Contemporary Primatology in Anthropology: Beyond the Epistemological Abyss

In this article, I articulate what I call an “informed primatology,” exploring how primatologists’ study populations and the sociocultural and political contexts in which we work have shaped research in anthropological primatology. One particularly salient context is the disciplinary context: that is, how primatology relates to and is informed by the broader discipline of anthropology. In a 1999 Annual Review of Anthropology piece titled “Whither Primatology?,” anthropologist Peter Rodman wrote “not only is there a lack of common interest, there is a wide epistemological abyss between sociocultural anthropology and primatology.” I aim here to demonstrate otherwise. To do so, I make three main arguments. First, I argue that primatology has actually embraced and benefitted from the humanist tradition of reflexivity, thereby demonstrating an epistemological affinity between primatology and sociocultural anthropology. Second, I demonstrate how the increasingly anthropogenic context in which primate populations live has resulted in two critical developments for anthropological primatology: an expanding theoretical landscape and a concern (one shared with sociocultural anthropology) with the human–environment interface. Last, I explore how applied primatology (e.g., primate conservation) can learn from recent scholarship on the anthropology of conservation.