My decision to become an Anthropology major was a bit of a fluke. I entered Brandeis dead-set on International and Global Studies, but I fell in love with Anthropology after taking the introductory course, a requirement for IGS. From there, I jumped into Anthropology headfirst and never looked back. I was so attracted to Anthropology because I saw it as a discipline for all humankind. Not only does Anthropology study all different kinds of people and all different aspects of their lives, but it also utilizes many different methodologies in order to do so. The possibilities are endless.

That said, it surprised me to read a Nov. 30 Inside Higher Ed piece discussing the fissures in the discipline regarding its relation to science. The debate about science in anthropology is an ongoing one, but according to the article, it has been revived because the American Anthropological Association has released a new, long-range plan that has removed the word science from its vision. The debate is largely between sociocultural anthropologists-who find science problematic because in many ways it "embodies Western and colonial ideals"-and those archaeologists and biological anthropologists who rely on the empirical methods that science provides.

It is true, of course, that science does present problems in anthropology. For all its empirical methodology, science came about in the Western world, and as a result, it contains certain assumptions about the world that can be difficult to reconcile with anthropology, which attempts to study people without any preconceived notions about the way the world works.

But despite this difficulty, I still believe that science has a place in anthropology. Cultural phenomena are extremely complex, and while anthropology's interpretive methods can help explain much of these phenomena, our understanding of human cultural behavior can only be deepened if we also understand the roles that science and biology play. Just because humans have created complex sociocultural systems does not mean that we exist in a vacuum, totally untouched by our innate biological functions. Furthermore, empirical scientific methods of observation are a central part of ethnographic methodology.

That's why reading this article concerned me. If anthropology really is a discipline for all humankind as I originally thought, shouldn't science be included in that, even if it does present problems? Despite the fact that science often carries with it Western and colonial ideals, its methods still provide anthropologists with valuable tools for understanding the world as humans live in it. If the AAA is going to exclude science from its vision, perhaps I made the wrong decision in choosing anthropology as a comprehensive and holistic field.

But an interview with Prof. Janet McIntosh (ANTH) put things in perspective. According to her, "The actual change in wording [of the vision] should be uncontroversial. . The original wording defines anthropology as a whole as a science, [but] many anthropologists can agree that not all anthropologists see themselves as involved in a science." Though empirical observations are often used in anthropology, most anthropologists see their work as more interpretive than scientific.

So perhaps the change in wording of the AAA's vision should actually be seen as a way of making the field even more comprehensive. Instead of defining anthropology strictly as a science, the new wording says, "The purposes of the Association shall be to advance public understanding of humankind in all its aspects." This new wording is broad enough so as to allow for as much exploration of humanity through as many means as possible, including science.

For this reason, I believe the change in the AAA's vision was a positive one that will improve the overall integrity of anthropology as the study of humanity. As McIntosh puts it, "science is able both to access certain empirical realities using very important methods . and smuggle in cultural priorities, . and it takes a kind of subtlety of thought to recognize that science both has successful methodologies and that it can also bring with it cultural biases."

In changing its vision, the AAA has demonstrated that very subtlety of thought. Anthropology as a whole is not a science, and to define it as such would smuggle in cultural priorities and assumptions. But to allow anthropology to operate as a comprehensive discipline that includes scientific methods means that anthropology can continue to access the empirical realities of humanity.