tonight in class we discussed german anthropology. yes, basically the entire history of german anthropology, at least up to post-wwii era. and most of what we realized was that it wasn't so different from u.s., british, or french anthropology (and probably lesser studied disciplines as well). there was tension between post-enlightenment universalism and relativistic romanticism. the diffusionist school and the functionalists competed. physical and socio-cultural began to merge (as in the us). so how were the anthros so easily swayed to the nazi cause.
many people argued it had a lot to do with the escapism necessary after wwi, or something along those lines. and i didn't fully formulate this in class, but the more i think about it, i think it was only a matter of the completeness of control.
around the same time, the us was coercively sterrilizing puerto rican women. clearly a product of eugenics. and no, to my (admittedly very limited knowledge) there were no anthropologists clamouring to get in on the action. but my guess someone had been reading some anthropology work on p.r. now, by no means am i equating the two. certainly there are huge differences and i don't mean to minimize the nazi's practices with a comparison to sterilization. but the point is, lets not pretend we are so innocent with our boasian tradition. i'm sure this is just one example among many that could be used. and that's completely leaving aside vietnam era anthropology of the vietcong. and now we've got this human terrain mapping. again, i'm not in any way saying it is the same magnitude. but it is something to ponder...
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario