Hunt versus Anderson: Round 16

Abstract

Argues that the philosophical debate in marketing, led by Shelby Hunt and Paul Anderson, is no longer providing new insights and is symptomatic of the anthropocentrism of the social sciences. This anthropocentrism has had consequent implications for meta‐theoretical frameworks that describe the field and has limited the breadth of philosophical discussion in marketing. Also argues that this discussion should now move beyond the subject‐object debate and identifies writers who have variously tried to transcend the paradigm. Argues that the debate should move from epistemological to ontological and metaphysical issues and that marketing′s philosophical discussion should also be broadened to include debate on aesthetics, theology and technology.

Citation

Kavanagh, D. (1994), "Hunt versus Anderson: Round 16", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 26-41. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569410057272