Paper short abstract:

As anthropology becomes a world concern, emphasis on scientific knowledge conflicts with nationalist-particularist interests, while the increasingly global context renders anthropology hard to define and reveals its Western bias in handling a plurality of paradigms.

Paper long abstract:

Adam Kuper has written on the British school and suggested that its classical period came to a close in the 1970s. He contributed to the critique of what followed in America and Britain since. In the meantime he has explored the meaning of primitive and indigenous today. And he has been interested in what happens when anthropological paradigms get exported to various parts of the world. My contribution to discussion at Bristol will concentrate on the changing perspective of developments within anthropology as it becomes a world concern. On the one hand there is the emphasis on scientific knowledge which however comes into conflict with the nationalist and other particularist interest. On the other hand anthropology has been developing within the context of the changing, globalising world, and in the company of various disciplines, methods of gaining knowledge and fashions of thought. Today's anthropology is perhaps the worst definable among sciences and humanities. Does it comprise too much? Can it be taken seriously by executives and public? What can we do for its emancipation and relevance? Is there Western bias in anthropology and how to handle plurality of paradigms? Is it possible and desirable to work for a non-diffusionist multi-centred anthropology? These and other questions will be tackled in the contribution.