Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Meta-Anthropology: An Attractive Catchword or a Scientific Discipline? Three Stages in the Formation of Meta-Anthropology

  • Research
  • Published:
Human Arenas Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to present meta-anthropology as an independent scientific discipline that can be developed in the image and likeness of other meta-sciences—metamathematics and metalogic, metaethics, and meta-sociology. This means identifying and formulating key meta-problems, creating a special meta-language, developing meta-theories, and obtaining non-trivial results, at least at the level of meta-classifications. The history of meta-anthropology, summarized in the article, shows that only the first three steps have been taken along this long path. These include the creation and justification of the term, the choice of a higher-level theory for constructing the theory of the discipline (world hypotheses and root metaphors), and the proposal of a normative model. The whole process entails a transformation of the whole anthropology due to the anthropologists’ transition from thinking/thought to meta-thinking/meta-thought. We will try to show that the meta-level of analysis is useful for anthropology, generates new knowledge and ideas, and unites different areas of anthropology. Some prospects for the further development of meta-anthropology and the limitations of this study are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Materials

Not applicable.

References

  • Apostolopoulou, G. (2008). The Metaphilosophical Perspective of Kant’s transcendental philosophy. News and Views, 18, 11–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The problem of the text in linguistics, philology, and the human sciences: An experiment in philosophical analysis. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays, 107 (pp. 103–131). University of Texas Press.

  • Bennett, J. W. (1998). Classic anthropology: Critical essays, 1944–1996. Transactions Publishers.

  • Berleant, R. (2011). David Bidney: Professor, theorist, and correspondent. Annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Montreal. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.3009.1527

  • Bidney, D. (1949). The concept of meta-anthropology and its significance for contemporary anthropological science. In F. S. C. Northrop (Ed.), Ideological differences and world order: Studies in the philosophy and science of the world’s cultures (pp. 323–355). Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bidney, D. (1953). Theoretical anthropology. Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blainey, M. G. (2010). Towards an ethnometaphysics of consciousness: Suggested adjustments in SAC’s quest to reroute the main(stream). Anthropology of Consciousness, 21(2), 113–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-3537.2010.01025.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, M. (2013). Marxism and anthropology: The history of a relationship. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315017952

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, R. E. (1994). Hans Urs von Balthasar: Jesus Christ the concrete foundation of faith [unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Dayton.

  • Ceuppens, G. B. (1997). Mimesis, mirror and mask: Modern imaginaries of self and other. University of St Andrews (Scotland).

  • Chick, G. (1998). Science, materialism, and the quest for an anthropology of leisure: A rejoinder. Leisure Sciences: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20(3), 229–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409809512282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography: A School of American Research Advanced Seminar. University of California Press.

  • Clifford, J. (1988). The predicament of culture: Twentieth century ethnography, literature, and art (Vol. 1). Harvard University Press.

  • Czajkowski, W. (2001). Philosophies of man (a study on/in a meta-anthropology). Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie/politechnika Śląska, 5, 1–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durkheim, E. (1912). The elementary forms of the religious life. George Allen & Unwin Ltd.

  • Erickson, P. A., & Murphy, L. D. (2021). A history of anthropological theory. University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fazeli, N. (2006). Politics of culture in Iran: Anthropology, politics and society in the twentieth century. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

  • Forrest-Blincoe, B., & Forrest, J. A. (2022). Repacking the sacred bundle: Suggestions for teaching four-field anthropology. Teaching and Learning Anthropology, 5(2), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.5070/T35251957

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaitsch, P. (2018). Max Schelers reformation der religionsphilosophie. Labyrinth, 20(2), 14–40. https://doi.org/10.25180/lj.v20i2.134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garber, I. E., & Wallis, S. E. (2015). Transformation of psychology: From thinking/thought to metathinking/metathought. Review of General Psychology, 19(3), 329–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/gpr0000050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. (1988). Works and lives: The anthropologist as author. Stanford University Press.

