Because the very subject matter of anthropology is so volatile, it’s no surprise that the discipline is frequently embroiled in controversy. Even when social commentators and outside observers fail to criticize the latest anthropological theory on human nature, the social science’s own practitioners are often up in arms over some study or another. Consider Ekman’s landmark study of human emotions in the 1960s.
At the time, the accepted movement in anthropology was relativism. In an effort to rid the discipline of accusations of bias, anthropologists attempted to study cultures as isolated systems. The norms, mores, and practices of each culture were analyzed only in terms of the internal consistency they possessed and any suggestion of judgment was met by howls of outrage by the anthropological establishment. Into this arena came Ekman with his startling heresy; emotions, argued Ekman, were not arbitrary cultural constructs but universal human traits. Ekman had spent years traveling the world, showing people around the globe photographs of other people expressing six basic emotions: happiness, sadness, anger, fear, disgust, and surprise. Not one person studied by Ekman failed to recognize these emotions, whether the person in the photograph was wearing the suit of a Western businessman or the tribal dress of the Fore foragers of New Guinea.
When Ekman presented his findings at an anthropological conference, he was denounced as a fascist and a racist. Some of his fellow scientists even took his research to prove not that human emotions were universal but that the hegemony of Western culture was so complete that even the most far-flung peoples were socialized into the Western mindset. Ekman was shocked at the reaction. He thought his findings would be evidence of the brotherhood of man, not of the subjugation of the world by the West. And yet, Ekman’s conclusions have been replicated again and again and are now generally accepted in the anthropology community, which apparently is like its subject matter: quick to anger but perhaps slow to admit mistakes.
1. Ekman’s experiences with the anthropological community as detailed in the passage are most analogous to which of the following?A. an inventor who must discard hundreds of failed models before eventually discovering one that works
B. a scientist who withdraws his research after his colleagues attack the ethics of his experimental design
C. a literary critic who challenges the accepted practices of his discipline and ends up developing a new paradigm for textual analysis
D. a painter whose revolutionary work is met by opposition from his peers but eventually gains mainstream acceptance
E. an architect who proposes building a structure unlike any other but is forced to change his plans after his coworkers object
2. The author states “At the time…was relativism,” in the second paragraph in order toA. explain why the discipline was plagued by accusations of bias
B. support the criticisms of Ekman’s work made by his colleagues
C. indicate a possible reason that Ekman’s results were met with such outrage
D. describe an important moment in the evolution of the anthropological discipline
E. argue that if anthropologists wanted to be respected as a scientists, they would need to revise their methods
3. The author’s attitude toward the anthropological community’s reaction to Ekman’s work is best described as one ofA. anger at the community’s shortsightedness
B. understanding of the community’s character
C. disappointment at the community’s treatment of Ekman
D. agreement with the community’s righteous indignation
E. puzzlement at the community’s eventual acceptance of Ekman’s work.
21 Feb 2022, 13:58
88% (03:03) correct
