Author: MANNING@neu.edu
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 1994 13:57:51 -0500

As an anthropologist, I would question whether most historians have been adequately trained to teach courses in comparative societies and cultures.

On the basis of my conversations with colleagues in History, I can truthfully say that they are as dumb about anthropology as I am about history.

                                         B. Edward Pierce
                                         Dept. of Anthropology
                                         S.U.N.Y.-New Paltz
                                         New Paltz, NY 12561
                                         PIERCEB@NPVM.NEWPALTZ.edu

Author: MANNING@neu.edu
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 21:51:36 -0500

It's unfair to jump to conclusions about historians' ignorance of anthropology, especially based on conversations with just a few informants in a single history department.

Those of us specializing in social history - especially in Africa, Asia, or Latin America - often have graduate training in anthropology, have read widely in the field, and have used insights from anthropologists.

Moreover, many anthropologists have a good background in history.

                                             Robert Entenmann
                                             entenmann@stolaf.edu

Author: MANNING@neu.edu
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 21:53:26 -0500

I think Edward Pierce's comment is unfortunate, for it discourages dialog. I think we all need it. I have this sneaky suspicion that anthropologists can defend a comparative method any better than historians can adequately represent processes in time. If we all admit our ignorance, that might be the first step toward enlightenment.

Let me ask Prof. Pierce what he considers to be the rationale of a comparative method. Could we (mostly historians, I suppose) be instructed as to the basic assumptions, then also the aims, of a comparative method? I hope Prof. Pierce will permit us to probe his points deeply so that we might understand them better.

Haines Brown

brownh@ccsu.ctstateu.edu
CIS: 70302.2206
voice/FAX (203) 241-0133

Author: MANNING@neu.edu
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 21:55:53 -0500

On Sat, 8 Oct 1994 B. Edward Pierce wrote:

> On the basis of my conversations with colleagues in History, I can truthfully
> say that they are as dumb about anthropology as I am about history.

Having a Masters in both anthro and history, I can say that we should leave it all to the Historical Archaeologists.

Mark Milliorn
Univ. of New Mexico
History Department

Author: MANNING@neu.edu
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 21:57:55 -0500

Subject: Historians and Anthropologists

Several of our distinguised anthropologists have opted to take historians to task for not being good anthropologists.

B. Edward Pierce has baited the trap for unsuspecting historians with the following: "While historians are primarily concerned with populations that possess writing systems, much of the newer "imaginative" historical research that is being conducted is very similar to research that is being conducted by reflexive, hermaneutic and/or phenomenologically oriented anthropologists" as well as "As an anthropologist, I would question whether most historians have been adequately trained to teach courses in comparative societies and cultures. On the basis of my conversations with colleagues in History, I can truthfully say that they are as dumb about anthropology as I am about history."

How ought a good self-respecting historian respond? Well, how about with "Pierce appears to see nothing of value being done outside his chosen field"? There's nothing unqiue about exceptional arrogance from someone who truly believes in his field and his methodology. However, the simple reality is that Pierce hasn't the foggiest idea what he is talking about when he speaks of "history" -- a typical response from a historian of course. Clearly, anthropologists do not have a monopoly on arrogance -- but they might try a little humility now and then.

David A. Meier
Department of History
Dickinson State University
Dickinson, ND 58601-4896
Phone: 1-701-227-2116
Fax: 1-701-227-2006
Email: David_Meier@DSU1.DSU.NODAK.EDU

Author: MANNING@neu.edu
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 22:47:04 -0500

At the level of inter-service rivalry, B. Edward Pierce's jab at historians on anthropology adds little that is new. At the level of global historiography, however, the comment may merit consideration.

Of the twentieth-century founders of global historiography, Toynbee and Wells focused on the state as the key element of civilization, and centered their histories on politics, war and commerce. Only Spengler focused on culture, but his was elite culture only. At the same time, Krober and Malinowski led in developing anthropological concepts of culture which they applied both inside and outside of states.

