Post Modernism Post--Anthropological Review
In general, I tend to agree with Warms and McGee that postmodernism is no threat to anthropology; however, I do have some concern that those who advocate postmodernism are allowing themselves to be lost in nihilism. The problem I have with Warms’ and McGee’s overall assessment, however, is that it tends to forget the transgression that postmodernism causes to the narrative of the ethnography. Granted, post modernism drives for the deconstruction to the infinite, which there seems to be no end. It is this aspect of postmodernist theory that subvert anthropology’s legitimacy.
Early in their introduction, Warms and McGee try to differentiate Modernism and Post Modernism. They say,
Fair enough, but I contend if it was not Western American culture’s desire to examine beyond what was knowable and what was not, the world of Modernism may not have occurred even for the postmodernism to exist. Therefore, for the Post Modernism to exist the world of Modernism had to occur to first. Admittedly, a bit of circular thinking, but it will do for the moment. Yes, it granted that anthropology tried to define, elucidate, “enlighten,” understand, and bring meaning to the context of what the “observable world” means. Nevertheless, it is understood that this “interpretation of meaning,” hermeneutics, plays a role of not only how “we” the individual sees the world but ours and other cultures as well.
Throughout their essay, Warms and McGee try to demonstrate balance. In trying to elucidate their view of what postmodernism means to anthropology, and how cultures are examined, and how through postmodernism deconstructs, interprets, and tries to illustrate the distortion of anthropology through its implied authority (2008:533). In fieldwork, and ethnography, anthropology had to learn to apply itself as more of a science. This process, like any science, has learned through its suffrage how to write its objective narratives. At times, anthropology has been its own worst enemy by writing composite features and generalized these interpretations as authoritative. For instance, Warms and McGee give the example of how authors of ethnographies will use “literary tricks.”
One of the most obvious characteristics of ethnographic writing is that rather than, ‘I am writing my interpretation of what the natives were doing,’ authors claim to represent the native point of view. Of course, an anthropologist cannot possibly present the point of view of everyone in a society; he or she works with selected informants… (2008:533).
Modernism is a term drawn from the study of literature and art as well as the history of science…. it reflects the epistemological notion that the world is knowable… [through] the techniques of science, philosophy, and rational inquiry to analyze to understand the world…. (2008:532)While postmodernism, “challenges the assertion” that the world is knowable and that Western American cultures distort the perception that are not of its own (2008:532). In essence, in Post Modern thought each culture has its own world view of reality, and moreover, that anthropology has tried “setting” itself up as the authority; thus, anthropology has failed to recognize their own creation. Warms and McGee quote Martin Heidegger “that humans cannot have knowledge about the world that is not tinged by a particular perspective or bias” (2008:532)
Fair enough, but I contend if it was not Western American culture’s desire to examine beyond what was knowable and what was not, the world of Modernism may not have occurred even for the postmodernism to exist. Therefore, for the Post Modernism to exist the world of Modernism had to occur to first. Admittedly, a bit of circular thinking, but it will do for the moment. Yes, it granted that anthropology tried to define, elucidate, “enlighten,” understand, and bring meaning to the context of what the “observable world” means. Nevertheless, it is understood that this “interpretation of meaning,” hermeneutics, plays a role of not only how “we” the individual sees the world but ours and other cultures as well.
Throughout their essay, Warms and McGee try to demonstrate balance. In trying to elucidate their view of what postmodernism means to anthropology, and how cultures are examined, and how through postmodernism deconstructs, interprets, and tries to illustrate the distortion of anthropology through its implied authority (2008:533). In fieldwork, and ethnography, anthropology had to learn to apply itself as more of a science. This process, like any science, has learned through its suffrage how to write its objective narratives. At times, anthropology has been its own worst enemy by writing composite features and generalized these interpretations as authoritative. For instance, Warms and McGee give the example of how authors of ethnographies will use “literary tricks.”
One of the most obvious characteristics of ethnographic writing is that rather than, ‘I am writing my interpretation of what the natives were doing,’ authors claim to represent the native point of view. Of course, an anthropologist cannot possibly present the point of view of everyone in a society; he or she works with selected informants… (2008:533).
And, this is also the other aspect postmodernists use to deconstruct anthropology authority and its declaration that the world is not knowable. In that, since the anthropologist cannot be an omniscient viewer of the entire society, because the informant/s one works with is only a reflection of the society in part, and, the observation of rituals, or acts, are truly a slice of that society and how it works. Thus, this leaves subjective perspective of the anthropologist prominent and “delicenses” other viewpoints and ideas.
Essentially, Post Modernism proclaims that anthropology has in its various forms, at times, “delicensed,” or “silenced” the voices of the “other,” the culture that it has examined and taken away its power to define its own reality. Again, admittedly anthropology has done this in the past, but that is why it remains more of a science than a subjective art, because of its ability to view itself critically. The fact that criticism of Postmodernism challenges the anthropological narrative and the textual contexts in language and literature demonstrates how anthropology has allowed for its corrective force to be “reflexive.” This has allowed, as Warms and McGee say, “Cultures, instead of being read as texts, can be viewed as performances in which the anthropologist participates” (2008:535). This is in turn has made anthropology more objective and therefore created more “science” oriented study of culture and humanity in turn. 
Comments