I think its both preservation and understanding, or rather preservation in the pursuit of understanding, when that source of understanding is quickly disappearing. There are many anthropologists that take the pure preservation stance however, linguists being many amongst them.
As to how much data we need, thats a hard question. Anthropology is comparative in nature, so I think as much as we can to allow a meaningful comparison and the drawing of general conclusions. But that is my philosophy, and I should try and seperate that from any insinuation that it is "official" policy of the field. My main interest in anthropology came down to being more philosophical than truly anthropological. I feel that the field should be a means to generate general propositions about culture and the ways it shapes, and is shaped by, its members and hence its relation to an essential "human-ess." Human beings are unique animals, even among the very unique order of primates. We are a species which is all but free of the constraints of instinctual genetics, a species which first and foremost must *think* about its world in order to survive. Whats more, we weave a very complex and intricate tapestry of abstractions that shapes the way we percieve and react to the world, culture. I think in the study of the myriad means by which we make sense of the world, in the form and malleability of human culture, we are better able to understand who we are, and *what* we are. The practical application follows, all of philosophy is based on none other than these very questions, but has no inclination to consider the real dilemma of its seperating "is" from "ought." That's my take on what anthropology should be. |
