16 Cognitive Anthropology, Ethno Science, Etic Emic, New Ethnography

Sarika Negi

Contents

1.  Introduction

2.  History of Cognitive Anthropology

3.  Cognitive anthropology

3.1 Colour categorisation

3.2 Kinship relation and terminology

4.  Critical comment on Cognitive Anthropology

5.  Recent Developments in Cognitive Anthropology Summary

Learning Objectives

• To understand the concept of cognitive Anthropology To understand the sub branches of the topic To appreciate the concept critically

1.    Introduction

Cognitive anthropology focuses on the cultural understanding, which is encased in words, narrative and material culture, and is grasped and shared with others. Cognitive anthropology is the study of the relation between society and human thought (Andrade). The scholars of cognitive anthropology studies social groups’ cognition about the objects and phenomena which built their world, ranging from physical to abstract things.

2. History of Cognitive Anthropology

In the beginning of mid 1950’s scholars constructed a new methodology ‘Cognitive’ or ‘Ethnoscience’ or ‘New ethnography’, which emerged as a critic to the then existing traditional ethnography, questioning basically the methods of it. These scholars argued on the basis that there is no one method which is followed by anthropologists and every one studied and wrote in his or her own way. As a result ethnographies varied in their information and could not be compared. In order to make it more scientific and the descriptions in these ethnographies more accurate they argued for some new methodology, which is outlined with emic perspective. However, its intellectual roots go back to enlightment period, where foundation of human studies was led down. The enlightment thinkers contributing in the makeup of this intellectual interest were Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke, focusing on the interaction of society and mind. Among these Locke, put forth an important point where he argued that, humans at birth unwritten sheet, and with cultural exposure and experience a person gets a shape. He took forwards this idea in empiricism and propounded conceived knowledge shaping person, as conceived because of sensory experiences, experienced throughout life. Cognition of individuals rests on sensation and experience, in contrast his empiricism rationalist orientation emerged arguing role of mind alone in achieving knowledge. Some other whose work were dealt with human studies, society and mind were Turgot, Condorcet and Auguste Comte, put forth a philosophy of positivism, arguing evolvement of intellectual complexity and a need to move towards empirical observation to achieve an understanding of it.

Post the modern phase in anthropological research i.e. of Geertz, Turner and Schenider, a move from finding a more scientific form of inquiry in anthropological research anthropologists turned for inspiration to Linguistic theory. Linguistics was in a stage of shift from Bloomfieldian and structural linguistics to transformational generative linguistics. In 1954, a major breakthrough happened when, Kenneth L. Pike published an essay, Language in relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behaviour. He acquired idea from relation between sounds (phonetic) and meaningful units of sound (phenomic). Phenotics is the study of sounds that humans can produce while phenomics (phonology) focuses on the sounds differentiated on the basis of contrasts with other sounds. Through his study he proposed that, at universal level, the things which could be observed by an outsider formed the etic category. The emic formed the level of meaningful contrast within a specific language known to insiders.

After his work anthropologist tried to built the concepts of emic and ‘etic’. The emic which was subjected to a long debate was seen factually as informant’s expression by Marvin Harris. In 1960’s, scholars of Cognitive anthropology thought of Benjamin L. Whorf’s perspective, which emerged in 1930’s, on the link between modern, western science, and worldviews of natives’. Along with Whorf, Edward Sapir was also interested in the relation of language and human thoughts, they both formulated the Sapir-Whorf’ hypotheses in which they explained that, language is not just way of communicating but also fabricated people’s thinking of the world. This link between language and perception was borrowed to connection between culture and language. Later Ward Goodenough and Charles Frake explained the methods to conduct fieldwork and analyzing the data. A highly structured interview, aiming at the understanding of indigenous conceptual categories, called as Domain by Ethnoscientists was proposed. Later, methodology, componential analysis emerged, to understanding definitive chararcteristics through which artefacts and ideas were sorted in each domain by the natives. These scholars believed that, components of the domains when organized under one of the several logical possibilities, covering pattern or model, classification, the collection and the type-token can make the study more accurate and systematic. The data collection following this way could be more systematic and replicable claiming the more scientific study which could conceptualize native categories. Some ethnoscience argued that, this will permit ethnographers to think like indigenous members.

