What Psychology Can Do for Anthropology, or Why Anthropology Took Postmodernism on the Chin Author(s): Patricia M.

Greenfield Reviewed work(s): Source: American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 102, No. 3 (Sep., 2000), pp. 564-576 Published by: Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/683412 . Accessed: 17/09/2012 05:11
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley-Blackwell and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

PATRICIAM. GREENFIELD

of Department Psychology of California, Angeles Los University Los Angeles,CA 90095

What Psychology Can Do for Anthropology, or Why Anthropology Took Postmodernism on the Chin
my own perspective.Obviously,thereare an infinite number statusesthatinfluenceanyone'sperof on This is partof the postmodsonalperspective anything. em dilemma.However,thereis a restricted of historical set conditionsthat are relevantto a particular task. What is relevantaboutmy historyto the taskthatI have set myself in this essay is my relationto the disciplinesof psychology and anthropology. Therefore,in talkingabout what psyI has to offer anthropology, wantto makeit clear chology thatI am not a psychologisttalkingaboutanthropology as someoneelse's discipline.AlthoughI am in a department I of psychology, receivedbothmy degreesfromthe Departan ment of Social Relationsat Harvard, interdisciplinary mix of social psychology,social anthropology, socioland Forme,bothpsychology anthropology always and have ogy. been partof my tool kit. In fact, I am revisingthis essay fromthe School of AmericanResearchin SantaFe, an institutefor advancedstudy in anthropology. discussing In whatpsychologyhas to offer anthropology, am therefore I to in talking myselfas well as to my colleagues anthropology. Until quiterecently,I, like Fish (2000), had given considerablethoughtto what anthropology to offer psyhad and chology (Greenfield1996). Like manycultural crossculturalpsychologists(Jessor,Colby and Shweder 1996; Triandisand Berry 1980), I was particularly impressed withthe ethnographic method.How to reconcilethisadmirationfromthe field of psychologywiththe breast-beating and self-flagellation In going on in cultural anthropology? thinkingabout this problem,it suddenlyoccurredto me thatthe methodologyof psychologyhad successfullyaddressedsome of the principalproblemsidentifiedby the I postmodemcritiqueof anthropology. now believe that this may be why psychology has weatheredpostmodemismbetterthananthropology. "weathering By postmodI ernismbetter" referto an optimisticsense thatthe tradition of empirical research will continue to yield rich in rewards ourknowledgeof humannature. Of course,my premisemay be instantly by rejected culturalanthropologists, empiricism for itself is of courseunderattack the postmodern in critique(Geertz1973).Along

The

dictates postmodernism of that require I specify

with empiricism, scientificgeneralization also an object is of derision.In the courseof this essay, I hope to convince that and my readers the babiesof Empiricism Generalization havebeenthrownout withthe bathwaters Objectivof ity, CulturalHomogeneity,Fact, Truth, Otherness,and Science as an Apolitical Enterprise.In short, to accept
these lattersix assumptionsas valid targetsof thepostmodern critique does not necessarily entail a turningaway from empirical methodology;it does not necessarily entail the redefinition of anthropologyas literatureratherthan science.

An analysisof psychology'sapproach someof theexto identifiedby postmodernism tremelyimportant problems can may provideideas for how culturalanthropology reto itself as an empiricalenterprise, andwiser turn stronger thanbefore the buffets of the postmodern critique.Howbeforebeginningmy argument, must addresstwo I ever, majorissues that complicateit in interestingways. The firstissue has to do with the fact thatsome of the potential inputsand insightsfrom the field of psychologyhave alinto subfieldsof readybeen integrated the anthropological psychological anthropology, linguistic anthropology, biological anthropology, applied anthropology. and Many emin pirical methodsfrom psychology are well entrenched (Bock 1999;HollanandWelpsychologicalanthropology offers exlenkamp1994, 1996). Linguisticanthropology and of that plicit methodology a new array techniques preserve concretedataandsubjects'voicing in the face of the postmodemcritique(Duranti1997). In biologicalanthromakescommoncausewith psycholpology, anthropology of of ogy, reminding anthropology the biologicalsubstrate humanbehaviorand challengingthe dualismof biology andculture in (issuesthatwill notbe pursued thisessay).In a series of books (SchensulandLeappliedanthropology, as methodCompte1999)treatsethnography an empirical thatcan be described,learned,and taught.Manyof ology these inputsfromwithinanthropology constitute also constructive to the postmodem empirical responses critique. these areminority However,withinanthropology voices, and it is not clearwhetherthese voices have alwaysbeen heard thepostmodem of by majority cultural anthropologists; in addition,even within the subfields of psychological,

AmericanAnthropologist102(3):564-576. Copyright? 2000, AmericanAnthropologicalAssociation

GREENFIELD

WHAT PSYCHOLOGY CAN

DO FOR ANTHROPOLOGY

565

thereare linguistic,biological, and appliedanthropology, for whom empiricalresearchhas been derailedby many the postmodern critique(D'Andrade1999).If the minority and voices hadbeen moreheededby cultural anthropology the postmodemcritiquemight as anthropology a whole, well have done less damageto the empirical,scientificinvestigationof cultureand cultures.In this essay, I hope to to give new ammunition these minorityvoices withinthe field of anthropology. The second issue stems from the fact that psychology has hadits own postmodemcritiques (Gergen1990, 1995). have been a minormode withinthe field of Althoughthey scientific,empirical psychology(andin this sensepsycholhas weatheredpostmodemism betterthan anthropology merit serious consideration. Also, where Gerogy), they has gen's (1985, 1991a, 1991b)postmodemism been most influential psychology-in familytherapy(Nichols and in Schwartz1995)-his postmodeminfluencehas hada constructiveeffect on practice,withouthaving any negative impacton the scientificenterprise. I also recognizewhatthinice I am on as a psychologist. In "ThickDescription: Towardan Interpretive Theoryof the Geertz Culture," firstbuildingblockof postmodemism, is not only antiscientific, is also antipsychological, he (1973) andunabashedly However,Geertz's so. between dichotomy the "experimental science in searchof law"and "aninter(1973:5) is a false one. pretiveone in searchof meaning" Cultural psychology, not to mentionlinguisticanthropolhave shown themogy and psychologicalanthropology, selves to be extremelycapableof using systematicempirical means to investigatethe makingandinterpretation of as themeinhuman nature (Greenfield 1996). meaning a central

Just as no sourceis given for her historicalstatements, no evidenceis given forhercontemporaneous conclusions. she Thus,whentalkingaboutintercultural relations, states, andthe hiringof laborfor the fields areresponsi"Trading ble for mostrelations" 1961:17-18),but (Guiteras-Holmes we are given no indicationof the evidence for this statement.This convention the generalstatement of without hissourceor ethnographic evidenceis followedthroughtorical outthebookandis generally of classicethnography. true The methodologicalimplicationsof the generalstatement withoutevidence is that methodsdo not matterbecause thereis an objectivetruth, homogeneous throughout the culture. The underlying neverspoken)assumption (but is thatit does not matter how you get yourinformation; the conclusionwill always be the same becauseit is, objectively,true.

