Title: From complementarity to obviation : on dissolving the boundaries between social and biological anthropology, archaeology and psychology
Abstract:The split between the humanities and the natural sciences, and within anthropology between its sociocultural and biological divisions, has its source in a notion of the human being as a composite enti...The split between the humanities and the natural sciences, and within anthropology between its sociocultural and biological divisions, has its source in a notion of the human being as a composite entity made up of separate but complementary parts, related as (innate) container to (acquired) content. This notion, however, precludes an adequate account of ontogenetic development. An alternative approach, based on a principle of obviation rather than complementarity, sets out to dissolve the boundaries by which the biological, psychological and social components of human being have conventionally been distinguished. In this approach, which takes as its starting point the notion of the organism-person as a locus of growth within a field of relationships, human capacities are explained as the properties not of genetic or cultural programming but of the self-organising dynamics of developmental systems. It is possible, then, to dispense not only with the biological/social dichotomy but also with that between evolution and history. This has important implications for archaeology, with regard to the issues both of human origins and landscape formation. Conceived as the study of environments in their temporal unfolding, archaeology could be regarded as the obverse of the anthropological study of the conditions of human being-in-the-world. In psychology, too, the complementarity thesis is unable to offer a convincing account of development. From the perspective of an obviation approach, the phenomena of perception, memory and learning could just as well be treated as topics of anthropological inquiry, at the same time opening up a new perspective on the study of children. Finally, if anthropology is a science, it must be a science of engagement. This conclusion has implications for teaching as well as research.Read More
Publication Year: 1998
Publication Date: 1998-01-01
Language: en
Type: article
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 126
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot