Through the thick of theory

Sometimes social theory can get a little "thick". Every semester I help Dr. Jeff Torlina by giving a guest presentation in one or two of his sociology classes on how to evaluate a theory. Most of my presentation is a primer on basic logic and the most common logical fallacies. I've consistently found that although anthropological theory can often be very intimidating, each theory seems to loose it's scary factor if a few basic tests are applied to evaluating it.

I recently read a new graphic novel about Bertrand Russell, the great English philosopher and logician, called Logicomix. It is an excellent and intelligent story that covers one of the most prolific eras of analytical philosophy. One of the most consistent themes of the novel is Russell's obsession with building a new foundation of mathematics that doesn't rest upon axioms or assumptions built upon intuition. Even if you disagree with Russell's disdain for intuition, his example is well worth considering when evaluating any theory.

This all lead me to reflect on an article I found quite sometime ago by Nobel Laureate Ronald Hoffman. Hoffman's article attempts to answer some basic questions about how certain theories become successful and well established. What is primarily interesting to me is that although Hoffman's argues that the fundamental strength of any theory lies in the logic that it employs and its coherent reference to previous theoretical accomplishments, evaluating the "success" of a theoretical innovation also lies within the practical, pragmatic, political realms of possibilities.

I've found his argument to be especially helpful to keep in mind when I read Sherry Ortner's classic "Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties" and Arjun Appadurai's "Theory in Anthropology: Center and Periphery". Along with Ward Goodenough's more recent "Anthropology in the 20th Century and Beyond" these articles provide a good assessment of the theoretical landscape of anthropology today. (I know know that Ortner's article is required reading in at least one theory class here at UVU but I'd also recommend the others.)

I've uploaded Hoffman's article, "Why Buy That Theory?" on google docs if you are interested.

Appadurai, A (1986). Theory in Anthropology: Center and Periphery. Comparative Studies in Society and History. 28.2, 356-361.

Goodenough, W (2002). Anthropology in the 20th Century and Beyond. American Anthropologist. 104.2, 423-440.

Hoffman, R (2003). Why Buy That Theory? American Scientist 91.1, 9-11.

Ortner, S (1984). Theory in Anthropology since the Sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History. 26.1, 126-166.