Critiqueof the Objectivity Assumption in Anthropology

This assumption an objectiveor outsidelook at a hoof cultural system receives harsh criticism in mogeneous Clifford(1986:22),in the intropostmodemanthropology. duction to a classic work of postmodemanthropology, WritingCulture,writes, "Thereis no longerany place of overview(mountaintop) from which to map humanways of life, no Archimedean the pointfrom whichto represent world."Postmodemcriticismhas drawnattention gento derandpoliticalpositionsas influenceson the way dataare collectedand conclusionsdrawn,as well as myriadother potentialinfluences.The notion is that all ethnographers have a particular positionfromwhichtheywork;therefore the notionof objectivityas beyondthe "bias" a particuof larvantagepointis simplyinvalid. Fromtheperspective linguisticanthropology, of Duranti writes(1997:85-86): Withrespect ethnography, problems theterm to the with "obarise its with of jectivity" from identification a form positivistic writing wasmeant exclude observer's that to the subjective as stance,including emotions, well as political, moral,and theoretical attitudes. anexclusion, its more Such in extreme or to it form,is not onlyimpossible achieve, is alsoa "purist" a questionable goal, giventhatit wouldproduce verypoor record theethnographer's of (De 1961). experience Martino Howwould be ableto saywhat one are people doingwithout atleasta minimal identification their with pointof view?One wouldendup sayingthingslike "people on squat the floor, grab their food with their hands and bring it to their " mouth-andthis,theycall 'eating.' As it is obviousfrom thisexample, rather being"objective" impartial, than and accounts thiskindcaneasilybe readas implying negative of a evaluation localpractices. of is Equally implausible a descriptionthat identifies thenative with and completely perspective doesnot,in somefashion, reflect researchers' the perception cannotbutalso exploitthe researchers' abilityto identify,
of thedescribed science, events. A scienceof people,a human ....

The Objective Perspective

In anthropological culturewas traditionethnography, treatedas an objectivewhole. Althoughthe ethnograally the was pherwas a participant-observer, finalethnography writtenas thoughthe observerwere omniscient,devoidof of any particularities perspective.A majorway in which this came out was in the formof generalstatements, without any information to the sourceof the statements as or evidence for them. An example (takenat random)is the classic ethfollowing sentence from Guiteras-Holmes's Perils of the Soul (1961:10):"What todaythe is nography, Stateof Chiapas belongedto the captaincy generalof Guasubdivisionsof the temala,one of the two administrative makes no viceroyaltyof New Spain."Guiteras-Holmes mentionof the sourceof this information. This is particularly strikingbecause, immediatelybefore, she has informedus that"[h]istorical dataare scarce"(p. 10) in the she is discussing.Yet, because of anthropological region convention,she does not feel it necessaryto tell us where she foundherdata.

566

* AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 102, No. 3

* SEPTEMBER 2000

that with This they empathize thepeople arestudying. implies a which thereexistsin ethnographycertain playfulelement into consistsof changing familiar the strange the and,vice into the versa, strange thefamiliar 1990). (Spiro Critique of the Objectivity Assumption in Psychology

strategyrespondsnot only to the objectivitycritiquebut also to the "otherness" a critique, latertopicof discussion.) Why Psychology Has Been Less Vulnerable to the Objectivity Critique: Operationalization and Description of Methods

The predictions Gergennotwithstanding, of methodolhas not been dethronedin psychology.Indeed,it is ogy ironicalthatthe very methodology harshlycriticizedby so GeertzandGergenhas madepsychologyless vulnerable to one the objectivity This is perhaps reasonwhy the critique. hegemony of methodologyhas survivedin both undergraduateand graduateeducation,virtuallyunscathedby Gergen's critique.The argumentfor methodologygoes backto the historyof psychology. On a philosophicallevel, scientific psychology was founded on the principlethat a psychologicalconstruct with the asraisesfundamental questions postmodernism does not exist outsidethe specific way in which it is meaas the that about world operates a mirsumption ourlanguage discourse about worldoperates sured. For example, a classic definition of intelligence the rorof thatworld.Rather whichin turnare within the field of psychology has been "Intelligenceis largelyon thebasisof socialconventions, in rulesandoptions rhetorical crystallized termsof various whattheintelligence testsmeasure." is anintrinsically This the Thus, (suchasrulesof proper storytelling). to presume inrelativistic notion;the idea is that,if you changeyourtest, reflected thedisexistence a subject of matter, by dependent you also changeyourconceptof intelligence. in wouldbe to engage anunwarranted course, objectification In psychology, researchers always obliged to deare of thediscourse. [1990:29] scribe how they obtainedtheir data and how they went Gergen'scritiqueof objectivityleads to the "marginali- fromtheirdatato theirconclusions.The obligatorymethods sectionin a psychologyarticleincludesa description of in zationof method" psychology: the subjectswho furnishedthe data, the operationsthat underwent a virtual under modernism, methodology apotheosis. wereusedto elicit the data,the systemthatwas used to inwasthemeans truth light,andthusto salto and Methodology or code the data,andthe statisticsthatwere used to vation.... Underpostmodernism, however,methodology terpret the data. analyze Althoughpsychology, even more than methods are losesits coveted Under position. postmodernism has reified the objectiveobserver,it nonedevice. viewedas a misleading Theymisleadingly anthropology, justification theless requiresexplicitnessaboutprocedures. Implicitly, as truth when warrants particular for operate propositions, proof does locate the researcher's are of truth." the description procedures positions not fundamentally capable "carrying to [1990:30] perspective some extent.For example,we know if the observer behinda video camera,was takingnoteson a was situation,or was carryingon an internaturally occurring Anthropology's Response to the Objectivity Critique view outof the contextof dailylife. In essence, the assumption in withinpsychology-that reYes, methodologyhas been dethroned anthropology sultsandconclusionsareintrinsically relativeto the methGeertz (1973) (based on the psycho(D'Andrade1999). ods used-has sparedpsychologyfromthe degreeof damnotionsof an earlierera) dealt a body blow to oplogical erationaldefinitionand systematicmethodology.Thence at age suffered anthropology the handsof theobjectivity by arise conceptually as Tsing Thisis not to say thatpsychologyis methodologi(such critique. important ethnographies ideas (e.g., intercultural inIts of is 1993) thatinnovateimportant cally invulnerable. reification objectivity a crackin the armoragainstpostmodern criticism(and leads to the teraction),yet have loosened the ties between data and unconscious ethnocentrismso well described by Fish analysis,to the point where data and analysistraveltwo quite independent [2000] in his companionarticleto this one). However,bepaths (Marcus1998). This disconnection is the natural result of the tenet that methodological cause of its methodologicalrelativityand self-conscious and are treatment methods,psychologyhas,as a discipline,been of (Geertz1973). techniques procedures irrelevant Still anotherresponseis to move from the assumptions free to develop new methodsto deal with varyingsubjecof objectivityin a traditional tivities. A good illustrationfrom cross-cultural/cultural (e.g., Dumont ethnography of own of fromeachof 1972) to an explicitdescription the ethnographer's psychologyis the collaboration researchers with the subjectsof studyin the cultures in perspectiveand relationship being compared a cross-cultural study(e.g., the same community (e.g., Dumont [1978]1992). (This Stevensonet al. 1985).This technique enablesthe research in KennethGergen,the leadingpostmodernist the field of psychology, writes that "if our conventionsof writing are, in turn, dependenton social agreements,and these agreementscarry with them various ideological biases, then all scientific writing-all our attemptsat objectivity-are essentially value saturatedproducts of social leads Gergen (1990:28).Thisline of argument agreement" to the conclusionthatthe subjectmatterof psychologyhas vanished:

