The scientific method is not the only means used by anthropologists to study different societies and cultures. Anthropologists also employ a more humanistic-interpretive approach as they study cultures. Think of this analogy: When botanists examine a flower, they attempt to understand the different components of the plant within a scientific framework; they analyze the biochemical and physical aspects of the flower. However, when painters, poets, or novelists perceive a flower, they understand the plant from an aesthetic standpoint. They might interpret the flower as a symbolic phenomenon that represents nature. The scientist and the humanist use different approaches and perspectives when examining the natural world. Anthropologists employ a humanistic-interpretive approach in many circumstances.

James Peacock uses another type of analogy to discuss the difference between the scientific and the humanistic-interpretive approaches in anthropology (1986). Peacock draws from the field of photography to construct his analogy. He discusses the “harsh light” of the rigor of scientific analysis, used to study the biological and material conditions of a society, versus the “soft focus” used when interpreting the symbols, art, literature, religion, or music of different societies. Peacock concludes that both the “harsh light” and the “soft focus” are vital ingredients of the anthropological perspective.

Cultural anthropologists utilize the humanistic-interpretive method as they conduct ethnographic research. However, archaeologists also employ these same methods when examining artifacts from ancient societies. When cultural anthropologists or archaeologists examine various practices and institutions in different societies, they often find that an outsider cannot easily comprehend these phenomena. In order to comprehend these different practices and institutions, cultural anthropologists or archaeologists often have to interpret these phenomena, just as one might interpret a literary, poetic, or religious text. Cultural beliefs and practices may not be easily translatable from one society to another. Cultural anthropologists or archaeologists frequently find practices and institutions that have meaning and significance only within a specific language and culture. Cultural anthropologists or archaeologists endeavor to understand cultural practices or institutions that may have rich, deep, localized meaning within the society being examined, but that are not easily converted into transcultural or cross-cultural meaning. We focus more thoroughly on this humanistic-interpretive approach in Chapter 13 on anthropological explanations.

Thus, in addition to its interconnections with the natural and social sciences, the discipline of anthropology is aligned with the humanistic fields of inquiry. This is particularly true with respect to the field of cultural anthropology, as these researchers are involved in the study of different contemporary cultures. When participating in the life and experience of people in various societies, ethnographers must confront a multitude of different behaviors and values that may have to be translated and interpreted. As mentioned above, archaeologists also confront this type of problem when studying past cultures and civilizations from different regions of the world. Similar issues confront linguistic anthropologists as they translate and understand various languages.

Many anthropologists explore the creative cultural dimensions of humanity, such as myth, folklore, poetry, art, music, and mythology. Ethnopoetics is the study of poetry and how it relates to the experiences of people in different societies; for example, a provocative study of the poetry of a nomadic tribe of Bedouins in the Middle East has yielded new insights into the concepts of honor and shame in this society (Abu-Lughod 1987). Another related field, ethnomusicology, is devoted to the study of musical traditions in various societies throughout the world. Ethnomusicologists record and analyze music and the traditions that give rise to musical expression, exploring similarities and differences in musical performance and composition. Ethnomusicologist Dale Olsen completed a fascinating study of Japanese music in South America. There are Japanese minority populations in the countries of Peru, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Bolivia. Olsen has studied the musical forms, both popular and classical, of these Japanese minorities and how they reflect the maintenance of ethnicity and culture in South America (2004). Other anthropologists study the art of particular societies, such as pottery styles among Native American groups.

Studies of fine art conducted by anthropologists have contributed to a more richly hued, global portrait of humankind. Artistic traditions spring up in all societies, and anthropologists have shed light on the music, myths, poetry, literature, and art of non-Western and other remote peoples. As a result, we now have a keener appreciation of the diverse creative abilities exhibited by humans throughout the world. As anthropologists analyze these humanistic and artistic traditions, they broaden our understanding of the economic, social, political, and religious conditions that prevail within these societies.

One fundamental difference exists between the scientific and the humanistic-interpretive aspects of anthropology. This difference pertains to the amount of progress one can achieve within these two different but complementary enterprises. Science has produced a cumulative increase in its knowledge base through its methodology. Thus, in the fields of astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and anthropology, there has been significant progress in the accumulation of knowledge; we know much more about these fields of science than our ancestors knew in the fifteenth or even the nineteenth century. As a result of scientific discoveries and developments, the scientific knowledge in these areas has definitely become more effective in offering explanations regarding the natural and social world. As we shall see in Chapter 13 on anthropological explanations, anthropologists today have a much better understanding of human behavior and culture than did anthropologists in the nineteenth century. Through the use of the scientific method, anthropology has been able to make strides in assessing human behavior and cultural developments.

In contrast, one cannot discuss the progress in the humanities in the same manner. Myth, literature, music, and poetry have not progressed in the way that scientific explanations have. One certainly cannot say that the literature or music of the twenty-first century has progressed beyond that of the time periods of Sophocles, Shakespeare, Dante, Bach, or Beethoven. As we shall see, the various humanistic endeavors involving beliefs, myths, and artistic expression in small-scale and ancient civilizations are extremely sophisticated and symbolically complex, and one cannot assess modern societies as “superior” or more “progressive” in those domains.

The essence of anthropology consists of understanding and explaining human behavior and culture with endeavors monopolized by no single approach. Such an enlarged perspective within anthropology requires peaceful coexistence between scientism and humanism, despite their differences. In a recent discussion of this issue within anthropology, Anne Campbell and Patricia Rice suggest that many anthropologists do not agree with one another’s assumptions from either a humanistic or a scientific perspective because of their philosophical commitments to one or the other area (Campbell and Rice 2003). However, anthropologists recognize these differences among themselves, and this is helpful, to a great degree, in making progress in our field because we continue to criticize and challenge one another’s assumptions and orientations, which results in a better understanding of both the scientific explanations and the humanistic understandings within our field.

What we are going to find in this textbook is that the many great syntheses of anthropological knowledge require the fusion of both the scientific and the humanistic perspectives. When the archaeologist studies the precision and beauty embodied in the 4,500-year-old pyramids of the Egyptian civilization, he (or she) finds that their inspiration came partly from the mathematics of numbers considered sacred and divine and partly from the emulation of nature. Both scientific and humanistic approaches enable anthropologists to study the sacred and the mundane aspects of nature and culture. When anthropologists combine the scientific and humanistic approaches, they can discover what is transcultural and universal and what is unique to specific societies. This is the major goal of anthropological research: to determine the similarity and differences of humans in the past and the present.