that, there had been
debates about whether culture was passed on
biologically or whether culture was passed on
through learned experience, extra-somatically
and so with Locke we get the idea that culture
is passed to pass-through, passed from person
to person through a transmission process that
is not biological, so not through genetics.
During the Enlightenment you have lots of people
drawing on Locke and Newton to organize
and analyze the information of peoples that
was brought back on the boy Joseph discovery.
One of these people is Rousseau, we all know
Rousseau because of the social contract and his notion
of noble savagery, so Rousseau, French philosopher,
wrote lots and lots of things; he's pushing back against
his own society; he's critiquing what's wrong with him,
his society and as one of the origins of what I think of
as cultural critique, but the answer he has about what's
wrong with his own society is that it's fallen from grace;
that we can look back to this kind of ethnological record
from the age of discovery, look at other people in other
parts of the world, and we can see them in a state of
noble savagery, we can see them living the way that
our ancestors lived, we can see them living in a way that
is pure and well without the worries of the modern time.
And he saw natives elsewhere in the world as still
living in this noble state and again this comes
back to us over and over and over again in the
representations contemporarily of indigenous people.
Another set of thinkers to think about are people
that are kind of grouped as the universal historians,
and these are guys who again following on Aquinas
who was following on Aristotle, they're still trying
to discover the laws of human history, the laws of
human historical change and they propose a series of
stages of human development during which humans
experience was understood to have accumulated into
the culture of their day, so one of them is Turgot, he's
French and he really thinks about humanity passing
through three stages; he postulates that humanity
goes from hunting and gathering societies to pastoral
societies to farming societies and that this is a sort of,
although he does not use the language of evolution,
yet, he argues that this is this kind of natural law
or progression, that everybody was a hunter then
they became a pastoralist then they become a
farmer and then ultimately what do they become?
Agriculturalists who sell things for the market,
because in all of this is the inherent ideology
that European political economy and social
structure is the pinnacle of social evolution.
You also have William Robertson, so that's
important - hunting, pastoralism, and farming,
right, this kind of trajectory and for these guys,
for Turgot, there's no going off that trajectory.
If you are a hunting and gathering society, it's just
cause you're stalled, you're going to move forward.
Then you have someone like Robertson who's
Scottish and he stresses technology, he says well,
so technology is kind of what moves people
through these stages and he postulates that people
move from savagery to barbarism to civilization.
Savagery, barbarism, civilization.
Alright.
So you see all of these kinds of fantasies
of progression that seemed to end with,
well the late 1700s social and economic
configurations that are the beginnings or the
sort of early life of contemporary capitalism.
And they're all based on a sort of shared idea
that there's something called human reason,
there's something called progress, and
there's something called perfectibility.
Human reason, so there's an idea that
human intellect unfettered by faith,
religion, etc. pushes forward in a direction.
Progress, the idea that there's a positive direction
of historical change; people are not degenerate,
people are moving forward or they're either stalled.
And then perfectibility, that there is steady
improvement in the human condition over time.
So all of this, in addition to leading to this kind of
genealogy that gives rise to anthropology, also leads
to a push for social reform in the late 18th century
and this becomes a rallying cry for the French
Revolution, which I'm going to do in 10 seconds.
French Revolution, the goal was to overthrow
the Bourbon regime and the associated system
of upper class privilege; it lasted a decade,
it was a mess, it was a really bloody disaster.
1799 Napoleon assumed control of France and
in a move that was a betrayal of all of the ideas
of the Revolution, he made himself emperor,
then he went out to conquer the world.
After this happens, there's a sort of mass depression
across Europe, right, all these ideals are being kind
of destroyed by this and so when the revolution
has failed, when it's gone badly, European
intellectuals turn their back on these ideals
and there's a kind of conservativism that grows.
Fundamentalist Christianity or what we would
now think of as fundamentalist Christianity grows,
nationalism grows, and then romanticism and arts
and literature a kind of push back against the move
towards a less romantic system of representations.
You also see the growth of conservatism in the natural
sciences and what's becoming the Natural Sciences
and this is where we see the growth of positivism.