GREENFIELD

WHAT PSYCHOLOGY CAN

DO FOR ANTHROPOLOGY

567

to potentially havebothan outsiderandan insiderperspective on each of the cultures the comparison. in Potential Application to Anthropology In the field of education(or perhapswe shouldcall this a appliedanthropology), moreradicalutilizationof multihas been developed by Tobin, Wu, and ple perspectives Davidson (1989): the multivocalethnography. multiThe vocal ethnography anethnography is composedwithmany voices, ratherthanthe single voice of the anthropologist. Tobin,Wu, and Davidson'smethodof multivocalethnogdata.Because such dataare perraphyutilizes videotaped manent(unlikethe moretraditional observations), can they be viewed andinterpreted multipleparties(the multiple by voices). Tobin,Wu,andDavidsonmadetapesof activityin threepreschools, in China,one in Japan, one in the one and UnitedStates.Teachersandparents fromall threecultures saw and commentedon tapes from all three countries. from Thus, the data from each countrywere interpreted both insider and outsiderperspectives.Note that, in this in method,the typicalethnography which a Westernobserverstructures Eastern the cultureas an objectof studyis but on of retained, also turned its headby the addition recinot procity.The Easternobservernow has an opportunity his the only to interpret or her own culturebut to interpret Westernone as well (plus a second Easternculture).AlthoughTobin,Wu, and Davidsondevelopedtheirmethod andmethodology the contextof a cross-cultural in studyof educational practiceand values,it is an exampleof a new kind of ethnography is potentially that to applicable any of the traditional arenasof anthropological ethnography. The precedingexample is termed ethnography, even though it utilizes the technologyof video. But could anmethodothropologymakeanyuse of the moretraditional and logical assumptions conventionsfrom psychology?I believe so. The ethnographer could tell us whathe or she did to gain the knowledgethat led to a particular conclusion. For example,whenGuiteras-Holmes (1961:24), says "He who is away fromhome expresseshis longingto return,"a psychological researchermight suggest that the tell anthropologist us whom she talkedto or observedand under what circumstances. example, did the anthroFor drawher conclusionfrom interviews,or did she pologist when travelingaway from home learn it as a participant with herinformants? Warren Withinanthropology, (1996) has notedthatanneeds to adda relationship betweenfield notes thropology andpublishedwork.Psychologyalreadyhas established a betweendata(oftenencapsulated paralleldistinction quantitatively),coding (whererelevant),and discussionof results. The implicationfrompsychology is that a valuable additionto ethnography wouldbe samplesof field notes,a descriptionof the guidingprinciplesin taking the notes, a of and,most important, description the methodby which

field noteswereconverted ethnographic into chronological conclusions and writing. Seymour's (1999) fascinating of ethnography long-termfieldworkand social changein Indiais impeccable thisrespectand,interestingly, in represents a contribution fromthe subfieldof psychologicalanthropology. Another instructive examplecomes fromBambiSchieffelin, a linguistic anthropologist who has been methodologically influencedby trainingin psychology (taken underLois Bloom in the Developmental Psychology Departmentat TeachersCollege, ColumbiaUniversity).In Schieffelin's(1990) ethnography the languagesocialiof zationof Kalulichildren, includesa 12-pagesectionon she "Method interpretation" 24-36). The titles of the and (pp. subsections themselvesprovideevidencethatshe not only has covered all of the territory encompassedby psychological methodology but, in addition, has adapted the methodologicalcategoriesfrom psychology of subjects, procedure,anddata analysisto her studycommunityand research are topic.The titlesof hersubsections as follows: "Selectingfamilies and contexts,""Collectingthe speech dataandpreparing annotated the the transcripts," "Reading and the "Somethoughts transcripts interpreting examples," on writingthisethnography." lastsectionwouldseem This to owe its existencemoreto CliffordandMarcus's(1986) notionof writingculture thanto psychology.However,it is that once the notionof writingcultureis inteinteresting it gratedwitha moreself-conscious methodology, does not lead to the self-flagellationof "How can we ever know We in anything? arehopelesslytrapped ourlimitedandbiased perspectives." Instead,it leads to an integrateddeof an scription the methodsthatconstitute important aspect of the "perspective" Schieffelin'sstudy. of At the same time, such description leads to appropriate ommodestyaboutone's work.Gone is the theoretically niscientethnographer. his or her place is the ethnograIn and pherwho understands can makeexplicitthe realityof his or herrelationship the cultureandthe access this reto afforded. Schieffelinwrites(1990:23-24): lationship As a woman, wasgivenprivileged I accessto theactivities of women children. mancouldhavesatin thewomen's and No sectionor gone bathing withsmallchildren. a mother, As I wasseenas anadult, whoshared one someperspectives with other women. observer neither was Beinganimpartial possible nor desirable. me Kaluliincorporated into theirsocial worldandsocialsystem, according my various and to relaI or namesusedby tionships wasgivenkinship relationship friends. This paragraph important is because it shows that the of particularity perspectiveis not necessarilya negative; such negativeconnotations contained the termbias. are in of However,the particularity perspectivecan be a strong werein Schiefpositive,as femalegenderandmotherhood felin's studyof the languagesocialization children. of

568

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

VOL.

102, No. 3

SEPTEMBER 2000

Withinculturaland psychologicalanthropology, new a has grownup, the individuallife history.This genre, genre as in the beautifullycraftedTranslatedWomanby Ruth Behar (1993), makes its methods and sources extremely clear. Behar's whole book is edited quotations from kitchen table conversationswith Esperanza,the pseudonym of her subject. This is a way of studying culture a case through particular studythatmakesa strongconnection betweendataandconclusions.

Culture as a Unitary Whole

Whereasthe last sectiondealtwith a critiqueof the omof this niscientanthropologist, sectiondeals with a critique informant. The traditionalassumption the omniscient has within anthropology been thatcultureis a homogeneous, unitary, and, possibly, superorganicwhole. Each memberof the culturesharesthe samecultural knowledge. "thatunAn assumption, derivedlargelyfrom Durkheim, of traditional fieldworkpractice[is] thatanderliesmuch are thropologists not concernedwith individualsas such, of butmerelywiththeirfunctioning carriers a common qua Insofaras everyoneshares culture" 1995:176). (Wassmann a common culture,informantsare both interchangeable and omniscient vis-a-vis their own culture. As Sapir ([1932]1949:509) it: put in of It is whatall theindividuals a societyhavein common whichis supposed constitute true to the mutual relations their If and matter cultural of anthropology sociology. the subject of is testimony anindividual set downas such,as oftenhapof it monographs,is notbecause pensin ouranthropological in and an interest the individual himselfas a matured single for of organism ideasbutin his assumed typicality thecomas munity a whole. Critique of the Anthropological Assumption that Culture Is a Unitary Whole Sapirhimselfrealizedthe dangersof this approach: It is truethattherearemanystatements ourethnological in in which,forall thattheyarepresented general monographs or restontheauthority a fewindividuals, even of terms, really of one individual, have had to beartestimony the who for as on or or group a whole.Information kinship systems rituals or or technological processes detailsof socialorganization
evaluatedby the cultural anlinguisticformsis not ordinarily as document.He alwayshopesthatthe thropologist a personal individual informant nearenoughto theunderstandings is and intentionsof his society to reportthem duly, therebyimplicitly eliminatinghimselfas a factorin the methodof research. All realistic field workersin native custom and belief are moreor less awareof the dangersof such an assumption and, naturallyenough, efforts are generallymade to "checkup" statements receivedfromsingleindividuals. This is not always possible, however,and so our ethnologicalmonographs present a kaleidoscopicpictureof varyingdegreesof generality,

often withinthe coversof a singlevolume.[(1932)1949: 509-510] The notionof the omniscientinformant continuesto be within anthropology.Indeed, an article by questioned Wassmann(1995) is titled "The Final Requiem for the OmniscientInformant?" Lawrence(1995:216), in her reto Wassmann,arguesthat all informantshave some ply specializedknowledge,areexpertsin some field;however, noneis omniscient, and "all-knowing all-revealing." this point,Ochs (1994), coming from the Generalizing of disciplinary perspective anthropological linguisticsand discourseanalysis,notes thatdifferentmembersof a culture have differentpieces of culturalknowledge;no one (1995:176)writesthat"it personhas the whole.Wassmann becomes necessaryto study individuals,or categoriesof thanmerelyas some kind people in theirown rightrather " of cultural'subunits.' This point is particularly applicable to children,who are in the processof being inducted into the culture(Zukow 1989) and so, by definition,have knowledge. incompletecultural of Indeed,the partiality the view of the subjectsof study the partiality the view of the ethnographer. of Just parallels as Schieffelinwentplacesno maleethnographer could go, so Kaluli women went places no male Kaluli could go. Kaluli women are experts on parts of the cultureabout which Kalulimen areignorant, and,of course,vice versa. Other sociological variablesbesides gender come into play, such as social and economic status.Each of these statuses privileges certain aspects of both behaviorand knowledge.Then add to the differencesemanatingfrom variables of social stratification, individual differences and emanatingfrom temperament personalityvariables. All of these factorsare sourcesof within-culture differentiation.In traditional all ethnography, of these factorsaffect the ethnographer's informants the knowledgeand and behaviorthey are able to display for the anthropologist. Yet, as Cliffordpointsout (1986), it is the rareethnograindividual informants. pherwho describes own field experience Zinacantan, in My Chiapas,Mexhow the social positionof an informant can ico, illustrates not only facilitatemethodologybut actuallyinfluenceresearchresults.In 1969, I went to the Maya communityof as Zinacanthin partof the Harvard ChiapasProject.Two
anthropologists, Evon Vogt, the director of the project, and George Collier, an alumnus of the project, selected an informant for me. His name was Xun Pavlu. They thought he would be good for me, and he was. My needs were different from those of an ethnographer.As a researcher in cultural, developmental psychology, I needed a lot of subjects for my experiments. Xun did not provide data for me; he provided subjects. He used his political influence and his extensive network of extended family and compadrazgo (co-godparents)to persuadeparentsto let their childrenparticipate and to participatethemselves. Without his position

