Anthropology in the focus of social time. Part 1. Pioneers and founders of science

Abstract

A series of articles is devoted to the analysis of the formation and transformation of anthropology as a fundamental science. The study uses a social time scale, which makes it possible to assess the reasons for the transformations, ups and downs of science in different countries, depending on social events that form the challenges of society. At present, anthropology, like no other science, has a different "content" depending on the country in which it is formed. At the same time, like all sciences, it has a common history, common tasks and methods. Whether this is a consequence of the internal contradiction of anthropology (a single science or a collection of separate human sciences), or the reason for regional characteristics is the result of the influence of the society in which it develops. It is proposed to begin the discussion of issues important for determining the status of modern anthropology by plunging into its history, to which the first part of the work is devoted. The article discusses the achievements of the initial stage of anthropology, when in Paris it became possible to found a professional Society, a journal, a School and Laboratory, as well as an Anthropological Museum. Why did it work for P. Broca in France, and did not become possible for another scientist in another country. Why did the brilliant works of K. von Baer not give rise to the formation of the Russian school of anthropology. How did it happen that A. Hrdlička and D. N. Anuchin, who received the same skills and knowledge in Paris and founded essentially the same schools of anthropology in America and Russia, did not become guarantors of the same development of anthropology in these countries. What can cross out science in a particular country, bringing a negative connotation to the term "anthropology" for many years. What could be the catalyst for the revival of interest in the natural history of man. How fundamental science acquires applied aspects and becomes “attractive” for the economy of a particular country. These and many other questions are presented in a polemical review of the many-sided anthropology.