Science and Social Anthropology: Resolving Hierarchical and Horizontal Knowledge Structures

The relationship between social anthropology and the so-called ‘natural’ sciences has a long and fraught history, beginning with the field’s inception in the 1870s. Despite periodic attempts at thematic reinvention, social anthropology consequently remains trapped in what has been termed a ‘pre-paradigmatic’ state, without consensus among social anthropologists on either a self-consistent object of study for their field, parameters of study, or a causal model for explaining that object. Pedagogic sociology offers a causal explanation for this lack of integration, by describing how formal education systems define and segregate ‘natural’ and ‘social’ sciences, and by further describing a mechanism for achieving dese­gregation. Corroborating observations made by both natural scientists and social anthropologists, this chapter uses a pedagogic sociological model to describe the lack of integration between natural and social science generally, and between natural science and social anthropology in particular. This pedagogic sociological model is then used to describe a potential pathway towards a resolving integration between social anthropology and natural science, with reference to incipient formal empirical methods and to Cultural Model Theory.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Vilnius University Open Series
Published
2025-03-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15388/anthro.2025_6
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Anthropology: Ethics, History, Culture
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Science and Social Anthropology: Resolving Hierarchical and Horizontal Knowledge Structures

James Rose
1 citations
Vilnius University Open Series
Anthropology: Ethics, History, Culture
article

Science and Social Anthropology: Resolving Hierarchical and Horizontal Knowledge Structures

James Rose
article en
1 citations

Abstract

The relationship between social anthropology and the so-called ‘natural’ sciences has a long and fraught history, beginning with the field’s inception in the 1870s. Despite periodic attempts at thematic reinvention, social anthropology consequently remains trapped in what has been termed a ‘pre-paradigmatic’ state, without consensus among social anthropologists on either a self-consistent object of study for their field, parameters of study, or a causal model for explaining that object. Pedagogic sociology offers a causal explanation for this lack of integration, by describing how formal education systems define and segregate ‘natural’ and ‘social’ sciences, and by further describing a mechanism for achieving dese­gregation. Corroborating observations made by both natural scientists and social anthropologists, this chapter uses a pedagogic sociological model to describe the lack of integration between natural and social science generally, and between natural science and social anthropology in particular. This pedagogic sociological model is then used to describe a potential pathway towards a resolving integration between social anthropology and natural science, with reference to incipient formal empirical methods and to Cultural Model Theory.

Vilnius University Open Series
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 94%
Anthropology: Ethics, History, Culture
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.