"Robert Redfield and the Development of American Anthropology" (Wilcox, 2013)

 

Clifford, 2005, ROBERT REDFIELD AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGY, Lexigton Books, (https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739117774).

Relying upon close readings of virtually all of his published and unpublished writings as well as extensive interviews with former colleagues and students,Robert Redfield and the Development of American Anthropology traces the development of Robert Redfield's ideas regarding social change and the role of social science in American society. Clifford Wilcox's exploration of Redfield's pioneering efforts to develop an empirically based model of the transformation of village societies into towns and cities is intended to recapture the questions that drove early development of modernization theory. Reconsideration of these debates will enrich contemporary thinking regarding the history of American anthropology and international development.

RUBINSTEIN, Robert A., 2005, "REVIEW: Robert Redfield and the Development of American Anthropology", AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST, 107-3: 550, (https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2005.107.3.550).

The last quarter of the 20th century was remarkable for the ferociousness of the self-critical view that many anthropologists took of their discipline’s development. Some of these are reduced to cliches in our historical narratives. Here are four examples: (1) Before the 1960s anthropologists were not self-aware of methods; (2) anthropological reports are helplessly tied to the presumptions and prejudices of the ethnographer; (3) anthropology was the handmaiden of colonialism; and (4) U.S. anthropology was perverted by the politics of the Cold War. Some of these aphorisms derive from careful historical scholarship of particular episodes or individuals, but are now detached from those contexts and are presented as Truths. Others derive from apocryphal stories and have also entered our lexicon as Truths about our discipline.

These stories help shape our professional identities; they structure our perceptions of our discipline and suggest to non anthropologists how to think about anthropology. It is therefore important that we parse our historical narratives carefully. We must resist essentialism in our historical conversations and approach our discipline’s history with the same awareness of the contingency and contextually anchored nature of knowledge that anthropologists bring to the study of other groups.

Clifford Wilcox’s Robert Redfield and the Development of American Anthropology is a most welcome addition to the history of anthropology. Wilcox gives a detailed and understanding account of Redfield’s development as a social scientist and his contribution to anthropology, and he traces ways that Redfield’s thinking changed over his career, sometimes to his arriving at nearly opposite views from those he originally espoused. Also, Wilcox describes a much more self-aware discipline than is suggested by some historical cliches. ´

Wilcox plumbed Robert Redfield’s papers, the archived papers of Redfield’s colleagues, and relevant institutional units with which Redfield was associated. He supplements this with interviews of two dozen of Redfield’s associates and with a careful reading of the anthropological literature with which Redfield interacted, and which commented on his work after Redfield’s death in 1958.

Wilcox follows Redfield’s career chronologically. He notes subtle shifts in Redfield’s thinking as well as major revisions. Wilcox’s entire text repays careful study; I highlight here three developments: (1) Redfield’s early interest in situating ethnography temporally and spatially; (2) his evolving views of culture change; and (3) his use of models and heuristics to guide theory.

From November 1926 to February 1927, Redfield conducted research for his doctoral dissertation, published in 1930 as Tepotzl´an, A Mexican Village. This research is well known for being the subject of a restudy by Oscar Lewis. Lewis reached conclusions different from those reached by Redfield. That such differences might signal deep epistemological difficulties for ethnography is well known among contemporary anthropologists. The Tepotzlan studies form a cornerstone in discussions of ethnography’s potential shortcomings. Yet Redfield’s Tepotzlan work is notable for three important innovations. It is an early instance of field work involving extended residence with people in order to learn about them. Redfield worked with the knowledge that Tepotzlan could not be studied as an isolate but was ´ linked to broader regional patterns. He eschewed writing in the “ethnographic present,” instead placing the village within a temporal context.

Throughout his career, Redfield sought an understanding of social change, the subject of his two other best known works, The Folk Culture of Yucatan and The Primitive World and Its Transformations. In the former, Redfield treated urban life as problematic in comparison to life in a rural, isolated village. In the latter, he radically altered this view; “in this new interpretation of the processes of urbanization and civilization, Redfield clearly transcended the limitations of the trope of declension which had so colored his earlier work” (p. 125). Wilcox gives an able narrative of the shifts in Redfield’s thinking and how they came about.

Redfield’s model of the Folk-Urban Continuum was for a period widely discussed in anthropology. Some of this discussion failed to realize that Redfield meant the Continuum as an “ideal type” model that could be used for heuristic purposes, not as a description of actual societies. Wilcox offers a very capable analysis of Redfield’s use of models using heuristic devices throughout his career, and links this to Redfield’s commitment to pragmatism. In doing so, Wilcox shows how deeply influential Redfield was on the development of U.S. anthropology.