  • Gillin, J. (1954). Bidney. Theoretical anthropology. Social Forces, 33(1), 188–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, L. J. (1955). Bidney’s humanistic anthropology. The Review of Metaphysics, 8(3), 493–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, F. (1972). Metanthropologie: Der anthropomorphismus gottes. In F. Hammer (Ed.), Theonome anthropologie? Max Schelers menschenbild und seine grenzen (pp. 132–150). Martinus Nijhoff.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Healy, N. J., Jr. (2015). Christ’s eucharist and the nature of love: The contribution of Hans Urs von Balthasar. The Saint Anselm Journal, 10(2), 1–17.

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Henare, A., Holbraad, M., & Wastell, S. (2007). Thinking through things: Theorising artefacts ethnographically. Routledge.

  • Hicks, D. (2013). Four-field anthropology: Charter myths and time warps from St. Louis to Oxford. Current Anthropology, 54(6), 753–763. https://doi.org/10.1086/673385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinz, E. (2006). Outline of a philosophical anthropology. Regulation of freedom: Reciprocity and self-organization. Retrieved September 9, 2023 from https://www.kulturwissenschaften.uni-hamburg.de/personen/hinz/publications/philo-anth.pdf

  • Hinz, E. (2009). Metaanthropology: Constructive criteria for anthropology. Retrieved September 9, 2023 from https://www.kulturwissenschaften.uni-hamburg.de/personen/hinz/publications/metaanthropology.pdf

  • Hughes, G. (2019). European social anthropology in 2018: An increasingly recursive public. Social Anthropology/anthropologie Sociale, 27, 352–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8676.12625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kempny, M., & Burszta, W. J. (1994). On the relevance of common sense for anthropological knowledge. In Social Experience and Anthropological Knowledge (pp. 91–103). Routledge.

  • Khamitov, N. (2017). Filosofija: bytie, chelovek, mir. Ot metafiziki k metaantropologii. [Philosophy: Being, Man, World. From metaphysics to meta-anthropology]. KNT.

  • Khamitov, N. (2008). Metaantropologija kak otvet epoche postmoderna: Eksistenzialy predelnogo bytija [Meta-anthropology as a response to the postmodern age: Existentials of limited being]. Vestnik NGU. Serija Psikhologija, 2(1), 50–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroeber, A. L. (1955). History of anthropological thought. Yearbook of Anthropology (pp. 293–311). The University of Chicago Press.

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. The University of Chicago Press.

  • Kunce, A. (2012). Wonder and anthropology. The International Journal of the Humanities, 9(5), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.18848/1447-9508/CGP/v09i05/43226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G., & Johnson M. (2003). Metaphors we live by. The University of Chicago Press.

  • Lefebvre, V. A. (1996). The inexplicable effectiveness of metaphysical reasoning in the construction of mathematical models. Psycoloquy 7(09). Retrieved September 8, 2023, from https://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi/psyc/newpsy?7.09

  • Leontiev, D. A. (2012). Positivnaja psykhologija – povestka dnja novogo stoletija [Positive psychology: an agenda for the new century]. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 9(4), 36–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madsen, K. B. (1988). A history of psychology in metascientific perspective. Elsevier Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E. (2002). Cliometric metatheory: II. Criteria scientists use in the theory appraisal and why it is rational to do so. Psychological Reports, 91, 339–404.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meehl, P. E. (2004). Cliometric metatheory III: Peircean consensus, verisimilitude and asymptotic method. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 55, 615–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C. W. (2000). The sociological imagination. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mize, J. (2021). Bringing the mathematician into the equation: A new direction for metamathematics. Academia Letters. Article 824. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL824

  • Moore, S. F. (1994). Anthropology and Africa: Changing perspectives on a changing scene. University Press of Virginia.

  • Nota, J. H. (1940). Max Schelers metanthropologie. Philosophische En Theologische Faculteiten Der Nederlandsche Jezuieten, 3(1), 162–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/00062278.1940.10600822

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Okonskaya, N. B. (2004). Osnovy metaantropologii: Chelovek i mir [Fundamentals of meta-anthropology: Man and the world]. Vuzovskaya kniga.

  • Pepper, S. C. (1942). World hypotheses: A study in evidence. University of California Press.

  • Reid, A. D. I. (2019). Wonderfully and fearfully made: Hans Urs von Balthasar on the metaphysical significance of the wonder of a child and the fruitfulness of human sexual difference [unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Durham University.

  • Ritchie, J. (1993). Review: Te Waimana: The spring of mana: Tuhoe history and the colonial encounter. Ethnohistory, 40(2), 348–350. https://doi.org/10.2307/482227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritzer, G. (1991). I never metatheory I didn’t like. Mid-American Review of Sociology, 15(2), 21–32. https://doi.org/10.17161/STR.1808.5065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritzer, G. (2007). Metatheory. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell encyclopedia of sociology (pp. 2964–2967). Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sangren, P. S. (1988). Rhetoric and the authority of ethnography: “Postmodernism” and the social reproduction of texts. Current Anthropology, 29(3), 405–435. https://doi.org/10.1086/203652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, D. (1992). Criticism and culture: Theory and post-colonial claims on anthropological disciplinarity. Critique of Anthropology, 12(4), 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275X9201200401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seaton, S. L., & Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1978). Meta-anthropology: The elementary forms of ethnological thought. In K. A. Watson-Gegeo & S. L. Seaton (Eds.), Adaptation and symbolism: Essays on social organization, presented to Sir Raymond Firth by his students in the United States and Canada 1968–1974 (pp. 173–218). The University Press of Hawaii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, N. W. (2001). Current systems in psychology: History, theory, research, and applications. Thomson Learning.

  • Spencer, J. (1989). Anthropology as a kind of writing. Man, New Series, 24(1), 145–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thys, W. (1987). Can metaphysics be only meta-physics? Bijdragen: International Journal for Philosophy and Theology, 48(1), 14–31. https://doi.org/10.2143/BIJ.48.1.2016202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turchin, V. F. (1977). The phenomenon of science: A cybernetic approach to human evolution. Columbia University Press.

  • Verducci, D. (1999). Life and human life in Max Scheler: Phenomenological problems of identification and individualization. In A.-T. Tymieniecka (Ed.), Life - the outburst of life in the human sphere. Scientific philosophy I phenomenology of life and the sciences of life. Book II (pp. 71–92). Kluwer Academic Publishers, Springer-Science + Business Media, B.V.

  • Wallis, S. E. (2010). The structure of theory and the structure of scientific revolutions: What constitutes an advance in theory? In Cybernetics and systems theory in management: Tools, views, and advancements (pp. 151–175). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61520-668-1.ch009

  • White, E. (2005). Invisible Tagkanysough. PMLA, 120(3), 751–767. https://doi.org/10.1632/003081205X63840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigner, E. (1960). The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 13, 1–14. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpa.3160130102

  • Wilson, R. A., & Neco, L. C. (2023). Ethnobiology, the ontological turn, and human sociality. Journal of Ethnobiology. https://doi.org/10.1177/02780771231194781

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Karen Ann Watson-Gegeo, US Davis Professor Emeritus, and Eike Hinz, Professor Emeritus of the University of Hamburg, for their personal correspondence, discussion of the history of their work, and their assessment from a modern point of view. A comment by Professor Stephen Reyna, Research Associate at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology, Halle (Saale), Germany, contributed to the improvement of the text of the article.

Funding

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Psychology of Education and Development, Saratov State University, Saratov, Russia

    Ilya Garber

  2. Lynn, MA, USA

    Ilya Garber

Authors
  1. Ilya Garber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All the preparation of this manuscript was made by Ilya Garber, PhD.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ilya Garber.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

Not applicable.

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Garber, I. Meta-Anthropology: An Attractive Catchword or a Scientific Discipline? Three Stages in the Formation of Meta-Anthropology. Hu Arenas (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-024-00404-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42087-024-00404-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation