How Futurology Hurts Anthropology

Samuel Gerald Collins discusses the role that the future plays in anthropology and gives a brief history of the subfield of “Anticipatory Anthropology” in his 1978 article “Sail On! Sal On!: Anthropology, Science Fiction, and the Enticing Future.” After reading the article, I can only see a focus on futuristic anthropology through the utilization of the science fiction genre as a further diminution of the standing of the field of anthropology as a scientific discipline. It works to show people that anthropology is nothing more than an imaginative field in which the anthropologist takes his or her own culturally biased ideals and applies them to past, present, and future. Indeed, what really separates the speculative nature inherent in futuristic anthropology from that of physical anthropology or archaeology? Are anthropologists not simply letting their imaginations get the best of them as they construct past and future according to their own personal ideals? For example, in Professor Sussman’s class the Biological Basis of Human Behavior he discusses the interpretation of the archaeological record that early Homo was a savage hunter, an interpretation that is strongly held by many anthropologists. Sussman argues that these anthropologists have the conception that since Homo is the dominant species of today, they likely evolved because of their superior skills as hunters. This preconception shapes the way that anthropologists interpret the limited evidence in the fossil record leading them to conclusions that Sussman believes are incorrect.

In my opinion, futuristic anthropology is an overextension of anthropology’s domain. While I can agree with Riner’s assertion that there is a need to increase interdisciplinary dialogue, especially as a means to educate each other and the general public, I do not feel that creating science fiction is the way to accomplish this. As Collin’s astutely put it, “just as anthropological invocations of the (traditional, savage) past have been inextricably embedded in power and knowledge configurations in the present, so, too, anthropological futures are imbricated with the fears and desires that make up anthropology’s disciplinary unconscious” (192). This is to say that future anthropology highlights the ethnocentrism and preconceived notions of the anthropologists and indicates to readers that the anthropologist has some ideal of “perfect cultures” or cultural values or norms that ultimately lead to complete devastation. Admitting to this, and consciously formulating these ideals causes the anthropologist to lose credibility and may further taint their future ethnographic interpretations.

For now, I feel we should leave science fiction to the writers and focus on constructing accurate portrayals of cultures with as little bias as humanly possible.