人類学は科学か問題

NICHOLAS WADE “Anthropology a Science? Statement Deepens a Rift”http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/science/10anthropology.html


米国人類学会(AAA)はその「長期計画に関する言明」の新しいヴァージョン*1で、学会の目的について、これまでの”to advance anthropology as the science that studies humankind in all its aspects”を”to advance public understanding of humankind in all its aspects”に差し替えた。つまり、science(科学)という語を削除した。


The association’s president, Virginia Dominguez of the University of Illinois, said in an e-mail that the word had been dropped because the board sought to include anthropologists who do not locate their work within the sciences, as well as those who do. She said the new statement could be modified if the board received any good suggestions for doing so.

The new long-range plan differs from the association’s “statement of purpose,” which remains unchanged, Dr. Dominguez said. That statement still describes anthropology as a science.

記事では、その背景について、

The decision has reopened a long-simmering tension between researchers in science-based anthropological disciplines — including archaeologists, physical anthropologists and some cultural anthropologists — and members of the profession who study race, ethnicity and gender and see themselves as advocates for native peoples or human rights.
と推測している。また、science削除反対派のPeter Peregrine(Society for Anthropological Sciences会長)の主張*2

Dr. Peregrine, who is at Lawrence University in Wisconsin, said in an interview that the dropping of the references to science “just blows the top off” the tensions between the two factions. “Even if the board goes back to the old wording, the cat’s out of the bag and is running around clawing up the furniture,” he said.

He attributed what he viewed as an attack on science to two influences within anthropology. One is that of so-called critical anthropologists, who see anthropology as an arm of colonialism and therefore something that should be done away with. The other is the postmodernist critique of the authority of science. “Much of this is like creationism in that it is based on the rejection of rational argument and thought,” he said.

この記事を読んでいて思うのは、1990年代の所謂〈サイエンス・ウォーズ〉の構図と略同じじゃんということだ。Peregrine 先生、敵を「創造論者」に喩えたりして。それとは別に思ったのは、(現代英語の用法としては寧ろノーマルなのかも知れないが)そもそもは〈知〉一般を意味していた筈のscienceの意味も変わってしまったなということだ。フッサールの『ヨーロッパ諸学の危機と超越論的現象学』のWissenschaften(sciencesと英訳されている筈だ)と上の記事におけるscienceとの距離。また、Wade氏が浮かび上がらせているカガクシャ vs. サヨクという図式も大まか或いは粗雑だといえるだろう。というのも、人類学に限らず人文・社会科学においては、(例えば)進化心理学*3のような〈科学主義〉が跋扈する一方で、他方では所謂Interpretive Turn以来(と言ってもいいと思うが)、人文・社会科学を自然科学をモデルとして標準化することに対する疑問・異議も広く共有されているわけだから。
ヨーロッパ諸学の危機と超越論的現象学

ヨーロッパ諸学の危機と超越論的現象学