Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.