For ideological, philosophical, and religious reasons, in the academic community there exists a great deal of confusion as to what the terms emic and etic mean.  As illustrated above, there exists an “inside perspective” and an “outside perspective.”  But what exactly do we mean when we speak of an “outside” and “inside”  perspective?  

​

From the perspective of the cultural analyst, the insider’s perspective represents the world-view of the native whose behavior, traditions, and customs are being analyzed.  

 

In contrast, defining the outsider’s perspective is both controversial and problematic. For example, does it mean a), that the analytical concepts used by the investigator  were “derived from the culture of the investigator” as proposed by psychologist John W. Berry, a process defined by anthropologist Charles Kraft in which “the outside analysts develop a series of categories in terms of which they view and compare the specific data of many cultural systems,” or b), that the analytical concepts used by investigator represent culture-free universals which have been discovered by observing human behavior? 

 

In this case, an “outside perspective” means there exists structured in the unconscious mind a set of innate ideas or forms to which are attached meanings which are not derived from sense experience.  If true, it means this  “etic” standard for judging the validity of cultural forms is discoverable.  Such a standard, if discovered, would make a “culture-free” analysis of a cultural forms possible.   

 

But according to anthropologist Martin Ottenheimer, we are told: “Cultural-free analysis is an illusion and [must be] recognized that what we call etic concepts are nothing more than the notions from the external analyst’s culture. ... The anthropologist must stop thinking in terms of one ‘true’ framework.”  

 

For linguist Kenneth Pike, the one who coined the terms emic and etic, culture-free analysis was not an “illusion.”  It was empirically possible. If linguists were able to create a PHON-ETIC chart, then the goal of every anthropologist, psychologist, linguist, and sociologist should be that of discovering the linguistic and cultural forms structured in the unconscious mind which informed society how to live positively. 

 

Now before Pike coined the terms emic and etic, psychoanalyst Carl Jung (1875-1961) popularized the term archetype aka innate universal concepts to which there were attached meanings which are fixed, absolute, and constant and free from cultural contamination. This means, as Kendra Cherry points out,  

“he [Jung] took an etic approach to his studies. Jung studied mythology, religion, ancient rituals, and dreams, leading him to believe that there are archetypes [aka etic data] that can be identified and used to categorize people's behaviors. Archetypes are universal structures of the collective unconscious that refer to the inherent way people are predisposed to perceive and process information.” 

 

In this regard, theologian Francis Schaeffer writes: 

If there is no absolute moral standard, then one cannot say in a

final sense that anything is right or wrong. By absolute we mean that which always

applies, that which provides a final or ultimate standard. There must be an absolute

if there are to be morals, and there must be an absolute if there are to be real values.

If there is no absolute beyond man's ideas, then there is no final appeal to judge

between individuals and groups whose moral judgments conflict. We are merely left

with conflicting opinions. 

 

Now the idea of an “absolute moral standard” as proposed by Schaeffer has been rejected by present day academicians with the exception of a few theists who are interested in uncovering the constituents of this absolute moral standard which has manifested itself phenomenally in human behavior.

 

Now originally, the meaning of the term etic coined by linguist Kenneth Pike denoted discrete units of sound which were universal, fixed and constant, and which the linguist could use in creating a "scientific alphabet" for any sound system of language. 

The term etic was abstracted from the word phonetics, referring to discrete units of discoverable sounds which make up the phonetic alphabet. The qualities that made up each of these discrete sounds were first discovered. Then they were charted according to their qualities as illustrated in the chart below

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

As a theist, Pike was convinced the discovery process used in uncovering what constituted the constants in phonology could also be used in uncovering the constants manifested in language and culture. Whether it was sociology, psychology, economics, or anthropology, for Pike, it was universal constants aka “etic data [which] provides access to the system ---the starting point of analysis.”   

 

For Pike, his “outside perspective”  was tethered to etic data aka archetypes structured in the unconscious mind. The existence of such mental data or archetypes cannot be observed directly but can be logically inferred by looking at customs, religion, satire, myths, dreams, art, and language. Such information is not learned; it is discovered. The goal is to glean the universals from the field of emic data. 

 

But once these absolute values, ideal behavioral patterns, and principles are discovered, according to anthropologist Ward Goodenough, such “etic concepts” would “provide the frame of reference, the conceptual constants, through which to examine similarities and differences among specific behavioral systems of that type.”   It is the possession of such a priori information which enables every analyst to uncover when an inherent archetype has been replaced with a standard which belongs to the people.

 

In this regard, like Jung, Pike postulated the existence of Universal Ideas, Concepts, or Forms to which there were attached meanings which were fixed and constant and did not belong to the people. In the words of linguist Anna Wierzbika, “We should specify that 'meaning' has to do with the constants, not with the variables.”   Both materialists and contextualizers strongly disagree, insisting that all meanings are derived from context and “belong to the people.”  

 

For such, there exists no culture-free sphere of ideas, rather, truth has been reduced to a social construct. Constants have been replaced with variables.  There exists no absolute order of understanding, no Universal Lexicon, no “sound words” (II Tim 1:13), and no “Law woven into the very fabric of our creation” (Romans 2:15). 

 

There exists no Meta-Script which manifests itself phenomenally in human behavior. And in the social sciences, including missiology, an etic perspective has come to mean the perspective of “an informed outside analyst.”  Presently, this is the prevailing view in academia.

 

Convictions.

1. There exists two kinds of knowledge: First, a), a knowledge which is relative because it had been abstracted from sense perceptions and  b), a spiritual knowledge structured in the unconscious mind which is fixed, constant, and absolute.

2. If there exists no concepts common to all which have inherent meanings, then all of life will lack coherence and logical consistency.  

3. There exists an innate moral standard which informs a society how to live.

4. “Etic [mental] data provides access to the system  …the starting point of analysis.”   —Pike

 

Gilbert Prost

July, 2021