So we all know we trace positivism to Comte, French
intellectual, wrote a book called The Course on the
Positive and this is basically, in this he argues that
philosophy and science, all disciplines move through
three stages; they move from a theological stage where
phenomena are explained in terms of deities, a
metaphysical stage where phenomena are explained in
terms of abstract concepts, and then a positive phase where
phenomena are explained in terms of other phenomena.
People believe that the sciences had already moved
through this stage, but that the social sciences just
emerging then needed to move to this positive stage.
There was a sense that the social sciences lagged
behind, that they had passed through the theological
stage into the metaphysical stage where things were
explained with abstract concepts like reason, but it was
now time to move forward and to be more truly scientific.
So for Comte, science was a search for generalizations;
generalizations in particular about social dynamics,
so about social change and social statics about social
stability and this is really, sets the stage for what
we think of as the classical cultural evolutionist
of the 19th century, so these are a group of people
that are more solidly or squarely in what become
anthropology departments all over Europe and
this happens in Germany, it happens in Britain,
it happens to some extent in the United States.
These early 19th century cultural evolutionists,
many of them are working with Darwinian ideas
about evolution and they're thinking about how it
is that societies change over time and they really
entrench this idea that society evolves in a particular
direction, so they're drawing upon Darwin, they're
drawing upon this Enlightenment thought, this kind
of genealogy I've just laid out for you, and they're
drawing on all of this kind of cross-cultural material
that is coming back to Europe in the 19th century.
I'm going to talk and I'm separating out in a
really artificial way, colonialism and imperialism.
I'm going to talk about that in a second, but there's
this enormous dataset, another dataset that's coming
back into Europe because of colonialism and imperialism
and people are struggling in the very new social
sciences to figure out how to fit all of this together.
Theories of social evolution become the way
that most people fit all of this data together.
These theories developed rival schemes for the
overall social and cultural progress as well
as for the origins of specific institutions.
This is where you see, again, think about that the
whole and the different parts; people begin to think
about society or culture, society in Britain, culture
in North American anthropology, but this kind of
mass that is human beings in the world, they begin
to think of it as this interlocking set of institutions
and so we begin to see an elaboration of focus on
institutions like religion, marriage, the family,
technology, and all of these kinds of institutions
become these little thought worlds in and of
themselves, so there's a brilliant anthropologist
named Talal Asad who's written extensively about
religion as this artifact of this process of creating
the institutions of society and Talal Asad argues
that religion is religion because anthropologists and
others say it is, that you and I could go out into the
world and ask people with this kind of enlightenment
background, we see a set of social practices and we
think 'oh that's religion,' right, that's, they're doing
this, they're worshipping, there, they have certain
kinds of chants that they're doing, they have certain
kinds of rituals that they're doing, 'oh that's religion'
and he argues that that sort of very terming of this
set of practices in the world through this institution
that has this genealogy disallows for objectivity.
That we are actually bringing religion to a
set of practices that may or may not be like
other sets of practices that we call religion.
So all of these institutions become, they become
kind of markers for the cultural and they're sought
after to show culture and how it evolves over time,
so I'll mention a couple of these early kind of
evolutionary thinkers within anthropology.
The first one's E.B. Tylor, British,
wealthy, well-traveled, his father was very,
very, very rich and he was sickly, he had
consumption as one did back in the day.
He went to Cuba and Mexico, he needed to go to
warmer climates, but he kind of couldn't handle it,
perhaps the earliest anthropologist who got a tropical
disease, so he's sickly, he goes back home and he,
because he has experienced a little bit of the world
and seeing things that he doesn't understand,
he becomes one of the most important thinkers
in this 19th century notion of cultural evolution.
He maintains that culture evolves from the simple
to the complex, so he's the one that gives up
this kind of architectural language of simple to
complex, right, that so if you are a hunter-gatherer
that's really simple, it's simple technology, it's
simple belief systems, it's simple socio-political
organization, but if you're living in Europe in the
1900s, that's complex, its complex political systems.
He gives us the language and ideology of simple to complex.
He also thinks that there's progress and that
everyone again can move from one stage to another.
He believes that simple people can be moved, so
he also gives us the sense that there is a possibility
of intervention to move from the simple to the
complex and when we think about our colleagues
who work in international development, we often
see this kind of ideology that there is both the
desire to move people from the simple to complex,
but also a kind of moral imperative from the simple
to the complex, we can trace that back to him.
So what did he do with data that didn't fit?
He said well, so in some of the cultures that we're
looking at you have survivals, you have complex
cultures that have survivals of simpler kinds of
institutions, so what we see with him is the first
sort of falling apart of the system, this dataset not
fitting together, this sense that oh wait a minute
there may actually be different historical trajectories
for the same sorts of socio-cultural institutions in
different places, but instead of thinking that he said
no, no you have these survivals, you have things,
earlier customs that survive into the present day.
He also is someone who believed in the psychic unity
of man, parallel evolutionary sequences in different
cultural traditions, and he also noted that cultural traits
may spread from one society to another through diffusion
and I think this is going to come back when we talk
about cultural ecology and environmental anthropology.
Alright, so fast forward one more, Lewis Henry Morgan.
So Lewis Henry Morgan is another 19th century
proponent of uniform and progressive cultural evolution;
he's the first American to show up in my lecture.
He was born in 1818, died in 1881, lived in New York
or lived in upstate New York and he was a lawyer.
He became really interested in the Iroquois when
he defended their reservation and land grant case.
There's a lot to be said about Morgan, I'm going to
bracket it all off and tell you guys to read a book
called Mohawk Interruptus which is by Audra
Simpson who's an Iroquois scholar and she
is rethinking Morgan's legacy in this really
profound way, but Morgan's most important
work for our purposes is a book called
Ancient Society that was written in 1877.
Morgan takes these basic stages of evolution,
the basic three stages - savagery, barbarism,
and civilization - and he divides them into upper,
middle, and lower and so what he does is make
it even more elaborate, so you have upper, you
have upper savagery, middle savagery, and
lower savagery and in this segmentation, he
begins to pick and choose from the ethnological
record to show what form exists in this, right,
so you see this system getting much more
elaborate and much more kind of scientific.
He also took up the idea of technology, so he says
that with each stage you can see the stages as
distinguished by technological development and
that technology always correlates with subsistence,
marriage, family, and political organization.
I'm not going to talk about Marx today, but I think
you guys read Marx for your sociology, right, so
we're going to think a little bit tomorrow in my
lecture about political ecology about Marx and
Marxism, but Marx and Engels are reading Morgan
and Morgan is reading Marx and Engels and they're
all thinking about evolution together, so we can
see in this a kind of parallel to some Marxist ideas
about base and superstructure and technology.
So technological achievement, each stage has a kind
of benchmark that you can identify, so for instance,
middle savagery is marked by the acquisition of a
fish diet and the discovery of fire, upper savagery by
the bow and arrow, lower barbarianism by pottery, so
it just becomes more and more and more elaborate in
ancient society, so one of the things that Morgan was
particularly interested in was family organization and
he was, within family organization, he was interested
in patrilineal societies and matrilineal societies.
He talked about people in lower savagery,
living in hordes of primitive promiscuity
and then he traces the way that family
organization changes are evolved over time.
This is important when we come back to Boas
because this is one of the things that Franz Boas
pushes back against in the development of American
cultural anthropology which early on is in direct
opposition to the idea of cultural evolution.
So why is it important to think about colonialism
when we think about this lecture that I've just given,
but also American cultural anthropology and the
legacy of anthropology that we're all living today.
So when I think about colonialism, I think about
it as a kind of form of domination and hegemony.
Colonialism is the movement of people and
ideologies out of Europe to the rest of the world
in a systematic process of domination that is
meant to bring resources back to the metropol.
When I think about imperialism, I think more about
the metropol and what the metropol, what the
European nations are getting out of these forays.
