Anthropology, A Natural Science

Redfield published “Anthropology, A Natural Science?” while still in graduate school. Largely influenced by his father-in-law Robert E. Park, Redfield expressed here conceptions of both anthropology and sociology that would inform his work over the course of most of his career. Redfield argued that while during the 19th century anthropology had proceeded according to the methods of natural science, the discipline had shifted toward a historical approach in the early 20th century. Redfield attributed this shift primarily to the influence of Franz Boas, who had opposed the generalizing or scientific approach of the nineteenth century because it was so closely associated with racist social evolutionary notions. Redfield suggested, however, that as of the first decades of the 20th century, a resurgent scientific trend could be discerned within anthropology and that the discipline now stood at a crossroads between the historical and scientific approaches. He concluded by arguing, as had Robert E. Park, that anthropology could advance scientifically most effectively by aligning itself with sociology, the lead organizing social science. Essentially, anthropology could by most productive, he proposed by harnessing its on-the-ground empirical techniques to gather facts and data that could then by useful to the generalizing efforts of sociology. This article provides a clear statement of the generalizing law-seeking approach that would guide Redfield’s work in social anthropology over the course of his entire career.

Archaeology · Epistemology · Geography · Natural (archaeology) · Natural science · Sociology · Anthropology · Anthropology: Ethics, History, Culture · Philosophy