Should anthropology have an ethical stance?

Question

If yes, what should that ethical stance be? If no, what should its stance be? Is objectivity in anthropology possible?

Answer 1

Like all science, it should seek only the truth, no matter how offensive that truth is. Objectivity is as possible in anthropology as it is in any other field--so probably not completely possible, as there is no objectivity in other areas where there should be--example: journalism. Just human nature; we're emotional little creatures :)

Answer 2

Yes. It seems this may get a bit out of hand if we stick exclusively to the objectivity/no objectivity, or science/humanity questions. Simply considering it as a profession, we can see that, yes, anthropology has an ethical stance and this stance is clearly stated in the guidelines of our professional organizations. For example, just take a look at the American Anthropological Association's website. For researchers working out of certain jurisdictions this may even mean that ethical guideline statements are attached to research funds - bringing a very pragmatic, de-romanticized criticality to the whole idea of following ethics. Of course, I don't want to suggest that selfish pragmatism is the reason we follow ethics. Anyone engaged in ethnographic research can tell you just how important the personal qualities of trust and respect are to being granted any meaningful cooperation by those we wish to work with. Remembering our absolute dependence on others in conducting this kind of work should serve as the first reminder that we are compelled to respect those people without necessarily judging what they do as 'good' or 'bad.' If someone isn't prepared to do that in a given circumstance, then they shouldn't be involved in studying that circumstance.

Answer 3

Anthropologists should have professional ethics, as any profession does. However, if by "ethical stance" you are referring in any way what-so-ever to any behavior or position which would interfere with reporting and seeking anything but the "pure, uncensored truth" through the tools and discoveries of the profession, then "No", this type of ethical stance should not be sought.
Until we know "everything" we can learn from anthropology, an "ethical stance" of this sort, could only serve to hinder a search for the pure truth that lies hidden in the puzzles anthropologists are sorting out.
Of course objectivity in anthropolgy is possible. Why wouldn't it be?

Answer 4

First of all, absolutely yes, anthropology requires an ethical stance. The simple reason for this is that anthropologists study humans, and anyone who conducts research about human beings is in a position to potentially harm those humans. The variety of ways that harm can befall the subjects of anthropological research is as varied as the kinds of anthropological research that are out there. Cultural anthropologists can create dangerous misrepresentations of human groups (witness Napoleon Chagnon's meddling with the Yanomamo), which can have all sorts of consequences including misinforming policy or reinforcing negative ideologies; physical anthropologists have the potential to misrepresent, but since their research is often on human bodies, they also must take into account the potential to inflict physical harm on the research subjects; archaeologists, whose work so often affects the remnants of potentially significant remainders of past forms of human life have an entirely different set of ethical preoccupations. The American Anthropological Association has a set of ethical guidelines, which you can look at to get a better idea of what I'm talking about: http://www.aaanet.org/committees/ethics/ethcode.htm

Seeing the answers of other respondents, I feel like I have to intervene, and address a few things.

Your first respondent said that, "Like all science, it should seek only the truth, no matter how offensive that truth is. Objectivity is as possible in anthropology as it is in any other field--so probably not completely possible, as there is no objectivity in other areas where there should be--example: journalism. Just human nature; we're emotional little creatures :)" She's partly right and partly wrong. Anthropology does not seek "truth". Most cultural anthropologists reject the idea of "truth" outrightly, understanding it as a cultural construction that would impair their ability to compose unbiased analytics. (It's also worth noting that most cultural anthropologists do not think of themselves as "scientists".) Even physical anthropologists generally accept that the facts that they produce are only examples of "provisional truth," which is to say that the "truth" is at least liable to be updated and changed. Your second respondent makes a similar point.

To summarize, ethics have two functions for anthropologists. First, they help to ensure that anthropologists do not harm the subjects of their study. Second, since objectivity is not possible from the anthropological point of view, ethics help to ensure that anthropologists', especially cultural anthropologists', methodologies are minimally impinged upon by their own cultural biases - after all, "truth" to a university-educated Westerner is an entirely different thing from what truth is to hunter-gatherer in Indonesia, or to a pentacostal in Malawi, or to a farmer turned business man in Utah.

Answer 5

That's such a hard question! Balancing emotion and cultural relativism is nearly impossible.. I think it depends on the situation. If you're observing a ritual or something that you do not necessarily agree with (like infanticide), it may be difficult to be objective, but it may be the best course of action.
If, on the other hand, you are taking something from that culture and using it in your own (medical knowledge, for example) then I think some form of reimbursment appropriate to the culture is appropriate.
As for objectivity, I don't think 100% objectivity is possible. We may be studying humans, but we're humans too, with emotions and feelings and morals...
Oh this is such a refreshingly smart question! The only problem is that there's no "right" answer, it's all opinion and interpretation.

Answer 6

complete objectivity is not possible for humans.
ethics should be pursued. the truth should be pursued.
that said, cultural awareness must be maintained.
controversy could cause a problem for you funding.
those are the kinds of ethics you need to worry about.
changing how you interpret or express something
because it might change the funding for your research.

Answer 7

the two points are the heart of the development of Anthropoloy as a science.
they are not dirimed yet. if you are looking for information and standings you can lookup for malinowsky's work.

the issue of objectivity: in my opinion, most of the authors and writers assume it's "theoretically" impossible to get actual objectivity.
the anthropologyst must conform himself and keep working just trying to be objective.

Answer 8

1

Answer 9

Anthropology a pseudo science so the philosophy of the anthropologist will always be reflected in the results of any investigation reflecting left or right wing view of the world,

Answer 10

Let it first take a scientific stance.