GREENFIELD

WHAT PSYCHOLOGY CAN

DO FOR

ANTHROPOLOGY

569

of influence,the more than one hundredsubjectshe recruited(out of a village of about fifteen hundred)would when I returned not have been possible. Furthermore, in his 1991 to studythe next generation, social andeconomic characteristics only facilitateddatacollectionbut also not had an important influenceon the resultsof my longitudinal community study. I returned Xun's hamlet of Nabenchauk 1991 to in to the effects of the economic transition from agriculstudy tureto commerceand entrepreneurship had been gothat on sinceI hadleft in 1970 (Greenfield 1999;Greenfield ing andChilds1996;Greenfield al. 1997).I wantedto study et the descendants my old subjectsin orderto assesstheefof fects of the historicalchange,uncontaminated extraneby ous factors.Xun once againmadehis network as available, he hadtwo decadesearlier.Whatbecameclearwas thatof all the familiesin Nabenchauk, Pavlufamilywas most the involvedin commerceandentrepreneurship. of Xun's All seven sons andall butone of his threesons-in-law were involved in commerceor entrepreneurship eithertruckor as van ownersor drivers. remaining The son-in-lawwas quite involved in the consumeraspect of commerce.He had a technical in a factoryin TuxtlaGutierrez therefore and job had a certainamountof disposableincome for consumer products.Because Pavlu family memberswere commercial leadersin the community,our sampleincludedthose families who had been most affected by the historical trends of pertinenceto the study. If the hypothesishad it. merit,this was the sampleto demonstrate As we saw in relationto the ethnographer, example this shows how the social positionof the informant have a can positiveeffect on the researchif the positionis one thatis facilitativefor the particular problemunderstudy. As in the case of the ethnographer, natureof the informant's the social positionboth limits and facilitates.Whichoutcome occursin a particular case dependson the relationship between the informant'sposition and the problem under in study.If I hadwantedto studysocialization the mosttraditionalfamiliesin Nabenchauk, example,Xun Pavlu's for rather thana help. positionwouldhavebeen a hindrance As the Science of Individuals, Psychology Has Not Been Affected by the Critique of the Unitary Whole Because the unit of analysisin psychologyis the indito vidual,psychologyhas not been susceptible the critique of the unitary whole. Indeed,the studyof individual differences is very much a partof the science and practiceof psychology. The study of the influence of social factors such as class and economic status also has a tradition withinthe discipline(although originsmay come from the sociology).In the methodssectionof a psychologyarticle, the background characteristics a sample,includingthe of are variables, oftenpresented; rangesof pertinent descriptor the roleof gender,socialclass,andeducation behavioris in

often analyzed.Nonetheless,I agreewith Fish (2000) that the analysisis often superficial; important an questionis whetherit is possibleto combineethnographic depthwith unbiasedsamplingof within-culture differences,and this issue is pursued the nextsection. in Potential Application to Anthropology The main application psychology in addressing of the of the unitarywhole is to makeit knownin one's critique are writingsexactly who the informants in termsof their individualcharacteristics social positions. A second and applicationmay be to engage in some sort of systematic samplingif the goal of a studyis to accountfor the whole culturerather thantheculture experienced a few indias by viduals. The methodologicalnotion of sampling (from psychologyor sociology)challengesthe idea of ethnograHowever, phy, with its classicaluse of a few informants. and often develop very close reanthropologist informant This is not the case for psychologistsandtheir lationships. numeroussubjects.Consequently, therecan be trade-offs of depthand breadth thatneed to be carefullyconsidered andcontrolled. Dasen (a cross-cultural (a psychologist)andWassmann cultural anthropologist) have recently made some advancesin thisproblem areaby consciouslyintegrating psyand anthropology. chology They have developeda threeto in stage approach theirresearch cognitiveanthropology and Dasen 1994). Stage 1 is ethnographic; it (Wassmann then formsthe foundation observingeverydayactivity for (Stage 2) and for developingculturallyrelevantexperiments administered many subjects(Stage 3). However, to even in the ethnographic and phase,Wassmann Dasenuse a samplingtechniquethatbearsthe markof psychology. and They use not one but multipleinformants, they select theirinformants in systematically orderto sampledifferent socialrolesandstatuses thecommunity in (Wassmann 1995).' Fact vs. Interpretation used that from Ethnographers to think theywereemerging theirstudieswith facts.Now they feel belittled learning by thattheyareemerging interpretation. with Denzin(1996),for crisis. This crisis example, writes of the representational stemsfromthe fact that"researchers no longerdirectly can livedexperience; experience, is argued, cresuch it is capture ated in the social text writtenby the researcher" (Denzin In 1996:127). Clifford's words,"everyversionof an 'other,' wherever is of found, alsotheconstruction a 'self' "(1986:23). A Contribution from Psychology Thesecriticisms discouraging. are Theyimplya researcher who has no escape from his or her own framework. Even as one attempts understand new culture,one is to a

570

AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST *

VOL. 102, No. 3

SEPTEMBER 2000

of merelybuildingan edifice thatis a mirror the self. This seems like a closed circle. However,becausepsychology has a long tradition studyingvaryingsubjectivities, of this is not necessarilya seriousproblem.Indeed,the construction of meaningis centralto the emergingdisciplineof culturalpsychology (Bruner1990; Shweder 1990). We can us, open the closed circle by seeing how subjectsinterpret not merely how we interpret them. Just as we construct ourselvesby studyingour subjects,our subjectsconstruct themselvesthrough studyingus. Thereare some wonderful interexamplesof reciprocal in culturalpsychology. The classic one comes pretation from Glick. Cole, Gay, Glick, and Sharp(1971) took an task to Liberia,where they presentedit to object-sorting their Kpelle subjects.There were 20 objectsthat divided evenly into the linguisticcategoriesof foods, implements, food containers,and clothing.Insteadof doing the taxonomic (categorical) sortsexpectedby the researchers, submade functionalpairings(Glick 1968). jects persistently For example, ratherthan sorting objects into groups of tools andfoods, subjectswouldputa potatoanda knife together because "you take the knife and cut the potato" (Cole et al. 1971:79).Accordingto Glick (1968), subjects often justified their pairingsby stating"thata wise man couldonly do suchandsuch"(p. 13).In totalexasperation, the researchers "finallysaid, 'How woulda fool do it?' The result was a set of nice linguisticallyordered categories-four of them with five items each"(p. 13). In short, the researchers' criterion "intelligent" for behaviorwas the criterionfor "foolish"; subjects'criterionfor the subjects' "wise"behaviorwas the researchers' criterion "stupid." for bothsubjectandresearcher a chanceto interpret had Here, each other.Each interpretation gave as muchinformation aboutthe culturalvalue system of the interpreter it did as aboutthe nature the world. of This one exampleis cited anddescribedin a myriadof articles.It is instantlyrecognizable showingsomething as profoundaboutthe Kpelle's definitionof intelligence,as well as aboutthe culturalrelativity our own definition. of Yet the opportunity reciprocal for is interpretation rarein as it is in anthropology. Nonetheless,it is a psychology, methodthatcould be generalized utilizedin both ethand and psychology. By systematicallystudying nography multiple subjectivitiesin a cross-cultural study, the researcher escapethe hermeneutic can circle. Truth vs. Constructivism The traditional, modern,positionis that science reor will quires truthand that the ethnographer discover the "true"culturethroughthe time-honored methodsof parThe general notion about cultural ticipant-observation. knowledge,like othertypesof knowledge,is thatit "should reflect, depict, or somehow correspondto a world as it

