Managing time and place: An effort to unify history and anthropology
History can become more historical in becoming more anthropological,
that anthropology can became more anthropological in becoming more historical...
Bernard Cohen (in the state of play)
In the view of Cohen both anthropology and history are stand in the same position as discipline that the object is otherness. However, the concept the other have different emphasizes, while anthropology stresses place, at vice versa history stresses time.
Time and place are equally important in the process of knowing. Object is not only known trough the synchronic method, but also diachronic method. Combining these methods of course can help to get better understanding in exploring the fact as reality.
In the quote above, I underline Cohen’s statement that anthropology and history do share in epistemological level. The process of knowing in anthropology can elevate better if that discipline not diminished historical dimensions. Conversely, history can do better in explaining the stage by anthropological finding.
It can be understood of course, as long as history emphasizes time as period of action. Action happened in place, there is no action without specific place. There is no action without time too. Time and place are the ways that action happened.
Date, year, and day perhaps are the most important thing in the history; while people action, attitude, and respond are do best source in anthropology. But, history just able to repaint reality as mosaic, in the other hand, anthropology can make it as complete image.
However, combing history and anthropology method and its similarity in object and epistemology is not means that between them have no problem. Different focus is also problem, especially in the objectivity of explanation.
I see history tries to find the detail of action, narrative, and perhaps not quite analytic, while anthropology tries to find correlation between action and its embedment. Its means history avoid reduction, whereas anthropology accept reduction to generalize the fact and find the truth.
Others issue is about the sameness of stand point that in history one thing should be interpreted as historical even. If anthropology can do research without need a specific situation in which great or surprised, conversely history need it.
It is difficult to do research in history of culture rather than history of revolution. Revolution or violence can be period to begin to write history because it shown astonishment effects that easier historian to write. In contrary, anthropologist can easy writes the history because it rooted on the casual culture.
In addition, I see many histories, as Foucault views, just write history of great man, king, and superpower rather than lay people and discriminated class. The exception perhaps history that appear in the Marxist ideology. This tendency is undoubtedly different with anthropology that sees human in structure of body, rather than in the structure of power.
Questioning of objectivity
The question than concerning the value of anthropology and history itself it self, since they are rooted in the culture, it is difficult to say that same finding are objectively better than others.
Culture are fact and value free, historian and anthropologist can interpret it as it own ways and own needs.
Every cultures have it own language, that it’s different each others. Islamic values and Christian values are completely different although they are come from the some source as Abrahamic religion. One culture cannot be compared with others as neutral things.
There is different paradigm that embedded in the culture and the view of researcher. The different paradigm could affect to value appraisal. Paradigm is set of assumption and method of researcher and logic of community as they are conducted that shows in the representation of symbol.
Cohen says that “The idea of a paradigm, which is based on the idea of community consensus and its acceptance in anthropology, has only led to politics, not to science. But paradigms in anthropology are in fact political rather than scientific.”
He clearly acknowledges that paradigm is not neutral since it have political dimension. He further states that paradigm can used to intimidate other discipline of knowledge, as the superior one. “What are thought of as "schools" in American anthropology are in actuality mere reifications of networks of people trained together, who then try to colonize other departments with their epigones, adherents and acolytes, any coherence assumed in such departments then being based not on a paradigm but on a power play.”
In the other hand, postmodernists reject the idea of universalism that believes that all culture can be explained trough such great theory. In this regard anthropology has a momentum; anthropology generally chooses particular of society or particular object of society rather than society in general.
I think, that are problem of history and anthropology as methods, and its problem related to paradigm. Perhaps that can help us to understand the things trough multidimensional aspects, but perhaps sometime by combining all method and theory to some research are misleading.
Knowledge is not about objectivity, but also about belief. Temanggung and Bogor perhaps are same as mountain areas, but Temanggung people choose to plant tobacco rather than tea as Bogor people does. Knowledge about the structure of land, fertility may be useful, but it is not mean can help to explain the fact. Bogor and Temanggung people plant different plantation may be bay reason of habit, belief, or other factors.[]
