Should Cultural Anthropology Stop Trying to Model Itself as a Science - Essay Example

Anthropology is normally defined as the study of culture and society of living communities (Welsch & Endicott). In this regard, it is crucial to understand the meaning of culture, which is a then characteristic feature of everyday existence shared by people in a place or time. It is from the well-known issues of the application of culture and the use of science and academic authority in combating racism, that anthropology gains its scientific basis for combining multiple disciplines to achieve substantial anthropological results.

Articles by two schools of thought seem to offer conflicting ideas on the question of cultural anthropology modeling itself as a science. This is because humanities and sciences tend to appear as though they compete for validity, as though, the two disciplines are two opposite extremes. In this regard, Geertz bears in mind that cultural anthropology is best done through interpretation, the humanities way, while Carneiro is of the view that studies should be done through studying the causes and effects.

Carneiro’s way is the scientific method. According to the articles, Geertz opinion is that the humanistic approach to cultural anthropology is the best. This is based on the understanding that interpretation lead to definite contextual comprehension. In this regard, application of scientific approaches puts to risk analysis of cultural aspects being incomplete. In addition, the issue of anthropology being a science gains popularity with its dual ancestry where it is the most scientific humanity of all.

This is, in addition to being the most, humanist of all sciences. Based on the information it is crucial to note that anthropology should stick to being humanity in that all information should be deduced through interpretation for utmost accuracy. This is, in addition to attempting to prove, or disapprove scientific laws by generating deeper interpretations of diverse cultural phenomena. On the other hand, based on Carneiro, scientific should be used to explain cultural phenomena based on facts and evidence to create logical and rational explanations.

This is as proposed through cause-effect studies, as opposed to mere interpretation of causes and effects. In addition, cultural anthropology focuses on analysis thus, to Carneiro; it is a science, as opposed to the humanistic methods applied by interpretation. In this regard, analysis goes deeper into details in an attempt to capture more information than that which is found in humanist anthropology. As a result, Carneiro is of the opinion that cultural anthropology should model itself as a science due to scientific methods, which are superior to those of humanists.

However, based on the above information, Geertz focuses on the information at hand, and at face value. As a result, he claims that it is not a science, as no information should only be interpreted analyzed to yield speculative results. In addition, Carneiro’s scientific analysis is based on firsthand accounts of information to prevent distortion, a common scenario in cultural anthropology as a science. This is in combination with other scientific strategies used in deductions and generation of information, such as inferences and hypotheses.

It is from the discussed differences that the debate, “should cultural anthropology stop trying to model itself as science” comes up due to different schools of thought. In conclusion, anthropology is a science as most of its ideas are scientific, and so are the methods used. Reference Welsch, R. & Endicott, K. (2005). Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Cultural Anthropology. NY, New York: McGraw-Hill.