Anthropology and culture – call for precision!

Firstly important note: Always when I’m using in this blog single term ‘anthropology’  I understand by this social/cultural anthropology. Sometimes I will be use term ’sociocultural anthropology’ (to put both traditions together)

There is no doubt, that lack of precision is the one of  fundamental problems of  anthropological theory. Unfortunately most of anthropologist don’t care about definition of words which they use at description. Of course, this is difficult to keep precision in social science, because we all knows now (as contrasted with most of our colleagues from natural science) that every kind of  description (“explanation” as preferred our colleagues) is simultaneously interpretation.

 Nevertheless, I believe that carry on precision  and clarity (of definitions) is fundamental for understanding (especially in social science). Complexity of social/cultural reality can’t be explain away by laxity of definition, because concepts are tools of description for anthropologist.

So, I want to begin with definition of two fundamental words (concepts) for this blog (and I hope for any blog with anthropological background) – anthropology and culture.

I believe that this is fundamental to explain in anthropological discourse, what anthropologist understand when they used words such as “anthropology” or “culture”? Of course I’m not calling for particularly definition, but rather for core definition.

I’m aware of individual understands(interpretations) of this words for any anthropologist (and I respect it). But, if we want to understand each other, we have to express ours definition and try to establish agreement. Simply because, this is creative.

Whole this blog will be my individual understand of this words, I hope. But to respond at my own appeal (to give example) I will try to establish my own proposition of core definitions for this concepts.

Before I present it here, I want to underline why it is so important for me (and I hope not only form me).

In case of notion of anthropology (I mean ‘cultural/social anthropology’) it’s clear that there isn’t one understanding of what cultural/social anthropology really is. Variety of individual interpretations are off course common sense, but in the same breath risky is, if we don’t have, much or less, common core definition of our discipline. Core definition which explain what establish specific kind of gaining knowledge in area of anthropology.

Psychologists, linguistics, sociologists for example, all of them have his own individual understanding of his discipline,  but they also have core definitions of what exactly psychology, linguistic and sociology really is – in that sense, that they more or less  are agree of what is specific in gaining knowledge for this disciplines.

One can critic, what for is it, what for precising definition of discipline in our interdisciplinary (globalising) world!? The answer is simply and important – To better understand. I’m advocate of interdisciplinary studying (research), but I’m also advocate of idea that every discipline (of this interdisciplinary call) have his own methods (and knowledge) as educating strong and useful as they are precise. We have to precise if we want to be understandably, and crucially if we want to submit interpretations which are valuable.

 

What about notion of ‘culture’. Here the case is simple. Notion of culture is ours tool of description. Anthropologist’s explanations (descriptions) are explanations through notion of ‘culture’. It’s logic that we have to establish core definition of culture if we want to be understandably and practically! Besides, that this is an order of methodology.

I’m optimist. I believe that cultural/social anthropology is a kind of knowledge which can offer valuable (mindful postmodern critic) and practically interpretation about human (and world which he establish in relations). That’s why I’m calling for precision in anthropology.