This move towards Cognitive anthropological study remained an active field of research. By mid 1970’s, advances in anthropology, psychology and field of artificial intelligence underlined the human cognition being more complex than frames derived from indigenous understandings derived from cognitive methodology. An elemental conception of ethnoscience and early cognitive anthropology was that, the categorised objects in their world by looking at the mental list of essential characters which was later developed that, people categorise by referring common mental prototypes which were called Schemas or Schemata, resulted from the prior experiences with a particular kind of phenomena which is not identical but similar to that phenomena. Mandler, in schema theory gives an example of a child identifies something that has characteristics green, round and is without stem as an apple only because it induces apple-ish schema, rather than because it matches a list of characters. In contrast to Tyler’s view, it is now understood that intellect is non-linguistic and is not governed by language. Now a days, cognitive anthropologists and psychologists have chosen the idea of Connectionism, where intellect is connected, nexus built and distributed by elements such as neurons involved in processing and through these information can be collected and analysed.

D’ Andrade sketched an example to explain schema and connectionism where, a car driving is taught based on rule learning via a particular language and in other case where driver is told that pedal for brake is on left, for gas, it is on right side and in a culture specific way where, car is driven in US on the right side of the route. Here, the practice will be different from the verbal instructions, where schema nexuses are built and where practice is foundational in building experience allowing one’s expressions according to situations. For 1950’s and 1960’s Ethnoscientists, culture was ideally construct in minds of people and that, could be charted out and reproduced using accurate interviewing methods. However, Mandler’s theory argued that, what goes in cognition of a person is definitely cultural, but non-verbal, and cannot be obtained through questioning. Hutchins, who explained culture as a process, where it is not only construct in mind rather involving process perceiving and communicating in and with physical world, which build schemas and link in the mind founding cognition.

Several other studies pointed out the problems in the methods of modern system, where, different areas of inquiry were given relevance with the focus on reliability on these. The various problems in the areas of cultural thoughts, value system and beliefs studies were highlighted in the cognitive research.

3. Cognitive anthropology

This field of anthropology details with the culture and human perceptions. It aims to understand how people understand their surrounding artefacts and environment. Although Ethnoscientists focused more on the making ethnographies more scientific and replicable, but the natives’ point of view was not a new addition to approach. In the anthropological studies, Bronislaw Malinowski, in the introduction of Argonauts of the Western Pacific, called it being the final aim of ethnographers, which was published in the 1920’s. Boasian historical particularism pointing towards uniqueness of each culture, ‘cultural relativism’ somehow pointed towards what Ethnoscientists argued to follow. Although the extreme cultural relativism followed by Ethnoscientists made cross cultural comparisons unattainable.

The four major phases observed in cognitive anthropology were focusing on various arenas. The first, where aims of cognitive anthropology were set involving studies on symbolism which were combined with the linguistic understanding leading into Ward Goodenough’s work. The second, was inititated by an indepth study of cultural wisdom by utilising methods that have been already in existence. The componential analysis for kinship terminology was utilised by Lonsbury and Goodenough, where language was taken as central idea. Later, techniques were borrowed from psychology which kept adding in the methods utilized in cognitive anthropology. There were studies which focused on psychological theorizing, Wallace did work on the link between the shortcomings of short term memory and the size terminologies used in kinship system. This period extended from the late 1950’s to the early 1970’s oriented towards methods utilised, construction as a subject and quantification, which mostly occurred in five universities majorly Yale, Stanford, Irvin, Pennsylvania and Berkeley.

The third phase started with the beginning of the mid 1970’s developed by Eleanor Rosch, the link between language based units and of prototypes which were pure psychological units was formulated. By early 1980’s a shift from prototype theory to schema theory was observed and by mid it is relevance was realised through connectionist nexus. With a divorced strong hold on semantic ways of analysis an enhanced interest in metaphor and meaning became the focus. The fourth phase which is comparatively new, have centrality of schema in connection with the actions. Emotion, socialization and concerns on cognitive structure with physical construct.

3.1 Colour categorisation

Harold C. Conklin, is an anthropologist who worked in the area of ethnoecology and linguistics. He worked on Hanunoo folkbotany, where he soon after one year of fieldwork became familiar with the problem in native system of colour classification. The identification of flora relies majorly on colour differentiation in the look of flowers or other structures- both in classification botany and in the popular systems of categorisation. In his account, he initiated with some biological adjectives of Colour in botanical classification and added that in lab environment, colour distinction being same for all humans groups probably. He says that, irrespective of linguistic difference, the way in which languages do classification of millions of colours, which every normal person can distinguish differ from one to another.

