Throughout the whole history, people demonstrated their significant curiosity in any sphere of life, especially in those where they are functioning. The science developed, and its representatives became focusing and self-specializing in different aspects of people’s life. However, when it comes to anthropology, which is a social-oriented science, the studying process might achieve some limits of interpersonal privacy. In this case, the “observers” might even unintentionally turn into “active researchers” by examining some fundamental aspects of people’s everyday life. As a result, the main question of the essay might be derived from Napoleon Chagnon’s practice while studying the life of Yanomami, a Venezuelan tribe. Is it morally acceptable to invade other civilizations’ lives and neglect the alienation principle, which might lead to unclear and even false opinions about certain phenomena?
To answer this question, it is critical to profoundly understand Napoleon’s situation, the main preconditions and consequences not for the one person but for the whole tribe. More specifically, one of the most known anthropologists used a controversial approach in studying the everyday life of the Venezuelan tribe Yanomami concerning the falsification of facts and misinterpretation of cause-and-effect relationships. While developing his knowledge about the tribe, Napoleon succeeded in interviewing some of the most important tribe representatives, which gave him an incentive to develop the famous theory for which he was accused in the El Dorado affair (Endicott et al., 2001). His theory was based on the notion that, in general, the Yanomami representatives are violent, and their level of violence might demonstrate their specific position in society. After stating this theory, the scientist gained “doubtful” consent after asking for personal information analysis, which resulted in questioning the theory as a whole.
Why do people consider the individual’s characteristics written by another individual as the truth in the last resort? The outcome of Napoleon’s analysis sounds questionable due to the lack of multiple-side analysis. While applying the only theory into practice without observing the situation holistically, which professionals ought to execute during the taken research, the scientist forgets about the fundamental principle of alienation. However, this principle plays a pivotal role in the correct civilization analysis since it requires a person to stay unbiased and do not express any opinion about the object of research before the process itself finishes. As a result, by neglecting the alienation principle, Napoleon derived and stated the wrong outcome from the cause-and-effect chain.
By doing this, the anthropological research experiences a negative transformation into a “personal opinion column” where the whole nation is judged by the expression of personally-adopted life principles, which do not have much in common with general tendency. Thus, it is morally and ethically unacceptable for the scientist to provide “personalized” analysis and “fit” the theory into concrete examples since it might directly affect the fundamental principles of correct scientific research. On the other hand, despite the ethically wrong interpretation and selective data assembly, Yanomami’s interviewing process might be considered worthy for the American Anthropological Association. This is due to the fact that many personal statements were provided by native tribune residents so that voting process.
Finally, Napoleon Chagnon demonstrated morally unacceptable behavior even though the outcome of the Chagnon-Yanomami research analysis might be considered positive. During his research, Napoleon implemented personal interests in the research process, which strictly violates the fundamental “alienation” principle. In addition, it is crucial to assure the correct following of the main principles by all of the anthropologists’ society since, in case of failure to guard those notions, the association will lose its scientific identity.
References
Endicott, K. M., & Welsch, R. L. (2001). Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Anthropology (1st ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.