American Anthropological Association Confused About What Biological Anthropology Is

2/10/2016

I'm sure the American Anthropological Association (AAA) does a lot of great things. I'm not a member even though the AAA is the flagship association of my discipline. I joined at one point because I had to attend the meetings for job interviews, but I let my membership lapse soon after because I couldn't see that the benefits justified the $200 annual dues.

Along with the high price tag (and the regressive dues structure), several "what the hell, AAA?" moments have dampened my enthusiasm. The most notable was the removal of the word "science" from the AAA's long-range plan in 2010. I'm an anthropologist, an archaeologist, and a scientist. It doesn't thrill me that the AAA apparently finds the word "science" too prickly to embrace.

Here's another one for the "what the hell, AAA?" pile. This morning on Facebook, one of my biological anthropology friends posted a photo of a new poster printed by the AAA to celebrate World Anthropology Day:

Look at the description of physical anthropology:

"Physical Anthropology + Studies animal origins and the biologically determined nature of humankind."

Animal origins? Biologically determined nature? Seriously, AAA?

That definition in no way reflects the objects of study or the questions of physical/biological anthropology. It is so dumb, in fact, that it's hard to even dissect how wrong it really is.

The last time I checked, multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia (aka "animals") originated over 600 million years ago. Perhaps that has changed, however, and I'm not up to date. I wouldn't know, you see, because I'm an anthropologist AND ANIMAL ORIGINS IS NOT WHAT I STUDY.

I don't know what percentage of physical anthropologists would say they are studying the "biologically determined nature of humankind," but it certainly would not be large. Does the study of the origins and meaning of human variation constitute the study of the "biologically determined nature of humankind"? What about the study of human evolution? What about the study of health, demography, fertility, mortality?

I don't do physical anthropology full time, but I've done it in the past (as both an undergraduate and for my M.A. thesis) and I teach aspects of it in my undergraduate classes now. I chafe at the definition on that poster, and I'm betting a lot of my physical anthropology friends will also not look kindly upon it. How did it get on there? How in the world does the AAA produce a poster, apparently intended to educate the public, that says that physical anthropologists study the "origins of animals" and the "biologically determined nature of humankind"?

I just don't get it.

I'm glad I didn't help pay for it.

7 Comments

Jonathan Feinstein

2/10/2016 01:54:28 pm

I'm going to date myself a bit here but back when I was an undergrad I had Physical Anthropology with Donald Johanson (yes, this was shortly before he found Lucy and actually I thought he thought the subject in an interesting and engaging manner). Some years later I noticed he was calling himself a "Paleoanthropologist" instead of a physical anthropologist and now I wonder if that was due to this sort of definition.

Admittedly the class did cover the entire order of Primates, so I suppose one might try to extend that back through the entire animal kingdom,, but the emphasis was on hominids and the development of modern _H. sapiens_ In the class Don mentioned that primates evolved from the insectivores and pretty much went on from there. Anything further back in our evolutionary tree I would normally assign to the study of paleontology.

Andrew Gurstelle

2/10/2016 04:30:22 pm

It could just be sloppy syntax.
Animal origins of humankind and biologically determined nature of humankind.
I take it they mean animal in the popular sense as an opposition to human (ie, the fossils of non-human primates = animal origins).
Still very limited, though, for the reasons you mentioned.

I have not seen the actual poster but what is with the cryptic phrase of "Enforcement Humanitarian Efforts" under Museum Anthropology? I feel like I'm not menacing enough for that to be part of my job.

Jose S

2/10/2016 06:44:53 pm

Last time I checked:

anthropo-

combining form
prefix: anthropo-

human; of a human being.
"anthropometry"

relating to humankind.
"anthropology"

Origin

from Greek anthrōpos ‘human being.’

I could understand the animal connection if, and only if, the word anthropomorphic was tied to it as it is, in my view, to primates.

And no, I am not an anthropologist so I may be way off.

Jonathan Feinstein

2/11/2016 08:30:15 am

There are many "hard scientists" who do not consider subjects like anthropology, sociology, history and other social sciences as "real science." My usual response has normally been that while perhaps we cannot quantify the same sort of hard-set laws to anthropology we can to chemistry or physics, that the same scientific method can and is applied. So perhaps anthropology is not a science by the definition of those "hard scientists", but it IS a scientific discipline.

As you have pointed out, Andy, we must hold ourselves to the same standards the hard sciences are held too. If we come up with a wide range of results that are harder to predict, that's simply because there is still so much to learn. As we learn more, the quantification of the results we get from our studies becomes gradually firmer because whether anthropology or archaeology is a science or a scientific discipline, anthropologists and archaeologists are scientists using scientific methods in their studies.

Andy White

2/11/2016 12:04:18 pm

The "science" question in this case is more an issue of cultural anthropologists being uncomfortable with calling themselves "scientists." In my opinion, four-field anthropology was a scientific endeavor from the outset and should remain so. Humans and human societies and cultures are complex and tough to analyze, but that doesn't mean their somehow so special that they can't be understood within a scientific framework. That's my opinion, anyway.

The blunder in the poster is particularly unfortunate because it resonates with the feeling of many of us on the "science" side of anthropology that the "humanist" side (composed mostly of socio-cultural anthropologists) has relatively little regard for or understanding of what we do (and why all four fields belong together under the big tent of anthropology).

2/12/2016 04:15:41 pm

To be completely honest I don't see the problem here. I have many colleagues who consider themselves biological anthropologists but find themselves looking more at bovid morphology than that of hominins. Also, I happen to study mostly primates and rarely use human material, and I consider myself a biological anthropologist. I guess one criticism I could come up with is that maybe it doesn't quite reflect the comparative work that is done across different taxa, but I don't really think it is anything offensive.

Mike Strezewsk

2/14/2016 08:35:43 pm

Best piece of info from the poster - Dax Shepard was an anthro major.

American Anthropological Association Confused About What Biological Anthropology Is

Leave a Reply.

Archives

Categories