These forays are initially meant to bring resources
back in terms of material objects, in terms of
wool, in terms of cotton, in terms of timber,
in terms of gold, and they're meant through
early mercantilism to bring money back to the
metropol, so the metropols can compete at home.
As colonialism develops over time it becomes about
much more, it becomes about land, it becomes about
actually securing territory in the colonies, and it
becomes about moving people to colonies to create
sources to bring things back to the metropol, but it
also becomes about enslaving native populations to
add to that economic system; it's all tied up also with
the growth of capitalism in Europe; important things
to think about with colonialism and anthropology;
the first is that colonialism is a moment in global
history when we see these ideas that I've been talking
about made manifest, so we see the kinds of oppressions
that we've heard about with colonialism for as long as
we've all known about colonialism, we see them justified
through the same ideologies that I've been talking about
- natural slaves, natural children, people that are living
in savagery that can be moved through missionization
or eventually in the 19th and early 20th century through
development into the light of the modern world.
We see these ideologies in practice.
We see these ideologies in practice in part
through the work of early anthropologists.
Some of the first anthropological data to come
back to the metropol that was not in the age of
exploration, that was not sort of piecemeal collecting
of empirical data and bringing it back, it's because
anthropologists worked for these colonial governments.
Anthropologists worked for them, anthropologists
collected data for them, anthropologists
attempted to help with the colonial project.
One of the people that I mentioned earlier is
Talal Asad and in addition to writing about ritual
and religion, Talal Asad has written quite a bit
about colonialism and he wrote a book called
Anthropology and the Colonial Encounter.
I'm going to leave us with a couple
of thoughts from that book.
What he argues in that book is that anthropology is,
ideologically it is, in its empirical or not empirical,
in its epistemic basis it is colonialism, it's part and
parcel to colonialism, that you can't separate the two
out, the ideologies that created them are the same
ideologies, but that also you have anthropologists
that are working as colonial agents that are meant
to be changing the places that they're going to work.
This, so Talal publishes that book in 1991, Edward
Said's Orientalism published in 1976, so from
about 1976 to about 1991 you have this massive
crisis in anthropology where anthropologists feel
so much guilt because of the role of anthropology
and colonialism that many of them become
silenced and I think this is a lot of the fighting
that you see in anthropology departments happens
in this time period from the 70s to the early 90s.
Anthropologists, to some extent, one body of
anthropology kind of known as the ethnographic
turn moves away from the idea that we can actually
represent anything faithfully, so this is a group of
thinkers mostly boys actually, they're all in California,
they're, and that's important because we're reading
Lila Abu-Lughod, she's a woman who was also thinking
about how to push back against this; these guys with
ethnographic turn, they're not siting women, they're
not talking to women, so interesting gender politics in
the field, but the ethnographic turn really kind of
takes anthropology and says anthropological text and
ethnography are nothing more than a representation
of the mind of the ethnographer, that there is no
objectivity, it's all subjectivity, so when we're writing,
the process of writing is that which, that through
which we make the world and it's this interesting,
but pretty bad moment in anthropological, bad
in some ways, good in some ways, this moment
in anthropological history where you have a
turning away from working with others, you have
a turning away from working with people, it's also
the moment when you have a kind of theoretical
turn within anthropology and you get much more
anthropology influenced by philosophy, this is where
I'll talk about Foucault tomorrow, this is where
Michel Foucault's work comes in really strongly,
but you have a kind of turning inward and a
backing off from wanting to do anything applied.
You have anthropologists who think, oh this terrible legacy
of the discipline, we don't want to get mired down in
telling anybody what they should or shouldn't do, but
you also at the same time have the development of a
group of scholars within anthropology who leave the
Academy, they go out and they work for development
organizations, they work for conservation organizations,
they take understanding this very vexed history
and they say well, so how can we do this better,
how can we move anthropology into a place where
we understand others in a way that doesn't allow
for the kinds of evils of colonialism to happen again
in development projects and in conservation projects.
And I think that's where I'll leave us and ask for questions,
but you have this sort of turn and I think in the next lecture
we'll go back to the 1950s and think more about how
American cultural anthropology develops, but that's it.
♪ Music ♪