Robert Redfield and the Development of American Anthropology is a carefully researched, authoritatively narrated study of the intellectual life and impact of one of U.S. anthropology's most important figures during the first half of the 20th century. It is an excellent contribution to the his tory of anthropology.

PEARCE, William J., 2005, "REVIEW: Robert Redfield and the Development of American Anthropology by Clifford Wilcox", THE JOURNAL OF ROYAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL INSTITUTE, 11-3: 630~631, (www.jstor.org/stable/3804361).

Biography and biographical analysis are not adequately utilized by historians of anthropology. In fact, there is only one current scholarly series of books dedicated to publishing anthropological biography (Critical Studies in the History of Anthropology, edited by Regna Darnell and Stephen 0. Murray). The paucity of anthropological biographies is complicated by the fact that the biographies available cluster around well-known figures who become subject to multiple analyses and texts - for example, Franz Boas, Ruth Benedict, V Gordon Childe, Bronislaw Malinowski, and Margaret Mead, to mention but a few names. This phenomenon is puzzling because I do not perceive the need for further biographical study of the aforementioned scholars since many fine works have already been published. The sceptic may even go as far as to suggest that there is a veritable cottage industry or obsession with a few key figures in the history of anthropology. The result of this particularly narrow focus is that many critically important figures in the development of anthropology have been overlooked and ignored by historians of anthropology. Clifford Wilcox's biography of Robert Redfield represents a step in the right direction as Redfield's work has not yet been subject to a full-scale biographical analysis.

Robert Redfield's career is of particular interest because he had a penchant for being on the cutting edge of anthropological scholarship. He also had an extended association with the University of Chicago from the inception of his career - a university that was critically important to the establishment of American anthropology in the post-Second World War era and the dissemination of anthropological theory from Europe. Redfield not only received his AB from Chicago and a JD (he practised law for a short period of time), but also a Ph.D. from the joint Department of Anthropology and Sociology. Hired by the newly independent Department of Anthropology as an Instructor, Redfield held important positions at the University of Chicago (Dean of the Social Sciences from 1934 to 1946) and within the American Anthropological Association (President m 1944).

Wilcox delves deeply into Redfield's complex personality, ably demonstrating that his work was often innovative and influential. Redfield was never interested in rigid disciplinary boundaries because he perceived anthropology as being part of the social sciences at the broadest level. He was inspired by ideas developed in sociology, particularly the Chicago School, and scholars such as Robert Park (his father-in-law), yet it took a trip to Mexico in 1923 to inspire him to study anthropology. The trajectory of Redfield's career is carefully outlined by Wilcox in six chronologically arranged chapters. These chapters are bracketed by an 'Introduction' and a particularly well written 'Afterword: the Redfield legacy'.

In the introduction Wilcox clearly states that Redfield's 'primary contribution as an anthropologist lay in the realm of theory making' (p. 7). His book consciously 'seeks to understand both the development of Redfield's ideas, especially in the contexts in which he worked and the questions that drove his investigations, and the nature and degree of influence Redfield exercised upon others through his teaching and writing' (p. 7). Wilcox's biography admirably succeeds in revealing aspects of Redfield's life that are most likely not known to both his detractors and partisan followers. The depth of Wilcox's analysis indicates that he has undoubtedly read everything Redfield ever wrote, published and unpublished. Wilcox has extensively utilized Redfield's papers and the voluminous holdings of the Special Collections in the Joseph Regenstein Library at the University of Chicago - a veritable treasure trove of material for those interested in the history of anthropology in the United States. Not satisfied with archival material alone, he has conducted numerous interviews with Redfield's surviving family members, students, col leagues, and friends.

Wilcox's meticulous scholarship 1s an important contribution to anthropological theory. However, as one who has never been drawn to Redfield's scholarship, I hoped that Wilcox's biography would inspire me to reassess my views. To this end, I am disappointed because I still consider Redfield's work uninspiring or too dry; it is devoid of passion that many of his peers incorporated into their work. My opinion of Redfield's scholarship is not shared by other scholars, including those who published obituaries after his death. For instance, Fay-Cooper Cole, Fred Eggan, Everett Hughs, and Milton Singer maintain that Redfield was a seminal figure in anthropological theory between 1930 and the mid-1950s. Likewise, introductory texts to anthropology identify him as a major figure in the establishment of modern anthropological theory. Despite the high regard for Redfield's scholarship, I continue to wonder whether his importance to anthropological theory was based on his central place at the University of Chicago and other learned societies or on his scholarship. While some may disagree with my opinion of Redfield's anthropological scholarship, I am sure that all those who read Wilcox's book will learn a great deal about a major figure in the history of American anthropology.