A Happy Coincidence?

Abstract

Since the early development of their discipline anthropologists have attempted to develop theoretical models that elucidate the complexities of human "being" through a scientific comparison of differences. In recent decades, however, faced with critiques of the supposed white/male/European standpoint of anthropology and accusations of complicity with Western colonial hegemony, many practitioners have become uncertain about the comparative nature of their discipline, seeking sanctuary in less controversial cultural relativity and a focus on specific ethnographic description. This (partly self-imposed) limitation is based, to some extent, upon two false assumptions: that the theories applied to research on social behaviour can be accurately described as "European" and that it is possible for anthropologists to sustain ethnocentric perspectives while engaging in the process of long-term fieldwork, participant observation, and in-depth analysis. The multicultural nature of scientific development is particularly demonstrable in anthropology, where the methodologies employed in ethnographic research have always entailed a dynamic cross-cultural exchange and synthesis of theories and knowledges.