Urbanities,
Vol. 3
·
No 2
·
November 2013
© 2013
Urbanities
121
similar observation/ethnography. One can recognize the need for self-reflection without
devaluing its honest practice; after all, it can be said that the original ideology of anthropology as
other social sciences was a rather pragmatic humanism. I favour the largest tent for those who
seek to understand the social worlds in which we live.
The question, ‘Can anthropology be practiced in the city?’ might be replaced with ‘Ought
anthropology be practiced in the city or elsewhere?’. In their essay, Prato and Pardo address,
among other things, the complex relationship between the sister disciplines of sociology and
anthropology. In this regard, they present a concise description of the unfortunate, perhaps
‘orphaned’ development of urban anthropology that placed it for a time outside of the Pale of
mainstream anthropological research and writing. I believe Prato and Pardo correctly locate the
source of this historical diversion in a naive interpretation of the Functionalist Paradigms in both
Anthropology and Sociology that I have also experienced in my own interdisciplinary writing
and research. The misinterpretation was most simply that Anthropology was only, or best, suited
for the study of primitive, traditional, or at most modern but rural or small town communities. By
almost ignoring cities, except as an implied end of a spectrum or the other half of an overwrought
dichotomy, a kind of scholarly self-marginalization was produced. Fortunately, a significant
number of social scientists trained in anthropological field methods, such as ethnography and
participant-observation, found the increasing urbanization of societies around the globe of
sufficient interest to pursue its study. In the process, over several generations they assembled a
substantial body of research that made it possible for anthropologists confidently ‘to define their
field of study as anthropological research in urban settings, rather than “urban anthropology”.’
(Prato and Pardo). It is this radical shift in disciplinary perspective that has made it possible for
contemporary anthropologists to engage with a multitude of newer approaches to the study of
urban dynamics including political economy and urbanization in post-colonial societies. I would
add that it is this shift that helps maintain the relevance of anthropology and anthropologists
today.
Within their argument for ‘Urban Anthropology’, Prato and Pardo deftly interweave a
wide spectrum of anthropological methods and theoretical approaches. These range from the
more or less classical study of ‘urban villagers’ to how the anthropological paradigm itself can
make significant contributions to the study of the city-as-a-whole as well as its smaller integral
parts. They offer ‘empirically-based anthropological analysis’ as a tool for understanding of our
increasingly urban world.