‘Domains’ remain the point of departure for the cognition and cognitive categorisation of objects in a culture, eg. bed, tables and chairs fall under the domain of furniture. Conklin’s work in the area of ethnobotany is one of the perfect studies to reflect on the ideas of Cognitive Anthropology. He hypothesized that, colour classification influencing the perception of colour where he showed cultural based terms by which the Hanunoo categorised colour and the need of it may vary considerably from one to another culture. The classification of colour names in English account more than 3000 categories. It showed some other possibilities too where, some non-categorised units for colour classification can be found. The terms used in cultural vocabulary for colours can help in analysis within the culture of word bank and unit can help in their understanding and array of application.

Conklin explored colour classification among Hanunoo where he included answers in linguistic form after showing some of the painted cards and other coloured materials through other sources natural environment some more was explored. All this resulted in cognition of native in terms of colour categories where large number of overlappings was found which could not be remedified with control specimens. Though work based on flora in-congruity resulted in two contrast results 1) larger and more common understanding had four colours of the colour system, and 2) many sub-panels included hundreds of colours which were having overlapping.

The Level 1 terms which Conklin identified basing the classification of colours among Hanunoo were

• (ma) biru, linked to the relatively darker shade of colour i.e. blackness.
• (ma) lagti, linked to lighter shades of colours, like white.
• (ma) rara, marking redness or shades of red colour.
• (ma) latuy, appearance of green.

Based on this level some outside environment related aspects were delineated by Conklin which are not based on colour categorization. Some of these were simple contrast, like broader colour category set in the community and is explained previously, the light and the dark, while the other contrast was that of, dryness and wetness, which is related to the life available in surrounding environment, where Conklin focused on the flora available. Accordingly, the world of Nanunoo’s is categorised where, food and raw products both are named with the extensions of terms used in level 1, such as uncooked, fresh vegetables and fruits are called as pag-laty-un, etc. In the community where social relevance of artefacts is also based on the colour categories in the Level 1 and the third, contrast based on colours is of manufactured goods, desired are from the darker categories relegating the lighter ones. In pointed out being interesting by Conklin that, the surroundings of these people majorly forest, has shades of green, which is invaluable for people in decorative artefacts where Green bead are considered unattractive.

3.2 Kinship relation and terminology

Kinship terminology which has been studied by various anthropologist in kinship studies was studied by Lounsbury and Goodenough where they put forth a method to locate ‘idea units’ and analysing the formation or structure of these units. Although their method was drawn from the ideas borrowed from 1920’s linguistic scholars like Roman Jakobson and N. Trubetzkoy, who offered Thèse introducing the concept of ‘structure’. The studies conducted in the non literate societies were found to be having a different kinship system and terminologies than the modern societies in west. The parent-child relation and marriage were found in all societies studied but the various categories in kinship system were found to be different from the other, where kin terms also differed.

Bellah conducted a study on Chiricahua kin terms, were living in New and Northern Mexico, along with Texas. Among them the centrality of local group as functional unit is cherished with a system of band above it which acted as a unit in the warfare. Within the local unit, there are matrilocal kins with their nuclear families, functioning as a primary unit in terms of economy where hunting and other economic activities are organised by them. The kinship system which is presented through a hypothetical geneaology drawn can help in understanding the method of componential analysis of cognitive anthropology giving it a shade different from the modern’ methods.

These terms are that of term of reference and not that of term of address, where the term used for a person can be his first name or may be a special term out of affection. In most of the anthropological studies term of reference is given emphasis, which can vary and often does not remain unaffected from the situation and concerned components. This problem was sorted by componential analysis propounded by Lounsbury and Goodenough which is developed by A. K. Romney as well. Their componential analysis involved steps where first covered commonalities in each term. The term labelled as F, were looked for commonalities, for example gender of these persons, where Ego’s father’s brother and his sister both were referred by the same term irrespective of Ego’s gender. Here the gendered expressions are not making any difference and it is proposed as a rule by Romney as rule of ‘minimum difference’. He coined another rule, rule of reciprocals in which X calls Z with a term F, then Z calls X by the term F and which is common in this community in comparison to English society.

Later, a list of kin type in a particular kin term was separated to look at the commonalities coming out. The features distinguishing F from I are the type of link between them, kin on first generation and of generation above.

In this figure where there is an additional link in genealogy, which are different but are not making any difference, which is called as the ‘rule of sequence difference’. In it person’s calling each other by F are the siblings of ego’s father, and also true for the persons where, one is the child of a man of ego’s generation. Here it is important to note that, if F is replaced by I then the rule followed remain the same but the only difference is that, ‘F’ is used consanguineal relation through male while ‘I’ through female, separated by one generation in collateral manner.