(von mightbe withoutthe knower[read:anthropologist]" Glasersfeld 1984:3). Constructivism: The Postmodern Critique of Truth "Truth" been radicallydeconstructed. anthropolhas In ogy, as in many fields, knowledgebecame mere "social conventionsdevelopedby people with their own biased perspectives and motives" (Nichols and Schwartz 1995:119). Thus, in Geertz's words, "Whatwe call our data are really our own constructions other people's of constructions whatthey andtheircompatriots up to" of are (1973:9). Anthropology's Response to the Critique The dominantresponsehas been for the researcher to explicatethesebiasesandmotives.A well-known example is In the Realm of the Diamond Queenby Tsing (1993). The dangerhereis thatthe number pagesdevotedto the of can study population be small, relativeto the numberof and pages devotedto the researcher his or her cultureof Duranti(e-mail to author,June27, 1998) puts the origin. dilemmain anotherway: "How do we tell stories about otherpeoplewithoutpretending we weren'tthere?" that Psychology's Response to the Critique Constructivism playeda verysignificant in psyhas role chology,especiallydevelopmental psychologyandfamily therapy.For example, "With this postmodernassumption-that there are no realities, only points of viewcomes an interestin how the narratives organizepeothat ple's lives are generated.Postmodern psychologiesconcern themselveswith how people make meaningin their lives; how they constructreality"(Nichols and Schwartz in 1995:119-120). An exampleof this approach psycholies in Hollan and Wellenkamp's logical anthropology (1994, 1996) explorations of meaning-makingin the of In Toraja community Indonesia. otherwords,insteadof the meaning-making the researcher(as of emphasizing cultural in responseto postmodernism, does) anthropology have emphasizedthe meaningpsychologicalapproaches of the subjectandhavetakenthis activityas an obmaking ject of study (e.g., Bruner1990). Indeed,constructivism has, since Piaget(1954), been at the centerof the studyof cognitivedevelopment. Thereis another radical difference betweenthe response of psychology and the responseof anthropology conto structivism. Whereasanthropology seen constructivhas ism as undermining as anthropology a science,psychology has recognized all the sciences,barnone,arenarrative that constructions. example, de Shazer asks, "But,don't For physiciststell storiesaboutsubatomicparticlesand black holes so that they can let one anotherknow about such

GREENFIELD

WHAT PSYCHOLOGY CAN

DO FOR ANTHROPOLOGY

571

(1991:49). things?Are these storiesscience or narrative?" If all sciences are narrative constructions, then, from the field, the human pointof view of psychologyas a research of construction realityprovidesinsufficientreasonto derather thanin the social sciclareoneself in the humanities ences. Psychologyhas hadanother responseto constructivism: to move fromconstruction anindividual as activityto constructionas an interindividual activity (Vygotsky 1978). is social construction an important of bothdeIndeed, part velopmentalpsychologyand family therapy(Nichols and Schwartz1995). The field of familytherapylooks to Gergen (1985, 1991a, 1991b) for emphasizing"thepower of social interaction in generating meaning for people" is (Nichols and Schwartz1995:120).Social construction also the basis for the earlydevelopment social convenof tionsbetweenmotherandchild(Bruner1983)andthe later creationof sharednorms among children(Piaget [1932] 1965). Again, the empiricalstudyof these developmental constructionshas been an importantpart of the field of psychology. developmental

Anthropology as the Science of the Other

was Anthropology conceivedas the scienceof the Other the to (Trouillot1991). "From earlynineteenhundreds the secondworldwartheprimary of socialandcultural agenda was anthropology to documentthe life of nonliterate peoples" (D'Andrade1999:2).Clearlythe agendawas for literate people from Westernsocieties to get to know and understand nonliterate societies. peoplesfromnon-Western

as Critiqueof Anthropology the Scienceof the Other

to therearetwo probAccording the postmodem critique, lems with this agenda.The first is thatit is impossibleto knowthe OtherbecausetheOther his orheruniqueperhas spective(Geertz1983).Giventhatthereis no suchthingas an objectiveperspective thatit is impossibleto know and culturalanthropology's dataand objectsof study another, have disappeared. leadsto "epistemological This relativism for (thereis no real foundation knowledge)"(D'Andrade 1999:8). to the According thepostmodem critique, secondproblem withthisagenda thatstudying Other is the differexaggerates ences betweenthe peoplebeing studiedandthe researcher. This exaggeration createswhat Tsing calls "thefantasized betweenthe West andits Other" gulf (1993:13).In Tsing's of view, the depiction sucha gulf has an important political it of dimension; expressesa relationship colonizerto coloto dimension the postmodem of nized.(I return the political attheendof thisessay.) critique

to Application Anthropology
Geertz(1973:12)notesthat"culture consistsof socially establishedstructures meaning."How do these strucof turesget establishedthroughinteraction? anPostmodern the creationof meaningsthrough a emphasizes thropology process of negotiation. The interactionalprocesses by whichmeaningsarenegotiated a majorempirical are focus of linguisticanthropology (Duranti 1997) andcultural psychology (Greenfieldet al. 1998). These processes could also becomean empirical focus forcultural anthropology. I believe thattherehas been a barrier this construal to of in anthropology. barrier the concepconstructivism This is tual emphasis on individualconstruction the form of in writingandreading.

Has to WhyPsychology BeenLess Vulnerable This Critique

arose thescience theself.Oneof theorigias of Psychology nalpsychologicaldeveloped in Germany,was introspectionism.While introspectionism laterbanishedfor its was lack of "objectivity," psychologyremainedbasically the Thereader to all exbrings thetaskof reading of hisprevious scienceof ourselves,notthescienceof others.Of course,in all uses and which periences, previous of thewords concepts, combination theuniversalistic with ambitions psychology of contaminate he reads.For this,the deconstructionists what (as the science of humanbeings), this perspectiveis anusetheterm Seen "misreading." in thisway,onecannot read, other factor in psychology's unconsciousethnocentrism one can only misread.All texts allow for a host of potential
(Fish 2000). This ethnocentrism is also an important element in Misra and Gergen's (1993) postmodern critique of psychology (see also Dasen's [1993] critiqueof ethnocentrism in psychology). Whereas in anthropology the struggle has been how to understandtheperspective ofothers without assuming essentialistic differences, the struggle in psychology has been how to understand the perspective of others without assuming essentialistic similarities. These diametrically opposed problems should tell us that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

[de misreadings. Shazer1991:50-51] Yes, this is generally true for written texts. But spoken discourse, with its interactional component, is often a process in which the interactants constrain and build on each other's meanings. This process is therefore much less solipsistic than the communication between writer and reader. It is ironical that postmodern cultural anthropologists have focused on their own individual constructions rather than studying the social constructions of their subjects.

