Emile Durkheim is considered the father of sociology, and maybe why I have such an adverse opinion of sociology. he is a social order theorist, and I believe all systems tend towards chaos. Durkheim collected stats, and found correlations; however he seemed to confuse this with causation. I can not see his idea of social facts as having much validity. Culture actually performs the function of Durkheim’s social facts, but it encompasses much more. I may be a presantist, but Durkheim’s causes of suicide rates are too simplistic to be true. His diametric opposition in his classifications drives me nuts because nothing is ever as simple as this and that. He is responsible for the use of statistics which i still feel do not feel can be used to explain human behavior. I may be wrong but I don’t trust statistical analysis based on what people tell some one, or in Durkheim’s case second-hand data. Although, I don’t consider my self a Marxist i agree in principle much more with Marx. I won’t be using Durkheim as a basis of my analysis of the Nuer.
Erik Ward
AnthroTheoryLearning 
Doesn’t archaeology and physical anthropology involve a lot of quantitative, statistical methodology? Do you feel like there’s a significant, even uncrossable, barrier between the applications of statistics between those areas and its applications in cultural anthropology or social theory more broadly?