In Chiricahua kinship terminology where a contrast  between father’s  line and of mother’s  made distinguished there no distinction in the same generation is non-existing even when gender is situated in it. Here direct and collateral are merged and a gender distinction in the terminology at some levels was observed. This was contrasted by Bellah with English kinship terminology

4. Critical comment on Cognitive Anthropology

With an attempt of Cognitive anthropologist to move beyond the modernist methods and to develop something more scientific lead them to formulate certain methods and methodology. Certain criticisms have come up for ethnoscience even from within of the tradition. Keesing, criticised the inability of new ethnography or ethnoscience to move ahead their analysis of various domains. It has been unable to describe the generative grammar of any culture along with a failure in discovering the internal cultural workings that could be compared. In other words studies in new ethnography were not having any scope for cross cultural analysis where there is no generalization is built for comparative analysis.

Cognitive science deals with very static and synchronic analysis as their cosmology do not change and so is the case of cultural logic. So there is no scope for studying change through new ethnographic works. This has been defended by the practitioners arguing by taking up the concept of change studies through ecological, environmental and natural phenomena have a direct effect on the system of finding. The new ethnography which was criticised for following a single logico-methodological model where, plurality of these models argued to cover the culture studies while, it was suggested by ethno scientists that, there is a possibility of emergence of alternate can emerge when an umbrella structure is studied with the traditional logic.

The role of actor in the ethnographic studies was noted by Malinowski who said that, the actual meaning of people’s behaviour can only be studied from the opinion and ideologies they hold and have himself written a rich account. On this basis cognitive anthropologists were criticised to be not having knowledge of past when any phenomena is studied.

5. Recent Developments in Cognitive Anthropology

In cognitive anthropology, the new trends were in response to the critique from within, that purely descriptive accounts are not anymore logical in anthropology. A rigorous description is required to reflect on theory talking about the reason and how the material studied came to be. So, one of the modern trend which emerged in cognitive anthropology was to get away with the descriptive forms of ethnographic works, where description was an end in itself. Later, a higher form of descriptive work was done by Charles Frake who published an article on Subanun religious behaviour.

The critique of having no generalization to do a cross cultural comparison was base of other developments happening in the cognitive anthropological works. The responses aimed for theoretical generalizations where structure or process of specific semantic structures was developed. They were based on cross cultural comparisons of cognitive science driven structures of specific domains. The general concerns centred on the character of work and social and communicative use of domains with their basic or core characters of these which were the major concern of traditional cognitive science. The classificatory works were done by Berlin and Berlin, Breedlove and Raven (1974) on native botanical classifications, other works are recognised in the areas like colour classifications and ethnozoology.

Later, works concerned with the study of Metaphors were done by anthropologists in Cognitive field such as Basso, Lonunsbury, Kronenfeld on metaphors in Kinship systems while Quinn treated metaphor as organizer of thinking among actors.

Summary

As a tradition Cognitive anthropology focused on people’s understanding of their world covering a wider range of elements of study. As tradition grew from traditional or very initial phase to the recent where more things and approaches have been added by current scholars. A continuous attempt to mark more scientific approach towards ethnographic studies aimed cognitive science to keep upgrading their methodology with the help of critiques from outside and within.

The traces of development in cognitive anthropology somewhere take us to the domains studied not only by ethnoscientists but symbolic anthropology as well. Metaphor and Metonymy are the converging points where both the subjects meet but, following their own traditions. Apart from all the criticisms cognitive anthropology is an important attempt to move more closer to actual native world and perceptions.

Suggestive Reading

• Andrade, Roy D’. The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. UK: Cambridge University Press,1995.
• Basso, Keith and Henry O. Selby. Meaning in Anthropology. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1976
• Berlin, Brent  O., Dennis Breedlove,  and Peter  Raven.  “Covert  Categories  and Folk Taxonomies.”American Anthropologist 70: 290-299, 1968.
• Bloch, Maurice. “Language, Anthropology and Cognitive Science, Man (N.S.) 26:183-198, 1992.
• Frake, Charles  O.  “The  Diagnosis  of  Disease  among  the  Subanum  of  Mindanao,  American Anthropologist 63:1:113-132, 1961.
• General Principle of Classification and Nomenclature in Folk Biology. American Anthropologist 75:214-242, 1973.
• Kokot, Waltraud,  Hartmut  Lang  and  Eike  Hinz.  “Current  Trends  in  Cognitive  Anthropology.” Anthropos, Bd. 77, H. 3/4: 329-350, 1982.
• Lounsbury, Floyd. “A Semantic Analysis of the Pawnee Kinship Usage. Language 32:158-194, 1956.
• Mandler, Jean M. “Stories, Scripts and Scenes: Aspects of Schema Theory.” Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1984.
• Tyler, Stephen A. Cognitive Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969.