572

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

VOL. 102, No. 3

SEPTEMBER

2000

Psychology's Response to This Struggle scholarsnow fill the Many minorityand international ranksof psychology.For the most partthey arecaringfor clients from their own groups in the clinical fields. To some extentthey are researching publishingaboutthe and of developmentand social relations theirown groups.The insider'sperspectiveis validatedin practiceif not in thein afterbeingeducated the ory.The samestruggleremains: field of psychology as it exists, to what extent can these universalistic psychologists abandonthe ethnocentrically frameworks of classical psychology and validate the of do frameworks thoseforwhomtheseframeworks notfit? It can be done. For example,Triandis(1989, 1993) valorized his Greekheritagein opposingthe conceptof collectivism to the individualistic assumptionsof U.S. psyand (1991) hada cross-cultural chology.Markus Kitayama that collaboration(U.S.-Japanese) expandedthis concept more squarelyinto the realm of social psychology with their concept of the interdependent self. With Rodney Roots of Cocking, I edited a book called Cross-Cultural that from MinorityChildDevelopment joined researchers aroundthe non-Western world(Asia, Africa,Mexico, and NativeAmerica)withminority to researchers identifyconand and tinuities,discontinuities, changein ancestral ethnic of socializationanddevelopment(Greenfield and patterns 1994). While insider perspectives purposely Cocking outsider were also introduced into dominated, perspectives the discussion.(At the same time, we must acknowledge the biculturalperspectivesthat occur when membersof Third World societies are inducted into the culture of and academia, thesocialsciences[Lim6n1991].) schooling, Application to Anthropology Anthropologyhas begun to travel this same route. WhereasU.S. anthropologists to have to go to a very used "different" culturefromtheirown, they arenow doing anresearch the UnitedStates.However,one in thropological more step is necessary.The typical study communityis and poor, disadvantaged, an ethnic minority,whereasthe usual researcher middle-class,advantaged, a memis and ber of the dominant The studypopulation still is majority. the Other.But thereare signs of change:whereasminority andforeignresearchers usedto also studyOthers,it is now much more common for young anthropologists study to theircommunities origin(e.g., Lim6n 1991). of In Linguistic Duranti (1997) writes: Anthropology,
As a new generation studentsfrom a wide rangeof ethnic, of entersthe westernacademic racial,and nationalbackgrounds are arena,ourdescriptions boundto be affected;ourdiscourse of the Otherwill neverbe the same.The grandchildren the of describedby the foundingfathers(Boas, Mali"primitives" and nowski, Radcliffe-Brown) mothers(Benedict,Mead, E. C. Parsons)of anthropology not just readingour books, are

in our theyarealsositting ourclasses, assessing descriptions, trained asknewquestions propose to and and, hopefully getting newanswers. 98] [p. The last step,suggestedby psychology,is for middle-class Whiteresearchers studytheirown communities to froman Studiesof the dominantculanthropological perspective. tures in the United States and Europehave been exceptionalin the historyof anthropology (e.g., Bourdieu1984; Ortner1991;Schneider [1968]1980).Whether they arebeis comingmorefrequent unclear. Instead,the dominantresponseto the problemof the Otherin culturalanthropology to spendmoretime writis than aboutthe ing about yourself and your relationships Othersyou wentto study;thisis the reflexivity postmodof em anthropology. of its constructive One empiricalconsehas been a host of studiesthatfocus on the interquences section of "us" and "them"-topics such as globalism, colonialism,and tourism(Appadurai 1991; Ortner1991). However, this response simultaneouslyinvalidates the classical ethnography: of explorations cultureas "sources of value, meaning, and ways of understanding" (Ortner the 1991:187).One way to preserve ethnographic studyof culture while eliminatingthe "Otherness" the ethnoof studentsand graphicsubjectis to encourageanthropology researchers studytheirowncommunities; approach to this gets ridof theproblemof the Otherin a way thatstimulates ratherthanstymiesethnographic research. Thereappearto be barriers this plan.The firstis the to distrustof empathy(Geertz1973). Tsing anthropological writesabouthow feministanthropologists befear (1993) ing discreditedunless they avoid "any assumptionsthat women anthropologists have a special rapportwith the women of other cultures"(p. 224). Abu-Lughod(1991) barrier: "convicspeaksof a closely related anthropology's tion thatone cannotbe objectiveaboutone's own society" (p. 139).Thus,cultural anthropology possessesthe ironyof an interpretive the advocating approach denigrating reyet that could maxilationshipsof closeness and familiarity mize correctlyinterpreting Other'sperspective.The the ideal of detachedobjectivityhas not yet been completely banishedfromculturalanthropology. Nonetheless,the insiderperspectiveappears be alive andwell in linguistic to and urban anthropology(e.g., Goodwin 1994; Morgan 1996; Ochs et al. 1989; Vigil 1997);whetheror not these models were stimulated psychology,otherculturalanby can derive inspiration from these dynamic thropologists andtheoretically important examples. Science as Apolitical
Across fields, the traditionalposition sees truth as apo-

litical. This position characterizes traditional psychology as well as traditional ethnographies.

GREENFIELD

WHAT PSYCHOLOGY CAN DO FOR ANTHROPOLOGY

573

Is The Postmodern Critique:Anthropology Political

in sees The postmodern critique anthropology thedifferentiationof self and Other,the colonial contextin which was much traditional ethnography done, and the nonlitera ate statusof manysubjectsas representing formof politiin cal oppression. from Ortner, herhistoryof anthropology the sixtiesthrough eighties,recounts thus: the it In anthropology, earliest took the formof dethe critiques on linksbetweenanthropology one the nouncing historical on But and hand,andcolonialism imperialism theother. this scratched surface. issuequickly the The moved the to merely of of frameworks, question the nature ourtheoretical deeper the and andespecially degree which embody carry to forthey the of Western ward assumptionsbourgeois culture. [1984:138] All generalization beganto be seen as oppressive.

Psychology's Responseto Politics

Political and social relevancehas come to psychology also; however,it has not yet done damageto the empirical D'Andradestates,"If moraladvocatesin soimagination. cial psychology do good experimentalwork, and if this supportstheirmoralpositions,so much the betterfor the discipline.Such work,whateverits animus,becauseit advances knowledge,promotesrather thanthreatens scithe entificagenda" (1999:8).

Specific Customs vs. Deep Structure of a Culture

The last issue relatesto a peculiarity cultural of anthrothatantedates postmodern the This is the pology critique. fascinationwith exotic customs and the deep distrustof generalcultural principles, principlesthatmightgroupdiverse cultureson the one handand diversebehaviorsand attitudeson the other.Psychologists,in contrast,are alIt ways lookingforjust suchprinciples. is partof the fascinationwith universalsand the reductionistic desireto exhumanbeings by a minimumnumberof principles. plain Cultural in are anthropologists, contrast, deeplydistrustful of reductionism, which is antithetical first principlesof to the discipline.However,I would like to tell a story about my own experiencein the field. This experiencesuggests both a heuristicand a theoretical value to the idea of generalprinciples deepcultural and structure. WhenI firstwentto Zinacantlin 1969, I was prepared in by experiencedmembersof the Harvard ChiapasProject. how to act They gave muchusefulinformation concerning in specific situations.However,I perceivedthis information as disconnected andpieces thatI hadto memorize bits in individually.When I went back to Zinacantzin 1991, I hadjust organizeda conferenceon cross-cultural rootsof childdevelopment and minority (Greenfield Cocking1994). Its major themes were the constructs of individualism

andcollectivism(Triandis 1993)andhow immigrants generally brought collectivistic cultural backgroundswith themfrom theirhomelands when they came to the United States. I took this conceptualframework with me when I returnedto Zinacantain 1991 for the first time in 21 in years.WhatI foundwas thefollowing.If I thoughtof Zinacantec culture as highly collectivistic, the culture as a whole made sense for the firsttime. Not only that;I could new finallyfigureout how to act in (andunderstand) situations-because I had a general principle,collectivism, thatcouldbe appliedin a multitude specific situations. of I had a deep principlethat was generativeboth for underZinacantec behavior attitudes for producand and standing behaviorwhile I was in the Zinacantec ing appropriate I Mayahamletof Nabenchauk. was muchmoresuccessful and confident in integratinginto the Zinacantecmilieu once I hadlearned one verygeneralprinciple. this Froma theoretical I perspective, haveconcludedthatinandcollectivismaredeepprinciples cultural of dividualism and organization have tremendous that interpretation generativevalue. They do not obliterate specific culturalcusvariableinstantiatoms; the customsare simplyculturally tions of the principles(Greenfield2000). It is much the same as the way thatspecificlanguagesareculturally variable instantiations the generallanguagecapacity.The of is implicationfor anthropology thatit should be open to such generalprinciples a way of advancing as deep understandingof culturesandof avoidingthe uninteresting pitfall of ethnographies collectionsof exotic customs.Inas who deed, Fiske (1991), a psychologicalanthropologist has taughtin a leadingdepartment psychology,has four of "structures social life" thatare refinements individuof of alism and collectivismand are candidates what I term for the "deepstructure culture." of Fiske's structures social of life, like individualismand collectivism, are interpretive frameworks.As a consequence,their recognitionallows for scientificgeneralization to (important the disciplineof withinthe contextof the interpretive method psychology) to anthropology). (important

