Download Alex Wright Anthropology 410 Rebecca Robertson Article Review

Alex Wright
Anthropology 410
Rebecca Robertson
Article Review: Moral Modes in Anthropology
In 1995 a debate took place on objectivity and ethics in anthropology. The debate was
named, Objectivity and Militancy: A Debate.While doing anthropological work in the field many
anthropologist face situations where their own ethics and personal feelings on an event get
intertwined with their field work. Having an objective stance would not getting involved in the
situation while someone who had a militant stance would intervene and take action to try to
improve the lives in which they are dealing with. During the debate and events leading to the
article there was a shift from anthropology being an objective science and moving towards an
ethical social science. Roy D’andrade, author of Moral Modes in Anthropology, goes over ethics
while doing work in the field. At the time of the publication anthropologists at University of
California Berkeley were arguing about this issue. As an emerging anthropologist one is
influenced by the ones around them. Pieces of Nancy Scheper-Hughes, another anthropology
professor at the University of California Berkeley, are examined in this piece to validate and
solidify Roy’s argument D’andre argues that there is both need for an observational and moral
set of guidelines for the work. When D’andre wrote the article in 1995 there was a debate
happening in the field of anthropology, it was dealing with ethical stances in the field and
observation. D’andre explains through his paper how there is a need for a moral model in
anthropology but that can only be discovered through objective observation. D’andrade states his
thesis in the beginning of the paper, “ any moral authority that anthropologist may hold depends
on an objective understanding of the world and to that moral and objective models and they
should be kept distinct” (399). The thesis and the article are directed towards anthropologist
that have are focusing in cultural anthropology, specifically in ethnographic fieldwork.
D’Andrade argues his point by going over what objective data can lead too and the current
morality model in anthropology and why it should change.
The article begins with Roy addressing the attacks anthropology was receiving on the
issue of objective observation and morality in the field. D’Andrade defines what models are in
anthropology, “by a “model” I mean a set of cognitive elements used to understand and reason
about something” (399). He begins by defining what an objective and moral model is, a model is
way of understanding and reasoning in the world. D’Andrade explains to the audience that
objective models allows people to understand about an object while moral models allow people
to understand the feeling of the user. To an extent objectiveness can lead to oppression however
objectivity is needed in the field. Moral models can not exist alone because they are subjective
and it ties back to western imperialism. However, when an anthropologist tries to remain
completely objective they still bring in their own biases, D’Andrade states,
although it may be impossible to present an entirely objective account, when we want to
understand something outside ourselves we use terms that so far as possible tell about
that thing so we can understand that thing rather than a response to that thing. One tries
to be objective if one wants to tell others about the object, not about oneself.
Here Roy tells the audience what objectivity allows anthropologists and other scientists to do in
understanding objects and phenomenas, in regards to the paper, D’Andrade is stating that
objectivity allows anthropologist to come up with moral models that can help humanity while
they are in the field. However, D’Andrade firmly believes that morality and objectivity need to
be kept in distinct categories and if anthropology is to be worth while morality models need to be
built upon the data collected from objective field work to get an understanding on the subject or
issue at hand.
The article relates directly to anthropology today, as an emerging anthropologist I will face
issues in the field that in my opinion degrade human life, at that point there is decision that has to
be made, will I intervene or remain objective, as some anthropologists say there must be a blend
between the two models of objectivity and morality. D’Andrade argues that there should be two
distinct models that are separated. Towards the end of the article Roy goes over the issues that
occur with blending of moral and objective models. D’Andrade's first point to his argument is
identification of issues, the current model of morality deals with oppression, and if people are not
able to distinguish what oppression is it will continue to happen (405). The second issue with
blended models in regards to oppression is that the current model treats all cases the same
because the horror is equal, having a separate objective model would allow anthropologist to
understand the seriousness of the case at hand and they can deal with it in an effective answer.
Roys last two points deal with the thought that people believe good things produce good results
and bad things produce bad results but that is not always the case sometimes good things can
have bad results, his last point is moral models are hard to change because they are so subjective
while new data can change objective models.
Roy ends the article with identification of the problems in the current moral model of
anthropology. The oppression morality model came about in the 1960’s after the Vietnam war,
however, D’Andrade argues that it no longer has as much purpose as it does. The issues that are
currently at hand in the oppression model is that there is no theories on good power, this current
model will not bring about much change, and it is ethnocentric. D’Andrade feels as if there is a
need for both moral authority and objectivity in anthropology, Roy states,
I believe that anthropology can maintain its moral authority only on the basis of
empirically demonstrable truths. But I am afraid that my choice may be in the minority.
A large and growing number of American anthropologist appear to believe that the moral
agenda of anthropology should take priority over the scientific agenda (408).
I am still currently on the fence about this issue I am part of the growing number of
anthropologist that believe that the moral agenda of anthropology should take priority, however,
after reading D’Andrade’s article there is a necessity for objective fieldwork so as anthropologist
we can identify and fix the problems that we face in the field that degrade human life.