Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality, and to see the links to virtual rooms.

Accepted Paper:

Are objectivity and militancy incompatible?  
Matthew Doyle (University of Southampton)

Paper short abstract:

Is promoting social change compatible with anthropology as a positive science? This paper argues that not only are these two goals commensurate but the radical potential of anthropology lies precisely in its ability to produce universal theories and to bridge the social and natural sciences.

Paper long abstract:

In previous debates it has been suggested that anthropology can either aim for objectivity or pursue moral motives as a form of social activism. In contrast, this paper argues that the tradition of critical social science to which some anthropologists belong should be understood as a logical extension of enlightenment principles and pedagogical ideals. Moreover, anthropology’s potential as a politically transformative enterprise lies in its capacity to use the comparative method and engagement with cognate disciplines to imagine radically different alternatives to our present societies. Yet in the 1980s, various forms of critique were mounted that have fundamentally changed the discipline. The consequences of this include a widespread distrust of dialogue with the natural sciences, structuralism, and any theory-building beyond the ‘middle-range theory’ pertinent to localized sub-disciplines. While this has arguably led to the fragmentation and increased specialization of academic anthropology, it has also robbed it of much of its potential to address contemporary problems or to help realize social change.

Panel Speak24b
First things first: the good of anthropology II
  Session 1 Wednesday 31 March, 2021, -