Conclusion
In cultural cross-cultural and psychology,we are accustomedto admiring and its anthropology considering contributions to our field, both methodologically and substantively. Anthropologists, in contrast, rarely if ever express admiration for psychology and its amory of methods. However, cultural anthropology in general and ethnographic methodology in particular have, in recent years, been buffeted by the postmodern critique. By and large, the response has been self-flagellation and a movement away from empiricalresearch.Titles such as "TheEpistemological Crisis in the Human Disciplines" (Denzin 1996) abound. The pointof the presentessay is to presentanotherresponsea response from the other flank, so to speak. This response

574

* 2000 ANTHROPOLOGIST VOL. 102, No. 3 * SEPTEMBER AMERICAN

in is fromthe disciplineof psychology.Althoughgrounded of objectivity,psychology a no-longer-tenable principle that has some intrinsicepistemologicalassumptions have made its empiricalenterprisemuch less vulnerablethan to critique. anthropology the postmodern I used to thinkthatthe reasonpsychologyhadbeen left was that it was relatively unscathedby postmodernism simply behindthe times. However,I now feel-and hope this essay has shown-that psychologyholds the seeds to dilemmasconcerninga numberof solving anthropology's culissues: a single objectivityvs. multiplesubjectivities, tureas a homogeneouswhole vs. cultureas a set of differtruthvs. fact entiatedculture-bearers, vs. interpretation, the politics of rethe construction, problemof the Other, of search,and specific customsvs. the deep structure culture.By plantingseeds for resolvingeach of these issues, opposite psychology offers a responseto postmodemism to the prevailingone: empiricalmethodologyfor investiof gatingthe construction meaning.

Notes
Acknowledgments. An earlier version of this essay was presentedat a conference called "The Conceptof AnthropolApproachesto the Human,"University ogy: Transdisciplinary of Constance,May 29-31, 1997. I am indebtedto PhilipBock, Jerome Bruner, Alessandro Duranti, Jefferson Fish, Karl Heider,Dolores Newton, Susan Seymour,Jim Wilce, and Isabel Zambrano,as well as to the anonymousreviewers,for encouragementandhelp in revising this essay for publication. 1. See also Strauss(1999) for an importantapproachfrom psychological anthropologyto dealing realistically with the nonhomogeneousnatureof culture.

References Cited
Abu-Lughod,Lila In 1991 WritingagainstCulture. Recapturing Anthropology: Workingin the Present.RichardG. Fox, ed. Pp. 137-162. Research Press. Fe: Santa Schoolof American Arjun Appadurai, 1991 Global Ethnoscapes.In RecapturingAnthropology: Workingin the Present.RichardG. Fox, ed. Pp. 191-210. Press. Fe: Research Santa Schoolof American Behar,Ruth Woman:Crossingthe Borderwith Esper1993 Translated s anza' Story.Boston:BeaconPress. Bock, Philip K. 1999 RethinkingPsychological Anthropology:Continuity in Action.Prospects andChange theStudyof Human Heights, Press. IL:Waveland Bourdieu,Pierre A of of 1984 Distinction: SocialCritique theJudgement Taste. MA: Harvard RichardNice, trans.Cambridge, University Press. Bruner,JeromeS. W. 1983 Child'sTalk.New York: W. Norton.

MA: Harvard 1990 Acts of Meaning.Cambridge, University Press. Clifford,James The In Culture: PoPartial 1986 Introduction: Truths. Writing and JamesClifford George eticsandPoliticsof Ethnography. of E. Marcus, Pp. 1-26. Berkeley: eds. University California Press. Clifford,James,andGeorgeE. Marcus,eds. The 1986 WritingCulture: PoeticsandPoliticsof EthnograPress. of University California phy.Berkeley: A. Cole,Michael,JohnGay,Joseph Glick,andDonaldW. Sharp New Contextof Learningand Thinking. 1971 The Cultural York:BasicBooks. D'Andrade,Roy 1950-1999. Paper 1999 The SadStoryof Anthropology presentedat the AnnualMeetingof the Society for Cross-Cultural Research, February. Dasen, Pierre de 1993 L'Ethnocentrism la Psychologie(TheEthnocentrism of Psychology).In PsychologieCliniqueet Interrogations Face Le Culturelles: Psychologue,le Psychotherapeute aux Differentes Enfants,aux Jeuneset aux Famillesde Cultures The (ClinicalPsychologyandCultural Questions: PsycholoFacedwithChildren, thePsychotherapist YoungPeople gist, MichelineRey-von and Familiesfrom DifferentCultures). L'Harmattan. Allmen,ed. Pp. 155-173.Paris: De Martino,Ernesto Milan:IISaggiatore. del 1961 LaTerra Rimorso. Denzin, NormanK. 1996 The Epistemological Crisisin the HumanDisciplines: and LettingtheOldDo theWorkof theNew. InEthnography HumanDevelopment:Contextand Meaningin Social InAnneColby,andRichard Shweder, A. Jessor, quiry.Richard of eds.Pp. 127-151. Chicago: University ChicagoPress. de Shazer,Steve Differenceto Work.New York:W. W. Norton 1991 Putting andCompany. Dumont,Jean-Paul NatureandSupernature 1972 UndertheRainbow: amongthe Panare Indians. Austin: of University TexasPress. [1978]1992 The Headmanand I: Ambiguityand Ambivalence in the Fieldworking Experience. Prospect Heights,IL: Waveland Press. Duranti,Alessandro Uni1997 Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge versityPress. Fish, Jefferson 2000 WhatAnthropology to OfferPsychology:Physics Has and Envy, Ethnocentrism, Race. AmericanAnthropologist 102(3):552-563. Fiske, Alan Paige of 1991 Structures SocialLife.New York:TheFreePress. Geertz,Clifford of 1973 TheInterpretation Cultures. New York:BasicBooks. New York:BasicBooks. 1983 LocalKnowledge. Gergen,KennethJ. 1985 The Social Constructionist Movementin ModemPsy40:266-275. chology.American Psychologist 1990 Toward a PostmodernPsychology. The Humanistic Psychologist18:23-34.

