What is nader saying about the fragmentation of anthropology?

Question

What is nader saying about the fragmentation of anthropology?

Answer 1

I assume you're referring to Laura Nader's 2000 lecture.  Looking at it now, I think it's a good article.  I suspect this is coursework so I'm going to be a bit vague while still pointing out some points to focus on.  Part of what she's saying is that anthropology changes due to outside influences.  She gives a lot of examples, from Margret Mead to the Cold War, and mentions that part of the "competing histories and pasts" trend is related to anthropologists employment by Amerindian tribes like the Hopi.  She also mentions that these and other trends towards multiples don't have to be viewed as creating a bunch of different realities but should provoke anthropological debate on what the differences mean holistically.  This takes her to her analysis of the opposing directions anthropology is pulled in - colonial power vs. colonized informant, for example.  These sorts of tensions, she writes, lead anthropologists to escapism instead of debate (or at least I think that's what she's saying.  I'm not certain how that squares with her criticism of the hegemony of Boas in his time that she discussed a few paragraphs prior, so I may have that wrong.).  She suggests that the subdisciplines must move more closely together and so too should the national traditions, as well as the Western and Non-Western anthropologists.  I think the section called New Connections is very important and if you haven't read it, you should.  The first paragraph on Disciplinary Issues gives some of the basic advise on ethics for the future of anthropology which would make good points for a paper or presentation.  I think she's arguing that anthropology must bring itself together by ceasing to shrink away from controversy and begin to engage with the publics again.