McNeill raised the civilizational framework to new breadth and sophistication, but still did not address anthropological conceptions of culture. To this day, world history texts and monographs tend to focus on states, to speak of "cultural diffusion" in linear terms, to treat world history as the study of "other cultures" without developing a vocabulary of cultural interaction, and generally to assume that little of world history is made outside centers of power.

Anthropology, meanwhile, underwent the political and intellectual tumult of decolonization, and then turned to new and still more interactive concepts of culture.

All around us, finally, is a globalizing society whose changes we feel impelled to describe in cultural terms.

Historians are by now unsurprised by quantum jumps in the size of our reading lists. Anthropology (old and new) is, I submit, another literature with which world historians must grapple.

Author: MANNING@neu.edu
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 22:50:03 -0500

At the level of inter-service rivalry, B. Edward Pierce's jab at historians on anthropology adds little that is new. At the level of global historiography, however, the comment may merit consideration.

Of the twentieth-century founders of global historiography, Toynbee and Wells focused on the state as the key element of civilization, and centered their histories on politics, war and commerce. Only Spengler focused on culture, but his was elite culture only. At the same time, Krober and Malinowski led in developing anthropological concepts of culture which they applied both inside and outside of states.

McNeill raised the civilizational framework to new breadth and sophistication, but still did not address anthropological conceptions of culture. To this day, world history texts and monographs tend to focus on states, to speak of "cultural diffusion" in linear terms, to treat world history as the study of "other cultures" without developing a vocabulary of cultural interaction, and generally to assume that little of world history is made outside centers of power.

Anthropology, meanwhile, underwent the political and intellectual tumult of decolonization, and then turned to new and still more interactive concepts of culture.

All around us, finally, is a globalizing society whose changes we feel impelled to describe in cultural terms.

Historians are by now unsurprised by quantum jumps in the size of our reading lists. Anthropology (old and new) is, I submit, another literature with which world historians must grapple.

                                         Patrick Manning
                                         Northeastern University
                                         manning@neu.edu

Author: MANNING@neu.edu
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 21:54:27 -0500

My experience as a historian of Africa is that more histroians--at least those trained in Africa history--know more about anthropology than most most anthropolgists know about history. Maybe that has something to do with the nature of studying Africa?

 Melvin E. (Mel) Page--History       pagem@etsuserv.east-tenn-st.edu
 East Tennessee State University     fax:   (615) 929-5373
 Johnson City, TN  37614             voice: (615) 929-6802

Author: MANNING@neu.edu
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 22:24:01 -0500

As an old Classicist, may I proudly point out that Herodotus would have had no quarrel with the sentiments expressed by Pat Manning and others. Though he didn't have a word for it, the 'Father of History' was equally the father of anthropology and understood perfectly well that culture drives history.

Bruce Macbain [bmacbain@mecn.mass.edu]

Author: MANNING@neu.edu
Date: Sun, 16 Oct 1994 13:21:08 -0500

Hello Multiple Recipients of H-World,

Please accept my apologies for the flame on anthropologists and historians. In retrospect, I'm aware that it was the result of my growing frustration regarding the content of a historically oriented course entitled "The Modern World" and discussions that I've had with historians about the way that the course should be structured. I am very discouraged when I'm told that 2/3 of the course should be on the period after 1500 AD, and when I'm told that it's preferable to spend no more than one period on Classical China, one on Classical India and one on Africa and the Americas before 1500.

I guess that what I was trying to say in the infamous memo was that European historians who have recently adopted a global perspecties should reflexively examine their Eurocentric and ethnocentric biases.

While I recognize that many world historians do not know enough about anthropology to know what they don't know, in all World History courses it is extremely important to examine our own prejudices and those that are implicit in the discipline of history which is, after all, a discipline that is Western European in origin.

       Again, I am sorry for the intemperance.
                                          Warmest regards,
                                          Ed Pierce
                                          SUNY New Paltz
                                          BPIERCE@NPVM.NEWPALTZ.edu

[an error occurred while processing this directive]