GREENFIELD

WHAT PSYCHOLOGY CAN DO FOR ANTHROPOLOGY

575

Self. 1991a TheSaturated New York:BasicBooks. 1991b The SaturatedFamily. Family TherapyNetworker 15:26-35. The Humanistic as 1995 Postmodernism a Humanism. Psychologist23:71-82. Glick, Joseph 1968 CognitiveStyleamongtheKpelleof Liberia. Paper presentedat the Meetingon Cross-Cultural CognitiveStudies, Research American Educational Association, Chicago. Goodwin,Charles 1994 Professional Vision. American Anthropologist96: 606-633. Greenfield,PatriciaM. for as Methods Cultural 1996 Culture Process: PsyEmpirical of Psychology,vol. 1. chology.In Handbook Cross-Cultural and TheoryandMethod.JohnW. Berry,Ype H. Poortinga, J. eds.Pp.301-346. Boston:AllynandBacon. Pandey, In 1999 Cultural ChangeandHumanDevelopment. New DiElliotTuriel,ed. Pp. 37-59. rectionsin ChildDevelopment. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass. Culto 2000 ThreeApproaches the Psychologyof Culture: and Indigetural Psychology, Cross-Cultural Psychology, nous Psychology. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 3:223-240. Greenfield,PatriciaM., andCarlaP. Childs A 1996 Learning to Weave in Zinacantain: Two-Decade and of Historical CognitiveChange.Paper Follow-UpStudy at Anthropopresented theAnnualMeetingof theAmerican Association. logical Greenfield,PatriciaM., andRodneyR. Cocking Roots of MinorityChildDevelopment. 1994 Cross-Cultural Erlbaum. NJ:Lawrence Mahwah, and Greenfield,PatriciaM., Ashley Maynard, CarlaP. Childs and A 1997 Women,Girls,Apprenticeship, Schooling: Longitudinal Studyof Historical Change amongtheZinacantecan at Maya.Paperpresented the AnnualMeetingof the AmericanAnthropological Association. Greenfield,PatriciaM., Catherine Raeff, andBlancaQuiroz of 1998 Cross-Cultural Conflictin theSocialConstruction the of Studies23:115-125. Child.Aztlin:TheJournal Chicano C. Guiteras-Holmes, 1961 Perilsof theSoul.Glencoe,IL:FreePress. Hollan,Douglas W., andJaneC. Wellenkamp and and in 1994 Contentment Suffering: Culture Experience New York:Columbia Press. Toraja. University of 1996 TheThread Life:Toraja Reflections theLifeCycle. on Honolulu: of Hawai'iPress. University Jessor,Richard,Anne Colby, andRichardA. Shweder,eds. and 1996 Ethnography HumanDevelopment:Contextand of Meaningin Social Inquiry. Chicago:University Chicago Press. Lawrence,JeanetteA. or 1995 Requiem Recognition: Omniscient NotPlain Not and Informants. and Culture Psychology1:215-225. Lim6n,Jos6E. 1991 Representation, and Ethnicity, thePrecursory EthnograIn Anphy: Notes of a Native Anthropologist. Recapturing Richard Fox, ed. Pp. G. thropology: Workingin the Present. 115-135. Santa Schoolof American Fe: Research Press.

Marcus,GeorgeE. NJ: 1998 Ethnography throughThick and Thin. Princeton, Press. Princeton University Markus,Hazel Rose, and ShinobuKitayama Emofor and 1991 Culture the Self: Implications Cognition, Review98:224-253. andMotivation. tion, Psychological and Misra,Girishwar, KennethJ. Gergen Science.Interin 1993 OnthePlaceof Culture Psychological national of Journal Psychology28:225-243. Morgan,Marcyliena and 1996 Conversational Signifying:Grammar Indirectness and Women.In Interaction GramAfrican-American among mar. Elinor Ochs, Emmanuel Schegloff, and Sandra UniCambridge Thompson,eds. Pp. 405-434. Cambridge: Press. versity Nichols, MichaelP., andRichardC. Schwartz 1995 Family Therapy: Conceptsand Methods.3rd edition. Boston:AllynandBacon. Ochs, Elinor at on 1994 WhatIs Culture? Paper presented theSeminar CulLos tureandHuman of California, University Development, Angeles. Ochs, Elinor,RuthSmith,andCarolynTaylor Narratives DetectiveStories. as Cultural 1989 Dinner Dynamics 2:238-257. Ortner,SherryB. sincethe Sixties.Comparative 1984 Theoryin Anthropology Studiesin SocietyandHistory 26(1):126-166. America: Noteson ClassandCul1991 Reading Preliminary ture.In Recapturing Workingin the Present. Anthropology: Richard Fox,ed. Pp. 163-189. Santa Schoolof AmeriG. Fe: canResearch Press. Piaget, Jean 1954 TheConstruction Realityin theChild.New York: of Basic Books. of [1932]1965 The MoralJudgement the Child.New York: TheFreePress. Sapir,Edward [1932]1949 Selected Writingsof EdwardSapir. David G. ed. of Mandelbaum, Berkeley: University CaliforniaPress. D. Schensul,JeanJ., andMargaret LeCompte 1999 Ethnographer's Toolkit. 7 vols. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Schieffelin, BambiB. 1990 TheGiveandTakeof Everyday Life:Language Socializationof KaluliChildren. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schneider,David M. A Account.2ndedi[1968]1980 American Kinship: Cultural tion.Chicago: of University ChicagoPress. Seymour,SusanC. 1999 Women,Family,and Child Carein India.Cambridge: Press. University Cambridge Shweder,RichardA. 1990 Cultural Psychology:WhatIs It?In Cultural PsycholHuman James W. ogy:EssaysonComparative Development. Stigler,RichardA. Shweder,and G. Herdt,eds. Pp. 1-43. New York:Cambridge Press. University

576

AMERICANANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 3

* SEPTEMBER 2000

Spiro,MelfordE. in and 1990 OntheStrange theFamiliar Recent AnthropologiIn Cultural cal Thought. Essayson Comparative Psychology: W. A. Human James Stigler, Richard Shweder, Development. eds. andG. Herdt, New York:Cambridge Press. University Stevenson,HaroldW., JamesW. Stigler,Shin-yingLee, G. WilliamLucker,Seiro Kitamura, Chen-chinHsu and and of 1985 CognitivePerformance AcademicAchievement Children. ChildDevelopChinese,andAmerican Japanese, ment 56:718-734. Strauss,Claudia In 1999 Researchon CulturalDiscontinuities. A Cognitive of Cultural 210-251. Cambridge: CamTheory Meaning. Pp. Press. bridgeUniversity Tobin,JosephJ., David Y. H. Wu, andDanaH. Davidson 1989 Preschool in Three Cultures:Japan,China, and the UnitedStates.New Haven,CT:YaleUniversity Press. Triandis,Harry in Cultural 1989 The Self andSocialBehavior Differing ConReview96:506-520. texts.Psychological and as 1993 Collectivism Individualism Cultural Syndromes. Cross-Cultural Research 27:155-180. Triandis,Harry,and J. W. Berry 1980 Handbook Cross-Cultural of Psychology,vol. 2. MethBoston:AllynandBacon. odology. Trouillot,Michel-Rolph and 1991 Anthropology theSavageSlot:ThePoeticsandPolitics of Otherness. Recapturing In Workingin Anthropology: thePresent. G. Richard Fox, ed. Pp. 17-44. SantaFe: School of American ResearchPress.

Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt in 1993 In the Realmof the DiamondQueen:Marginality an Place. Princeton, Princeton NJ: Out-of-the-Way University Press. Vigil, JamesDiego 1997 Personas Mexicanas: Chicano High Schoolers in a Los HBJ. Changing Angeles.FortWorth: von Glasersfeld,E. 1984 Stepsin the Construction "Others" "Reality": of and A Study in Self-Regulation. Paperpresentedat the Seventh and ViEuropean Meetingon Cybernetics SystemsResearch, enna,Austria. Vygotsky, Lev S. 1978 Mindin Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Warren,Kay B. 1996 Reflectionson Restudies:The Interplay Historical of in Generations Anthropology. at Paper presented theAnnual Association. Meetingof theAmerican Anthropological Wassmann, Jurg 1995 The FinalRequiemfor the Omniscient Informant? An Interdisciplinary Approachto EverydayCognition.Culture andPsychology1:167-201. Wassmann, Jurg,andPierreR. Dasen 1994 "Hot"and "Cold":Classificationand Sortingamong of Journal PsyYupnoof PapuaNew Guinea.International chology29:19-38. Zukow,PatriciaG. 1989 Siblingsas EffectiveSocializing from Agents:Evidence Central Mexico.In SiblingInteraction acrossCultures: TheoreticalandMethodological Issues.Patricia Zukow,ed. Pp. G. 79-105. New York:Springer-Verlag.